http://www.bostonkravmaga.com/rss/ RSS FEED FOR BLOG en-us https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=793 The Council on Criminal Justice’s Mid-Year 2025 analysis (42 consistently reporting U.S. cities) found that 11 of 13 types of offenses decreased year over year. Highlights: homicide −17% (327 fewer deaths), gun assault −21%, robbery −20%, carjacking −24%, residential burglary −19%, nonresidential burglary −18%, larceny −12%. There were two exceptions: domestic violence  went up by 3% and drug offenses remained largely unchanged. However, compared with the same period in 2024, the first 6 months of 2025 saw an increase of nearly 40% in acts of terrorism and targeted violence (according to research and data from the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland), and mass casualty incidents, where four or more victims were killed or wounded, increased by 187.5% in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period last year. Where ordinary, everyday violence – apart from intimate partner violence – has been consistently falling, it appears that “extreme” violence is on the rise.                When considering statistics, especially when there are dramatic rises and falls, such as increases of 40% and nearly 200%, it can be easy to fall into the belief that we are entering a post-apocalyptic era, where we should make sure our bugout bag is near at hand, sleep with a loaded weapon next to us, and make sure we have enough tinned goods and fresh water to last us the next 6 months etc. Acts/incidents of extreme violence are still statistically rare, and it doesn’t always take a huge number of extra incidents to cause something like a 40% rise. So, whilst such increases are significant and can be troubling, they don’t necessarily signal that we’re entering a Mad Max-type era (for those who didn’t grow up during the seventies and eighties, a more modern/relevant reference would be the 2024 film, “Furiosa”, which continued the franchise). A 2024 PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) poll showed that whilst 70% of Americans believed that the country, as a whole, was heading in the “wrong direction” at the community level 56% believed that things were heading in the right direction i.e., there was an understanding about violence at a national level (“extreme” violence), that wasn’t reflected at the local/personal level (“everyday” violence) etc. However, what such statistics may signal is a change in the public’s perception concerning when violence is justified. The same PRRI survey also showed that nearly 3 in 10 Republicans (29%), 16% of independents, and 8% of Democrats agreed with the statement that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country.” It is important to note that these are “opinions” and the idea of what “saving” the country means doesn’t represent one universal idea and can be interpreted in vastly different ways. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist (Mar 25–28, 2024 poll released on Apr 3) showed that 20% (1 in 5) of U.S. adults agree “Americans may have to resort to violence to get the country back on track”. One of the issues with justifying the use of violence beyond that of self-defense is that it opens up the use of physical force outside of legal constraints, and this can be a slippery slope for everyone in society e.g., if an individual doesn’t like someone else’s views/opinions or deems them detrimental to their view of society, are they entitled to use violence, in order to eradicate anything that challenges their belief system, and is this restricted to political beliefs, or can it extend to anything an individual believes is unjust or unfair etc. I have found in my time teaching self-defense, use of force etc., that people tend to believe that the law innately reflects their views, beliefs and what they see as fair. I remember working through an active shooter scenario, that saw the shooter restrained/incapacitated, and no longer able to access their weapons. Someone in the seminar then asked, “Is this when we shoot them?” Even though I explained that they no longer had the means to commit violence, and that nobody was any longer in imminent danger etc. - which didn’t justify the use of lethal force in that moment - these points were met with a degree of disbelief with the argument being made, “But he tried to kill me?” as if the law justified personal retribution. Whilst I understood the argument from an emotional perspective – someone has just tried to kill you and that’s not right or fair – the law concerning rights of self-defense have to stand, otherwise society is on a very slippery slope, with everyone acting how they feel they as individuals should be allowed to – with impunity. Whilst most students reject violence, a sizeable minority say it can be justified in limited cases (and that share has grown in recent years). In FIRE’s latest nationwide survey (≈70k college students, 257 schools), 34% say it’s at least rarely acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speech (2% “always,” 13% “sometimes,” 19% “rarely”); whilst 66% say “never” this is still a record high in their six-year series. There is a danger when those who are “educated” start to believe that violence can be justified – even if rarely - to stop/prevent ideas, however hateful those ideas might be to them (the strength of a good education is to be able to engage in discourse and argument). There will be those who take these ideas and apply them in a politically partisan way, but it is much more beneficial to recognize that societally we are in danger of justifying the use of violence in the name of “noble” ideas rather than for the goal of physically defending ourselves, and this is a slippery slope to set foot on, and one which could see us as individuals cross a line that we weren’t legally entitled to cross over – regardless of how legally/morally justified we felt ourselves to be in doing so. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=793 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=792 About a year ago I watched an interview with an ex-Metropolitan (London, UK) police officer who made the claim that a large number of released child sex offenders, lived on boats/barges in order to evade having to sign the UK’s sex offender registry (a claim that a UK tabloid newspaper picked up on but does not appear to have been reported by any other news agencies) e.g., sex-offenders have 28 days – from time of release – to register. However, if they move to another jurisdiction, within those 28 days the clock starts over. By moving their mooring to different locations within these timeframes, they could “legally” evade having to sign the register and so remain unknown to law enforcement etc. The significance of this is that if a case of CSA (Child Sexual Abuse) was reported, whether they committed it or not, they wouldn’t be on anyone’s radar. Recently, through some research I was doing in a related area on transient/nomadic sex offenders, I was reminded of this interview and looked a bit more into it i.e., I am always interested in whether anecdotal accounts can be backed up by evidence, as such accounts have the ability to create folk devils and moral panics; we all naturally respond to a good/interesting story – which doesn’t mean it isn’t factually based – and the media in all its forms likes to pick up and run with these things.                 The degree to which sex offender registries prevent recidivism/re-offending is inconclusive (Agan, 2011; Napier et al., 2018) and those who actively avoid registering have been noted for doing so for a number of reasons, that are not related with offending e.g., to avoid difficulties with employment and inter-personal relationships (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006) etc. The irony being that someone who wants to lead a “legal”/normal life, without re-offending, may feel a need and believe it is in their best interest to achieve a healthy lifestyle by not registering. Whilst there is a degree of logic for sex offenders to avoid registering by regularly moving locations, via boat/barge etc., there is little actual evidence, in the public domain (research and media) to suggest that this is widespread. It is also worth noting that the vast majority of CSA (Child Sexual Abuse) cases involve people who the victim knows rather than strangers; where location and sex offender registration are going to be far less important than the type of relationship the offender had with their victim(s). According to RAINN – Rape Abuse & Incest National Network - in the U.S. for victims under the age of 18 when/where sexual abuse was reported to law enforcement, 93% of those targeted knew their perpetrator, either as an acquaintance or family member; the figure in the UK, is somewhere around two-thirds of victims that know their abuser (Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, 2018). This would suggest that whilst there may be those who use boats and barges to avoid registration, it doesn’t necessarily make them a particularly prolific group, when compared to other demographics etc.                 This doesn’t mean that canal boats/barges haven’t been used in cases of CSA offenders avoiding detection e.g., in 2016 the Guardian newspaper reported that Michael Crabb, a convicted child sex offender who had just been released after a nine-year prison sentence was using the UK canal system to move around the country undetected. In 2017 Paul Bishop who lived on a narrowboat on the Grand Union Canal in Warwickshire was convicted of the grooming and sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy, and in the same year in West Berkshire a narrowboat owner admitted to the possession of child abuse images during his trial. However, these are isolated cases, and don’t indicate that the use of Britain’s waterways is a significant factor concerning sexual offending against children in the UK. Whilst this network may not be specifically used by certain offenders, the UK’s extensive canal network does facilitate crime in a number of ways. Whilst a city such as Birmingham – which has more miles of canal than Venice – has a dense network within the city, most canals are in the countryside in rural areas that are sparsely policed. Also, canals cross numerous local authority and police boundaries; this may complicate oversight and increase the potential for “off-the-radar” movement. However, crime incident data do not show that waterways are uniquely predominant for any specific offender type (such as child sex offenders) in the sense of being their major crime-location and offence numbers in canal/river locations are smaller relative to overall crime in other locations, representing one potential environment among many.                     Whilst canals could offer a potential offender certain benefits - living on a boat can complicate residential registration and supervision protocols if not properly managed - there are laws in place which require sex offenders without a permanent address to register with at a local police station every seven days, if travelling. With canals crossing local authority and police boundaries, historically (in anecdotal accounts) this made consistent monitoring harder than for those offenders living at a fixed address. Whilst these are all plausible reasons for a sex offender using the UK waterways to live and travel on this does not mean waterways are a systemic hiding place for convicted sex offenders etc. So, whilst there are documented individual cases along with anecdotal accounts indicating that some offenders have used boats/canals to complicate supervision and avoid registering themselves as sex offenders, there appears to be no strong evidence of a coordinated or common tactic by child sex offenders to do so on a national level.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=792 Mon, 13 Apr 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=791 I have worked with healthcare professionals, both in the UK and US, for a number of years, looking at ways to de-escalate angry/aggressive patients and family members etc. In fact, healthcare is probably the industry sector that I’ve spent the most time with, both in the creation and adoption of policy measures, and in training individuals and departments, in threat identification, risk mitigation/management, de-escalation and physical solutions to deal with attacks and assaults etc. For me there is a huge sense of injustice when a person who has dedicated themselves to helping others is violently assaulted by those – and/or their family members – that they are trying to help. This is not a small problem. The Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association estimates that a healthcare worker is verbally or physically assaulted every 36 minutes. Whilst it is easy to underplay verbal assaults, these are often entryway behaviors that can lead to physical violence, and the psychological/emotional toll of being threatened, even when this doesn’t lead to a physical assault, shouldn’t be underestimated. Under current Massachusetts State Law someone can only be directly arrested if an officer witnesses an assault, and healthcare workers are required to press charges themselves if they want to seek justice legally; this means that if they want to do this they are often bringing charges against those they care for and are seeking to help. However, there is a bill in Massachusetts that seeks to address these issues, along with making assaults on healthcare workers a felony rather than a misdemeanor. Whilst I am in favor of the bill as it both recognizes and highlights the violence that healthcare workers face and includes provisions for paid leave for employees who are assaulted on the job etc., whether it will act as a deterrent to violent behaviors and actions isn’t so clear. It is this relationship that I want to examine i.e., the deterrent effect of punishment.                 Harsher sentencing, i.e., longer sentencing, has the potential to reduce violent crime. If you incarcerate persistent violent offenders, you remove them from society, and so they are no longer able to offend against society. For certain populations/groups targeted deterrence can work e.g. in Glasgow, gang members were publicly identified by law-enforcement and informed about how they would be sentenced (importantly they were also presented with legal routes out of crime and violent offending). However, not all violence is the same and it is worth considering whether the majority of those who verbally and physically assault healthcare workers are persistent offenders, or belong to specific groups whose identity involves violence. Both of these aforementioned groups generally engage in premeditated violence i.e., they are individuals who arrive at a location with the goal of becoming violent; this is generally not the case with violence in healthcare settings. Most – but not all – acts of violence in healthcare settings tend to occur in emergency rooms (casualty – in the UK). These are settings where there are often long wait times, because those requiring the most serious and immediate treatment are seen first. So, whilst a painful but non-life-threatening injury might be a priority to the person who is suffering, resources will be prioritized to the individual who is having a heart attack and potentially minutes away from dying. Healthcare perhaps gives us the best example of the “economic problem” i.e., that human wants are unlimited, but the resources available to satisfy those wants are limited. There will almost never be enough resources to meet the immediate needs of everyone in an emergency room, especially at certain times of the day and week. This is not a failing of the staff, or even the system, it’s just the fact that resources need to be prioritized. Unfortunately, this fact is often not understood in the moment by someone – and/or family members etc. - who feels/believes that their particular need is the priority. Having to wait to be treated is often interpreted as having their “need” not being valued, which is an emotional rather than cognitive slight.    In most cases in such settings and situations when violence occurs it is not rational. Someone reading this article in a calm state probably understands all too well that when resources are limited (and in an emergency room on a Friday night that is a given), those who are in the most urgent need are seen/treated first, and the best person to make such an assessment are those working in the department. However, if you are in pain, and have to wait in an emergency room to be seen, it is all too easy to lose sight of this fact. If you are accompanying a friend or loved one etc., and they are in pain, witnessing this, even when rationally you understand it, can leave you with a sense of helplessness, that makes you uncomfortable. Most instances of violence are spontaneous and occur without planning and any kind of risk assessment. Approximately 23% of emergency department shootings involve a firearm that was taken from a security officer or law enforcement personnel. This doesn’t include the number where a weapon was taken and not discharged. These were individuals who didn’t have a weapon on them but felt the need to both take and use one in order to have their “needs” met. These were not individuals who were considering whether their act would be judged as a misdemeanor or a felony etc. Most research has shown that where punishment is an effective deterrent, it involves the certainty of apprehension and the speed/immediacy of sentencing, and not the harshness of the sentence. This is one of the reasons why the death penalty in the US doesn’t act as an effective deterrent (whether it is a suitable punishment is a different debate/discussion). Whilst the Massachusetts bill includes some practical provisions for those assaulted when on the job and may give health workers a greater sense of justice etc., it is unlikely to result in a reduction of violence, especially with patients suffering from mental health conditions (another discussion regarding the effectiveness of legislation in such settings).       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=791 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=790 I’ve had the misfortune to have to deal with people on PCP (phencyclidine), sometimes referred to as “Angel Dust” a number of times, and on each occasion it wasn’t pretty. Fortunately, I was always part of a team and had assistance; I’m not sure what the outcome would have been otherwise. On one occasion I saw someone who weighed about the same as a photocopy of themselves get the better of two semi-professional boxers who both went on to win commonwealth titles. There may be some reading this article thinking, “If only they knew Krav Maga” etc., however these were individuals who trained every day for many hours, which included live sparring, and so were fit, enjoyed a “fight” and knew how to hit and not get hit etc. That was their bread and butter. PCP is a hallucinogenic, dissociative drug, that creates a sense of euphoria; a sense of being “alive”. Those taking it believe that they are unstoppable and their body allows them to believe this reality e.g., there is no inhibition regarding strength – their body will allow them to generate power that could potentially snap and tear tendons and ligaments etc. In terms of feeling pain those receptors are turned off. The only way I’ve seen to effectively stop someone who has become violent on PCP is to choke them out i.e., push a physiological button that results in unconsciousness, that doesn’t rely on pain, concussive force etc. It’s one of the reasons why I believe learning how to apply effective chokes is an essential part of self-defense training (FYI: I use chokes to refer to techniques/solutions that restrict blood supply to the carotid processes and strangulations to those that prevent air from reaching the lungs). However, this article isn’t really about PCP, it’s about its effect(s) and what we can learn from that and apply to our own training when it comes to dealing with violence, and the main effect I want to focus on is that of being “alive” and “in the moment”. When MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) first arrived on the UK scene I competed in a few bouts/competitions, and I’ll be honest I didn’t particularly enjoy the experience; everything felt “awkward”, something that got ironed out as the sport evolved, but in the early days with few rules etc., things were very messy and skills and abilities were often negated by sheer brute force and aggression; something that the rules at the time seemed to promote. However, there were people/fighters in that environment who thrived. The environment allowed them to be “alive” i.e., they enjoyed the opportunity to experience “uncontrolled” violence in a “controlled” setting. When they entered the ring (the UK, at this time, was aware of “cages” but had yet to import/purchase any), it was if they had just taken Angel Dust. They were pain resistant and they didn’t care what you did to them; I remember putting an armbar on one guy, and – without realizing it -following through with it because he didn’t tap, and he kept on fighting (it popped back into position after I released the tension). In that moment all the person was thinking about – whatever the cost, including the pain, the potential injury etc., – was winning that fight. Often when we think about training we compartmentalize, we break things down into component parts; to emphasize the elements we want to train  e.g., speed, timing, accuracy etc., however, it is only when these things come together that we are truly "alive" and acting in the moment. There is nothing wrong in training skills to develop certain attributes etc., and I would argue that often this part of training is neglected at the expense of learning “new” techniques etc. When I first started working door/bar/club security I had one striking combination that I used almost 95% of the time: I’d get a hand in an aggressor’s face, followed up by multiple hammer-fists to their face, before controlling them in some way. It was a simple combination that I used to get myself in the moment and made me feel “alive” i.e., it brought everything together, such as timing, power, accuracy and movement etc. All elements I trained separately but ones I brought together in the moment. It was also a combination that made me feel/believe I was unstoppable (like I was on PCP). Self-defense doesn’t have to be a complicated affair, made up of a variety of complex techniques etc., but it does have to be about being “alive”; bringing everything together in that moment to deal with violence that challenges who you are. This doesn’t mean that you have to learn how to enjoy violence but rather that when an incident occurs you need to respond violently, with all of who you are, with all of your entire being, and without any questions in that moment. This isn’t optional, it’s a requirement and something that should be reflected in your training e.g., when you hit/strike a pad it shouldn’t just be mechanical it should be emotional; a strike/punch with emotion has more power than one that is simply clinically/technically good/perfect. This doesn’t mean that aggression is a substitute for clean technique – both need to be trained – but rather that the performance of good techniques is enhanced by aggression etc. If someone is telling you that aggression alone is the key, be wary. I’ve been punched by very aggressive individuals who lacked power and it was a green-light for me not to be scared by them; any hesitancy I might have had was immediately lost. However, it is important that at times in your training you don’t simply focus on one thing but that you bring everything together because it's not enough to be fast etc.,  you need to be alive in the moment. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=790 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=789 There’s a certain “school of thought” that says you should only train how you should/would fight in a real-life situation. I would argue that there are times you should do this – within safety parameters (or what’s the point of “training” you might as well just wait for a real-life attack as that’s what you would be experiencing etc.) – but not all the time. To take the idea to the extreme, I didn’t wear my Judogi when I ran or lifted weights which were all part of my training regime when I was an active competitor, neither did I when I was working certain Judo drills. When I was building and developing certain skills it would have gotten in the way, and this was in a combat sport where the GI itself was the “focus” of everything. Equally I wouldn’t want to “develop” my kicking ability in a pair of jeans as the lack of movement that they would provide would restrict my ability to learn how to develop power in my kicks. Yes, I should experience how kicking can be restricted by clothing but that should be discovered after I understand the dynamics and mechanisms of a kick i.e., what I need to overcome and adjust for etc. When I learnt mathematics at school, I didn’t just learn how to calculate change and divide a pizza between a certain number of people etc., I learnt it so I could understand other things and apply my math to different situations. In this article I want to look at why training should always “reflect” rather than try to replicate reality, as doing so can often actually take away from the “reality” of the training.       Live Knife/Weapon Training I have encountered instructors who are all about live weapon training e.g., that students should always be using a live blade etc. Whenever I have seen real/actual knives used in training or demonstrations, the movements/attacks have been slowed down and/or choreographed in a way, and to a degree, where they don’t resemble real-life attacks. This is perfectly understandable and makes sense i.e., you don’t want practitioners to injure or potentially kill others by making repeated, committed and random stabs and slashes against their partner. There is a reason that “training” weapons exist and to be honest the less injurious they are – if they connect – the more likely it is that a “real-life” type/style of attack will be made. In my school I have both rigid, semi-rigid and foam knives that I use to try and replicate reality as closely as I can without jeopardizing the safety of those that train with me. I want my students to make and experience realistic threats and attacks and using a live blade isn’t going to accomplish this i.e., everybody – for safety reasons – will hold back. I know of one Israeli instructor – not working/living in Israel - who around twenty years ago accidentally shot one of his students by training with a live firearm. On the set of Rust in 2021, a live round fired from a prop gun Alec Baldwin was holding killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza. This was clearly an accident and mistake, which doesn’t mean that nobody was liable or responsible and shouldn’t have been held responsible etc., but such an accident is very different to an instructor in a self-defense scenario using a loaded/live weapon in training i.e., not checking and/or not caring if it was loaded etc. In such a training environment if it was decided that a “real” weapon should be used, so that somebody got a look and feel of what a real firearm disarm experience with be I would a) advocate using a training weapon that was weighted to match the firearm it was replicating, and b) if you decided that you’d use a real weapon (and I’m certainly not advocating this approach) take every step to make sure it wasn’t loaded. It may be more “real” to use a loaded weapon, but if this is the way you make it “real”, there is something lacking in your training/instructorship. Training in Street Clothes I’m not saying there isn’t a benefit to training in everyday clothing including footwear etc., but many times I see watch videos of classes/seminars where the students/participants were training in their “street clothes” there was no purpose to moving from training gear/attire to normal clothing e.g., nobody was performing techniques or doing things where the clothing they were wearing mattered; it doesn’t really make a difference if you are throwing a hammer-fist in your Iron Maiden t-shirt or the one with your school logo on it etc. If the class involved scenario-based training in a real-life setting the change of clothing may add to the realism of the scenario, however if you’re simply performing combative drills in a dojo wearing a pair of jeans and a football shirt, I’m not sure anything different to regular training, is being achieved etc., and if someone does believe that the change of clothing, without changing the environment and scenario, makes what they are doing more “real” then their concept of real-life violence may be somewhat off. Barefoot Vs. Shoes I’ve written an article on this, and mentioned it in others, before. Ultimately, it’s an individual choice but the simplistic argument of, “I train in shoes because that’s what I wear on the street”, is certainly not a conclusive one. My school/training environment is fully matted as we teach/practice throws, takedowns and groundwork. The mats aren’t smooth but instead are intended to give a surface for your feet naturally grip too. On the street and in many other environments the surface you will be on is smooth e.g., concrete sidewalks and pavements are somewhat smooth. This is why your footwear has soles which grip and are non-slip (this is for that reason – sidewalks are inherently slippy). If you were to wear an everyday shoe on my mats, you’d be introducing two surfaces designed to grip, which doesn’t reflect reality, which is why on that training surface people practice barefoot. When we do environmental training outdoors, which is intended to reflect real-life scenarios, people don’t train barefoot. Simply putting on a pair of shoes/trainers doesn’t make training more “real”. Conclusion For training to be realistic (and safe) you shouldn’t introduce factors into the training environment that result in people training in an unrealistic way, e.g., you are more likely to have a training partner make a realistic attack with a training knife than with a real one. When you look at and consider how professional military personnel introduce live firearm training there is little “mayhem”; it is controlled, often slowed down in moments of a drill for safety purposes, and there is an instructor/range master, assisted by others working through the drill in a controlled manner. I have seen videos where people have been used rather than mannequins/dummies, where the use of which wouldn’t have made a difference. Scenario/reality-based training is great and a useful tool to reflect “reality” but simply putting on street clothes (including wearing shoes) and taking part in a “regular” class wearing different attire isn’t the same as this.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=789 Mon, 23 Mar 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=788 N.B. Just after finishing this article, which contained a generally optimistic message concerning English football hooliganism at the upcoming world cup, I went to check the status of the “Old Firm Clash” between Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic concerning a Scottish Cup Semi-final fixture (8th March 2026) at Ibrox, to see that it ended with a pitch invasion by both sets of fans, with an “appearance” by the Ranger’s Ultras. Whilst it was a brief confrontation between both sets of fans, and nothing like the violence that was seen in the 1980’s and 1990’s, it was a stark reminder that UK football hooliganism is far from dead. With the FIFA World Cup starting in less than 100 days, I thought I’d write an article about the “English Disease” i.e., football hooliganism, as many people outside of the UK may be aware of the history of English fans engaging in acts of group violence, but not really understand the context and background as to why such hooliganism exists, and also why it has declined in the past twenty years or so. Whilst law enforcement in the various US, Canadian and Mexican cities where matches will be played are probably not expecting/bracing for the types of rioting that occurred in the 1980’s and 1990’s, they will still be on the alert and at a state of readiness, when England are scheduled to play, and English supporters are due to arrive etc. Before going further, it is worth understanding England and the UK’s relationship with football/soccer. No country supports as many professional football clubs relative to its size and population as the UK. The density and depth of the football pyramid in the United Kingdom is essentially unique in world sport. England alone has one of the largest professional and semi-professional league systems in the world, with four fully professional tiers/leagues, that contain 92 fully professional teams. When Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are included, the UK supports well over 120 professional clubs and several hundred semi-professional ones. One of the reasons for this is that unlike many countries where fans primarily follow a few major clubs, British supporters often identify strongly with their local team, even when that team plays in a lower division, and hasn’t had a history of achievement. However, with the opportunity for lower league teams to get promoted into higher league ones, and competitions such as the FA cup, which can see lower league teams being drawn against top-flight teams (and sometimes winning), supporting a lower league club can still feel meaningful. It is this association with football teams and local “pride”, that has played a part in soccer hooliganism.   English football hooliganism emerged as a distinct social phenomenon in the decades following the Second World War, but its roots can be traced further back to the early culture of working-class football support in Britain. Football had long been the sport of the industrial working class. Clubs were embedded in neighborhoods, factories, and local identities, and supporters often traveled together in tightly bonded groups. Rivalries between towns and cities were intense, and matches became occasions where local pride and masculine identity were expressed publicly. By the 1960s and 1970s, this environment began to produce organized groups of supporters, referred to as “firms”, who engaged in fighting with rival fans before, during, or after matches. One popular undertaking was for a visiting “firm” to invade and try to take the home supporters’ “Kop” (the “Kop” was traditionally where the most passionate members, and the members of that team’s “firm” were located – the term Kop originates from Battle of Spion Kop in South Africa. During that battle, a hill called Spion Kop was the site of heavy British casualties. After the war, several steep terraces in English football stadiums reminded people of the hill’s shape and began to be called “Kops). Several factors contributed to the growth of hooliganism during this period. Many sociologists have argued that football terraces provided an outlet for young men experiencing social marginalization in post-industrial Britain. The decline of traditional manual industries, rising youth unemployment, and limited avenues for expressing status or identity created a fertile environment for confrontational subcultures. Violence around football offered a form of belonging and reputation within peer groups. Participation in a “firm” could provide identity, loyalty, and status, particularly among young working-class men. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, English football hooliganism had reached a peak. Firms such as West Ham’s Inter City Firm, Chelsea’s Headhunters, and Millwall’s Bushwackers became widely known. Violence often took place away from stadiums, in city centers, train stations, or pubs, and confrontations were sometimes pre-arranged. The reputation of English fans became so notorious that traveling supporters were frequently associated with disorder across Europe. International tournaments during this period saw repeated clashes involving English fans, contributing to the perception that English football culture was uniquely violent. The 1980s represented both the culmination and the turning point of this phenomenon. Several tragedies exposed deep problems within English football. The most notorious being the Heysel Stadium disaster (in Italy), where fighting between Liverpool supporters and Juventus fans contributed to the collapse of a wall, killing thirty-nine people. Just four years later, the Hillsborough disaster led to ninety-seven deaths due to overcrowding and poor stadium management. Whilst Hillsborough was not caused by hooliganism, the political and media environment surrounding football had already framed working-class supporters as inherently dangerous. These incidents prompted sweeping reforms. English clubs were banned from European competition for several years after Heysel, and the British government introduced new policing strategies and legislation aimed at controlling football violence (this was very much tied in with the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher trying to redefine what/who the working class should be). Stadiums were redesigned, terraces were removed, and all-seater stadiums became mandatory following the Taylor Report into Hillsborough. Surveillance also increased dramatically (leading the UK to become the most CCTV’d nations on the planet), and football banning orders were introduced to prevent known hooligans from attending matches or traveling abroad e.g., they would have to sign in at a police station during the time that matches were played etc. At the same time as this was happening, English football started to undergo a profound economic change. The formation of the Premier League ushered in a new era of television revenue, corporate sponsorship, and global marketing. Ticket prices rose significantly, stadiums became safer and more comfortable, and clubs increasingly targeted families and middle-class spectators as part of their audience. The result was a gradual shift in the social composition of football crowds. What had once been a predominantly working-class cultural space became more commercially oriented and socially diverse, attracting in “new” middle class supporters who had once been deterred by the culture of the terraces. This transformation had a significant impact on hooliganism. The tighter security, intelligence-led policing, and legal restrictions made organized violence much harder to engage in. At the same time, the commercialization of the game reduced the space for the old terrace culture that had tended to foster hooligan firms. Whilst isolated incidents still occur, the large-scale organized violence that characterized English football in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990’s has largely receded. The legacy of this transformation may have implications for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which will take place across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Modern English supporters are generally far removed from the hooligan culture that once defined the country’s reputation abroad. Many traveling fans are older, more affluent (especially with this particular tournament where ticket prices are significantly higher than in previous World Cups), and accustomed to regulated stadium environments. In addition, authorities now rely heavily on intelligence sharing and travel restrictions to prevent known troublemakers from attending tournaments (many police forces in the UK have officers and units who go undercover and study firms’ activities). Nevertheless, any large sporting event always brings its security challenges. Rivalries between national teams (England and Scotland will be in Boston at the same time during the group stages) can still produce heated atmospheres, and alcohol-fueled celebrations, along with boredom that may set in between games, sometimes results in disorder in public spaces. However, the context today is very different from the conditions that produced hooliganism in the late twentieth century. Modern football culture is shaped less by working-class territorial identity and more by global media entertainment and commercial enterprise. In this sense, the decline of hooliganism reflects broader social changes within English football itself. The game has evolved from a local, working-class pastime into a global industry. While some critics argue that this transformation has diluted traditional supporter culture, it has also significantly reduced the violence that once overshadowed the sport. As international tournaments like the 2026 World Cup approach, the primary concern for organizers is less about organized hooligan firms and more about managing large, passionate crowds. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=788 Mon, 16 Mar 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=787 I’ve been a fan of boxing for a long time. There was a time when my interest in MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) eclipsed it, but I quickly came back to the sport. In the 1990’s I held a professional license (UK) for a couple of years (something I gave up because the pay was practically non-existent and the training conflicted with my Judo, which was my real passion/love) and had six professional fights (won four, drew two) – how that all happened is a long and unimportant story e.g., you meet certain people at a particular time, when you have a certain athletic ability etc. It’s also worth noting that holding a “license” doesn’t necessarily mean that you were that good – I wasn’t. The main point/takeaway from this is that I have always had an interest in the sport, however as someone participating in it there were elements I didn’t like. I never appreciated “trading blows” i.e., putting yourself in a position to land a punch, that meant you were going to have to take a punch. Not fun in my book, but a necessary part of the sport/game. The point of all of this is to say, I’ve watched – and continue to do so – a lot of boxing. I grew up in the UK in the 1980’s, when boxing on TV was a regular event. It was also a time when there were a lot of good UK and Irish fighters, an era when there were still a lot of the old school, outdoor arena fights, such as the 1986 fight between Barry Mcuigan and Steve Cruz (one of the last 15-round fights, after the death of South Korean boxer Kim Duk-koo who died after a fight with Ray Mancini in November 1982, when/where it was discovered that brain injury was more susceptible in the later rounds). It is the “later” rounds and how professional fighters fight in them which is the subject of this article, as it provides us information and knowledge that is applicable to reality-based self-defense. In the opening minutes of a boxing match there is discipline. Both fighters throw tight, straight punches that are clinical and disciplined. It doesn’t matter if they are testing their opponent out or looking for a quick win. At this point in the game, they are “fresh” and able to exert and demonstrate their skills. As the rounds progress this discipline starts to diminish, especially for those in heavier weight classes who have a lot of body mass to keep moving; there’s a reason why most soldiers involved in special operations/duties more likely resemble tri-athletes rather than body builders etc. Also, as a fight progresses, there often comes a sense of desperation or frustration, as a fighter starts to understand that they may not have won the rounds needed to win on points, they may get desperate to seek a knockout. Whilst we often think of Muhammad Ali as a knockout specialist/seeker he was also a tactician who understood that you needed to win each round because it wasn’t always possible to get/create a knockout e.g., in a talk-show appearance with Joe Frazier before their upcoming fight, Frazier says Ali might be able to evade him for six rounds, to which Ali responds that by that point he’ll already be ahead on points. As the rounds progress the mental pressure to seek something conclusive can become overwhelming. One of the things that my Judo coach, Jimmy Oliver, instilled in me was a sense of patience not desperation; don’t rush, but rather wait, because with time that will cause the other person to rush in, and make a mistake. In Judo “rushing in” is perhaps the greatest mistake to make. This is something I see in Judo and BJJ competition a lot when it comes to groundwork/fighting e.g., a person gets a dominant position and feels under pressure to do something from it, and instead of waiting for an opportunity to exploit (a mistake the other person makes), feels the urge to create one that is sub-optimal/ineffective. One of the things we don’t want to do in a real life alteration is put ourselves in a position where we feel the need/pressure to react, when it might not be necessary if we set everything up to not have to do so e.g., putting distance between us and an aggressor, controlling range, putting ourselves in a position that makes us inaccessible (putting a barrier, such as a car or table in between ourselves and our attacker, etc.).       If we want to take lessons from boxing that are applicable to reality-based self-defense and Krav Maga, one that stands out is that the first three minutes of a “street fight” more closely resemble the last three minutes of a professional fight, than at the start of it. When you look at the last few rounds of a boxing match, where both fighters/combatants have given it their all, and are physically exhausted, you see the discipline start to disappear. Instead of throwing technically accurate and specific punches, fighters – despite their training – start to throw wild, circular punches hoping to land the punch that has eluded them the entire fight. Trained athletes often become desperate, untrained fighters in these moments, hoping that something will land and be decisive. In an unplanned street fight this is what both combatants are usually hoping for; the big, overly-committed punch/strike that ends the fight in that moment. In many cases this is an alcohol-fueled strike, where the person making it is hoping for a one-and-done success i.e., they aren’t signing up for a twelve or fifteen round fight. In reality most of a person’s survival depends on dealing with this. It’s not about dealing with rounds, it’s about dealing with the last one first.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=787 Mon, 09 Mar 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=786 Despite having lived in the US for over seventeen years UK prison system is one I have more familiarity with; that doesn’t make me an “expert” on it, and I’m not trying to proclaim myself as one, however it is worth a look, because if the current cutting of expenditure in the US continues, then the US system will be deprived of resources, regardless of whether the prisons are federally, state or privately run etc. From an economic perspective, prisons are a funny business e.g., someone commits a crime and whether it is a street robbery, where $100 is taken or a white-collar crime where $100 000 is taken, in each case, it may cost society tens of thousands or possibly even hundreds of thousands in legal fees, court costs, and prison housing costs etc. Financially, it makes little sense to try and convict criminals, as in almost every case prosecuting, defending and securing offenders results in a financial loss for the state. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a value in having a criminal justice system that involves incarceration etc., however if we believe that this shouldn’t result in an economic net loss etc., we are being extremely naive. Society has to acknowledge and accept that there is a cost to law and order, regardless of the number of license/registration plates inmates create. I still have connections to individuals working in UK prisons/forensic settings and whilst there are always complaints about systems being at breaking points etc., the UK is genuinely close. I also believe that the US, at this time, with an emphasis on cutting costs, could propel itself upon a similar trajectory that will put both staff and inmates at an increased risk of violence.                I’ll set my stall out really quickly. I don’t believe law enforcement, those working within the prison service, or performing other security services (US or UK, or any other country) get paid enough. Those who perform these services/duties do so at a cost – emotional, psychological etc. – which is mind boggling i.e., nobody in their “right mind” would do so. Fortunately, there are people within our society who agree to do these jobs and perform these tasks; sometimes certain individuals fuck it up and extend their reach, but by and large on a day-to-day basis, these individuals fulfill their responsibilities in the way in which society has asked them to. If you have ever been balled out by a cop for a minor traffic infraction, understand that 30 minutes earlier they may have been informing a family that their son/daughter was just killed due to a traffic violation/accident etc. I’m not trying to portray those who work in security roles as being saints, however it is worth taking a moment to understand the stressors under which they work and operate. This means also recognizing the work that those who work in the prison service engage in, and why this isn’t an area, where funding should be cut, simply to reduce a tiny fraction/amount of tax dollars spent. If you work in a security role, my desire is for you to be as safe and secure as possible. Which normally means having people available to support you.                Back in the day when I was doing my first master’s degree, I visited several prisons and made friendships with several people who worked in these settings. I was fortunate in that I got to leave the sound and the smell behind after my visits; something that as someone who gets sensory overloaded very easily, I had difficulty with and appreciated that other people had to simply manage/deal with. Even twenty years ago, the UK prison system wasn’t able to properly cope with inmates who had mental health issues, and should have been treated in psychiatric rather than prison settings, for their own safety, the safety of other inmates, and the staff looking after them etc. Our prison system has not adapted to the mental health issues that the criminal justice system is now having to deal with. This isn’t a social or political point of view, nor is it about being soft/hard on crime, it is simply about being effective in dealing with those who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, either because they were willfully malignant offenders or because their view of reality was compromised by their mental state/health.                 Whilst there is little doubt that government waste/expenditure exists to whatever degree, my fear always is, that those who contribute to our safety and security, are viewed as entirely a cost rather than a benefit, and see their resources cut to a degree which contributes to everybody’s safety. I’m always thankful for those that perform necessary roles that I don’t have to, and I acknowledge that they allow me a position of privilege to do the things I want to do etc. My hope is that during this time, when the focus seems to be on cutting costs, those working in the prison service are fairly supported and rewarded in the work they do. The UK system sorely needs an injection of resources and I don’t believe the US needs a reduction in them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=786 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=785 I grew up in the martial arts. I can analyze and rationalize  a lot of reasons as to why fighting systems and philosophies intrigued and resonated with me, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter; this is where I am fifty-four years later, still teaching Krav Maga and self-defense. That’s perhaps the pertinent and relevant point, not just for me but for anyone who is teaching self-defense i.e., we may not be able to fully articulate what drew us and continues to draw us, but we can see that there are others who recognize the value of what we do and want to train with us etc. That’s a common bond we all share and joins us whether we were drawn to Filipino Martial Arts (FMA), traditional Karate, BJJ, MMA or Krav Maga etc. There is something that is shared by everyone who trains and practices martial arts/self-defense. Before anyone thinks I’m looking for all martial arts instructors to join hands and walk across a hill/skyline, singing, “I want to teach the world to sing”, this is not the purpose of the article. Rather I want to look at why there are instructors who feel a need to go after and put down other instructors and/or systems, mainly so that students and practitioners can understand that this isn’t necessarily about a system/instructor but rather an individual who is overly critical possibly engaging in a very human condition - that we all engage in, in certain ways - and that this should be considered when listening to the things they say about others. I write my articles three to four months in advance (this was written on November 2nd, 2025), so please don’t think that this is in reaction/response to something specific that has been posted/said about myself or anybody else. I am writing about a human phenomenon that we are all affected by.                I grew up – academically – in an era where the work/writings of Sigmund Freud were still somewhat looked on as the “gold standard” concerning psychology. It was an era/age when people were starting to question the science behind his methods but were “academically scared” to completely dismiss some of the ideas he’d come up with. Whilst Albert Einstein respected Freud immensely, he actively campaigned  for him not to be awarded a Nobel prize because his methods could not be categorized as following/adhering to a scientific method etc. The extent to which his campaigning prevented the committee awarding Freud a prize is unknown, but it was something that Einstein felt strongly about. What we think of Freud as a “scientist” is one thing, however he was recognized, including by Einstein, as a genius and an amazing thinker. One of the ideas that Freud came up with was the “Narcissism of Small Differences”. This theory/idea was first articulated in his 1917 essay “The Taboo of Virginity” and later elaborated in Civilization and Its Discontents (1930). He recognized and proposed that many members of groups who shared commonalities and similarities often developed fierce rivalries and hostilities over what were actually trivial distinctions between them.  He proposed that individuals and groups often exaggerate minor distinctions between themselves and others to maintain a sense of superiority and secure identity, suggesting that when fundamental similarities exist, small divergences are psychologically magnified to preserve self-esteem. Freud believed that this occurs because the shared characteristics, and commonalities of the group, threatens a person’s sense of individual uniqueness and superiority. The result of this is that people start to exaggerate tiny differences between themselves and others in order to assert their distinct identity and superiority e.g., a martial arts/self-defense instructor teaching the same art/system as another instructor working in their city/locale etc., may point out with passion why the other instructor is so wrong about a particular something that they teach etc., when 95% of what they teach is actually the same/shared.                We are somewhat hard-wired to demonstrate our uniqueness and individuality i.e., what makes us special etc., rather than recognize what we share. To celebrate our commonalities means that we might not be as unique or special as we want others to see us as. If we can actively promote our differences and distinctiveness to others, we can tell them not to look at anybody else but ourselves – this is the narcissistic component of Freud’s theory/idea; something that drives people apart rather than draws them together. Even those who may appear to be open to discussion and debate don’t do so to grow or share but rather to dominate and sow division e.g., an instructor may say that their goal is to bring people together and discuss ideas when really it is to create a larger audience for them to preach to and demonstrate their uniqueness etc. There are of course those who are genuine in their desire to further and develop a body of work and are open to discussion and have a willingness to be proved wrong, however simply saying that these are the goals doesn’t mean that this is the case. Usually, people that we disagree with vehemently have a point and if we are unwilling to entertain this – and the possibility that they may be right and ourselves wrong – we may be susceptible to the narcissism of small differences.                If we are perpetually looking for differences between what we and others do and practice, and find ourselves grouping ourselves around individuals and associations who attack others and/or who spend their time demonstrating differences rather than sharing and explaining commonalities, then there is a good chance we are dealing not with a collaborator who wants the best for us, but someone who wants to create conflict in order to sow division and elevate their own status i.e., make themselves appear special to others. When you find an instructor/leader who spends a lot of time explaining why other systems and approaches – in the same field as them - are wrong and emphasizing why theirs is the right “path” you are probably experiencing what Freud described as the narcissism of small differences.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=785 Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=784 If you’ve ever watched a YouTube video of a “street” fight, between two aggressors, you’ll have likely seen a relatively long period at the beginning of the fight where both parties are staying outside of each other’s range and waiting for an opportunity to attack. Whilst this may often resemble the early stages of a boxing match, where the fighters are trying to figure out each other’s movement, management of range etc., before they commit themselves to an attack, it occurs for very different reasons. An educated/trained fighter knows how to test reactions and movements, learning how to create an opening that will allow them to close the distance and make an attack, the untrained/uneducated fighter is usually just building up the courage to make an attack, attempting to overcome their fear of getting punched/hurt as they do so. They are focusing on the negatives rather than searching for the positives. At some point one of them will decide to commit to closing the distance; how skilled they are in terms of speed, movement and timing will determine whether they are the successful party in the conflict/confrontation. If they are uncommitted to closing the distance due to thinking about the consequences, the other person may find that they have gotten “lucky” and take advantage of this hesitancy to act.                 If you don’t have an opportunity to disengage from a physical confrontation you will need – at some point - to commit to closing the distance between yourself and your aggressor; you will need to move into a range where you can make your attacks, which usually means you entertain the possibility and risk of being attacked yourself. It is easy to get caught up with thinking about all the things that can go wrong when trying to close distance e.g., you get hit, you get swept, you mistime your entry etc. It is often easier to contemplate failure than imagine success. When I used to play golf, the technically easiest putts – a couple of feet from the hole, or nearer - were often the mentally toughest/hardest as there was always a sense that you could risk mucking up something that was so easy, after having achieved all the previous (harder) steps to be in such a good position.  Closing the gap between you and an aggressor means taking a step which requires commitment both mentally and physically, whether that’s as a wrestler shooting in or as a boxer moving forward and throwing a jab that brings them into a range where they face a possible counter etc. It takes a certain type of courage to commit to taking that “step”.                 This is one of the reasons why sparring is so important. It allows you to try finding ways to close the distance in a non-choreographed manner. Krav Maga at its root uses two types of drills, each with its own benefits. There are “closed” drills and there are “open” ones. Closed drills have definable/predictable “outcomes” e.g., you know you will be attacked with a rear strangle, and you make your escape. The drill can then be “opened” up; the attack may be a rear strangle or it could be a front choke etc. This progression starts to train threat/attack recognition and response and is the foundation of the “stress test”. However, the Krav Maga “stress test” is still ultimately a “closed” drill as the attacks and threats performed in it, although varied, are “set”. Whilst the Krav Maga stress test has benefits it also doesn’t deal with the multi-phased nature of violence i.e., after one attack/threat the aggressor doesn’t usually respond, which is necessary from a safety perspective. One of the things that stress testing doesn’t train is how to close the distance. It trains many other facets/components of the fight, but it doesn’t train/develop this skill. Sparring does that, which is why it is a necessary part of your training.                    The only thing that truly/fully replicates a fight is a fight, and even if students were told to simply “fight”, they would be doing so recognizing the absence of consequence because the context would be that of a training environment. The rule book of the UFC, which promotes itself as, “real as it gets” is extensive, because although fighters have a degree of freedom to do what they want there are – and this is a good thing – safety considerations. You can train people to fight but in doing so you can never fully replicate a fight e.g., nobody will respect a “tap” on the street etc. So, to safely train people to fight in a real life situation you train the elements of it separately e.g., you develop threat recognition and decision making through the stress test, and you develop the skillset and ability for closing the distance through safe and controlled sparring. Different methods for developing different fighting skills etc. Sparring is the ultimate “open” drill where everything within a controlled frame can happen and whilst sparring develops many skills, such as effective movement, control of range/distance, how to position someone so that your strikes have full power/impact, one of the most important skills it teaches you is how and when to close distance and this may be the most important thing for ending/finishing a fight; if you can’t do this you will never throw and land that punch which was so perfect on the pads.                 Sparring also involves “consequences”. You don’t close the distance effectively, you get hit or you get thrown/swept/taken down etc. Hopefully, the lesson isn’t one delivered solely by pain but by an understanding of what you did wrong. However, at some point you learn how to close the distance, how to get to your opponent successfully, without them being able to stop/counter you. You also learn to overcome the fear of failure, which helps you overcome that fear when you have to do it for real. Whilst sparring doesn’t reflect/represent what a real life violent altercation looks like it teaches and prepares you to effectively close the distance, and if you don’t have this skill, you will be relying on luck for your success.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=784 Mon, 16 Feb 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=783 When I was a kid starting out in martial arts I was of a generation where kids were generally seen and not heard, adults were to – by default - be respected, and physical discipline of kids was largely acceptable etc. Whilst some adults today may have a certain nostalgia for parenting in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the messaging of kids should do what adults – especially those in positions of “power” such as teachers and religious leaders - tell them, allowed many predatory adults to get away with physical and sexual abuse, without the fear of those they victimized telling someone etc. This is not to say that there is no longer such abuse, as societies will always have such individuals, but rather such predators are more likely to have those they target inform on them; especially if they have supportive adults around them. So, whilst there are times when I wish the younger generation would listen more and question less, I do think/believe allowing children and teens to have a voice is a societal progress. However, this wasn’t my “martial arts” experience. At the Judo club I grew up in, it was expected that I did what I was told without question. That any order given was followed without hesitation. However, from my experience(s) of this current generation this isn’t how they operate. There will be some martial arts/self-defense instructors who may argue – and they may be right – that this method of teaching and training is how “discipline” and “humility” etc., are developed and that those who fail to respond to such  coaching and instruction lack a certain character, however I do question if this “old school” methodology risks making the martial arts less relevant to today’s kids, than it did to me. In this article I want to look at why Gen Z may see the martial arts as less important and applicable than they were to my generation, and whether training culture and methods may need to be updated without losing the integrity of the “art”. My primary motivation for learning a martial art was due to being physically bullied, i.e., I wanted/needed to be able to defend myself and this is what martial arts training promised me. Whilst physical bullying still exists, it is much more likely to be both recognized and acted upon. When I was at school, during recess/break, teachers would huddle up together and turn a blind eye to physical “scuffles”, as they saw this time as much as a break for them as it was for the kids etc. This attitude of ignoring physical bullying, although still present in some quarters, is far less prevalent today for a variety of reasons. Also, with the advent of social media, the proliferation of mobile phones etc., kids have learnt that there are far better ways of torturing someone and causing them pain than physically harming them, plus they can do it more discretely, lessening the risk of being observed and caught. A simple word and set of emojis, about someone, that is sent to a text group, can cause that individual far more pain, distress and anxiety, than a punch or a slap, and is more likely to go unnoticed by the adults in their life who are acting as guardians. Whilst I believe that practicing a martial art does develop social resilience that is applicable to such bullying, I’m not sure that this generation would recognize the relevance of this to their experience(s). I have written before about the research and studies by Judith Harris who is best known for her "group socialization theory," which she presented in her book The Nurture Assumption (1998). This theory challenged the then-traditional view of the time that parents were the primary influence on their childrens’ behavioral development. Harris argued that much of a child's behavior is shaped by their peer groups and the social environments in which they find themselves, rather than by parental socialization alone. Group socialization theory would also make the argument that any values learnt within a martial arts school – whilst being rewarded in that environment – would not necessarily be practiced in an environment/social group where a different, and possibly opposing, way of acting and behaving would be rewarded e.g., a  child in a martial arts program may/will realize that if they say/shout “Yes Sensei!”, stand up straight, wait and take their turn etc., they will get a belt (a reward) and respect from their instructor etc., however if when they’re with their friends they earn acceptance and respect by setting trash cans on fire, throwing stones at cars, and swearing/shouting at passers-by etc., then this is how they will act/behave. This doesn’t mean that the traditional values taught in a kids’ martial arts class aren’t worth teaching etc., but rather that if they are at odds – in the way they are communicated – with the values of a child’s peer group they are unlikely to be adopted and exhibited in that context/situation. I believe wholeheartedly in the genuine values that martial art teaches e.g., I learnt much about discipline and perseverance from attempting to master certain techniques/throws that I didn’t have a natural aptitude for, and responded well to chastisement about not putting in the necessary effort to do so; however I was a product of a generation that was used to being treated/encouraged this way, and I am far from sure that this is how the current generation is motivated. I also believe that there is a difference between values and methods, e.g., there is more than one way for individuals to develop respect, humility and discipline etc. Just because I and my generation responded well to a certain way of training, doesn’t mean that this generation does and will. It is easy and reassuring to believe that the martial arts will always be relevant to people, however as generations change the way this relevance - and how it is communicated - may need to be adapted from the way we practiced and were taught.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=783 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=782 When the sociologist Stanley Cohen began his research into folk devils and moral panics he primarily looked at how the public created and fueled – with the assistance of the media - these things; he looked at how a small number of fights between “mods” and “rockers”, two opposing youth cultures in the 1960’s, was blown up by the media to create a national panic and the vilification of anyone who rode a scooter or a motorbike, and/or listened to a particular type of music etc. However, moral panics and the creation of folk devils can also happen at an institutional level, and like those that occur in public, can be somewhat self-fulfilling/confirming. In Brixton, London in the 1980’s, there was a widespread belief by law-enforcement that most young black men in the area/locale were involved in crime, creating both a folk devil and a moral panic within policing. The response was to increase the practice of “stop and search” e.g., stopping and searching more young men on the loose pretense/premise that their presence in a particular location, at a particular time was “suspicious” and indicated that they could be thinking about/planning committing an offense etc. From a simple statistical perspective, the more people you stop and search, the more likely you are to find items on them which are illegal, such as a weapon or drugs etc. This practice ends up creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy” e.g., when you stop and search 100 people, you find 10 illegal items, when you stop and search 200 people, you find 21 illegal items i.e., more than double! When you consider that as a species, we are far more likely/susceptible to believe a story than statistics, one stop and search incident that found everyone in a group of three had something illegal on them, will circulate and become folklore within an institution, and when that seeps out to the public, the institutional moral panic becomes a societal one.  From a statistical perspective the same thing happens with zero-tolerance policing. If you stop/arrest somebody for any minor infraction, you are going to find more people who are wanted for having committed a more serious crime e.g., if you apprehend everyone who appears to be skipping a barrier at a subway station, you are going to find more people who are wanted on a warrant etc. Increase the sample size, increase the results. At the same time, you may alienate more people who are innocent, increasing a perception that those in law enforcement are unfair and overly heavy-handed etc. When the story of one individual being unfairly apprehended by a law enforcement for skipping a barrier when they had a ticket etc., gets out, that “story” is also more likely to have more weight than it actually deserves, when compared to the statistics; possibly creating a moral panic concerning overly strong-handed/aggressive policing and law enforcement officers being portrayed as “folk devils”. One institutional “moral panic” that happened in 2025 was the spreading of an idea through law enforcement that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), had told its members that they should proactively attack law enforcement agents and agencies, engaging with them using lethal force. Whilst some politicians jumped on this “rumor” and voraciously spread it, partly to justify the removal of South American immigrants from the US, a few months after Greg Abbott made a statement about the gang’s intent, the FBI -possibly the organization with the most accurate information and knowledge on gang activity - in an internal report stated that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that TdA were looking to actively target law enforcement officers. The rumor/idea that the gang was looking to target members of agencies was initially started in 2024 by the Albuquerque Police Department when they issued an Officer Safety/Awareness bulletin citing that there was credible evidence from Homeland Security Investigations (HIS), that the gang was looking to target LEO’s and other law enforcement agencies’ members. This warning was later distributed to a number of other agencies across the US and the “moral panic” started to spread and whilst obviously the gang Tren de Aragua should be on law enforcement’s radar, its status was raised to that of the proverbial “Folk Devil”. Although this incorrect information regarding TdA wasn’t meant to get into public hands it inevitably did with many news agencies stoking the fire and introducing the public to a new threat and danger that they needed to be aware about. It soon became apparent, within security circles, that there was an acute lack of knowledge by many at the “top” concerning how Tren de Aragua was organized and operated, in fact around this time it appeared that the group didn’t have much control of who used the name, with individuals around the US identifying themselves as being part of the gang without actually having any ties to the central leadership in Venezuela, and it appears that the gang functions more like a franchise or network of semi-autonomous cells operating under the TdA brand or name, rather than having a single unified chain of command. This creates an issue for security and law enforcement agencies and intelligence in that because of this brand-usage those involved with gaining intelligence on the group have to assess affiliation levels e.g., core vs peripheral, rather than assume all “TdA” labelled actors are centrally directed.    This is not to suggest that Tren de Aragua (TdA) both as an organization and as a “brand” shouldn’t be taken seriously, but rather to demonstrate how a rumor/piece of misinformation by an agency can quickly create a panic within law enforcement and other agencies that spills out into the political/public domain, with the folk-devil that has been created being far more frightening and wide-spread than it actually is. The problem is that once such genies are out of the bottle they are very hard to get back in again, especially when they have a degree of truth to them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=782 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=781 The belt system in martial arts is a relatively modern creation. Before belts, Japanese martial arts used what was known as a menkyo system with licenses or scrolls that signified levels of ability and mastery etc. These weren’t visible in training; they were documents awarded privately by the teacher to their students. This “invisibility” of rank meant that a student was judged by others on their ability, rather than on their instructor’s recognition of their skills and abilities etc. It was Jigoro Kano - the creator of Judo in the 1880s – who, wanting a more systematic ranking structure, introduced the belt system. His original syllabus consisted of forty throws. He organized them into five sets of eight (the Gokyo), awarding a different colored belt when a student was competent in each set. This visibility of a student’s level was important when it came to randori (the “sparring” component of Judo), as a higher belt – such as someone at brown belt – would understand that when they were paired with a lower belt (such as someone at orange) they were dealing with someone who was less experienced than them i.e., they shouldn’t be as “competitive” as they would against a fellow brown belt etc. Kano’s belt system was simply a way of organizing his syllabus whilst allowing all students to know how experienced each other was, which was a good safety measure. I still believe that this is the primary purpose of a belt system: to organize a syllabus.                 During the 1920’s and 1930’s, other systems including some Karate systems started to adopt Kano’s belt system. Some had more material/techniques and so instead of having five colored belts before Black belt, created more colored belts e.g., you have a system with 100 techniques someone should know to be a black belt, then you might divide them up into ten sets of ten techniques, each with a colored belt to denote how far through a system a student has progressed/gone. This is why I don’t believe it’s of any worth comparing belts from one system/martial art to another, regardless of whether they are using the same belt color progression or not. When dividing up a syllabus in this manner time should also be a factor that is taken into consideration. When I was a Judoka with the BJA (British Judo Association) during the 1980’s and 1990’s, there was the “rough” idea, that someone training a couple of times a week, would take about a year to “learn” each set of eight throws, whilst obviously improving their grappling/throwing skills during this time. There were two parts to a belt “test”. One part looked at technical knowledge and competency, whilst the other looked at the progression and development of skills. The first part could be decided/judged by an appropriate Dan grade, the other involved an open mat randori/”sparring” (no weight classes), comprising of students from the various schools in the area/region e.g., if there were twelve schools in a region, each with five students going for orange belt, then you would end up having three matches, drawn randomly from a pool of sixty. Up until black belt, you didn’t have to win all three to be awarded the belt – in fact you could lose all three but if you put up a good display e.g., you got a couple of good throws in, you handled and coped well against a much larger opponent etc., the grading panel had a degree of discretion in awarding/recognizing the belt. This system was fairly good at keeping a consistent standard, and that’s often the complaint about belts that people make, especially when it comes to Black Belt; what should that standard be? The BJA was a national body that also governed the Olympic Team, and being a competitive sport the standard was evident in performance; when you won matches at regional and national level, you were ranked accordingly. However, many schools don’t belong to such governing bodies, and standards vary e.g., some schools have a three-year Black Belt program with a smaller syllabus and possibly a lesser expectation as to the student’s skill level, whilst another may have a five-year program with a greater expectation of what a student should be able to achieve etc. There will always be some who say three years to get a black belt is too short etc. My opinion is, why care? People practice Krav Maga, Martial Arts and Self-Defense systems for a variety of reasons. This is why I’ve never liked the term “McDojo” to refer to such programs that award black belts after a few years of training, i.e., there are great and talented instructors teaching relatively short black belt programs, who don’t deserve to be talked about in a derogatory way simply based on the way they’ve structured their syllabus. If they’re a bad instructor teaching solely for commercial reasons, then maybe the term applies. A 3-year black belt program means someone trained for three years, a five-year one means they trained for five etc. Is it important or relevant that one person gets their black belt two years before the other? I don’t believe so. Different schools, different systems. If both schools are being run by equally competent and talented instructors, all other things being equal, I would expect the person getting their black belt at the five-year mark to exhibit better skill and technique than the three-year black belt, but if they train for another two years, they’ll be the same. Does the color of the belt matter at year four? I don’t think it does, unless the focus of a program is getting to black belt, rather than this simply being a “marker” along the way. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=781 Mon, 26 Jan 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=780 When I used to compete in Judo, I knew what to expect e.g., I knew how to win the fight, what the rules were, how long the “fight” would last for, and if I was competing locally/regionally I often knew the people I’d be competing against. All of these things allowed me to make “trained” responses i.e., I could set up throws, work towards submissions on the ground etc. However, real life violence is very different; there is no referee to stop, start and adjudicate the fight, there are no rules that specify how the other person will fight, and it’s extremely unlikely that you know how the aggressor is likely to go about trying to dismantle you i.e., there are a lot of unknowns. This means that a lot of your “trained” responses aren’t – at least initially – likely to work. It is unlikely, unless you set things up correctly, that you will be starting the confrontation in your “fighting stance”; in fact, if you had time to get into one, you may have missed an opportunity to disengage or throw a preemptive strike etc. This is one of the reasons why it is important to practice getting into a fighting stance if/when attacked from any direction. In most cases your initial response will be an untrained/instinctive one, and it is important to acknowledge and understand this, along with not over-estimating your abilities to respond, initially, in a way that will end the fight and/or give you an advantage.                 The fact that Krav Maga teaches/trains defenses to attacks from an “Unprepared Stance” acknowledges the reality that there are times when we are caught by surprise. I would argue that even when we recognize that violence is inevitable and that we need to physically defend ourselves, when an attack is initiated, we are still caught somewhat off-guard; as a species we are by nature optimistic creatures who hope for the best regardless of the reality we are dealing with. If we are caught by surprise – in whatever capacity – it is unlikely that we will make a trained response. Professional MMA fighter, Anthony Smith, said of a fight he had with a person who broke into his home, that it was “one of the toughest fights” he'd ever had, despite having a 30-to-35-pound weight advantage, and years of training. The fight lasted around five minutes and was stopped/broken up when police turned up. It’s all too easy when reviewing such incidents to conclude that Smith’s “techniques” that worked in an MMA context were inadequate for reality, and that he didn’t posses the survival skills necessary for the street etc., however this is nonsense. It is far more likely that Smith, despite his training, was “surprised” at having to deal with an aggressor in this particular context; he was used to fighting in a ring, with time to switch on his pain management systems etc., not being woken up in the middle of the night and having to deal with an intruder in his kitchen. Trying to implement “trained” responses in this unfamiliar context is extremely difficult and isn’t a reflection of his actual fighting skills and abilities. Most people, when attacked, will respond instinctively i.e., they will make an untrained response; they will flinch, turn away, cover themselves, etc. Years of evolution have found these defense mechanisms to be the most effective way of dealing with an initial attack. When I watch CCTV footage of terrorist attacks, involving knife attacks, against Israeli citizens, I usually see – unless completely surprised – the person being stabbed, bringing their arm up to protect themselves, (if the knife is moving downwards) and attempting to move away to a lesser or greater degree. This is an instinctive response when confronted by such a movement. It doesn’t need to be trained as it’s instinctive/reactive. However, if a person hasn’t trained from this position, they don’t know what to do next, and so they often freeze, waiting for their conscious mind to take over and tell them what to do. Unfortunately, if untrained, their conscious mind doesn’t have the experience and/or a reference point to inform them as to how they should respond, and so they normally, at some point, resort to their “flight” response, turning away to try to get away from their attacker etc., resulting in stab wounds to their upper and lower back. Many people “trained” in Krav Maga will believe that their training will immediately kick in when attacked in such a fashion, and that as well as blocking they will make a simultaneous attack i.e., because they have trained to respond in this way. I am not going to say that nobody will respond with a simultaneous block and attack when they are caught by surprise, as we are a strange species that enjoys exceptions but it is not something we should presume we will do; despite some apocryphal tale we have heard about a guy in Minnesota who when caught unawares, blocked and punched at the same time, whilst still holding onto his shopping bags, after being attacked coming out of a 7-11. In almost every instance, when attacked, we will respond instinctively i.e., we will react in the way that our bodies have evolved to over the past thousands of years. Our initial response will be an untrained one; one we perform naturally/instinctively without thinking.  This doesn’t mean that trained and untrained people possess equal/comparable fighting abilities. The difference is, not that the reflective/reactive response isn’t the same, as we all react in the same way, but rather that a trained person understands their reaction e.g., why they have brought their arm up, why they are moving away etc. The untrained person doesn’t have this reference point and doesn’t know what they should do next, whereas the trained person does. They understand the situation. They understand what their reaction means and this is where their “trained” responses should kick in; it is in this moment that they understand that rather than just blocking, they should attack as well. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=780 Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=779 For me there are no such things as “advanced” and/or “secret” techniques. Those who seek them are usually looking for shortcuts that act as a substitute for hard work, consistency, and continued training. These are often the same individuals who feel/believe that they have moved beyond the basics, and that practicing the basics is something that they no longer have to do/practice. However, physical skills and abilities are perishable. If they’re not continually practiced, they become memories rather than executable and actionable survival/fighting talents. The development of power in punching involves the co-ordination and timing of combining the shifting of bodyweight with the extension of the arm, and the clenching of the fist etc. If they’re not continuously practiced a person’s ability to perform them correctly/effectively deteriorates, as does their ability to fight and defend themselves etc. What you were able to do once is irrelevant if/when attacked now. A belt or rank that might have been significant once lacks any meaning if current skills no longer reflect it. It is easy to become complacent in training, and believe that you have already put the work in, and that this should be good enough to see you through and into the future etc.                 In Karate, there is an emphasis on the basics or “Kihon” in every class, and for good reason. Practicing the foundational and fundamental skills of fighting is perhaps the most important aspect of training, and not one that should be looked on as something to fill time and/or a necessary precursor that you’re obliged to do before you get to the “new” and “interesting” stuff. Also, I would argue that attempting to make improvements on the basics is the hardest part of training, as it involves focusing on the development of something that you have perhaps done thousands of times. It is easy to go through a process of repetition – simply going through the movements – without attempting to improve each time. However, it is through such improvements of the basics that you advance. In this article I want to look at three things which if improved upon and practiced consistently with focus will advance you far more rapidly than simply adding “new” things to your repertoire. They are also the things which, should you walk into another school, that practices a different style/system etc., will mark you out as someone who should be respected, not because of your belt, your background etc., but because you obviously possess fighting abilities.    The three things you need to make sure you are training consistently – and they don’t form an exhaustive list are: keeping a good guard, moving consistently, and controlling range. I touched on some of these earlier in the year about things everyone, including myself, needs to work on, however in this article I want to go a bit deeper into them. Hands Up! This is so basic it shouldn’t need to be said, however having a good, consistent guard is one of the most important and fundamental fighting skills to have for a variety of reasons. If the only thing you do when someone starts throwing punches at you is to get your hands up to protect your face/head, you have given yourself a fighting chance and kept yourself in the “game”. However, often in training people get “lazy” about this, and as training progresses their hands slowly start to drop, and it is only when they get “punished” in some way that they remember to keep their guard up. However, having a good, consistent guard isn’t just important defensively, it is vital for offense as well. If a person’s hands aren’t held in a consistent position, it can be difficult for them to know how far away from them a target is, e.g., if they are in the habit of throwing punches from a variety of different hand positions, then there will be no consistent reference point, meaning that they will never know how far their hand is from the target. If when practicing punching/striking the hand is always in the same starting position this will not be the case. Consistent Footwork Just as with always knowing where your hands are, you should also know where your feet are, and you should know when you move them, where they will end up e.g., if you take a step forward with your front foot, where it will be, and when you move your rear foot, to take account for this movement where it will end up; and importantly this should be replicated exactly, each time you make a movement. When your front foot moves forward, your rear foot moves the exact same distance, unless you are deliberately and intentionally doing some other maneuver. If you are not in control of your movement, you are not in control of your body, and this is not a good thing if you are in a fight where you need to a proper base to strike from. Even worse, if your feet are coming together – this happens a lot when people try to circle each other quickly – then you are extremely vulnerable to being swept and/or being taken down, because not only do you create a movement that can be exploited (one foot, moving towards the other), but you have no base. I’m not saying that you don’t need to know how to fight on the ground, however if a good stance and effective footwork allow you to remain standing etc., you’ll not need to discover/find out whether your ground game is adequate or not. Control of Range If there was a magic pill that would make every self-defense technique – good and bad – work, it would probably be control and management of range. One of the first things I used to tell door staff when I was training teams, was that if you couldn’t manage range when dealing with someone, you risked getting stabbed. Someone at close range with a knife will have it stuck in you, without you even seeing it. Chances are you won’t even register it. There is no blocking system on this planet that can defend against such a fast movement, unless it has to cross some distance/space. If someone can make that action without having to move their body to do so, it is extremely unlikely that your reaction will beat their action; unless the “fight fairies” have sprinkled their magic dust over you, enabling you to have super-human reaction times etc. You give yourself the chance to intercept such attacks when you can control range and force an attacker to have to move their feet and body in order to get close enough to you. When an instructor – in a video - wants to show that another system’s knife defenses don’t work, they’ll almost always close distance before they make the attack. When they want to show that theirs works, they’ll put the distance back in – still trying to make out that they were caught by surprise etc., when really, they are actively managing range (something you need to do when dealing with attackers, and especially armed ones). If in a demonstration – a controlled environment – control of range is needed to get something to work effectively, then its importance in a real-life encounter can’t be stressed enough.                       Good basics, plus aggression, and fitness, are the foundation for dealing with real-life violence. If any one of these three things is missing, or compromised, it will be a hard fight, not just because of a lack of effectiveness, but because that lack of effectiveness communicates a weakness that the other party(s) can exploit e.g., if you can’t punch with power, not only does that inhibit your ability to cause pain, deliver concussive force etc., it also says to the other person that they have no need to fear your striking. Poor basics is not just a weakness, it can be a vulnerability. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=779 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=778 In last week’s article I looked at the need to commit to violence when dealing with physical confrontations, i.e., you need to be 100% committed to the task at hand and that means committing to violence. It would be nice to think that you could “safely” throw people away from you, without causing them any harm, such as in an aikido demonstration, whilst failing to acknowledge if the person hadn’t “rolled” away they’d be suffering a broken wrist/limb i.e., as “soft” as a particular martial art may look its goal is to cause pain and injury, rendering an attacker unable to continue the fight etc. Sometimes, when I teach various self-defense seminars, those attending are under the impression that I would do something different to what I’m teaching them i.e., that there are higher level techniques to dealing with a knife shank that would see me disarming an attacker of their weapon, whilst causing them no harm, and with them ending up in a control position, which again causes them no harm etc. Having been attacked with knives the only way I could uniformly describe my experiences would be as a “mess”; on no occasion did it ever replicate the cleanliness and precision of a demonstration in a class or seminar, even when there was no script etc. In this article I want to look at what “courage” is, and how it is viewed by those who act courageously and by those who witness such acts.                  What courage is, is actually quite hard to define, and even more difficult to observe and measure e.g., when someone  repeatedly returns to a burning building to rescue people it would be an extreme coincidence for a trained researcher to be there to observe this person’s actions, and highly unlikely that they’d be in a position to analyze and measure what was going on etc. One definition of courage that was originally put forward by Christopher R. Rate et al., suggested that courage was comprised of three components: (one) a voluntary action that (two) looked to achieve a worthwhile/noble goal which (three) involved taking on a risk(s). Whilst for many people, the idea of overcoming fear is part of what defines courage, many of those who commit “courageous” acts don’t mention fear as being part of their experience i.e., many people will talk about acting without thinking and/or feeling a compulsion to act, without a consideration for the risks that may have been involved etc. This may mean that the person performing an act of courage views it very differently to those that may witness or hear about it etc. This has led to the idea of there being two types of courage: accolade courage and process courage (Pury et al.,  2024). “Process” courage is that which is experienced by the actor, which may or may not involve fear, whilst “Accolade” courage is how the actor’s actions are viewed by others etc. Whilst something may be looked on as high-risk by others (Accolade) the individual(s) performing such actions may not have considered the risks involved.                 Training courage is a difficult thing, however Dr. Jim Detert (University of Virginia), suggests that it can be done in a similar way to exposure therapy e.g., if you are afraid of snakes, you first go and watch a snake behind glass; as you become more comfortable with that, and someone explains what a snake’s various movements mean, you put yourself in a room with a snake and someone who can handle it, and then at some point you stroke or touch it etc., with the eventual goal being that you handle it, yourself. Interestingly, there is a beta-blocker that is used in reconsolidation-based phobia treatment called propranolol, which works by blocking β-adrenergic signaling during the memory’s re-storage window (when administered immediately after reactivating the fear, such as having a controlled encounter with a snake). The emotional “charge” of that fear – a fear of snakes - can be markedly reduced at later tests with extremely long-lasting effects. Unfortunately, when it comes to the fear of violence, and developing courage, violence is too multi-faceted to be limited to just one type of experience etc. However, Jim Detert’s “courage ladder” can be used to make us more comfortable with managing our fears and overcoming them.                                The idea is when exposed to minor conflicts that invoke fear and/or uneasiness developing a strategy for dealing with it e.g., if you usually back down/acquiesce when someone jumps in front of you in a line (a “minor” confrontation), you may choose to confront them and remind them that you were before them – how you act in response to them should be designed to ensure your personal safety e.g., if they then get extremely aggressive towards you, you can always back down by simply saying “you can have that place in the line, but both of us know I was here before you,” etc. In most cases the person will satisfy themselves that they “won” that battle, and you will have been able to assert yourself and understand that you were the one controlling the interaction. This could see you standing up for yourself – rather than challenging people – in a workplace environment e.g., if people talk to you in a disparaging and/or insulting way, challenging them on this. It is important to challenge the tone and manner rather than on the content of what they are saying as whilst it might not justify how/the way in which they address you there may be some validity to what they say e.g., “Whilst I acknowledge that there may be some truth to what you are saying, it doesn’t justify you talking to me in this way.” The idea behind Detert’s “courage ladder”, is to start handling minor fears, that require you to be courageous, before handling bigger ones, with the idea being that when you have to act with courage in a more extreme situation you are better prepared.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=778 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=777 Conan O’Brien recalls the time (he was still a student at Harvard) when he met John Candy and told him that he wanted to “try” comedy. Candy’s response – which was not disparaging – was that you don’t try comedy, you either do it, or you don’t. It convinced O’Brien that if he wanted to become a comedian he had to effectively “burn the boats” i.e., not have a contingency plan but to commit this path/route. We don’t know if John Candy gave this piece of advice to other aspiring comics, who didn’t make it, but generally committing to something 100% is a key component of any type of success. One of the reasons I suck at golf – apart from genuinely hating the game (many personal reasons behind this) – is that for me it was always a game of “doubts” e.g., your ball is less than a foot from the hole, but you spend your time thinking about all of the reasons, all of the things that could see you missing the shot etc., and then because of these doubts you end up missing something that was actually easily achievable and well within your reach/grasp. When it comes to dealing with violence it is usually our doubts and our lack of commitment to acting violently, which see us fail, rather than a lack of skills and technical proficiency etc. In this article I want to look at why it is necessary to commit to violence when you are being physically assaulted.                 When somebody physically attacks you, i.e., uses violence against you, you enter the unknown. You don’t know what their endgame is, if they will stop punching you if you fall to the ground, and/or if they may pull a weapon etc. All you know is that they have lost any concern or respect for legalities and social conventions; “traditions” that allow members of society to go about their daily lives, peacefully and productively etc. I have seen a few “half-hearted” attackers in my time working in security. Individuals who didn’t want to throw the first punch but felt they had to, usually because they believed friends or a partner who was with them would see them as weak if they didn’t stand up for themselves etc., however most assailants who start a fight have already – at least in that moment – committed themselves to violence. They might lose heart during the fight if things start to go against them, however at the start of the confrontation they believe they have the ability to come out triumphant and they are committed to this end. If they meet someone who emotionally crumbles on first contact i.e., somebody who is less committed to violence than they are, then they will usually be proved right.                 Real-world violence is usually non-consensual. Though it happens it is rare that both parties are equally committed to the fight, i.e., it is usually one person committing violence against another. If we are training self-defense, combatives, Krav Maga or any martial art/fighting system, we are likely to be, at least initially, that less committed individual; we would rather walk away. One of the things I always try to get over to my students when I am teaching de-escalation is that as you are trying to reduce and remove emotion from a verbal-confrontation, so that everyone can walk away unharmed, you are at the same time preparing for war, i.e., getting yourself ready to commit to violence. Just because an aggressor forces you to respond physically, doesn’t mean you should be less committed than they are. In fact, you should be more committed. Few people who get involved in fights are experienced, and if they are it is probably because they have enjoyed a level of success; probably because they committed to violence more than those they targeted, rather than because of any actual fighting ability etc. In my time working door security, I’ve dealt with many people who believed because of size and strength, or for whatever reason – including alcohol – that a physical confrontation would quickly/easily go their way. Most people are not used to being thrown/taken-down and when somebody’s balance is taken and they end up on the ground it is usually a sobering moment for them. For a throw (especially), or a punch to be effective you have to commit to it i.e., you have to commit to the violence of the action.                   Your mindset, when dealing with real-life violence, should be – and this should be different to training/sparring – that every time you commit a physical action, it’s a violent one, intended to cause harm to the other person e.g., if you grab their arm, to set something up, the intention is that your “grab” causes pain and potentially harm; you aren’t just grabbing their arm in an emotional and physical vacuum, you are looking to damage them. You have to commit to violence. However, being able to commit to violence should not make you a violent person. You should walk away from any confrontation, depressed rather than euphoric i.e., you didn’t want to act violently towards another person(s) but their actions forced you to do so etc. This the crux of every legal self-defense claim; it’s an admittance of the use of violence because you had no other choice, other than to see yourself get harmed/injured/killed. No sane/rational person wants to cause harm to others, but when somebody wants to harm us, we should look to be able to meet their commitment to violence with our own. Whilst their commitment may be uncontrolled, ours shouldn’t be; when we recognize that we are no longer in imminent danger, and that we have an opportunity to disengage safely we should take it. Committing to violence does not mean the use of excessive force. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=777 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=776 When fighting you don’t need to look at something to know where a target is. In an interview, Mike Tyson was once asked where he “looked”, and he indicated to the chest area. The interviewer asked why he didn’t look at the head, and Tyson replied that, the head can’t hit you. He knew where the target was: it was located directly over the chest/torso, and he didn’t need to see it to be able to target it. There are many rookie/novice mistakes that people make when first starting to spar, and looking at the target before striking it, is one that an opponent with a bit of experience will soon identify and pick up on e.g., before someone throws a rear, low roundhouse to their opponent’s thigh, they first glance at it, or continue to look at it as they throw the kick etc. In this article I want to look at how targets can be referenced non-visually, and where our eyes should be during real-life confrontations etc.                 Sometimes you will be forced to fight “blind” e.g., if you are caught in a side-headlock or a guillotine choke etc., your face – and eyes – will be pointed towards the ground, and understanding visually what your aggressor is doing, and/or attempting to do will be virtually impossible; and you will waste time if you are attempting to visually understand what is happening to you before you can act. Using the guillotine choke as an example we can determine our order of operations; from a Krav Maga perspective. This is a “life-threatening” attack so our first priority should be to clear our airway, pulling the attacker’s arm from our throat so that we can breathe. This is also working with our natural instincts i.e., our hands will naturally come up to pull the arm away because our survival instinct(s) will kick in as soon as we’re unable to get oxygen into our lungs. This response – of bringing the hands to the throat when we can’t breathe – is often seen when someone is choking on a piece of food, even though the blockage is an internal rather than an external one i.e., the hands will be of little practical use when trying to dislodge the piece of food which is affecting the breathing. Working off another Krav Maga concept – attack should follow defense at the earliest opportunity – once we can breathe, we need to go on the attack. Using the nearest weapon, to the nearest target, means that it is probably best to attack the groin with a palm/hand strike. As well as delivering pain, this should cause our attacker to instinctively pull their hips back, taking away the “power” that is needed to perform an effective guillotine choke.                 From here there are many ways to go, however if the hips have been pulled back – due to the groin strikes – it means that the attacker’s face has come down and may be susceptible to an elbow strike. At this point your head/face is still pointed towards the ground, and you won’t be able to see where your assailant’s face – the target is – however you know that, anatomically, the head is positioned directly over the groin. This means that if you bring your elbow up, along the same vertical plane that your hand is in, you will connect with the target. From here you can raise your hand up – after making the elbow strike – and staying in that same vertical plain, push your fingers into your attacker’s throat/jugular notch, which is positioned below the head/face. Again, you don’t need your eyes on the target to do this, as you are using one body part to reference another; you used the groin to reference the face, and the face to reference the jugular notch etc. This same method can be applied any time you fail to initially meet an expected target e.g., if you missed the jugular notch, you could try and get your hand onto any part of your assailant’s body. This may see you make contact with the chest, traps or shoulders etc. From here, you know how to get to an aggressor’s jugular notch; you simply work your hand inwards, and when you find the center of the chest, you then slide your fingers up until you find the jugular notch etc. Any time in a “grappling” type situation, you can’t see a target, you can use the body like a “map” i.e., find a body part, and then use this as a reference to end up where you hand(s) want to be.                 One of the assumptions I make when dealing with real-life violence is that my primary aggressor is “assisted” i.e., they have associates in the environment who can come to assist/aid them – every confrontation is potentially a multiple attacker one (a good reason to learn how to avoid and de-escalate aggressive and potentially violent situations). This means that your head and eyes need to be up. You must also be able to scan with your eyes and not just by turning your head, so that you don’t inadvertently make too big a movement that takes your aggressor outside of your field of vision or allows them to move and exploit a blind spot you’ve created. In fact, often you are better changing your field of view by moving around your aggressor, rather than just using your eyes or turning your head etc. When I talk about scanning in this manner, I’m often asked what you should be looking out for. The simple answer is movement e.g., who is moving towards the interaction and/or fight etc., as these are people who are wanting to get involved in some capacity. However, rather than actively looking you should train so that your eyes are “drawn” to the movement whilst you can still focus and concentrate on the primary aggressor before you. A simple drill to train this can involve two people engaged in light sparring (labelled A and B), within a large circle of people, and have individuals who are in the circle, step towards the pair, and take then take over B’s role, with A having – hopefully – picked up their movement so they are ready to face them front on.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=776 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=775 Personal experience can often get in the way of the facts. When you work in security you tend to see things from a certain perspective i.e., if you are always engaging with violent individuals, you can easily come away thinking/believing that the world is a violent place, and as a “trusted source” – someone who deals with violence – others will give weight to your perspective etc. Most people in modern society have so little firsthand experience(s) of violence that they’ll trust a martial arts/self-defense/Krav Maga instructor, with no actual experience of dealing with violence, to inform them of the way the world works, simply because they are performing the “role” of someone who “should” know etc. Whilst those who regularly experience violence (in a professional capacity) may be excused from viewing the world from their perspective, there are too many martial arts/self-defense instructors, without any real-world experience, who “sensationalize” and exaggerate the extent of violence out of insecurity and a belief that they need to validate their role as someone who has value e.g., the world is a terrifying place, and I’m the only person who can genuinely/honestly teach you how to navigate it etc. This is perhaps no more evident/pertinent when it comes to knife crime.                 I have had to deal with knives and edged weapons on several occasions; in a professional capacity. In most cases I was able to get the person to put the weapon down, mainly because I was seen as “security”, the person was fearful, and I could explain the potential legal consequences of their future actions in that moment etc. As emotional as a person may be at the time, many - when confronted with the consequences if they were to act on their impulses - will back down (in the UK possession of a knife in a public space can lead to a prison sentence of up to four years). A lot of this has to do with being perceived as an authority figure and should not be taken as a default strategy when confronted with someone brandishing a knife. In the famous Stanley Milgram experiment where participants were told to deliver an extreme/fatal electric shock when someone answered a question incorrectly, they really only did so when the person asking/telling them to was wearing a lab coat i.e., they appeared to be an educated professor, administering the experiment etc. When the person asking/telling them to do so wasn’t wearing something that identified them as being educated and in control etc., the numbers were small i.e., we have been conditioned to respect authority when it is demonstrated/on show. In simple terms getting someone to put a knife down through a command isn’t going to work in all contexts, and in some it may even be seen as posturing and challenging, which will only escalate the situation.                 To get an idea of what real-life violent incidents involving knives look like we must look at them from a variety of angles using statistics and research etc. There is something that is well documented in criminology but rarely acknowledged in public discussion and that is that most recorded knife incidents are not stabbings and don’t involve life-threatening injuries. When looking at knife crime, the UK, Germany and Turkey are the countries that tend to collect more detailed public data and engage in more academic research. In the US the attention is far more focused on crimes involving firearms and the research landscape is fairly barren when it comes to knife crime, even though FBI statistics demonstrate that on average 10% of homicides involve an edged weapon. The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed a number of categories/outcomes under “Police Recorded Crime, for ‘Offenses involving the use of a knife or sharp instrument’”, for the year ending June 2025 (roughly 49,000 incidents). These included injury outcomes, homicides involving a knife, and medical treatment resulting from incidents involving edged weapons etc. Whilst incidents involving knives always involve the risk of fatality (I will be looking at “one stab” homicides in a future article), this isn’t the outcome for the vast majority of them.                 In around 70 to 75 % of incidents involving edged weapons there were no physical injuries - suggesting that knives are primarily “displayed” to intimidate and/or threaten, rather than to be actively used as a weapon. Another 20 to 22% resulted in injuries that didn’t require hospital attention; these included cuts/nicks and defensive wounds that could be treated with basic first aid. This potentially tells/informs us something about the nature of most attacks; that they involve superficial slashes and cuts rather than deep, forceful stabs. In prison settings a “shank”, that is intended to be fatal, is perhaps much more common than the knife attacks which occur in other settings. Around 5 to 7% involve hospital treatment (the most common emergency room visit involves a single slash to the face), with 0.3 to 0.5% of all knife offenses resulting in a homicide. Most hospital visits involve deeper wounds that need stitching and/or injuries that require assessment but not necessarily critical care. Whilst our perception of violent knife crime may come from the instruction we have received and the syllabuses we have been certified to teach e.g., I remember spending a lot of time learning how to teach downward stab/“icepick” defenses on the first Krav Maga instructor course I took, as these had been a common type of attack, against both soldiers and citizens, during the first Intifada in Israel. Such attacks may be common in certain settings but are not necessarily universal. This is why I believe that any syllabus needs to balance training time based on the likelihood of certain attacks and threats, and the time needed to master the skills in order to execute solutions e.g., controlling a “realistic” knife shank, which contains recoil, takes a lot of practice however dealing with such an attack is far less common than having to deal with a wild slash to the face etc. Violence is contextual and local and for us to teach self-defense that is based in reality our training should reflect the reality/realities we face. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=775 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=774 In last week’s article (which can be accessed by clicking here), I looked at how mental/intellectual disabilities can significantly increase the risk of victimization. In this article I will look at the ways in which those with physical disabilities are more likely to be targeted than those without them. One of the things that differentiates physical disabilities from mental ones is that in many cases they are “external” and “visible” e.g., a predatory individual can easily recognize someone with a physical disability by the way they move/walk and/or due to aids they have which assist them to do so, such as a cane or stick, a wheelchair and/or calipers, or even hearing aids and cochlear implants etc. Research has shown that those with visible disabilities are targeted and victimized at far higher rates than those without (Harrell, 2017). Harrell’s research using National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data has shown/demonstrated that this higher rate of victimization occurs across all violent crime e.g., for rape/sexual assault, street robbery, simple/aggravated assault etc. Other research has shown that this extends to offenses such as verbal harassment (Mueller-Johnson et al., 2014) and stalking (Reyns & Scherer, 2017), as well as intimate partner violence (Porter & Williams, 2011). From these findings it would be easy to make the assumption that individuals with visible disabilities are simply seen as being more vulnerable than those without. However, this would be overly simplistic and would result in us treating those with various visible/physical disabilities as a homogenous group, which doesn’t stand up too much scrutiny.                 Hearing loss/impairment can significantly affect communication. I can attest to this firsthand as my son – now an adult – has had to wear hearing aids for most of his life. Fortunately, when we have miscommunicated conversations, it is usually about UK soccer games/results, which can be easily resolved as there is little emotion involved, and the personal “stakes” aren’t high. However, I could easily see someone getting frustrated when emotions are running high, if they are unable to communicate the issues/trigger that has caused them to become aggressive in the first place e.g., a situation involving an everyday social interaction that has taken a wrong turn, such as a dispute over a parking space etc. One thing I’ve advised my son to do in such situations/social interactions is to point to one of the hearing aids and say, “I’m hard of hearing. If you talk too fast, I may not be able to understand what you’re saying.” When teaching collections agents that deal with clients over the phone, we have found that an easy de-escalation strategy when a customer becomes emotional is to ask them to slow down, rather than tell them to calm down. By getting them to talk slowly, they have to consider what they are saying – in listening to themselves speak - and can’t just let their emotional state drive what they are saying.                   A physical disability such as deafness or blindness also means that an individual’s immediate understanding of the world and potential threats can be compromised e.g., someone who suffers from hearing loss and who has taken out their hearing aids might not hear a window in their home being broken – I had a South African BJJ instructor who told me that one of the things he liked about living in the UK was that he could, when in his house, listen to music, with headphones on/in; something he would never do in South Africa because of the fear of break-ins and home-invasions etc. In 2020, in Lubbock, Texas, a 63-year-old legally blind resident fired through his door at someone he believed was breaking into his house to cause him harm. The person shot was a 21-year-old woman and her friend who had mistakenly believed that his front door was the door for their apartment block; most “home invasions” aren’t actually home invasions but involve either people attempting to “break-in” because they’ve forgotten their key, or have mistaken the apartment/building for theirs etc. Having a disability may mean that someone under-reacts (they don’t hear a window being smashed), or over-reacts e.g., uses lethal force regarding a threat that is benign.                 When looking at blindness/visual impairment it is again easy/simplistic to look at this group as a homogenous group, however this is not the case e.g., there are those who are adventitiously blind (AB), who became blind after birth and so have visual memories, and there are those who are congenitally blind (CB) i.e., people who were born blind, or became blind so early on in their childhood that they have no visual memories etc. This means that these two distinct groups have different histories and memories about how they operate in the world. There is also something known as “blind sight” where individual’s eyes physically operate but the imagery they capture isn’t processed visually. Such individuals can navigate objects in their way without “seeing”/processing what the object is. What this illustrates is that when we are training people with such disabilities on how to be safe and how to protect themselves, we really need to take the time to understand how that individual operates in the world e.g., someone who is legally blind may have some vision and/or understand their environment even if they can’t “see” it as a “picture” etc. Rather than instructors prescribing how someone with a disability perceives the world we should take a moment to find out how the individual with the disability understands and navigates it. From a “selfish” perspective learning this may enhance our own understanding.                 Unfortunately, we still live in a world where predatory/exploitative individuals also live. People who are looking and searching out for vulnerabilities, whether it’s an unlocked door or a physical disadvantage. When considering personal safety with those who have a physical disability we should not somehow think that there are two sets of rules. We should consider personal safety and build in safeguards, for the threats and dangers that we don’t hear or see, for the threats and dangers where our mobility is compromised etc. If we lack these types of physical impairments, we should see that as an advantage that we possess, and it may be worth our time learning from those who lack such advantages to get an appreciation of the methods and approaches that those who do use to improve/enhance their safety.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=774 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=773 After writing an article about how older people as a demographic tend to be - as a group - victimized disproportionately/excessively, I was contacted about whether or not people with disabilities (both mental and physical) are specifically targeted for crime, including acts of violence. It’s not an area of criminology and victimology that I was/am particularly well-versed in/familiar with. So, I started to take a look at the research that exists around disabilities and victimization - this is my first of two articles, looking at crime and violence which targets those with cognitive developmental impairments. Next week’s article will look at how those with physical disabilities are targeted.                 It is likely that many crimes committed against those with cognitive developmental issues don’t get reported to the police because of a lack of knowledge concerning the process of reporting, and often when these offenses are reported those involved in the prosecution of such cases are wary about putting those victimized on the stand e.g., for fear that a defense attorney/lawyer would easily make someone with a learning/cognitive disability an untrustworthy/unbelievable witness. This means that the true extent of victimization of this group and the details of the offenses committed against them remain largely unknown. In terms of academic research there is also not a great wealth of literature available. Those who have engaged in this type of research have detailed the difficulties in getting funding along with ethical issues undergoing research concerning a population who may not be fully aware of what they are agreeing to be involved in. As ethical issues in academic research continue to get stricter – as they should – studying these populations becomes much harder, and when this is coupled with a lack of available funding, many researchers will find easier and more available populations to study.                 There is also an issue about how offenses against those with intellectual disabilities are classified. It has historically been found – Sobsey (1994) and Luckasson (1999) – that when crimes against individuals are reported they are classified and referred to as “incidents” rather than  offenses e.g., offenses such as sexual assault are defined as “abuse” and “neglect” rather than as a crime, and is handed off to social services, rather than entering the criminal justice system (CJS) pipeline. As well as this meaning that those who perpetrate such offenses are investigated in a non-criminal manner and escape justice, with those victimized often unable to advocate for themselves; data and information that could be valuable for understanding offending which targets this population is underreported and unavailable. However, there are several pieces of research out there, which highlight some of the issues that those with cognitive disabilities have to deal with regarding victimization.       The process of de-institutionalization, that has occurred in both the US (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996) and the UK (significantly the National Health Service and Community Care Act of 1990) saw individuals who had previously been housed in long-stay hospitals, asylums, and/or dedicated residential institutions moved into regular state/council housing and receiving community-based care in these settings. Whilst these policies were intended to be humane and modern, with a focus on dignity, autonomy, and social inclusion, in practice, they often suffered from underfunding and poor coordination between health and social services, meaning that a potentially vulnerable population didn’t receive the support and guidance that they required. In many cases their housing needs were treated the same as anybody else’s, which meant they were often put in projects/estates and other relatively unsafe community settings that saw them come into contact with predatory individuals looking for people to exploit and take advantage of. This significantly increased the risk/chances of them being victimized. Both in the US and in the UK people with mental health conditions face some of the largest economic penalties of any disability group. In the UK for those with a mental or emotional condition, the rate of employment is often - depending on locale - around 40% or less. In the US, regarding poverty and income levels more broadly, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), in 2024, reported that working-age adults with disabilities (both mental and physical) are nearly twice as likely to have incomes below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level compared to adults without disabilities, and this was likely much higher for those with mental disabilities. The other issue with under-employment, apart from the obvious economic ones, is that many people who are vulnerable due to their cognitive disabilities have no activity which takes up a large part of their day. Although anecdotal, when I lived and worked in London many people with mental health issues and cognitive disabilities would buy a day ticket for the London Tube or a local rail network and simply spend the day riding the train. This offered a warm and dry environment and an activity that took up time. Unfortunately, spending this amount of time in public increased their risk of victimization.                     In the U.S., the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2018) found that people with cognitive disabilities had a violent victimization rate nearly four times higher than those without disabilities, and that those with serious psychological distress were about 10 times more likely to experience rape or sexual assault. In the UK, The Home Office and Office for National Statistics (ONS) data show that adults with mental illness are three times more likely to experience sexual assault and twice as likely to experience domestic violence as non-disabled adults. This is often linked to methods/issues of coercion, trust exploitation, and control dynamics, where offenders/perpetrators target victims who may have difficulty reporting, remembering, or being believed. Some offenders/abusers will use a person’s mental illness itself/cognitive disability to discredit or threaten to discredit them (“no one will believe you”), which when engaging in intimate partner violence reinforces their isolation and the abuser’s ongoing control. This can be especially true when those victimized are dependent on their partner for their daily functioning and well-being. As well as being targets for sexual violence and violence in general, adults with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities are targeted for benefit theft, coercive financial agreements, and fraud because they often rely on others to manage money or housing for them. This can involve family members, including carers and/or acquaintances stealing benefit payments, fraudulently using bank cards, or taking control of disability allowances, with these disability-related financial crimes often not reported or simply misclassified as “family disputes” etc. One of the great ironies of acceptance and inclusion of those who have cognitive disabilities, such as the education systems in both the US and UK, often incorporating those with such disabilities into regular school classes, is that such individuals have become far more trusting, which ultimately is a good thing and a positive change from the way those with “special needs” used to be treated. However, it has meant that those with these cognitive disabilities have become far more trusting of people in general, that opens up pathways for exploitative individuals to gain access to them e.g., I wrote a few months ago about cuckooing and county-lines, where drug dealers will often befriend those with disabilities and takeover their homes as drug bases. These are often categorized as “mate crimes” where those targeted believe that the dealers are their friends and they are simply helping out a “mate”. Sometimes we aren’t in a position to directly help vulnerable populations, however acknowledging them and educating ourselves about the issues they face, especially concerning personal safety and victimization may help put us in a better position to do so at a future date, even if that simply involves having an informed and educated perspective.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=773 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=772 A few months ago, I wrote about the I³ Model (pronounced "I-cubed") that social psychologists Paul A. M. van Lange and Eli Finkel created and developed based on research they’d done (this article can be accessed by clicking here). Their model looks at how three factors - Instigation, Impellance, and Inhibition – interact to create aggressive/violent responses that result in what they termed “Momentary Aggression” i.e., aggression that occurred in the moment as a response to a perceived threat or injustice; something that is often referred to as spontaneous violence. In this article I want to look at how the I³ Model can be applied to a variety of real-life interactions, and how these can bring out different facets of the theory model to help better understand how it works and the interplay of the three components necessary to create an aggressive/violent incident/interaction. The examples used are from incidents in Boston and Massachusetts.                 In August 2022, in a Boston suburb, a man was assaulted after a verbal altercation over a parking space outside a supermarket. This incident was captured on the supermarket’s surveillance/CCTV footage. The assailant punched the victim in the face, knocking him unconscious. He was arrested on the scene and later claimed he “snapped” after feeling disrespected by the other driver. The trigger that initiated the confrontation was a verbal exchange in which the victim/target of the assault accused the perpetrator of “stealing the space” along with calling him a “selfish idiot.” These insults served as the external trigger which created the necessary conditions to activate an aggressive response. One of the things that always puzzles me about parking space disputes is that even if a person is in the right and someone “stole” a space they were waiting for, believed they were entitled to etc., why leave/park your car in a space where the other person knows your car is? If you’ve annoyed them and made them angry there’s nothing to prevent them “keying” your paint work or slashing your tires, and there’s nothing guaranteeing that this will be captured by CCTV. Without this confrontation (Instigation), the incident would likely not have occurred. Several risk-enhancing factors concerning the incident were identified. The perpetrator had just consumed alcohol, likely amplifying his emotional reactivity/arousal and was already stressed from a dispute at work earlier that day. The temperature that day was also high, possibly creating heat irritability (Impellance). Together, these created a volatile internal state, making him highly susceptible to provocation. To the perpetrator’s knowledge there were no strong external deterrents such as authority figures and/or surveillance he was aware of (capable guardians) i.e., his Inhibition(s) to respond violently were reduced.                 The model can also be used to describe/explain certain types/incidents of domestic violence. In October 2020, a 34-year-old man in Worcester, Massachusetts, was arrested after assaulting his partner. The incident began when he saw a text message from a male coworker that had been sent to her phone. After seeing it he punched his partner in the face and then threw her phone against a wall. The police were called by neighbors who heard screaming. The immediate instigating event (the trigger) was the arrival of a text from another man, which the offender perceived as evidence of infidelity. His partner’s response was one of surprise and dismissing it as a joke, which he perceived to be minimization, further provoking/escalating his anger. These two things were the initial Instigation of his violent response. He reported, when interviewed by law-enforcement, feeling humiliated and betrayed, linking the moment to core identity threats ( neighbors stated that he had a history of paranoia and jealousy). These Impellance factors acted as fuel for the initial spark/trigger. Having consumed alcohol, his executive control was reduced and there were no third parties present who could act as a deterrent or disrupt his escalating emotions, i.e., nothing to control/regulate his Inhibition.                  The I³ Model can also explain group violence. During the 2023 St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in South Boston - for those unaware, this is a large annual event involving a major parade, dense crowds and the obligatory heavy drinking - multiple fights broke out near bars on West Broadway. One altercation, involving over a dozen individuals, led to serious injuries and arrests. Surveillance footage along with bystander videos (posted on social media) showed escalating verbal altercations and pushing, which then led to punches and bottles being thrown. Later analysis and reports by law enforcement attributed the violence to intoxication, overcrowding, and long-standing rivalries between various local groups. The immediate provocations (Instigation) involved verbal insults exchanged between two men outside a bar, along with accidental contact such as shoulder bumps and/or spilt drinks etc. In crowded public events, instigation often arises from low-level interpersonal frictions, especially when individuals are on edge from environmental stimuli such as  noise, intoxication, and crowding etc. Several Impelling factors intensified the likelihood of escalation including the fact that the crowd was composed of young men, often in groups that involved “in-group/out-group” dynamics, which increased the social pressures for dominance and saving face etc. Police presence was low in these areas and social anonymity was high, leading to an increase in social anonymity that led to a reduction in Inhibition.                 Whilst no one theory can explain all violence, the I³ model/theory does a good job of explaining the factors/dimensions that lead to spontaneous or momentary aggression i.e., those incidents and events which lack premeditation and are the result of external rather than internal factors. By understanding how these dimensions interact we may be better able to predict violence before it occurs e.g., if in South Boston at the St Patrick’s Day parade someone had been able to recognize how Instigation, Impellance, and Inhibition were converging and interacting they may have been able to take these things as a warning sign and exit the situation before things turned physical.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=772 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=771 In my final year at university, I took a module/course entitled “Psychology and Radical Economics”. It wasn’t so much by choice but as the result of a scheduling issue – to fit in the subject areas I wanted to study, I was left with a “gap”, that could only be filled by taking this course/module. It was a subject area that I felt completely out of my depth with, and a course that I barely felt I kept a grasp of, however there were only six of us taking the program, and we all bonded over our failings and inadequacies, and kind of supported each other in trying to make sense of the syllabus. We were fortunate in that we had a lecturer/professor who gave us the chance/opportunity to “fail”. Towards the end of the term, we were given the “project” of performing a lecture to the group/class on a particular radical economist, from a psychological perspective. I was allotted the economist Guner Myrdal, not to be confused with the adventurer Thor Heyerdahl (which AI engines sometimes mix up), who led an expedition from South America across the Pacific to the Polynesian Islands on a raft; the Kon-Tiki. Fortunately, back in the day when I was an undergraduate there weren’t search engines and AI that could get confused between these two individuals, and it was a matter of searching for Micro-Fiche articles and books etc., manually – whilst I consider myself a master of this tool, I’m glad that searching and finding articles is so much easier now.      Guner Myrdal is famous – he won a Nobel Prize – for his theory of cumulative causation. An economic theory that he used to explain social phenomena such as racism. As a side note, when I presented my “lecture” on his theory as a student I got invited into the “lecturers lounge” by a newly appointed lecturer, who was waiting outside the room in which I gave my presentation; he thought that because I was the one standing at the front of the class, I must’ve been employed by the university – embarrassed and not knowing how to act or what to say, I accepted his offer of coffee and for 45 minutes saw what went on behind the other side of “the veil” – people are people and the distinction between “professors” and “students” in academia isn’t that great a divide; something I’ve since had confirmed; everyone is fighting for validation. In this article I want to step back over 30-years and review how Gunner Myrdal’s theory of cumulative causation can help us better understand certain types of violence. I believe there is “value” – as well as potential dangers – when disciplines can intersect, and an idea from one, can be transferred, translated, and adopted by another; this unfortunately is somewhat rare in academia, as knowledge is often siloed, rather than “shared” etc. However, when an economist crosses over into sociology/psychology they can present a “new” perspective. Myrdal did this regarding the issue of race in the US. He also believed that because he wasn’t American, he was Swedish, that his position of an “outsider” gave him a different perspective as a commentator on this issue.       Without going into an explanation of cumulative causation as an economic phenomenon – as I will quickly get out of my depth – I’ll attempt to explain it as a social one, initially using it as an explanation and “solution” to racism, as Myrdal did in two books/volumes that he wrote in 1944, entitled, “An American Dilemma”. Myrdal accepted that stereotypes were born out of something, and that something was responsible for that “something” e.g., at the time of his writing (and unfortunately still today) there was a belief by some in the US, that African Americans were of a lower intelligence than White Americans. Whilst there is obviously no genetic or other truth to this belief, there had to be a “reason” why certain individuals believed this. Myrdal’s explanation was that because certain levels of education were restricted, for various reasons, for African Americans then they might as a demographic be relatively uneducated, and that this was perceived to be the result not of a “restriction” to education but that of racial intelligence etc. Myrdal’s solution to this perception was to remove the barriers to education that African Americans were experiencing and to raise – as a group – their educational levels/achievements and that this would address the racial stereotype, and by addressing this stereotype it would have a cumulative effect in addressing other stereotypes and misconceptions etc. He was attempting to use a theory that explained how “confidence” in economic marketplaces, had cumulative effects, which also applied to social perceptions.          Fear is a social perception that often breeds more fear i.e., it is cumulative. If we hold a fear of something, we will look to justify and reinforce it, by seeking other “fears” that seem to back it up. This is how moral panics, and “folk devils” are created e.g., if immigrants (I write this as an immigrant) are eating cats and dogs, they must be uncivilized, and if they’re uncivilized they must be unintelligent, and if they are unintelligent, they must be criminals, and if they’re criminals they must be violent etc. Myrdal’s idea/theory was to address one thing in this chain to effect all things. There is nothing worse than having unfounded fears; they cause us to worry unnecessarily, and they cause us to lose focus on the real and actual threats. I have spent my life – in various capacities – working on risk management and mitigation, and I have seen and experienced, “cumulative causation’ in action e.g., I have seen rises is the unwarranted fear of those with mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia being linked to violence, and then other things being linked to schizophrenia etc., until everyone who has schizophrenia is seen as a ticking time bomb etc. Whilst we may not be in a position to influence public policy and address societal problems and issues we should recognize how we reinforce our own fears/perceptions in a cumulative manner, and that this can move us away from effective risk/threat analysis and create vulnerabilities. In doing so we should recognize by evaluating one misperceived “fear” in the chain we can address them all.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=771 Mon, 17 Nov 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=770 I was bullied as a kid. That experience shaped me. For a large part of my childhood I didn’t believe I had the right to be who I was. I wasn’t allowed and didn’t allow myself to have an identity, and when I tried to have an identity, it wasn’t shaped internally but externally to meet the requirements of others. When I was finally able to understand and realize who I was/am that became something extremely precious to me. Something that needed to be protected and something I wasn’t going to allow anybody to take away from me. I came to the belief – which I still hold to – that any violence directed towards me is a challenge to who I am and my right to be who I am. This “right” to be who you are, without question, is at the core of what I teach. If who you are doesn’t cause hurt and pain to others, then nobody has the right to challenge that. Who you are shouldn’t be defined by your need to be “right” in every interaction you have e.g., there are times to stand up for who you are, and there are times to walk away etc. Being who you are shouldn’t be used as an excuse for being an arsehole, unless that is who you actually are. Who you are and your identity should be something much more. Something you actually value and see the worth in. Something that is internally rather than externally defined, and something that is worth defending when challenged. When confronting someone who is prepared to use physical violence against you, you are dealing with an individual who isn’t viewing you as a person but as an object or vehicle for them to use, in order to achieve their own means/ends.                   Many people are too apologetic about who they are, including some of their actions. I remember reading about a case where a sexual predator used to hang around supermarkets/grocery stores looking for people to victimize. He specifically looked for women who apologized when someone bumped their shopping cart into theirs i.e., who vocally took the blame for someone else’s infraction. His belief – and he was shown to be correct in this – was that those who did this were so averse to any confrontation that they’d avoid one by taking the blame/responsibility for something they hadn’t done. Once he’d witnessed such an interaction, he’d wait for the person in the parking lot and abduct them by simply telling them that they were coming with him etc. There is a big difference between being polite and courteous and signaling yourself out as a potential victim. Whilst we shouldn’t live our lives as if we are in a prison yard being watched by predatory individuals who are searching for someone to victimize, we should realize that there may be occasions when we are in an environment/location where there are predators who will pick up on certain actions and behaviors which may see them identify us as potential targets. As a general rule, we should apologize when we are wrong and not readily accept blame when we aren’t. That should be part of our identity. This doesn’t mean we need to establish ourselves as right when it’s not questioned; nobody likes that guy and we’re more likely to escalate situations that would otherwise be benign. Emotionally/physiologically, fear and anger are pretty much the same thing. It is how we interpret our emotional/physiological state that defines whether we are angry or fearful. This is the difference between “feelings” and “emotions”. How we interpret the same emotional/physiological state determines whether we are in fight or flight mode. If we “feel” scared we are in flight, if we “feel” angry/aggressive we are in fight mode. This means we have the potential to flip a cognitive switch and realize/understand that we have a choice and are in control of how we view a situation/confrontation. We can choose to see ourselves as fulfilling the submissive role or we can decide that the challenge to our identity is met with the full force of who we are i.e., with righteous anger. Righteous anger doesn’t have to manifest itself as an uncontrolled verbal and physical outburst. It can be displayed by simply enforcing a boundary, that if it were crossed would compromise who you are. Simply saying “no” to a request made of you, should not be seen as rejecting someone but rather as an establishment of who you are. Saying “no” isn’t being impolite or rude, it’s something that establishes your identity in the eyes of the other party. In any communication you make to someone there are three parts at play, a process that happens largely subconsciously: there is the message itself, your identity, and your belief about how the other person perceives you. Often when dealing with aggressive and/or challenging communication, the other person’s perception of you becomes overly important i.e., you don’t want to be seen in the way that they seem to perceive you. This can see us acquiesce to demands that we don’t want to meet, or possibly over-react to demands that have no challenge to who we are e.g., we may say “yes” to a demand/request we’re not comfortable with or enforce a boundary that isn’t actually being crossed or challenged etc. When we understand who we are and can put our identity back into our communication rather than over-react to what we believe other people’s perception of us is, we are able to communicate more effectively, as whilst we need to recognize how others see us, we make sure that this isn’t used to define us/who we are. If that communication involves a challenge to our identity then that is the time – appropriate to context – to respond with righteous anger and to have in your head the mantra of “not me”.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=770 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=769 In the early hours of Sunday morning, October 5th, (around 2 a.m.), a crowd of over 100 people gathered in the South End of Boston around Massachusetts Avenue and Tremont Street, blocking intersections, performing burnouts, donuts, and illegal racing, and attacking responding police vehicles with fireworks, traffic cones, and poles, with a police cruiser being set on fire in the chaos. In the same weekend similar incidents occurred in other Massachusetts cities including Fall River, Middleborough, Randolph, Dedham, and Brockton. In Fall River, police reported a crowd of roughly 200 people who blocked streets near Central Street, performing burnouts, and preventing ambulances from accessing the street. In Middleborough, around 50 vehicles converged in a commercial parking lot, with many vehicles displaying stolen license plates. At one point, a Dodge Charger with Connecticut plates attempted to ram/strike a law enforcement officer. In the Randolph gathering, participants were seen sitting on hoods of police vehicles, striking cruisers with objects, and setting off fireworks. There were also incidents in Hyde Park (Boston), with more than 100 vehicles trespassing on private property with one person being struck during vehicle stunts and having to be taken to hospital. In West Roxbury, police responded to reports of shots fired near a Home Depot, where there were over 100 people and vehicles, with participants lighting fireworks and obstructing police movement.                 The modern U.S. “takeover” culture began in Oakland, California, in the late 2010’s, growing from earlier sideshow street-racing traditions (“sideshows” differ from takeovers in that they are more organic and lack the organization of takeovers and are usually conducted in parking lots instead of streets that are blocked and taken over). By 2020–2022, takeovers had spread nationwide, fueled by social media and pandemic-era declines in traffic enforcement. Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago, and Dallas have all experienced large-scale incidents. Boston and other Massachusetts cities are simply some of the latest places to experience them. Takeovers, unlike sideshows, are coordinated online, often occurring simultaneously across multiple cities, and are designed to “take over” public intersections or highways rather than just parking lots. The modern takeover phenomenon is more likely to involve fireworks, vandalism, and/or assaults on responding police, as well as moving between multiple intersections in one night, and include cars with fake plates or stolen tags. They are also more likely to draw participants from outside the immediate community e.g., two men, Julian Bowers (18) and William Cantwell (19), both from Rhode Island, were arrested in connection with the South End (Boston) event on October 5th.                 Takeovers differ from traditional car meets or drag races in that they involve seizing public roads and intentionally shutting down traffic, often overwhelming police, ambulance and/or fire services until the group disperses. Participants may use vehicles to create barricades around the areas where stunts are performed whilst crowds stand dangerously close to spinning/performing doughnuts/drag-racing cars. Most of the cars used are privately owned rather than stolen. However, police occasionally find stolen “burner cars” e.g., vehicles used temporarily for stunts and later abandoned or torched to destroy evidence. These are more common among repeat offenders and gang-linked participants seeking anonymity. However, many are fake-plated, so as to evade citations or vehicle seizures. Many of the vehicles involved are highly modified sports cars, hatchbacks, or what are termed “drift vehicles”. These events are less about profit and more about visibility with young drivers competing for online/social media attention and dominance in a subculture that prizes risk.                 It is easy to trivialize such one-off events, such as vehicle takeovers as having no long-term risks regarding crime, however this is not the case. When takeovers occur repeatedly, in a locale, without swift consequence, they erode the perceived boundaries between entertainment and crime, leading to a normalization of lawlessness and disorder, within a community e.g., neighborhoods start to view illegal road obstruction, reckless driving, and assaults on police as “part of the weekend scene.”. This fosters a culture of tolerated illegality which is sometimes referred to as the “broken windows progression”, where visible disorder leads to more serious offending. In Los Angeles and Oakland, studies by local police task forces found that intersections repeatedly used for takeovers later became hotspots for robberies, drug sales, and vandalism, as offenders recognized the area’s weak law enforcement presence i.e., from a Routine Activity Theory perspective: a lack of capable guardians. Such events can also lead to criminal cross-pollination and the creation of secondary illegal markets. Those who attend such events who have no previous criminal connections may find themselves interacting with seasoned/experienced offenders who can introduce them to illegal drugs and firearms etc. Often attending performative criminal events see those who have no past history of offending mixing with those that do. In such a highly emotionally charged atmosphere, crime may appear an attractive and romantic activity. Whilst it is easy to recognize the “push” factors that motivate people to offend, it is likewise easy to forget the “pull” factors that draw people towards crime. As these networks overlap, takeovers can also function like pop-up criminal marketplaces: places where illicit goods and stolen vehicles circulate under the cover of noise and crowd anonymity.                 Alongside non-offending individuals interacting with experienced offenders there can also be spatial reputation and economic damage e.g., commercial corridors (for example, in Boston’s South End and LA’s Florence-Crenshaw district) gain reputations as places that are unsafe after dark, deterring customers and investment, with residents experiencing stress, property damage, and a declining trust in local government. This can also see businesses closing earlier or relocating, reducing foot traffic and natural surveillance which in turn reinforces crime concentration in these “dead zones.” Urban criminology refers to this as “reputational decline”: a state when/where visible disorder devalues property and drives away legitimate users of space, leaving it more vulnerable to crime and predation i.e., repeated vehicle takeovers can be the start of “there goes the neighborhood”, and this is another reason why they shouldn’t be looked on as one-off events. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=769 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=768 Obviously, the world we live in isn’t a completely safe place and will never be so. However, since the mid-1990’s crime, and violent crime have been steadily falling, albeit with some blips along the way, which begs the question of how relevant learning to protect yourself is and will be in the future, if the trend continues. This is more of a theoretical question, than an actual one, with the purpose of making us think about the ways in which martial arts and self-defense training (including Krav Maga) maintain a relevance, when people – rightly or wrongly – don’t see dealing with violence itself as particularly pertinent to their lives, especially when the focus of most self-defense programs concerns violence that is committed by strangers in public spaces, with few programs dealing with that which occurs behind closed doors, involving friends and family members etc. Various pieces of research show that the US population is spending more time at home than ever before (results show that from 2003 to 2022, average time spent at home among American adults has risen by one hour and 39 minutes in a typical day – Sharkey, P.: 2024), with just 30 percent of Americans spending time socializing and communicating in person on an average day, down 38% from 2014 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics). The rapid increase in the crime rate in the postwar period, until the mid-90’s was the result of lifestyle changes e.g., people had more disposable income that allowed them to engage in leisure activities outside of the home, which put them at a higher risk from violence by strangers in public spaces. If this is changing, then “traditional” self-defense programs that focus on such violent incidents will become less relevant and applicable to the population at large – especially to younger generations who have only ever experienced this stay-at-home culture. Those of us who are older may argue that not thinking about how to protect yourself is naïve, however if you are young and haven’t really seen or experienced physical violence, then your experience tells you that it is not part of your reality, and something that you don’t need to be concerned about. There will be those instructors who teach kids and teens, who will talk about the values that martial arts training instills in people e.g., discipline, humility, courage etc. and I am someone who benefited, as a kid, from the promotion of such values. However, I have heard from several instructors that the old style of teaching e.g., “Yes Sensei! No Sensei!” etc., is being seen by many kids as corny and laughable i.e., not relatable. We can argue all we want that it is this type of training and discipline etc., that kids today “need” but if we can’t find a way to make it relevant to them, we will lose that audience and the message will never be heard. If the lives of many kids today are relatively safe from a physical perspective, and the way we communicate with them isn’t particularly effective, the old-school martial arts programs – that I grew up in – may be in danger of being seen as irrelevant. At the moment there are many adults, of the previous generation, who see the relevance of physical martial arts training, because they remember higher crime rates etc. However, when this younger generation become parents, they may not have a similar reference point and not see the benefits of martial arts and self-defense training in the same way. So, what relevance will self-defense training (which focuses on stranger violence in public spaces) have in the future? I believe Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (a psychological theory, though not an empirically researched one) that organizes human motivation into a five-level pyramid, can help explain why personal safety training will always be relevant. It suggests that people are driven to satisfy basic needs first, and only then move on to higher-level ones e.g., until they have met and satisfied their need for shelter and water etc., they won’t address potential health issues/needs, and until they are met they won’t seek out love and belonging, and only after this has been met can they address their needs for self-respect and recognition etc., and only when these needs have been met can they think about self-actualization e.g., fulfilling their potential etc. Whilst, I don’t think all human needs can be neatly stacked like this, the general point that the pyramid makes is that until basic needs are met, we will spend our effort trying to address these before moving on to higher needs etc. I often think that the pyramid would be better represented as a jigsaw, that potentially has missing pieces/needs that need to be filled, and is somewhat flatter than a hierarchical pyramid e.g., I believe that we can crave belonging and look to fulfill that need as we look to fulfill our physiological and survival needs etc. One does not have to come before the other, i.e., we can look to fulfill/meet these three needs at the same time.  I also believe that ideas/concepts such as “security” can have somewhat different meanings to different people. For me, even though I live in a relatively “safe” society and lead a lifestyle that is devoid of many of the things that would put me at risk, simply by getting older, I still want to know how and be able to physically defend myself. Whilst the relatively safe environment that I live in means that from a practical safety perspective my security needs are met (which is a good thing), knowing how to physically defend myself meets what I believe is a primordial, basic human need for security. Without having it there would be something “missing”, and I believe many people have a certain anxiety when they think about having to potentially defend themselves, and that this anxiety can feed into others. Unlike many other species, we don’t naturally know how to fight, because physically we aren’t equipped with any natural tools, such as horns, sharp claws, or powerful teeth that allow us to do so. We have to learn how to do so; we don’t even know how to make a proper fist etc. I believe it is by meeting this internal survival need by knowing/learning how to physically fight/defend ourselves that we don’t have lose a missing piece of the jigsaw, which makes us complete.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=768 Mon, 27 Oct 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=767 One of the unintended consequences of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly known as the 1994 Crime Bill, was that it drastically altered the demographics of certain communities. One of its provisions was that it mandated life sentences for offenders convicted of a third felony, even if the third offense was nonviolent, which disproportionately affected Black and Latino men, who were more likely to have prior convictions for a number of reasons, including systemic policing disparities – this is not to say that law enforcement officers are racist but rather to acknowledge that the criminal justice system, by evolution and for a number of reasons, tends to favor, white middle class people; especially those with resources. The 1994 Crime Bill didn’t just end up swelling prison populations, it deeply reshaped Black communities. By intensifying incarceration rates among Black men, it also destabilized families and deprived many children of father figures. Research from sociology, psychology, and criminology shows that the absence of a father figure, especially in contexts where other supportive adult male role models are also lacking can have measurable effects on children’s development. Whilst these effects are not inevitable (many children without fathers thrive), statistical patterns across large populations show some consistent trends e.g., children without an involved father are more likely to show behavioral problems, including aggression and rule-breaking (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Lamb, 2010), and boys, in particular, appear at greater risk for early criminal involvement when raised without consistent male role models – even when those role models are persistent offenders; most don’t want their children to “inherit” their lifestyle.                 When male authority figures are “removed” from society for whatever reason, changes in social structure and behavior occur. One that has been noted in Glasgow is young male teenagers talking in a higher-pitched voice. One of the reasons – and there are many – is that more children/teenagers – are growing up in households that are predominantly female i.e., the father is absent (has either left or is incarcerated), and the child teenager is being brought up by the mother, aunts and/or grandmothers etc. This means that teenage men are learning to speak and replicate speech by listening/interacting with women, which has led them to start speaking in a higher octave. As well as “learning” to speak differently, due to the absence of men in their life, teenage boys have sought other sources as to learn how to be a “man” – a vacuum that has been filled by the “Manosphere”. Something that has become so influential that even teenage men who have male authority figures in their lives are turning to it for an education in what it is to be a man e.g., they see the real men in their life as being ill-informed and irrelevant and instead look to influencers and seemingly “successful” online men to be their guides and role models etc. Whilst there may be individuals within this crowd who are trying to present a positive image of masculinity, which includes a respect for women etc., this vacuum has largely been filled and exploited by those who are toxic and preach a message of successful and unsuccessful men, usually within an evolutionary sexual context i.e., there are those who get to procreate i.e., have sex, and those who don’t. I have written before about some of the “effects” of incel culture, and how it has grown/developed etc., but I realize I’ve never explained the fundamental concepts and ideas behind it. This article looks to address this, and explain the foundations of the manosphere, because for me it represents a very real and dangerous challenge to our society – and I don’t believe I’m catastrophizing by saying this. The film “the Matrix” has punched well above its weight as a social/culture phenomenon, and I don’t believe anybody involved with its production thought/realized the long-term impact it would have. It’s something that is almost so unbelievable that it’s easy to ignore and/or dismiss – especially from an academic/scientific perspective i.e., nobody is stupid enough to take their value/belief system from a movie etc. However, many have, and whilst they may have misinterpreted and/or re-invented ideas from this movie franchise, many, many young people have adopted a viewpoint concerning masculine identity and sexuality based on ideas presented in the Matrix. Even as I write this, I acknowledge how ridiculous this may seem, and at times – as a middle-aged man - I have difficulty believing that a fictional universe would provide the values and reality for people living in the real-world however this is something that is much more pervasive amongst young people than older “rational” minds might want to believe.    The Manosphere acts as a decentralized network of websites and forums that attracts under-fathered (the term under-fathered applies to those who lack, for whatever reason, a male figure they look up to/aspire to be) boys, who want to discuss, debate and formulate what it means to be a “man”. In the film The Matrix, the main character takes a red pill that allows him to understand the dark realities of what it is to live inside the Matrix. When you take the figurative red pill within the Manosphere, you “learn” the dark truth about women and their sexual desires i.e., those who are “nice guys” will experience heartbreak and failure, because when it actually comes down to it women prefer “bad boys.” Whilst there are women that genuinely crave the attention of those “bad boys”, for many (like their male counter-parts), it is often temporary; constant thrills, excitement and uncertainty quickly become exhausting. However, the Manosphere builds on this suggesting that it isn’t just individual women who are attracted to such men but rather that men only try to play the nice guy role because they’ve been manipulated into doing so by their feminist mothers/culture i.e., the “system”. When they take the “red pill” they become aware of this and are empowered to act. Those who don’t take the red pill, continue to take the “blue pill” and continue to be exploited by the system and those who created it i.e., they remain betas not alphas; and like all good conspiracy theories, whether it’s about the manosphere or the fact is that the earth is flat, it soon comes back to the Jews; apparently I’m not content to be running a Krav Maga school in Boston, I want to bring down governments and adversely affect exchange rates (but of course that’s what you’re “meant” to believe). There are reasons we have got here, where young men, are believing that they have taken the red pill, and now understand how everything works. Some are looking to the Andrew Tate’s of this world for guidance and are spreading an entitled misogyny, that sees them exploiting women for their own personal gain etc., others are looking to these same influencers and concluding that the odds are stacked against them – INCELs - and are engaging in violence, including sexual violence, against women. The solution to this is not the elimination/reduction in masculinity but a redirection towards what being a man should be, and at the top of that list is a respect for women – which if adopted would see a quantum reduction in overall violence.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=767 Mon, 20 Oct 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=766 Violence, personal safety and security are all contextual, which is why a rules-based approach to violence prevention doesn’t work e.g., there may be a time when your safest option is to walk down a dark alley – to avoid a potential threat in front of you - even though every top ten list of safety tips says that you shouldn’t do this. This is why personal safety should be taught as a “mindset” rather than a list of “do’s” and “don’ts” etc. Unfortunately, many instructors lack both the experience and knowledge to do this and present a reductionist approach to personal safety which when distilled down is basically a list of safety tips that they believe are universal. Often these “tips” are re-workings of practices security professionals engage in, and those giving the advice may not understand that these are contextual and, in some cases, not particularly relevant to the audience they are presenting/talking to. This purpose of this article is to illustrate the importance of developing a security/safety mindset, due to the contextual nature of violence, rather than blindly following a set of rules, however logical they may seem.                 One of the common misconceptions people have about those who work or have worked in security is that we’re always “on” e.g., that we’re perpetually checking our six, actively checking people out, walking with our heads on a swivel etc. When the situation demands such things, yes, but experienced security personnel recognize that this isn’t always necessary e.g., when I leave work to go to the grocery store it isn’t an overly planned, military-style operation etc., I don’t bother varying my route each time, and I’m not circling the rotary three times to check if anyone is following me. However, I do know the layout of the streets in my locale and know several different routes to get there that don’t rely on my GPS. I also know the location of various police stations and hospitals in my vicinity and neighborhood, and don’t need my GPS to find them. When I moved my offices and studio to our new location, I spent some time on Google Maps, getting the “lay of the land”, something I periodically do. I don’t – nor do I want to do – live my life as if I’m the central character in the Bourne Supremacy, and it would be disingenuous to suggest to those I teach and train that they should be living a highly-stressed life believing that everyone is out to get them.                 Neither do I – or any security professionals I know – insist, when they go to restaurants that they must be seated in a position which gives them “optimal visibility” of anyone entering, leaving or even simply moving in the establishment etc. If you are worrying about an assassination attempt on your life, restaurants and similar businesses are places you want to avoid, unless you have a security detail who are looking out for you 24/7 etc. If this is a concern of yours there are probably lifestyle choices you should have changed awhile back, and moving to another part of the country is likely to be top of your list in terms of improving and ensuring your safety. When I first started carrying out surveillance duties, the most important lesson I learnt was to blend in. Those working anti and counter surveillance are looking out for those engaged in such activities, e.g., if you “always” position yourself to have full view of everything going on, then you start to stand out. If you never appear “vulnerable” you start to stand out. So, the idea that people who work professionally always do certain things is somewhat erroneous. If I go to a place where I feel the need to keep my eyes on the door, I’ll leave, i.e., what kind of idiot stays in a location, possibly with their family, where they feel the need to do that? This idea of people being “sheepdogs” protecting others seems to have led some to believe that they should be guardians in dangerous places, rather than leaving them – and possibly taking the “sheep” who are with them along as well.                 This paranoid attitude of always needing to have “eyes” on everything means that there is an over-reliance on one sense. A lot of violence involves sound, such as shouting and raised voices, rather than stealth. Stealth attacks are the ones that we fear the most, as they come with no warning, however these are statistically rare/uncommon. Most aggression and violence is “loud”, and we may even hear it before we see it. Our startle reflex, which initiates our fear system and causes us to become adrenalized, is triggered by noise as well as movement, suggesting that we should be aware of the noise/sounds in our environment as well as what we are able to see. Whilst our eyes need to be pointed in the direction of whatever it is that may interest us, our ears don’t, and in some ways may be better able to pick up threats and dangers that are around us.                 When I was first taught tactical driving, airbags in cars weren’t common. It was only around the late 1990’s and early 2000’s that legislation started to be passed requiring new cars to have them. From a driving perspective airbags are phenomenal safety devices, however from a close/executive protection one they have their downsides e.g., if you need to ram a car that’s blocking you in you don’t want the airbag to go off when you do so. For this reason, you “disable” it. Would I advise any civilian to do this? Absolutely not. The airbag is far more likely to be useful in a crash, potentially saving your life, than being a hindrance in an extremely unlikely ambush/car-jacking scenario – if you are living in South Africa where these types of crimes are more common then may be it is a consideration, however if you’re a middle class person living in Massachusetts/New England, being involved in a car crash is far more likely. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t “tactical driving” skills that are beneficial for civilians e.g., learning to steer without crossing the hands/arms is beneficial as is keeping your thumbs on the outside of the wheel (prevents them getting broken in a crash), however personal safety and security need to be relevant to a person’s lifestyle, and this doesn’t mean that everything the professionals do is applicable. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=766 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=765 Often when I’m teaching a women’s self-defense seminar or a corporate personal safety event, I’ll be asked if women are more likely to be the targets of crime than men. With certain types of crimes such as rape and sexual assault, women are more likely to be targeted than men, but generally, men are more likely to be both the perpetrators and the victims of violent offenses. However, there is one group/demographic that is generally at a greater risk of crime and being exploited, and that is the aged. Older adults are perceived by many predators to lack the ability to defend themselves against physical attacks due to age-related decline in strength, mobility, and coordination. As a result, they may be more likely to become victims of robberies, burglaries, and/or other violent crimes. Whilst they may lead lifestyles, that are less risky than younger people – older people are more likely to be at home after dark than out in public space etc. – older members of society are at a much higher risk of being victims of fraud, and whilst predatory individuals may not understand the reasons behind this, they recognize a vulnerable population when they see one. In this article I want to look at why older people are more vulnerable to being exploited by fraudsters and how we can educate older people to be better able to defend themselves from such scams etc.                 As we get older, we start to give precedence to “unreliable” facial cues (facial trustworthiness) over other more relevant behavioral information (behavioral evaluation) when judging a person’s trustworthiness, increasing the risks that we believe what someone is saying/presenting to us and so fall victim to fraud. This is due to several psychological, neurological, and social factors. As we age, our cognitive processing speed tends to slow down, which affects how quickly we can interpret and assess social cues, including those related to facial expressions. As we get older, we may have more difficulty interpreting subtle social signals from facial expressions, leading to misjudgments in terms of trustworthiness i.e., changes in facial expressions – when in certain contexts – that are associated with deception that we would have once picked up on go unnoticed. Also, the amygdala, a brain region that processes emotions (including fear), tends to change with age. It can become less responsive to social stimuli, reducing our emotional empathy, making it harder to gauge whether someone is trustworthy based on their facial expressions, which can lead to less accurate evaluations concerning a person’s trustworthiness.                 As we age, we tend to rely more on heuristics (mental shortcuts or rules of thumb) and past experiences in order for us to make quick decisions and evaluations. This means that we may be more inclined to use previous experiences or even “stereotypes” to judge a person’s trustworthiness, rather than carefully analyzing the current situation we are in e.g., as we get older we might be more likely to make generalizations based on familiar traits that we associate with trustworthiness, even if the person in front of us isn’t exhibiting/displaying those exact traits. This even affects people who have experience dealing with detecting deception, e.g., those working in law enforcement get worse at detecting deception as they get older even though they have gained more experience doing so. This can be exacerbated by changes in societal norms around communication. What may once have been a sign of trustworthiness, such as certain facial expressions or body language, may have evolved and changed, making older people less attuned to modern social cues. This gap can lead to misunderstandings in judging trustworthiness. As people get older their social cognition declines, so an older officer might also experience difficulty in processing multiple social cues at once, such as facial expression, tone of voice, and body posture, which are essential for reading a suspect’s emotional state or intent. In high-stakes environments, such as interrogations and/or traffic stops; missing or misinterpreting these cues could result in poor evaluations and decision making. However, a 2026 study suggests that older people’s preference and reliance on facial trustworthiness compared to behavioral evaluation resulted from a reduced utilization of behavioral evaluation rather than an increased reliance on facial cues i.e., automatic processing of facial information doesn’t change with aging though behavioral evaluation does. This means that older people need to hone, develop and work on their skills concerning behavioral evaluation, and this is possible, and a large part of this is understanding the contexts within which untrustworthy/deceptive practices occur. Whilst I am generally against a rules-based approach to personal safety, it appears that as we age, using rules to educate ourselves can be useful e.g., while we shouldn’t rely on them to make a decision they can be useful to develop our ability to judge trustworthiness and identify deception. If individuals – of any age - can learn the “rule” that those engaged in deception try to rush/pressure people to make quick decisions, then they can learn to recognize when this is happening to them etc. Whilst saying this, older people do take longer to learn these things than younger people, illustrating the importance of learning and developing these skills early in life.         An early education into detecting deception is always best, however research has shown that it is possible to teach old dogs, new tricks. However, to do so older people need to recognize that some of the skills, knowledge and abilities that they once had as a young person have somewhat diminished. To learn more about detecting deception and recognizing untrustworthiness click here. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=765 Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=764 There is a saying that “good” is the enemy of “best”, which is probably a paraphrase and re-working of an older proverb most famously phrased by Voltaire - “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien” i.e., “The best is the enemy of the good”. Whilst the first statement argues that being satisfied by something being “good enough”, prevents people from striving to achieve something that could be better, Voltaire’s statement is a  warning against perfectionism. Insisting on the “best” (or endlessly improving) can prevent people from delivering something that is “good enough”  to be useful and applicable. These two opposing ideas though when combined contain a truth i.e., there are times when you should not be satisfied with “good enough”, and times when good enough, is in fact good enough, and not a time when something “better” should be attempted. It is understanding when and in which situations these two different concepts should be applied that can enable us to be effective.                 There is rarely – I hesitate to use the word “never” – a perfect solution to violence. To search for one is waste of time, which gives an unaffordable advantage to the other party(s) involved. I remember being involved in an active shooter training where a group of us were placed in a room when an alert went off that there was an “active shooter” in the building. The goal was for us, as a team, to barricade the room to prevent anyone accessing it. There were two doors. When the alarm went off, myself and another team member immediately started to block the door nearest to us, assuming incorrectly that the other two people with us would be doing the same to the other door, nearest to them. As we were in mid-task piling things up against the door, the shooter burst in from the other door and peppered us with airsoft pellets. It turned out that the two other members had got caught up in a debate/discussion as to the best way to block the door, one arguing that a filing cabinet would make a more substantial barrier than a table, which ironically the other person argued would be quicker and easier to deploy. In this case Voltaire’s idea that “the best is the enemy of good” manifested itself clearly. The time to debate the merits of a heavy filing cabinet versus a table should have been thought about before the incident not during it. If the more portable table would have slowed down the shooter’s entry, allowing for more substantial items to have been added to the barricade as time permitted then the “effective”/good enough solution should have been enacted.                 Unfortunately, as studies have shown, a lot of perfectionism is driven not internally but externally, i.e., how our actions and behaviors are perceived by others. In many, many cases perfectionism is driven due to the perceptions of others. As a species we are inherently lazy. It’s one of the traits that has made us the dominant species on the planet. A dog would never invent the car. It enjoys running for the sake of running. Our sense of laziness coupled with a curiosity about the world, that most species lack, caused us to create machines that could carry us over long distances with little effort expended on our part. As a species our inherent goal is to expend as little effort on a task as possible. However, when we put in a social factor, that changes. When we, consciously or unconsciously, seek the approval and recognition of others; we end up seeking perfection to avoid judgment. This sees us put an extra effort into the things we do as we try to be perfect. In most cases this is something that is positive and causes productive “competition” that benefits everyone, however when it comes to survival it can be detrimental.                 I have written before about how children – overall - have a better chance of surviving in a wilderness disaster than an adult e.g., a child lost in the woods is more likely to survive than an adult. Adults have difficulty admitting they are lost. It’s something that shouldn’t occur and signals that they have lost control of what is happening to them. Such things shouldn’t happen in a perfect world. This often causes adults to panic and run towards whatever is over the horizon, rather than simply accept that they are lost. Young children, however, don’t feel this type of judgment and accept their situation. When they’re tired they rest, when they’re hungry they eat, when they’re thirsty they drink etc. All of these things improve their survival chances. They aren’t driven by social judgment and perfection, they simply do what is necessary.                 When I first started working in door security, coming from a competitive Judo background, I erroneously and naively believed that I would easily be able to replicate my success on the mats and in competition to real-life violence. It’s actually the main reason why I put myself forward to do door security; I thought it would be easy money – and as a poor student I was always looking for easy money. As a Judoka I trained for perfection, and the rules of competition were set up to encourage that i.e., the rules were designed – as with any combat sport - to demonstrate the beauty of the art. However, when it came to dealing with real-life violence, “good enough”, was usually all you could hope for. Striving for “best”/perfection was a waste of time. The chaos and mayhem of real-life violence coupled with the environments in which it is/was experienced meant that the idea/concept of perfectionism was a hindrance rather than an asset. I remember an occasion where I had a very hard time controlling an unruly punter and after a lot of effort managed to throw him and then control him on the ground. After he was eventually thrown out and I returned exhausted to my position, working with a more experienced doorman who had witnessed the confrontation, he turned to me and said, “Why didn’t you just poke him in the eye when you had the chance?” For me, throwing was the perfect answer to violence, when really and in all honesty, poking him in the eye would have been good enough.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=764 Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=763 In 1995 a small-time crook name McArthur Wheeler, with an accomplice, robbed two banks having sprayed his face with lemon juice believing it would make him invisible to security cameras; just as lemon juice could be used as “invisible ink” on paper, he believed that the same thing would happen on a CCTV tape. He was so confident in his belief that he deliberately looked up at a security camera and smiled. His reasoning came from the fact that lemon juice can be used as invisible ink, only becoming visible when exposed to heat. He mistakenly assumed the same idea/principle applied to surveillance footage. When he was arrested just a few hours after the robberies, Wheeler was astounded that he’d been identified, as he believed he’d been effectively invisible – due to the lemon juice - when he committed his offenses. This case caught the attention of two psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. They were intrigued that Wheeler had complete and absolute confidence in his flawed logic, and it was this strange “contradiction” that became the foundation for their research into cognitive biases. In 1999, they published their study on what is now called the Dunning-Kruger effect: a psychological phenomenon where people with limited knowledge or skill greatly overestimate their understanding and competence in a subject. The Dunning-Kruger effect demonstrates that ignorance doesn’t simply manifest itself as the absence of understanding concerning a subject, but that it can also create a misplaced understanding of it i.e., the less someone knows about something the more certain they are concerning it.                 In my thirty-plus years teaching personal safety and self-defense there is one constant that I have experienced, with members of a certain demographic/population (and they’re not easily identifiable before you start talking about violence and personal safety), and that is they believe they understand violence. I understand 100% why people want to believe that they understand threats, violence and personal safety etc. To admit that you don’t is scary both on a personal, and at a societal, level. It is far simpler to believe that your greatest danger comes from someone who is mentally ill (in the US 60% of people believe those with schizophrenia are likely to be violent) – a person you are unlikely to interact with – than a family member or friend etc., who you interact and deal with on a daily or weekly basis. If all mental illnesses – not personality disorders – could be cured/eliminated, it is estimated that all serious violent crime, including active killer events/incidents, would only drop by about 4% i.e., 96% of all violent crimes are committed by offenders who are not judged mentally ill (Swanson et al., 2015). I have lost count of the number of conversations where people have insisted that I don’t understand the extent and seriousness of mental illness and its relationship to violence; no information, data provided to back up such arguments/ideas but an insistence that those who are mentally ill are a danger/threat to people’s personal safety. Most people don’t want to educate themselves concerning the realities of violence, which is understandable. It is rarely rewarding to look at the worst side of our species – which includes ourselves – and consider the things we are capable of. However, our denial/discounting and possible re-working of reality should not be seen as an educational positive i.e., substituting ignorance for an “opinion” is rarely beneficial. We should also understand that we are species who values “stories” over “facts”. This is why we are so susceptible to infomercials; we are more likely to believe in a personal account/story than actual facts and data e.g., if we hear an account of “someone” who lost 35 pounds taking a diet pill supplement, that will resonate more with us than a statistic that says 13% of people who took this pill lost weight etc. This isn’t because we are inherently “stupid” but because stories – whether true or not true, factually reliable/unreliable etc., – are how we pass down/communicate information to others. This means that “one” person’s story/account can overly inform us to a degree that it shouldn’t i.e., we can become utterly convinced that something is “true” based on very limited knowledge. We may think that we are more clever and intelligent than the guy who believed that he could make himself invisible by spraying lemon juice on his face, but we suffer from the same biases – that is who we are as a species, and we should have the intelligence to accept this, especially when the stakes are potentially high. One of our default responses/reactions to a threat/danger, is to discount/deny it. This phenomenon has been seen time and time again during natural and human-made disasters e.g., people not leaving a burning building, exiting a crashed plane, refusing to leave a house that is about to be flooded etc. These are incidents which naturally involve us having limited information of them, but which can quickly see us become “experts” in them, believing that we are “right” whilst basing our opinion(s) on restricted/limited information. Whilst we may laugh at McArthur Wheeler being so convinced at his ability to be “invisible” when he had the time to research whether this belief was valid or not, we should recognize how we can quickly convince ourselves of something in the moment e.g., that the plane which has crashed into our building doesn’t mean that e should evacuate it etc. On 9/11, when the second plane hit the second tower, the average evacuation time, before people started leaving their desks was 6 minutes 47 seconds. It may seem inconceivable, in retrospect that people wouldn’t leave their desks immediately and some not at all etc., however there were those who became experts in the moment (not because of arrogance but because they fell prey to inherent cognitive biases), concerning their situation and may have believed that they understood the situation better than others around them.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=763 Mon, 22 Sep 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=762 Many people are aware of the “Invisible Gorilla” experiment (Simons & Chabris, 1999). The experiment involved individuals watching a video of people playing basketball having been given the task of counting the number of passes. In the middle of the video, a man dressed in a gorilla suit walks on to the center of the screen, beats his chest, and walks of again. About half of those watching the video failed to notice the person in the gorilla suit. The experiment was an update on what Ulric Neisser referred to as “selective looking”. This idea was based on his studies and research from the 1970s, which showed that when people attend to one dynamic event they can miss another, even when it’s in plain view. Neisser and Becklen (who worked with Neisser regarding this) used similar superimposed films (e.g., ball tosses overlaid on other actions) to test their hypothesis; an earlier but related variant, to the person in a gorilla suit, featured a “woman with an umbrella” walking through a scene, which many observers failed to notice. This phenomenon of what is now referred to as inattentional blindness is well understood and many safety systems have safeguards around it e.g., when your luggage is scanned at an airport, every so often, a weapon is superimposed on it, to check if the person scanning it has picked it up. Inattentional blindness means that we can miss important and relevant things when we are focusing on something else.                 Many airline pilots, when training in a flight simulator, won’t notice that a plane is parked on the runway, where they are intending to land. They are so involved in the process of landing the plane that they don’t pick up on the fact that they are going to crash into something. Our species is task-orientated, which in most instances is a good thing. We focus on what we are doing without distractions. This allows us to be productive and accomplish the tasks that we set ourselves out to do. However, it also means that we may not pick up on things which are relevant to our safety etc., such as crashing into another plane. This presents us with a challenge. How do we train situational awareness? Often when there is a serial criminal operating in our locale, local police/law enforcement will inform people that they need to be more vigilant and more aware. In fairness, there is little more advice they can give. However, it is flawed in two basic regards: they don’t say which actions and behaviors should you be looking out for, and if you’re looking out for very specific behaviors you may fail to pick up on/identify others, which indicate a person’s harmful intent towards you.                 Often, when people talk about situational awareness they will give examples e.g., a person in a heavy winter coat on a hot day is out of place and should be considered a potential safety threat etc. Unfortunately, many people take this example as a “rule” and believe they should be on the look out for people in winter coats on a hot summer’s day etc. This could include harmless, homeless people who have to keep their belongings with them regardless of the weather. However, if you are always looking for people in winter coats etc., there is a very good chance that you won’t pick up on someone’s other actions/behaviors that signal that they may be a threat etc. From a personal perspective some of the worst advice concerning situational awareness I’ve received has come from highly trained and experienced operatives working in the security industry. They fully understand what situational awareness is and are extremely aware individuals who can identify a threat at the earliest signs/point, but lack the ability to articulate how and why they are able to do this e.g., they are reduced to explaining things as “rules”; if you see a person in a winter coat on a summer’s day, you should be suspicious etc., without realizing that this can lead to inattentional blindness; looking for the things that they later realized – after the event - identified a potential threat/danger.                 Situational awareness, that avoids inattentional blindness, is not about following rules. The reason that people failed to see the person in a gorilla suit or the woman with an umbrella etc., is because they were tasked with looking for something else e.g., counting the number of passes in a  basketball game etc. Situational awareness is developed through being in the moment and being curious. I will often, during my working day, look out of my office windows, and ask myself what people outside my building are doing. None of them are engaged in criminal activities. Some are getting things out of their cars, some are engaged in conversations on their phones, some are jogging by during their lunch hour etc. I’m not looking for a specific activity, I’m looking at all activities. Sometimes I see things which don’t fit in with these normal, everyday activities, and my curiosity becomes piqued – in almost all cases this results in no further action. I engage in this not because I’m actively looking to identify criminal behavior, but to train my curiosity. It also helps me establish a “baseline” of what normal behavior looks like around my office and gym/studio.                 Until you know and understand what “normal” looks like, you won’t be able to identify the “abnormal” i.e., those things which are inconsistent, within an environment. At the 1950 Monaco Grand Prix, one of the drivers Fangio noticed spectators at the Tabac Corner looking away down the track (not at the leading cars, as was the norm), read it as a danger cue, braked hard, and avoided the huge pile-up around the corner, which is what everyone was looking at. In a photo, taken at the time – in black and white - it can be seen that Fangio would have seen the backs of people’s heads, rather than the “white” of their faces. Fangio hadn’t trained himself to look for this particular warning sign, but in the moment recognized it as something out of place, and possibly – correctly - indicating a danger; even though he didn’t know exactly what the significance of it was. Situational awareness is about being in the moment and responding to events, rather than looking for specific things which could result in inattentional blindness.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=762 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=761 This is not a political post, in that I believe the things I want to talk about are applicable to all those who engage in any form of mass protests/demonstrations regardless of their political persuasion. I’m a believer in mass demonstrations for forcing political and regime changes e.g., it was mass rallies, demonstrations and peaceful protests that were largely responsible for bringing down the Berlin Wall in 1989, and for getting the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and Gandhi, showed/demonstrated how peaceful, non-violent protest could be used to gain national independence etc. Peaceful protesting can achieve great things, however when things turn violent, the audience that was being courted can lose the sympathy that they had for the cause/issue, or find themselves in a difficult position of supporting the issue whilst having to condemn those who engaged in violent and destructive acts, even when this may be a small minority of protesters etc. The aim of this article is to look at ways of staying safe when protesting, and how to disengage safely if things do turn violent.                 The first point I’d make concerning safety is to think about how you are dressed and how law enforcement might perceive you. You don’t need to be wearing your “Sunday Best” etc., but at the same time you don’t want to be dressed in a way that could mark you out as a potential “rioter” e.g., lose the hoodie or any other types of clothing that could be used to obscure/hide your identity. The more “respectable” you look, the less likely you are to be marked out as a troublemaker. British football hooligans worked this out in the 1970’s and 1980’s i.e., they stopped wearing team shirts and anything else that made them stand out as a supporter, and started to wear designer clothing – this way they weren’t as identifiable to law enforcement etc. Eventually, this “casual” look as it came to be known became its own “uniform”, however it offered a better chance for those involved in these acts of violence to blend in with ordinary people. The more “respectable” you look, the less attention you will draw to yourself as an individual.                 Don’t stay too long and certainly don’t protest after dark. This may mean that you are selective about the protests and demonstrations you attend. When peaceful protests turn violent it is usually not at the start of them. Violence can result from a combination of things such as frustration at the way the event is being policed and/or agitators creating moments when law enforcement feel the need to respond physically etc. Both of these types of situations usually take some time to manifest themselves; people don’t immediately get frustrated, and those looking to hijack a peaceful protest and turn it violent understand that the majority of people attending aren’t going to initially be receptive to becoming violent; those looking to cause trouble will usually exploit many small grievances and frustrations a crowd is seeing/feeling, and this takes time. There is a difference between attending a nighttime candlelight vigil, and a demonstration that goes on into the night. The people who attend a demonstration that starts in the day and extends into the night i.e., give up a lot of their time to it, tend to be the more “hardcore” believers concerning whatever is being protested. This doesn’t make them inherently violent, just more committed, and those who are looking to agitate and instigate violence can exploit this. Also, when it’s dark it becomes much harder for law enforcement to identify who the troublemakers are and those who are looking to exit the scene; the better dressed you are, and the more polite you are to law enforcement, the less likely you are to be contained in a volatile crowd.                 Be aware that certain groups try to hijack protests and demonstrations for their own ends and to highlight the causes they believe in. When a crowd is made up of several differing factions competing for their cause, rather than the one that the organizers of the demonstration intended/planned for, then this “competition” can cause these groups to engage in more extreme forms of demonstration in order to make sure that their voice/issue is heard. If it feels like the original point of the demonstration has been lost to such factions it is probably a good time to leave/exit, as there is a danger that the protest/demonstration will be hijacked, and the original group who planned and organized the event will lose control of it. Whilst you may have sympathy for the different causes these groups are promoting, if it seems that their voice is becoming louder than the intended one then there is a danger that control will slip from the organizers. This doesn’t necessarily mean that those groups intend to act violently, just that nobody is now in control of the demonstration, which is something that more extreme actors/individuals can exploit.                 Take food and water. If law enforcement do contain the crowd you are in, for whatever reason – including your own safety – you might be there for awhile. That’s just how containment works. It’s always good to look at the route and/or geography that a march may take or a demonstration takes place in, because the decision to leave and exit may need to be made at a moment’s notice; there may be no time to check google maps etc. Having an understanding of which side streets lead where etc., is always a good idea, as is staying on the peripheries of the crowd so that it is easier to exit – one exception to this is, if things do kick off, don’t be next to shop windows, as these can sometimes become “brick magnets”.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=761 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=760 I’ve only ever met one person with a “genuine” wooden leg, and no they weren’t a pirate. It was somebody who had been the target of a contract killing that they’d thwarted/stopped. In the process of fighting for their life a shotgun, their attacker was using, had ripped into their lower right leg requiring it to be amputated below the knee. Rather than using a medical prosthetic leg, they’d had a friend make a wooden one that they proudly wore – sometimes with cut-off jeans – as a badge of honor. I’d not really thought much about this encounter till someone asked me about Glasgow gang culture. Whilst Glasgow has about the same number of identifiable gangs (around 730) as London, it’s a city that is significantly smaller i.e., as of 2021 Glasgow had a population of 635,130 whereas London had a population of nearly 9 million (2022). So, it can be seen that gang culture is much more prevalent and intertwined in city life in Glasgow than it is in London. Whilst many of the gangs are loosely based around geographic areas, there are some which are somewhat more organized, and involved in the city’s drug trade/market, money laundering and protection rackets etc. One of these gangsters/gang leaders was Frank McPhee, known locally as “the Iceman”, who was assassinated by a contract killer/hitman in 2000, outside his home in Maryhill, Glasgow – just 500 yards/meters from Maryhill Police Station (he had been previously warned by law-enforcement that there was a contract out on him, however he assumed it was some form of tactic by the police to pin an offense(s) on him). It is believed that the shooter/killer was paid 5000 pounds (around $7000 at the time) for his murder (many contract killings are carried out for relatively small sums of money including those that involve professional or “master” hitmen – in criminal fraternities life is often cheap – and the amounts paid are low for the reward/risk involved in such killings; this may indicate even amongst criminals, hitmen are somewhat despised). McPhee’s killer, who killed him with a single shot from an eight-story apartment opposite McPhee’s house, has never been apprehended (they left the rifle in the apartment with no forensic evidence to identify them). It is believed that one of the reasons that the shooter/killer has never been identified is that they weren’t a local but rather someone – a “professional” – who was hired externally, possibly from Northern Ireland, as the weapon - a BRNO Model Two .22 Rifle – that was used in this shooting was the same as that which was used by terrorist organizations, for similar operations, during “the Troubles”; ex-terrorists have to find work somewhere, and engaging in “hits” or advising/training other terrorist organizations such as the FARC in Colombia is something ex-IRA members have been known to do. As there are also strong gang relationships between Belfast and Glasgow it’s a distinct possibility, and one that law enforcement in Glasgow still consider likely, that the killer/shooter came from Northern Ireland and was a “former” terrorist. There is little academic research concerning “hitmen” and that which has been done is ethnographic research e.g., qualitative research based on observation, interviews and informal conversations etc. In reality it would be hard to do any quantitative research on this group due to the small number of individuals who conduct assassination/contract killing type offenses, and those that are studied tend to be those who have been convicted of such offenses. Unfortunately, when you are only left with offenders giving accounts of their lifestyles and crimes, they can create their own narratives and explanations for why and how they do what they do, which may actually differ in certain regards as to what actually happened e.g., someone may have initially been forced to reluctantly engage in a contract killing by members of a gang they belonged to and “re-write” this act as something they actively/positively did want to do to punish someone who was believed to be an informant etc. Many offenders will create a narrative that they believe puts them in a positive rather than negative light, however when studying and researching specific offenses committed by a limited number of offenders, sometimes their own accounts are all researchers have to go on. One piece of research that attempted to go beyond individual’s narrative was that of Macintyre et al., in 2014. Using British newspaper reports and court transcripts (most research concerning contract killers up until this point had been conducted in the UK), they identified 36 hitmen (one was a woman) who had committed 27 identifiable cases of contract killings, between 1974 and 2013. The reason that there were more hitmen than incidents was due to the fact that in some incidents individuals worked together. The researchers, using their own networks of offenders and ex-offenders, also conducted a small number of interviews with those who had knowledge of, and had been involved to some degree in aspects of contract killings, to add color to their research. The results of their research showed that the average age of a contract killer in the UK was 38 years old, however there were outliers such as Santre Sanchez Gayle who was just fifteen when he carried out his “hit” (police at the time believed it to be the work of a professional and Gayle only became a person of interest/later convicted, because he bragged about it to friends). The average age of those targeted was 36, however one victim was 10 years old. This was the result of a hit that John Childs conducted in 1975, who not only murdered the target but the target’s son as well because he feared the ten-year-old child would be able to identify him. The average cost of a hit was around $20,000 (2025 value), though it is alleged that Kevin Lane was paid somewhere around $130,000 for the gangland murder of Robert Magil (a killing he denies, though acknowledges ties to the offenders who may have committed it). The method of killing saw predominantly the use of firearms (25 out of 35 cases). This is significant, as in 1997 firearms were largely banned in the UK, meaning access to firearms and ammunition were severely limited and restricted after this date; this suggests those committing contract killings were/are part of criminal fraternities. Of the remaining ten victims, two were strangled, three were stabbed and five were beaten to death. The motive behind the majority of these killing were some forms of legal or illegal business dispute i.e., financial disputes. However, there were killings that were the result of gang disputes and domestic disagreements between divorcing partners etc. The study identified four types of hitmen: The Novice – usually an unemployed person involved in petty crime, who was caught due to a combination of local intelligence and forensic naivety.  The Dilletante – an individual coming from a variety of backgrounds who used a variety of methods to kill/murder the target and was identified/caught due to some form of confession and/or forensic evidence. The Journeyman – usually ex-military, who was geographically stable (lived in one locale and travelled to others), and targeted either businessmen or gang members. The Master – someone who left no forensic evidence, was ex-military and/or a professional criminal, who was geographically mobile i.e., didn’t live in one locale. The study found little support for Schlesinger’s typologies of amateur, semi-professional and professional that had previously dominated the research field into contract killers.        There is a huge disconnect between the realities of who contract killers/hitmen actually are and the way they are portrayed in the media and viewed by the public. Sometimes, real-life and media representations overlap e.g., the forensically aware, and relatively long-range shooting of Frank McPhee. However, it should be understood that although it looked like a “Master” killing it was committed for a relatively small sum of money, and against a small-time gangster in a fairly run-down part of Glasgow (my apologies to the residents of Maryhill). Far from the glamour of Hollywood movies such as the Iceman (2012) or Day of the Jackal (1973) etc. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=760 Mon, 01 Sep 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=759 I have written in past articles about crime, and violent offending, being largely committed by young men, and that apart from a few persistent offenders, most age out of crime in their early to mid-twenties. This is one of the few things that most criminologists agree on as the statistics are extremely compelling and hard to dispute. However, I haven’t written much about why violent offending is committed by young people, especially young men. I have written somewhat about why young people stop offending e.g., they get jobs, find partners, develop stable routines around these things, and basically run out of time to commit offenses etc., but I’ve written little about why such people may offend when they are younger. In this article I want to look at some of the psychological and social factors that result in offending and especially violent offending in the first place.                Whilst our “personalities” have largely been established by our early teenage years, some of our brain functions haven’t, and don’t until much later e.g., by your early teens, who you are, has largely been defined however this doesn’t mean that this determines how you will act and behave at this time. This is one of the reasons why it can be extremely confusing for parents to get a visit from the police informing them that their “normally” well-behaved, compassionate, considerate and respectful son/daughter was caught throwing rocks through the windows of an old people’s home i.e., their actions are genuinely out of character with their personality. The teenage years are when the brain’s arousal system is so susceptible to reward, that the systems regulating sell-control are often over-ridden, leading to risk taking and poor choices. This can lead to genuine confusion and questioning in adolescents post an event e.g., “Why did I do that?” What made sense in the moment makes little to no sense when analyzed afterwards; what was actually gained by throwing rocks through the window of an old people’s home. Rationally? Nothing. But in that moment the psychological and physical exhilaration and excitement of causing destruction was too tempting to pass up. As our self-control systems start to mature in our early twenties, we can understand the risk and the consequences of such actions and determine/decide that taking advantage of such an opportunity may not be such a good idea, to a point that we don’t even consider such opportunities i.e., we are no longer aroused to seek such excitement and reward. When we put artificial measures of maturity in place such as determining that by sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one etc. that individuals should be fully responsible for their actions we may be ignoring how relatively “slowly” the brain actually develops, concerning the assessment of risk, in young people, especially young men.                As well as psychological factors that result in offending being largely a young person’s – especially male – game, there are social factors as well. The social structures we have created for young people, that ultimately benefit them, also harbor risks/dangers. Schools are institutions that bring large numbers of young people together, they are often places where friendships are made, and result in young people spending a lot of time together. Schools themselves actually represent some of the safest places/spaces for people to be in, despite the way they are sometimes portrayed in the media. There is far more youth violence, and general violence, that is committed off of school premises rather than on them. In Routine Activity Theory, teachers act as handlers, place managers and guardians. A handler is someone who exerts an influence over a potential offender, monitoring their behaviors and preventing/discouraging them from committing an offense; there are obviously – like in all social environments - some teachers who are better at this than others. A handler, such as a teacher, can also act as a guardian, by protecting a potential target from a motivated offender. A teacher(s) is also a place manager who deters offending in a particular location i.e., a classroom/school. In environments where place managers, guardians, and handlers exist there is less of a risk of offending, however individuals need to exert these roles rather than simply assume them. However, before and after school such controls don’t exits and this is when and why a lot of youth offending occurs; the large social group(s) exists but these controlling factors don’t.                Young people are seeking both their own identity along with a social identity; schools help them do both. However, kids can fall into “good” groups, as well as “bad” regardless of their own personality/character e.g., a “good” kid in one setting can become a “bad” kid in another etc. The psychologist Judith Harris examined this and concluded that children and young people will adapt to their settings based on reward. If at home, a child/teenager is rewarded – and conversely punished – by adopting a good behavior such as being polite and refraining from bad language etc., that is what they will do. However, if in a social group, outside of the family, they are socially “rewarded” for being rude, obnoxious, undermining/defying authority etc., that is what they will do. As individuals we want to be accepted socially and will adapt our behaviors to match the groups we want to belong to, and in some way profit from. If there is a “cool” group, which engages in crime, but rewards us with social status, we may wish to belong and be accepted by it, and our yet to develop ability to exert social control and evaluate risk, may mean we take/make those bad choices.                I remember watching an interview/presentation with/by criminologist Marcus Felson, where he talked about holding his breath when his son was a teenager, hoping that his son wouldn’t engage in “stupid” but criminal events – recognizing that for a wide variety of reasons he might – and then breathing a sigh of relief when he reached his early to mid-twenties, and hadn’t. It is important for a number of reasons to recognize that adolescence is a period of risk for offending, and that the things individuals do during this period don’t necessarily define who they are. This is not to say that there shouldn’t be responsibility and accountability, as these are things which demonstrate personality and character, however defining a person who is psychologically and mentally developing during this time solely on their acts would be incorrect.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=759 Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=758 When training in a “controlled” environment, it can be easy to focus on the end result, rather than consider how we’d experience, and react to, a particular attack if it occurred in real-life. I often use a rear-strangle attack to illustrate this point. In a training environment many people will focus on the “escape” aspect, rather than recognizing that this won’t be a consideration if the attack is experienced in real-life. The first reaction will be panic, regardless of whether you are trained or untrained in how to deal with such an attack. The idea that you will immediately grab onto the attacking arm and pull/pluck down is unrealistic. When the airway is blocked, the initial response/reaction will be that of panic; ideally trained person will “recognize” what this panic means and start to initiate a solution, whereas the untrained person will likely continue to panic, however both experience the same panic. Training doesn’t make you immune to it, it simply allows you to manage it. If you don’t acknowledge this – natural – reaction, in your training, you won’t have an emotional reference point if it happens in real-life. It is by recognizing and training this panic phase, and the hands naturally coming up to scramble and pull the arm away in a panicked state, that you will actually be able to respond sooner.                 As you “scramble” and begin to realize what is happening to you, you should turn the scramble into a “search” i.e., your hands should search for the gaps and spaces, where you’re able to grab onto your attacker’s arm. Depending on your attacker’s skill level and ability, these “gaps” will be in different places, and so training to simply bring the hands up and grab the arm in the same place every time is unrealistic and could see you failing to grab onto the arm/wrist if you only train this way. Attackers rarely make “cookie cutter” attacks each time – unless trained to do so (in which case you have a serious problem on your hands) – and so we shouldn’t train cookie cutter responses to them. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we need a variety of different techniques and solutions to deal with a particular attack, but rather we need to recognize that an attack can be experienced in somewhat different ways. The idea of quickly and cleanly coming up with the hands and immediately pulling down is an unrealistic one. It’s reassuring and satisfying in the training environment, however as Mike Tyson once famously said, “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” Being strangled and unable to breathe is a metaphorical punch to the face. If we don’t recognize this and build it into our training, then we are not training for reality.                 The first order of operations is to be able to breathe i.e., to clear the arm/wrist away from the throat. It is not to work out whether an attacker is using their left or right arm to obstruct your airway. However, in training I often see people initiating a turn, before or as they start to pull/pluck the arm away from the throat/neck. If someone is attempting to strangle you, and you can’t breathe, the only thing you will be thinking about in that moment – and it should be - is being able to breathe. You should not, and in all likelihood will not, be thinking about whether someone is using their left or right arm, and/or how to escape etc., you will simply be wanting to breathe. Krav Maga is about working with our natural, reflexive responses, and we shouldn’t just restrict this to our physical responses (such as our hands naturally/instinctively coming up to grab the arm when our airway is blocked), we should apply this idea/concept, to our natural psychological and emotional responses as well. If we can’t breathe, that’s what our “natural” thought processes will focus on, and we should acknowledge this. It is only when we acknowledge this in our training that we train for reality. Too many people believe that their Krav Maga training will bypass this, and they will spring into action, that they won’t panic, and they will immediately find their hands in the right place to pull/pluck down, and as they do this, they’ll have recognized whether it’s a right- or left-handed attack etc.; that’s not how the mind will be working – it will be prioritizing being able to breathe, and we should work with that.                 Krav Maga instructors and practitioners will often claim that Krav Maga isn’t a martial art, and yet train it as if it is e.g., with clean, quick and precise movements etc., and whilst ideas such as “surprise” are built into the training methods, the way in which people are expected to react to that surprise is often very different in the training environment, than in real-life; the “panic” component isn’t acknowledged. The practitioner isn’t expected to panic, they’re expected to replicate and perform a clean technique. In the case of the rear-strangle, quickly bringing the hands up to immediately find the space, in which to pull/pluck/roll the attacking arm down – sometimes whilst making the escape – with little regard to what and how they’ll actually be thinking and their emotional/psychological state, if this attack was to occur in real-life. Quickly escaping and concluding a technique/solution in a training environment may be rewarding and gratifying and give us a sense of achievement and accomplishment etc., however, it isn’t really preparing us for reality. I understand the need for speed when dealing with such attacks, especially when they are dynamic (someone is pulling you backwards as they strangle you), with an air choke, there is still oxygen in your blood and lungs, and so it is better to work through the stages we will naturally experience them in the time we have before being rendered unconscious, rather than miss them out in training, simply to perform the technique/solution as quickly as we can.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=758 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=757 This article looks at a very specific type of UK drugs crime known as County Lines, and specifically at an offense known as “cuckooing”. However, whilst it and some of the offenses that accompany this form of drug trafficking may be somewhat unique to the UK, there are components of it, which are much more general, and easily relatable and applicable to crimes and violent crimes that are committed elsewhere. In the early 2000’s London and other major cities had found their drug markets pretty much saturated, and there was intense violent competition for control of those that existed. To avoid this intense competition, many gangs sought out “new” markets and started to expand their operations into smaller towns and rural areas, where there was less competition, yet a still relatively high demand for drugs (specifically heroin and crack cocaine). These smaller towns/drug markets had previously been overlooked by the city gangs and supply was usually provided by a few individual dealers – who lacked established networks - rather than more organized and larger scale gangs. This meant it was fairly easy for a large urban gang that was used to using violence to easily displace these individual dealers or force them to now work for them etc. One of the signs of this move of urban-to-rural crime is an uptake in violence e.g., a smaller, rural town that might have seen a few drunken fights on a Friday/Saturday night, now becomes a mini war zone due to gangs that had been normalized to violence in more urban settings moving in and setting up a “County Line”. The “County Line” refers to a phone line on a mobile burner that people use to contact a dealer usually via text to place their orders; they are then given a time and place to meet a “runner”, usually a teenager of school age, so the transaction can take place (this allowed the gangs to reduce their presence in risky areas).                 One of the features of county line drug dealing/trafficking is that of “cuckooing”. The cuckoo (a brood parasite) bird is famous for laying its eggs in another bird’s nest, with their young hatching earlier and eventually outmuscling the other chicks. For urban based gangs that needed a place to act as a stash house and base in an unfamiliar “new” area, they started to take over people’s flats and houses and use them as bases from which to operate. Sometimes, residents handed over control of their property quasi-voluntarily e.g., they were drug users who received free drugs/“product” for letting the gangs use their property. Sometimes, it was the result of being threatened, and sometimes the gangs “befriended” vulnerable people who either didn’t fully understand how their house/flat was being used and/or lacked the necessary social skills and mental capacity to resist etc. This is sometimes referred to as a “Mate Crime” i.e., an individual targets a vulnerable person and pretends to be their friend/”mate” in order to exploit them. Often the elderly and/or individuals who have learning difficulties and/or mental health issues are left isolated and vulnerable. They may also be used to commit other offenses on behalf of those that “cuckoo” them because they lack the mental capacity to understand the legal consequences of their actions e.g., they might not understand that having/storing a firearm on their property/being in possession of a firearm carries a minimum five-year sentence (though there is some degree of flexibility surrounding this) etc. If we have potentially vulnerable people in our lives, we should understand that there are those who will think nothing of exploiting them for their own ends/gains, with little to no regard of what happens to the other person.                 Just as it’s important for gangs involved in County Lines to find vulnerable people, the type of property is also important. Many of those who work with vulnerable populations in areas where county lines exist recognize this and try to house such individuals in non-ground-floor apartments and flats, as these are the types of property that the gangs tend to prefer, as if they are raided by police they have a better chance of escaping than if they are on a second floor, and may only have one escape route e.g., down a set of stairs. Also, by placing people who are vulnerable to being targeted for cuckooing in a non-ground-floor apartment or flat, it makes it harder for the gangs to access these individuals e.g., they can’t climb into their backyard and bang on the back windows and door(s) etc., which would put psychological and emotional pressure on those who live there. As well as targeting ground floor apartments, gangs would also target flats and apartments that had communal front doors etc. Ironically in most CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) thinking, these doors – that require a key code to enter - represent another layer of protection from offenders. However, when you have taken over another person’s apartment and have the code this isn’t the case. One housing officer who oversaw a block of apartments (which had been targeted for cuckooing) noted that once someone, or a number of people, had gotten inside of the building, you effectively lost control of it to them.                  The importance of “place” rather than simply “person” can be seen in the way that the same locations/apartments are used time and again, even when the person living in the apartment changes/moves on, demonstrating how “cuckooed nests” become distinct local places. There is often a cyclical nature with cuckooing, whereby a gang takes over a property for a period of time, and moves on to another, only to return later and move in again. A gang may move out because they are concerned about surveillance by law enforcement, and because the location is deemed “hot”, and then return a few months later when they believe there is less interest in the property. However, they understand that it is a location that those who use drugs are aware of, giving it value. They also have “runners” those who meet up with users in other locations who know the area, and the potential escape routes if/when chased. The value of bicycles as a transport mechanism in anti-surveillance has long been appreciated in the security industry, and it didn’t take those involved in illegal activities to understand the effectiveness of a teenager on a bike for evading law enforcement.                 One of the issues, Pearson noted in the eighties, was that residents were often reluctant to acknowledge drug dealing on the estates where they lived, because if their locales began to develop a reputation as a “drug market” it could affect house prices, government and council subsidies, and even credit ratings etc. This meant that residents would often turn a “blind eye” and not report certain crimes on their estates, that could effectively mean that they were turned down for a loan etc. They were willing to put up with a certain amount and certain types of crime in order for where they lived not to affect them adversely. There may be a similar attitude to “cuckooing” i.e., local residents understand what is going on but are reluctant to report it or do anything about it for fear of their neighborhood getting a bad name. Unfortunately, the success of cuckooing – making public drug markets private - can lead to it being reproduced in other locales.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=757 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=756 I’m at heart a grappler. I grew up practicing Judo and it intuitively made more sense to me than the striking arts I practiced at the same time e.g., I did some Karate-Jutsu, Wing Chun Kung Fu (I still remember - and can perform badly - Siu-Lum-Tao, the system’s first form) and Boxing in my teens and early twenties etc. I now understand that fighting is fighting and that the concepts used in the grappling arts have the same counterparts in the striking ones. However, for me, they were more obvious in the grappling systems I trained in, which made it relatively easy to transition from Judo to Wrestling and back again. One of the things I fell in love with when practicing traditional Japanese Ju-Jitsu was lock flow drills. This is where you perform a lock on a person’s limb/wrist etc., and then from that position transition to another, and another etc., all the time keeping control of the person you are dealing with. From a practical point of view, you might need to do this if an attacker is managing to escape from a particular lock/control; from my time working in security, I’ve found that even untrained people start to “test” and figure ways out of holds, locks and controls over short periods of time. You may also need to change a lock/control to another one because you need to change yours and your assailant’s position, such as freeing up a hand in order to open a door and escort someone from the premises etc. However, what lock flows basically/really teach is the art of “transitioning”. Something, which often gets overlooked in Krav Maga/Self-Defense training.                My experience of dealing with real-life violence involved a lot of “transitioning”. You may get “lucky” and apply a technique which deals with an incident in a one-and-done fashion but in my opinion/experience this is unlikely. It’s almost akin to landing a knock-out punch with your first strike i.e., after the first thing you do you can walk away. Such things are unlikely. Krav Maga training often appears to teach two opposing methodologies. When it comes to striking, students are taught to “flow”, moving and transitioning from one punch to another and another etc., in a continuous, unbroken stream. However, when techniques are taught, such as an escape for a rear strangle/choke, the assumption is often that this escape did the job and there doesn’t need to be a “transition” to another, and another etc. Again, this has not been my experience in real-life. In most of the incidents that I’ve been involved with, it took incremental steps to deal with the situation e.g., I would do something that bettered my situation, my attacker responded, so I responded with something that countered and possibly made my situation a little better etc., and this process was repeated until I had control of the person/situation I was dealing with. The process involved transitioning from one “technique” to another, rather than simply applying one that was conclusive. It’s one of the reasons that I prefer the term fighting to self-defense i.e., you have to continuously “fight” and “transition” from one “technique” to the next in order to be successful.     In all of my time/years competing in Judo, there’s only one time I can remember a competitor – at black belt level – stepping out onto the mats and when the referee shouted “Hajime” (begin/start), grabbing his opponent, and immediately throwing him for Ippon (the win). In every other Judo contest I’ve witnessed, there’s a fight for the “right” grip, there’s a fight to take balance, there’s usually a series of failed throws, and then at some point a competitor creates the perfect or near-perfect storm and gets/makes the throw etc. It’s a “fight” that sees both competitors transitioning from one thing/technique to another. Much of my competitive training was about transitioning from one throw to another. I was taught to understand how someone might counter a particular throw and how this could make them vulnerable to another etc. I was taught on the ground how to move from one position to another and from one submission to another etc. I was also taught how to “exploit” the vulnerabilities that were present when the other party/person was transitioning etc. Fighting is a dynamic thing that involves transitions. Simply training techniques without transitions is to never put pen to paper in a “join-the-dots” puzzle and just leave the dots on the page unconnected. Learning how to transition takes skills, and skills take time to develop, and many people would rather have techniques answer their many hypothetical questions e.g., they don’t want to spend time developing skills, they simply want techniques that can answer the problems they believe they will face; how do you deal with four guys with AK-47s who broken into your house in the middle of the night and woken you up unexpectedly…and by the way, one of them has a Rottweiler who hasn’t been fed in eight days. When people ask me such questions my default response is usually to ask them to look at the lifestyle choices they’ve made which makes them a target for such threats/attacks etc. Learning how to effectively and efficiently transition from one position and technique to another isn’t adding to your knowledge base of solutions to various/different problems but it is teaching you how to be an effective fighter. Only at seminars when I’m in “Shop Demonstration” mode have I successfully pulled off a seven or eight move lock-flow, but that was never my take-away from such drills. What these flows taught me was that a fight involves transitions and that if you can’t master the transition you wouldn’t get to the next lock. When Krav Maga training doesn’t take into account the need to transition and deal with other people’s transitions it quickly becomes irrelevant, as it no longer resembles reality.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=756 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=755 At present there appears to be a public interest in the release of the “Epstein Files”. Whilst it is unclear how the information they contain is formatted and whether there is a proverbial “smoking gun”, with some believing that such will clearly/cleanly implicate political characters that they object to – both on the left and the right – it is unfortunate that this has been the focus, and a wider debate concerning human trafficking hasn’t been started i.e., people seem to be more concerned with exposing the villains, than understanding those who are victimized and how they came to be victimized etc. Whilst Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were “high profile” perpetrators they weren’t necessarily unusual or exceptional ones e.g., Maxwell acting as a “madam” to recruit young girls is something that is common to many sex-trafficking operations, and Epstein ran a “trafficking ecosystem” involving numerous people to maintain his network, similar to how many sex trafficking operations are organized in tiers with recruiters and facilitators, along with the traffickers themselves etc. However, most traffickers do not have such actors who enjoy high-profile connections, which gave Epstein extraordinary power and protection within influential circles. It appears that it is this part which seems to be of most interest to the public, i.e., who were these high-ranking influential players that both enabled him and/or were directly involved in victimizing those he targeted. Without focusing too heavily on Epstein and Maxwell, I want to use this article to look at how human trafficking, whether for sex or work etc., occurs e.g., what is the psychological profile of those who engage in trafficking, who they target and how they operate, because - without being alarmist - those they target are “ordinary” people like us, our family members and our sons and daughters. Whilst the high-profile nature of the Epstein case may lead us to believe that because we don’t move in those circles, human trafficking shouldn’t and doesn’t concern us, we should understand that those who are trafficked can be our neighbors, friends, and people we know e.g., they can be the waiter/waitress who serves us at our favorite restaurant, or the people who come and clean our homes, landscape our yards, provide childcare for the friends of our kids etc., as well as those who are forced to be sex-workers. There is always a danger within the criminal justice system – especially when the case is a high profile one - that those who have been victimized “disappear” and become “unseen” as the focus switches from them to the perpetrators. It would be beneficial if the public interest in the “Epstein files” starts to shine a light on human trafficking as an offense that affects many e.g., the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 2024 reported that 28 million people are subjected to forced labor annually, whilst others (Zimmerman & Kiss, 2017) have estimated that there are on average, 40.3 million individuals that are trafficked annually. When “interest” in human-trafficking began to increase  in the 1990’s and early 2000’s it was originally thought that trafficking was largely in the domain of organized crime gangs. Although such gangs do engage in trafficking, research has revealed that many trafficking operations involve single perpetrators e.g., Small et al. (2008), in a US study found that 90% of federally prosecuted child sex trafficking cases involved a single perpetrator. It is important at this point to define what constitutes human trafficking. The Palermo Protocol (defined by the UN) basically, recognizes human trafficking as being the recruitment, transportation, harboring and/or acquisition of individuals through fraud, force and/or coercion for labor and/or commercial sexual exploitation. Whilst financial gain may appear to be the primary motive of traffickers, and this may have been part of Epstein’s motivation e.g., whilst he may not have “directly” charged associates, by providing sexual services to rich and influential associates he may have indirectly financially benefited from them etc., many traffickers exhibit many psychopathic and narcissistic traits, such as charm and a lack of empathy, seeing their victims as disposable commodities who exist merely for the perpetrators own gain and benefit etc. In some cases, sex traffickers have made the argument that those they victimized benefited from the experience as they learnt that everything in life, including their bodies, had a price, i.e., being trafficked was an education for them. A common trait of narcissism is for the individual to see themselves as both the hero and the victim at the same time e.g., it is unfair that they are being prosecuted and treated as a criminal whilst their “offense” was for the benefit of others etc.                One standard method that traffickers use is referred to as a “false front”. This involves promising those they target a “better life”. Ghislaine Maxwell used a "false front" to lure young women into Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking network by promising them a better life through opportunities like modeling, financial support, and access to the elite social circles of wealthy and powerful individuals. Maxwell presented herself as someone who could provide access to the modeling world, arranging meetings with influential figures or even suggesting that these young women could make it “big” if they worked with Epstein. Once a level of trust was established, Maxwell and Epstein’s tactics shifted from offering support to gradually increasing the level of exploitation e.g. the initial promise of a better life would turn into an expectation of sexual favors, usually under the guise of being part of Epstein’s "business" or modeling work. At this point Maxwell would often position herself as a trusted confidante – adopting the role known as “Madam” – who then normalized the experience of sexual exploitation e.g., “everybody does this”, “this is how things work” etc. Performing the role of a senior, more experienced woman, those she victimized would start to believe that she was guiding and educating them as to how the world really works and operates, and how as a woman it should be navigated. This allowed her to present the idea that those victimized were complicit and willing participants in their abuse. This is one of the reasons why many victims of sexual abuse are confused and ashamed believing that their involvement in the abuse was a result of their own decisions rather than coercion.                Many traffickers, like Epstein and Maxwell, create Trauma-Coerced Bonds and Attachments (TCA) with those they victimize. There is a reason that Epstein would fly young woman out to his private island (Little Saint James) in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Whilst it afforded him, Maxwell and others privacy it also isolated the young woman he flew out there. They became solely/exclusively dependent on him. This isolation doesn’t just make victims dependent on their abusers for physical needs, such as food, water and shelter etc. It also makes them psychologically and emotionally dependent on them, which can result in an intense emotional attachment to those who are exploiting them. TCA relationships are often characterized by the use of intermittent rewards e.g., a young woman on Epstein’s Island may initially be ignored and excluded from social interactions and then be made the center of attention (rewarded). After that they may be isolated/excluded again, with the process being repeated. Each time the sense of isolation increases along with the desire to be included. However, at some point a price is exacted and demanded for this inclusion. Ghislaine Maxwell, as the “Madam”, may suggest a way to be included again, such as offering to give Epstein a massage, and then going along with whatever he may suggest etc. When there’s only one person who can get you off the island, bad things start to sound like good ideas. Many traffickers create these bonds through a mix of isolation and physical/emotional dependency e.g., they may move someone to an unknown city, tell them that where they are is dangerous, and that their only chance of survival is to trust and rely upon them.                  Nothing that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell did was new, novel or exceptional. They just did it with money and wealth. In some ways they were less original and creative than traffickers who lacked their resources. What they do demonstrate is that these types of offenses occur at all levels of society. There is a danger in believing that because you belong to a certain socio-economic class, lead a safe lifestyle etc., that certain things will never happen to you – the unfortunate truth is that they can. Many of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims were teenagers or very young women, with limited life experience and little understanding of the potential dangers they might face. These young women were often more trusting and naive, which made them easier to manipulate by someone who appeared to offer them opportunities and access to powerful, influential figures. These are not characteristics that are restricted to one demographic or class but are common to many people. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=755 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=754 I was fortunate that as an undergraduate student in psychology I was exposed to zoology and in turn to ethology - ethology is the scientific study of animal behavior, particularly under natural conditions, with an emphasis on the evolutionary, biological, and ecological factors that shape that behavior. Ethology is especially focused on instinctive/genetically hardwired behaviors, such as fear and aggression in animals, including humans. Studying zoology and ethology exposed me to the work(s) of Charles Darwin. When Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he found that many animals from varying species would approach him and the other members of the team with curiosity rather than fear and would not resist human contact if it was initiated e.g., if he was to reach out to hold a small bird, it wouldn’t try to evade his grasp and/or struggle as he held it. He put this down to the fact that they had never experienced a human before and so hadn’t learnt to be afraid of the potential danger that they faced from them. If they had experienced humans as predators, they would have learnt and evolved to be afraid of them. He referred to them as “naïve prey” i.e., animals/species who had not yet been exposed to a predator and learnt/evolved to be afraid of them. There is much academic debate as to how much our fear systems are educated through evolution/over time, and how much through an individual’s direct experience. However, both behaviorists – those who believe that an individual’s behavior is the result of their personal experience – and ethologists who believe that many behaviors have become hard-wired responses due to evolution, acknowledge that at some point we as individuals or as a species have to learn them, and when it comes to dealing with predators, if we don’t we become naïve prey.                Human predators are in many ways different from other animals/species. We can prey on others for a variety of reasons, other than simply for food. There are other species such as chimpanzees that, like humans, engage in violence for the sake of it, with little in the way of tangible gains, however for most species aggression and violence is conducted to protect their young, territory that they rely on for food, and other pack members etc. When it comes to intragroup disputes most species have rituals that they use to resolve them, rather than turning to actual violence, which could result in serious injuries to those pack members participating and so reduce the survival chances of the group as a whole. It may be that we as a species have not developed such rituals is because potential human conflicts are so myriad and complex that it would be impossible for us to develop them. Because of this complexity we are in danger of becoming naïve prey, whether the threat is sexual exploitation or an internet scam etc. It is very easy to become naïve prey and predatory individuals are astute at identifying groups/subgroups that have yet to become educated to various threats and dangers e.g., young, middle-class kids going off to college/university for the first time may believe that everyone at university is coming from the same background as themselves and is therefore a “safe” person. Older individuals who may not be so familiar with technology may believe that an “official” looking email is genuine rather than part of a scam i.e., we are all in some respects naïve prey because unless we have been educated about a threat/danger we have vulnerabilities concerning it. Even our overconfidence or “that would never happen to me” attitude can make us naïve prey. My intent here is not to scaremonger because at the end of the day despite fluctuations in the crime rate, we are generally, especially when it comes to violent crime, living in the safest times ever; if you want convincing of this compare crime in the 1990’s with that today. However, in order for us as individuals to be safe we must avoid naivety.      The solution to naivety is relevant information and education, and some basic/foundational ideas from evolution and ethology can help us here, and it doesn’t matter to what degree we believe in these disciplines. One of these is that of efficiency. One of the reasons a species is successful and survives is down to its nutrition. A gazelle needs to graze a certain amount of grass each day in order to survive. If it is constantly looking around for potential predators it isn’t able to do so. So, it learns to recognize what is and isn’t a threat (whether this becomes hardwired or not is an academic rather than practical concern). It will happily graze in a relaxed state near a sleeping lion because sleeping lions aren’t a threat, and lions don’t hunt during the heat of the day etc. Whether through evolution or experience it knows what a threat looks like, and it doesn’t react and respond to movements, actions and behaviors it doesn’t need to. A moving lion at dusk is another matter – that’s the time to get going i.e., a gazelle is not naïve prey. The threats and dangers that humans face are not as clear cut as that of the gazelle, but they require a similar education i.e., we don’t want to be jumping at every proverbial shadow when it isn’t necessary; like the gazelle we have tasks we need to perform and get on with so we should only be responding to actual/real threats, rather than those we incorrectly “believe” to be real. This is one of the reasons it’s important to be able to differentiate between scaremongering stories we read on the internet, which may or may not have happened, but aren’t actually relevant to our day-to-day lives and the potential threats/dangers that we are likely to face. If we are to learn and evolve our fear system(s) we will need to educate ourselves about the actual threats and dangers we are likely to face rather than the ones we imagine or simply fear the most. This is how we prevent ourselves from becoming naïve prey. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=754 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=753 People create narratives, and rarely are they completely accurate. When I was a child, I was often told by teachers and other adults that I “didn’t know how good I had it”, with a following story about tin baths, working down coal mines, and only having lard spread on a piece of old leather to eat etc. These “hardships” were worn like a badge of honor that myself and those of my generation – at the time - were meant to celebrate. When I think about my childhood and how the world is now, I’m not nostalgic for the past but rather amazed by the present, and I want to live in it, and grow with it. When I was at university I had to do statistics manually, step-by-step, in order to get a result. Now I let the computer/machine do it. I’m not so interested in the process, I just want the result, and the “computer” does it far better than me. This is progress e.g., machine learning can run multiple linear regression tests, faster and better than I can. This is not to say that there aren’t lessons from the past, and that certain things may have been lost and/or their value discounted, however progress and where we are now should be celebrated, and this includes martial arts and self-defense training. A lot of what we used to do “back in the day” was stupid, injurious and not particularly effective. However, I still see a lot of older practitioners, past-practitioners and instructors celebrate and promote the way they used to train, without recognizing where we are now.                 When I was a kid practicing Kyokushin Karate, a good third of the class consisted of a warm-up that involved a lot of static stretching. Modern day sports science has shown us that this type of stretching is good for developing flexibility, but does very little to warm-up the body for dynamic movements i.e., this type of stretching would be better done in a practitioners own time rather than in a class; there are faster, simpler and more productive ways to warm up, if that is the purpose of this part of a class. One very traditional martial art which has “modernized” its approach is Uechi-Ryu Karate. The style is famous for its physical conditioning which allows practitioners – at a higher level – to make finger strikes that burst cans of beer, and have baseball bats break off of their shins etc. I remember talking to a very high-ranking instructor who said – and bear in mind that this is a very traditional/old style of Karate – that it was only in the last twenty to thirty years that the system/style had developed its conditioning methods in a way that didn’t result in potential long-term injuries and health issues etc. There was no “nostalgia” for the old methods that they used to train in just a “celebration” that they had now gotten it right i.e., progress. This is the direction all training should go in; smarter rather than simply harder. I recall a conversation with someone who told me that part of his boxing training involved being put through a set of physically exhausting exercises and then having to stand whilst others took shots/punches at his head to prepare him for a standing eight count – a standing eight count in boxing is a rule that allows the referee to pause the fight and give a fighter an eight-second count to recover - without the fighter having being knocked down. With what we now know about concussions, such a practice could have long-term mental-health/psychological risks etc. Whilst this guy wasn’t celebrating it – and recognized the risks such a training method had to it - I’m sure you can find someone who used to train this way lamenting the loss of this practice and proudly telling the younger generations how hard they used to train “back in the day”.                 I started training in Krav Maga in 1993, over thirty years ago. At that time its training methods were modern compared to almost all other martial arts I’d trained in. Safety was a consideration, something that was a very “new” idea compared to the ways I’d previously trained, where performance was the goal at the expense of everything else; I remember one instructor sending me on a 3-mile run on a hot summer’s day, wrapped in bin-liners, and having to hold a cup full of water in my mouth as I did so, to teach me to breathe through my nose. I temporarily passed out somewhere around mile two. However, there are those who nostalgically look back to certain Krav Maga training methods during the 1990’s and argue that Krav Maga has gone “soft”, that it isn’t what it used to be etc., and that we should go back to the good old days and revise some of the potentially injurious training methods because that is the only way to build the correct/necessary character and mindset. Here there is a major problem, and one that stands squarely in the path of progress.                 Training methods should evolve with science, and instructors should keep an eye on this, e.g. most injuries in any sport have been found to be due to fatigue. If as an instructor you are using fatigue to replicate the post-adrenal phase, understand that this heightens the risk of injury and so students should be monitored and when necessary controlled to avoid this. Also, different generations have different experiences and expectations of violence, as well as different ways of learning. Whilst my generation may have been taught that it was acceptable for someone in a leadership role/position to shout at them and use demeaning/humiliating language (remember your old 1970’s and/or 80’s physical-education teacher), that is not necessarily true of successive generations, and/or people who had to grow up/endure it. Krav Maga, like any activity, has to be accessible to those individuals you want to teach, and this means that how you present Krav Maga training is important. There will always be those who say that this shouldn’t be important but if the way you teach/train discourages and/or excludes people who would benefit from such training you may be “preserving” what you understand as the art at the expense of “promoting” it, which will eventually see it die. This is not about compromising values for commercial success but about presenting Krav Maga training in a way which is both effective and accessible, even if this means the “death” of Krav Maga as you once knew/first experienced it.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=753 Mon, 14 Jul 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=752 There is a tendency in Krav Maga and Self-Defense circles to treat all violence as being the same and equal and reducing everything down to the physical level e.g., a knife slash is the same as a knife stab, without attempting to understand how the context and motivation etc., precipitate and influence the nature of the assault. A slash with a knife, although it can be dealt with in the same way as a stab, contains a very different intent i.e., someone who is slashing is look to injure and cause harm, whilst someone stabbing is looking to cause serious injury and/or kill. This may be an emotional rather than conscious decision/choice, but it is an important one to understand e.g., someone slashing may be happy to see you disengage and no longer resemble a threat, whilst someone who is stabbing may continue to do so because they are so caught up in the emotion of the attack; they may not have started the conflict in this state but have found their emotions escalating because of it etc. It is also important to understand the nature of a verbal confrontation that will potentially turn physically violent because there may be an opportunity to de-escalate it, and this is where it can be useful to understand the three components that make up “momentary aggression”, a theory developed by social psychologists Paul A. M. van Lange and Eli Finkel.                The I³ Model they created/developed (pronounced "I-cubed") proposes that aggression is the result of the dynamic interaction of three forces/components: Instigation, Impellance, and Inhibition. The model assumes that whilst a person may have a predisposition to use violence in social interactions, they have not planned to engage in any violent act. They will only become aggressive due to a trigger/provocation i.e., there has to be an action and/or behavior that instigates an aggressive response. Impellance refers to the dispositional or situational pressure that intensifies the urge for a person to act/respond aggressively, whilst Inhibition concerns the internal and/or external mechanisms that are involved in suppressing aggression. Only when Instigation and Impellance overwhelm Inhibition will a person respond/act aggressively. This describes/explains why some people are more likely to become aggressive when triggered, i.e., they lack the Inhibition that prevents many from acting aggressively and they are more likely to be affected by dispositional or situational pressures/factors (Impellance).                To better understand the I³ Model we can use a simple example. For a person to become aggressive (when not motivated “internally” to do so, such as someone who commits a street robbery) there must be a “spark” or a “trigger”. This could be a verbal insult or challenge, it could be a perceived insult, and/or a physical act such as being pushed or having someone  step intentionally or accidentally on their foot etc. This is what initially instigates a person’s aggressive response. Without instigation, aggression typically doesn’t occur, even in someone who may be predisposed to violence. However, just because someone perceives a slight or injustice doesn’t mean that they will respond to another individual aggressively e.g., they may mutter something under their breath as they walk away but they may choose not to verbally/physically confront the other person. One of the things that may affect their decision to do or not do so are dispositional and situational components/factors. If a person is drunk, they are more likely to react than if they were sober, and therefore more rational i.e., they can better consider and evaluate the potential consequences of their actions (dispositional factors). If they have friends present who have witnessed their slight or injustice, they may feel a certain amount of peer pressure to confront the other person (situational factors). Impellance reflects the internal and/or situational force that magnifies the reaction to the instigator explaining why someone might feel an urge/compulsion to retaliate.                      Often in social interactions that have gone wrong we can identify and recognize the spark or trigger that has led to another person’s aggressive response, even if we don’t think/believe that it’s warranted. We can also usually recognize the dispositional and situational factors that might provide some fuel to the fire e.g., we can see that they are drunk and have friends who are egging them on etc. What we often have difficulty identifying is an individual’s level of inhibition i.e., how strong the “brakes” are that will prevent/stop them from acting/responding aggressively/violently. Factors such as good self-control, consideration of legal consequences and empathy are likely to inhibit an aggressive/violent response. High inhibition can override instigation and impellance, preventing violence. This is where it is important to understand context e.g., an individual who is insulted at a bar (instigation) and is already angry/touchy from a bad day at the office and feels disrespected  due in part to being drunk and with peers who egg him on (impellance) and doesn’t think there will be real consequences to their actions (inhibition), decides to respond by throwing a punch at their perceived aggressor. If the context is now changed to a work setting where a colleague insults them in front of their boss/manager they are more likely to be inhibited from acting violently, as they will be aware of the consequences of doing so.                The I3 Model which is a general-purpose metatheory posits that when aggression or violence occurs it is due to a “perfect storm”. That is, there must be an instigating trigger, along with dispositional and situation factors which promote the use of aggression/violence along with a lack of inhibition. Inhibition can be the result of both internal and external factors, e.g., a lack of self-control (internal) and the risk of consequences for acting in this way (external). One of the reasons that the I3 Model is referred to as "I-cubed" is that it recognizes that aggression and violence is multi-dimensional, and that each of these three dimensions can interact to lesser or greater degrees in different directions. By trying to make sense of aggressive interactions considering these three things we can better understand whether de-escalation tactics/approaches are going to be successful or not.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=752 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=751 Part of my UK upbringing took place in the English countryside, where fox hunting was a regular occurrence. For those who are unaware of these “events”, the largest single pack hunt - The Duke of Beaufort’s Hunt – sees around 50-150 riders, with a pack of 30-50 hounds hunt a single fox. The riders dress up in red jackets etc., and along with the dogs run the fox down until it is too exhausted to continue. Until the Hunting Act of 2004, the fox rarely escaped as the odds were so stacked against it. Those who were pro-fox hunting would often argue that these hunts were necessary to keep the fox population under control in order to protect farming. However, these large hunts didn’t really contribute much to this end as they were highly inefficient i.e., a hunt could last for hours and at the end only one fox had been killed. The way fox populations are actually controlled involves a single hunter with a shotgun and a couple of dogs who spends a couple of days going around the farm fields and in a controlled and calculated way culling the local fox population to its necessary level. This is done without any theatrics and wasn’t designed to create a spectacle. However, there are always those who desire to create a theatre around violence, whether it involves animals and/or humans. Those who want to dress violence up and make a spectacle of it. This “desire” is something very different to combat sports such as MMA, Boxing, Muay Thai, where events are consensual and controlled. Those seeking the spectacle are individuals who have probably never experienced violence themselves but want to be entertained by the pain and suffering of others, in a way that goes beyond a curious interest and self-education.                  During my time working club and bar security I’ve not seen anything that could draw a crowd like a female-on-female fight. I’ve been actively blocked by members of a crowd from trying to get through to those involved in order to break such fights up. Fights involving men are usually quite short, ending after a couple of punches are thrown; normally one person gets knocked down, stays down, and the fight is over (of course there are exceptions to this). However, with women, the most common type of physical conflict I’ve encountered is two individuals bent over, having grabbed each others’ hair, and with their other hand trying to rip and gouge the other person’s face off. There are those in the crowd – both men and women – who watch for various reasons; sometimes mixed. There are those who are interested to see what happens and how the conflict ends. There are those who consciously/subconsciously are using fighting as an opportunity to educate themselves as to what violence looks like. However, there are also those who are genuinely excited, possibly due to a sexual element, watching a real-life violent encounter occur; much akin to the way that chimpanzees often do when witnessing violent events between group members. These are the individuals who seek out and encourage the spectacle of violence, for nothing more than violence’s sake e.g., the theatre of violence satisfies the “chimpanzee” in them.                  Watching something like a boxing match is very different to watching real-life violence. I have rarely seen or encountered a skilled combatant during a real-life encounter. Whilst there are sometimes posted videos which show a skilled individual demonstrating their abilities on social media, most fights I’ve seen and dealt with have involved drunk, and very quickly exhausted, combatants who have run out of ideas, hanging on to each other, trying to work out what to do next. There are very few if any fighting skills on display in these encounters, unlike in a  professional boxing match between two skilled and well-matched individuals. When watching boxers fight, I’m taking in footwork, head and body movement, control of range, timing, reaction speeds etc. Skills which are rarely – if ever – on display in real-life violent encounters. However, there are those who get excited when they see such violent incidents, sometimes capturing it on their phones to share on social media. They aren’t celebrating any fighting skills and/or abilities etc. but reveling in the theatre and spectacle of the incident.                This is also different from a fascination with violence from an “educational” perspective. Women consume “True Crime” podcasts (an Edison Research online poll from 2021 found that women made up nearly 75% of all true crime podcast listeners), TV shows and literature at a significantly higher rate than men, especially those that involve violent crimes, including homicide. In recent years the publishing industry has been active in promoting crime-fiction aimed specifically at women. However, this interest is quite specific and doesn’t actually suggest that women are more fascinated with crime and violence than men. The media that women engage with tends to share several common themes including, women as victims, survival strategies, psychological insights, along with  self-defense elements that demonstrated female targets surviving when they fought back etc. Some of the suggested reasons for this include the idea that women are likely to be interested in understanding motivation and criminal psychology behind violence in order to understand how to prevent themselves from being targeted in real life. Engaging with such media may also have a cathartic effect, allowing watchers/listeners/readers to engage with frightening narratives, that they would normally try to avoid thinking about, in a controlled setting. Those who engage – whether men and women - in the “True Crime” genre aren’t likely celebrating violence but are rather looking for a means of educating themselves about violence, so that they can understand and avoid it.                Whilst an interest in violence in order to educate ourselves concerning it makes sense, and an appreciation of fighting skills, such as those demonstrated in combat sports is understandable, being excited by the theatre and spectacle of violence – in whatever capacity - is something that achieves nothing and is only appealing to our most base/crude nature. Real life violence usually involves the fear and suffering of at least one party and this shouldn’t be something that anyone finds entertaining. If it is then it should be addressed as we should all strive to be better people for the good of ourselves and that of society. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=751 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=750 Whilst videos  on YouTube and those posted on social media may give the impression that one-punch knockouts are common, the reality is that they’re not. There is also a huge difference between someone who, after receiving a punch goes down and gives up the fight – and there is no judgment on my part concerning this - versus someone who is actually rendered unconscious. The point being that if you believe you will end/finish a fight with one strike/punch you are engaging in “wishful” thinking. Equally, if you believe that you will immaculately execute the 1-2-3-4 combination that you practiced in the gym in a real-life confrontation you are mistaken, unless you perhaps have the skills of an Ali or a Tyson etc. This is not to say that practicing combinations on a bag or with a partner holding focus mitts doesn’t have its place but rather it’s important to understand the lesson(s) that this is teaching you. Believing that your prowess on the pads can be translated into dealing with a real-life, moving attacker, who doesn’t want you to be able to execute and display your fighting skills, can see you quickly becoming frustrated, as well as losing confidence and belief in your ability to be successful in a fight. Practicing striking/combinations on the pads is a worthwhile endeavor but only if you are taking the right lessons from it.                     It’s very easy, and satisfying, to get caught up in the choreography of pad work. Despite being a default grappler, I have a love of boxing. I grew up in the UK, during the 1980’s, when boxing was a regular fixture on mainstream TV. It’s a sport I grew up watching, and one I took part in competitively during my later teenage years. Until I started practicing/participating in it, I didn’t fully understand the complexities and depth to it. Sometimes, it takes the experience of being in the ring with someone who knows what they’re doing to help you begin to understand what you don’t know. This is one of the reasons I advocate for people to train outside of their comfort zones, so that they can start to understand what they don’t know – it’s also the reason why I’m a believer in structured and formal academic education; it fills in the gaps you didn’t realize you had. I love watching pre-fight videos of professional boxers demonstrating their skills, whether it’s skipping, working a bag, or working the pads etc. I’m always amazed by their footwork, their reaction time, however I usually get caught up in watching the wrong thing: I get caught up with the choreography, rather than looking at the point of the choreography, and this is something I routinely see with people when they practice combinations whether on the pads or the heavy bag etc.                When someone first learns a combination, such as a jab, cross, hook, uppercut etc., it’s understandable that the focus is on the choreography i.e., the person wants to be able to make sure that they are completing the four strikes/punches in the correct order etc. However, in my opinion, this is not the point of learning the combination, as executing this sequence in this exact order, during a real-life confrontation, is extremely unlikely e.g., a person is unlikely to stay still or move in a way that allows you to do exactly what you want to do/have practiced etc. Practicing combinations, also rarely takes into account the “result” of a previous strike e.g., if you throw a successful jab that moves someone back this may mean that they aren’t in range for a subsequent cross etc. This is actually one of the reasons to practice combinations. If the jab is successful i.e., it produces a concussion and/or a disengagement opportunity, you don’t need to throw the cross, but if it doesn’t have an effect, you may need it to follow up with the cross and other strikes/punches etc. In some ways combinations can be seen as following up after a failure; how to seamlessly continue after an intended strike/punch didn’t land effectively/have the desired effect etc.                For me, one of the most important aspects of practicing combinations on the pads is understanding weight distribution and this is more important than learning the choreography of the strikes. This is the part of pad work that is felt e.g., if I throw a cross – from an orthodox stance – with my rear hand, my weight should be on my front/left foot, and I should feel/recognize this. It is this recognition that allows me to understand what power strikes/punches I can throw from here. If I have a wide enough stance, I can transfer weight laterally from my left foot to my right using a hook or elbow strike. That feeling/understanding of where the weight is and where it can be transferred to is extremely important for delivering strikes/punches with power. This is perhaps the greatest lesson that working the pads can teach us. If we can get to the point where we intuitively feel and know where our weight is, we can immediately know where it needs to be redistributed to in order to land a successive strike/punch that delivers maximum power. We may not have the option to deliver a “rehearsed” set of pre-programmed strikes – especially against a dynamic/moving opponent/aggressor - but if we can naturally understand how we can deliver a powerful strike from any position we find ourselves in we will always be able to know how to strike with maximum force.                Learning striking combinations shouldn’t be reduced to remembering a sequence of movements/strikes that we hope to pull off in a violent confrontation. Rather, we should learn to interpret where our body is in time and space and what this means for generating power. Rather than learning which punch, comes after which punch etc., we should learn to feel where our weight is and why a certain strike should come after another etc. Developing such a skill will enable us to intuitively know how we can generate power from any position in which we find ourselves.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=750 Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=749 As the school year ends and wraps up, and the long school holiday begins, it’s worth taking a moment to look at the role(s) schools play concerning crime and violence prevention and reduction. We can be forgiven for thinking/believing that schools are unsafe places, especially after a school shooting, where the 24x7 news cycle constantly reminds us of this particular type of tragedy. However, when we look at the statistics for such events, they are actually extremely rare. In 2023, there were 349 recorded incidents of a weapon being brandished in a school; this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was actually fired. This number doesn’t include weapons that were discovered or found but incidents where a weapon was pulled in a threatening fashion. Whilst this at first may seem like an alarming number i.e., almost two events every day (most school years in the US contain somewhere between 175 and 180 days), when it’s considered that there are approximately 130 000 schools in the US, this in fact a pretty small number. This means statistically – on average – that an individual school would experience a gun being brandished and/or fired once every 6000 years. This is not to say that weapons in schools are not a problem, but rather to recognize that when compared to other types of institutions schools are statistically some of the safest places on the planet. Numerous studies (Bennett et al., 2018, Rocque et al., 2017 etc.) have consistently shown that by reducing truancy local crime rates are reduced. This occurs for several reasons. When students skip school, they usually have unstructured and unsupervised time during the day, which increases the chances of engaging in criminal activity such as shoplifting, vandalism, and/or drug use. By keeping students in school such opportunities to offend are reduced. Teachers effectively act as what criminologist John Eck, would refer to as “handlers” i.e., individuals who manage and influence, potential offenders. When a parent (another handler) passes the job/role of looking after their child to teachers, they are ensuring that their child’s time is controlled/managed. If a child manages to bypass this process, then they themselves become responsible for what they do, which could involve committing various offenses. Chronic truants often lack a consistent handler due to neglect, poor family dynamics, or absentee guardianship. Truancy is also often a gateway behavior leading to dropping out of school. Dropping out increases the risk of long-term economic marginalization and involvement in crime. Research consistently shows that school dropouts are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated than peers who complete school. A recent U.S. DOJ (Department of Justice) study found that those with a history of truancy were nearly twice as likely to be arrested later in adolescence as non-truant youth.  Many juvenile offenses are committed in groups rather than alone. By reducing truancy, schools reduce the congregation of potentially at-risk youth outside of structured settings. This cuts off networks that may facilitate group offending. Young people engaging in truancy are likely to find others engaged in the same activity e.g., a teenager noticing another teenager in a public space when they should be at school is going to recognize and understand that they are engaged in the same behavior as themselves. Whilst school may seem “boring” to many, not having anything to do is also extremely boring. This can lead to the formation of groups looking for excitement, that may be found through shoplifting, vandalism and/or drug/alcohol abuse etc. Locales which have strong targeted truancy programs (e.g., Truancy Reduction Demonstration Programs) reduce the number of individuals out on the streets who can form such groups, and in doing so reduce crime. One of the issues that many cities see is an uptake in juvenile crime rates during the school summer holidays which give young people the opportunity and time to congregate together. When this is coupled with boredom (not every teenager gets to attend camps, go on holidays or has an X-Box to play with etc.) it can create a perfect storm. In response to a number of violent incidents over the summer months involving young people, the city of Boston in 2024 piloted "Boston After Dark" a Friday evening youth programming that ran from June to August which provided structured activities in order to reduce unsupervised roaming and congregating. Schools also work to promote “Pro Social Bonds”. According to Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory (1969), individuals are less likely to commit crimes when they have strong social bonds to/with society. Hirschi identified four key elements that form these bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. When these bonds are strong, they constrain deviant behavior; when they weaken, the risk of delinquency increases. Teachers who show interest in their students' well-being help to foster attachment, whilst positive relationships with other students help to build emotional ties that encourage conformity. If a student can see their school as a gateway to their future success, they are less likely to engage in delinquent activities that could derail this. This helps them to commit to societal norms and rules i.e. conform. Simply being at school i.e., involved, takes away time to engage risky behaviors, especially in unsupervised settings. Schools also promote the idea of social norms and laws as being morally valid, which helps create a belief in them. When individuals believe in the legitimacy of the rules, they are less likely to break them. Hirschi’s theory suggests that crime is not just about motivation and gain but also about restraint. People don’t offend simply because they want to, but because there is not an effective value/belief system that holds them back from doing so. Schools, when functioning well, are important and critical institutions of restraint. When these bonds are weakened, through chronic absenteeism/truancy, academic failure, alienation, and/or school exclusion the risk of criminal involvement increases. When an institution simply goes about its business without incident it is rarely celebrated, however when something bad happens at it, such as a school shooting etc., then people can be all too ready to point a finger at its failings and criticize it. Whilst no school is perfect, the roles that they play in preventing and reducing offending in our communities should be acknowledged. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=749 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=748 In the early 2000’s the term “terrorism” started to be replaced by “violent extremism”, both in academia and public policy e.g. organizations like the United Nations, U.S. Department of State, and various European counter-terrorism bodies began using the term "violent extremism" more frequently, with the “UN's Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism”, which was introduced in 2015, marking a key institutional endorsement of the term etc. Whilst there are those who saw this as a form of political correctness e.g., various individuals and organizations didn’t want to stigmatize and label individuals who had committed acts of violence with a politically charged term, such as being “terrorists” etc., the change, to violent extremism, allowed what had been quite a restrictive term – limited to those who had committed or were planning to commit violent acts – to be applied to those who espoused and supported such violence, but weren’t active in applying it e.g., a supporter of ISIS, the IRA and/or HAMAS etc., who perhaps funded these organizations, but didn’t personally/physically engage in acts of “terror” could now come under the umbrella of violent extremism, and be looked on as violent extremists. Because extremism is a behavior/attitude it became easier to look at from a psychological perspective; not why do some people engage in terrorism, but rather why do people engage in extremist thinking and activities?                      We all have the capability to be extremists. In my competing days my lifestyle was extremist; I trained 5-6 hours a day, I followed a restricted diet, I limited my social activities etc. This was all necessary for me to accomplish my goals of winning competitions. I had a friend who continued in this lifestyle, after getting married and having kids, who saw his marriage fall apart because he was never home and always training (he only made the connection between this and his extreme training regime some ten-years after his divorce). However, extremism comes with its benefits, i.e., we both won national titles. However, there are also “costs”. This is because, as psychologist, Dr. Arie Kruglanski, puts it “Extremism is a psychological state of motivational imbalance that happens when one of our basic needs is so dominant that it crowds out the others.” For the terrorist/violent extremist they may withdraw from their family, and with Islamist extremists their mosque, and start living a more extreme lifestyle in preparation for becoming a “Shahid”, a martyr who is prepared to die for a cause. This certainly represents a “motivational imbalance”, as a person who is prepared to conduct an act to promote an issue and move the goals of an organization forward at the expense of their own life isn’t motivationally balanced e.g., whilst believing in something and possibly supporting a cause isn’t in itself out of the ordinary, when it’s not balanced with a work and/or social/family life, it becomes something that is “extreme”.                There are though good reasons why we at times become motivationally imbalanced, e.g., if we find ourselves in a survival situation where we need water to live, it makes sense for this to be the single thing that we focus on, and we should attack the problem with a single-mindedness that excludes everything else. However, like many things we can apply this type of thinking in situations that don’t require it e.g., it is good to learn and educate ourselves to the fact that snakes can be extremely harmful/dangerous, however if we turn that into a phobia, that sees us jump and become adrenalized every time we see an electrical cable lying on the ground, then that’s not such a positive/good thing. So, whilst we have a “biological” predisposition to extremism as part of our survival instinct, humans also have the ability to create existential threats, along with narratives that support them e.g., the Jews (threat) need to be eliminated because, as those Neo-Nazis with their Tiki torches chanting at Charlottesville in 2017 seemed to believe, Jews want to replace them (narrative); not that I want to speak for the entire Jewish people but I’m pretty sure we, as a people, don’t want anything that anyone on that march had/has e.g., they can keep their hate and unhappiness.                The journey to violent extremism is rarely a quick or immediate one, though it does usually start with some form of drastic lifestyle change; a decision to give up on some form of social norm(s) etc., to engage in another activity. This is normally preceded by the research and study of a certain issue or time in history etc. In the modern world this can quickly be hijacked by violent extremists e.g., someone goes to a forum online to ask genuine questions about something, and they’re met by someone who gives them a “unique” perspective on it e.g., they may tell them that their current – and the mainstream – understanding of Islam is flawed, incorrect and wrong etc. That they should no longer go to the mosque, and listen to their current Imam etc., but instead listen to a certain set of lectures given by another Iman. It may be that this individual initially tries to inform others that they should follow their direction etc., and when met with resistance and reluctance, as those they met online said they would, they pull away and isolate themselves. All of these behaviors being biologically/psychologically reinforced by a survival instinct that tells them extremism and violence is the only way to deal with the threat (existential) that they face. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=748 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=747 Most subcultures have their own language and slang. The common use of words, phrases and terms etc. help define and unite members as well as allow them to quickly and easily communicate relatively complex ideas and concepts in a word or a few words; slang becoming a “shorthand” for the ideas that define the group. The language that subcultures use can also permeate and get picked up by those in mainstream society e.g., The Beatnik and Counter Culture movements of the 1950’s and 1960’s gave us words such as “Bummer” and “Groovy”, and hip-hop culture which originated in the Bronx in the 1970s and developed its own slang, gave us words such as “Lit” and “Bling” which have become mainstream. However, one subculture whose language has started to become “mainstream” especially with Gen Z, is that of the Incels (Involuntary Celibates). For those who are unaware, Incels are misogynistic men who believe that the world is structured in a social-sexual hierarchy, that sees them at the bottom, unable to find a romantic/sexual partner. They believe the world is made up of Stacey’s (shallow women) who are only concerned with “capturing” an alpha/good-looking male (a Chad), and as a consequence don’t give them a second look etc. A lot of this slang has been picked up, and is being used by Gen-Z, with some members of this generation being aware of both its origin – and with younger teenagers and kids – the full meaning of the words, terms and phrases being used. In this article I want to look at how this happened and what it could mean for future violent offending, especially against women.                Incel culture largely started on 4chan which is an anonymous imageboard website  that was created in 2003. The site allows users to post images and comments without registering, allowing for a greater degree of anonymity, something that certain subcultures prefer as it allows users to use violent and extreme hate-speech with very little fear of being identified. Whilst the original concept behind this was to encourage free speech without judgment, the site has gained notoriety for hosting controversial and extremist content, including incel rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and other types of hate speech. Many incel-related terms and ideologies originated or spread on 4chan, particularly from boards like (Robot 9000), a board known for its "forever alone" themes, and self-deprecating humor that contains incel ideology. One of the problems with “extreme” ideological groups – and especially when there is anonymity – is that members often try to one-up each other with their level of extremism and commitment to the ideology, and when individuals can do so anonymously, they don’t have to worry about being judged. There is a phenomenon known as “Risky Shift” which suggests that a group is likely to behave in more extreme ways than individuals, because group members believe that other members are likely to be more extreme than them, causing them to engage in more extreme actions, behaviors and rhetoric etc. It is important to note that 4chan is/was an imageboard that saw the proliferation of memes – including those created by Incels promoting misogynistic messages and ideas. These memes – that were on Incel themes such as “Chads vs. Virgins” - started to be exported to other platforms such as TikTok, Twitter, and Reddit  where Gen Z, known for its heavy use and engagement in meme culture, unknowingly absorbed incel slang, taking it into their mainstream. Whilst not every Gen Z user who engages with 4chan-derived incel slang becomes radicalized, exposure to these ideas can desensitize young people to misogyny and the use of such slang ironically or humorously, can lead to further normalization of this.                        When I was a teenager – back in the 1980’s (I’m Gen X) – it was pretty common for people to be involved in “romantic” and sexual relationships. This has changed considerably with Gen Z i.e., a 2023 poll from the Survey Center on American life found that 56 percent of Gen Z adults had been in a relationship during their teens compared with 76 percent of my generation. In one sense there is no problem with this, but if those who might be susceptible to Incel messaging are noting that many teenage and young women don’t have partners, they may come to believe that they belong to a much larger group i.e., women (Stacey’s) really are only attracted to a handful of Alpha men (Chads), and there are far more Incel men than they first thought. If this coupled with normalized Incel vocabulary, the idea that the world really is structured around a sexual-social hierarchy may start to become more real and believable to them – this can be the danger of a subculture’s language and slang becoming mainstream and normalized.                Ironically, the term Incel was coined by a Canadian Woman, known as Alana, who started an online support group, in the 1990’s, called the "Involuntary Celibate Project" as a safe space for people of all genders who struggled with dating and relationships. Her goal was to create a supportive community where people could share their experiences of loneliness. However, over time the term was taken and used by angry men, who blamed women and society for their lack of romantic success. A permanent exclusion narrative started to develop amongst self-identified incels that they would always be excluded from finding/having a romantic partner. When people develop such narratives, they often become fatalistic, and think about engaging in violence both to punish society and escape their own misery, such as engaging in mass shootings e.g., Elliot Rodger (2014), Alex Minassian (2018), and Jake Davison (2021) etc. As incel misogynistic language – and the ideas behind it – has become normalized with this generation, there is a danger that such acts of violence will only increase. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=747 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=746 Most violent incidents are spontaneous in nature. That is, they result from social conflicts e.g., everyday interactions that have taken a turn for the worse. These can include specific things such as disputes over parking spaces or accidentally knocking into a person, and can be as vague as someone feeling that they have been disrespected in some way; a common motivation/theme concerning aggression amongst teenagers I worked with in London, though nobody could actually articulate what this meant. Through his research, the psychiatrist Heinz Kohut found that many of our psychological issues are the result of our reactions to attacks - whether real or perceived - on our self-esteem. Whilst Freud believed that aggression was innate (internal), Kohut saw aggression as being reactive (the result of external factors). In spontaneous situations, aggression is largely used in order to reduce a threat to a person’s self-respect. Most of these types of incidents, before they turn violent, are preceded by some form of verbal interaction, where the aggrieved/disrespected individual voices – sometimes loudly - their frustration(s) and the injustices etc. In many cases due to their emotional state, they lack any clear “goals” which would rectify the situation for them. When this is the case de-escalation can be a viable strategy. I have written before about the use of open-ended questions, giving people the opportunity to be wrong, and active-listening etc., however in this article I want to look at two general tactics that can be used to help de-escalate these types of incidents.                The first thing to bear in mind when engaged in any form of de-escalation is to work from the assumption that it’s not going to be successful. Whilst engaging in a de-escalation process, you should at the same time be making yourself physically safer, and assessing the other person’s emotional state e.g., can they understand what you are saying and verbally respond; if they can’t there’s a good chance that the faculties they need to verbally communicate are shutting down and they are getting ready to act violently. Those who have become highly emotional due to a perceived/real injustice/frustration become caught up in the moment, and are unable to get past it e.g., one time during the COVID pandemic, due to someone’s extreme social distancing in a shopping line, I inadvertently took a place in front of them. As soon as they started shouting at me and pointing this out, I apologized for my mistake and moved behind them. For the next five minutes as we waited in line, every 10-15 seconds, they’d turn around and shout at me. When they got to the till, they then continued to voice their complaint to the person scanning their groceries. Even though the “injustice” had been addressed, they couldn’t emotionally get past the moment. This was never a situation that was going to turn physical, i.e., they weren’t trying to get physically close to me (I was never in imminent danger) and having spent enough years on the door having people throw obscenities at me etc., I repeatedly acknowledged their complaint(s) and simply waited in line. If the situation had required a need for de-escalation, one of the general strategies I would have employed would have been “future talk”. The aim of “future talk” is to help move the person past the moment. This is one of the reasons why “What can I do to sort this out?” is such an effective statement. As well as forcing a person to start thinking of solutions and alternatives to violence, it helps move their thinking on and away from the moment to a future – better - time after the injustice/frustration that they’re currently experiencing. One of the “tools” that can be used in workplace settings when dealing with angry clients, such as a confused individual in a healthcare setting who is frustrated by the process they are having to go through etc., is to simply say “Let’s sit down and we can try and figure this out.” When Jimmy Hill was the managing director/chairman of Coventry City FC, he advocated for the club to eliminate standing areas and become an all-seater stadium. His argument was that people sitting down were less likely to engage in violence (this was in the 1970’s when English football was plagued by football hooligans). When people are able to stand, move around etc., it feeds into the fight-or-flight response. Using a phrase like “we can try to figure this out”, demonstrates empathy and also gets the person to think less about their present moment and more about the future. Another thing that can be extremely useful is getting an emotional/aggressive person to say “yes”. When someone says “yes” they are agreeing with you on something, and it is far harder for them to hold an aggressive/violent attitude towards someone they are agreeing with. This is a tactic that is used in highly volatile barricade/hostage incidents e.g., a question such as “You must be extremely hungry can I send you some food?” is most likely to be met with a “yes” than a “no”. Once a person is in a “habit” of saying/responding “yes” it becomes far harder for them to start saying “no”. In my time working security dealing with aggressive individuals, I would sometimes ask an irrelevant question just to elicit a yes e.g., I’d say/ask, “Is it OK if I move to here? I’m hard of hearing in my left ear and I’ll be better able to understand what you’re saying if I’m standing here.” It’s a hard question to say no to, as doing so would be self-defeating; if I can’t hear you, I can’t solve your problem/issue. Neither of these things i.e., engaging in “future talk” and/or getting a person to start saying “yes” will on their own de-escalate an aggressive/emotional and potentially violent situation, but they can be useful tactics to employ alongside more specific methods. Using questions to get someone to say “yes” should be used judiciously and be reserved for questions where saying “yes” is in the other person’s best interests and definitely doesn’t harm them. As soon as a person starts saying “no”, it becomes easier for them to keep saying “no”. No is often a simpler and easier response to yes. Yes, opens up possibilities, whereas no, is more defensive, and when it comes to dealing with a threat, more predictable i.e., you know the outcome of saying no to something, whereas you don’t know what saying yes to might lead to. However, when used judiciously, both tactics can be useful in de-escalating potentially dangerous situations. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=746 Mon, 26 May 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=745 Perfect techniques simply don’t exist. All techniques contain vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and it’s extremely easy to point these out and demonstrate them – possibly adding a tagline if you’re doing so on social media, such as, “good way to get yourself killed” etc., as if doing nothing was a better option. Any instructor and/or practitioner can easily demonstrate how/why a technique wouldn’t work; it really doesn’t take a lot of skill or knowledge to do so. The fact that someone is teaching and/or learning Krav Maga, or any other martial art or self-defense system is an acknowledgment that violence is asymmetrical and that they are starting from a disadvantaged position. The reason for leaning how to fight is that the individual recognizes and knows that they don’t know how to, and that they need to develop “skills” and learn “techniques” that will start to level the playing field for them in a violent encounter and hopefully give them an edge/advantage over the other person(s). Unfortunately, this often comes down to a belief in techniques as a set of “tricks” that allows an inexperienced person to become a successful fighter, and if your “tricks” aren’t good enough you fail; and there are plenty of people out there – especially in the Krav Maga - who will tell you why your techniques/tricks won’t work. By focusing on the vulnerabilities of other individuals’ techniques it allows them to not have to look too hard at their own, and every technique contains vulnerabilities that can be exploited. In my opinion it is better for a practitioner to spend time addressing these vulnerabilities – and there are ways to do this - than pointing out the vulnerabilities in another system’s techniques etc.                 I grew up practicing Judo, Karate and Boxing, before I started in Krav Maga in the early 1990’s. All of these systems have techniques but there is an acknowledgment within them that you need to develop skills in order to get them to work e.g. in Judo you need to learn how to grip and take a person’s balance; if you don’t have the skills to do these two things, you won’t be able to throw someone. A boxer needs to learn how to generate power in their punching/striking, if they are going to be able to knock somebody out. Unfortunately, there are those in the Krav Maga community who believe and/or like to present the idea that Krav Maga techniques due to their simplicity don’t require any skills or abilities to get them to work; they are “tricks” that can be performed with minimal rehearsal and training. Some believe that the magic/secret ingredient to get these techniques to work is aggression, and that this is a substitute for skills. Developing the skills that are necessary to get a technique to work is one of the ways to address its vulnerabilities. A punch, such as a jab, has a number of vulnerabilities, and people inherently know this, which is why when they initially start sparring, they are often hesitant to make an attack i.e., they have a lot of doubts about landing it successfully. They know that as they step forward to throw it, they are also committing weight; two things that can be exploited. A step can be exploited by a sweep, loading weight onto the forward leg means that if a person counters with a low-roundhouse kick to it, all of the kick’s power will be absorbed etc. An experienced person/fighter recognizes these things and knows not to make the punch when the other fighter is in a position to exploit these vulnerabilities. It’s not that punches don’t work, it’s that they need to be thrown in a way that compensates for their inherent drawbacks, and this involves developing skills and abilities, around striking/punching. One of the most common vulnerabilities I see in sparring is a slowness/lateness in recoiling strikes, whether they be punches or kicks etc. It is this phase of the strike that is often exploited. It’s not a problem with the technique, it’s an issue with the skills of the person performing it.             Are there bad self-defense techniques? I would argue that there aren’t if the person performing them has the skills to do so successfully. I know an instructor whose solution to having a short-barreled firearm pointing at him, was to do a crescent kick, to knock the gun out of the person’s hand. I’ve seen him successfully do this, before a person could shout bang, and attempt to retain the weapon etc. I can – and I’d hope anyone reading this article – could immediately point out any number of issues with this technique/solution, and why they wouldn’t do this. However, the ultimate reason this isn’t a solution I would ever use is because I lack the skills to do so. I also don’t teach this as a solution because I believe that it would take an extremely long time to develop the skills necessary to address the vulnerabilities inherent in such a solution. However, for those who possess the skills to make it work, it’s not necessarily a bad technique/solution. All techniques have vulnerabilities and developing skills can help address these. A technique that contains a vulnerability(s) doesn’t necessarily make it a bad one, as if this was the case all techniques would be bad ones. When teaching, I’ll sometimes say that I don’t particularly like a technique but that it’s the best solution I have for a threat or attack etc., for a number of reasons e.g., it might address the most likely response an attacker could make, or the most serious. In understanding how an assailant might respond, it’s important not to “rely” solely on the technique itself, but to develop the skills that minimize your ability to use it. It is in this skills development piece that many Krav Maga practitioners have a blind-spot, believing that Krav Maga techniques don’t need fighting skills in order to get them to work, and so engage in a “comparison” as to why their techniques are better than someone else’s without recognizing that all techniques are subject to vulnerabilities.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=745 Mon, 19 May 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=744 There is an over-focus in the martial arts and in many self-defense systems on physicality and the techniques needed to “answer” that physicality e.g., if someone pushes me, how do I negate and/or counter that push etc. The emotional content, the behavioral aspects, behind the push are rarely examined or even considered when looking at defenses to it. I’m at heart a traditional martial artist. I love watching YouTube videos of Aikidoka, Judoka and Karate practitioners demonstrating clean techniques i.e., the arts side of the martial arts. I also believe that many Krav Maga practitioners and instructors would benefit from embracing this type of practice. I see many videos where the demonstration of an aggressive response occurs at the expense of “form” e.g., a supposedly forceful strike is made whilst the corresponding stepping foot is still in the air, rather than timed to land with the strike etc., however because the person performing the strike is shouting/looking/acting aggressively etc., we are meant to ignore this. Aggression and good form can and should exist together; they are not binary alternatives. However, in saying all of this, when it comes to training for reality, often a piece that is lacking is knowing how to defend against the rage of an attack, i.e., the emotion behind it, and this is perhaps where most trained individuals fail when it comes to dealing with real-life violence.                    I was bullied as a kid. Not picked on but bullied. I wouldn’t say everyone in the group that bullied me hated me, some just went along with it, because it was easy, entertaining, and it allowed them to be part of the group as opposed to potentially being an outsider who may then be a target. However, the two main protagonists in the group hated me with a degree of venom that was hard to understand as a child. It took me awhile to realize that these weren’t individuals who could be won over, that if they just got to know me, we could all be friends etc. My guess is, that unless they’ve had a come to Jesus moment in their lives, they still hate me to this day (forty plus years on). This experience of violence gave me an early introduction to the rage behind the physical acts committed against me. A push wasn’t just a push, a punch wasn’t just a punch etc., every physical act was an expression of anger, hatred and rage. However, it was an education that served me well in my time working on the door.                 I started working on the door in pub/bar/club security when I was eighteen. The Judo club I trained at whilst I was at university basically provided the doormen for the city’s drinking establishments, and to cut a long story short, I ended up working for one of the companies that provided these security services. There are few angrier more hostile people than those who are looking to have a drink and are refused the opportunity to do so. If someone has been having a good night, with their friends, and are told that they can’t come into an establishment – perhaps because of a restriction in numbers due to a fire code, or because they’re wearing sneakers/trainers rather than shoes and they’re violating the dress code etc. Top tip: don’t try the argument that the sneakers/trainers you’re wearing cost $500 more than the guy who has just been let in before you and is wearing a pair of shoes that cost $30 etc., because if you think you’re the first person to make this “clever” argument, you’re not, and you won’t be let in. In fact, if you start arguing with a doorman you’re not coming in that night, and possibly not ever in the future. The one thing that prepared me for dealing with angry individuals was that I was not only trained to defend the physical attacks and assaults that may have been directed at me, but I knew how to defend against the anger and rage that fueled them. However, I have worked with many very physically competent people who took a long time to learn how to deal with this.                 Big guys often go through their life without being bullied and picked on. There are those that do, but many don’t, and sometimes they end up working on the door. It’s always useful to have big people around when you need to control someone. However, many of them, when they first start working, haven’t experienced someone else’s anger, hatred and rage. It’s an emotionally new experience for them, and one that initially catches many of them unaware i.e., why would someone who isn’t let in start attacking them because they’re a different race, because of their haircut etc. They might be great at defending themselves physically, but they didn’t know how to defend themselves against the rage and hatred demonstrated, especially when the rage may not have, from a professional perspective, justified a physical response.                 A lot of Krav Maga training teaches responses to “physical surprise” e.g., someone catching you in a rear strangle when you’re not expecting it etc. The fact that Krav Maga has an “unprepared stance” as one of its stances, recognizes that we will not always be physically prepared to deal with an attack/assault, however there is often little time spent dealing with “psychological/emotional surprise” i.e., how do you respond and manage when someone is screaming in your face and calling you every name under the sun. I would argue that you are more likely to have to deal with an “emotional” surprise than a “physical” one, and if your training hasn’t included this then you’ll be less likely to a) put into play a de-escalation process and/or b) employ the appropriate physical solution/response that you learnt in class. Most violence occurs due to normal social interactions that have gone bad, and they are usually motivated/accompanied by rage and hatred. If you haven’t learnt how to defend against the rage, you are likely to simply freeze. Next time you practice a rear strangle defense when physically surprised add in an “emotional” surprise e.g., have someone shouting and swearing in your ear as you practice your defense etc.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=744 Mon, 12 May 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=743 Everyone has an opinion, and Matt Thornton is entitled to his. There’s been an article (on calfkicker.com) that’s circulating social media where Matt Thornton talks about Krav Maga instructors preparing for high level Krav Maga certifications who came to his school and were constantly being smoked by BJJ Blue Belts with maybe just a couple of years’ experience of BJJ and MMA and then going on to pass their Krav Maga courses/certifications a few weeks later. Do I believe him? Yes, I do (I don’t think he’s a liar or making things up). But I don’t agree with his conclusion i.e., that Krav Maga is simply bad MMA. This is his experience, and it’s limited to him, and the people he’s met and trained with, i.e., it’s far from a scientific or universal analysis. Also, it ignores the fact that those individuals who went to train with him obviously recognized a gap in their training and wanted to fill it. Hats off to them for recognizing where they were weak, were missing something, and wanting to address it. We should be celebrating this. I have students who want to work, and put in time, on areas of their fight/survival game, where they might be lacking in some way etc. and I always welcome that awareness, and the humility to admit that they are far from perfect etc. In saying all of that he also has a valid point that many Krav Maga instructors and practitioners should acknowledge i.e., the structure of combat sports training, can often reflect reality more than “traditional” Krav Maga training.                 Krav Maga is a reality-based self-defense system, in that it looks to deal with real-life violent encounters. MMA and BJJ are combat sports. The context in which encounters occur differs ­– this is important, and training reflects this. However, I would make the argument – which may be unpopular with some Krav Maga practitioners – that if you can’t perform in the more controlled environment of a combat sport setting, you are not more likely to be able to perform in the completely uncontrolled environment of a real-life physical encounter. Whenever I make this argument, I’m usually met with responses and arguments that claim if groin and eye-strikes were allowed in combat sports the Krav Maga practitioner would prevail. Sorry, I don’t believe that it’s the presence of “rules” that allows the BJJ/MMA practitioner to prevail against the Krav Maga practitioner in a controlled, combat sports environment. The Krav Maga practitioner usually fails – and this varies by individual - because they lack the necessary fighting skills, and because their faith is completely invested in a knowledge of self-defense techniques. What the BJJ and MMA practitioner knows is that a fight isn’t comprised of single, individual moments, it is made up of phases e.g., one person does this, the other reacts/responds, and then they counter, to which the other person counters again, and the cycle continues. Sometimes what you do works, sometimes it fails and is countered/responded to etc. This is not unique to combat sports. It is a reflection of reality. When I look at the vast majority of violent encounters I’ve been involved in, they were solved by incremental gains and progressions, not by one-and-done techniques i.e., there were multiple, and overlapping, phases to the fight.                 However, trying to compare and/or judge Krav Maga in relation to MMA is erroneous for a number of reasons. Krav Maga is sometimes referred to as MMA for the street. However, it is not. Whilst Krav Maga practitioners need to have fighting skills, they should be primarily looking to disengage and get away rather than to “submit” or “end” the fight. This is for a number of reasons, but one significant one is the potential legal consequences of being involved in a fight. From a legal perspective, once you are no longer in imminent danger, you lose the right to make a claim of self-defense, and if you continue the fight, you are now the aggressor. When I competed in Judo, my coaches drilled into me, that even if you believed you had won the contest by gaining an ippon (throwing a person so that they landed on their back), you should continue, and follow your opponent to ground, in order to gain a pin or submission i.e., don’t assume that the referee will get the decision right or that you were correct in assuming the win etc. In a real-life confrontation, if after I make a throw and have a clear opportunity to safely disengage from the fight, I don’t take it, I will most likely lose my claim of self-defense, which could be costly in a number of ways. MMA, BJJ, Judo, boxing etc., are great at teaching and developing fighting skills, and techniques that can be utilized in reality-based confrontations, however they also need to be understood in a legal context, if they are going to be used in this way.                 There are two other assumptions that I make when dealing with real-life confrontations: an attacker is armed and assisted. These are two assumptions that those practicing combat sports don’t have to make. However, this doesn’t automatically make Krav Maga a superior alternative to MMA and BJJ, though it is often what is highlighted as Krav Maga’s advantage i.e., the approach deals with armed assailants, and multiple attackers in a way that combat sports don’t. If a wrestler, judoka, grappler can drop/throw you to the ground, they may get cut in the process, but you’re probably not getting up again soon – not a bad way to survive an armed assault, or deal with one of the attackers in a group etc., even though those techniques and strategies aren’t designed to do so. So why do I believe in Krav Maga and still teach it? Why didn’t I make the move to MMA or BJJ? And why don’t I agree with the statement that Krav Maga is just bad MMA?                 I started training in Krav Maga in 1993, the same year as the first UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship). I watched Royce Gracie – a grappler – win the contest. As a Judoka I was excited because I’d always believed, despite numerous arguments to the contrary that grappling skills could nullify striking skills; Gene LeBell (Judoka) had demonstrated this against Milo Savage (Boxer) in 1963 – perhaps the first MMA match ever. However, I’d been working in pub and club security for three years by then, as well as having competed in Judo for about thirteen years, and the differences between real-life violence and combat sports had become profound to me by this point. Whilst there were similarities between competition fighting and real-life violence there were also major differences. One of these was the difference between certainty and uncertainty i.e., when I fought in a competition setting there were boundaries and defined outcomes, things that weren’t present in real-life confrontations (these might seem minor when written on the page but they are major ones when having to face a violent aggressor in real life). The Krav Maga training I experienced acknowledged these differences and addressed them. It is worth noting that I initially learnt Krav Maga in Israel where there was an attitude/expectation that violence was something you were going to face i.e., it was/is inevitable. This attitude alone changes the way in which training is conducted; it’s something much more than a workout, it’s about survival. Whilst I’ve trained BJJ and MMA, I’ve never been at a club where training was conducted in such a way that your very life depended on it; and this is natural, it’s about sport not survival. I can’t and I’m not going to get into a discussion and debate about how different Krav Maga associations train or what their standards may be, or applicability of various training methods to real-life violence etc. I am more concerned with meeting the needs of my students, and this involves acknowledging the value of training in a number of ways e.g., sparring, rolling, grappling/wrestling, boxing etc. To believe that MMA or BJJ “owns” these methods and is the only art that trains in this way is somewhat disingenuous e.g., Dennis Hanover, in Israel, was perhaps the first/original MMA instructor, combining different martial arts into one system. I don’t doubt or questions Matt Thornton’s experience of Krav Maga, but it lacks a certain curiosity to draw the conclusion that Krav Maga is simply just bad MMA, as tantalizingly a message that may be to those who practice BJJ and MMA. I believe BJJ and MMA are great combat sports, I also believe that some of the ways Krav Maga is taught doesn’t prepare practitioners, not just for uncontrolled contexts but controlled ones as well, but I believe the productive way forward is to collaborate rather than to compete i.e., rather than make out that one system is superior to another, the context within which it is trained should be recognized along with the limitations that such a context brings.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=743 Mon, 05 May 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=742 When I was a kid at school, having a haircut or getting a new pair of shoes, marked you out for ridicule, ironically in the same way that having long hair (not getting it cut), and having old shoes (not getting new ones), also marked you out for ridicule i.e., you were damned if you did, damned if you didn’t etc. I belong to Gen X (those born between 1965 and 1980), and to be honest I think people of my generation are pretty crap, and I have some statistics to back up this statement. Crime rates started to fall – and have continued to fall, albeit with blips – in the mid 1990’s (when the proportion of young people was increasing), just when my generation was starting to age out of crime.       It is largely accepted in criminology that maleness and youthfulness, are basically the two biggest predictors of crime, including violent crime; young men are also (with the exception of sex crimes, elder abuse and corporate crime, the most likely demographic to be victimized i.e., young men are most likely to be victimized by other young men e.g., whilst men are eight times more likely to be the perpetrators of homicide than women, they are also three times more likely to be the victims of homicide than women etc. Whilst criminologists will talk about the effect of testosterone on aggression (gender) and the lack of “social control” (age/youth) and risk-taking which is associated with youthfulness, neither of these two things explain or can account for crime waves e.g., certain crimes suddenly going up, and then suddenly going down. If gender and age were the only factors regarding offending in a demographically stable society, crime would always be at the same level/rate. In this article I want to take a look at some of the things, or the absence of things, which cause certain crimes to go up, and at the same time what causes them to drop and fall. Using Vincent F. Sacco’s “model” I will take a brief look at how: Dislocation, Diffusion and Innovation affect crime waves. Economic Dislocation In both criminology and popular thinking, crime has been linked to poverty. However, the relationship between crime and poverty is not a clear or strong one e.g., many types of crime went down during the Great Depression; while during the 1960’s and 1970’s whilst the standard of living rose significantly in most Western countries, so did crime – especially violent crimes. One of the factors associated with poverty is unemployment, however there is no strong link between unemployment and crime. In fact, unemployment can cause a reduction in certain types of crime such as assault and burglary. When people are unemployed and have less disposable income, they are more likely to stay at home, increasing guardianship and reducing the risk of their home being broken into, and they are less likely to be able to afford socializing in pubs, bars, clubs and other similar settings where violence occurs. Studies into the crime decline that started in the 1990’s have noticed a correlation between this and the rate of unemployment, however it appears that crime started to drop before unemployment suggesting that there is no causal relationship/link. There are those that believe the rapid increase in crime that the US and other countries experienced in the postwar period was the result of the restructuring of certain industries and economies, that moved many people from primary to secondary labor markets, whilst maintaining a stable/high employment rate yet depriving people of a living wage e.g., as technology took over relatively high-skilled jobs, lower-skilled workers who had fulfilled these roles were displaced into much lower paid jobs, such as working in the food service industry, etc. This meant that previously well-paying, stable jobs were removed from the labor market, forcing people into lower-paid and unstable work. Diffusion     The sociologist Claude Fischer has made the argument that crime, like fashion, initially starts in urban settings, and then diffuses out into suburban and less urban ones. Crime and violence behave in a similar way to other things that “catch on”. He found that in California that between 1955 and 1975, certain crimes started in urban areas, and then moved out of the big cities and towns, to smaller suburban and rural areas e.g., if street robberies started to peak in LA, then weeks and months later, smaller locales would see an increase in these types of offenses etc. Crime waves were literally like waves, that spread and diffused after first hitting/crashing their particular target. The media can play a significant role in crime diffusion/contagion, informing and educating individuals in other locations about a crime wave that might be occurring in a very geographically restricted locale i.e. prompting/creating “copycat” crime. This has been observed in the media reporting of school and workplace shootings, where students/employees with similar grievances engage in copycat offenses after being informed of how someone else has responded. This might see a rapid increase with certain offenses, followed by a similarly rapid decrease. Innovation     Felson and Cohen believed that the cause of the increase in the crime-rate during the post-war period, especially in the 1960’s and 1970s’ was due to “innovation” i.e., that people – due to increased disposable income – were leading “new” and very different lives to those they’d been living/experiencing before. With an increase in “wealth” they could now spend more time away from the home engaged in social and leisure activities (the opposite of someone who is unemployed). After the war people became more mobile and started to spend their time in public spaces. This period also saw the birth of the “teenager” i.e., young people with disposable income, who spent their money socializing. At the same time technology was getting smaller e.g., the transistor radio reduced something that had once been restricted to being a fixture in a living room into something that was portable – making it far easier to steal and conceal etc.     Crime waves occur as a result of dislocation, diffusion and innovation, rather than simply as a result of more people being motivated to offend. However, it would be wrong to ignore social and cultural factors. Millennials and Gen Z as populations don’t emphasize “toughness” and “risk-taking” to the same degree that Gen X did, and physical aggression is less emphasized than emotional intelligence. Whilst there may be many – especially on social media – who try to portray this as a bad thing e.g., “In my day we’d be kicked out of the house at first light, and made to wander the streets, making our own entertainment…” I generally believe that society moving in a more tolerant and forgiving nature is a good thing. This doesn’t mean there won’t be future crime waves and fluctuations in the crime rate, as there will always be dislocation, diffusion and innovation, but it will take major societal changes to bring us back to the high crime rates of the 1970’s and 1980’s. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=742 Mon, 28 Apr 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=741 Firstly, before anyone gets too upset at the title, I do use “stress testing” (though I think the term may be somewhat misleading as the only “stress” part is really in threat recognition and decision making) as a training tool, in some of my classes. For those new to and/or unfamiliar with Krav Maga, basic stress testing involves members of a group, in quick succession applying a threat or attack to one member e.g., a person may have to deal with a gun threat, and as soon as they’ve dealt with that another member of the group applies a strangulation, as soon as they’ve escaped from that, someone else puts them in a guillotine hold etc. This goes on for a set amount of time, and then another member of the group gets their turn at being the target. It’s a method of training that develops some aspects of fighting, but it doesn’t develop all, and it’s in this regard that it’s often built up to have a “mythical” status within certain sectors of Krav Maga i.e., all you need to do to develop and test your fighting ability is to regularly engage in stress testing. It is sometimes useful to look at what skills a particular type of training, doesn’t develop, in order to find the “gaps” that need to be filled if we are going to develop into effective fighters who can successfully defend ourselves in a real-life confrontation. In this article I want to examine some of these, not as a criticism of stress testing but to recognize that, like all methods of training, including sparring and rolling, it has limitations; I would also suggest that if sparring and/or rolling are the only way you train you will not be fully prepared for dealing with real-life violence.                 One thing that stress testing isn’t particularly well designed for is developing the ability to transition between phases in a fight, something that MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) training is very good at e.g., in a stress test after you have escaped from a strangulation, you are confronted with a different attack/threat; the strangulation and the “strangle” have been dealt with etc. As stated being able to quickly identify and respond to a “new” threat/danger is an important skill to develop, and this is where stress testing has its value BUT if you don’t train how to deal with the same attacker when it’s necessary to transition between different phases of a fight then you may find yourself lacking when your escape isn’t successful, or as you’re escaping your assailant changes the attack, and/or after you’ve escaped they continue attacking etc. Fights, are generally not “one and done” events, they usually have multiple phases, with attackers responding to the things that you do, and often these “transitions” between phases aren’t clean e.g., when an attacker changes an attack, in response to your escape from a rear-strangle to a side-headlock, you’re not in one and then suddenly in another, there’s a transition that has to get you there, and it provides opportunities, however how to exploit these aren’t often emphasized and trained. A good Judoka or BJJ practitioner knows how to work and operate, in the scramble, when things aren’t one thing or another and are grey and fuzzy, rather than distinct and black or white e.g., it’s either a rear-strangle or a side-headlock etc. Stress testing is there to train distinct techniques. However, in real-life confrontations there is usually more time spent in transitions as one party tries to do one thing and the other tries to stop them etc. Some training time needs to be devoted to developing and testing the skills that are necessary to be successful in surviving and exploiting this “mess”.                 Stress testing also doesn’t really train offensive transitioning i.e., the ability to move from striking to grappling, to ground etc., and back out from ground to standing, to grappling, to striking etc. Whilst I may prefer for a number of reasons not to have to go to the ground, there may be times when I’m forced to and have no choice. When this happens, I want to go to the ground on my own terms not the other person’s. This means I have to have the skills to offensively transition through the phase from standing to ground so that I am in the dominant position and can dictate the way that the fight will go. If I lack these skills then I am relying on luck and my assailant’s lack of ability to make this happen.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=741 Mon, 21 Apr 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=740 One of the core concepts behind Krav Maga is that of keeping solutions/techniques simple. Another of Krav Maga’s concepts demonstrates this in action i.e., if an attack is life threatening, attack the “attack”, if the attack is non-life threatening, attack the attacker e.g., if you are being choked or strangled clear the choke/strangle as a first priority however if the attack is a wrist or clothing grab (non-life threatening), start attacking the attacker, punching, kicking, striking etc., with the goal of preventing them from making another attack etc. This is a great, simple and straightforward heuristic, which theoretically means that you already know all the solutions to non-life-threatening attacks e.g., anyone grabs you, puts you in a hold or control position where an airway isn’t obstructed etc., start striking. However, responding combatively to every non-life-threatening attack has its issues, and in this article, I want to look at some of these, and why there are times that responding combatively, with strikes, punches and grabs may not be effective.                 I was/am a Judoka and for many years competed in the sport. Judo competitions take place in a sterile and sanitized environment. They take place on an eight-by-eight-meter mat area, with a safety area/border which is three meters deep. A judo bout (shiai), lasts four minutes and is won by an accumulation of points, a single throw when someone lands cleanly on their back, a pin or a submission etc. When the referee signals the start of the fight you close distance, battle for grips, go for a throw etc. There is no context or nuance to a Judo match. The environment is “artificial” from a real-life fighting perspective and is designed to highlight who is the better Judoka. Real life confrontations and violence are very, very different as there is a context within which physical conflicts occur. You can choose to ignore the context and just treat everything as if you are in a sterile/sanitized environment e.g., if someone grabs your wrist or clothing you punch/strike them i.e., respond combatively, however if you do you may have to deal with some of the consequences of doing so.                 Most physical violence is the result of social interactions that have gone bad e.g., you get into an argument with someone over something that has happened to them; they believe that you have somehow disrespected them, they are frustrated at something you have done or are doing, and/or they are trying to retain, attain, or reattain some status etc. If you go to “leave” that argument a person may try to grab you in order to stop you leaving, as they have more things to say to you. They may have gotten ahead of themselves and didn’t really mean to do this and they’re not actually intending to do anything further i.e., they reacted. Technically, from a legal point of view they have just engaged in assault and battery; they have engaged in unwanted touching/contact. At this stage it may be better to break the grip, stepping back and disengaging whilst putting distance between you. In de-escalation terms you are giving them an opportunity to be “wrong” i.e., to realize that what they did wasn’t acceptable. However, if your first response is to punch them in the face, you have escalated the situation beyond their initial physical escalation. You may now risk assault charges and having to defend your actions legally, at your own expense. There are those who will argue that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, however if the person you are dealing with clearly lacks the means to kill you (you’re dealing with someone who is very old and in a poor physical condition), this isn’t a good pattern of thinking/decision making.                     Obviously choosing to disengage rather than engage relies on you being able to make sense of the context you are in and make an effective decision about the solution you choose, but limiting yourself to one solution i.e., responding combatively may see you create a more complex problem for yourself, such as you defending your actions to a jury etc. I categorize techniques/solutions into two types: hard and soft e.g., do you require a “hard” solution (striking, hitting, using combatives etc.) or will a soft solution (such as breaking away and disengaging) be more effective. As well as classifying techniques/solutions this way I also classify/categorize them as falling into one of three groups: disengagement, combatives and control techniques. There are many situations where I might require “soft” solutions, such as break-away and disengagement techniques, due to the context I am operating in. If I am on my own in an unfamiliar bar/pub and I get into a verbal dispute/argument with someone and they grab my clothing and I start to punch/hit/strike them, then I may provoke their friends to come to their assistance will now be in a multiple attacker situation. Breaking away and disengaging may be more effective for my survival than attacking the attacker. Changing the context from a bar/pub to a workplace or family gathering and knocking seven shades out of someone – even if it was justified – might not go well for your career prospects, or your family relationships etc.                 Social violence is complicated and trying to fit one particular way of responding (combatively) to every potential context and environment, whilst making for a simple physical way of responding, may not always be appropriate and/or effective. Situations determine solutions, not the other way round. This doesn’t mean that disengagement solutions should be complicated but that they should exist alongside combative, as well as control ones. Krav Maga was/is a military system and was originally designed for some very straightforward contexts. Applying it in a civilian context means broadening responses so that they can be appropriate for the situations and scenarios that people are likely to face, rather than dictating to them that there is only one way to act and that is combatively. This means educating people to be aware of the threats and dangers they are facing and responding appropriately.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=740 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=739 There’s a big difference between “buying” a car and being “sold” one, and it can be extremely difficult to resist being sold to e.g., you know the car is somewhere out of your budget, it’s got a strange smell that suggests the previous owner was a smoker, and at the end of the day it’s just not the car you were looking for etc. However, when you’re talking to the salesperson even if they aren’t overtly pressuring you, it can often seem like you have little choice but to buy the car i.e., you need a car and although it’s not the one you want, it meets all the specifications that you gave; it would seem unreasonable not to buy it. One of the reasons – and it may mix in with others – that we often go along with something we’re not comfortable with is due to something called insinuation anxiety which is part of our “natural” social psychological make up. However, before I go into what insinuation anxiety is, and how/why it works I want to first examine compliance and consent not from the perspective of buying and selling cars but from one of personal safety.                 From a legal perspective compliance and consent can look and appear very similar e.g., someone explicitly says “yes” to having sex with another person, even though they felt pressured to do so, and actually didn’t want to do so i.e., saying “yes” is often seen as implying consent unless it was accomplished/gained through force or the threat of force etc. However, from a personal/social perspective a “yes” may be gained through compliance, and so it is worth understanding the difference between the two. Compliance is gained through external means/factors e.g., someone asks you to do something and for whatever reason(s) you go along with the request (maybe because you lack the confidence and means to reject it i.e., it is simpler/easier to just agree/comply), whereas consent is something that is internally driven and is already waiting to be given e.g., you may simply be waiting for a question to be asked and/or a request made, which you are already waiting to say “yes” to etc. There is also a difference between informed consent and uniformed consent i.e., consent that you give when you don’t have all the necessary information to make an informed decision e.g., you get into a car that’s driven by a friend without knowing that they have been drinking (personal safety extends beyond identifying predatory individuals) etc.                 Informed consent is made up of five components, and all need to be present in order for consent to be given. These are: Mental Competence Pertinent Information The Ability to Evaluate Freedom to say “No” Authorization If you are mentally impaired in some way, perhaps due to alcohol or drugs you may lack the competence and ability to give consent. I have written before about “scavengers”: men who hang around outside of nightclubs and bars waiting to prey on women who have been ejected from them for being too intoxicated, and who have often become separated from their friends etc. These women are normally so drunk, disoriented and exhausted that they will take help/assistance from anyone who offers it. In such a state they lack the mental competence to give informed consent. They also lack the necessary pertinent information to make a decision about whether they can give consent. Scavengers aren’t looking to develop an organic relationship with those they target, they are looking to take advantage of them. When they target an individual, they don’t tell them of their actual motive but rather they hide that and pretend to be someone who is simply offering assistance. To make an informed decision and give consent we need to have the necessary and pertinent information to do so e.g., if we knew that a driver had been drinking, we may decide not to get into the car with them.                 It is one thing to have knowledge, it’s another thing to have the ability to evaluate it. As an adult I know the potential consequences of being in car with a driver who has been drinking, however as a ten-year-old I probably lacked the ability to evaluate the risk of getting into a vehicle with one. Every decision we make carries with it some degree of risk, however if we lack the ability to evaluate and measure that risk our consent can never be truly informed. We must also have the freedom to say “no” when making a decision, and it is perhaps here that consent radically differs from compliance e.g., if we comply with a request or demand, it may be because we feel that we don’t have the ability to say no. This inability to say no may be because we don’t have  enough pertinent information available to us e.g., we feel we should say no, but we aren’t able to frame our rejection in a way that wouldn’t offend the person we are dealing with and/or escalate the situation putting us in danger etc. If these four components are in place, then we can authorize our decision to say “yes”/go along with a request. Our authorization should be active rather than passive i.e., it shouldn’t simply be the absence of “no”. This is perhaps one of the hardest parts of giving consent, which is communicating a “yes” to the other party, rather than letting them assume a “yes”; this isn’t a responsibility regarding the giving of consent, however using authorization can help set boundaries that prevent confused messaging i.e., if you are always explicit in giving a “yes” then when a yes isn’t given another person/individual can’t claim confusion/mixed messaging etc.                 So, the question remains, why do we find it so hard to say “no” and not give consent and rather find ourselves complying with requests and demands we should really reject. As can be seen, giving informed consent takes effort, it is something that is active i.e., something that we have to do and engage in etc., it doesn’t just happen. Often it is easier, less time consuming, requires less mental processing, and more importantly doesn’t require us to potentially give up social capital. Often one of the reasons we find it hard to say “no” is insinuation anxiety. Insinuation anxiety is a type of anxiety that signals a sense of our distress to the other party/person and an insinuation that the other person is untrustworthy or is looking to take advantage of us e.g., it’s one of the reasons that we agree to buy the car – we don’t want – from the salesperson ­– we don’t want to “insinuate” that their actual motive is solely to gain a commission etc. The reason we end up complying – not consenting – to a person’s request of going with them somewhere quieter at a party is because we don’t want to make them think that we see them as a sexual predator who is trying to isolate us; even when that is our actual fear.                 Sometimes when we hear about sexual assaults and we consider how they have transpired, we question the judgment and decisions that those victimized made – we think that we wouldn’t have done the things that they did etc. With hindsight, we can evaluate decisions clinically, removed from the actual situation, however, were we actually in that situation, we may have made the same choices and decisions that they did. Understanding the difference between consent and compliance, and what we actually need to have/give informed consent can help us engage in this process actively rather than passively. If we can also understand how strong insinuation anxiety is, and that it is something we have to battle and fight against, we can understand our reluctance to say “no” and conform to, and accept, another person’s requests etc.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=739 Mon, 07 Apr 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=738 Over ten years ago, I wrote an article about why I don’t teach as a default, tapping and racking a short barreled firearm after performing a gun disarm; something I still see a lot of people doing in videos that are posted on social media – it can be difficult when watching such videos to know if what is being performed is a tactic or part of a “story”/demonstration, which is why I rarely comment on such posts e.g., an instructor might show someone tapping and racking, and putting a bead on a person they’ve just disarmed not because they practice this but from a video/story point of view it “ends the scene” in a clean way; the gun was in one person’s hands, and now it is clearly in another’s. Also, the person making the video may be thinking about contextual factors, where it would be necessary to try to “control” someone via a threat of force, using their own firearm. I have always been an “it depends” type of person rather than someone who rigidly prescribes absolutes etc. However, what is displayed as a technique, may not necessarily be a solution e.g., whilst after being disarmed in such videos individuals are presented as being compliant and obeying orders and commands to “stay down” etc., in reality they may not, and the “clean ending” presented may actually not be the ending e.g., the person may run away, may charge the person holding the gun, and/or pull another weapon etc. Simple situations and scenarios that are created in the training environment where everyone is working to a script – the person being disarmed complying with an order to get on the ground – may not play out that way in reality etc. In this article I want to look at some other reasons that I didn’t explain in my original article - not due to oversight, but because I try and keep my articles to around 1000 words, which is a 5-minute read, and there’s not always room to explain everything etc., why I prefer – by default - to use the weapon cold (after disarming) as an impact weapon, and then disengage etc.                 If you ever find yourself having to make a legal claim of self-defense, to explain/”defend” your actions you should understand that a fight may not be viewed as one single incident but instead be broken up into many different events e.g., whilst you were facing an aggressor with a firearm, you were in imminent danger, but once you performed a disarm, and pointed the firearm at your assailant they were now in imminent danger etc. Whilst there may be reasons to stay at an incident scene (training a weapon on someone), after you are no longer in imminent danger you will have to be able to both articulate and demonstrate this, possibly to a jury. You may have to explain to twelve people – who may never have experienced violence – why after escaping danger you didn’t leave/disengage. This will be in a court of law, not on social media, and trying to explain that you are a “sheepdog” who protects the innocents etc., is going to just sound weird and unrealistic; it may be interpreted that you saw yourself as an “enforcer” rather than as someone who was victimized and was doing what you needed to escape etc. Whilst I get the sheepdog protecting the sheep from the wolf analogy, it is limited and should not form the basis of a legal defense except in some very extreme and contextualized situations where there was a need to protect others – not because you thought others may have been at risk but because you knew they were. Using the firearm cold as an impact weapon to facilitate your escape/disengagement is a much more believable narrative, as well as being simpler than staying and trying to control an assailant’s actions and behaviors with their own weapon etc.                 In my original article I didn’t address the issue of “optics” and how others including law-enforcement may interpret the scene of you standing with a weapon and pointing it at another person. Whilst you may think you are the only sheepdog in your town, city or vicinity, there will be those who believe that they are the un-deputized “good cop” who is keeping the neighborhood safe etc. If/when they come across you “pinning” someone down with a weapon their first thought is probably going to be that you are the “bad guy”, acting unlawfully etc. They may, if they carry a weapon, believe that it is their job to take control of the scene and pull their weapon, pointing it at you; now you will have two people at the scene you will need to control. The concerned citizen who is pointing a weapon at you may well be experiencing the negative effects of adrenaline, losing auditory control, and not able to think rationally etc., and it is this person you may need to convince that you are the “good guy” and the person you are pointing a firearm at is the “bad guy”. That’s a lot of moving parts to manage in a high-stress situation. If you’d disengaged and weren’t there this wouldn’t be an issue. Now you’re in a stand-off between two “sheepdogs”, with a “wolf” that may have noticed that this is a situation they can exploit.                 In just about every scenario you are likely to face, your responsibility for safety will first be to yourself, and the most effective response in almost every scenario is to disengage; few incidents will require you to control a person with a firearm – whether it is theirs or your own (if your own, you drawing it should have meant that you needed to use it – from a legal perspective). In almost all cases you want to remove yourself from the scene, both for legal and practical reasons. It may look cool on YouTube to tap and rack, and it may be a great visual for a video for everything to end at this point, but the potential realities may be somewhat different. Disengaging/running is rarely “sexy” but it is usually safer.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=738 Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=737 To parody Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All victims are equal, but some are more equal than others.” E.g., we tend to have more sympathy for children who have been victimized than we do for adults etc. This may be because we believe that adults, through their “informed” decisions, whilst not directly blamable, may be somewhat responsible for being victimized e.g., if they hadn’t been drinking it wouldn’t have happened etc., and/or they had the means to prevent being victimized e.g., if only she’d fought back, it wouldn’t have happened etc. Even statements regarding victims of crime, like “that would never happen to me” casts a judgment on the “role” an individual played in the offense committed against them. In a 1986 paper Nils Christie, a Norwegian criminologist, coined the term “the perfect/ideal victim”, and listed six major characteristics of a “victim” that elicited the most sympathy from the media and the general public. These are: They were weak. They were blameless. They were carrying out a noble task. Their assailant was a stronger more culpable individual. The victim’s background, identity, and behavior align with social expectations of innocence. His study involved contrasting instances of rape under different circumstances e.g., he suggested that a young female virgin who was attacked and raped/sexually assaulted on her way home was more of an “ideal victim” than an older adult male sex worker who was raped by a rejected client; they weren’t engaged in a “noble task” at the time of their assault, their background, identity, and behavior doesn’t align with social expectations of innocence, because they were male we assume they had the ability to resist and fight off their attacker, and because of their line of work/occupation they’re not seen as entirely blameless. Even though the same offense – sexual assault/rape - was committed against both, we are likely to have more sympathy for the young woman. This concept of the “ideal victim” can be seen time and time again in media reporting of crime. In 2021 the case of Gabby Petito dominated newspaper headlines and media outlets’ news reporting for weeks. Petito had been reported missing. It was later found that her fiancé/partner had murdered her and buried her body in a camping area in Wyoming. Gabby Petito was young, white, conventionally attractive, and engaged in a romanticized "van life" social media presence, making her a "perfect victim" for media storytelling. At the same time two other individuals – Lauren Cho and Jelani Day - were found missing however their stories rarely made any news coverage. Lauren Cho was 30, older than Petito, and Korean rather than white – she’d also been seen drinking heavily with her partner before she went missing i.e., not engaged in a noble task. Her body was eventually found and identified in the Yucca Valley, a desert area in California. Jelani Day was a black 25-year-old male college graduate, whose body was later found in the Illinois River, near Peru, Illinois. As a missing person there was next to no coverage regarding his disappearance ­– until his body was found and his death deemed strange/mysterious. In the “fight” for media coverage Gabby Petito exhibited more “ideal victim” traits/characteristics than either Cho or Day.         Sex trafficking is a form of human trafficking where individuals are coerced, forced, or deceived into commercial sex acts against their will. It is considered a modern form of slavery, where traffickers use threats, violence, manipulation, or false promises to exploit victims. Many people think that sex-trafficking is purely an international endeavor with victims being brought to the US from Southeast Asia or South America etc., however it often happens at the local level, with victims being moved around a city or county etc. A runaway teenager or vulnerable adult may be trafficked just miles from their home, without ever crossing any state or national borders. I have been involved (whilst training police in surveillance tactics) in cases where parents trafficked family members both within their own homes and between villages in a very small geographic area (it was effectively a network of families sharing their children between them to perform sexual acts). Traffickers will often target vulnerable teenagers coming from broken homes where they get little attention or support. These teenagers are “groomed”, receiving gifts, sometimes believing that their groomer is romantically interested in them, before being forced to engage in commercial sex acts.                 Sex Trafficking is largely a commercial endeavor, and gay teenage boys/men make up one population that is routinely targeted. Members of this population are often vulnerable because they may be shunned from their families and even evicted from their houses, finding themselves homeless. This makes such individuals ideal targets for sex traffickers. A 2020 study found that LGBTQ+ youth are 7.4 times more likely to experience trafficking than non-LGBTQ+ youth (and the real figure is probably significantly higher due to under-reporting issues amongst the LGBTQ+ communities). However, the US government this year (2025) has ordered law enforcement agencies, the state department and some non-profit organizations who receive federal funding to remove any references to victims’ LGBTQ+ identities and race, from their media, as part of its anti-DEI – Diversity, Equity and Inclusion - initiative(s). For people to understand the true nature of sex trafficking, gender/sexual identities and race are extremely important attributes. They are not presented due to political correctness but rather as data points for scientific enquiry, without which a true picture of sex trafficking can never be presented, and this affects and harms all victims regardless of race and gender identity.                             Unfortunately, when it comes to sex trafficking, the current Federal DEI initiative/policy is going to help create an “ideal victim” i.e., one who is white and straight, and non-representative of a large number of sex-trafficking victims. If a victim who is Asian can’t be named as such it makes it extremely difficult to talk about and understand international sex-trafficking of Vietnamese teenagers to the US etc., unless we want to ignore/pretend it doesn’t happen. It is naive to believe that commercial sex traffickers see and operate in the world this way i.e., they are gender and race blind, for them money is money, and a body is a body etc. Unfortunately, the public and the media may have more interest in those individuals who use the services of sex-trafficked victims, than the victims themselves, especially when they are successful businesspeople, as is happening with the current reporting of the Cambridge/Watertown sex-ring case in Massachusetts, where I live.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=737 Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=736 It may be because I’m British that I’m very interested in medieval history. Perhaps because school trips often involved going to various castles – “if you want to know what the weakest part of a castle is, it’s the gift shop”, as Bill Bailey put it. I think to small children, castles are representative of safe spaces i.e., once you are behind the walls, the gates shut, the portcullis down, and the drawbridge lifted, you feel safe etc. If the castle has a moat, you know siege towers and ladders will be ineffective, and nobody will be able to tunnel under the walls etc. My interest in castles and medieval history started around the age of six or seven, a period in childhood development, when more abstract notions of safety start to progress and expand – such as what if a country invaded another country – and so the relevance of castles to safety start to be understood. However as defensive technologies, such as castles developed, so did offensive technologies, such as the trebuchet, which was able to throw large objects such as boulders across a moat to smash a wall etc. The first martial art I studied was Judo, so my introduction to fighting systems/methods etc., was as a grappler. I started training Karate a few years later, and it was my understanding of trebuchets which helped me improve my roundhouse kick. I still use the example of the trebuchet, when explaining and teaching power development in roundhouse kicks. Whilst I understand and acknowledge that there are many different ways to throw a roundhouse kick, when it comes to developing power, common principles apply, and I’ve found that the trebuchet displays these graphically/vividly.                 The first trebuchets were traction powered and referred to as “traction trebuchets” or “traction engines”. Like a lot of later siege engines/weapons they were developed in China. These machines involved people pulling a rope attached to a long beam/lever that launched a sling loaded with a projectile. The limiting factor of such machines was the amount of power that could be generated by people pulling on the rope; they had to be able to be able to both overcome the inertia of the beam and the projectile. By medieval times the counterweight trebuchet had been developed. Unlike the traction trebuchet, which relied upon human power, the counterweight trebuchet used a large, heavy weight (usually a cradle loaded with rocks and stones) attached to the short arm of the beam. When released, this counterweight would fall/drop, causing the longer arm of the beam to swing upwards and hurl the projectile from a sling attached to the end. Isaac Newton said that with a solid object to base it on, and a long enough lever he could lift the world. The power that a lever and a counterweight can exert is quite extraordinary. In 1304, which saw the First War of Scottish Independence, King Edward 1st of England used a giant trebuchet known as “War Wolf” to demolish the walls of Stirling Castle, with projectiles that weighed up to 300 pounds, over distances of 300 meters/1000 feet. The two main components of a trebuchet are: a counterweight, a lever arm (a short part, and a long part, with a pivot point) and a sling. It is by understanding how these things work together that we can understand and reference how the power in a roundhouse kick is generated.                 When I first learnt to throw a low roundhouse, I thought/believed that the power came solely from the leg – not realizing that this was part of the delivery mechanism rather than that of power generation. As I tried to understand how to gain power in my kicks, I started to see the low-roundhouse kick as a lateral/horizontal trebuchet, and this helped me both understand and visualize where the power generation came from. I visualized my upper body being the counterweight, my upper leg as the beam, and my shin as the sling. Because I couldn’t “drop” the counterweight, I had to turn it as fast as I could, allowing the upper-leg to be dragged behind it, with the lower leg/shin being allowed to act as a “sling”, with centrifugal force extending it into the target. Once I started to understand that it was the speed of the counterweight/my upper-body turning, and that the leg was pulled round by this – like a lateral/horizontal trebuchet – my kicking power started to improve. I started to think less about the leg aspect of the kick and more about the importance of the counter-weight i.e., turning the body.                 When many historians first looked at tapestries and pictures depicting trebuchets on wheels, it was believed that the wheels were used as a means of transportation i.e., to get them from one siege to another etc. However, when it started to be understood that trebuchets such as War Wolf were broken down into parts in order to move them the role of the wheels started to become examined/studied. It was found that the dropping counter-weight, also pulled the trebuchet forward, allowing for more power to be generated, than if it were fixed or mounted into the ground etc. When I learnt this, I started to understand that turning the supporting foot, when making the kick wasn’t something I had to actively do, and instead just let happen i.e., it was the turn of the body/movement of the counterweight, that pulled the leg round, and I just had to be light enough on that foot to allow it to “naturally” turn with the movement; like allowing the trebuchet to “roll” forward when the counterweight dropped.                 I am a firm believer in trying to understand something or increase an understanding of something by examining it from a number of different directions and perspectives. Often when I find myself wanting to understand something I try to dig deeper, when it is actually more productive to look at/study something in a different field/area, and have the subconscious mind make a connection for me. Trying “too hard” when practicing my kicking didn’t get me anywhere however when I saw, understood and visualized it from a totally different perspective I made progress.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=736 Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=735 Full disclosure, I’m a Brit who grew up and lived in the UK. When I was 36 – in 2008 – I moved to the US. I remember when legislation, in the UK was passed (1997), that severely restricted who could own a firearm and that instituted relatively harsh penalties for illegal ownership (even if the firearm wasn’t used in a crime) N.B., this didn’t result in an increase in crime, and it probably had little effect on the fall in the crime-rate that happened subsequently. I served in the military so I’m familiar and comfortable around firearms. I’m not anti-second amendment rights but I believe that with any right comes certain responsibilities e.g., I believe in freedom of speech, but I think that certain things people say – which may incite violence - are irresponsible, whether the person has a “legal” right to say them or not etc. I share the same view with firearms – if you decide to own one because you have the legal right to do so, you should be responsible in your ownership, that may go beyond your current “legal” requirements, as it can be hard to fully legislate against bad decisions – a person (in certain states) may have the “right” to stand their ground but this doesn’t mean that this should always be exercised or be seen/adopted as a default behavior. Whether you choose to exercise that right involves a decision, and decisions have consequences, and these sometimes may conflict with our original intentions e.g., you may decide to purchase a firearm with the goal/aim of protecting your family, and in a certain public-setting you (unwisely) decide – for whatever reason – to draw and fire it. As a consequence, your weapon is confiscated, and you have to serve a custodial sentence. Who and what now protects your family? Actions often have both short-term and long-term consequences and evaluating risk should consider both. This often involves thinking about things ahead of time and forming and evaluating strategies and ways of operating that don’t require you to have to think in the moment when you are under stress and duress, and your decision-making abilities impaired. It is also important to recognize that a firearm is a tool and not a solution, and certainly not a universal one that is appropriate for all situations e.g., recognizing and evaluating a threat is important especially when most “home invasions” involve a family member “breaking” into a house because they have forgotten a key. Simply shooting an unknown/unidentifiable person climbing through a window at night may see you fatally shooting your own child. These are things, along with many more, that a responsible firearms owner needs to consider.                 A firearm is designed with one purpose in mind which is to deliver lethal force. If you are the owner of a firearm, or thinking of becoming one, make sure that you are comfortable with taking another person’s life. It may seem crazy, but I have known people who joined the army – where society, under certain conditions gives you a special dispensation to kill – realize during the training that they don’t possess the personality to do so, and there is no shame in this. It takes a special kind of courage to realize and then admit to yourself and others that you don’t have this capacity, after starting a career path where this is more than just a possibility. Drawing a firearm isn’t something that should be taken lightly. There is only one reason where society accepts that you are entitled to do so, and gives you the dispensation to, and that is when you believe that lethal force is necessary. A firearm shouldn’t be drawn as a threat to discourage someone from acting in a certain way, it should only be drawn when your life – or possibly the life of someone else – is at risk. This is really a fraction of all aggressive and violent incidents. Learning how to de-escalate social interactions that have gone wrong will help you deal with more types of aggression and potential violence than those that require lethal force. Learning simple self-defense skills and techniques such as how to deal with pushes, wrist and clothing grabs will be applicable to far more situations than those that require you to use deadly force etc. However, if you aren’t equipped with the knowledge and skills to do so but you carry a firearm what is your solution to such situations going to be? As I stated earlier, I don’t have an issue with second amendment rights per-se, however if you are going to be a responsible firearms owner, I would make the argument that, you shouldn’t have this as your only tool and solution for dealing with aggression and violence. If your reason for owning a firearm is safety and security, put some resources into learning how to deal with the types of aggression and violence that don’t require lethal force.                 Also, undergo training in the use of a firearm in the contexts in which you may have to use it. Range time is a “start”. Becoming a proficient shot in a sterile, controlled environment, is a beginning but it shouldn’t be the end of your training. At some point you will want to start working through scenarios that test your decision making, your ability to identify a threat, to work and perform under stress and duress. You should also learn how to protect and retain your weapon when involved in a violent encounter; most violence happens face-to-face, and at close range, often quickly getting in to grappling range and if you don’t know how to keep your weapon secure you may find yourself having it turned on you – working and operating a weapon carries liabilities. If you’re not prepared to devote the time and effort in this direction I question your level of responsibility as a firearms owner. Understand what making a claim of self-defense with a firearm entails, and the various things you need to demonstrate were in place when you decided to draw your weapon e.g., were you actually in imminent danger, was the threat to your life a credible one etc. You may have to convince a jury of your peers that at the moment you drew your weapon you had every reason to believe that your life was in danger; feeling “frightened” is unlikely to be convincing. You should also understand when you might lose the right to self-defense, and your assailant gains it, even if they “started” the altercation e.g., if someone rugby tackled you to the ground, at that moment you have the right to claim “self-defense”, however if you reverse the position, so you are now on top of them, and they are in imminent danger, not you, you might lose that right etc.  If you believe that owning a “firearm” is a quick fix for all of your safety and security needs, you may be putting yourself and others at risk, which could result in serious and long-term consequences. Just because you have a right, doesn’t mean that you should exercise it irresponsibly. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=735 Mon, 10 Mar 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=734 I’ve parachuted just once. I hate flying but I hated jumping out of a plane even more; that’s why I’ve only ever done it once. I wouldn’t say I was relaxed but I made sure not to be panicking and to simply keep going over the procedure of the jump in my head. I wasn’t as our instructor – someone who I guessed loved parachuting as he’d made it his profession – going to take the time to “enjoy” it whilst I was up there. My goal was simply to get back to the ground, though not as fast as I could; my hope was that the parachute would take care of the speed of my descent. A lot of my focus and concern was around having to deploy the reserve parachute, in the event that the main one didn’t open properly. Failing to pull the reserve parachute – a “no pull” – accounts for 11% of all parachuting fatalities, and even the most experienced parachutists can forget in the stress and duress of the moment (the main chute not opening) to do what would seem to be the most obvious, and perhaps the only thing i.e., pull the reserve. In 2005 a 31-year-old, with 2,300 recorded jumps, died when their main canopy failed, and they “forgot” to pull their reserve, and they are not alone in the number of experienced jumpers that this happens to. Whilst we might expect a “novice” and/or inexperienced jumper to make such a mistake, getting completely overwhelmed by their experience of falling, it is not something we’d expect from someone with a lot of experience. It is believed that in crisis moments everyone – regardless of experience – will have difficulty pulling information from long-term-memory, where something like pulling the reserve chute in a crisis would be stored. An experienced parachutist who had never had to do this before, and had come to believe that their main canopy will always open, may find themselves in a more panicked state than a novice such as myself who believed there was only a 50/50 chance it would be opened; I had already moved the idea of pulling the reserve shoot into my working memory.                 When I teach people how to deal with social violence in the Pre-Conflict Phase, I try to teach things in a way that brings potential threats and dangers into working memory. Social aggression and violence are the result of social interactions that have gone “bad” e.g., in a normal/ordinary social situation such as queueing, where someone believes you have jumped the line and has become angry by your action – it doesn’t matter whether you actually did or not, it is their perception that results in an angry, potentially violent response. The Pre-Conflict Phase is that phase of an aggressive/potentially violent encounter where you recognize that you are the target of another person’s aggression; with social violence this normally involves some form of verbal aggression, such as shouting, making threats etc. When in this state, I teach people two things: Step back, and Put your arms up in a non-aggressive/placating manner I also teach the associated reasons for this e.g., you step back and control range, so the other person has to make a body movement in order to attack you, and by putting your hands up in front of you, you create a “barrier” between you, to help intercept any attack they may make. There are other reasons for doing these things e.g., stepping back demonstrates from a legal perspective a claim of innocence (you weren’t the aggressor looking to engage/fight), and your attacker has to move forward to put themselves into a space where they could make contact with you, demonstrating “assault” etc. However, part of the idea behind these actions and their associated reasons is to bring into working memory, the reality that you may be attacked. It’s not just engaging in these physical actions that are important, but in “reminding” yourself in the moment why you are doing so, you will be “thinking” of what may happen next e.g., if a punch is thrown at you (the canopy doesn’t deploy), you are more likely to respond with your contingency, such as blocking and moving etc. (pulling your reserve chute). Fortunately, we have an instinctive “trigger” when such attacks happen, such as our startle/flinch reflex being triggered if it is a circular attack, whereas no such natural “trigger” exists when the main chute doesn’t open i.e., the solution to the problem needs to be searched for.                           The sooner we can accept a situation we can respond to it, and this involves both recognizing the threat and having a solution to it. The strange thing about “no pulls” is that pulling the reserve chute is the only solution to a canopy not opening/working. Whilst an experienced parachutist may have some tricks to make a partially deployed canopy unfurl etc. there comes a point when/where there is only one solution, which is to pull the reserve and yet not everybody does. As well as having difficulty retrieving things from long-term-memory (LTM), and pulling from working memory is less than perfect, we shouldn’t underestimate the other factors that are at play during high stress incidents, one of which is denial i.e., this can’t be happening to me/this sort of thing happens to other people, not me etc. If you are the veteran of 2,300 successful jumps that occurred without incident it might be hard to register what is actually happening and fully understand the seriousness of the incident you are involved in. Whilst you are denying or discounting the situation you are in, you will not be looking for solutions, and if the solution is buried at the “back of your mind” it is unlikely you will retrieve it. Overcoming denial and moving your solutions into your working memory are two things which will improve your survival chances regardless of the threat or danger.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=734 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=733 Perhaps the most frightening thing about being involved in a fight/violent confrontation is the realization that the other party feels no longer bound to respect the law or other social conventions. For whatever reason they believe the use of force is justified either to resolve a dispute/injustice or acquire an “asset”, whether that is something you own, or you, yourself etc. This entry into an unknown world is what makes punches feel harder than they physically are, as they come with a psychological and emotional weight, which adds power to them. In the physical confrontations I’ve been in, I have tried to separate the physical pain from the psychological/emotional distress, and when I have been able to do this, I have been able to recognize that the punches and blows which connect actually aren’t as painful as they first seemed. Those who have a lot of experience of “street fighting” (whatever that actually is) have come to terms with the emotional/psychological component and have either learnt to ignore it or manage it and to just get on with the job of causing the other party(s) pain and injury i.e., they think less about what is happening to themselves and more about what they are going to do to the other person(s) etc. If there were “rules” to real-life physical confrontations we might be more comfortable when dealing with them e.g., if we knew that when we dropped to the floor the fight was over, or if we could “tap” when we’d had enough etc., we would be in a more predictable world, with known outcomes, which would make a confrontation less distressing. However, this is not the case as real-life violence is non-consensual and there is no agreement between those involved as to how the fight should be conducted. This doesn’t mean that each party doesn’t have certain expectations of how things will go down.                 Many years ago, whilst working security in a club I had to assist with restraining someone who had got into a fight with another person; that person had wanted no part of the confrontation and had simply covered up to defend themselves and from what we had seen hadn’t thrown a single punch. In the process of restraining the aggressor, I had pulled their hooded top over their head, which restricted both their sight and the movement of their arms. Eventually the individual accepted that he was fully restrained and stopped struggling. When we got him to his feet, the first thing he said was that pulling his top over his head wasn’t “fair”. He then laughed, realizing the stupidity of what he’d just said; he’d broken the “rules” and believed that everyone would then play by his “rules”, which didn’t involve having his clothing used against him. Different people have different expectations of what violence will look and feel like. Some people will hope/think that if they “go down” and drop to the floor in a fetal position their aggressor will not continue in their assault – I have seen this happen, I’ve also seen it not happen. If both parties’ “expectations” line up, then there may be “predictable” outcomes to a fight – the problem is unless both parties have agreed to a set of rules beforehand, nobody has a chance of knowing what they are.                 This is where our previous experiences of violence can fool and mislead us. At my High School if two people got into a conflict where the only agreed upon resolution was a physical one, a fight or a “Square Go” at a Bandstand in a park across the way from the school would be organized. There was a loose “rule” that the only spectators allowed to attend were those in the same school year as those that were fighting. Restricting audience size meant that everyone would be able to see the fight. There was no referee, and the fight would normally start with both parties attacking each other verbally and then someone would push, punch the other etc., and the fight was on. I only ever saw one, one-punch knockdown that cleanly ended the confrontation, and most ended up in some form of clinch, with each person throwing fairly ineffective punches at each other. Once it became obvious nothing more entertaining was going to happen, those fighting would be pulled apart by their friends and nine times out of ten, the two involved would become friends and congratulate each other on how well they’d both done in the fight etc. If that was a person’s only education into violence, that all fights follow a certain type of “format”, then there is a danger that when they get into a fight in a bar, pub or club, that things will go a similar way e.g., that at some point friends/other people will pull them apart etc. They may even verbally up-the-ante with another person because they can only think about a certain set of possible physical consequences etc.                 Whilst an aggressor may not have any rules concerning a confrontation, they are likely to have certain expectations of what will happen in a fight, and we don’t know what those are. If we try to imagine them, we may talk ourselves into adopting ineffectual strategies e.g., we might tell ourselves not to punch them too hard because it could make them angrier (punching them at all is likely to make someone “angry” so we might as well do it with full force in a way that could conclude the confrontation). There are things they may not expect or have considered e.g., unless they are women, they may not think about grabbing the hair, they may not expect to be bitten, and/or have their fingers attacked etc. There are two reasons to fight: ego or survival. The school fights I talked about earlier were all matters of ego, nobody had to fight, they chose to because their teenage egos told them that they had to. The violence engaged in was consensual, and it involved a predictable format that had “tacit” rules; all those involved new what to expect. Real-life violence has no “rules” though most people expect fights to go a certain way, and for certain things to happen and not to happen e.g., most people don’t “think” they’ll get bitten. If you are fighting for survival – not ego – such actions and tactics have to be on the table. In a fight for survival there is no such thing as “dirty” fighting as your aggressor lost the right to a “fair” fight the moment that you tried to walk away.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=733 Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=732 I’m a Judo guy. I started training when I was a kid and competed through my teenage years into adulthood. I’m not just interested in it as a competitive combat sport but also as a self-defense system; Judo has its own dedicated self-defense component Goshin Jutsu, which looks at how to respond to specific attacks, such as what to do when a lapel or wrist is grabbed etc. Many of these techniques are contained in the Goshin Jutsu no Kata; a two-person form Kata, which contains a predetermined set of attacks, one of which is a rear “naked” strangulation/choke (Hadaka-Jime); “naked” because it uses the forearm/wrist and not the clothing/collar to apply pressure to the neck. In the Kata, the solution/technique performed as a response is very similar to the “basic” turning-in defense of Krav Maga, where the person defending the attack (Uke), pulls the arm down to the chest, turns their face towards the attacker, and steps under the armpit of the arm applying the  choke/strangulation to end up behind the attacker (Tori). To see a video of this Click Here. In the Kata, an armlock is then applied and the attacker (Tori), is taken to ground; in Krav Maga the usual “default” response after escaping the attack is to respond combatively, with the aim of disengaging etc. However, I often see various self-defense instructors demonstrate Ippon-Seoi-Nage (a particular Judo throw), as a response to a rear strangulation. In this article I want to look at why this throw – despite it appearing, at an initial quick glance – to be a good response to a rear strangle – is likely to not be effective.                   I believe some self-defense instructors may believe Ippon-Seoi-Nage is a good response to a rear choke/strangulation because of the attacker’s arm position i.e., it is up high around the neck. However, this is not where the arm should be, when performing the throw, it should be caught between the bicep and the forearm, in the crook of the elbow (sort of), using a vice like pinch. This is done to prevent the arm slipping over the shoulder – where it is in a rear strangle/choke – as this compromises balance. When executing the throw, you are not pulling the person over your head but rather rolling them off your back. So, if you are looking at where an attacker’s arm should be when executing the basic throw, it is not around your neck but trapped lower down between your own forearm and bicep. Having the arm up over the shoulder is one of the most basic and common errors I see when teaching the throw. Hidetoshi Nakanishi in his book Seoi-Nage (Ippon Press), demonstrates this on page 73 (Nakanishi, an expert in the use of Seio-Nage, won the Judo world championship in 1983 in the Under-71 Kg weight division).  Syd Hoare (8th Dan and at for many years the principal instructor at the Budo) kwai in “The A-Z of Judo” (page 18 – Ippon Books) states “When positioning the right arm under the opponent’s armpit care must be taken to ensure that the thrower’s biceps and lower part of the deltoids are placed there and not the top part of the shoulder by the neck and trapezius muscle.”  So, firstly, unless you can move the arm making the strangulation/choke, to between the bicep and forearm, it is not in a good position from which to perform the throw. In fact, if your attacker’s arm(s) is in this position around the neck/head when you execute the throw, and they decide to hold on rather than let go, that’s a lot of moving weight being applied against your neck.                   Another reason – and perhaps the most important one – as to why Seoi-Nage in its various forms/variations – is that of movement. My Japanese isn’t great but the word “Seoi” in Japanese implies the idea of carrying something on your back, such as a sack of flour, rice or wheat etc. With good posture this still means that there has to be a slight bend forward at the waist/hips, as you move forward. The throw is part of Judo’s Te-Waza (Hand Techniques) rather than Goshi-Waza techniques and involves pulling an attacker onto your back, before rolling them off, over and to the side (the hips aren’t involved). However, with a rear-strangulation/choke, you are normally being pulled backwards somewhat – even when applied statically – and extremely dramatically if you are being pulled backwards as the choke/strangulation is being applied. To suggest that you can overcome the momentum of being pulled back, by pulling forward, is unrealistic. In the Nage-No-Kata, Ippon-Seoi-Nage is demonstrated against an attacker moving forward, making a downwards hammer-fist style attack i.e., someone whose weight is moving towards you, not away from you (as with someone pulling you backwards). Every demonstration I’ve seen of Seoi-Nage being applied against a rear-strangulation/choke, as part of a “self-defense scenario” has the attacker (Tori) standing still and compliant, allowing for the defender (Uke – the “receiver” of the attack) to pull them forward onto their back. However, in a dynamic situation, the person being strangled is more likely to be pulled backwards – from my time working in security I’ve seen such “rear-strangles” applied as more of a means of pulling someone backwards than as an actual strangulation/choke i.e. with an intent to block the airway. Judo is about working with someone’s movement rather than against it – why Ippon-Seoi- Nage in the Nage-No-Kata is demonstrated/shown against an attacker moving their weight forward, to which Uke turns, pulling them up and forward, working with this shift in weight.                   When training rear-strangle solutions dynamically and when someone is caught by surprise (in honesty most rear attacks are going to be ones that a person didn’t see coming), one of the hardest problems to deal with is simply staying upright and on your feet, as you’re pulled backwards. To then ask someone to reverse this momentum and pull the attacker – who is moving in one direction – in another is asking them to do the impossible; especially when there is a significant size and weight disparity e.g., to suggest that someone who weighs 120 Lbs who is being pulled backwards by someone weighing 200 Lbs, not only stop themselves from being pulled backwards but should reverse this force and pull the other person forward and onto their back is somewhat unrealistic. I’m all for incorporating and utilizing throws in self-defense, as I believe they have an important place. However, they must work with the attack, not against it and not compromise the principles on which they were founded/designed. There are plenty of places where Seoi-Nage (in its various forms) can be effective, however against dynamic rear-strangulations/chokes it should certainly not be a first-choice solution. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=732 Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=731 Human beings have a natural aversion to killing each other – something that is common across all species i.e., a species that was intent on killing its members would soon be extinct. In nature, most killing occurs due to the need for food or to protect resources, however humans may kill for other reasons, such as matters of ego etc. However, killing for killing’s sake, is not a common human trait, and when we see it, it is not something we readily/easily understand. We may be fascinated by individuals such as Ted Bundy and Dennis Nilsen, but the reasons as to why they killed (Bundy confessed to thirty murders whilst Nilsen confessed to fifteen), remain somewhat elusive. Both offered reasons/explanations; Bundy blamed his killings on an addiction to porn, Nilsen on an undefined personality disorder and loneliness. Neither of these are satisfactory explanations and are hardly “universal” answers to the reasons and motives behind serial killing i.e., they appear to be specific to two particular killers. Whilst each serial killer is unique there must be shared experiences that lead people to engage in such acts of killing, and that there seems to be a temporal aspect suggests that there may be societal/sociological reasons behind them e.g., the US experienced its “golden era” of serial killings between 1970 and 2000, whilst South Africa experienced its in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. In this article I want to look at some of the changes that South Africa went through during this period which may have helped create the conditions that produced a wave of serial killers – this isn’t intended to absolve them of personal blame and responsibility but to recognize the environmental factors that may produce such killers.                    South Africa’s first known/identified serial killer is Pierre Basson who killed nine people between 1903 and 1906. However, Basson’s motive is easy to identify, he murdered his victims in Claremont, Cape Town, in order to get their life insurance. Whilst the UK serial killer, Dr Harold Shipman was caught due to greed – he altered the will of one of his victims – it appears that none of the other individuals he murdered was for financial gain. Whilst we may be horrified at someone killing for money we can understand it; it’s an identifiable motive. We can also understand killings that may take place during the execution of another crime e.g., in 2007, Sibusiso Duma, killed seven people – on different occasions – whilst engaged in robbery. However, killing for killing’s sake is much harder to understand/make sense of. In April 1994, Nelson Mandela was elected as the first black president of South Africa. A year earlier Mandela had gone on TV and Radio, making a call for “calm”, which is credited with stopping/preventing the country descending into civil war; a white supremacist had assassinated Chris Hani, a popular figure in the anti-apartheid movement, and the country was simmering politically and emotionally. Mandela’s election heralded the end of apartheid and that held the promise of an increase in opportunity and promise for South Africa’s black population. However, thirty years on the economic hopes that many people had have not been realized, and there certainly wasn’t an immediate change in the fortunes of many after Mandela was elected.                 What did happen was an increase in the number of serial killers; mainly black, who mainly targeted black communities etc. This is understandable; a black person is less identifiable in a black community than they would be in a white one. If you are going to be killing multiple people, staying as anonymous as possible is a must. At the heart of all violence is the need for power and control. Even burglars (non-violent offenders), who generally prefer not to interact with the homeowners of the houses they target, will talk about the thrill and enjoyment of the power and control they have when they are in someone else’s home, without them being there. There is a reason why those who are the victims of burglary talk more about the sense of violation they’ve experienced after their house was broken into, than the loss of goods i.e., they intuitively understand the emotional aspect of the offense, and the reward(s) it brings the offender. In the turmoil of the post-apartheid era there were individuals who believed that they would enjoy a greater sense of power and control over their lives and yet this didn’t happen. When we are denied something in one area, we may choose to seek it in another, especially if we see or are presented with an opportunity. Social unrest/dissatisfaction doesn’t by default lead to an increase in killing but it can create an environment when those who are inclined to act violently towards others feel a certain sense of justification – and possibly normalization - in doing so.                 I remember a criminology professor of mine asking me what I thought of growing up in 1980’s Britain. After listing off various things and events, he said, “it was pretty shit, wasn’t it?” The US in the 1970’s is largely remembered as a period of inflation (high gas prices) and political upheaval (Watergate and the Vietnam war). The 1980’s saw the AIDS crisis, and the threat(s) of Nuclear War during the cold war period. Both decades which saw the rise of serial killings in both countries were times of uncertainty where many individuals felt an individual lack of personal power and control. It is impossible to say if the “Golden Era” of serial killings was the result of these things, however when comparing different countries’ periods of societal unrest, and the associated rise in serial killings it’s hard to put serial killing down to purely biological and psychological factors.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=731 Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=730 It is easy to forget how relatively “new” certain criminal phenomenon are, or at the very least our awareness and understanding of them. We may look back to the case of Jack the Ripper, a serial sexual homicidal killer, who committed his offenses in the Whitechapel area of London in the 1860’s and believe that nearly 200 years later we should have a complete knowledge and understanding as to how and why such crimes are committed etc. However, the fact that offending, and especially serious offending is – despite what the media may tell us – a relatively rare events, especially compared to more normal and regular events such as people engaging in shopping and leisure activities etc., leaves us with only a very small sample size of incidents to investigate. Serial killing is a remarkably rare event even when it appears extremely pertinent and common in the areas and communities where a killer may be active etc. Trying to come up with a single motivation, manner of operation, and behavioral pattern based on such a small number of offenders is extremely difficult. When we take into account the operational and logistical issues that arise out of crime linkage, which potentially involve separate agencies and jurisdictions working together we can also see that there is little systemic reason(s) for agencies to want to link offenses, especially when they occur in different geographical domains etc. However, when we look at serial killing – the killing of three or more persons separated my time – social geography appears important. Without a doubt the US is the home to the greatest number of identifiable serial killers, with most operating between 1970 and the year 2000. However, if you want to look for the country with the next highest number of serial killers by population density, South Africa is either the second or third (depending on the data that you use).                One of the things that is important to note is that South Africa is the only country on the continent of Africa that has identified and recognized having serial killers. This doesn’t mean that other African countries haven’t had such killers but rather that they have lacked the means and desire to identify them etc. Linking what may at first appear separate killings to one offender can be difficult, and it is often easier for law enforcement to treat each killing as separate etc. As soon as the idea of a serail killer is promoted by the media, or a potential folk devil is created, such agencies come under pressure to solve the crime(s), before the next offense is committed. Politicians want to convince their constituents that they are safe and whilst a serial killer remains at large this can be difficult to do. This creates a natural reluctance in law enforcement to acknowledge that a series of extreme crimes are down to one person, even when whatever little evidence they may have suggests that this is the case. The fact that the South African authorities have not shied away from linking killings to a particular/singular offender is a testament to those working in law enforcement and demonstrates a level of honesty and transparency that many people don’t expect from law enforcement.                Often, when people think about an offender who commits such extreme acts of violence e.g., multiple killings, they want to characterize them as evil. Evil is a convenient and lazy term that allows us to suspend our investigation(s) as to why such incidents occur; we can simply explain them as “evil” and go about our lives etc. However, if we are going to look beyond such simplistic explanations i.e., some people are good some people are evil etc., we must dispense with and get rid of the emotive terms we use to describe violence and violent offending. In this case we must look at why serial killing was primarily a US offense committed within a pretty defined thirty-year period and why this was then exported/transposed to South Africa some ten years later- or if this is what in fact what happened. When comparing both countries, it may appear that serial killing is a phenomenon that is more socially influenced and motivated rather than biologically/psychologically; there may be those in all communities/locales who are ready to engage in such offenses, but certain social conditions need to be met in order for this to happen. Whilst it may be neat and tidy to say that such incidents are the problems of certain countries and their inhabitants, it is more profitable to look at some of the social conditions which have led to and allowed such serial killers to exist and operate.                I don’t believe in coincidences and whilst the US is far and away a leader with regards to serial killers, the fact that South Africa, although a long way behind, is in second place means that such offending cannot be geographically and biologically restricted. There must be something(s) that both countries have experienced/shared that means they have created the social conditions that have allowed/encouraged serial killings/killers to occur. This doesn’t take away individual responsibility or mean that a country is responsible for such killings, however if we can understand what creates the climate for individuals to engage in such crimes, we have a better opportunity to stop and prevent them from happening. In next week’s article I will look at some of the factors that resulted in US and South African seral killers committing their offenses.                      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=730 Mon, 03 Feb 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=729 Whilst I’m somewhat tech savvy e.g., I engage in crime data analysis using structured and unstructured data etc., I am not someone who understands social media; I get how algorithms work or are “meant” to work, but I don’t know how to “tune” my feeds, or if that is even possible, so that I see what I want to see, rather than what the social media platform wants me to see etc. This isn’t a major problem in my life, but it means I sometimes see debates and discussions around subjects that I thought had been concluded years ago. One of these concerns the use of bayonets by modern militaries i.e., is bayonet training still included in military training and why? Effective use of the bayonet has been described, at times, as “the last seven inches of foreign policy”. Whilst it may seem “redundant” when you have a weapon that is capable of firing bullets there are situations when using a rifle differently, such as, as a cutting/stabbing weapon is more effective, and not just when you have run out of ammunition e.g., in a crowded environment, such as a house where there is the risk of non-active participants getting shot collaterally, a bayonet can be more easily localized and directed at the person who is needing to be dealt with. Whilst this article is not about bayonets (or “swords” as we use to refer to them), their continued use illustrates why it’s not always applicable or effective to use a firearm as a “hot” weapon, and sometimes it may be better to use it “cold” e.g., as an impact weapon.                Not every situation you are in may permit you to use legal force, even if it appeared that this might be necessary at an early stage. Whilst there are those involved in reality-based self-defense who will causally trot out the line, “better to be tried by twelve than carried by six” to excuse/explain an excessive use of force, and/or poor judgement, being able to make an effective and “watertight” claim of self-defense, especially where/when firearms and lethal force are involved, is essential e.g., you may be innocent and have been justified to use lethal force however if a DA puts a plea deal of three years on the table versus going to trial, where you could be sentenced to life without parole etc., your attorney is likely to advise you to take the plea. It is always good to try to separate the “moral” from the “legal”, when looking at having to justify your potential actions – you may feel the moral right to shoot someone after you have disarmed them, after all that may have been their intention regarding you, however if you have moved away with the weapon, and are no longer in imminent danger, you don’t have the legal right to do so, despite how justified you may feel in that moment. If you are not in imminent danger i.e., an aggressor can’t in that moment cause you harm, it's worth taking that moment to assess what you should do next; you may want to increase that assessment time by disengaging and backing away, rather than simply acting blindly in that moment, fueled by rage, aggression and injustice. The law makes very few provisions for “but what ifs…” e.g., but what if he had another weapon (did you see one?), but what if there were two other people who entered the room to assist them (did this happen?) etc. After making a disarm, it may be better/more effective to use the weapon “cold” and smash your assailant in the face with it, in order to create a disengagement opportunity, rather than “tap and rack” the weapon whilst backing off to a distance where you can cover/put a bead on them etc. Once you’ve done that, do you have a plan? What will you do if they fail to obey your command to stay on the ground? What will you do if they run away or towards you? Staying “engaged” with an attacker even when you believe you hold the power prolongs the confrontation and creates the opportunity for further stages in it that can complicate your position. Proving/demonstrating, that you were trying to disengage and safely put distance between yourself and an aggressor rather than staying with them, is a safer and usually better legal option to take/follow i.e., it demonstrates your “innocence”, that you didn’t want to be involved in any way, shape or form concerning this altercation, and were trying to get away at the first opportunity. The most common, strongest part of a short-barreled firearm e.g., pistol or revolver etc., is the barrel. When you are working with someone else’s firearm, such as after a disarm, it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to assess the strength and integrity of the other parts of the weapon and so it is best to work from the premise that the part which is most likely to be strong is the barrel. There are basically two ways to use the barrel, and these replicate the way you would use the barrel of a long-barrel weapon, you can strike/punch with the barrel, and you can slash/cut with it. You can potentially use the magazine (and the bottom of the magazine well) to strike with, however this tends to be more effective with a long-barrel firearm which usually has a stronger magazine. Both slashes/cuts and strikes/punches are delivered whilst you are holding the firearm on the grip (“handle”), as if you were going to fire it one-handed. As with all weapons, it should be regarded as much as a liability as a strength. You will want to protect it and ensure that your assailant/attacker isn’t able to take it off you and get it back. Whilst they may not have intended to use it against you before, it is pretty much guaranteed they will now i.e., they won’t want to take the risk of being disarmed again. A few good strikes should dissuade them from attempting to but the longer you stay with them, the greater the risk. A few strikes with the weapon that cause/inflict serious pain should give you the opportunity to disengage. It is all too easy to get caught up in the training environment of imagining a scenario where you turn the tables on an assailant armed with a firearm, and then hold them there until law enforcement arrives etc. However, staying rather than going, not having inflicted serious pain and/or physically damage to an assailant, can go in so many other directions that don’t see you exiting the incident as the “hero”. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=729 Mon, 27 Jan 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=728 Psychology is a behavioral science that is sometimes referred to as a “soft” science. If you think about mathematics and the sub-discipline of trigonometry (the study of angles), a shape such as a triangle has to have all of its angles add up to 180 degrees, and a square 360 degrees etc. If a shape’s angles don’t add up to 180 degrees, it can’t be – and there’s no way it can be – a triangle. The “rules” are firm and rigid on this. There is also a “predictive” element to this, in that once you know a shape angles add up to 180 degrees, you will also know that it has three sides etc. However, when you look at how the DSM defines certain personality orders, you can diagnose two different people with a particular disorder, without them sharing many or any of the same diagnostic criteria e.g., for someone to be diagnosed/classified as having Borderline Personality Disorder they must exhibit five out of a possible nine behaviors, meaning that two people diagnosed with BPD, may potentially only share one particular criteria/behavior. Also, in these lists of behaviors/criteria, each one is weighted the same. Obviously, the person making the diagnosis is able to add their experience and expertise to the process, but this makes the method “less” scientific, as a somewhat subjective and less predictable element is now involved. This means that diagnosing someone with a personality disorder such as narcissism is not a “neat” process, and that different individuals can exhibit the disorder in different ways; this is why there is the need for subtypes and variants of disorders. This, however, leads to its own issues e.g., if we need so many different sub-classifications of a personality disorder, how valuable/important is a diagnosis? This means it is often more productive to look at particular behaviors associated with a personality disorder and identify which ones are “troublesome” rather than simply look to classify someone as this or that. However, in forensic settings this can be an issue e.g., the prosecution may want to convince the jury that the defendant is a psychopath, with the defense arguing that the individual in question doesn’t actually meet the necessary criteria for such a diagnosis etc. One of the cases that highlights this issue is that of Dennis Nilsen.                Dennis Nilsen readily admitted to the police that he killed fifteen men in a five-year period (1978-1983), after a Dyno-Rod employee found human bone fragments in Nilsen’s drain; there is evidence to support the fact that Nilsen wanted to get caught, as he’d told his landlord that unless the drains of his flat/apartment weren’t unblocked he wouldn’t pay his rent – knowing full well the reason why they were blocked. Nilsen targeted homeless individuals and those on the fringes of society. Whilst all of those he killed were men, and Nilsen was a homosexual, there is nothing about the killings to suggest that they were sexual in the way we might think about a sex-crime such as rape. After he killed his victims, usually by strangulation, he would clean them, and then “enjoy” their company such as watching TV with them, and “admiring” their naked bodies and the control he had over his possessions. It is clear that Nilsen had mental health issues however he didn’t neatly conform to any mental illness or personality disorder, something which is true of many active shooters and killers i.e., someone who goes on a killing spree is clearly not in a healthy state of mind but in many instances an identifiable mental illness or even personality disorder isn’t present. The defense in the Nilsen case largely rested on the idea that Nilsen had acted due to diminished responsibility caused by his mental state; whilst he acknowledged that he had killed the people whose deaths he was being tried for he wasn’t fully responsible for his actions – this would mean that he was guilty of manslaughter not murder, meaning that the judge would be limited in the length of the sentence he was given (theoretically he could have been out in fifteen years). Two different psychiatrists made the argument that Nilsen had both traits of narcissistic, schizoid and borderline personality disorder and that this constituted an “unspecified personality disorder” (something recognized in DSM-V), that provoked/caused him to kill.                One of the issues that the defense had in their “diminished responsibility” argument was that Nilsen couldn’t be cleanly or neatly classified as having a single and distinguishable personality disorder. A juror has an idea of what a psychopath or narcissist is, even if they may not fully understand the clinical definitions of these disorders or why they are diagnosed in the way that they are e.g., the term psychopath is often used colloquially to refer to someone who doesn’t care about others, and narcissist to describe someone who loves themselves etc., and whilst these can be characteristics of these disorders they fall a long way short of what would be needed to actually make a diagnosis of them. Nilsen didn’t fit neatly into a particular hole. It is likely that Nilsen’s murderous actions were driven by a sense of loneliness and emotional indifference (two traits of Schizoid Personality Disorder), a grandiose sense of self-worth and importance (features of Narcissistic Personality Disorder), and anger/frustration/violence at an ended relationship (something those with borderline personality disorder may exhibit), when a grandfather he was close to as a young child died i.e., he had characteristics and traits of many personality disorders which led – not inevitably – to him becoming a killer. However, because he couldn’t be easily/readily defined with an existing/identifiable personality disorder, the defense was unable to convince the jury that his actions were due to diminished responsibility as a result of his mental health.                We tend to use the terms narcissist and psychopath a little too freely, without fully understanding which of the traits concerning these personality disorders may manifest themselves negatively and potentially violently etc. I am not going to argue that a lack of empathy and remorse are positive or welcome character traits, however there may be times when these character traits may give someone an advantage that leads to something positive e.g., there may be times when “clinical” rather than “personal” thinking leads to the greater good. This means that when we are looking to predict aggression and violence, a diagnosis of a particular/individual personality disorder or mental illness may not actually help us in assessing risk, and we are better looking for the presence of certain character traits of various disorders that are likely to result in destructive behaviors.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=728 Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=727 Much of my reading and research regarding criminology concerns environmental criminology e.g., which environmental factors influence particular crimes; why do street robberies happen in certain places at certain times and not in other places at those times etc. This involves the spatial (location) and temporal (time) aspects of crime and acts of violence etc. From a psychological perspective we are all “creatures” who operate in, and are influenced by, space, and we relate to others in space e.g., if you look at the way strangers stand together when waiting for a bus you can discern a lot about how they manage their personal space (proxemics) – this becomes more interesting when you look at the order in which they arrive at the stop etc. We manage space in a number of different ways. As a Judoka (practitioner of Judo), a lot of the information I gain about where I am and where my opponent is, is derived from touch/feeling, or haptic perception i.e., tactile-spatial awareness. A large part of grappling is about developing and improving this type of awareness to the point where it becomes a subconscious skill process i.e., you don’t need to work out where someone’s weight is, you just “know”. Combine this with kinesthetic awareness – the perception of body movement in space – and you’ll intuitively know when to perform a sweep, reap or throw etc. If you were to try to mathematically model these things it would be almost impossible to do, however the human brain accomplishes these calculations effortlessly, based on some simple heuristics, according to a logic/method we don’t fully understand. I remember as a psychology undergraduate being tasked with creating a mathematical formula for the simple task of catching a ball. It was a lengthy, frustrating process, and if I remember correctly, I’m pretty sure my equation/formula only worked in a very specific set of circumstances. However, our brains calculate the movement of an object in space very effectively allowing us to catch a ball quickly and easily. In this article I want to look at a particular type of spatial awareness – somatognosia – and how it relates to effective striking.                In my experience of teaching both competitive combat sports such as Judo and reality-based self-defense (Krav Maga), I have noticed that each tends to attract a different “larger” crowd/appeal to a certain audience. Many – but certainly not all – who are attracted to combat sports such as Boxing, Muay Thai and Judo etc., generally are looking to learn a few things that they can “master” which will allow them to win a particular type of fight, whilst those looking at reality-based self-defense systems/approaches such as Krav Maga are wanting to learn techniques which will deal with every conceivable violent incident, including those that involve weapons and multiple attackers etc. Of course, I am generalizing, and this is a personal/subjective point of view rather than a scientific/objective one. Ultimately, everyone comes to study a martial art for their own individual reasons. The potential danger faced by those looking to learn solutions to every conceivable attack and threat, is that they are so focused/concerned on learning “new” techniques and solutions, to answer their questions – what do I do if… – that they lose sight of the foundations and basics that power their solutions. As I have regularly stated in this blog there are no such things as “advanced” techniques, there are only more difficult techniques to perform e.g., a spinning kick is more difficult to perform/master than a non-spinning kick however this doesn’t make it an “advanced” technique. Advanced when it comes to fighting means performing the basics more “consistently” and “better”. A boxer or judoka doesn’t get better by learning more techniques, they get better and “advance” by performing and executing what they already know more consistently and effectively etc.                Two things – that I believe – make people better fighters are having a consistent guard, and consistent footwork i.e., at any and every moment they know where their hands and feet are in space (somatognosia). Without consistent movement and repositioning of the hands and feet, the body will never intuitively know where they are and will have to make a calculation before using them. If after a block or strike, the hands are always returned to exactly the same position, the body/mind will always know where they are and how/when to use them. It may seem a small, almost insignificant thing however it can dramatically increase reaction time and speed. In fact, if you are looking to increase your punching/striking speed this is the place to start. If you have developed the habit of leaving your hand/arm out after throwing a punch you have a) lost power as there is a lack of timing in the strike, and b) not pulled the hand back to a position where it could be used to block or strike again etc. Having consistent foot movement is the same. When you step forward and the rear foot moves forward to adjust and bring you back to your “stance” both steps should move the same distance every time. If sometimes when you step forward, you bring the back foot forward a certain distance and at other times a different distance – shortening or lengthening your stance – you will lack the knowledge/awareness of where your feet are at all times. This can affect your ability to both move effectively/efficiently and generate power; power generation in striking relies upon body weight shifting in the direction of the target and if your feet vary in where they are you will not intuitively be able to do this quickly and effectively e.g., you may have to readjust your feet before you make a strike.                 Whilst using aggression as a substitute for skill makes sense when you are first learning to defend yourself, as it is quicker to learn aggression – a mindset – than to move your body and hands in the most efficient and effective manner, as you become a longer-term practitioner, you should look to develop your physical skills and abilities etc., as well. Aggression will get you so far but if you want a faster and more powerful punch, that will require developing physical skills and abilities, most of which rely on consistency of movement and knowing where your body is in space (somatognosia) at all times.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=727 Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=726 There can be a danger in turning something that is simple into something that is simplistic i.e., you reduce something that is straightforward and direct into something that doesn’t acknowledge context etc. Krav Maga defenses are – initially - designed to react to a movement rather than to identify the exact nature of the attack e.g., a 360/Outer-Defense, is “triggered” by a circular movement that crosses a person’s peripheral vision, initiating the “startle reflex”. That movement could be a loping/swinging haymaker (unarmed attack), or a knife slash or stab etc. However, whilst these different attacks may initiate the same reflex, and can be blocked using the same defense, the intent behind each one is very different, and once picked up on/identified should determine the way we deal with an attacker. Whilst each has its own dangers and problems, I know that someone trying to stab me is more likely to have deadly intent than someone who is trying to slash me, and if I don’t consider this vital piece of information, and treat both types of attack as “equal” then I could find myself focusing on the wrong things, and not taking into account those which are important to my survival. I believe it is vitally important to work with our natural instincts and urges, and to fail to acknowledge that we won’t treat all threats and attacks as equal is to deny the way in which our fear system naturally operates. If an attack is more dangerous and serious to us, our focus will be to deal with it directly rather than employ other tactics and strategies etc.                Perhaps the most important thing when dealing with any type of attack is controlling range. This may not be possible if/when attacked by surprise; this is one of the purposes of having good situational awareness – not letting potential threats get so close to you that you don’t have time to react and respond etc. However, once you have identified that you are being attacked/assaulted taking control of range becomes an initial priority e.g., if someone stabs/slashes you, your startle reflex may be triggered “late”, and your block may limit rather than stop the cut etc. To not move, and stay in the same place, allows an assailant an easy follow-up opportunity – fortunately most attacks with knives involve a single slash to the face with a tool such as a box-cutter/Stanley knife, and so getting an arm up to defend, even if it doesn’t form a perfect block may be adequate in preventing/limiting injury etc. However, we should never simply assume that this will be the case. Our instinctive/initial block should form a reference point for us. It’s an untrained response, and we should recognize what it signifies i.e., we are being attacked.  Movement is key in order to give us the time and opportunity to start making a trained response, whether that involves engaging with an attacker(s) or disengaging. Our fear system is great at instinctively dealing with the first “problem” but it is also quick to hand control of a situation over to us so that we can make better, more informed further responses etc., which take into account the context within which we are working. Your initial instinctive block is there to give you the “time” to execute a trained/conscious response to the attack. This is where we naturally start to differentiate between the “movement” that has triggered our reflexive block; are we dealing with a slash, a stab or a punch? Whilst theoretically we have the ability to employ any solution to the following attacks, that is not how we are naturally “wired” – the more serious the nature of the attack is, the more likely it is our focus will go towards stopping it/dealing with it directly i.e., we are more likely to focus on blocking and controlling an incoming knife attack, than trying to shut the attacker down combatively. The idea of the simultaneous block and strike/punch when dealing with a knife attack is a great theoretical strategy, however it is not something that is instinctive (if it were, every time a movement triggered our startle reflex we’d make a punch as well as bring an arm up to defend, and this doesn’t happen), or even instinctual; something that we may not do reactively but are prone to do – in the case of a knife attack, we are more prone to turn and move away from an attacker. Recognizing that we may do this is important, as if we believe we are naturally going to follow up with a strike/punch as we block, and we then don’t, we may find ourselves confused as to what we should be doing. If we recognize that we might turn and move away when attacked, we can use this as a “reference point” from which to enact our survival strategy. We naturally and intuitively understand that a stab is a more serious attack than a slash. The Romans developed a brutally efficient killing machine. A line of legionaries protected by a large shield, stabbing out from behind it with a short sword (the gladius). Going up against such a wall of moving blades was a bit like trying to put your hand in a food mixer. The legionaries didn’t even have to be accurate; just keep moving forward and stabbing at the oncoming/engaging front line. However, there was a problem with this killing machine: even in war people don’t want to kill, and neither did the legionaries. Instead of stabbing they would slash, an action that generally wounded rather than killed. It wasn’t that they were taught this distinction, they intuitively knew the different consequences of each action, and one of the roles of the centurions/officers was to remind them to stab rather than to slash etc. Just as a 21st century attacker understands that a stab – in general – can cause greater, more serious harm, than a slash, so does the individual dealing with it, and this is where their attention will naturally be focused and directed. This doesn’t mean that it is impossible for an individual to make a simultaneous block and punch but rather they are more likely to be focused on blocking and dealing with/controlling the knife etc. To ignore the reality that the focus of our attention will be on the level/degree of threat/harm we are facing and that we should instead behave in a certain prescribed way is to turn Krav Maga into a “traditional martial art” (I’m being somewhat unfair in saying this but I’m trying to make a certain point) that dictates what a response should always be to a particular attack, rather than recognize how we are more likely to act and react etc. When the stakes are high, we are more likely to focus on that which will cause us harm rather than the person intending us harm e.g., whilst we may use the same block to deal with a circular punch, slash or stab we will intuitively recognize that they don’t all represent the same level of risk and harm, and focus our attention and response(s) differently.             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=726 Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=725 When I was at university I briefly – very briefly – went out with a girl from Cumbernauld; she was a brutally honest person (I hope she still is, and happy), who quickly realized we had little in common, weren’t compatible etc., and after a month or two announced that we had no future and probably shouldn’t even be friends etc. Really, the only connection we’d had was both being Scottish at an English University; as a realist, from Cumbernauld (this is important) she definitely realized this wasn’t enough, whilst as a romantic optimist I, at the time, convinced myself that it was. Not to define people by where they come from, but that she came from/grew up in Cumbernauld is important/significant. I initially met her at some student house party, probably made some bad jokes, told a few crap stories – which I thought were extremely entertaining – and as we all piled out to go our separate ways, in a chivalrous but transparently obvious gesture, offered to walk her back to her house, citing safety and security as my number one concern; whilst there was certainly teenage self-interest at play, it was a fairly rough city and was the right thing to do. As I was explaining/mansplaining the dangers of living in a big city – I was from Glasgow, she was from Cumbernauld etc. – she opened her handbag/purse and showed me a pre-broken bottle and explained that I shouldn’t worry about her. She then turned her back and walked/headed/stumbled off in whatever direction she believed would take her home; we were both very drunk. The foresight she’d had to break the bottle ahead of the time she might need to do so impressed me. This was a woman who weighed less than a hundred pounds and knew what it might take for her to survive a violent altercation. Cumbernauld had just grabbed my attention and had become a significant locale on my radar.                I’d always been “aware” of Cumbernauld as it was about ten miles to the East of Glasgow and had been the setting for Bill Forsyth’s film “Gregory’s Girl”; Forsyth went on to write and direct “Local Hero” with Burt Lancaster. However, Gregory’s Girl showed a “charming” and very different side to the Cumbernauld that saw girls and young women walking around with ready broken bottles in their handbags/purses for self-defense. I might have been working off a sample size of one, but I didn’t think hers was a unique attitude, and when I visited Cumbernauld my experiences and what I saw made me believe/confirmed I was correct in this assumption. The West of Scotland in the1960’s and 1970’s had become something of an experiment in architecture and housing. Glasgow had become a gang-owned city with out-of-date housing – I had relatives who had a concrete table in their living room, which was actually the raised roof/ceiling of a communal lavatory located on the lower floor; they’d put a tablecloth over it and a vase of flowers, and used it as a table etc. The solution the authorities came up with – which on paper was a good one – was to break up the districts and move people to purpose-built “new” towns and communities, with modern housing and shopping centers etc. Council Estates, such as Easterhouse lacked such resources as cinemas, supermarkets, and other leisure facilities etc., however Cumbernauld got a megastructure known as “the center”, a huge multi-story building which would house all of its shops. I have little knowledge of architecture but when a building is said to be designed in the “brutalist architectural style” (a school of design/architecture which was created/developed in 1950’s), you know that ideas involving charm and nostalgia etc., are not being reflected. As soon as we entered the building to go and get a coffee, I felt trapped and claustrophobic. There was little natural light, and access and movement through the building was through a series of walkways and tunnels etc. I wished I’d had the foresight to have a ready broken bottle for my defense, as disengagement would never be an available/viable option in a confrontation – even looking at the crime stats for 2014, which have seen a dramatic drop in the years since I visited Cumbernauld is in a reporting district/region which sees it as the fourth most crime-ridden area in Scotland; quite an achievement.                    Research has shown that humans associate ideas and senses of entrapment with increased levels of fear i.e., we naturally like to feel that we have an option to get away. At heart, whilst we have the ability to be predatory creatures, we are prey animals who look primarily to escape rather than engage when confronted with a threat. When we are looking at solutions to violence, this default behavior should be acknowledged rather than challenged and attempted to be altered. The recording of the 911 conversation between the dispatcher and the librarian during the Columbine School Shootings demonstrates people’s natural instincts to disengage and remove themselves from a threat rather than waiting to engage with it – whenever we are looking at solutions to violence we should look at who we are and how we instinctively want to react rather than force ourselves to conform and act in an unnatural manner. There is also research that shows, that when an intervention is introduced such as increasing lighting or visibility etc., people’s confidence in its effectiveness is reduced e.g., even when measures are put in place to address the security issues caused by a bad architectural design, if these don’t dramatically deal with them, then people become less confident and more afraid i.e., a poor/bad solution draws more attention to the issue than none at all; from a policy perspective it is “better” to ignore a problem that try to solve it and only draw attention to it etc. Attempts to make the shopping center safer have in fact only convinced people of the threats and dangers they potentially face when in it.                Personally, I have nothing against Cumbernauld or its residents. I am sure there will be those who take exception at what I say. In surveys and reports there are those that say the shopping center should be torn down and others who say it represents a style of architecture that should be recognized and acknowledged. However, I would argue that an environment that lacks sight-lines and visibility, along with a lack of escape routes creates a certain type of mindset and attitude i.e., one where you feel the need to have a broken bottle readily available to protect yourself, and ultimately this isn’t healthy. I have grown up in, and lived in, low-income and violent communities, and I can say that when it comes to your safety, the physical environment counts.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=725 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=724 I believe that crime and acts of violence are largely a product of the environment and opportunity as opposed to criminality i.e., those with a certain mindset and attitude etc. That is not to say that there aren’t people out there in society who are aggressively/violently inclined however if we look at the majority of acts/offenses they are committed by people who find themselves in the moment able to advantage their position psychologically/emotionally or tangibly by committing an offense/crime e.g., a person scans an avocado at the self-checkout as an onion because they believe the store employee overseeing the checkout process won’t notice and/or care to have an awkward interaction concerning something so trivial etc. Whilst a lot of violence involves people who may have a predisposition to act this way, if an “opportunity” isn’t presented – such as an argumentative/combative individual who challenges them – most will go about their day-to-day lives in  peace and harmony etc. Don’t worry I’m not suggesting that we all sit around, holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” (I think it was the comedian Craig Feguson who said that it translated as/meant , “Who gives a shit”) or ”I’d like to teach the world to sing” etc., but rather that it’s worth acknowledging that crime and violence is largely the result of opportunity, rather than that being caused by us living in a Mad Max-style apocalypse where everyone belongs to a warring faction. This means that the environment(s) we live in have the ability to promote or dissuade crime and violence, giving those who are involved in public planning a pivotal role in creating and developing living spaces that either increase or decrease our public safety. One such individual who took/was given such a power in New York was Robert Moses.                 Robert Moses was never an elected official. However, during the early to mid-twentieth century there was probably nobody who influenced an urban environment like him. There were few architectural/public projects in New York that Moses didn’t touch/have a hand in. Some positive, and some negative. Robert Caro, convincingly portrayed Moses as an unrepentant racist in his 1974 biography of him – “The Power Broker – Robert Moses and the fall of New York” – and presented a lot of evidence demonstrating that this was the case e.g., keeping water temperatures at public swimming pools low as he believed Black/African Americans were cold intolerant and wouldn’t visit them, as well as putting up statues/sculptures of shackled monkeys which were painted black up in Harlem, to “mock” the predominantly black neighborhood, along with detailing comments that he’s made such as complaining that his public parks were being spoilt by, “that scum floating up from Puerto Rico”. However, it was perhaps in the way that Moses divided the city using roadways that he had the greatest effect in separating communities and creating high crime areas. Moses favored the automobile over public transport, and “designed” New York around this “idea”/concepts; that it would be a city that could be easily accessed not so much by its residents but by those who lived in the suburbs surrounding it. Influenced by the Chicago School’s idea of cities being formed of concentric bands (an idea of zones suggested by Ernest Burgess), with a central business district, and the furthest out band being occupied by the predominantly white/middle classes who had moved/migrated out to the “suburbs” etc. For Moses, giving these individuals easy access into the city/business center was a priority. Often, the bridges and roads he created divided up districts and created “islands” in which there were limited resources, where residents “cut off” found themselves being targeted and ruled by criminal gangs/entities who could control these isolated – and often poorly policed - areas.                                Crime has a degree of “directionality” to it e.g., if an offender lives on the coast, with the sea to their West, they are more likely to find offending opportunities to their East; in the opposite direction – heading directly North or South keeps them in a relatively narrow band. Moses, knew creating these structural boundaries either “contained” and “encouraged” crime in certain areas and/or inadvertently directed it. Offenders are constrained by their built environment. A busy road with few crossings may make it difficult for someone to cross it, restricting their movement in a certain direction. A person living next to a river will find that their movement is directed by where there is a bridge, if they need to cross to the opposite side/neighborhood etc. I remember returning to Glasgow with a friend and trying to explain to him that “proximity” to the city center wasn’t as important when it came to safety as recognizing some of the roads that divided the city and “cut off” certain areas from others – he was a photographer who I went to university with and was interested in capturing some of the architecture etc., and I’d agreed to show him around/accompany him. The East End of Glasgow comes on you quickly. You cross the High Street from the City Center and in a few short minutes you’re in Calton, one of the high crime areas of the city. I remember the shock on his face when, after quickly leaving the modern city center, we were crossing a piece of waste ground with a makeshift “market” set up on it that basically comprised of piles of old clothes etc., that people were selling. The High Street cut off a deprived area with a high crime rate from a relatively safe, modern city center.                 It is easy to demonize Moses for the way he “divided” up New York and influenced/created ghettos and pockets of crime, along with directing the pathways of crime, however he was a complex individual who was also responsible for creating many green spaces and playgrounds in New York, including many in predominantly black neighborhoods etc. However, his impact, through bridge building and highway development, also cut communities off, deprived them of access to resources and caused them to economically fail, helping them to become localities and communities that criminal gangs and organizations were able to exploit. Whenever we look at the value of a public work project we should also consider how it may direct crime and violent offending.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=724 Mon, 23 Dec 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=723 The Journey-to-Crime (JTC) has always been of interest to me. There are those offenders who set out to particular locations with the intent and goal of committing a crime e.g., John Duffy and David Mulcahy – the railway rapists – who would choose and head to certain railway stations in order to select/target single women, and there are those who, like foraging animals, leave their home/base looking for opportunities to present themselves. There are also those offenders who don’t start their day with any motivation to offend and then presented with an opportunity that is too good to refuse and ignore find themselves motivated to commit a crime; many muggers/street robbers will talk about times when they had no need to commit an offense e.g., they already had enough money to fund their particular lifestyle, and then witnessed someone making a large/significant cash withdrawl from a bank or ATM etc; an opportunity too good/easy to pass on. However, there are also offenders whose homes/bases are the scenes of their crimes i.e., they don’t just go out looking for people to victimize, they look to bring them back to where they live, and it is here that they commit their offenses. In this article I want to look at a pair of serial killers whose method of operating led to them hunting/targeting individuals in one location and then bringing them back to their home in order to kill.                 In 1994, Fred and Rose West were arrested and charged with the murder of their first daughter Heather West. It was believed that she was murdered because she was about to go to the police to inform them of a series of murders that her parents had committed, at 25 Cromwell Street where they lived. It was a dedicated female police officer, who alerted by a social worker to the disappearance of Heather West, led to the investigation, that uncovered a further twelve victims, whose bodies were typically dismembered and buried in and around the property. The Wests generally “found” their victims in one of two ways. Cromwell Street was located in Gloucester’s “Bed Sit” district. This was an area where large houses had been broken up by landlords into smaller units, which were relatively cheap to rent. Fred West, a builder by trade, had done the same with the house he and Rose owned, and rented out rooms to young, single women, often at a discounted rate if they agreed to help “nanny” and look after their young children, including Heather. Often, these young women were looking to escape from broken homes with abusive parents, and so lacked a support network that would miss them if they went missing. This is one of the reasons why serial killers often target sex-workers i.e., because they lack a formal/structured social network which would alert the authorities if they went missing etc. The Wests knew that it would likely not be noticed if the young women who lodged with them went missing, nor the authorities informed. The other way that the Wests gained access to individuals that they victimized was through targeting hitchhikers. Whilst the inherent dangers of getting into a car with a strange man was understood at the time when the Wests were operating, the presence of a woman, as part of a couple, in a car “signaled” safety i.e., a woman wasn’t going to allow her male partner to commit an act of violence against another woman etc. What nobody at the time would have guessed is that it was Rose not Fred who was the driving force behind the sexual homicides they committed. The young female hitchhikers that the Wests hunted for on the rural roads of South-West England were often in a similar social position to those who they rented rooms to i.e., young women with few resources and the lack of a social support network; they were hitchhiking because they lacked money and/or people who could offer them a ride etc. Whilst Fred was of below average intelligence and had a relatively low IQ, he had a social intelligence that allowed him to understand and identify who was vulnerable. As he and Rose committed more offenses, this intelligence would have developed and grown. He would have learnt to identify the subtle signs that someone lacking confidence but trying to hide it would give off etc. In thinking about the way people try to hide things but indicate otherwise, I am reminded of a piece of advice given to Michael Caine at the start of his acting career. A director took exception at the way he was playing a “drunk”, pointing out to him that drunk people don’t want to be identified as such, and try to hide it i.e., don’t play a drunk, play someone who’s pretending not to be drunk. Predators like Fred and Rose West would learn to identify those individuals who were “acting” as if they were confident and in control, along with those who clearly weren’t – they had a head start in that those who were hitchhiking were most likely doing it out of necessity rather than by choice etc. The Wests were not the only serial killers who used their home as a base. Dennis Nilsen – the Muswell Hill Murderer – killed all of his twelve victims, at two North London addresses where he lived between 1978 and 1983. He lured his victims to these properties through deception and then strangled them. Many of Nilsen’s targets were homeless men who he lured to his home(s) offering shelter and alcohol. Like the Wests, Nilsen targeted people belonging to a community which lacked a social support structure, people who wouldn’t be easily/quickly missed, and would soon be forgotten etc. His journeys to crime – like the Wests - involved going to the locations where those who fitted his victim profile were and then bringing them back to his base. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=723 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=722 There’s the old saying/joke that goes, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you”. If I remember correctly it comes from Jospeh Heller’s Catch-22. Imagined fears can be real. Whilst my time in security has seen me interact with technology e.g., I’ve analyzed data sets for anomalies, trends etc., I’m not much of a “hardware” guy. This means that when I come across articles or attend conferences, I’m always interested in hearing what those who work in these areas have to say. A few years ago, I was asked to demonstrate/talk about Krav Maga by an Israeli cybersecurity company that was putting on a conference in Boston – an event that was prestigious enough to have Apple’s Mike Wozniak as one of the speakers. Before I went on stage (I’ve also performed “air keyboards” on stage at Boston’s Wang Theater, so I see myself as being in “Show Business”), I had the opportunity to listen to a security consultant talk about how laptop cameras were vulnerable to hacking. After hearing his talk, I started to black tape the camera on my laptop, along with implementing some other very simple measures that he talked about; perhaps the most important being to keep up to date with security patches and operating system updates which the software companies regularly provide and download to our machines/computers – this was an area in which he worked and was regularly frustrated e.g., security professionals working for Apple/Microsoft find a vulnerability that hackers can exploit, produce a fix/solution, prepare an update and download it/make it available - and the user, for whatever reason doesn’t install it, and then gets hacked or has their machine contaminated by a virus etc. One of the end results being that the user then complains about how bad the company’s operating system is. My takeaway from this was to make sure I kept my operating system up to date and install patches and version updates as they became available. I’m sure there are software people out there who can point to a “patch” which led to a system failure or vulnerability, but as a general approach I believe staying up to date with version updates/patches is the safest strategy. In this article I want to look at laptop camera vulnerabilities and how to address them.                 Over the years I’ve received several emails “claiming” that my laptop camera has been hacked and that those hackers have obtained compromising images of me. The fact that a) my camera is taped over when I use my laptop and b) I’m a middle-aged man who leads a pretty boring life, I don’t believe that’s worth me making a Bitcoin payment to an Albanian gang to ensure that such photographs and film aren’t shared to the greater public. One of the things I always ask people who are being blackmailed is what are the actual consequences of the “information” being exposed if they were to do nothing and allow it to happen. Blackmailers often rely on the emotional response/reaction of those that they target and the “secret” that they threaten to expose is often something that can be rationally dealt with and explained, without any judgment e.g., we may think that something we did in our childhood/teenage years is “compromising” to who we are now, but in reality, nobody really cares or sees it as significant. In 2009, David Letterman, admitted on air to an affair with an assistant and former attorney, Stephanie Birkett, after being blackmailed and extorted by a CBS television producer, Jow Halderman. As soon as he went public, Halderman’s “power” was extinguished/eliminated, and taken away. Whilst something a blackmailer/extortionist (blackmail involves “information” whereas extortion involves the threat of violence/harm to a person or their property) has on you may seem devastating and ruinous it is often worth taking a more sterile and clinical look at the effects of what they are suggesting/promoting rather than getting caught up in the emotional aspects and responses of their claims/allegations. Letterman did this, and it may be that until you read this you had forgotten about his affair etc., and that is part of the power of claiming a story as your own, rather than letting a blackmailer/extortionist take control of it. If your camera is always “physically” protected by covering it, you never have to wonder or imagine what it might have captured regardless of how you live your lifestyle etc.                   Laptop cameras are notoriously easy to hack. My latest has a toggle switch that allows it to be “mechanically” disabled i.e., no need for tape anymore. When a manufacturer creates/allows such a safety feature it is an acknowledgement of a flaw/vulnerability. Up until the 1990’s automobile manufacturers were concerned more about performance than safety, however due to the extent of car crime in the 1980’s they were “forced” to address certain issues e.g., I could break into my 1984 Vauxhall Maestro with a coat wire, or tennis ball cut in half, used to push air into the lock; I was a bit of a space-cadet in those days, and used to sometimes lock my keys in the car. Attempting to do these types of things on a modern vehicle is a waste of time as the manufacturers addressed these types of issues/vulnerabilities. The fact that my laptop has such a toggle switch is an admission by a manufacturer about the software vulnerabilities that hackers can exploit regarding laptop/computer cameras. Sometimes simple mechanical solutions such as black tape – that can be removed when necessary - offer the best security. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=722 Mon, 09 Dec 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=721 There are certain incidents/crimes that I find myself returning to examine/study for a variety of reasons. One of these is the sexual homicide of Naomi Louise Smith in 1995, which illustrates the potential impact different sexual value systems within communities can have on violent crime. I had just finished a Master’s degree in Psychology, which was ostensibly one in forensic psychology (psychology connected with the legal/criminal justice system), that had allowed me – due to a lecturer/professor’s area of study/interest - to take part in interviews with convicted high-risk sex-offenders at HMP Frankland, a Category A men’s prison in County Durham that was/is home to some of the UK’s most dangerous and violent offenders. One of the things I learnt and was taught early on was to take a detached, academic and non-judgmental approach when taking part in interviews and listening to offenders talking about the crimes they had committed, and not to connect emotionally with the things they talked about i.e., if you want to make sense and understand why someone commits despicable and heinous acts, you have to lose “despicable” and “heinous” from your vocabulary etc. I recognize that taking this clinical and somewhat sanitized view of violence often makes you appear like you don’t care about those that are victimized and are indifferent to violence, however it is a necessary attitude to adopt in order for you to try and understand the nature and motivations behind such crimes, as well as preserve your sanity; several students who initially started out attending these interviews weren’t able to make this “separation” and found the experience(s) too emotionally draining/upsetting/challenging and took their studies in other directions; having such humanity should never be seen as a “failure”. The rape/sexual assault and murder of Naomi Smith is one of those offenses that has stayed with me for a number of reasons, which I want to explore in this article, because I believe it can inform us about how sexual assaults and rapes can be both very simple and extremely complex at the same time; in saying that they are “simple” I don’t mean in any way to minimize the traumatic effect of those that are targeted/victimized.                 Naomi was fifteen when she was attacked and killed. Fifteen is a “strange” age in that whilst you are still technically a child you are exploring adulthood and for many people, who you are sexually. This can present issues for law-enforcement and the criminal justice system when framing sexual assaults. On the one hand, in order have the best odds of making a successful prosecution, you want to promote the most innocent, pure and naive view of the victim as possible, however in order to get to the “truth” of the investigation, you may discover things which may seem to contradict or question this. When looking at sexual offenses, one of the things that needs to be understood are the “sexual values” of the community/society in which the offense takes place e.g., I once gave advice to a law-enforcement agency that was investigating a child-prostitution case where parents were acting as “pimps” to their teenage daughters, in a fairly broad community where such actions/behaviors had become normalized to a certain degree etc. There is a tendency to view such attitudes and behaviors as being a “lower class” thing, committed by “uncivilized” people etc., however in my experience/understanding such things happen at all levels of society and those who have more power and control are simply better at staying invisible. Naomi lived on a working-class/blue-collar estate, which had its own sexual values e.g., it was “acceptable” for younger teenage girls to “date” men in their twenties etc. Whilst our sense of morality may scream that this is wrong and judge parents for not protecting their daughters against predatory men, when you live in such a community, there is an acceptance and management of these values; parents may recognize that this is what happens and whilst they may give their best advice, understand that these are the values they are working with. Whilst it was believed that Naomi was a virgin when she was raped and killed, she wasn’t sexually naive and understood how things worked and operated on the estate where she lived.                 Although she didn’t know her killer well, she did know him. The majority of sexual assaults, rapes and homicides aren’t committed by strangers, despite what we may want to believe i.e., nobody wants to believe that the people they know would do them harm. The sexual value system on the estate where Naomi lived displaced a certain population of teenage boys (a category her attacker, Edwin Hopkins belonged to), causing anger, resentment, frustration and a need for power and control that had the possibility to result in sexual assaults; this is not to take away any responsibility or blame of those who commit such assaults but rather to acknowledge some of the conditions that can create an environment where certain individuals feel compelled to offend in this way. Teenage girls mature faster than boys, and if there are older men, in their twenties, who are more mature, and have access to resources such as cars/transport and have money, such individuals are more attractive than boys their same age who lack these things. If there is no “taboo” or social wrong associated with there being an age gap, then choosing to be with/and having a sexual relationship with an older partner, who can offer maturity and resources rather than someone your own age who lacks these things is a fairly obvious choice. However, such a culture and environment can lead to certain individuals feeling that the “rules” are unfair and resenting them. For Edwin Hopkins – who was sentenced to life imprisonment – the sexual values of the estate where he and Naomi lived weren’t acceptable. Although Naomi wasn’t promiscuous, she understood the “power” that teenage girls in her community had, and she and her best friend used to dress up in a sexually provocative way and walk around the estate late at night, looking for male confirmation of their attractiveness. This activity should not be seen as making her to blame, in any way for her attack/murder. Her misfortune was for Hopkins to believe that due to the sexual value system of the community in which they lived, and because she “conformed” to it, he was entitled to have sex with her – regardless of her consent.                 Violence, including sexual violence, is about power and control, and in most cases involves anger. Hopkin’s assault on Naomi, appears to have initially started out as “regular” though forceful/nonconsensual intercourse, however at some point rage and possibly due to frustration – whether in the moment and/or more deep-seated - took over. He then engaged in acts which although sexually driven and motivated were exploratory in nature rather than physically/sexually gratifying. Whilst the sexual values of the community in which they both lived may have created an environment where such an anger/frustration was able to be created and cultivated, it was Hopkins alone who reacted to an opportunity he was presented with i.e., Naomi, nipped out to post a letter for her mother, and was lured by the slightly older Hopkins onto a unlit part of a recreation ground a few yards from her house, when she was en route back home. When you grow up in a community – and we all belong to communities – you generally accept its values and behave accordingly. Naomi did no differently. It’s only when/if you move outside of that community/society that you start to realize that the sexual value system you grew up in, might not be normal or right whether it is a relative on a council estate or an uncle at the country club groping you, and forcing/pressuring you to have sex with them etc. It is easy and simplistic to look at the case/incident of Naomi Smith’s assault and murder as something that wouldn’t happen in your “backyard” however having lived in many different backyards – working class, middle class etc. – I’ve seen different sexual value systems as being extremely common, and it is perhaps this that keeps me circling back and returning to the sexual homicide/murder of Naomi Smith. My non-academic self has never got over the normalcy and matter of fact way, without a hint of remorse, in which those sexual offenders in HMP Frankland talked about their crimes; their only sense of injustice being that they’d been caught and/or society was wrong to judge them for their offenses.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=721 Mon, 02 Dec 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=720 Perhaps one of the most contentious and hotly debated discussions in Krav Maga and reality-based self-defense concerns that of knife attacks. One of the biggest issues I see is when anecdotal evidence and/or individual experiences become rigid dogma e.g., it happened to me or someone I knew this way and therefore this is universally representative of how knife attacks occur etc. The world of the blog (yes, I am a blogger) and podcast can often promote individual vies, experiences and opinions as if they are the gospel truth, rather than the ruminations of well-meaning individuals who are wanting to make a positive impact upon the world of reality-based self-defense, by making people safer. I have dealt with knife attacks as a “civilian” (I was once attacked in a non-professional capacity by two individuals; one armed with a Kebab Knife in Green Lanes London), and several times whilst “working the door” as a security professional. In most of these incidents I was cut to some degree, which is why I say where and how you are cut, stabbed or “chibbed”, is often more important than whether you blocked or stopped the attack etc. This doesn’t mean that you should go into such encounters “expecting” to be cut but rather acknowledge that an imperfect block that stops a knife going deep into the body can be an effective block. About eighteen months ago I wrote an article that looked at knife attacks from a research/evidential perspective rather than a personal one, which found that most knife crime/violence was committed by individuals that knew each other, that most attacks consisted of a singular slash etc. (this article can be read by clicking here), and in attacks where victim and assailant knew each other multiple stabs/attacks were more common (Ormstad et al., 1986) – people are free to disagree on its findings and I am happy to debate and discuss etc., but this should be beyond an “I believe/think/feel” perspective. In this article I want to look at how and why people (probably untrained) survive knife attacks. If we as trained people can adopt some of those things which affect survival rates, then we – hopefully – can increase our chances of dealing with a knife attack in a way that results in a positive outcome. Research shows that more people survive a knife attack than don’t e.g., a 1999 study in Edinburgh, that looked at attacks between 1992 and 1994, saw that out of 120 stabbings, 20 incidents – 17 males, 3 females - resulted in a fatality (16%). Another earlier UK study (Thoresen & Rognum, 1986) found that most people who died immediately from stab wounds, did so from penetrating lesions to the heart. A 2018 study (Burke et al.) in Australia found that in Single Stab Injuries (SSI) 82% of fatalities involved a stab wound to the heart, with the rest being to the neck and abdomen. Despite SSI (Single Stab Injuries) to the heart/left-thorax having the potential to be fatal, most fatalities are the result of multiple stab wounds, and multiple wounds were equated with a shorter survival time (Thomsen et al., 2020). Whilst often the latest research provides the most up-to-date and relevant information, when looking at incidents such as stabbings etc., it can be as beneficial to look at the research which took place when such crimes were most prevalent, and the 1980’s and 1990’s were times when knife crime was prevalent in the UK – this doesn’t make more recent research irrelevant it just means that many of these older studies can help us inform ourselves. A recent 2020 study from the UK (Malik et al.), showed that if the victim could get to a hospital and receive treatment the fatality rate dropped to 1.9%. In my time working close protection, each team member knew how to get to the nearest hospital – regardless of traffic works, blocked routes etc. - without the use of GPS, because we knew that if we could get an injured party to the emergency room “miracles” could be performed – this is why knowing first aid, to a point where you can prevent a person’s condition from worsening is such an important skill. Whilst I don’t have an issue with the idea of people owning firearms, I have little time for those who argue that doing so “saves lives” without learning how to “save lives” by attending a basic first aid course (regardless of whether you “carry” or don’t you should attend one). The 1999 study also found that one of the factors that increased the survival rates of those stabbed was the presence of bystanders – people who made the call to the emergency services and administered even the most basic first-aid i.e., if you are stabbed, and can’t make it to an emergency room etc., try and make it to a populated space. Whilst most of our fears and concerns regarding violence involve strangers in public spaces etc., most homicides concerning women occur in private spaces, involving intimate partners and knives as the weapon of choice (Cook et al., 2020). Whilst there is a tendency regarding reality-based self-defense to equate reality with gender (male) and public spaces, it should be acknowledged that violence isn’t restricted to this, and that there aren’t necessarily universal solutions to it e.g., believing that the solutions to intimate partner violence (IPV), should be the same as those used to deal with violence committed by strangers in public spaces etc. There is a huge difference in dealing with a knife when there is an option to disengage and run than when this isn’t the case e.g., you are a mother who isn’t able to leave dependents etc. This isn’t to say that the solution is to learn controls and disarms etc., but rather to recognize the limits of physical self-defense and emphasize early threat recognition and prevention so that such situations are avoidable and don’t develop. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=720 Mon, 25 Nov 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=719 We all have cognitive biases. Whilst for the most part they help us make quick and largely effective decisions, there are times that they can be unproductive, and cause us unnecessary stresses, and even divert our attention from things we should be looking at and considering in favor of things that don’t warrant our attention etc. Psychologists, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, demonstrated this with “The Linda Problem”.  The Linda Problem “Linda is described as a 31-year-old woman who is single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy and was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice. She also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.” Question: Which of the following is more probable? Linda is a bank teller. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. Obviously from a statistical/probability perspective Linda is most likely to be a “bank teller” one common/constant thing, rather than one common thing along with another i.e., it is more likely that Linda is a bank teller, rather than a bank teller and something else. However, we fall foul of such conjunction fallacies all the time e.g., we become overwhelmed with information that doesn’t actually affect probability and/or risk. Our quick decision-making is based on the amount of information that we are given which leads us to believe that Linda should be a feminist, and the fact that we aren’t given anything that would help us identify her as a bank-teller e.g., if instead of being informed that she majored in philosophy, we were told that she’d just completed a community college course in accountancy, we might focus more on her “role” as a bank teller, that her “role” as a feminist etc. Conjunction fallacies occur when people erroneously believe that the probability of two (or more) events/things happening together is greater than either one happening alone. This can cause us to not recognize what is pertinent in a situation we are facing/dealing with. The conjunction fallacy may lead us to focus on things which are less important than others e.g. we may believe that because we are away from our house and we forgot to set the alarm there is a greater probability of us being burgled etc. Whilst our home may be at a greater “risk” of being burgled, the fact that our alarm system isn’t on doesn’t increase the probability of it being broken into i.e., a potential burglar doesn’t know whether the alarm system is on or not, only we do. The “risk” is greater because we have introduced a vulnerability that a potential threat can inadvertently exploit; the alarm being turned off. However, the probability of being burgled isn’t affected by this. The probability of burglary is based on a number of other factors e.g., the area in which our home is located, the number of burglars “active” at the time of day we are not there etc. Probability and vulnerability are not always directly related but due to the conjunction fallacy we often join the two together. Whilst probability and risk are often used synonymously, they are not the same, however it is a conjunction fallacy which often makes them appear as if they are dependent on the same factor(s). You can leave an alarm off, your windows and doors open etc., and never be broken into because there are never any motivated offenders interacting with your assets i.e., you may be at “high risk”, but low probability due to the low number of threats that are able to exploit such vulnerabilities. The conjunction fallacy may also cause us to over-emphasize one variable over another e.g., just as we might believe, as in “The Linda Problem” that the most important variable is that she is “active in the feminist movement” we might fail to see that the more likely variable is that she is a “bank teller”. This can cause us to misidentify threats and apply an undue weight to irrelevant factors. There are those, in society and the media, who would suggest that crime and acts of violence are most often committed by young black men, or young immigrant males etc. Two variables/factors in such statements and beliefs are true i.e., crime and violent crime is most often committed by young men. I don’t believe there are many – if any – criminologists and sociologists who would disagree with such statements, and the crime statistics whether from police incident reports and/or self-reported victim surveys would bear this out i.e., most crime is committed by young men. However, the conjunction fallacy can cause some to believe that the most important “variable” is that of race, nationality and legal status, rather than age and gender, when this just simply isn’t the case. Without creating “folk devils” out of young men, a young woman (the risk of sexual assault, although not eliminated, decreases with age) is most likely to be raped/sexually assaulted by a young man, with race/immigration status being the most irrelevant factor/component. As most women are likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know the probability/likelihood is that it is someone of the same race/nationality etc. However, the conjunction fallacy can cause us to associate a factor – and is in fact a confounding variable - that has no effect on probability, to be the most important one, causing us to fail to recognize when we are actually most likely to be assaulted. Fallacies are biases. They become fallacies when they potentially cause us harm or lead us to make bad decisions. Whilst we should recognize the strengths that biases bring to our decision making, i.e., they allow us to make quick and usually effective decisions, we should also identify and accept when they end up misleading us. I forget which psychologist it was, but they said concerning “The Linda Problem”, that despite recognizing the truth and probability of the statistic that “Linda is a bank teller”, they still “believed” in their heart that she was “active in the feminist movement”. They are not alone, I believe Linda is active in the feminist movement and fighting for civil rights etc. Go Linda! Despite acknowledging that it is more probable she is a bank teller. Our biases are inherent and strong, and there are times when we need to fight and overcome them.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=719 Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=718 Abusers who engage in Intimate Partner Violence don’t demonstrate or show who they are in the initial stages of the relationship. If they did, their partner would most likely end the relationship and leave them. The idea that “victims” of relationship abuse are somehow weak persons who quickly and easily give in to/accept violence is a naive view/perspective. In fact, the way that partners manage their abuse, once it starts, shows an intelligence and perception, that most of us are fortunate to not need to develop e.g., the acute recognition of changes in behavior, or the identification of subtle mood changes that indicate a partner is about to become physically aggressive/violent etc. Fortunately, most of us – who are in healthy relationships – don’t need to develop such skills and abilities. One of the ironies of relationship abuse is that the warning signs are often missed whilst the ability to recognize the signs and predicators of abuse are quickly learnt once the relationship becomes abusive i.e., it is not that those targeted for abuse lack emotional intelligence, as they usually become emotionally aware very quickly, but rather they engage in the same self-deceptive practices we all do regarding relationships, though unfortunately for them there are serious consequences regarding their personal safety. If we believe that we are better at identifying and instinctively dealing with/handling potentially abusive partners, whether they are psychologically, emotionally and/or physically abusive towards us, than others then we are being extremely naive. Very few of us haven’t tried to commit to intimate relationships, in some shape or form, with partners who we rationally knew we were not compatible with us, and that we knew in our heart of hearts were not people we would be with long-term. However, we all like the idea of a long shot, and our optimism bias kicks in etc., and we convince ourselves we can make what we know is a “doomed” relationship work. In this article I want to look at how abusers view relationships, how they see things “working” and the signs that offer them encouragement and tell them that things are going according to the way they believe relationships work/develop, even if they haven’t an explicit plan they are working to.                 Abusers – if even if they don’t identify as such (and most don’t) – are looking for confirmation signals. Abusers are engaged in acts of deception, even if they don’t believe that they are, and they are looking for signals that confirm that the narrative and story they are telling is being believed. One of the reasons why it became apparent that Prince Andrew was lying in his infamous interview with Emily Matthais, regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein etc., was the degree to which he relied on “confirmation glancing” i.e., before he continued with his “story” he would check/glance to see if it was being believed – if it wasn’t there would be no point continuing with the lie, and it would be better to spend your time eradicating and eliminating any present doubts a person may have, rather than continue on with the “lie”. Abusive partners are no different in the way that they manage their relationships i.e., they want confirmations that their partner is buying into and actively accepting the narrative they are presenting. If they feel compelled or have to disclose past relationship abuses (because of a parole condition), they will want to see signs that their version of events have been accepted i.e., they will not want to stay with someone who seems to continually doubt them and the narrative that they have presented etc. Someone who doesn’t immediately accept them and continues to question them represents a challenge/threat and doesn’t appear to them as someone they can easily control.                 They will identify and recognize the significance of certain relationship events “better” than the person they are involved with. If after a serious incident/dispute, they can make a case that the relationship should move on with a greater commitment, rather than it taking a break to see how things go/slowing things down, this should be taken as a warning sign, rather than an encouragement that things are not only back on track but should speedily move forward etc. If things are “real” they can move forward in their own time i.e., they don’t need to be accelerated because of an averted crisis etc. Whilst such storylines may make sense in Hollywood movies where the director needs to make everything happen in 90 or 120 minutes, real life isn’t governed and dictated by producers. Abusers are looking for significant events such as being given a key to your apartment, or being asked to move in etc., and if such things happen because/or after a conflict question marks should be raised. I am not saying that all significant, exaggerated and overly romantic gestures etc., aren’t genuine, however most grown ups are driven by more rational motives and desires, and while this may seem more boring, it is a much more reliable indicator of genuine intent than the “romantic” and emotional gesture that pulls at our heart strings etc. Whilst I have been swept of my feet as a teenager and a young man in my early twenties, I have adopted a much more sensible/boring view of relationships as I’ve gotten older.                 Whilst it may seem romantic to have an overly committed partner talk and plan around “significant” moments in a relationship, the truth is that the “event” may be more significant than the relationship itself. If someone genuinely wants to be with you forever, the importance of “significant” moments becomes less relevant/significant. However, if someone is placing undue relevance on such things, then it is likely that the relationship is much more important than the person/individual.                  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=718 Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=717 In an article from a few weeks ago I looked at the “War Poets” (a group that I studied during High School as part of my English Literature classes) and the contrast between their original romanticized view of violence, and their later disgust, despair, and contempt for conflict after experiencing it firsthand etc. In this article I want to re-visit my English Lit. classes and look at some of the themes that Shakespeare explored concerning violence and how these can help inform us as to what motivates some people to engage in violent acts. To be honest, at the time, I wasn’t particularly enamored by Shakespeare and couldn’t really work out why my teachers thought he was so great. As a teenager, the 16th and 17th century language was a barrier for me, and not being a great student, I wasn’t prepared to put the effort into finding out the ideas concerning human nature which sat behind it; I wasn’t too interested in good grades for English Lit., and a pass was acceptable to me. One of the things that I didn’t realize as a high school student was that some of the most interesting things would be found where different disciplines connected and overlapped. I lacked the maturity to see the connection between fiction and psychology; I saw the two as being siloed and distinct from each other e.g., how could a playwright with no formal scientific and psychological training/education have any credible influence on the discipline? However, much in the same way as Micheal Angelo making the jugular prominent (it bulges) in his statute of David, to denote “fear”, didn’t know at the time how the circulatory system actually worked, the “observation” of heightened blood pressure, that occurs when a person is “stressed”, was anatomically/medically correct. Likewise, whilst Shakespeare may have lacked a scientific mind/approach this doesn’t mean that his observations concerning human behavior weren’t valid, and sometimes it is someone outside of a discipline who highlights the importance of something that those within it have missed. The importance of the intersectionality of different disciplines is something that is acknowledged in academic thought and something my teenage self didn’t yet understand.                 Often “fictional characters” offer an exaggerated form of some certain characteristics that we all share to some degree. It is this which allows us to relate to them and/or understand them. In Richard the Third, Shakespeare created a character who was defined by his deformity. Shakespeare’s Richard has a hunchback and a withered arm and whilst in real life Richard may have had some degree of scoliosis the degree to which this affected him is debatable etc., and there is no evidence to suggest that he had a withered arm/hand. The character created was one that was so detestable that no woman could ever love him, and it was this outright rejection of him by an entire gender that caused him to directly commit two murders and attempt to kill many more out of revenge. Whilst Elliot Rodger had no physical deformity, he believed that no woman would love him or find him sexually attractive. Motivated by revenge and a need to punish those who’d both directly and indirectly rejected him, the 22-year-old college student engaged in a shooting spree that killed six and seriously injured fourteen (Isla Vista, CA killings, 2014). Shakespeare used Richard’s physical appearance as an outwards mechanism to display his internal psychological and emotional state; a commonly used literary device of that particular era. In Elliot Rodger we see Shakespeare’s Richard III: a man rejected by women who takes his revenge and anger upon the world. Shakespeare was not the first to create and develop characters that offered an explanation for human behavior(s), the Greek tragedies and mythologies attempted to do the same e.g., in Medea by Euripides, Medea betrayed by her husband kills their two children in an act of revenge. In 2001, John Battaglia, shot his two daughters in an act of filicide (the act of a parent killing their own children), whilst on the phone to his estranged wife, so that she could hear them die. He said to her, “Merry fucking Christmas” in reference to an assault he had committed against her the Christmas  of 1999, after she had left him in January of that year. The idea/concept of evil step-parents and parents killing their children etc., also exists and is common in folklore e.g., La Llorona or the “Weeping Woman” is a figure from Mexican folklore who is cursed to walk the earth looking for her children that she drowned in an act of jealousy/revenge after discovering her husband’s infidelity. We understand our realities by creating “stories” and “characters” within them that allow us to project realities onto things that are not real/tangible. A playwright, such as Shakespeare, just does this in a much more structured way. Shakespeare often explores ideas of shame and guilt to the degree whereby they motivate his characters to seek vengeance against a world that has let them down, and not delivered what they were entitled to/deserved etc. Whilst trying to blame external factors, characters such as Timon in “Timon of Athens”, deep down know that they were responsible for their shortcomings and were embarrassed by it; guilt is a form of private embarrassment whereas shame is its public form. Timon after squandering his wealth on false friends wants to wreak death and vengeance upon the world. Timon’s story could be that of many active killers; middle aged white men who feel/believe that they have failed at life and need to externalize this failure by punishing the world. When we look to understand – the yet unexplained – motive of the 2017 Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, it is more than probable that his life and motivations, are reflected/contained in one of Shakespeare’s plays.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=717 Mon, 04 Nov 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=716 Earlier this month (October 14th , 2024), Dr Philip Zimbardo passed away, aged 91. His name might be one that you aren’t familiar with, but you are probably aware of the “infamous” Stanford prison experiment (SPE) of 1971, he created and was the architect of. The experiment that was meant to last two weeks was ended after six days when Zimbardo’s, then partner Christina Maslach, visited/observed it and concluded that it had passed an ethical boundary; Zimbardo playing the role of “Prison Governor” had gotten so caught up in the experiment that he’d lost sight of the real and actual suffering that a number of participants were experiencing. I have referenced the experiment in various articles, however in this article I want to take a slightly deeper look at it, as it offers an explanation as to why normally “good” people can commit extreme acts of violence and torture and offers an insight as to how malleable the human mind is.                 Participants for the experiment were recruited via an advert in a local paper which offered them $15 a day for taking part (somewhere around $120 in today’s money). The advert informed them that they would be taking part in a psychological study concerning prison life. After a brief psychological assessment, they were then assigned a “role”; either that of a prisoner or that of a prison guard. Zimbardo and those assisting him had turned the basement of Jordan Hall (where the psychology department at Stanford University was located), into a mock prison with cells (with bars), solitary confinement areas, and guard stations etc. Zimbardo’s hypothesis was that aggressive and submissive behaviors were not inherent in an individual’s personality but were instead the result of the environment they were in e.g., if someone was put in a position of power and authority, their “personality” and behaviors would adapt to that role, equally if a person was made to adopt a submissive role – such as being a prisoner – they would adapt their behaviors accordingly etc. His research centered around the idea that environment and situation was more important to the way in which people act than their inherent personality traits e.g., under the “right” conditions even those individuals known for their kindness and integrity could engage in heinous and despicable acts. Zimbardo later went on to defend US guards at the Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq, who were being prosecuted for torturing inmates, making the argument that they weren’t “individually” and fully responsible (he didn’t argue that there was no personal responsibility but thought that the original sentences should be lessened) for their actions but were products of the environment that the US military had created i.e., that they had lost their personal identity by having to conform to a particular role and a set of expectations that accompanied it etc. In the SPE, he had witnessed those who had been assigned as guards treating those who had been assigned the role of “inmates” in a degrading and humiliating manner after only a few days – this included putting inmates into sexually humiliating positions with each other; something that had regularly happened to prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It is worth noting that there are those in academia who believe that whilst Zimbardo may not have given direct instructions to those playing the role of “guards” he did encourage them to push the envelope regarding the authority they had.                 Zimbardo’s conclusion from the experiment – after having to end it early, due to the very real psychological and emotional distress that the “guards” were causing the “inmates” – was that the transition from “good guy” to abuser was a process. In a paper entitled “A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators”, he listed and described seven things/steps that “assist” seemingly good people to adopt the role of a violent abuser. An individual is unlikely to initially engage in a major act of abuse - they are more likely to take a “small step” that they don’t think too much about. Abusive partners who engage in IPV (Intimate Partner Violence), will often say that when they first physically hit their partner it wasn’t something they meant to do but having done it, it became “easier” to do again i.e., once a line had been crossed it became easier to keep crossing them. It also becomes easier to abuse someone if they can be dehumanized by labelling or casting them as belonging to a particular group. If you see an “immigrant” as opposed to a “refugee”, you may be more likely to have a negative and less than human view of them i.e., they are a person who is looking to exploit a country, rather than someone who was displaced from one etc. Zimbardo also made the argument concerning the diffusion of personal responsibility e.g., when you identify as part of a group, when you commit abuses and injustices as part of that group, you feel/believe that the responsibility for your actions is shared amongst all members, lowering/reducing your own culpability e.g., if you as an individual throw a brick through a window as part on an angry mob, you are not individually responsible, the mob shares that responsibility, reducing your own. This diffusion accompanies de-individualization i.e., you become an anonymous group member. More modern research suggests that rather than becoming anonymous/lost in a group, you actually gain a “new” social identity from belonging to it e.g., in the SPE, guards didn’t feel anonymous, they proudly felt part of a group, which made them uncritical of group norms, and passively tolerant of other members actions through inaction/indifference. If the “group” has a hierarchical structure, the result is not questioning the orders from those above you.                 Later in his work Zimbardo suggested that just as a “bad” situation can result in negative behaviors, so can a “good” environment result in positive ones etc. Although known primarily for the Stanford Prison experiment, Zimbardo was a psychologist who was interested in many other areas of the human mind, including shyness (founding the shyness institute)  and heroism (creating the HIP – Heroic Imagination Project – that trains “ordinary” individuals to engage in “heroic” endeavors). He also created the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), that measures how much time you spend positively and negatively thinking about the past, present and future; a tool which has been used to help treat PTSD (you can take the 56 question survey online by clicking here). Whilst Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment is likely to keep his memory alive – at least amongst psychology students – for a very long time, his other contributions to the discipline/subject shouldn’t be forgotten.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=716 Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=715 Violence is often sensationalized and/or sanitized; it is either portrayed as a glorious heroic battle or a normalized and sterile conflict. Self-deception prevents us from thinking about the dull thud of a shoe or boot repeatedly connecting with the head of a person as they lay unconscious on the ground – something I still hear/remember from a late-night gang fight I witnessed as a teenager in a Glasgow MacDonalds. Anyone who makes the argument that they have become “normalized” or “oblivious” to violence and aren’t affected by it etc., has lost part of their humanity; even when I was actively working in security and dealing with violent individuals, I found my experiences overall depressing rather than exhilarating e.g., why did people feel the need to engage in aggressive/violent behaviors when they were in a location/environment – a bar, club, or pub – which was engineered/designed to be a place of enjoyment/pleasure. However, for some reason violence is often romanticized and even glorified despite how it is experienced in reality. In the 1990’s I competed in some of the first MMA competitions in the UK. I was young and had the need/desire to see if what I “believed” worked in reality, would work when tested in a different environment. I quickly learnt that a cage/ring, even with minimal rules, was a very different environment to a crowded bar/pub, where there were no rules or defined outcomes, and which contained the ever-present possibility of multiple assailants and weapons, whether improvised or designed etc. Nobody at the end of a fight lifted your arm up and declared you a winner either to rapturous applause and/or a stream of negative boo’s etc. After dealing with one confrontation, you mundanely/routinely got on to dealing with the next, minus the applause. Having started working the door, almost straight from school, the unrealistic attitudes/perspectives of some the “War Poets” concerning violence – until they experienced it - that I’d studied in High School, started to make a little more sense.                               Studying the “War Poets” is a standard/usual part of the UK High School English literature syllabus. The term “War Poets” refers to a group of poets who wrote about their experiences of the first world war. Their works often harbored a sense of disillusionment with violence and conflict that had at first, before and during the war, been romanticized and characterized by heroism and patriotism. Perhaps, the poet with the most romantic sense of war was Rupert Brooke, who never got to see any action, dying on a hospital ship on the way to Gallipoli. His poem, a sonnet, “The Soldier”, opens with the lines, “If I should die, think only this of me: That there’s some corner of a foreign field That is forever England.” It is easy to make the argument that the world was yet to be informed about and had not seen the new “technologies”, such as mass explosives, that would allow for killing on such a scale and because of this could excuse people’s naivety and romanticism concerning war. However, the destruction and brutality of “modern” warfare had been well documented during the American Civil War, some fifty years earlier. Newspapers of the time contained graphic photographs captured by the first war correspondents/photographs that showed/pictured the dirt, grime, blood and realities of warfare. Those individuals who in the early stages of the civil war went as spectators to battlefields expecting to see some type of real-life chess game unfold soon disappeared/evaporated after they witnessed the realities of volley fire and shrapnel shells etc. That view of warfare that was still being romanticized in 1914/1915, shows the human inability to appreciate the true nature of extreme violence, even when there is ample evidence of it. However, those war poets who did see “action” and the horrors of war soon used their craft to document this. The poet, Siegfried Sassoon who survived the war, and went into politics afterwards, promoting pacifism, wrote about the psychological desperation that violence often brings. In the poem “To His Dead Body”, he writes, “When roaring gloom surged inward and you cried, groping for friendly hands, and clutched, and died”, captures the desperation that comes when you realize you have lost your power and control, and desperately look to/for others, to help, assist and remove you from the situation you are facing. In my time working club and bar security I have seen the looks on the faces of people who seem to be “drowning” as they take a beating realizing for the first time that they are completely out of their depth and need to rely on the assistance/help of others for their survival. We all have the ability to convince ourselves that we would be the ones to lead a charge, to dispense righteous justice to those that challenge us, and put on a display of fighting choreography that Jason Bourne would be proud of etc. It is easier and more comforting to think of managing violence in such a way, rather than contemplating all the negative feelings and potential sense of desperation that we have to overcome when dealing with a committed violent assailant. However, without accepting the totality of feelings and experiences that we are likely to face, we will never be prepared for an actual physical conflict. The Samurai took a different approach to that of the war poets, in their early days of writing. Instead of focusing on the heroic, noble and romantic aspects of violence – if these actually exist – they meditated upon the idea of death, to the point that they were accepting of it. This meant they had no fear of it when the time for battle came; they had already “experienced” it. Whilst, I don’t think/believe that we need to that, we should accept that there may/will be times when dealing with violence that we won’t believe in our abilities to physically handle an incident, there may be times when we feel like we are drowning and want to give up on ourselves and start looking for others to solve the situation for us, and there may/will be times when we end up accepting the “inevitability” of our situation and want to give up etc. If we don’t think about experiencing such things and adopt a romanticized view of violence, we will end up like the war poets with many unanswered questions; they had a military structure and the time to contemplate the answers to them, in a real-life altercation no such time exists.                  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=715 Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=714 I have worked in retail loss prevention – preventing “shoplifting”, thefts by employees, and thefts throughout the supply chain such as at distribution centers - in a number of different capacities, and it is an area of crime-prevention that I have always been interested in. Especially when organized retail theft, has possible links to terrorism e.g., there is evidence that Al-Qaeda started to engage in organized, large-scale shop-lifting enterprises, to help fund their activities because they could no longer rely solely on Bin-Laden’s “legitimate” construction businesses for income when the economic downturn in 2008 hit construction especially hard. AQ, was not the first terrorist organization to involve themselves in retail crimes to fund their operations. The PIRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army) were well known for transporting cheaper/less taxed gasoline from the South of Ireland to the North and using sympathetic gas/petrol station owners and those they forced to sell their product, to fund their campaign. They also had a fairly complex cigarette/tobacco smuggling enterprise that they also used to derive revenue from i.e., whilst AQ may have gotten into large scale shoplifting ventures to help fund themselves they weren’t the first to explore how the retail industry could be used to generate revenue. Data just released from the CCJ (Council on Criminal Justice) suggests that shoplifting has increased in Boston by 27% from the first part of 2023 to the same period in 2024. For the same period in 2019 it has risen by 55%. Whilst this rise may be down to better statistical reporting – which has certainly occurred – others have pointed to a change in the law (2018), that saw the threshold for larceny raised from $250 to $1200, which they believe has emboldened shoplifters i.e., it used to be that if you stole goods to a value below $250 it would be classed as a misdemeanor rather a felony larceny – a much more serious offense with greater consequences – which has now risen to goods worth $1200 (there have been cases of shoplifters being apprehended using a calculator or the calculator on their mobile phone to make sure that they stay below this limit). The purpose of this article is not to look so much as to why shoplifting has gone up in Boston but to inform store-holders/shop-owners who may not be able to afford a security guard how to make a successful “stop” of someone in a way that doesn’t mean that “innocent” people will be targeted, which may result in a business getting a bad name/reputation. This article doesn’t cover those who use a “grab and run” methods, or sweep/rake products off the shelves, as they are more obvious and overt but instead those who use more covert and surreptitious methods etc. There are 5 steps that are needed to make a successful stop. These five steps protect the person making the stop and the company they work for, should no merchandise be recovered during the stop i.e., a stopped individual wasn’t shoplifting. These “five elements of proof” if followed completely mean that stopping someone believed to be shoplifting should never be unproductive. The five elements are: You must see the individual enter the store or department without the merchandise You must see the individual select the merchandise from the display You must see concealment of the merchandise selected. Seeing them carrying it out of the store is also sufficient for plain view cases. You must maintain constant, uninterrupted surveillance after concealment The individual must pass all registers and exit the store without making payment. If all of these five elements are witnessed a person/employee has legally defensible grounds to make a stop. It is important to understand that these elements can’t be shared between people e.g., if one person believes that they saw the person select the merchandise, and at another time, someone else sees them conceal it etc., the chain of elements has effectively been broken. The importance of having all five elements in place is explained below.                 Step One is important as it avoids stopping someone who entered into the store with items/goods they had purchased legitimately. It could be that a person on a shopping spree purchased something at the store earlier and is returning because they forgot to buy something, or wanted to compare prices at another store etc. They could also be coming in with a previously purchased item – at the same or another store - such as a top/blouse to try and match it with a skirt etc. Step Two reinforces this by ensuring that the merchandise is from this particular store and was not brought in from another. If you see someone simply holding an item, such as clothing, and then putting it in a bag, rather than seeing them select it, you don’t know if they brought it in to compare with some other piece of clothing etc. Step Three ensures that the individual is in possession of the unpaid merchandise. Many shoppers do not feel that merchandise needs to be returned to the same space if they change their mind about it, so it is quite common for shoppers to select an item, change their mind about purchasing it and wander to another part of the store and put it down. If a person/employee sees a customer who exits the store without the merchandise they selected (Step Two), it would be wrong to “assume” they concealed it. It is necessary to see them actively do this for the third element to be met. Step Four ensures that the person did not get rid of/dump the merchandise after they concealed it e.g. if a shoplifter thinks they have been spotted, they will often put the merchandise back in another part of the store. Step Five ensures that the individual had the intent to take the item without paying (something needed to prove theft). Without this step the shoplifter could argue that they intended to pay for the concealed merchandise, and the concealment location – such as inside their jacket - was in place of a shopping cart etc. Once they’ve passed the registers and exited the shop it is hard to make this argument. Regarding Step Five, extra care needs to be taken if products are displayed outside the store, such as on the sidewalk. Customers may genuinely/accidentally walk off with products still intending to pay for them etc.                 If you are a small retail business that can’t afford trained security guards/loss-prevention officers, then it is down to yourself and/or your employees to make such stops. When doing so, safety should always be a priority e.g., you should not be chasing “runners” through parking lots, or trying to constrain physically resisting shoplifters etc. The primary goal in loss prevention is to get the goods back rather than seeing justice be enacted, however emotionally difficult this may be. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=714 Mon, 14 Oct 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=713 Criminologists Jack Katz and Randall Collins have made the case that crime and violence in the social sciences tends to be explained by referencing and directly linking the criminal and/or violent act to something else e.g., violent offending is the result of childhood neglect or the result of lead exposure etc. Often, the social sciences look to a specific cause in order to explain a certain effect, and if not establishing a cause, then at least a correlation. One “relationship” that has been persistent within criminology is that of poverty and crime, even though statistically the relationship has been shown to be a weak one e.g., crime rates, including violent offenses, have gone up as the standard of living has increased and poverty has been reduced etc. However, anecdotally we understand that less well-off neighborhoods are often places that we don’t want to find ourselves in due to a perceived risk of crime and violence, and there is evidence to support such beliefs. However, it may not be that poverty itself is directly linked to crime, but something that poverty can produce, possibly not universally but for certain individuals and communities. In this article I want to examine the role that hopelessness may play in crime and violent offending and how the perception of inequality that is linked to this may play a part.                 I have written before about how the Chicago School in the early part of the 20th century saw crime as the result of poverty and the solution to crime being the reduction of it i.e., you make people better off, and the crime rate is reduced. This widely held belief was challenged in the post-war period, as crime, including violent offending exploded (up until the mid-90’s, since when it has consistently, regardless of a few very minor blips, been dropping), despite employment rates and the standard of living increasing dramatically. One of the theories that attempted to explain this was Routine Activities Theory (RAT). RAT argued that as people started spending more time engaging in leisure activities away from the home, such as socializing in public spaces, the opportunities for crime and violence increased i.e., crime and violent offending was determined more by opportunity than poverty. Something that explains middle-class people scanning avocados as onions at self-checkouts; they do so because they have the opportunity to do so, rather than being driven by poverty; they may justify their actions by arguing to themselves, and possibly others, that shops and supermarkets engage in “price gouging” and they are simply rectifying this etc. However, whilst incidents of offending may be affected largely by opportunity, it would be naive to say that poverty plays no part in crime and violent offending, as just from our own knowledge and experiences the “bad parts” of town tend to be located in less economically advantaged areas, even if they are not the warzones we might imagine.                 Rather than look at the link between poverty and crime it may be more productive to look at some of the things that poverty can create and result in; things that may be more significant in certain communities than others, which would explain why not all economically disadvantaged locales have high crime rates. Poverty in certain social situations can create an atmosphere of hopelessness i.e., a state of despair, where nothing will ever get better, along with uncertainty and negative thoughts concerning the future. There may be some who accept this and get on with their lives, whilst there may be others who react/respond to this, possibly by engaging in crime and violent crime, which may in and of itself become contagious e.g., an individual “denied” an opportunity to make a decent wage may turn to dealing in drugs, which involves the use of violence, which others in the community observe and see and then emulate the violence in non-drug related situations and scenarios (social learning theory). Hopelessness amongst young people has been seen as a significant risk factor for violence, that is associated with weapon carrying and other forms of violence. The fact that the majority of violent offenses in America are committed by young people (under the age of twenty-five), youth hopelessness is a significant factor in violent offending. A sense of hopelessness experienced by young people is also a risk factor for intimate partner violence i.e., it is pervasive and isn’t just directed outwards towards strangers. Hopelessness is also associated with substance abuse, something that can bring individuals into social networks where crime and violence can be a prevalent factor. Hopelessness has also been shown to be an instrumental element in individuals adopting the “code of the streets” rather than normal societal values and rules etc. If a certain way of thinking and behaving isn’t believed to be productive in some way, shape or form there is a reason why someone might adopt a different value system. This is one of the reasons why a sense of inequality and hopelessness may push people into a more “rewarding” life of crime.                 The links between perceptions of inequality and crime appear to be stronger than those between poverty and offending. Research has show that when individuals recognize and perceive that they are less economically successful than others, and that legitimate avenues to address this aren’t available to them there is a significant/increased risk in them turning to crime. A perception of inequality and hopelessness – seeing what others have whilst not being able to attain that – are better predictors of offending than poverty itself. Whilst there may not be a direct link between poverty and crime e.g., in communities that may be economically disadvantaged but maintain an optimism about being able to address this, members may not consider engaging in illegal activities, whereas when this leads to a sense of hopelessness this may not be the case. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=713 Mon, 07 Oct 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=712 Most aggressive and potentially violent incidents are the result of bad social interactions. These can be with strangers, but they can also involve friends and family members; sometimes these incidents can see us become angry faster and more quickly because we a) feel safe responding to people we know in this way i.e., we don’t expect them to punch us, whilst with a stranger we have no idea how they might respond to our angry outburst, and b) these are the individuals who we feel should be supportive, non-critical and non-challenging/non-threatening to us etc. There is also an inherent danger in basing how we believe a stranger might react on our experiences with people we know e.g., if most of our angry outbursts/reactions have been towards friends and family members where the consequences have been minimal we may be conditioned to believe that if we react/respond to strangers in the same way, we will experience similar outcomes, which may not be the case. Just because a friend or family member will put up with us talking to them in a certain way when we are angry doesn’t mean that a stranger will. Learning how to control our emotional responses to those we know can help us manage our reactions when we feel threatened or challenged by strangers in public rather than private settings. We should be able to successfully handle all bad social interactions regardless of our relationship to the person we are dealing with; something that is much easier said than done, especially when we have developed “rituals” involving those that we know, in order to give us a safe way out e.g., there is a reason why arguments between couples normally come back to unrelated and common themes; they are familiar and safe, whilst to continue with a “new” dispute would mean entering the unknown. By understanding how we react to threats/challenges, whether from friends, family members and/or strangers, we can help manage our responses to them.                 Anger is a reaction, and it can be justified. If someone criticizes, misjudges us, and/or accuses us wrongly, it is likely that we will react defensively, which often involves anger. The problem with anger is that it has a sense of urgency to it. It requires that we act in the moment. This is how we are hard-wired to work. When we find ourselves in an emotionally heightened state, it is not for us to make long-term decisions that will positively affect us some time down the road, but rather to make an immediate response to whatever it is we are facing in that moment. Simply recognizing and understanding this should help us make better responses when we find ourselves in such a state. Many people believe that their moral and emotional state reflects their legal rights, however this is not the case. Just because a perceived injustice has been committed it doesn’t mean that any action motivated from this belief/understanding is legal – I have had to have several conversations during active shooter/killer trainings, concerning the “imminence” of danger i.e., after a shooter/killer has been subdued/controlled and is no longer a threat the right to use lethal force against them is removed, regardless of what their intent initially was or is. Emotionally, in that moment, it is understandable that a person may want to seek justice and eradicate a “threat” that moments before was looking to take their life, however if that individual is no longer a threat the right to do so goes. Anger is not about the long-term, whereas the criminal justice system is. What may feel good and right in the moment may have negative long-term consequences. Equally, an emotional outburst against a friend or family member may feel – and be - justified in the moment and yet negatively affect the relationship going forward. Anger can overwhelm our cognitive processes including good judgment because it is about the “now” and not the future, which is why we often regret and feel shameful of our actions/behaviors when we respond emotionally.                 Our threat recognition system is designed to deal more with physical rather than social situations, whilst being triggered by both i.e., if someone challenges or criticizes us in a social situation, we are neurologically likely to respond to them as if they’re coming at us with a knife. That’s just how we work and operate. This is why we sometimes have to deal with people who seem to overreact to things which we see or deem to be minor e.g., why is that person screaming and shouting at us, because we stepped in front of them in a queue/line, took what they believed to be their parking space etc. When I used to work in pubs and bars in the UK, one of the most common forms of aggression that could escalate quickly, was when someone believed that they were entitled to be served before somebody else/out of turn. This “minor”, often misunderstood, inadvertent social challenge, was interpreted as if the other person had just ridden into their village and informed them that they were going to burn down their house and kill all their family members i.e., they and their loved ones were in immediate physical peril.  Unlike many other social creatures, we lack rituals and mechanisms to deal with these types of conflict e.g., dogs and wolves when they get into disputes engage in performances of “posturing” which can recognize a “submissive” response, such as rolling onto the back and licking the other one’s nose – job done, crisis/disaster averted. This is why seemingly innocuous social interactions which have gone bad can turn physical.                 Whilst we can’t control other people’s reactions we are in control of our own, and the solution is one that we were taught as kids but rarely apply as adults i.e., count to ten before responding. A study of a police department found that the unusually high levels of violence complaints against it came from one type of incident; this was after an officer involved in a foot chase managed to apprehend the suspect they’d been chasing. Out of breath, exhausted, adrenalized and angry that an individual had failed to respond to an order to stop etc., officers would sometimes use excessive force in dealing with a suspect who was now compliant. A consultant solved/reduced the issue by having the officers count to ten after apprehending someone. Understanding that our initial reaction to any threat/challenge, whether it is physical or social, is neurologically the same, should help us to take five or ten, rather than defaulting to our initial response of anger.                https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=712 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=711 Over the course of a couple of recent articles, I looked at how Social Learning Theory and Freud’s Instinct Aggression Theory attempted to explain aggressive and violent behaviors. These were two of the first theories on aggression/violence that were covered on my degree/undergraduate program. The third approach/set of theories I was exposed to involved how anger and frustration could lead to aggression and violence. This was something that was the focus of several studies in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Dollard et al., initially proposed that all frustration inevitably led to aggression whether that occurred in the moment or was delayed e.g., a previous “frustration” caused by one person could result in aggression towards another/different person at a later date – anger and frustration could be “stored” and potentially directed at an “innocent” party later on etc. Dollard later refined his thinking and added a contextual element to it, which meant that anger/frustration wouldn’t inevitably lead to aggressive and violent behaviors; he suggested that anger/frustration would only lead to aggression if it was a response to a particular “goal” being blocked e.g., a person driving a car wants to change lane (a goal), and another driver deliberately prevents them from doing this, therefore setting the stage for an incident of road rage etc. Obviously, there are those who would shrug off such a behavior, and not be frustrated and/or angered by someone behaving in this way, taking a more philosophical approach to the situation, whilst there are others who would become angry and frustrated. Dollard, and many of those who followed, such as Barker et al., in the following decade, conducted their research looking at the way children responded to being frustrated, such a being shown exciting toys but not having access to them, or being kept waiting before being allowed to play with toys etc. One of the issues with studying children, apart from obvious ethical ones, is that the findings may not be valid for adults whose minds are more fully developed. Long-criticized studies that use university students as the sample base suffer a similar issue; a relatively well-educated, middle class, late teen/early twenties group may not be representative of a larger population.                 Whilst the idea of “sexual frustration” leading to aggression and violence, which gained a degree of popularity in medieval Europe (i.e., if men can’t get sexual relief through marriage or sex workers, they will inevitably engage in violence etc.) - exhibited an extreme and unfounded degree of inertia in subsequent decades, it is now largely seen to be erroneous explanation of violence. However, ideas of such “frustrations” have started to be reinvestigated, in both men and women, due to the creation of the Incel culture via social media, and the violent acts of some of its members. Those who are “Incels” – involuntary celibates – are frustrated that they are not able to have sexual partners/enjoy sexual relationships. They are angry and frustrated by those who do, and believe that societal values favor people other than themselves; that you must be “good-looking” and “fit” in order to be attractive. This group/movement which is predominantly male is misogynistic, portraying women as fickle and manipulative characters who operate in an unjust “sexual marketplace” where they have all the advantages. When looking at what these advantages actually are, it usually comes down to the fact that women have the choice to pick who their sexual partners are i.e., exercise consent, which is seen as being “unfair”, because society has created a set of values that doesn’t favor those who identify as being Incels. At the heart of Incel frustration, like many “frustrations” is self-entitlement. They see women as being hypergamous, who choose partners of a higher status than themselves, in order to elevate their own status. Because of these things  women will never choose them because they are of a lower status than other men, which is unfair. Whilst there are those Incels who believe that they can improve their status, via body-building, and improving their appearance etc., most believe that their situation is hopeless, and it may be this that explains the reason(s)/motivation(s) for those who act violently rather than simply explaining these violent acts as being the result of “frustration” and “anger” alone.                                 It is also important to note, that those who identify as Incels, and go on to commit violent acts, such as mass killings (2018 Toronto Killings, where eleven were killed in a vehicular killing/ramming by Alek Minassian) or active shooter rampages (2023 shooting by Mauricio Martinez Garcia at the Allen Texas Mall, 2021 shooting by Jake Davison in Plymouth, UK, and the 2014 shooting in Isla Vista, California, by Elliot Rodger) etc. follow a process, similar to radicalization, and many give clear warning signs on the social media groups they frequent. Initially when individuals become members of these groups, they enjoy a positive sense of solidarity by finding that they are not alone in their views and feelings; it may be that they initially believe that they are part of a much larger community of disenfranchised – often white – men, and that their “predicament” isn’t limited to them alone. Whilst for many belonging to such media communities, which often pop up and then disappear, is temporary, some individuals become drawn into them, and start to feed off the communal anger and frustration, coming to the conclusion that the only solution to their situation is violence. In a study conducted by Rutgers University, 80% of all posts on Incel sites talked about women and what should be done to them, most of which involved violence. The growth of social media has allowed individuals who before may have felt isolated and disempowered to share their feelings and frustrations with others. What may have once been a frustration experienced by one individual can now be easily shared amongst others, with a degree of anonymity and without the potential shame and embarrassment of doing so in a face-to-face public setting.                 Whilst anger and frustration don’t automatically lead to violent offending, that which is sustained and fed is more likely to. Whilst most of us have experienced moments/incidents of anger and frustration, more often than not, these have not caused us to respond aggressively and violently etc. However, when angry and frustrated like-minded individuals find each other and support each other’s sense of injustice, some may feel confident and emboldened to seek justice/revenge etc. Whilst a good deal of research has been conducted concerning frustration and anger in a moment e.g., having toys taken away (Dollard et al.) or being made to wait (Barker et al.) etc., there is a need for more research into sustained and prolonged anger and frustration(s) such as that experienced by Incels.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=711 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=710 It’s a common argument that is often made by the political right, whether in the UK, US or Europe, that crime is always getting worse. In the 1980’s both Reagan in the US, and Thatcher in the UK claimed that their parties were the parties of “law and order”. Whilst the 1980’s in both the US and the UK saw a period of high crime, since the mid-1990’s the crime rate in both countries has been falling steadily, with an occasional “blip” (especially around the COVID & Immediate Post-COVID time), but nothing that would be seen as significant or that would indicate that we are heading for a crime wave etc. So, when Donald Trump in the presidential debate said that crime was at its highest level ever, even accounting for political hyperbole and exaggeration, I was trying to work out where this “idea” was coming/originating from; it obviously couldn’t come from any official statistics, so did it/could it come from a poll that his campaign had taken etc. Few lies or pieces of misinformation don’t have some factual basis, even though it may be extremely tenuous, so I was interested in where this piece of misinformation – that may have been picked up on inadvertently rather than deliberately – came from, and Trump’s claim that the crime statistics are wrong does have an origin story, if not a solid basis. However, it’s also a leap to say because a statistic is “wrong” your unsubstantiated opinion/perspective – that the crime rate is up – should be substituted for it; if a statistic is wrong, it can be wrong in different directions. So why does Donald Trump believe that crime is up (which it may be in certain locales/areas but isn’t the case universally), and why does he believe the FBI crime statistics are “wrong”. I’ll answer the last question first.                 In 2021 the FBI changed the way it collected and reported on crime. The U.S. has always had an issue reporting on crime statistics, due to the way different agencies and states measure and report crime. Up until 2012, national statistics were based on aggregate data gathered from individual agencies e.g., if in Baltimore there were 337 homicides recorded for 2020, these would be added to the 882 statewide homicides that occurred in New York etc. All of these aggregates are totaled up and you can then come up with a homicide figure for the U.S., divide it by the US population, and get a figure that says for 2020, the homicide rate in the US was 7.5 homicides per 100 000 etc. You can then see if that was better or worse than the previous year, and make your conclusions about which direction the homicide rate is going in. I’ve chosen homicide as the example because it is a very difficult/impossible statistic to “massage” e.g., a local law-enforcement agency may try to classify a robbery (a violent crime) as a theft (a non-violent crime), in order to make it look like violent offending is down in their district/jurisdiction etc. It is much harder to reclassify a dead body as something other than a dead body. This is why when looking at crime statistics the homicide rate is so important. If homicides are up but all other combined crimes are down, criminologists and statisticians start asking questions as to whether the values and rates for the other crimes are valid. So, when I say crime has been falling steadily since the mid-1990s that is reflected by the homicide rate. This doesn’t mean that it happens universally/across the board e.g., a particular area you live in may be seeing an increase in burglaries and robberies, whilst most other areas may see a reduction – our individual experiences of crime and violence may be specific to us and not reflect a national trend.                 However, this aggregated data approach that the UCR (Uniformed Crime Reporting) program used was extremely limited and so in 2021 it was replaced with a much richer and more detailed reporting system which collected individual rather than aggregated data. This system – the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) – looks at crime, nationally, at the individual incident/event level. As with any change/transfer between two systems and methods of data gathering and analysis, things didn’t go flawlessly, and there was transparency around this i.e., nobody tried to pretend that every piece of data was gathered and processed correctly from the outset. From an information technology perspective think about the complexities of gathering every incident that occurred in the US, using a completely new method of data acquisition, that was different from the one used for the last fifty years, and then think whether it is likely that in the first year of implementation the process would be 100% successful and accurate. The FBI acknowledged that not all the data for all jurisdictions was gathered in 2021; something that has since been rectified. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it was the data from the worst crime-ridden cities that was left out. It is also important to note that it was for this one particular year that the FBI said the data wasn’t 100% completely accurate and has not said so for any subsequent years.                 So having answered the origin story concerning the incorrect reporting of crime and that there is no evidence that it wasn’t reflective of crime in the U.S., even though it might have not included a very small percentage of offenses from various locales, it is worth going back to the first question: Why does Donald Trump want to make it appear that the homicide rate is the highest it’s ever been (remember that homicides are hard to “massage” away)? Because he’s a politician battling against someone who is already in power. Making the argument that the crime rate is high under the present administration makes it appear that they aren’t in control and that someone needs to come in and fix the problem. If the statistics don’t bear this out point to “something” that happened which can be used to explain this: the FBI’s own admission that in 2021 the data captured when transitioning from one system to another might not have been all of it – and argue that the data missed came from the most crime-ridden cities/areas etc. You may not be informed about the real story, or you may not choose to care, but either way if it suits your political ends, and your audience isn’t going to know how to check the facts, it plays to your advantage.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=710 Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=709 We have all had moments of madness. Times when we have acted recklessly without a thought to the consequences of our actions etc. Most of the time there are no consequences i.e., we get away with it; the disregard for rationality doesn’t punish us. However, sometimes it does. A reaction that we have in the moment comes back to haunt us. There is unfortunately a long litany of “one punch killers”, who never intended to cause the death of another and yet this was the result of their actions. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t those who had a killer’s instinct and delivered a killer’s blow intentionally/semi-intentionally with one punch, such as Daniel Pickering, who killed Matthew Thomas (2022) when he was out on bail and had been drinking all day, as well as having purchased and consumed roughly $800 of cocaine, but rather there are those whose lifestyles and previous behaviors didn’t indicate or predict that their actions in the moment would result in a homicide etc. In 2016, Alexander Thomson killed a friend, Thoms Hulme, after Hulme as a joke threw his friend’s shoe out of a taxi window. In what was described as “horseplay”, Thomson fatally punched Hulme from the back-seat, through the head rest of the car, with the unexpected blow causing a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. Whilst Thomson didn’t intend to kill his friend, was remorseful and pleaded guilty in the 2017 trial, he was sentenced/jailed for three years. There are “moments” and then there are “moments” preceded by other “moments”, and when this happens things can appear more premeditated than spontaneous, even when a person acts out of “character”.                 When examining such events there are two ideas/principles that should be borne in mind. One is the “Potato Chip Principle”, as described by criminologist, Richard Felson, and the other is an idea that psychologist Judith Harris put forward in the 1990’s to explain why “good” kids, do “bad” things. Felson looked to explain the pathway that people took when committing offenses, which he explained/described by the way that people ate potato chips i.e., they never just ate one. You start off, maybe telling yourself have one, then you eat another and another, and find yourself not being able to stop eating them. He explained certain offenses as being committed in the same way; you start by having a drink, you talk to people who explain how easy it is to steal a car, you have another drink, someone describes a car outside the drinking establishment that would be easy to steal, another person says that they know someone who would buy it for parts, you leave said establishment, and find that someone has swiped the owner/driver’s keys from the table etc. You didn’t enter the bar/club with the intent of stealing the car but bit-by-bit you have found yourself thinking about it and now have the ability to do so. Harris, put forward a theory of social conformity to explain why seemingly “good” kids do “bad” things i.e., act out of “character”. She observed that children brought up in households where morality and politeness were core values would learn to say “please” and “thank you” etc., would conform to these norms, however if they found themselves in social settings and groups where swearing and being obnoxious were the de-facto ways of behaving they would adopt these; whatever the group demanded or expected – whether good or bad – they would adopt these behaviors.                 On the 6th of September 2024, an Ashland (Massachusetts) doctor- Jaquelyn Starer - was fined $4000 and sentenced to nine months in prison on a number of federal charges (both felony and misdemeanor) for assaulting a police officer in the January 6th, 2020, Insurrection in Washington, disputing the election that saw Joe Biden come to power/office. Starer gave up her medical license, pleaded guilty and apologized for her actions e.g. punching a police officer etc. For many of us it may seem ridiculous/unbelievable that a 70-year-old woman would act in such a violent fashion. We may understand why she would go to a rally to protest something she was against regardless of the facts, but why would an educated woman storm the capitol and engage in an act of violence, that “rationally” she clearly knew was breaking the law? Part of it is the potato chip principle i.e., one act leads to another, and another part is normalization and social conformity; everyone else is acting this way, and so I’m supposed to as well etc. However, there is a third component that explains such actions/behaviors.                 For a long while, criminologists believed and accepted that Lebon’s explanation of crowd behavior and rioting was correct e.g., that Jaquelyn Starer, lost her identity to that of the crowd; she was overcome by the emotion and who she was as an individual was taken over by the group – ultimately, she wasn’t responsible for her actions. Whilst this theory was useful for 19th Century aristocrats in France to convince themselves that mobs were emotional irrational entities that shouldn’t be taken seriously i.e., the elite(s) were in the right and justified to maintain their position and any questioning or challenge to this was simply emotional, we now understand rioting and crowds much better. People don’t lose their identity in a crowd, they find it. Dr. Jaquelyn Starer had/has her own personal identity, however on January 6th she found/discovered/explored her social identity. She found and identified with a group and acted as part of it. She may always have searched for this part of herself – a sense of belonging that may have come from never feeling part of something- and that the high emotions that were running on January 6th, made her feel part of something bigger than herself, or that she simply felt at home amongst the mob she was part of. Either way, we should not be baffled as to why an educated person found themselves engaging in a “moment of madness”.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=709 Mon, 09 Sep 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=708 In last week’s article I looked at aggression and violence being explained by social learning theory; that aggression and violence is learnt through observation, and that it doesn’t even have to be experienced – but can be learnt by simply witnessing an aggressive/violent incident. In this article I want to look at the Instinct Theory of Aggression that was put forward by Sigmund Freud. As a teenager I tried to “learn” Freud from his books. I remember scouring second-hand bookstores looking for cheap copies of his writings that I could afford – most secondhand book shops at the time would have a shelf with a handwritten felt-tip penned piece of colored card that read “Psychology”, and that would often contain self-help, relationship and weight-loss books, with an occasional copy of something that might academically qualify as being “psychology”. When I was an undergrad Freud’s works were still extremely relevant, and many psychologists and therapists were not yet ready to fully dismiss his psychoanalytic approach as being irrelevant and unscientific etc., probably because there wasn’t anything that was much better to replace it with; and in fact, for some people, although not universal, Freud’s method seems to have worked and been effective. Despite Freud getting a lot of things “wrong”, such as women having “penis envy”, and believing that all boys want to kill their father, and that dreams are extremely significant etc., Freud was a bit of a revolutionary, and I was glad to have the opportunity to study his teachings in a structured and academic setting, rather than trying to make sense of them from my previously self-structured and immature approach that wasn’t able to separate that which was valuable from the that which was misleading and plain wrong.                 Freud was extremely important in recognizing that we have a subconscious that isn’t easily accessible to our conscious mind. Until Freud came along, Descartes had ruled the day, with his, “I think, therefore I am” approach, that imagined every recess of the mind was accessible to the conscious mind i.e., we could know everything about ourselves. Freud recognized, even though he couldn’t “scientifically” prove it, that this wasn’t the case and that the conscious mind simply represented the tip of the iceberg; that there was a lot more going on under the water. His lack of a truly scientific methodology probably cost him the 1926 Nobel prize in medicine, as Albert Einstein wrote to the committee, saying that because of this he didn’t deserve the award. Freud believed that many of his clients’ problems and issues, such as anxiety, were caused by unconscious fears and uncertainties that subconsciously affected conscious thought processes, and if these could be reached by the conscious mind they could be addressed. This was the basis of his psychoanalytic method/process; teaching people how to get in touch with and reach their unconscious. If his clients wanted to truly realize their potential – or self-actualize as Maslow later put it – they would need to understand who they fully were i.e., reach into their unconscious, and access all parts of it – something we now know isn’t possible, due to protections that the subconscious employs, such as engaging in self-deception or as Freud termed it, “repression”. Some of the problems concerning Freud come from the way in which his works were translated e.g., Freud wrote/spoke German, so he never used terms such as the “Id”, the “Ego”, and the “Super Ego”. Instead, what we know as the “Id” was actually the “It”, and the “Ego” was the “I”. The Id/It referred to subconscious processes that generally wanted immediate gratification, whilst the Ego/I was what held them in check, with the Super-Ego/Super-I, being the value set that we aspire to e.g., the Id/It will tell us to eat in the moment, with the Ego/I telling us that we shouldn’t just yet because we’re driving and it’s not lunchtime, whilst at the same time the Super-Ego/Super-I is telling us we shouldn’t be eating this early because we’ll get fat, and being fat isn’t something we should aspire to etc. Freud saw these systems all competing against each other.                 In his early writings Freud saw the It/Id being solely driven by a desire/instinct to “live”, something he referred to as "Eros”, however he later introduced – in “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” (1920) - the idea of “Thanatos” to his thinking, with this being a “competing” urge e.g., Eros, that desire to live, couldn’t explain self-destructive urges and acts of aggression that weren’t in a person’s best interest(s), and so there must be another type of “destructive” drive that motivates people to engage in such behaviors. He referred to Thanatos as being the “Death Instinct”. For Freud Eros and Thanatos drove all human behaviors and they competed for control. He described the Id/It that they were part of, as being like a horse, with the rider being the Ego/I that attempted to steer and manage it e.g., if a “wrong” was committed against the person the Id/It, driven by Thanatos would want to respond aggressively/violently, even though responding in this way wouldn’t be productive, and it would be the job of the Ego/I, to try and take control of such urges and respond/react more productively/effectively, and in the person’s best interest. Freud saw that our human/reasoning/conscious mind was having to hold our more animalistic and destructive mind – operating in the subconscious - in check. Whilst it may seem that having a death instinct makes no sense, and is counter-evolutionary, this is not necessarily the case e.g., someone with a gambling addiction may be driven by a need to lose, as once they have lost everything and hit rock bottom, they can start again etc., so whilst the idea of Thanatos may seem counter-intuitive, it allows for Eros to exist.                 Perhaps Freud’s major problem was that he lived at a time when there wasn’t the scientific apparatus and equipment available to test his ideas, leaving them as speculative. Freud was also content to acknowledge a “battle” between Eros and Thanatos, whilst not prescribing any solutions for resolving such conflicts, and the way that they were expressed e.g., if Eros overpowers Thanatos when the aggression is directed inwards (self-hate), and forces it outwards towards others, that is just the way the mind works and there is no point in trying to intervene. Whilst many of the specifics which Freud wrote about appear outdated many of the underlying more general ideas still remain, such as the importance of the subconscious and how it operates without us fully understanding why it does the things it does etc. In next week’s article I will look at the third of the theories I was introduced to as under-grad; anger/frustration ideas/theories of violence etc.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=708 Mon, 02 Sep 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=707 As this is the time of year when students go off to college – either returning or for the first time – I have been thinking about when I first started studying psychology at university, and the theories and ideas that I was introduced to regarding human aggression and violence. The university I attended was pretty much split in the middle regarding the faculty/teaching staff: half were ethologists and the other half behaviorists. The ethologists believed that all/near-all human responses were hard-wired and instinctive, whereas the behaviorists, believed we were born as a “blank slate” and it was our experiences that shaped who we became etc. Of course, I’m simplifying both perspectives however they represent at their extremes two opposites on a spectrum. My interest in psychology, which I started studying over thirty-five years ago, was largely driven by a desire to understand human violence. As someone who was bullied as a kid I believed/hoped that psychology could help me understand my experiences, and why my aggressors had felt the drive/need to act the way they did. Having been scientifically inclined from a young age I understood that my own experiences were unique and not necessarily universal, and that academic research might provide a better source of understanding. In my first year at university, I was introduced to three theories concerning aggression, and as this is “back to school” season, I thought I’d share them in this article. Whilst none of them blew me away at the time – something that as a naive teenager I was hoping to happen i.e. there must be one “magical” answer for everything – they are still relevant and help to explain some of the motivations behind aggression and violence. In this article I want to look at social learning theory, and in the next, look at instinct and anger/frustration theory.                 The first theory of aggression and violence I was introduced to was that of social learning theory. A behaviorist explanation of why some people are more aggressive and violent than others; they learn to be. Social learning theory was first put forward and explained by Albert Bandura in the 1960’s, who is famous for his Bobo Doll experiment. If you have ever had any academic – or even non-academic - exposure to psychology, you are likely aware of this study. I’m not sure if it would pass an ethics board by today’s standard, as those children who took part, could have been traumatized. As a sidebar I think, including myself, there are many who don’t want to go back to, but look back to some of these older and less ethical pieces of research with a certain “fondness” for the information that they yielded e.g., whilst it was undoubtedly traumatic both emotionally and psychologically for participants to believe they were delivering life-threatening electric shocks to crying and begging confederates, who failed to learn a “lesson”, in Stanley Milgram’s experiment on obedience, the findings concerning the extent to which people will follow an order from an authority figure has never ceased to be relevant. Such an experiment – in the form it took – would no longer be deemed ethical, and thankfully so, however, the results it provided showed a working of the human mind which has been enlightening. Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment, like Milgram’s study, is one that students of psychology are introduced to very early on. His experiment looked to see whether children could learn aggressive behaviors from observing them, and if they would then imitate them when given an opportunity to do so i.e., was aggression a learnt behavior. The experiment basically involved two groups of children witnessing an adult play with toys. For one group the adult played “gently” and “nicely” with the toys, whilst in the other the adult attacked a Bobo Doll (an inflatable clown doll that would always return to upright), kicking, punching it, and swearing at it, and on occasions hitting it with a mallet etc. The children were then allowed to play on their own in a second room with more interesting toys and no adults present. These toys were then taken away in an attempt to anger and frustrate the children. They were then taken to a third room where a Bobo doll was present. The group of children who had witnessed an adult attack/hit/punch/kick the Bobo doll in the first room were much more likely to violently attack the doll, than those who hadn’t witnessed this behavior. Bandura surmised that “Aggression is learned not only through positive or negative reinforcement, but also through indirect observational learning.” That is, simply witnessing aggression/violence, even when there is no consequence, such as a punishment or reward, is enough for some people – not all - to replicate and imitate it e.g., a child who sees a parent assault their other parent may at some point in their life replicate this behavior, due to having learnt it earlier on in their life through observation and/or been normalized to it. It would be wrong to conclude that everyone who is exposed to violence as a child becomes violent in later life, however the experiment does demonstrate that observation alone is a risk factor of/for future violence. A practical take-away is also to understand that there are people in our society who have observed extreme violence in their past, and because of this, given the right stimulus, may be prone to imitate/replicate it. Whenever I witness an aggressive argument/dispute between strangers in a public place I am always thinking, that neither one of them knows the other’s back story; what they have seen and experienced, along with where their head may be, in that moment. If one of those individuals has observed extreme violence, that alone can make them capable of engaging in it. Putting ego aside and walking away is usually a safer strategy than deciding to engage, regardless of how “wrong” the other person is and how “right” you may be.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=707 Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=706 In last week’s article I looked at how self-deception, which is something we engage in on a daily basis, concerning a variety of potential threats, can put our personal safety at risk. In this article I want to look at some of the reasons why as a species we ae so susceptible to other people’s deception. We may like to believe that we are skilled at identifying deception – partially that which is a result of our own ability to deceive ourselves (which is part of the problem) – but in reality, this is not the case i.e., on average we are no better than chance at identifying deception; we would do as well to toss a coin, as trust our intuition, when it comes to believing someone etc. Our confidence in our ability to identify deception has no impact on our ability to actually do so. Strangely those in law-enforcement and those who work in the criminal justice system become less adept at identifying deception, the more experience they have dealing with those who engage in it – statistically a rookie cop is better at discerning whether someone is telling the truth, than a more experienced colleague/counterpart. It would seem that over time we learn to be deceived better than we intuitively learn to identify deception. This means that we can’t rely on our natural abilities to identify deception but rather need to learn how to discern, dissect and identify what is actually the “truth”.                 When understanding why we are so bad at uncovering deception, we need to understand why it benefits us to believe what other people say and do. The human mind has evolved in a way that allows us to make quick decisions, and take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves; this can be at the expense of a full and thorough analysis of all possible eventualities. To be able to do so, we must work from the premise that by and large things are how they seem, and that what is being presented to us is “real” and “true” i.e., we have a truth bias. If we were to fully question every choice we were presented with and make a thorough investigation before we made a decision, we’d get nothing done. Instead, we do a quick search for those things that are deemed the most relevant and important, and base our decisions on these things. However, this quick and dirty approach may mean that we fail to take into account something that is actually relevant because it isn’t seen as particularly pertinent when we take our initial look at things. Working this way has proved to be largely beneficial i.e., statistically a quick decision based on a few significant factors delivers/rewards more than a slower more in-depth study of all the variables etc. Whilst considering any evolutionary advantage, it should be recognized that such advantages benefit the species as a whole rather than the individual in each specific situation e.g., running away from a danger may have a 95% success rate, making it a good general/overall strategy when confronted by a threat, however it isn’t a perfect strategy, and there may be 5% of situations where it is detrimental to those employing it – a person runs into traffic, off a cliff, or towards a greater danger etc. From a species perspective a 5% failure rate is probably acceptable; if a particular immediate response is able to “save” 95% of its members, then the loss factor can be tolerated. Having a truth bias works well for us most of the time, and so there is a benefit to us believing what people say, rather than questioning them.                     Whilst the mind never fully stops developing, by our later teenage years many of our views concerning the way in which the world works and operates have started to become more firm and rigid. Our search for “new” information at this point and beyond is largely seeking confirmation of our views and beliefs rather than challenging them. This can make us extremely susceptible to deception e.g., if a person presents deceptive information that conforms to our belief systems, we are more likely to believe and accept it than question it etc. This is why certain people may have “blind spots” that others can exploit. Those who are skilled in deception will often test for these e.g., they may appeal to a perceived “shared/common” value system in order to make themselves appear trustworthy. We are more likely to put trust in a person and hand over control of a situation to them if we believe that they think like us, and possibly are like us etc. Such confirmation biases usually lead to no negative consequences, however there are times we may want to question and inquire whether someone is using such biases against us. We should also acknowledge that we have a tendency to work with availability heuristics e.g., if a memory of something that resembles a situation we are facing now comes quickly to mind, we are more likely to believe it because it is closer/nearer to our conscious mind than something we have to think about and search for i.e., our “speed” of thinking can be to our detriment as well as to our advantage.                 Whilst it would be easy to judge our inability to recognize deception as a major evolutionary flaw, the positives of having a “truth bias” overall outweigh such disadvantages. However, by understanding how our truth and confirmation biases work, along with such things as an availability heuristic etc., we should recognize that there are times/moments when we should be more inquisitive and question the information we are being provided. If we can acknowledge to ourselves that we are not good at detecting deception, and that this is an innate part of our character, we may stop relying wholly on “intuition” for keeping us safe. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=706 Mon, 19 Aug 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=705 We tell ourselves “lies” all the time. In fact, humans are the masters of self-deception. The philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, wrote in his book, “The Anti-Christ” (1895) that “the most common sort of lie is that by which a man deceives himself”, and modern psychology and psychiatry would concur with him. We engage in self-deception on a daily basis. We tell ourselves that we’ll only have one beer when we watch the game, we genuinely “forget” to include the piece of cake/biscuit/snack we had when we’re counting our calories for the day, and if we’re trying to give up smoking for our health, we may make the argument that smoking helps us lose weight and de-stress, so maybe quitting should be something that we put off for another day etc. Although Freud used the term “Repression” rather than “Self-Deception”, to refer to the things that we know to be true but don’t admit to ourselves as true, he understood that consciously deceiving ourselves could act as a “defense mechanism” to protect us against our failings and shortcomings e.g., rather than taking responsibility for how our lives have turned out, we blame our parents for “making us this way” etc. Whilst overcoming our personal self-deceptions may be necessary for us to be fully introspective and actualize who we really are, this article is not about this. Rather, I want to examine how self-deception can compromise our personal safety, and whilst it is something we do naturally and without thinking, there are times when we need to slow down and take a moment to question whether we are being honest with ourselves about situations we may be experiencing and individuals we are interacting with.                 Human beings can believe anything about who we are and who others are. We can effortlessly engage in mental gymnastics to convince ourselves that a world that makes no sense actually does. The sociologist, Harold Garfinkel, on a course on psychology, came up with and conducted a very interesting and significant experiment; this can often happen when an academic from one discipline steps outside their box and into another i.e., they question things, and from a new angle/perspective, that those embedded in a discipline aren’t always able to see. He created cards that had a variety of character traits on them. For each “positive” trait card there was a corresponding “negative” one e.g., if there was a card that said energetic, there was one that said lazy, if there was one  that said honest, there was one that said dishonest etc. He then presented random sets of these cards to individuals and asked them to give a general description of the person who had this set of – often very contradictory – traits. There was never an instance where a person stated it was impossible that such a person could exist. Every individual in the study was able to “create” a person, even when a set of character traits made no sense and were completely illogical e.g., it was possible/feasible for a person to be both dynamic and lazy etc. It may be that you can imagine such a person yourself, even if “rationally” these traits are contradictory. Whilst I marvel at the mind’s ability to be creative in this way without having to miss a beat, I also recognize the dangers that such creativity poses to our personal safety i.e., we can “rationalize” and “explain away” the warning signs that other people give us, rather than recognizing them for what they really are e.g. the group of excited young people coming towards us holding steak knives must be a culinary youth group on their way to a cooking convention etc. Self-deception allows us the ability to “cope” (deny) the danger and reality of the situation(s) we are facing/dealing with.                 Our ability to engage in self-deception can play against us in our relationships with others. In romantic/intimate relationships we may tell ourselves that when a partner needs to know where we are every minute of the day, it’s because they are concerned with our safety. That when they explode with anger and rage towards us over something it is because they are so passionate and in love with us, that even the smallest thing sets them off and/or when they want us to stay in with them rather than go out with our friends that it is a sign of how committed they are to us etc. the ease and simplicity with which we can “deceive” ourselves is alarming. We can convince ourselves that the sports coach who wants to spend more time with our child is only interested in their athletic performance, which is something that our child would benefit from as they no longer seem that interested in playing the sport; there are many reasons that children/teenagers lose interest in an activity or sport but if it is sudden and they seem to have an overly emotional resistance to continuing with it, it may be down to personal dynamics/reasons (this shouldn’t by default be seen as sexual, though it should be considered).                 We have the ability to “create”/see people in a number of ways and will engage in self-deception – at a subconscious level - to do so. When our next-door neighbor, or a person we know, who is arrested for child sexual abuse (CSA), we will remember the time they mowed an elderly person’s lawn and/or the time that they went shopping for someone who was sick/ill etc. Only when we hear of the allegations against them will we question how someone who seemed so empathetic, generous and helpful could engage in such offenses. Jimmy Saville flew under the radar at the BBC, because despite all of the warning signs and evidence, the channel’s executives collectively participated in a major act of self-deception based on the extensive and seemingly tireless amount of charity work he engaged in. In areas where we have a self-interest, we are especially vulnerable to self-deception i.e., we want things to be how we see them as this serves our purpose etc. This doesn’t necessarily make us “bad” people, it just makes us human. Taking a moment to question why we believe something about someone and/or a situation and recognizing/admitting to ourselves that as a species we constantly engage in acts of self-deception, we can help improve our personal safety.               https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=705 Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=704 Most of the violent incidents that we are training to deal with are the result of “bad” social interactions e.g. arguments and disputes with strangers that turn physical. Whilst there are those who may imagine that they will be targeted by “Bourne Supremacy” style assassins, be glad/thankful that the person you are most likely to be dealing with is an angry/emotional, untrained and unexperienced individual, who may feel and believe that they have to fight, with their “rational” sense telling them that they don’t want to. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t learn how to handle and deal with committed and experienced aggressors – because they are out there – but rather we should recognize what our realities are, and what they are likely to be e.g., as I’ve gotten older I spend less of my time in public spaces, such as bars and clubs, and the most likely place that I’m going to interact with strangers is at Target, when I’m getting groceries. I lead a boring and mundane lifestyle, which I’m quite happy with, which sees me interact with very few strangers in public spaces; this is my reality. Because of this I understand that the most likely physical situations – but not exclusively - I am probably going to face, are those that result from verbal interactions that escalate. This means that most of the violence I will have to deal with, which even to start with is statistically unlikely, will start face-to-face, with an aggressor who is in front of me. Whilst, in such situations my priority is to de-escalate and disengage, I am also trying to “read” an aggressor, to understand how they are likely to move, act and respond if things do turn physical. This also helps me understand if they are a “trained” or “untrained” individual.                 One of the first things I’m checking/reading, is whether the person/aggressor being dealt with is in control of their movements. If someone is physically out of control, flailing their arms about, jutting their chin forward etc., then however skilled and disciplined a fighter they may be in other environments, and at other times, they are not in this moment. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t a threat or danger but rather that I’m expecting a large and wild attack, rather than something which is tight and controlled e.g., they are more likely to swing in with a big, over-committed punch, than a tight and difficult to detect jab etc. I also know that if they are acting in a physically uncontrolled manner, they are probably expending a lot of energy whilst in this emotional and adrenalized state; this means that their body will be going into a state of “recovery” fairly quickly if the confrontation does escalate to a physical one. Whilst it is preferable to have to work against an exhausted aggressor, their tiredness and fatigue can create its own problems e.g., when exhausted an aggressor may want to hold onto you for support, and prevent you from gaining the range and distance that would allow you to throw a greater variety of strikes and punches that would in all likelihood contain more power and be harder to defend against. This can make disengagement from the incident difficult, as an aggressor won’t want to let go of you. This can create other problems if they “remember” they have a weapon and/or now feel the need to draw it. Trying to defend against a knife at this close proximity is extremely difficult. One of the things we should train to be able to do, is to extricate ourselves when someone wants to simply “dance” with us i.e., someone who holds on to us and will not let go of us. This is different to training how to deal with a skilled opponent who knows how to work and operate in the clinch.                 One of the other things I’m looking for is to see whether the other person is relaxed or tense, and where that tension is located. Someone whose body is relaxed suggests that they have been here before and are at the least relatively comfortable with the situation. If someone’s body is tense it suggests that they aren’t familiar with or haven’t experienced these types of events. Staying relaxed in a fight is something that has to be trained and actively done. Many people hold their breath when involved in a confrontation. Often this is done as an involuntary means of stabilizing the core by increasing intra-abdominal pressure. Weight-lifters do this consciously via the Valsalva maneuver to ensure that their body is “strong” for the lift. So, there are benefits to a person who holds their breath when engaged in extreme physical activity, however there are also down sides e.g., “new” air is not getting into the lungs to supply the muscles with oxygen. I have seen - and been involved in - physical altercations, where an attacker throws a couple of big punches and then clinches with their target, as they gulp in air, to make up for this deficit. As previously stated, such assailants can be hard to break away from, as they know in their exhausted state, they have little energy to draw upon to continue the fight e.g., going back to moving, and trading punches etc. During a fight you should be “reading” your attacker.                    Feints can also be used to “read” an attacker, rather than just to set up striking/punching combinations. Often feints are seen as a means of distracting an assailant by drawing their attention to something and then changing the attack, in order to increase the chances of the strike/punch/attack landing etc. However, feints can also be used to provoke a response that can be “read”, and the information gathered used to influence the way in which to make future/further attacks. If when you make a sharp movement by stepping forward your attacker flinches, it is likely that they are nervous and hesitant. You may want to confirm this by quickly dipping your rear shoulder and knee to make it look like you’re about to throw a punch etc. You now know how this individual reacts to such movements and then use them as “feints” to set up other attacks. It may be that when you take a step forward the individual you are dealing with overcompensates with a large step away; this may inform you that they are overly defensively minded, and aren’t wanting to control range in order to launch their own attack etc. Everything an attacker does contains information that can be used e.g., if they swing in a wild, fully-committed punch, that is designed to take your head from your shoulders, it is likely that this is the sum-total of their plan; if this doesn’t work, they have few other ideas about how to “win” the fight. Whilst such a strike/punch does contain a real danger because if it lands it will contain a significant amount of concussive force etc., it also suggests that this was your assailant’s best shot. Learning to “read” a person both before and during a physical confrontation can inform the approach that you take in dealing with them.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=704 Mon, 05 Aug 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=703 There is a difference between a principle and a concept, in the same way that there is a difference between a law/rule and an idea. Rules and laws can define something and create “absolutes” whereas concepts can simply/only guide and direct an approach/method to dealing with something. There are those that see Krav Maga as a “system” based on rigid principles; a complex mathematical equation that works according to a set of immutable – unchanging – rules and laws e.g., you should always control a weapon, you should always perform a simultaneous strike/punch when you block, you should never go to the ground etc. However, these “rules”, if followed absolutely and to the letter, can create a cage, which can cause us to doubt our abilities in the moment (have we “failed” if we don’t perform a simultaneous counter when we block?), and restrict our ability to find solutions, when our current course of action isn’t working e.g., if we are failing miserably in dealing with an assailant standing up, might we better taking them to ground and dealing with them there etc. When we talk about principles, we are talking about laws and rules that don’t allow exceptions, and that is a restrictive approach when it comes to self-defense. Fighting is a creative process. It involves individuals understanding what is happening in a moment and responding accordingly. It is not something that can be solved/dealt with using a “paint by numbers approach” i.e., when you see a one, color that area in blue, when you see a two, fill the space with red etc. Whilst it may be tempting to reduce real life violent events to such a formula e.g., when someone does X we do Y etc., in reality X may appear as a mix between W and Y. Real life violence doesn’t always present itself in the clean and sanitized form that we experience in a training environment. In this article I want to look at why techniques can fail, why immutable principles can prevent us from being effective, and why we should instead base our solutions to violence on fighting concepts.                     Wag Dodge is credited with the creation of the “Escape Fire”. In 1949, Dodge, a “Smokejumper” foreman, who was leading a crew, dealing with a wildfire in Mann Gulch, created a novel solution for dealing with out-of-control fires that threatened the lives of those fighting them. Dodge realized that the fire his team was dealing with was beyond their control and was going to overtake and them and so ordered his crew to evacuate the area. As they ran up a ridge, he quickly realized that they weren’t going to be able to outrun the blaze. In that moment he had an idea. With 200 yards between him and the approaching fire he took a box of matches he had on him and started to set on fire the grass around him. Most of us have learnt at some point the “Fire Triangle” i.e., that a fire needs three things to burn: heat, oxygen and fuel. Dodge was attempting to deprive the approaching fire of the third: fuel. He managed to burn enough of an area around him that by lying down, the advancing wildfire didn’t touch him. He still felt the heat, and had issues dealing with the smoke etc., but he survived, unlike many of his crew, who he had tried to get to follow suit etc. It was his ability, in the moment, to apply his understanding of the way that fires worked which allowed him to survive. A solution which is now taught as a standard procedure for those training to deal with wildfires. It was Dodge’s creativity in applying his understanding of the way fires worked that saved him. Whilst we don’t always need to think outside the box to the extent/degree that Dodge did, we have to solve the problems that we face in a similarly creative manner. When dealing with violent incidents we are not following a set of rules and procedures but navigating a social interaction, that may have many different potential solutions, and we must be open to all of them. This doesn’t mean that we are plucking random ideas out of the air but rather that we are using our understanding of violence to guide and direct us. Blindly following rules can cause us to make mistakes and misinterpret situations. If we work from the premise that an unknown person in our house is an intruder, and should be treated as such, then we may find ourselves acting violently against someone who means us no harm e.g., they could be a friend of one of our teenage children that we haven’t met before, who is waiting for our son or daughter, to get out of the bathroom, before going out for the evening etc. If we believe that someone climbing through a window in the early hours of the morning is an intruder looking to cause us/and our family members harm, then we may think/believe that lethal force is necessary, only to find that it is one of our kids who forgot their keys and is now breaking back into the house. Most “home invasions” are committed by drunk neighbors mistaking their house for someone else’s, and family members who have forgotten their keys etc. Taking a moment to assess, and make a considered response, is preferable to simply following a rule e.g., an unknown person in my house is by default an intruder.                 This means that we have to learn how to think and assess situations and choose an appropriate and effective response. Sometimes, this means, like Wag Dodge, thinking outside the box, and applying concepts and ideas in a way that haven’t been attempted before. Dodge didn’t pick his solution at random, it was based on his understanding of how wildfires work. His solution came from an educated place and was based on many years of experience. If he had simply done what everyone before him had done which was to run, he would have probably died along with his crew who tried to outrun the fire. Rather than panicking he assessed the situation and responded appropriately and effectively. Dealing with violence doesn’t work if we follow a, do A, then B, then C approach, because fights are dynamic and ever-changing things that demand us to be creative and sometimes recognize that a “prescribed” solution, or applying a rigid principle will not work, for whatever number of reasons, and that we need to rely on ideas and concepts, along with our training and real life experiences. The techniques we learn exist to demonstrate concepts and ideas that we may apply in different ways.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=703 Mon, 29 Jul 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=702 Most people have not experienced violence firsthand. Most people don’t know someone who has been the target of a violent assault. So, when it comes to “imagining” what violence actually looks like, people have to go to other sources. News media is one. However, what is “newsworthy” isn’t the mundane or the ordinary, it’s the exceptional. This means when we hear of an abduction, and/or a news agency puts out CCTV footage of someone being dragged into a van etc., it’s because such events aren’t common. Also, because it elicits an emotional response, and plays to some of our darkest fears, the network hopes/intends that we will become a viewer who increases their audience numbers etc. News, after all is entertainment, put on by corporations to make money, which means they will report on what sells, and violent crime is something that has been proven to do so. Whilst we know when we watch an action movie, that the “stage fighting” is choreographed to be spectacular, dramatic and entertaining, there are moments when we can get carried away into thinking that it is somewhat realistic and representative of real-life violence etc. Still, most of us recognize that the types of threats, attacks, and violence that we will have to deal with aren’t akin to the fight scenes in The Bourne Supremacy. However, there is one source of information, concerning real-life violence that can give us an equally incorrect idea of how violence occurs, and those are the articles that contain “safety tips” e.g., the top ten things you should ALWAYS do when walking in a parking lot, five things that will stop you being targeted by ANY attacker, three things to do that will mean you’ll NEVER be mugged etc. The problem with safety tips is that they are presented as if they have some authority e.g., that they have been researched in some way, and “the tips” are the definitive conclusions of this research etc. In academic research, findings suggest possible conclusions, sometimes strongly, but usually acknowledge that further research needs to be done etc., whereas safety tips are presented as absolute truths. In this article I want to look at the ways such safety tips may put us in danger.                 I understand why we like safety tips. In a few minutes we can learn a few rules that will ensure our safety. Most people don’t want to put a lot of time and energy into personal safety e.g., it’s not particularly enjoyable/rewarding to think of all the violent things another person(s) can potentially do to us etc. Safety tips offer us an alternative; they let us cut to the chase. They present themselves as a type of Cliff Notes when someone doesn’t want to spend the time reading the book, and just wants the bare facts. However, they shouldn’t be looked on in the same way, as Cliff Notes are based on an actual book, and have been created by individuals/authors who have the adequate credentials to analyze a plot, interpret a character’s actions etc. Many of these articles concerning safety tips have been created by individuals who have been commissioned by a website or magazine etc., to create content for them. There are websites which exist solely for drawing visitors to them to create advertising revenue. If the site believes that an article on safety tips will bring visitors to it, they will commission one, and there are a lot of freelance writers who are prepared to create such articles – and if this is how a freelance writer derives their income they are likely to have to write a lot of articles to do so, which means the likelihood that they spend a great deal of time researching them is pretty low. In fact, the simplest and quickest way to write an article on safety tips is to base it on an article on safety tips that is already out there. This creates a problem. There is a fallacy called the “argumentum ad nauseum” or the “appeal to repetition”. This fallacy occurs when someone tries to establish a “truth” by repeatedly asserting it, regardless of any evidence to support it. The idea is that if something is said enough people may believe it due to repeated exposure. If we keep seeing a safety tip that keeps getting repeated in multiple articles, we may start to believe it’s valid i.e., everyone seems to be asserting/saying it, so it must be true. In reality, it may have become the accepted “norm”/reality because many freelance writers commissioned to create content are basing their articles on each other. Sometimes a safety tip will initially be based on an actual event(s). One “expert” tip that makes its way into many of these safety lists is, “When you’re packing your vehicle, try not to park next to a van. If you come back to your car and a van is parked next to your driver’s side, enter the vehicle on the passenger side. Some abductors have pulled their victims into their van while they entered their parked car.” Such a tip is probably based on an incident that made it into the news at some point, along with the “check under the van” tip, “because abductors often hide under the van and will grab your leg/ankle as you try to get into your car”, which was in all likelihood based on a real-life event that made it onto the evening news etc. The problem with such tips is not always the advice  being given, which in very specific scenarios may be applicable, but the weight of importance given to it, when it is presented in a limited list. If such a tip is presented in a “top five safety tips when walking in a parking lot.” list, it is given a level of importance it may not really deserve i.e., it is more important than other safety tips that didn’t make the list. Its position in the list may also increase its importance e.g., if it is presented as tip number three, we will naturally see it as being more significant than tips four and five etc. When we start looking at these lists from these perspectives, we can see how they can create for us a false reality, concerning personal safety e.g., as long as we are looking out for white vans in parking lots, we have radically increased our safety and significantly reduced the risk of violence etc. The “white van” has long been a “folk devil” in personal safety,  whilst in truth many different vehicles have been used in abductions e.g., Ted Bundy used a VW Bug, Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi (the Hillside Stranglers) used a 1972 Cadillac Limousine, and John Wayne Gacy used an Oldsmobile Delta 88 etc. Those planning abductions use the vehicles they have access to e.g., David Parker Ray – the Toy-Box killer – did use a white van for his abductions, but this was because he was a mechanic/maintenance worker, and this was the vehicle he used for work.                       The first part of solving a problem is to know what the problem is and the extent of it. In this regard safety tips and lists mislead us. They simplify personal safety into a set of rules, which those who mean us harm understand, and know how to get round, and they present an inaccurate picture of what real-life violence looks like, often elevating rare and very specific scenarios to appear as if they are commonplace and the most important types of situations that we will have to deal with, which unfortunately means that the more likely types of violence we may face are relegated or ignored. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=702 Mon, 22 Jul 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=701 Whilst street robberies or muggings may seem simple “transactional” affairs, where one individual demands assets e.g., possessions such as a mobile phone and/or cash, from another by force or the threat of force, they are actually much more complex events. As with any act of violence, street robberies consist of three core components: Location Relationship Motive That is, the space and time where the offense takes place, the relationship that the offender has with their target, and the motivating factors that both drive them to commit such offenses overall, and in a specific instance e.g., someone who regularly engages in street robberies, and is motivated to do so, doesn’t spend all their time committing robberies, and so there will be “triggers” that cause them to do so. These may be the need to obtain money to pay rent, an opportunistic interaction with a suitable target, the need to get their next “fix” because they are coming down from a substance-induced high etc. Whilst location and relationship may seem to be independent “variables” they are often linked, especially in cases of repeat victimization e.g., a person who was mugged on a certain street outside their workplace as they were leaving work at a particular time, may find themselves in that same location (at the same time of day), with their “original” mugger i.e., someone they have a prior relationship with, because that is the space and time in which this offender operates. As with any social interaction, street robberies are more complex events than their seemingly transactional nature may indicate. In this article I want to look at some of the less-obvious components of muggings to get a better understanding of this particular type of crime.                 Whilst muggers may also engage in shoplifting, burglary and car theft etc., not all burglars and shoplifters etc. engage in street robberies i.e., it takes a certain type of person to engage in these offenses. I’m not suggesting that some people are “born” to commit such crimes, and that there is an underlying genetic or biological reason why some people are offenders, and why some individuals commit certain offenses rather than others, but rather for someone to engage in a street robbery they need a certain set of social “skills”; they need to have a degree of confidence, an ability to communicate, to socially interact with others, and a willingness to use force/violence etc. Street robbery, unlike pickpocketing or burglary, is not an offense that is committed in secret. Also, the “narrative” of offenders who engage in this crime may be very different to the ones we create for them. We may portray muggers as being psychopathic criminals who without any emotion, believe they are entitled to our assets, because they are lazy and selfish individuals who belong to a “criminal class”, or we might see them as disadvantaged individuals who have had few opportunities in life and so are “forced” to engage in crime because this is the only opportunity available for them to make an income etc., or we may believe that individuals engage in street robberies for a number of different reasons, and that there is no one, singular motivation behind them. However, these are our opinions and speculations, concerning the motivations of other people, and may be wholly inaccurate. How we see those who commit street robberies may be entirely and completely different to how they see themselves. Understanding how such offenders see their offending is extremely important if we ever have to manage an interaction with them.                 Whilst an offender may understand and recognize that society via the legal system criminalizes their actions and classes them as offenses, this doesn't mean that they see themselves as “criminals” or “offenders” in the same way that society does. To maintain our identities, we need to justify the things that we do. Human beings can occasionally admit that they were wrong to say or do something, but they can’t live in a state where we are perpetually at odds with themselves; at some point they have to make sense of and justify the things that they do, in order to preserve a sense of self and identity. Those who engage in street robberies are no different. Qualitative research has shown that many profess to having certain rules about who they target e.g., no young people, no women, and no old people etc., however some of these individual interviewed have admitted that they’ve occasionally broken these “rules” when a situation necessitated it, such as when they needed drugs etc. The language that offenders use to describe their offenses also shows how they see and justify their “crimes”. In the UK those who engage in street robberies refer to what they do as “taxing the streets” i.e.,  they identify as a subculture/group, which has a jurisdiction over the “streets”, and a right to “tax” those who come into their jurisdiction e.g., a business person who moves about a city’s business district is in their own environment, however once they enter the “streets” – a patch a mugger(s) operates in – they have crossed into their world, and so should “expect” to be “taxed”. Obviously, the definition of what constitutes the “streets”, is a fluid one, but the idea that in certain locations and situations, street robbery constitutes a “tax” is an attempt to legitimize and justify the offense.                 It is also important to consider how those who engage in such offenses view those they target, in order to justify their actions. They may see themselves more as “Robin Hood” type characters who through their system of “taxation” are redistributing wealth in a more equitable manner rather than depriving someone of assets that they are justified to possess. It is unlikely that those who engage in street robberies are considering the impact of their offenses, from any tangible (the consequences of taking and depriving a person of their assets), emotional/psychological (traumatic) perspectives etc. The person targeted is a vehicle/means by which assets can be acquired rather than an individual/person who may suffer negative consequences from the interaction. Again, if such things were seriously considered, with the conclusion being that another person is suffering due to an offender’s actions, it would be hard for a person to justify their offenses. Therefore an “alternative” narrative is created, whereby the target is capable of absorbing all of the “costs” of the offense, because they can “afford” the loss of assets, the interaction is short and minimal, if they sustained injuries by resisting that was their fault/responsibility for not complying etc.                 To commit a street robbery requires a “rational choice” i.e., a decision based on risks, and rewards. That choice may be “bounded” in that the offender doesn’t have all the information necessary to make a completely informed choice, including how those individuals victimized will be able to tangibly, emotionally, and psychologically cope with and manage both the incident itself, and the longer-term consequences of it etc. However, an offender must have the means to create a narrative where their actions are justified, and not ones that they are embarrassed or ashamed about. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=701 Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=700 A couple of months back a Tik Tok video went viral, that featured women being asked if they’d rather be alone in the woods with a man or a bear, with many choosing a bear rather than a man. Obviously, the video was intended to be provocative, in order to start a debate/discussion concerning violence and sexual violence against women, and unsurprisingly many people – in all likelihood mostly men – took exception to it. Whilst, the video offers a good starting point, concerning female perceptions of sexual violence, it is hardly scientific in its approach, and so lacks a certain “authority” e.g., we don’t know how many women were interviewed along with which interviews were excluded etc. I’m not saying this to devalue the point or worth of the video but rather to suggest that there is little reason to be offended by it. The video is a good starting point for a discussion about women’s fears of men, but it doesn’t fully explain the reasons why, the circumstances in which such fears are triggered, or how women actually experience violence, in fact in some ways it might be somewhat misleading in this regard. In this article I would like to expand the discussion as to why women justifiably may be afraid of men in certain situations and settings, and why rather than people being offended by this, we should recognize that this isn’t an overreaction or a form of paranoia but something that is reasonable and makes sense.                 Many women have at some point in their life been in an abusive relationship. The CDC estimates that almost 25% of women have experienced physical violence i.e., physical harm, from a partner. However, this statistic doesn’t cover, or account for potential non-contact acts of abuse, such as preventing someone from leaving a room by standing in a doorway, snatching something away, and/or throwing something near to someone etc. Such acts of “intimidation” and “displays” of anger are hard to define and account for. For the person engaging in them, they might seem minor, insignificant and inconsequential but for those witnessing them – such as children – or experiencing them, they can be frightening and traumatic events; experiences that shape perceptions. I have been at sporting events where I have seen grown men “lose it”, because the team they were supporting were under-performing. In fact, I have seen football fans riot and smash up their own city out of frustration at their team’s loss; and I don’t remember any women being involved in this. This isn’t to say that violence is an exclusively male thing – I’ve seen quite a few fights between women – but rather that if you had to pick a gender that was more predisposed to acting violently, men win that one hands down.                 To try and argue that men, as a group/population, don’t at times exhibit frightening and dangerous actions and behaviors, is naive. It is not that men perpetually engage in acts of violence but that they sometimes demonstrate their ability to do so and may be triggered to do so by seemingly trivial events, such as their team losing a sporting event. As a man I may feel it is unfair to be judged by such behaviors – rioting after a sport event – however I understand how this appears from a gender perspective i.e., every and any man may be triggered to violence by something minor or trivial etc. Faced with such a possibility, may a bear’s behaviors and goals be a bit more predictable and easier to understand? Whilst, a bear may potentially be more capable of causing extreme physical harm and damage to a person, it is not that a “man” lacks the ability to do so. A man may lack the strength to rip a person’s face off etc., but they have the ability to cause serious physical, emotional, and psychological harm to others of their own species. It is only our own species along with chimpanzees – and certainly not bears - who are able to get truly “creative” when it comes to sexual violence.                 Whilst I understand the point/purpose of the question (bear or man) it has the potential to mislead us somewhat when we look at violence committed by men against women i.e., women are generally and statistically safer when with strangers in public spaces that they are with men that they know, in private spaces, such as their homes or other people’s homes etc. However, it is often these experiences, with people they know, that exacerbate women’s fear of male strangers; if someone you know or think of as a friend has previously acted aggressively or violently towards you, and/or in your presence, how much more likely is a stranger to? The reality/truth is “less”, however this supposed logic makes sense: if those who seemingly care about you are prepared to use aggression and violence, then a stranger who doesn’t care for you is probably much more likely to act aggressively towards you. Although in reality this is not the case, this viewpoint and perspective is wholly understandable and reasonable. Place a woman in a remote location – such as the woods – with a male stranger, and  straight away the bear becomes a more preferable option when made available.                 Whilst the “bear versus man” question in the way presented in the video doesn’t consider many of the nuances concerning violence against women, it does make a great point: there are a lot of women who are justifiably scared of men. This is not a female problem but a male one. Just because as an individual man may feel that it is unfair that a woman may see them as a potential threat when they possess no harmful intent towards them, doesn’t mean that this fear is unwarranted. If men want to change the perception that women have of us, then it is our job/responsibility to understand how our actions and behaviors may present an unfavorable view of our gender. I would rather make another person feel safe than exert a “right” because I have an opportunity/option to do so. When I first started working pub, bar, and club security and started talking to women about their fears and experiences etc., I made it a habit to cross to the other side of the street, if when on the streets late at night, I saw a woman walking the other way i.e., I took an action to demonstrate I wasn’t a potential threat/danger, so that a certain type of question didn’t have to be asked.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=700 Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=699 In last week’s article (click here to access), I looked at using geographical profiling as a means to help limit the potential number of suspects, who could have been Jack the Ripper – an unidentified serial killer who targeted women in the Whitechapel area of London in the late 19th century; a “cold case” that has been the obsession of the media and amateur sleuths for decades. In this article I want to look at the “victimology” concerning his offenses i.e., who did he target and why etc. Specifically, I want to look at why sex workers are often targeted by serial killers, and what it is about their lifestyles and work that makes them a particularly vulnerable population. Whilst it was assumed at the time – and this assumption continues to this day - that Jack the Ripper exclusively targeted sex-workers, there is no actual evidence that this is true concerning all of his victims, and this “judgment”/belief may have been the result of a Victorian, societal and moralistic perception than any homeless woman living on the street must have been a sex worker. However, at least some of the Ripper’s victims were known to have engaged in sex work and this population is a common target for many serial killers including Gary Ridgeway (the Green River Killer – active in the U.S., through the 1980’s to 2001), Robert Pickton (a Canadian who is known to have committed offenses between 1983 and 2002), Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper, who killed thirteen women, and attempted to kill seven more, in the UK, between 1975 and 1980), and Tommy Lynn Sells (who was active between 1980 and 1999 in the US) etc. When we are able to understand the reasons why sex-workers are targeted in these “stranger” type killings we are able to look at and examine facets of our own lifestyles that may display and offer/create similar vulnerabilities. N.B., it is worth noting that sex work isn’t illegal – criminal – in all jurisdictions. In Australia sex work is legal in all states according to certain regulations. In the UK, an individual working from their home, can offer sexual services legally, however it is illegal for a person – a pimp – to live off of what are often referred to as “immoral earnings” etc., and operating public spaces, except in a few designated areas, is illegal. In the U.S., sex work is legal in Nevada, with brothels being permitted in counties where the population is under 700 000. When serial killers target sex-workers they usually target those who work in public spaces, rather than those who work/operate in private e.g., from a house/room etc. Those who engage in sex work know that operating in a public space is far more dangerous and riskier than working in a private space etc. Also, when doing so, sex-workers are often alone and isolated. Whilst to an extent they may form small communities that look out for each other, when they are working, they will often spread out – working a particular street segment – in order to avoid competing with each other etc. The transactional nature of their work means that they have to interact with strangers, which means they are accessible targets i.e., an offender doesn’t have to come up with a “cover story” for approaching them – the nature of their work means they attract strangers. There is also an accepted “anonymity” between sex workers – who work publicly and illegally – between themselves and their clients; both parties are trying/attempting to remain undetected by the authorities. This makes those who engage in this type of work extremely vulnerable to other types of crime e.g., a sex worker is unlikely to report to law-enforcement when they are assaulted, robbed, or even raped; just because someone is a sex worker doesn’t mean that they automatically consent to all and any sexual acts that someone might demand of them etc. It is also estimated that around 80% of women engaged in sex work are doing so to support some form of addiction, whether that be heroin or crack cocaine etc. When it comes to substance abuse, this is more likely to be crack, or some other substance, as heroin lowers a person’s sex-drive, at a hormonal and nervous system level, to the point where any sexual acts, become physically repulsive. It may be that an individual engages in sex work to support an existing habit, or does so for other reasons, and then develops a habit in order to cope with and manage their work etc. Regardless of the reason as to why they began taking drugs, once addicted, they may become less risk-averse in order to support it e.g., interacting with clients who they don’t feel “safe” with because they need the money etc. One of the other reasons that serial killers, looking for a supply of victims, target sex-workers who operate in public spaces, is that they perceive them to be individuals who are less likely to be missed by others i.e., the investigation into a person’s disappearance is more likely to be delayed or even ignored. There is some truth to this however it ignores the fact that a significant number of those who engage in sex work do so on a “part-time” basis; according to estimates, between 20% and 50% of sex workers aren’t doing so on a full-time basis and use their earnings to supplement a “legal” income; in many cases a partner may not know that this is the case. This often makes those that are “new” to this type of work and are doing it on a “part-time” basis especially vulnerable. This is because they both lack experience, and aren’t part of a larger community of sex workers who may trade information about clients who pose a risk etc. In many cities, female students may engage in sex work as a means to support themselves through college/university e.g., in a self-report study conducted in Berlin out of 4386 students questioned, 226 identified as having engaged in sex work on a regular/semi-regular basis. It is understood that Julie Dart who was kidnapped and killed by Michael Sams, was working as a part-time sex worker in Leeds (UK) – she had a full-time job as a secretary - and was “selected” because she was relatively new and inexperienced and didn’t pick up on the warning signs that more experienced workers had recognized. So, whilst the perception by serial killers, that most sex-workers, may be isolated individuals, who lack a strong social support network etc., may be largely correct there is a significant percentage who work in this industry, who do have partners and are well supported by friends and family etc., and would be missed if they suddenly disappeared. Unfortunately, serial killers often educate themselves regarding other killers’ campaigns, and if a previous killer, appears to have been “successful” targeting a particular group or population, this may serve as a “template”. Also, it shouldn’t be overlooked, that targeting sex-workers gives a killer the opportunity to take the moral “high ground”. Peter Sutcliffe justified his killings of sex-workers, both to himself, and others, as being part of a moral crusade to rid the world of an indecent population etc. If we can present ourselves to the world as people who are socially connected and socially valued we can do a lot to avoid the unwanted attention of those who may mean us harm. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=699 Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=698 Many people have a curiosity concerning serial killers. It’s one of the reasons that Hollywood and the media create movies, documentaries, and TV shows about them. Most people can make sense of a one-off killing, that is either accidental, or a reaction or crime of passion that happens in the moment. We can usually comprehend singular killings that are premeditated, such as someone killing their partner for insurance/monetary reasons etc. But serial killers seem to be more about the act of killing itself, rather gaining some type of “tangible” from it i.e., they must get some emotional enjoyment from killing others, to the point, where they are compelled to keep doing it. That is something that most of us have difficulty understanding. Our species – as a group - has a natural aversion to killing its own members; if it didn’t it would have a serious disadvantage in surviving. However, there are some who don’t have this natural “check” and/or experience events that nullify it and go on to kill multiple people. All of this is intriguing to many of us, as are unsolved cases, or cold cases, where the identity and motive of a killer remains unknown, because they were never apprehended, or if they were they were never linked to these crimes e.g., a serial killer, is arrested and convicted of a string of robberies and given a long sentence, but never linked to the homicides that suddenly stop without a killer being identified etc. Jack the Ripper killed five people (there may have been more who weren’t associated with him, but these victims are known/referred to as the “canonical five”), in the late Summer through Winter of 1888, in the Whitechapel area of London. The killings were particularly brutal, with the attacker/killer, using excessive force with throats being cut and abdominal mutilations; acts which are believed to have been committed post-death – after strangulation. The killer was never caught. Whilst it is likely that Jack the Ripper was not the first serial killer, his killings came at a time when the Metropolitan Police force had been in operation for around fifty years (they were an established force that had gained experience of dealing with homicides), and when there was a thriving press industry that widely reported on the killings. This meant that there was quite a lot of documentation that has been preserved concerning these murders, making Jack the Ripper one of the “earliest” and best-documented serial killers, who was never identified. This has led to many books being written about him, movies and tv shows being made, along with many popular tourists walks in London, which sees guides take tourists to the murder scenes, and present information about the killings. In this article I don’t want to speculate on who Jack the Ripper could have been but rather look at some of the things we now understand about serial killers that can help us build a profile, to tell us more about how serial killers operate etc.    In any investigation of a murder, the site where the body is found has to be identified as being the same or different (a disposal site) to where the killing took place i.e., did the killer, kill in one location and move the body to another, or not. With the advent of the car and modern transportation systems this is always a distinct possibility, especially when dealing with a more astute offender who wants to slow down an investigation e.g., it is likely to take longer to identify who the victim is if they’re not a local missing person, and it may require geographically different law enforcement agencies to collaborate in order to make an identification etc. All of this slows down the investigation, and allow the killer more time to deal with possible forensic evidence, such a getting rid of clothing they were wearing at the time etc. In late 19th century London, there were “cabs”, which were horse-drawn carriages that were used for travelling longer distances, however most of these were for public hire, rather than privately owned. This would have meant that Jack the Ripper was likely to have killed his victims in the locations they were found, rather than having moved them unless he had an accomplice and access to a private carriage. This is an important detail, as it means that Jack the Ripper was likely a resident of Whitechapel. A serial killer’s first victim is an important one, as those that kill on foot – without transportation – usually kill within a very short distance of their home. As they become more experienced and more confident, they may start to kill in places that they are geographically less familiar with, but initially they will want to have all of the odds of success stacked in their favor. This means that they usually kill in the area where they live, where they know possible escape routes and can get back to the safety of their own home quickly. Committing their offenses locally also means that they are known in the area, and nobody questions their presence in it i.e., they fit in. All of this points to someone who lives in the area. Another reason the killer may have lived locally was the times of day when the killings took place. All of those that happened in public spaces, such as streets and city squares, occurred in the early hours of the morning. The Whitechapel area was relatively well patrolled at night by Metropolitan Police Officers; one of the reasons for this is that there was a fair amount of civil unrest within that part of London, during the later 19th century. In fact, when the Ripper committed the murder of his first victim (the first of the “Canonical Five”), Mary Nichols, in Bucks Row, two officers’ patrol routes saw them potentially cross the murder scene almost every thirty minutes. Considering this was the killer’s first offense/murder it is likely that it had a certain degree of planning to it. Serial killers often learn from their experiences whilst at the same time becoming less careful due to over-confidence. When committing a first offense, it is likely to be planned with some “obvious” factors being taken into account; one being how do you avoid identification and apprehension by law enforcement. It is likely that the Ripper would have scoped out where he would commit his first offense, and part of that is likely to have involved him spending some time in the area trying to work out routes and times of patrols and trying to find the optimum time to commit an offense. His first victim, Mary Nichols, was an alcoholic sex-worker, who spent her nights in one of Whitechapel’s “doss houses”; places where you could rent a room for a few pence. On the night she was murdered she’d spent the money she normally reserved for renting her “regular” bed on booze and had been refused entry; there was a rule of no credit in these establishments. She then went out searching for a client in order to make the necessary money. This was not uncommon for a lot of women in the area. It is likely that only someone who knew that these things happened regularly along with the patrol routes and times of law enforcement officers, would have the knowledge to select the optimal location to commit such an offense, and be able to get to back to the safety of their home, without being identified, would be able to commit such a crime and this points to someone who lived locally.        Whilst I have a curiosity as to who Jack the Ripper was, along with the identity of “Bible John” an unidentified serial killer who murdered three young women in Glasgow between 1968 and 1969, I’m not someone who has a board on the wall of my bedroom, with photos and articles pinned up on it, and pieces of red string linking them together. At that point I believe things have rapidly escalated from “passing interest” to obsession. However, I do think re-visiting old/cold cases can be interesting and useful in helping us learn more about how current and future incidents may occur. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=698 Mon, 24 Jun 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=697 Moving house is one of the most stressful things in life. Having experienced moving across continents I will readily attest to this. I currently own some of the most expensive wrapping paper on the planet; time ran out so I ended up quickly packing – and paying expensive shipping rates on – lots of stuff I should have gotten rid of. When we move to a new house/apartment, the “security” of our new home is often somewhat low down on the list of priorities e.g., we get caught up with how our furniture should be arranged, the color we want to paint the living room etc. However, by doing a few simple things, we can easily increase and improve our security, and increase our peace of mind etc. This article describes and explains two simple things we can do to improve our safety when moving into a new home/neighborhood.   If you are moving into a property that you own, you should change the locks; this should be one of the first things you do. If you are moving into a rented property, it is worth asking the landlord or their agent whether this is possible – you can always offer to pay for the expense of having the work done. If the locks aren’t changed, you can never be sure as to how many keys are out there, that could unlock your exterior doors. Once you have done that, get copies of the “original” key cut and store the “original” somewhere safe. The reason you want to do this is that keys and locks are mechanical devices, and keys wear down over time i.e., every time you put a key in a lock and turn it, it is rubbing and grinding against the lock. This is why with older keys you sometimes have to wiggle it around a bit to get the lock to open. If you have to get keys copied using a “worn out” one, then those copies will be exact replicas, with each one having to be played with and manipulated in order to open the lock/door. Once a key gets to the state where it needs to be fitted to an exact position before it can open/unlock the door, you should put it somewhere safe and mark it as unusable etc. You should then take the “original”, unused, key, and get another copy made, with the copy being the key that replaces the one you use on a daily basis. The original/master key should then be put back in the place you originally stored it. This process can then be repeated as often as necessary, and you will always have keys that properly fit the lock. The lock itself is far more robust than the key, and you can check when that needs to be mechanically replaced using the original/master key. This may seem a minor thing to do, however it means that you will always be able to enter your home quickly, which should at the very least give you peace of mind e.g., if you believe someone is following you – at a distance – you know you won’t be caught standing on your doorstep trying to manipulate the key to get it to unlock the door etc. Get to know your neighbors, and others who live on your street, or in your apartment block etc. You don’t need to be on speaking terms with everyone around you, but you should be with your direct neighbors. An easy way to introduce yourself, is to ask your direct neighbors, if they would want you to sign for, and take in, packages for them, when they’re not there etc. It’s a friendly/neighborly thing to do, and also lets you know how they want you to act if you are put in this position e.g., a delivery driver knocks on your door and asks you to sign for a package addressed to them. In the first few weeks you want to try and get an idea as to the natural ebb and flow of your area e.g., who is in your locale at a particular time etc. This way you will have a “baseline” which will allow you to recognize anomalies, and things that are out of place, such as people and cars that aren’t normally in the vicinity etc. I am not suggesting that as soon as you see someone who is a “stranger” to you, that you should be reaching for your pepper spray, but rather you should mark them as a person of interest/curiosity. It may be that they have only just moved into a house on your street, and they will soon become part of the natural ebb and flow of the neighborhood i.e., your ”baseline” adapts and changes. As I’ve written in previous articles, such activities as taking an active interest in your environment shouldn’t be seen as extreme hyper-vigilance and/or paranoia but rather as “being in the moment” – you are interested in everything that is going on around you, not just the potential threats and dangers etc. One of the most vulnerable times for new students on campus is the first three weeks of a new year. It takes Campus Police about this length of time to get a baseline  as to who should be on campus at a particular time etc. Before this period of time has passed, non-student offenders are able to mix in as if they had a legitimate reason to be there. Although potential offenders who look to target students don’t “formally” understand or consciously recognize this vulnerability, their experience tells them that this is a good time to commit their offenses etc. In the same way that campus police actively learn who should be there and who should not, you should do the same when moving into a new home.        Moving into a new home should be an exciting thing. It represents a new stage in our lives, and that should be celebrated even if we are having to downsize, or move to an inferior country (only kidding). I believe all changes and stages of life should be times of optimism. Sometimes, we put off thinking about security and safety, because we don’t want to think the worst or imagine “bad” things happening to us or our family etc. However, when we consider home security, we can think about it in very general terms, such as how we can keep unwanted people out. We don’t have to imagine a horrific home invasion with multiple masked assailants with machetes and acetylene torches who are going to torture us for the pin numbers of our debit cards etc. Don’t imagine all the possible and potential scenarios, just focus on the goals.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=697 Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=696 When I was a grad student, I was asked to take part in an experiment as part of an undergraduate student’s research. My photograph was taken (head and shoulders), and along with others, shown to various people, who would then “guess” and “speculate” on our various occupations. Answers were open-ended, rather than provided as options to select from. The most common response given to my photograph was “window cleaner” i.e., that was the “first impression”, regarding occupation, that people had of me. It is worth pointing out – to demonstrate the limits of research – that this particular study was carried out in a working class/blue collar area in the North-East of England, where people were more likely to be working class/blue collar occupations over other ones. However, I would be interested to repeat this experiment thirty-plus years on to see if I got the same result/occupation e.g., did people think I was still a window cleaner, or would they think I’d chosen a different career path etc. First impressions are funny things, and in many ways, we don’t always make the right judgments. Ex-MLB (Major League Baseball) player, Doug Glanville, when clearing his driveway of snow, was seen by a member of law enforcement, not as a homeowner in his middle/upper class area of Hartford, Connecticut, but as a grifter, “trying to make a few bucks, shoveling people’s driveways” i.e., that officer’s first impression was wrong, and was based on an incorrect heuristic: people/homeowners who live in this part of town are white, not black (Doug Glanville was in no way responsible for that officer’s “first impression” of him, he was simply clearing his driveway of snow like any other homeowner). I’m not trying to downplay or excuse a case of racial profiling – which is what this blatantly was – I’m trying to point out that our first impressions of people are often wrong and based on flawed assumptions i.e., our evolutionary systems for identifying and detecting threats have yet to catch up with our modern-day realities. This is not an excuse for racism, nor is it an excuse for the creation of “folk devils”, which unfortunately is often the result of racism e.g., a black teenager in a hoodie is only one step away from thinking about committing a crime etc. From a personal safety perspective, we need to develop and understand the basics of the neuroscience of first impressions and how in a moment we evaluate a person as being a “threat” or being safe.                First impressions do count (this doesn’t mean we are to blame for them, when people perceive us in some way), and one of the first ones we make about people are, whether they are a threat. Research by Bar et al. (2006), shows that our decision making occurs, regarding threats, in as little as 39 milliseconds i.e., almost immediately, and at a subconscious level. This makes sense. One of our most critical evaluations concerns our own survival. However, in the incident concerning Doug Glanville, the assumptions made about him were wrong i.e., someone who was black, couldn’t be a homeowner in the neighborhood where he lived. The starting point was wrong, and therefore ineffective; the officer would have been better employing their time/resources somewhere else, rather than making assumptions that he had no way of validating. From a personal safety perspective, we need to understand that our gut feelings may be wrong and that we need to evaluate them. Whenever we have a “reaction” we need to consider our response(s) and recognize if we have got it wrong. This is how our fear system is intended to work i.e., a stimulus triggers an initial/instinctual response and then our conscious/rational brain makes sense of what we’ve experienced. When the law-enforcement officer saw Glanville shoveling snow, his initial reaction may have been based on a stereotype i.e., a black man in a predominantly white neighborhood is probably a “hired” person etc., but then his reasoning brain should have taken over, and worked out that it wasn’t inconceivable for him to be a homeowner shoveling his own driveway. He could have then responded in a different, more inquisitive, and enquiring way, looking to find out and establish facts rather than immediately jumping to an incorrect conclusion, which saw him end up on the wrong end of a harassment case.                If whilst walking in the woods, you step on something that moves you will probably instinctively move back. This is because your inherent belief system, suggests that what you stepped on was a snake or unstable ground etc., however after jumping back your conscious belief system takes over, and you try to identify whether what you experienced was actually a threat or not e.g., was it a snake, or just a rotten branch that you stood on etc. All of us have been educated and experienced to have certain beliefs, and these will influence our reactions – and there is a long process of re-education that may need to happen – however when we get over our initial reactions, we should apply reason to our responses. We may initially identify a threat which is actually benign but if we continue to treat it as a threat then we may find ourselves escalating a situation that we could have easily disengaged from or de-escalated (maybe taking a hit to our ego but nothing more). There is obviously a  much longer and more involved discussion about where our prejudices and misinformation, concerning our threats and fears come from but in the short term we should recognize to distinguish between our first impressions and when possible taking the time to gather information and/or make allowances for the fact that we may not have all the information available to make the right and effective decision.             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=696 Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=695 Pedophilia (the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) and Hebephilia (a sexual interest in pubescent children who are beginning to physically show secondary sex characteristics), are often, and correctly, associated with male offenders. When/where women are involved in such offenses it is often as a co-offender who engages in sexual acts against children (SCA) with a partner/boyfriend etc. There are exceptions when such acts are led and dominated by women, such as with the serial killers Fred and Rose West, however these are so rare, that in the initial investigation, Fred was seen as the primary abuser/killer, with Rose simply following his lead; an argument her defense team used in the legal case against the couple that involved/included the sexual abuse and killing of two of her children (along with eight others), something which prosecutors were quick to undermine. However, female sexual predators like Rose West are extremely, and I mean extremely rare, as most sexual violence, and murders are committed by men, which makes sexual offenders such as Alyssa Zinger an anomaly; and someone who can possibly tell us a lot about adults’ sexual offending against children.                 Alyssa Zinger, who in April, 2024, was accused in court of posing online in and person as a 14-year-old student in an attempt to lure teenagers for sex - is somewhat different to many female sexual predators who commit their offenses against children, as she didn’t do so with a male partner, and she wasn’t in a position of power, such as being a teacher etc. Zinger, who is 23-years-old, portrayed herself, via social media, as a home-schooled minor/teenager in order to have sex and share explicit images of herself with at least five middle school boys. In most known cases of sexual abuse against children, the perpetrator has at some point disclosed their age e.g., a sexual predator may have groomed someone by pretending to be of the same age but have on contact – or just before – revealed their true age. It appeared that Zinger kept up her pretense, and never revealed that she was older than she was. Many “true” pedophiles – those who are primarily attracted to prepubescent and pubescent children as opposed to heterosexual adults who engage in child sexual abuse (by far a greater number) - will make the argument that age-gaps aren’t important, and that sex between adults and children are not only natural but beneficial for childhood development. They may make the argument that in order for them to gain access and “educate” those they victimize, they have to pretend that they are of a similar age, but at some point, they will reveal their true identities and engage with the pubescent and prepubescent individuals as an adult. It seems that Zinger didn’t follow this script. She adopted a “Peter Pan” type role, and behaved as an adult who chose not/refused to grow up. She presented herself, not an “adult” who wanted to have sex with children, but as another child, in order to have sex with other children. This is something very different to teachers and other adults in positions of authority who want to normalize adult-child relationships to those they victimize.                 It could be that Zinger genuinely believed that, despite society’s disapproval, adult-child sexual relationships were natural and that portraying yourself as a teenager was simply a tactic to engage in a sexual relationship, or it could be that she still “believed” herself to be a teenager rather than a woman in her early twenties. We know that sexual feelings, from a physical perspective, start very young e.g., Zinger may have become “sexually” aware and physically aroused as a very young child but would lack the emotional and psychological development to make sense of what she was experiencing/feeling etc. She may well have been sexually abusing younger children than herself whilst she was a teenager, as these were the individuals she had access to and could control etc. Somewhere along the line she would get sexually “stuck”, this is what happens with most pedophiles; their other emotions, feelings and thoughts evolve as they get older, whilst their sexual feelings stay in place. You may well have experienced a somewhat  sexual – maybe more romantic - “crush” on an older adult when in your early teens, however as you aged you became more attracted to those of a similar age. With those who become pedophiles, as teens or children they develop similar attractions but as they age these don’t evolve i.e., they become sexually stuck. They age, they mature in other areas of their life, but sexually they remain attracted to others who are younger than themselves.                 Alyssa Zinger may offer a more “honest” example of this than other pedophiles who go on, into adulthood, to “justify” their sexual attraction to children. Zinger wasn’t playing an overt power game, such as a teacher having sexual relations with a student, where they were clearly in control etc., or an adult who was trying to argue and justify that adult-child sexual relations were normal, and society had yet to catch up to and realize/recognize these relationships etc. Zinger was behaving as someone who refused to grow up and recreated/reimagined herself as a teenager in order to have sex with those who were of an age she sexually identified with. This may have been a tactic she employed – pretending to be a teenager – or it could be that we are seeing a new form of pedophilia, where adults cease to see/identify themselves as adults and reposition themselves as teenagers. Whilst the laws surrounding CSA (Child Sexual Abuse) are clear, and are based on age and power differentials we may be entering an age where the motivations behind pedophilia are less singular and are more mixed/complex.                https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=695 Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=694 Most people have never directly experienced violence e.g., in 2022 the FBI reported that there were as few as 380.7 violent crimes per 100 000 people, in the US, meaning that very few people in the US actually experienced violence directly i.e., had a firsthand experience of it. Obviously, violent offending isn’t spread evenly across the country, and different cities, towns, and locales etc., experience it at different rates e.g., if you live in Cleveland, Ohio you are at a greater risk of violence than if you live in Burlington, Vermont, however there may well be parts of Cleveland that are statistically safer than parts of Burlington, etc. This means that most people’s “experience” and knowledge of violence isn’t firsthand and often comes from news media reports, along with fictionalized and often sensationalized portrayals in various TV shows and movies. In fact, news media reporting often “borrows” from such fictional depictions of crime and violence when they construct their stories, making them somewhat inaccurate reflections of reality, despite their claim and assumption that they are simply reporting the “truth”. This can be seen quite clearly in the way that the UK media covered the Raoul Moat manhunt in 2010. On the 2nd of July 2010, Raoul Moat was released from Durham Prison, after serving an 18-week sentence for assaulting a 9-year-old relative (an act which is hardly excusable or would attribute “hero” status). A week later, after a 9-day manhunt, which took place in the woodlands of Northumbria (North-East England), he’d be dead; having committed suicide after a 6-hour standoff with police. All of this was played out on a 24-hour news cycle by a media who in telling their story, and in their desire to be entertaining and captivating portrayed Moat as a “Rambo” style action-hero, who was involved in a brilliant cat-and-mouse game of hide-and-seek where he consistently outwitted the authorities. The media sensationalized the story, and as a result, created Moat as an anti-hero whose actions were praised online; after he committed suicide a Facebook page entitled “RIP Raoul Moat” gained 30 000 followers before being shut down. The media “borrowed” scripts and narratives from Hollywood to tell their story, and in doing so created an “action” hero who should have been despised rather than worshipped. The news media did not, and largely continues to not report on what violence actually looks like; entertainment often trumps the truth.                   In reality, Raoul Moat was an angry, paranoid, injustice collector, who murdered his ex-girlfriend’s new partner, Chris Brown, because he couldn’t live with the fact that he was a jilted ex-lover i.e., someone had wanted to move on without him. This is often the reaction of those who demonstrate narcissistic personality traits; when someone tells them that they are ending the relationship, the individual can’t accept this and looks to destroy them – most often this is through non-physical means such as spreading lies and rumors etc., but for Moat, it involved actual and physical violence. His “desperation” came not from external experiences, but from an internal weakness; something the media failed/chose not to communicate – something which only went to further empower him and his supposed cause (it was known by law enforcement that Moat was following the news coverage and communicating with the news media). After killing Brown and shooting his ex-partner Sandra Stobbart, Moat attempted to murder a policeman (Paul Rathband); as an act of revenge against law enforcement. There is very little about Raoul Moat’s actual life to be admired, and yet he was by many, due to the way his “story” was told/portrayed by the media. Moat in a 49-page manifesto, justified his actions, as being those of a desperate man who had had everything taken away from him (a common Hollywood storyline), and had been left with no choice but to punish others i.e., he wasn’t to blame for the killings, the rest of the world, and especially the police were; Stobbart had visited Moat in prison shortly before his release to confirm to him that their relationship was over and that she was seeing someone else – in an effort to protect herself and her new partner, from any revenge attacks against them, she told Moat that Brown was a policeman (he wasn’t), in the hope that this would deter him. It was a miscalculation that proved to be fatal. Moat didn’t shoot Chris Brown in a moment of passion after being surprised at finding him with his ex-partner; he had fantasized, ruminated on, and planned the shootings during the last days of his sentence. Once released, he had waited/stalked Brown for four hours before shooting him in the head at close range – having changed the shot in his cartridges from pellets to ball bearings. The shootings were not an act of “passion” i.e., something that happened in the moment, but this was how the media portrayed them.                 After initially evading the Newcastle police, by staying at friend’s houses for a few days, he took to the woods of Rothbury, where the “story” presented by the media, shifted to that of a cunning, outdoors survivalist living off the land and “outwitting” the authorities: another common Hollywood narrative. The scale of the manhunt increased, as did the number of false sightings, which only went to feed the news cycle. The addition of footballer, Paul Gascoigne (a celebrity in the North-East) who turned up, drunk and drugged up, during Moat’s standoff with police, offering “assistance” only added to the spectacle, and gave further significance to Moat as a tortured and justified individual. The severity  and seriousness of Moat’s actions didn’t justify his motives, yet the news media gave more attention to his character than what he had actually done i.e., kill a man, seriously wound his ex-partner,  and blind a police officer, who two years later took his own life. The media’s focus on Moat and the manhunt, left the victims forgotten, and the killer portrayed as a Hollywood action figure; a story that was more compelling and engaging than the real one.                 Newspapers and news cycles are largely designed to sell stories. The transformation of genuine journalism into entertainment is a disturbing one, as fiction is used to explain and communicate facts. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t good journalists with integrity out there reporting on violence in a non-romanticized, non-sensationalized way, because there are, but rather the place where many people go to hear and learn about violence cannot always be trusted, as the overall presentation of a news story may more closely resemble fiction (movies) than fact.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=694 Mon, 27 May 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=693 America is a country founded on “rights” e.g., the right to free speech, the right to bear arms etc. It was important for this “new” country to explicitly define these rights when it broke with its colonial past; most of the rights that were/are held in British law are maintained implicitly based largely on “tradition”. Being a newly independent country, putting these rights down on paper was necessary; there are also many other benefits - as well as some issues – in doing so. However, this article isn’t looking to compare the costs and benefits of written (U.S.) and unwritten (U.K.) constitutions. Rather it is looking to present the argument, that from a personal safety perspective, exercising a “right”, may not always be the effective thing to do. To demonstrate this, I want to look at a couple of key concepts regarding the legal rights individuals have when making a claim of self-defense, and occasions when not exercising these rights may be the best way to go.                 From a legal perspective, an assault occurs when two criteria are met: 1) a person fears for their safety, and 2) an aggressor is in a position where they can physically contact them (“battery” being unwanted contact). When these conditions are met, an individual is allowed to defend themselves with as much force as is necessary to nullify the threat e.g., if the aggressor is a slightly built 70-year-old woman, you can’t apply/use, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), the same level of force as if you were dealing with a 20-year-old, 240-pound college wrestler etc. Obviously when making a claim of self-defense in a legal context you would both have to articulate and demonstrate how the other person “assaulted” you, however the law does give you the “right” to make a pre-emptive strike. However, this doesn’t mean that exercising this right is going to be the most effective and/or safest way to deal with every situation/incident. In my time working in the security industry, I have been “assaulted” more times than I can remember i.e., someone has given me reason to fear for my safety and has put themselves in a position to commit battery (make contact with me). This isn’t to make the boast that I’m the veteran of thousands/countless street fights etc., but rather to say that I’ve had a lot of people get in my face, not realizing that they were actually committing assault; most probably believed that they had the right to do this because by refusing them entry to a bar, pub, or club etc., I was denying them a “right” they were entitled to etc. Just because your sneakers/trainers cost more than another person’s pair of cheap dress shoes, doesn’t mean that the “no sneakers” policy doesn’t apply to you. However, just because someone crossed that legal line, didn’t mean I exercised my right of “self-defense” and responded physically. There are times when, to be effective, you have to give people the opportunity to get it wrong and allow them to back away. We all make mistakes, overreact at times, and sometimes it is more effective – from a personal safety perspective – to give such individuals an opportunity to recognize when they are doing so.                 The human species lacks an inherent valve/switch that diffuses conflicts. Dogs and wolves rarely fight. When there is a dispute they will posture with each other, before one rolls onto its back, displaying its throat, and licking the other one’s nose: conflict over. If you’ve ever wondered why your dog likes to “boop” your nose it’s because it’s the equivalent of a handshake. Handshakes are offered by humans sometimes as an introduction and sometimes as a signal/act of reconciliation. Unfortunately, humans lack a “ritualistic” means of turning down the heat when we are emotional, which leads to people sometimes getting it wrong i.e., continuing with aggressive behaviors and actions even though they don’t want to engage in physical violence. I’ve had my wrists and clothing grabbed (battery) by emotional individuals who instantly regretted it but lacked the ability to walk their actions back. In each instance, I would have had the right to physically defend myself, but this wasn’t my default response. Sometimes it is more effective to let people get it wrong and give them the opportunity to back away. I always use the term “away” rather than “down” when talking about people backing off, as the term “backing down” implies that they are doing so because of a power differential, rather than because they realized their behavior(s)/action(s) was/were inappropriate. This doesn’t mean that I lack boundaries but that those boundaries are contextual. I’ve lost count of the social media posts where people make absolute statements, such as, “If anyone touches me, I’d…”, or, “If anyone lays a hand on me, I’d…” etc., which are not down to a necessity to set an effective boundary but are driven solely by ego. Of course, there are times to physically respond when someone commits an assault and engages in battery, but there are also times to let a person back away when they realize they have crossed a boundary.                 Learning to identify when someone has got it “wrong” and not exercising a “right” relies on the ability to understand the context surrounding an interaction, rather than simply following a personal safety “rule”. It is sometimes better to move/back away from an aggressor twice rather than once, as this gives the individual an opportunity to not move towards you, after what may be an emotional/initial reaction i.e., you give them the chance to recognize that their initial response (moving towards you) was overtly aggressive. If they keep moving towards you, not only have you demonstrated your “innocence” in moving away from the confrontation, and the fact that they have repeatedly “assaulted” you but confirmed to yourself that there is no other response in this moment than acting physically. Whilst a legal and simple response to the battery of someone grabbing your clothing, is to work/act combatively against them, there may be times when it is more effective and safer to break away and give an aggressor time to think about and understand their actions.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=693 Mon, 20 May 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=692 In 2018, a married London city worker (Sanjay Naker aged 28) employed at Price Waterhouse Cooper, was jailed for eight years, after repeatedly raping and sexually assaulting an 18-year-old woman in a 30-minute ordeal. Naker was discovered by a security guard, zipping up his trousers and standing over the woman he’d victimized, as she lay unconscious and half-naked in a pool of her own urine. He ran off and took a minicab back home to his wife and two children, where he googled the definition of “rape”. The assault was so bad that the teenager had to be hospitalized. Naker is what is referred to by those who work in the security industry, as a scavenger; an individual who loiters around bars and clubs looking for women who have become so disorientated by alcohol that they are not fully aware of their surroundings. They are often tired and exhausted, unable to judge/make sense of their situation, and in a physical state where they require some type of assistance/help, to walk and navigate their surroundings. Sexual predators, like Naker, are only too happy to offer to lend a hand. Whilst the judge at his trial described the attack as being “opportunistic”, it was only so in that a “suitable target” was available to him; he’d have waited for someone else or come back another night if an opportunity hadn’t presented itself. Sexual assailants like Naker plan their attacks, often sharing “tips” and “tactics” on internet forums. Often, they don’t regard their attacks as truly/properly constituting rape; in 2015 a now-famous essay that advocated making rape legal if it occurred on private property was published on one of these forums. Predators, such as Naker, often view themselves as skilled “hunters” who are simply taking advantage of a situation presented to them, for which they shouldn’t really be punished.                 Those who have been sexually victimized whilst drunk are often blamed, if only partly, for their assault e.g., if she hadn’t been drunk her attacker wouldn’t have been able to assault her etc. The teenager targeted by Naker was a teenager, who had stated that she’d never been that drunk before i.e., she had limited experience of the effects of alcohol. Despite being drunk, CCTV/Video footage showed her resisting and attempting to escape from Naker. She made the fact that she wasn’t consenting to sex with him very clear – even if she wasn’t able to verbally articulate. At trial, Naker insisted the sex was consensual, but what he didn’t understand, or didn’t want to understand, is that consent has to be “actively” given; something he was probably trying to learn/establish during his internet searches, after the assault. In my experience, people often want to believe that the law reflects their own morality e.g., Naker, may have believed/wanted to believe that someone who doesn’t actually say “no”, is in fact saying “yes” etc. The absence of “no” is not a “yes”.  Such individuals may also attempt to ignore the context of such incidents. The fact that Naker, like most scavengers, was sober and was seen hanging around outside the club before he identified someone to sexually victimize, demonstrates his intent, which was always going to be significant at trial. There will be a dark corner of the internet where certain men will be expressing that what happened to Naker was unjust and unfair, and that a woman who gets so drunk is doing so in order to lower her inhibitions – consciously or subconsciously – so that she is able/confident enough to engage in sex i.e., someone that drunk is “asking for it”. The teenager Naker victimized – like all those targeted by scavengers – was not “asking for it”, she was confused, exhausted and disorientated, and simply wanted to get home. Naker took advantage of her vulnerability, just as other sexual assailants take advantage of others, possible through the familiarity and “friendship” they have with those they target.        During my time working security I have seen/experienced scavengers. They hang around the clubs looking for women who have been thrown out because they are too drunk; the bars don’t want the liability of having people on their premises who are unable to function e.g., if someone falls asleep on a lavatory due to over-consumption of alcohol – something I’ve seen a lot off – then they’ll be evicted. You hope in the relative cold outside the club they’ll start to sober up, and/or their friends will come and find them etc. However, I’ve experienced situations where I’ve approached someone’s friends whilst inside the club, who weren’t ready to give up their night, to help/assist their friend get home safely. They’d often discount and downplay the situation and get their friend to agree that they were actually OK. Unfortunately, it should be understood, that door staff, often don’t have the resources to look after someone in such a state and are unwilling to have an ambulance – with the accompaniment of law-enforcement – turning up at their club; not a good look for when the liquor license needs to be renewed. In my time, I had probably thrown out as many women as men, usually not for acts of violence but due to inebriation. Most of the times I’ve seen scavengers approach women have been before the clubs turn everybody out (too many witnesses when large numbers of drinkers exit onto the streets); they are looking for lone/single women who have been ejected early for whatever reason and separated from their friends. The CCTV footage shows that when people passed by Naker, and the teenage girl he victimized, he pretended not to be with her. If you ever see an extremely drunk woman with a sober man, there’s a chance that it’s their partner or a friend, however you may be witnessing a scavenger on the hunt.                 With better weather on its way, which sees the nights getting warmer, more people are likely to be out on the street and taking part in/enjoying the nighttime economy. Whilst it would be good if more men were educated to the fact that “consent”  doesn’t exist on a spectrum, but is something that is fixed, absolute and concrete, there will always be sexual predators who are well aware of this fact and are looking for non-consenting women to victimize. This means, unfortunately, that women will always be at risk of sexual assault and will unfairly have to take the steps to protect themselves.  Being aware of a certain type of predator and where they hunt will hopefully help us to recognize that sober men, who are all to eager to help are most likely wolves in sheep’s clothing.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=692 Mon, 13 May 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=691 I’m a fan of A.I. (Artificial Intelligence). I don’t believe that “robots” will take over the world - feel free to email me, or my robot captor/guardian in a few years, if you’ve managed to escape their regime. However, I do think it is worth taking a moment to look at what A.I. does well at from a security/safety perspective, along with what it’s not so good at, and may never be so good at; I don’t believe that it will ever be able to surpass the human evolution of “intuition”; that “system” which has been keeping us safe - from each other - for thousands of years. Human “heuristics” and visual intelligence has proved fairly successful at being able to deal with the mass computational processing power of a variety of machines. In 1996 IBM’s “computer” Big Blue lost at chess to world chess champion Gary Kasparov by four games to two. However, in a rematch a year later Kasparov was the loser. This was seen as a major advancement in A.I., however it would be easy to lose sight of the genius behind the human mind, in celebrating the sheer processing power of IBM’s computer. Whereas Big Blue was able to process the almost infinite possibilities of making a particular move/decision, Kasparov revealed that he rarely thought more than one or two moves beyond a decision/move he’d make. Kasparov innately understood from his experiences what different chess boards looked like at various stages of a game, and what this might mean for future movements and decisions etc. Kasparov, spoke afterwards about how he only actually thought a few moves ahead at any point in a game; this compared to Big Blue whose programmers were running multiple long-ranging/far-seeking scenarios before each move. This initial loss by AI seemed to demonstrate how a human using a few basic heuristics could outplay a computer that could imagine multiple scenarios. However, in a rematch in 1997, Kasparov found himself the loser to the “machine”. This was a breakthrough moment, however it was eclipsed in 2016, when AlphaGo (created by Google), did what was to many the unthinkable, by beating a human at the game of Go.                 The game of Go is often acknowledged and seen as one of the most complex board games in existence. The huge number of possible combinations means that it is virtually impossible for a computer to calculate and productively assess all future moves. However, in 2016, a computer beat Lee Sedol, the world champion, by four games to one; a machine had learnt to do the impossible. Whilst this was impressive, in 2023 Kellin Pelrine, who plays at an amateur level one division below the top, beat the machine by exploiting a flaw in the A.I. that was used to beat Sedol. A flaw that highlights an amazing but simple advantage that humans have over machines: the ability to generalize, and not blindly follow rules. Ironically the flaw in the A.I. used to win Go matches, was identified by A.I., however Pelrine utilized it in his games, winning 14 of 15, without any technological assistance. The computer lacked the ability to differentiate “distractions” and was solely reliant on past experiences to make its moves. If it hadn’t previously experienced something, it wasn’t adept at recognizing the danger it was in; this included moments when it was only a few moves from being beaten, where a human player would have immediately visually “recognized” that they needed to change strategy etc. Ultimately, the machine couldn’t fully understand the context of a situation, something which humans are extremely good at, and something we need to better train in order to deal with potentially violent situations.                 One of the areas where A.I. is extremely good, is in recognizing patterns of human behavior. Models have been developed that are unbelievably successful at identifying individual shoplifters’ offending patterns to the point where prediction of future events is almost perfect. This is largely because whilst many offenders believe that they are acting “randomly” in an unpredictable manner they are not e.g., most serial offenders commit their initial crimes close to their home, before moving further away to commit their next few, before returning to area closer to home as they become more confident – and complacent – in committing their offenses etc. Geographic profiling models, given enough data, are now extremely adept at predicting and forecasting these patterns. In a quest to make their offenses seem random, most serial offenders follow a similar manner of offending. A.I., is great at taking all that data, and working out the most likely patterns, in a way that humans are unable to. However, A.I. is terrible (at the moment), at understanding context, and this can be seen in its inability to recognize human emotions.                 A lot of people think that they can identify whether someone is happy, sad, or angry by their facial expressions, however that isn’t the case, and A.I. that works from this premise gets it horribly wrong e.g., I have seen people pull their face into a tight grin/smile when they are terrified and surprised, but if you were to just judge their emotion from the “smile”, and the way they looked, you’d deduce from this that they were “happy”. Most of our recognition and judgment of someone’s emotional state comes from the context in which we see their facial expression; if we see a “smile” at someone’s birthday party, we will likely identify them as being “happy”, if we see them smiling – and possibly even laughing (I’ve seen that) - at someone who is aggressively shouting/screaming at them then we are more likely to identify them as being scared etc. Humans excel at recognizing contexts and being able to make general assumptions rather than by blindly following specific rules. However, many people want to substitute these natural skills by reducing personal safety down to a computer program that says if X happens do Y, when someone is doing A respond by doing B, and this is a failure to recognize where our “intelligence” lies. Most people have never directly experienced violence e.g., in 2022 the FBI reported that there were 380.7 violent crimes per 100 000 people, in the US, meaning that very few people actually experienced violence directly. Obviously, violent offending isn’t spread evenly across the country, and different cities, towns, and locales etc., experience different rates of violent offending. This means that most peoples’ “experience” and knowledge about violence isn’t firsthand and often comes from news media reports, along with fictionalized and often sensationalized portrayals of violence in various TV shows and movies. In fact, news media reporting often “borrows” from such fictional depictions of crime and violence when they construct their stories e.g., The Raoul Moat case in the U.K., was reported on the 24x7 news cycle as a faithful recreation of the Rambo movies; a misunderstood individual who’d reached their breaking point and was involved in a cat-and-mouse manhunt with the authorities etc. We don’t have either firsthand, or reliable/accurate secondhand/thirdhand experiences of violence to inform our decision making, which is what the A.I., approach to dealing with violence would be based on, however we read context very well and are able to generalize and not work to rigid patterns, and these are the skills we should be relying on to keep us safe.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=691 Mon, 06 May 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=690 There are three types of crimes for which police incident reports are likely to reflect the actual number of offenses. They are homicides, auto thefts, and burglaries. It’s hard to re-classify a homicide as something else, and auto thefts along with burglaries generally get reported, as a police report is needed for insurance reasons. One of the things that is important to note when looking at property crimes such as burglaries is that the time of the incident represents the time when the offense was discovered, rather than when it actually occurred e.g., a burglary that has an incident time of 17:35, means that this is when the incident was discovered and reported to law enforcement, and that the actual event could have happened any time between the time the home owner left, and when they returned to their home, such as 5:35 pm etc. This means when looking at the times of day when a burglary may have been committed it is better to analyze periods of the day e.g., when looking at offenses that took place during weekdays (in Boston), it can be seen that 53% occur sometime between 8 AM and 6 PM (when people are at work), 22% between 6 PM and 11 PM, and another 25% between midnight and 7 AM. It’s also interesting to note that 73% of all burglaries – again, in Boston - are reported on weekdays rather than on the weekend. This could suggest a couple of things concerning burglary e.g., that burglars avoid breaking into houses over the weekend because they know people are likely to be home, and/or that the weekends are a time when those who commit offenses spend time with family, friends etc., just like those who are engaged in legitimate employment. It is also interesting to note that there is little seasonal variation where burglary on weekends is concerned except for the winter months of December, January, and February, that account for only 20% of burglaries, with the other seasons accounting for 80% of offenses, divided almost equally. This is probably due to more people staying home over the weekend when the weather is cold and not as pleasant. This isn’t replicated for weekdays, where there is little seasonal variation concerning burglaries i.e., on a weekday people don’t have a choice about staying in or going out - to work - when the weather is bad. With occupancy, and the signs of occupancy, known to be one of the most significant deterrents for burglary, work routines, and inclement weather are going to be a factor in whether people stay home or go out.  Whilst burglaries in LA, almost follow the same pattern on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour basis compared to Boston and Philadelphia, they don’t follow the same seasonal/monthly pattern e.g., if you live in LA your house is almost as likely to get broken into in July as it is in December etc., something that is not the case in either Boston or Philadelphia. Winter in LA rarely sees temperatures dropping below the mid-60’s, so people are less likely to be staying indoors during those months compared to those who live in the Northeast, and are likely to hunker down at home when temperatures drop. Also, offenders may be put off by bad weather e.g., who wants to go out and commit a break-in when it’s snowing and below freezing? It’s much easier and more comfortable to stay indoors than go out looking for a restricted number of offending opportunities. When we look at crime, whether it’s a street robbery or a burglary, weather plays its part. In Summer too when there are heatwaves, more offenses are committed later at night, when temperatures cool down a bit. Street robberies have also been shown to be affected by the weather. A 2015 study by Bowers and Tompson, on the West Coast of Scotland, showed that the number of these offenses dropped when it was raining but only during the weekend, when travel was optional. In bad weather there was a reduced number of potential interactions between motivated offenders and suitable targets, leading to a reduction in crime. However, there may be a “cultural” aspect to the way that weather affects offending patterns e.g., as a locale gets used to seasonal weather patterns those living there may adapt, and learn to manage their routine activities, in line with the weather; people who live in wintry climates have learnt to live with snow and ice, and so don’t necessarily stay at home when the weather turns inclement, whereas a cold patch/spell in Florida or Texas is more likely to catch people by surprise and unprepared, and so their response may be to change their routines and the amount of time they spend at home avoiding going out into public spaces etc.        Research has shown that Journeys to Crime, concerning burglaries, are also affected by both weather and the time of day, with offenders making shorter journeys both later at night, as well as when the weather is bad etc. Offenders are as affected by the climate and the time of day as non-offenders e.g., someone needing to get groceries late at night and/or if it is snowing etc., is more likely to go somewhere closer than farther away. When we start to think of “crime” as a routine activity, that is similar in this way to legal pursuits, we get a better understanding and idea of how offenses are committed and weather, along with time of days affects such activities for all of us. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=690 Mon, 29 Apr 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=689 Last week I put on a hostage/abduction seminar for my students. This wasn’t a “sensational” seminar that looked at terrorist type situations, such as being a passenger on a hijacked plane, but one that looked at less “spectacular” situations e.g., incidents where an estranged partner who has been denied access rights (by the courts) to their children after the relationship ended, engages in a kidnapping or a “siege” situation; one where they barricade themselves and their ex and children members in their home etc. When the FBI first set up their HNU (Hostage Negotiation Unit), they designed it for dealing with terrorists, and bank robbers whose heist had gone wrong etc. What they soon found out, was that they weren’t dealing with organized individuals and groups who had a clear set of demands (the release of prisoners, a demand for a get-away vehicle etc.), but rather confused and desperate individuals who had somehow concluded that taking a hostage(s) was the only avenue open to them. Oftentimes, they didn’t have specific goals, or understand, if they did, how taking a hostage(s) would help them achieve them. This meant that many hostage situations were the result of some form of frustration, with negotiators having to assist the hostage taker in understanding why they decided to engage in such an action. In this article I want to use the phenomenon of “Stockholm Syndrome” to look at some of the different things that individuals who are taken hostage may experience.                 Perhaps the most notable thing about Stockholm Syndrome, is that it isn’t found in the DSM-5 (The American Psychiatric Association’s, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), or the ICD (the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) i.e., there is no accepted diagnostic criteria concerning it. In fact, there are many in the psychological/psychiatric community who don’t believe Stockholm Syndrome, was/is replicable outside of the incident which resulted in the coining of the term i.e., the 1973, eight-day bank siege in Stockholm, which saw the four hostages, bond and form positive relationships with their captors. There are those that see certain variables in that situation being so specific, that they are unlikely to be replicated in other incidents, meaning that Stockholm Syndrome (coined by criminologist/psychiatrist, Nils Bejerot) can explain what happened in this particular incident but not in others i.e., it is unscientific. Those who are skeptical about it will point to its rarity e.g., even if the idea of Stockholm Syndrome is defined simply as captives becoming sympathetic to/with their captors, this very rarely happens. One explanation for this is that anything akin to Stockholm Syndrome takes a degree of time to develop, and only a few hostage situations go beyond a few days. Relationships take time to form, and the general speed at which most incidents are resolved means that there simply isn’t the time for all parties to even begin to start forming them. In the initial hours of an incident the roles of captive and captor are very clear, and usually well maintained. Both parties are finding their feet and need to maintain these roles to survive. It takes time for captors to relax and let their guard down somewhat. In a prolonged incident it may be simply down to boredom that all parties start to open up, and social bonds can be formed. If Stockholm Syndrome does exist then it is a much more specific, rather than general, phenomenon.                 This doesn’t mean that those doubting the existence of Stockholm Syndrome don’t recognize that captives and captors in hostage situations, or indeed other traumatic situations can’t bond. When humans are threatened we do exhibit attachment behaviors i.e., we look for others either remote or in-person to help us. George Floyd as he was dying called for his mother, as did Daunte Wright. When we recognize that we are unable to control and/or solve an extreme, desperate, and traumatic situation we naturally look for others to do it for us. Sometimes, the only people to “attach” to are those who have power in the situation i.e., the captors. These are the individuals who have the power to make the uncertainty go away. Acts, such as providing food may be attributed to the captors rather than the authorities (who actually provided it), as they ultimately are in the position to deny it. This “bond” however can go both ways, and captors can begin to see themselves as having responsibilities of care towards those they have taken hostage, changing the way that they initially saw them as “objects”, to seeing them as people/individuals. This ultimately can result in a hostage’s survival, as they are no longer seen as purely expendable objects that can be used to obtain a goal. Jan-Erik Olsson, who was the leader of the hostage takers in the 1973 incident in Stockholm, said of the captives, “It was the hostages’ fault…they did everything I told them to do. If they hadn’t, I might not be here now. Why didn’t any of them attack me? They made it hard to kill. They made us go on living day after day, like goats in that filth. There was nothing to do but get to know each other.”                 Whilst any hostage situation is going to be traumatic at some point it seems that “humanizing” yourself is a good survival strategy. This is probably not something that should be initially attempted when captors are stressed and haven’t yet got control of the situation, however if the incident progresses, presenting yourself as a person rather than an object may result in better treatment, and possibly less trauma after the event is over. It is always worth reminding ourselves that statistically, most hostage scenarios end peacefully without anyone harmed, and so a careful evaluation as to whether fighting back or attempting to escape once captive should be undertaken rather than being seen as the default response. This doesn’t necessarily hold true if an abduction phase precedes it, as this may in fact represent the best time and opportunity to make an escape.               https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=689 Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=688 Most violence occurs due to bad social interactions. Sometimes, as in the case of the Apple River Stabbing, it leads to a fatality. In this incident, 54-year-old, Nicolae Miu, fatally stabbed 17-year-old, Isaac Schuman, and injured four others during a fight. Despite the incident being captured on video, it is unclear what the fight was actually about, and why Miu engaged with the group of teenagers in the first place. The legal question that was being asked last Thursday was whether Miu acted in self-defense i.e., did he pull the knife and stab Schuman because he feared for his safety or instead, was his intent to punish the teenager or seek some retribution for a perceived injustice committed against him. The Jury decided that Miu was guilty of first-degree reckless homicide while using a dangerous weapon, along with four counts of recklessly (first-degree), endangering safety while using a dangerous weapon and one count of battery (he also punched a girl). Although Miu had originally been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, the ambiguities in the case led to the jury deciding on the lesser charges which had been made available to them. In this article I want to look at the Apple River Stabbing, more as a cautionary tale, than as a legal case. As in many violent events, all parties made “mistakes”, and the incident could have been avoided, and it’s a tragedy that a life was lost. However, there are lessons that can be taken from it, and applied to our own personal safety.                 When Miu initially engaged with the group of teenagers, who were wading and socializing in the river, he probably had a “script” in his head of how everything was going to play out. His claim that he went over to that part of the river where the group was to look for his friend’s lost mobile phone lacks credibility. Schuman’s friend, Jawahn Cockfield, who captured the cell phone video, testified that he’d started filming Miu before the fight occurred because he thought he was acting/looking suspicious. One of the group, Owen Peloquin, testified that after Miu sprinted through the water towards them, the group started calling him a pedophile; whether the group had taunted him with this insult beforehand and this had caused him to approach them is unclear. For whatever reason Miu initially approached them, he probably had an “outcome” in mind e.g., he’d say some words to this younger group, they’d apologize, and the situation would end with them being taught a lesson, and him walking away feeling that justice had been done etc. He might have been working from the assumption that young people would naturally back down to someone who was older and more senior than them. It’s unlikely that he expected the response he got. Rather than back down and follow his “script” – which undoubtedly saw him emerge as the victor in some capacity – the group responded by shouting at him and pushing him into the water. They were working to their own script(s). Sometimes when we engage with people, we think they are going to be reasonable, and act rationally towards us. We naively/simplistically believe that if we can just explain to them why they are in the wrong, or acting in a problematic manner, they will listen to our reason, agree with us, and change their behavior(s) – we don’t expect them to respond aggressively or violently. Miu, actively engaged with the group, and got a response he probably wasn’t expecting. This alone would have been enough to catch him by surprise, and it is likely that he had no “back-up” plan for dealing with the turn the situation had taken. The lesson here, is that if for whatever reason you choose to engage with an individual or a group, understand that events may not follow your “script” and lead to your intended/imagined outcome(s).                 So Miu is now on his back, in the water, surrounded by a group of teenagers, who are laughing at him. He’s a 54-year-old man, who’s not small or slight by any means and has been put on his arse by a skinny teenager. We can assume he is shocked and surprised, as well as embarrassed, and he’s just entered an unpredictable world. His ego has taken a knock, and he is likely wondering how he’s going to get out of this situation. In my experience working security, I have often found, after talking to people who got themselves into physically violent situations, that they thought they were legally entitled to do so, even when they weren’t. They believed in that moment that the law was on their side, simply because they were “right” i.e., their sense of morality and justice was protected by the law. As he sat/lay in the water Miu, probably felt that he had the “right” to use his knife: a string of injustices had been committed against him, the group needed to be taught a lesson, and because there were more of them, he had the right to use his weapon etc. When you are feeling justified to use any type of force due to a multitude of reasons, beliefs, and feelings it is likely that the law won’t back you up; if one of your motivations is to get back at an individual, and/or gain back some self-respect, the law makes no provision for that. More importantly from a legal perspective if the optics are bad – such as with Miu, who engaged with the group, rather than them engaging with him – even if your motive is that of “survival” you may have a hard time convincing a jury of this. It is also important to note that after Miu was pushed into the river, none of the teenagers followed him there, either to stomp/kick him, or to wrestle with him etc. When Miu stood up, and pulled his knife, even if scared, he wasn’t exactly in imminent danger when he started to stab people; something that likely affected his claim of self-defense. One lesson here is to be aware of optics. This is a jury trial and how things “look” is important when making a claim of self-defense. Another takeaway is the importance of learning the requirements of making a claim of “self-defense”, and not to assume that your sense of morality and righteousness are equitable with the law (or protected by it).                 The tragedy of the Apple River Stabbing is that it was completely avoidable. If the group had been jeering, taunting, and shouting at Miu, he should have put his ego to one side and ignored them. If he hadn’t been carrying a knife, he wouldn’t have stabbed anyone, and from the video footage of the teenagers, if he’d got up and walked away, my guess is that they would have probably let him, though he’d have had to endure their laughter and taunting etc. For me, another important takeaway is that Miu probably didn’t fully understand the damage that a knife can cause e.g., one of Miu’s other victims, A. J. Martin, had to hold his own intestines in and was hospitalized for 27 days. A knife, unlike pepper/OC-spray can’t be considered as a less than lethal weapon, and if carried should be looked on in the same way, with the same responsibilities, as carrying a firearm, rather than as something lesser. Miu has yet to be sentenced, and depending on the judge he could be looking at a custodial sentence in excess of 40-years, however if he’d simply walked away and accepted the hit to his ego, this all could have been avoided.                https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=688 Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=687 I like people, probably prefer dogs, but I’m not a big fan of “unnecessary” social interactions. I actively/deliberately choose gas/petrol stations that are self-service, so I don’t have to make small talk to an attendant, and I have always been a fan of the self-checkout in supermarkets for the same reason. If I don’t need to talk to you, I don’t want to. To some this may seem rude, but I’m more at ease in my world than in anybody else’s, and often “unnecessary” social interactions take me away from mine and make me uncomfortable. I only started working in pub/bar security because I needed the money, and at the time believed I had the skillset to do it; something I quickly found out that I didn’t – I could, to some extent, do the “physical” part, but it took me awhile to learn how to effectively communicate, de-escalate, and deflect etc., which really are the bread and butter of the job. Like most people I hate social awkwardness e.g., those interactions where you have to say “no”, to what other people see as reasonable/common sense. I see why a person wearing a pair of immaculate $300 sneakers/trainers isn’t going to understand why they’ve been refused entry to a club, after watching a person with a pair of scruffy $50 dress shoes get admitted, because the club’s policy is no sneakers/trainers etc. I get it, the policy in that instance doesn’t really make sense. I’ve had people ask me why they couldn’t come into an establishment that had a no jeans rule, when they were wearing a designer label, which cost them most of a regular person’s monthly salary. I never really had a good argument to such questions, other than that the rules are the rules, and I didn’t make them i.e., I’m just here to enforce them. These were – at least in the beginning – situations for me that were extremely socially awkward. Fortunately, after a while, and after enough of them, you get used to dealing with them. However, most people aren’t regularly exposed to such interactions, and find it hard to deal with socially awkward situations, and difficult to say “no”, when they should. Something that predatory individuals exploit.                 At the time of writing this I’m 52 years of age. I couldn’t name a Taylor Swift song, don’t have a Tik-Tok account, and have no idea if the jeans I wear are out of fashion, or have rotated back into fashion etc. In one sense I’m pretty out of touch with the current world, and many younger people may question the relevance of my experience, just as I questioned that of older people when I was younger etc. However, I have spent enough time working in pubs and especially clubs, watching predatory individuals ply their trade. In many, many cases this involved pressuring other people - using social awkwardness - into capitulating to their demand. I have seen men bullied into buy drinks for other men, sometimes for entire groups, in order to avoid getting deeper into an already socially awkward situation. I’ve seen women, consensually but reluctantly, go home with men that they’d wished they hadn’t met, to avoid having to further deal with a socially awkward situation, and the perceived/imagined consequences of saying “no” etc. I stopped working the door a number of years ago, but I don’t imagine that these scenarios have disappeared or changed. Human beings understand the power of persistence, and how we as individuals are not good at dealing with and navigating social awkward situations. I’m terrible at doing this by default, which is why I avoid supermarket checkouts, and gas station attendants, who I only have reason to believe, are at the most, going to ask how my day is going etc. That’s the type of social pressure I have trouble dealing with and so am certainly not judging others who succumb to more intense pressure/social awkwardness. There is probably not a woman on this planet, who hasn’t experienced the advances of a man, who just keeps chip, chip, chipping away at her polite, but maybe not explicit, responses of “No”. There may be some men who pat themselves of the back at their “powers of persuasion”, of being able to turn a “No”, into a “Yes”, without realizing that the “Yes”, was a reluctant one, which only came about to relieve a socially awkward situation they had created.                 One of the reasons we often succumb to social pressure, in order to avoid social awkwardness, is because we believe it gives us an end to a current interaction/problem, which we will be able to deal with later e.g., if someone at a bar is pressuring us to let them buy a drink for us, we believe that agreeing to this demand, will relieve the immediate pressure, and allow us to gain a “credit” that we can cash in later – I wasn’t being rude, I had a drink with you, now you should leave me alone etc. However, these are entryway behaviors, and by acquiescing to a “small” demand, we may find it ever harder to say “no” to “greater” ones. Predatory individuals are skilled at identifying those of us who have difficulty saying no or maintaining our identity in socially awkward situations. I have written before about a sexual predator who used to watch and observe women pushing shopping carts in supermarkets. He’d watch for someone who quickly apologized, when it wasn’t their fault, after someone else had bumped into them. His assumption was that when someone took the blame for another person’s mistake, it was because they were uncomfortable dealing with socially awkward situations i.e., they took the blame to avoid being involved in one. His largely correct conclusion being that when he confronted them in the parking lot, they wouldn’t reject his request for them to get into his car with him.                 I was fortunate that I was educated to say “no” and ignore/deal with socially awkward situations when I started working the door e.g., no sneakers/trainers, no jeans, that was the pub’s/club’s policy etc. My job involved saying “no”, sometimes when personally it didn’t make sense; yep, your jeans and trainers are smarter than that other guy’s shoes and pants etc. None of this came easy to me though and it went against my personality, which is largely about avoiding confrontation, finding a work-around, and saying “yes”. But I was fortunate enough to be put in a role where this wasn’t allowed, and rules had to be enforced. These are “rules”, and an education, that I work to today. I’ll entertain discussion and debate, but my “no” isn’t something I go back on, because whilst most people may not exploit this, there are others who may, and saying “no”, and sticking to it, is actually the quickest way to end a socially awkward situation. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=687 Mon, 08 Apr 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=686 For the first part of the 20th Century it was thought, in many academic circles, that crime was largely the result and product of poverty; with the solution to reducing crime rates being the reduction of poverty. Then something “strange” happened: the post-war crime rate started to soar despite a dramatic increase in incomes and the standard of living (an article about this can be accessed here). The causal link between poverty and crime seemed to have been broken, or at the very least substantially weakened. However, a confusing fact remained: the areas/neighborhoods within a city that had the highest crime rates were most often the poorest and most economically deprived ones. This suggested that low incomes had to play a part to some degree in increasing crime rates etc. This led to some criminologists looking at the effects of income inequality on crime; asking the question, “Whilst there might not be a direct link between poverty and crime, do crime rates increase when those who have nothing/too little see those around them having more?” Some theorists postulated that an individual who felt economically marginalized may decide after making an internal “cost-benefit” decision that the risk of engaging in crime was worth taking because the rewards of illegal activities were far greater than anything they could attain via legal means e.g., standing on a corner selling drugs was a far more profitable venture than working in a fast-food restaurant for minimum wage etc. However, whilst this may be a motivating factor for some offenders, the numbers didn’t really add up and couldn’t explain certain types of crimes; and there was a statistical issue. Most of the research used income data to compare it with crime rates. The problem being that offenders don’t have access to this data e.g., they don’t know what other people are earning, and so they can’t make a rational choice as to whether crime pays or not. This led two criminologists (Hicks & Hicks, 2014), to look at how visible signs of income inequality affect offending.                 Their study looked at how people’s spending on cars, eating out, going to cinemas and theatres etc., affected crime i.e., types of spending that could be observed by others e.g., people don’t necessarily know what others in their neighborhood actually earn but make assumptions based on the car(s) they see them driving, the quality of their garden furniture, how they dress etc. It is this visible consumption that creates a sense of equality or inequality. Using government data on spending in different areas and comparing it with rates of offending, Hicks & Hicks were able to find certain correlations. Criminal acts such as theft and vandalism along with other property crimes were largely unaffected by visible spending, however it appeared that spikes in consumption matched those associated with acts of violence such as murder and assault. This suggests that any relationship with visible income inequality is more likely to be an emotional one than a rational one e.g., if seeing someone driving a nice car, made a person want to upgrade their vehicle it is likely that they would engage in some form of property crime which would yield a financial return which they could use to buy a newer/better car etc. It would appear that the crimes that are affected by such spending/income inequality are more likely to be expressive, rather than instrumental, crimes that target others without any tangible return/rewards. The authors argue that one of the criminological theories that may help to explain such behaviors/actions is Merton’s Strain Theory. Merton saw offending as largely a reaction to the idea of the “American Dream”. He saw that not everyone would be able to attain it (or even wanted to attain it) which would create “strain”, and people would therefore react to this strain in a number of ways. There might be a shop owner who struggles to pay their mortgage, take their family on holiday, put food on the table etc., and worries each month that they won’t be able to pay the bills. This individual is feeling the “strain” of living the American Dream. If they are approached by a local drug dealer who is looking for somewhere to store their stash, this shopkeeper may agree to do so, relieving some of the financial strain they are experiencing. This is just one way that a person may act to relieve their strain. From this study it appears more likely that people relieve their strain through acts of violence, rather than by calculated methods that would see them get ahead financially; that rather than trying to calculate a way to relieve their strain, they react violently in the moment due to an underlying sense of frustration at failing to accomplish what others around them seem to have done. It could be that an individual who is struggling economically finds themselves in an upmarket part of the city, where everyone around them is wearing expensive suits etc., reminding them of their place on the economic ladder when someone suddenly/accidentally bumps into them, causing the individual to physically lash out, rather than acknowledge it as an accident.                 Those who engage in street robberies will sometimes talk about targeting well-dressed/rich looking people, not because they believe they will have a lot of cash on them (poorer people tend to be more likely to carry cash than wealthier individuals who mainly use credit cards), but because they want to bring them down, and demonstrate to them that although they may be higher on the economic ladder, in this moment they lack any power or control over the situation. We are social creatures, and we can’t help but compare ourselves to others, and we all have different reactions and responses when doing so. There will be those who feel the strain when they appear not to be as “successful” and economically rewarded as others, and this may make them more likely to react violently when they feel “challenged” in some way. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=686 Mon, 01 Apr 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=685 The term “scientific” gets bandied around a lot on social media when people want to validate their opinions. However, when you apply a scientific process to a research question you have to do so openly, and with the expectation that your question may receive a negative or inconclusive result. One of the pieces of research I engaged in while completing my second master’s degree was prompted by the question, “Do burglars travel further to commit their offenses than street robbers?”. This was translated into the hypothesis, “Burglars travel further to commit their offenses that offenders who engage in street robbery.” The results? Using a dataset from a city in Massachusetts, I couldn’t support my hypothesis. It appeared that those who engaged in each type of offense were equally opportunistic. I had incidents of burglary in the same apartment building where the offender lived, and street robberies that literally occurred on the doorstep of an offender’s home etc. By applying the same process to each type of offense, I had a “scientific” basis for this conclusion. The same is true when you do an analysis of crime hotspots. Applying the same methodology to auto theft, as I did to street robberies, drug-related offenses, and theft, there were no “unexplainable” hotspots e.g., a “hotspot” in Dorchester was easily explainable by population density and a high level of car ownership etc. The point of any research should be to provide practical answers/solutions to an audience, beyond just the researcher. One of the questions that I wanted an answer to, after discovering hotspots that centered around parking garages in the South End of Boston, was whether it was safer to park your car in a garage, or on the street, as the hotspots indicated that street parking seemed safer. However, when you considered that many of these garages were multi-level, and accounted for the extra geographic space, that each level “added” to the footprint of the garage, the answer was that on a space/car density perspective, these hotspots “disappeared”. In this article I want to look at some of the other aspects of auto theft in Boston, that can better inform us about this type of offense. In environmental criminology there is an underlying assumption that most crime is committed as a result of people’s routine activities; the things that people do day-to-day e.g., a person with a dispensation for committing street robberies, comes across a suitable target, as they are on their way to buy a six pack from a liquor store etc. This is why we would expect – and generally see – an uptake in muggings during the summer months; with longer days and more people, including offenders, out in public the opportunities increase. However, when we consider auto theft in Boston, these types of offenses don’t really follow seasonal trends. Whilst the majority of auto thefts tend to occur in the latter half of the year (June through to December), when the numbers are averaged out, the difference between any two months of the year isn’t significant. This suggests that auto theft is not so much the result of offenders stumbling across opportunities but involves more committed offenders who actively seek them out. One of the explanations given for the significant/dramatic reduction in crime rates that occurred after 1993, was what is referred to as the security hypothesis. This states that the increase in both the quantity and quality of security was the key driver in reducing the crime rate, especially with offenses that related to property crime such as vehicles and houses etc. With the introduction of central locking and immobilizers as standard features in vehicles it made breaking into and stealing cars much more difficult, requiring specialist knowledge and tools to do so. This is why older rather than newer cars are often targeted for theft, especially when the goal is transportation/joyriding (still the largest reason cars are stolen), rather than to be sold on either in their entirety or for parts (often more common due to the difficulty in tracing parts). Research from the UK has shown that automobile theft is most common in residential areas where cars are parked on the streets, rather than in a driveway or a garage. Being able to park a car in a home garage makes the risk of theft almost negligible, whilst parking on the street increases the chances significantly. It has also been found that it is more likely for a car to be stolen if it is parked close to lower socio-economic areas e.g., if you live in a “middle class” part of a city or town but in a house/on a street, that is located near a more economically deprived area, you are at a greater risk of having you car stolen than someone who lives “deeper” into your neighborhood. As inconvenient as it may be, if you have to use street parking, it may be worth parking your car a few streets over, if your locale is one which is at risk of automobile theft. Environmental criminology refers to these overlapping areas between neighborhoods as “edges”. These edges often offer better offending opportunities as they are areas of natural mobility with more strangers moving within them compared to residential areas where the only people who are likely to have a “genuine” reason to be there are those who live there i.e., non-residents/strangers are more likely to stand out and be identifiable in such areas.                Whilst vehicle theft appears to be largely committed by active offenders, opportunity does play a part. This can be seen when looking at thefts involving scooters and motorbikes. One significant hotspot that appears when these are added to the data is in Allston, with others in Back Bay and the South End. It may be that scooter and motorcycle ownership represent a more efficient mode of transport for inner city residents. However, motorcycle and scooter thefts do follow a seasonal pattern, unlike cars etc. The months of June through to October (5 months), account for almost 75% of all thefts. These are the months in Boston and Massachusetts, which are more conducive to riding than the winter and spring months. This may suggest that for these months of the year motorcycles and scooters are garaged and locked away. One of the things which significantly reduced motorcycle thefts in the UK and Europe was mandating that helmets had to be worn, and the passing of such laws didn’t see an increase in car thefts, indicating that the majority of such crimes were purely opportunistic; if you chose to commit a crime without wearing a helmet there was a good chance that law enforcement would stop you. This would suggest that most motorcycle and scooter thefts since the passing of the helmet law would be premeditated crimes committed by individuals with an end game. One finding that is significant, and that can be seen when the radius of the hotspot is widened to a 3km range, is that auto theft largely occurs outside of the city center and towards the south of Boston, in North Dorchester, around Uphams Corner. Whilst car crime and auto theft is something many people are aware of when coming into city centers, in Boston it appears to be more of a residential crime, with most offenses occurring between 12 pm and 1 am(71%), and occurring fairly evenly, across these hours; a car is almost as likely to be stolen between 12 and 1 pm, as it is between 12 and 1 am. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=685 Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=684 I last week’s article I looked at some meso-level (middle level) Boston crime hotspots,concerning street robberies/muggings and drug offenses, and how both types of crime werebasically found in the same general areas. In this article I want to look specifically atpersonal/private theft hotpots to examine how these differ and look at some of the reasons thatallow such hotspots to get created. In next week’s article I want to look at auto theft in Bostonand how this differs between different types of vehicles along with the seasonal/temporalaspects and the way these effect crime hotspots. The terms theft, larceny and stealing are basically/colloquially acts where an individualtakes/removes another person’s property with the intent of permanently depriving them of it.They differ from robbery in that no force or threat of force is used e.g., if a person picks yourpocket, or breaks the lock off your bike and then rides off on it, there was never a real or impliedrisk that you’d get hurt or injured in the process. This can sometimes make it difficult todetermine whether a bag or purse snatch constitutes a theft or a robbery, as some degree offorce may be used in taking it from its rightful owner. A useful measure to determining whichoffense the incident should be classified as, is to determine whether an excessive amount offorce was used for the offender to obtain it e.g., did they unnecessarily push the victim, ratherthan simply grabbing the bag etc. As pointed out last week, the datasets used to create theseheatmaps are based off of BPD (Boston Police Department) incident reports for 2015 to 2022;although I have incident reports predating 2015, in 2015 there was a change in the reportingsoftware used, and the “old” classification codes aren’t easily transferable to the new system. My general methodology when looking at hotspots is to start at the meso-level (somewherebetween 1 and 2 kilometers), which roughly responds to a neighborhood or district (at the citylevel; this differs when studying crime in rural communities), and then drill/dial down to findindividual, micro-level hotspots. The heatmap above looks at theft hotspots that have a 250-meter radius, so these are relatively concentrated areas. The heatmaps shown when combinedat the meso-level represent Boston’s most identifiable theft crime hotspot. Apart from this CityCenter/Back Bay hotspot, theft is much more geographically spread out across the city. For thisreason, I decided to break this area down and look at theft at a more concentrated level. There are four easily distinguishable hotspots, and a fifth less significant one, around the HynesConvention Center (furthest left). The most significant and concentrated is around DowntownCrossing, which is not surprising as this has one of the highest concentrations of transit stops inthe city, reflecting the way in which the area is used. It is also largely pedestrianized, meaningthat it will in all likelihood attract and concentrate a larger number of people in it than a non-pedestrianized area. Another significant factor in such areas relates to the types ofestablishments that operate there. In Routine Activity Theory, one of the things whichcontributes to an incident of crime is the lack of a capable guardian. Jane Jacobs who wrote, the“Life and Death of the American City”, wrote about her time living in the East Village of NewYork, and how she always felt safe because her neighbors knew who everyone was and whatthey did in the neighborhood, and so had “eyes on the street”. For a long time, it was generallythought that “eyes on the street” were synonymous with natural surveillance e.g., if a burglarcould be seen breaking into a house, they wouldn’t do so. However, it is now understood is thatit’s not just about having “eyes on the street”; those looking must have some investment inpreventing offenses from taking place. A shopworker, working in a chain or “big box” store, onminimum wage has much less incentive reporting a crime taking place outside or near theirplace of work than a business owner who knows that if potential customers stop coming to theirestablishment due to a fear of crime they are going to be directly, financially impacted.Persistent offenders understand when those in the areas that they offend in have little incentiveto get involved in stopping them. Both the Downtown Crossing and the Boylston Street hotspots(especially the most concentrated one, located in front of the Prudential Shopping Center) are inareas that house name-brand stores where the individuals working there aren’t directlyimpacted by them becoming high-crime areas. This is not to say that this is the only reason whythese areas have become hotspots, however it is one of the factors. The lack of guardianship in how certain areas become crime hotspots can also be understood inreverse i.e., why crime rates are reduced in an area when guardianship increases. Whilst thegentrifications of high-crime neighborhoods can have negative consequences, such as forcinglong-term residents – who were a stabilizing influence in the community – out, due to increasedhousing costs etc., often one of the positive influences that such projects have is to bring insmall and private business enterprises such as restaurants, small grocery store owners and thelike i.e., individuals who will report crime, and act as the “eyes on the street” . Even newresidents, who have decided to “invest” in an upcoming neighborhood, attracted by the relativelycheaper housing compared to other “safer”, but more expensive, areas they may haveconsidered, will want their property to increase in value, which will involve a reduction in thecrime rate. Such individuals may also find themselves acting as the “eyes on the street”, due totheir vested interest in seeing crime go down, not just due to personal reasons but due tofinancial reasons as well. Whilst an employee who has no financial stake in the company they work for (and this does notaccount for all employees), may care about becoming the victim of violent crime, they may careless about crimes they feel they can prevent or reduce victimization from e.g., if they know thelocale within which they work attracts many pick-pockets, they may believe that this is a crimethey will be able to avoid etc. In areas that attract a lot of suitable targets, its likely that area willalso attract a lot of motivated offenders, and without the presence of capable guardians (thosewho have an active investment in reducing crime), it is likely for crime incidents to gounchecked. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=684 Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=683 This is the first of three articles looking at crime hotspots in Boston, using Boston Police Department (BPD), incident reports (I’m using a dataset from 2015 to 2022). In this first article I want to look at the relationship between drug hotspots and robbery hotspots (those committed against individuals rather than commercial places). The second will look at property crime: theft/larceny against individuals, with the third looking at different types of auto-theft hotspots. Boston's Drug Hotspots When using incident reports to analyze crime hotspots, it’s important to recognize that some incidents are reported and other discovered e.g., an auto theft is likely to be reported by the owner, whereas a drug deal, is likely to be “discovered” by law enforcement. This difference also effects the statistics; most car owners will report the theft of a car in order to generate an incident report for insurance reasons, whereas a drug dealer is actively avoiding being caught and an incident report being generated. This is one of the reasons we can trust the true number of automobile thefts, far more than we can trust the true number of drug deals etc. It’s also why the numbers of auto theft are more likely to reflect the true nature of events than crimes such as robbery and petty theft, where those victimized, knowing that they’re unlikely to see their assets (property, cash, goods etc.) returned, decide not to report the crime e.g., having $30, stolen from you, and having to cancel your credit cards may not seem a serious enough event to warrant it being reported to law enforcement. When we look at incident reports that relate to “discovered” crimes, one of the things that needs to be considered is the number of officers patrolling an area, along with population density. This also highlights one of the issues with stop and search policies e.g., if we make an assumption that 10% of a city’s population uses illegal recreational drugs, and has possession of them at any particular time, and then look at a relatively small geographical area in the locale that houses 20% of the city’s population, if you initiate a stop and search policy, and compare it to a neighborhood that has 10% of the city’s population, then your stop and search policy is likely to be twice as “effective” when compared. If you then double the number of officers in that area who engage in stop and search, you double the “effectiveness” again. This is not to say that there isn’t merit, at times, for stopping and searching individuals, however it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where statistical success is seen as real success. Boston has two very distinct drug hotspots, one in the city center, and one in the South End. It has long been understood that certain types of institutions and organizations have a certain gravitational effect on crime i.e., they draw those with a tendency to offend towards them. One such institution is trauma hospitals i.e., those that have busy emergency rooms. At the center of the “South End” is Boston Medical Center. This hospital is the largest and busiest provider of emergency services, not just in Boston or Massachusetts but in the whole of New England. Whilst there are clusters of other hospitals in the Fenway/Kenmore area and towards the north of the city around Beacon Hill, these don’t illicit the same type of pull, that those hospitals in the South End do. Those who use illegal drugs understand the risks they are taking and being close to an emergency room where they can quickly be treated increases their survival chances, it also means that there is a greater chance of medical staff being in the locale who may be carrying Narcan, an opioid overdose treatment. It has also been estimated that an emergency department which sees around 75 000 patient visits a year, can expect that around 262 of the monthly visits they receive will be from fabricating drug-seeking patients i.e., those making up/fabricating a reason in order to receive opioid/pain medication (Hansen, 2005); Boston Medical Center had 1,108,461 visits the previous year. Where there are addicts, there will be dealers. Boston's Robbery Hotspots Boston’s drug hotspots are also its robbery hotspots – at the meso level i.e., this doesn’t mean that it contains Boston’s most prolific street segments and intersections, but rather that it contains the highest concentration, at a “neighborhood” level. The South End area, around the Boston Medical Center, is an area where statistically you are likely to be robbed at the same rate as its city center. Whilst the city center attracts significantly more people to it, BMC (Boston Medical Center) and its surrounding hospitals generate enough foot traffic, that it attracts both enough potential legitimate targets and motivated offenders, for it to create a hotspot. It is worth noting that some of those who commit robbery offenses may be visiting the hospital for legitimate reasons, and during the time they spend in and around the hospital, may find/spot offending opportunities. Such locations may also become areas of repeat victimization for those who work in these locations e.g., if you are a nurse, member of the maintenance team etc., you may regularly find yourself in the same location, at the same time, over, and over again. If there is a persistent offender who also finds that they share this space with you, because of their routine(s), the first time they victimize you may not be the last. Whilst too much emphasis is put on varying routes for safety etc., once you have been targeted it is worth attempting to avoid being in that location, at that time again. Once you have been victimized, changing routes and routines is worth doing; not so much as to appear “random” but so as to avoid re-victimization. Next week’s article will look at auto theft, how certain areas of Boston are hotspots for this type of offense, and how there are different hotspots for the theft of automobiles and motorbikes i.e., they are distinct and different. The article will also look at how theft and robbery differ by geography. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=683 Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=682 This article draws from a dataset provided by Boston PD, of incident reports concerning shootings in Boston between January 2015 and January 2024. The dataset focuses on the victimology (the age, gender, ethnicity etc.) of those shot and doesn’t note what the actual incident was. However, looking at and using other datasets provided by the BPD, these shootings are likely to be the result of assaults, verbal disputes and incidents taking place in private dwellings/homes etc. Out of all the shootings in Boston, only around 0.7% involve violent offenses such as robberies – this doesn’t mean that firearms weren’t present in a greater number of these crime incidents, just that they were rarely ever used. So, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), it is likely that the vast majority of these shootings were spontaneous affairs, rather than professional and/or planned events etc. 89% of those who were shot were male (in 17% of cases the shootings were fatal), with 11% being female, and around 12% of these incidents resulting in a fatality. The difference in fatalities may be that in certain instances women are not the “primary” target but are bystanders who are hit by gunfire that isn’t intended for them e.g., they receive wounds on their peripheries rather than towards the head or the center of the body, were major organs are located, making their injuries ones that are less likely to be fatal. One statistic that might add support to this idea, is that women are significantly more likely to be shot when a shooting involves multiple victims i.e., in around 40% of shootings where women are victims, there are multiple victims, compared with less than 30% for men; men are much more likely to be single victims, than women. Women are also much more likely to be shot between the hours of 11 pm and 1 AM than men, which coincides with the times when the most multi-victim shootings occur (around 30% of all multi-victim shootings occur within these two hours, with around 30% of all female shootings also occurring at these times). This may also add weight to the argument that in many shootings that see women getting shot, they are not the intended target, or may be a “secondary” target. During the week (including Fridays), shootings where men are the victims, are fairly stable e.g., there is little difference between the number of shootings on a Monday compared to a Wednesday, or a Friday etc. This is not the case where women are the victims. For both genders, approximately 60% of shootings occur during the week and 40% on the weekends. Women are significantly more likely to be shot on a Monday or a Friday than men, and on these days are twice as likely to shot between the hours of 5 PM and 7 PM as men. This could indicate that as well as being unintended targets, women could also be the victims of starts and end of the working  week stress, where they are shot after returning home from work by intimate partners etc. The summer months see the greatest number of people being shot, with June, July, and August accounting for almost 40% of all shootings in Boston. These are also the months that see the greatest number of multi-victim shootings (over 40%). All of this makes sense as this is the time of year when people are out in public, and the number of potentially bad social interactions increases. Nearly 75% of all shootings in Boston occur in three neighborhoods: Dorchester (42%), Roxbury (23%), and Mattapan (9%). This is despite these three neighborhoods together accounting for 30% of the city of Boston’s entire population (Dorchester, 19%; Roxbury, 8%; and Mattapan 4%). When looking at ethnicity/race, White (4%) and Asian (0.5%) people make up less than 5% of all shooting victims. The majority are Black/African Americans (75%), and Hispanic or Latinx (21%). When it comes to gender and race, Asian women (12%) are more likely to be shot than white women (7%), however the sample size for all Asians is so small that it would be wrong to draw such a conclusion. Regardless of race/ethnicity roughly 10% of all shooting victims are women, and 90% are men – the main differences being the days and times at which they get shot. Boston is a relatively safe large city, with theft and petty larceny making up the majority of crime. For an American “large” city it has very little violent crime and most of that is located in the areas that also have the highest numbers of shootings. Like all city crime, it is concentrated in a few street segments and corners/intersections, and these tend to remain relatively stable over time. Avoiding being out late at night/early in the morning, especially during the summer months will statistically reduce your chances of being the victim of a shooting. Whilst you may have “legitimate” business being in a public space, late at night e.g., making your way home, waiting for a bus etc., not everyone in that same space at that same time may have a “legitimate” reason to be there. There are times when we might want to “up” our situational awareness and be more interested in our environment, and knowing where and when violence is likely to take place allows us to do this. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=682 Mon, 04 Mar 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=681 The saying, “an English man’s home is his castle”, is often used to say/suggest that people have the right to do what they want in their home (including how they defend themselves, others, and their property when it), and that others – including the state – have no right impinging on this. This is certainly how Tony Martin interpreted it. His farmhouse, Bleak House in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk had been burgled before. The 1990’s had been a decade that had seen a sharp rise in crime, especially burglaries, in rural communities like his. Police de-funding had also meant that many smaller police stations had been closed down, resulting in the reduction of a police presence in these areas. This combination meant that many people in rural communities felt vulnerable, with some expressing anger at the police’s inability to both prevent and solve crimes. Tony Martin was one of these who had made his feelings known at several community events and town hall meetings etc. He had also, in 1994, taken the law into his own hands when he shot a hole in the back of a man’s car who he believed had been stealing apples from his farm. Martin had equipped himself with an illegally owned pump action shotgun; following the incident, his firearms license was revoked, and the shotgun that he had used in this incident, confiscated. On the evening of the 20th of August 1999, three career criminals drove down from Nottinghamshire (a journey of just under 100 miles), to break into Bleak House, in the search for antiques. Although Tony Martin didn’t know their plan, he’d been expecting something like this to happen, and was ready, waiting to act. When two of the burglars, 29-year-old Brendon Fearon, and 16-year-old Fred Barras broke in, Martin shot down the stairs, into the darkness, hitting the two of them. First, in the stairwell looking to make their way up, and twice more as they fled and climbed out of the window they’d entered through. Both were hit in the legs, but Barras was also shot in the back, something that was to prove fatal. At the trial, the Jury chose a verdict of murder over manslaughter and rejected Martin’s claim of “self-defense”, as at the time of the shooting there was no evidence he was in imminent danger i.e., when he fired the first shot neither Fearon or Barras were at a range/distance where he would have found himself in imminent danger, and the second two shots were fired as the pair were fleeing/retreating etc. The verdict divided opinion in the UK: there were those who believed, “an English man’s home is his castle”, and others who argued that the law of self-defense – as it is in the UK – should apply regardless of location etc. In 2001 an appeal saw his sentence reduced on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and Martin was released in July 2003. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss whether Tony Martin was morally and/or legally justified to have used the level of force he did or make arguments for or against “Castle Doctrine” etc., but rather to examine something called “Forward Panic”, a concept created by sociologist Randall Collins. A “Forward Panic” is created when there is tension and fear in a conflict situation. However, whilst in many violent interactions, the tension and fear are experienced in the moment of the conflict, when there is a “Forward Panic”, these things are the result of a prolonged build up to the conflict itself. Even before the “confrontation” with Fearon and Barras, Tony Martin was ready and prepared to defend himself and his home; he’d been broken into before and saw his community as becoming lawless with private citizens needing to act because the police were impotent to do so. When given the opportunity to relieve this built-up fear and tension, Tony Martin experienced an emotional explosion – this was the release he needed. The idea of “Forward Panic” is based on 19th Century military theorist, Ardant du Picq’s, observation of something that repeatedly happened in battle: a “Flight to the Front”. This happened when panicked soldiers rushed to engage the enemy because they didn’t have a choice of retreating. They weren’t emotionally in “fight” mode, but in “flight”, however their situation saw them as only being able to engage because disengagement wasn’t seen to be an option. This saw them not behaving as a disciplined army but as a group of individuals overcome by emotion/panic who began to act recklessly. Collins explains many of the acts of violence perpetrated by law-enforcement after high-speed car chases as an act of “forward panic” e.g., during the chase officers are in a high state of emotional tension, especially if they are being fired at and/or having objects thrown at them etc. When they eventually catch up with the perpetrators they may engage in acts of unnecessary violence – not because they are inherently violent people – but because they are relieving the fear and tension of a “forward panic”. The reason that the idea of “forward panic” is important to those of us who study martial arts and reality-based self-defense systems is that we don’t want to find ourselves succumbing to it. I have lost count of the times I have heard people in real life or on social media talk about what they would do to someone who broke into their house/home, almost wishing that someone would, because they’d be able to dispense some righteous judgment etc. Whilst they may believe they’re presenting an air of “toughness” it is much more likely that they are talking from a state of fear and tension i.e., even feeling the need to say such things, speaks more about fear than anything else. If we are in state, even a low one, of “forward panic” (Tony Martin was in a high one), we may find ourselves making bad judgment calls e.g., most “home invasions” are committed by individuals who are family members who have forgotten their keys, or by people drunkenly mistaking someone else’s home for theirs etc., rather than genuine offenders. If we are living in a state of “forward panic” we may react in fear/high emotion rather than properly evaluating the incident.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=681 Mon, 26 Feb 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=680 I’m coming out of my comfort zone with this opening paragraph i.e., I know nothing about basketball. This shouldn’t be important concerning the point I’m trying to make, but if I get some technicalities wrong, please excuse me. Few basketball players free shoot using a “Granny Shot”, where you squat and throw underhand rather than standing upright and throwing overhand. One of the reasons cited is that shooting this way makes the player “look silly”. That’s a direct quote from Wilt Chamberlain who despite using it in the 1961-62 season - which saw him having the highest free scoring record of his career - reverted back to taking shots using the traditional overhand method, because he thought shooting this way made him look like “a sissy”. Chamberlain, a competitive athlete, was concerned about the way he looked in front of fans, even though he was better and more effective athlete using the “Granny Shot.” There is a similar pride and machismo that exists in the martial arts. One that sees punching with a closed fist, and connecting with the knuckles, being viewed as superior to striking with the palm/open hand. At the end of the day, when it comes to dealing with violence, all that ultimately matters is getting the job done, and how you look/appear as you do this is largely irrelevant, except from a legal perspective e.g., does it really matter if the strike that creates a safe disengagement opportunity for you is delivered via a “traditional” punch, or an open-handed palm strike? Yet there exists with some a belief that “how” you do something is an important aspect of fighting; that there is something “noble” about a punch and something “cheap” about an eye-rake, gouge, rip and/or open-palm strike etc. If someone believes they have the luxury to select one tool over another, that isn’t based on necessity and/or effectiveness etc., during a violent confrontation I would question how they see reality. In this article I want to take a look at the use of the “power slap” as a tool for self-defense. As with any strike that is delivered with power, the hand or fist is simply the delivery mechanism. With the power slap it is the “heel” of the palm that connects with the target, and the strike is less about a stinging slap with the full hand and more about delivering concussive force. Whilst there are conflicting theories about what actually causes a concussion, what is agreed upon is that it is the speed of the head turning which is responsible for it i.e., the faster the head turns the greater the likelihood of a concussion. This is more likely to be achieved with a strike that has the potential to turn the head, rather than knocking it straight back, such as with a conventional straight strike/punch, where the neck and upper back muscles can offer direct support to the head. This is not to say that straight striking/punching isn’t useful/effective. As stated, all striking tools have their place at the table. The power of the power slap strike comes from shifting weight from one side of the body to the other, by stepping to the side as the slap/strike is delivered. The foot stepping should land as the strike connects, as after this point no weight is really redistributed/transferred. This doesn’t mean that the strike shouldn’t have follow through i.e., the hand/arm can keep moving through the target (jawline/behind the ear) in a “circular” fashion. One of the nice things about open palm strikes is that they are less likely to result in hand injuries than closed fist punches that use the knuckles to strike with, meaning that they can be thrown full force without having to worry about too much about form (obviously you should train with good form, but understand that in a dynamic real-life altercation, you might not be able to perfectly replicate what you did on pads in a training environment), timing, or target movement, that changes the way the hand impacts/connects with the head e.g., if when throwing a straight punch to the face, the person turns the face downward, the punch may land on the forehead, which means your relatively weak knuckles are connecting against the solid bone of the skull. Another advantage of the power slap, is that because it’s delivered in a circular fashion, it’s range can be extended or shortened depending on the movement of the assailant’s head e.g., if it is thrown when an attacker is relatively close to you, the arm will be significantly bent, however if as the strike is being thrown the assailant pulls away from you, be extending the arm, you will still have an opportunity to connect with the target. Conversely, if you throw it at an assailant who is at arm’s length but moves in you can shorten the length of the strike by bending the elbow etc. This makes the strike extremely versatile across different ranges. Open hand/palm strikes, including the power slap, also have some potential legal advantages over closed fist punches e.g., an argument can be made that the “slap” was more of an attempt to move/push an assailant away than a strike etc. The same argument cannot be made of a closed fist punch, which has only one goal, which is to inflict pain and deliver concussive force. Also, because the force of the strike isn’t concentrated in the same way as a punch, there is a reduced chance of bruising e.g., a judge/jury may be more sympathetic to someone who appears to have taken a “beating” when they’re considering whether excessive force was used. Knuckles can also end up cutting the face, which may also change the optics of the incident to favor the other person. When looking at how to survive a violent altercation all striking tools should have a place, even if it just to be able to deliver a “different” type of pain to an aggressor e.g., someone might have experience managing the pain that is delivered via closed-fist punches, but get “caught out” when they are poked in the eye, or have fingers dragged across their face ripping the skin etc. Adding the power slap to your arsenal gives you another tool with which to do this. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=680 Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=679 When I was a teenager practicing Judo, I attended two very different dojos, for two very distinct reasons. My “main” dojo was very interested in competition and competing. It had produced several regional and national competitors and champions (I would later go on to be one of them) and was very much about producing competitive Judokas. One of the instructors had a wrestling background and would often teach wrestling applications for Judo, with the idea being that this could give us an unorthodox advantage in competition etc. The other Dojo I attended was “traditional”, with most of the instruction being given in Japanese, and an adherence to the history and traditions of the art e.g., we would start the class bowing to Joseki (the seat of the gods), and the dojo had a small model temple, which would have food left out in front of it etc. Whereas, in the “competitive” dojo, throwing someone for “Ippon” was applauded however you achieved it, in my other Judo, unless the throw was executed by relying entirely on Kuzushi (the breaking of balance), rather than with any additional strength, the throw was looked on as being inefficient and comprising of poor technique. However, I learnt some great concepts and ideas during my training there. I learnt about the idea of “ancestors”, that when you were struggling with a great difficulty/adversity in your life, you could “look behind you”, and see all of those who had gone before you, pushing at your back, forcing you forward to get past whatever obstacle you were facing. I also learnt about the idea of the instructor/sensei sharing a sacred space. In this blog I have written a great deal about de-escalation i.e., how to get an aggressor into a calm state so that they aren’t thinking about acting violently. However, I haven’t written much about communicating in a manner that inadvertently avoids escalating situations/social interactions. In this article I want to address this.                 In traditional Japanese martial arts, there is the idea of there being “sacred space” between the instructor/sensei (the one who has gone before) and the student. This “space” can be seen as where the instructor’s and student’s circle in a Venn diagram intersect. It is the space where the instructor and student meet. It is unique to them and their relationship. Other students have their own “sacred space”, which they share with the instructor. It’s a concept that I like i.e., we all interact differently with others and share things, experiences etc., differently. It also makes the experience of training and teaching more specific to the individuals involved, recognizing that the way people learn, and what is needed at that moment to be learned, varies from student to student. It is an idea/concept that I have tried to replicate during my time working in security. Responding to everyone in the same way isn’t always going to be effective/successful, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach that will work with everyone. To be effective you have to work in the space where your circles intersect. There are however things that can be done to guide these social interactions to prevent situations from escalating, and whilst none of these things could be described as “rocket science” they are worth reminding ourselves of them so that we don’t inadvertently forget to do them.                 Show respect, even when you don’t have respect. The person you are dealing with doesn’t have to know your “inner thoughts” however everyone wants to believe they are respected or deserving of respect. We have probably all experienced an interaction when we feel/believe the other person is dismissing us and doesn’t have time for us. We know how this makes us feel. If we can acknowledge another person and their perspective, this doesn’t mean we validate it, it simply means we aren’t ignoring them; one of the things that is most likely to escalate a potentially tense/aggressive situation. Listening to someone, and responding with lines like, “thank you for sharing that with me, I’d never thought about it from that perspective”, lets the person know that you are listening to them and that they’ve been heard. This in and of itself may not be a complete solution but it is a non-escalatory response that starts to lay a foundation of cooperation rather than conflict. The avoidance of “command” language and replacing it with “request” language also helps lay this foundation. There may have been times that we have felt ourselves bristle over someone’s treatment of us, without recognizing why. Often this is because we have been issued with a command rather than a request. This was one of the things I used to try and explain to security teams I worked on/with e.g., it is often more productive to say, “Could you stand over there please?”, rather than issue a command such as “Stand over there.” People don’t like being told what to do, as it forces them to observe/fulfill a subservient role and acknowledge that a power differential exists – something which challenges their ego. There may be a time when such command language is necessary, but it isn’t always the best place to start. If you’ve ever had someone in a position of power/authority, at a job interview, in a hospital setting etc., say to you, “Come with me,” and you found yourself feeling put out by it, that’s a natural reaction/response to command language.                 If we can treat every interaction we have with others as occurring in a “sacred space” where respect is shown, even when not necessarily given, and we use language/communication that reflects this – request rather than command language – we are unlikely to find ourselves escalating situations that weren’t heading in that direction. This means we don’t have to think about de-escalation. If, when we are thinking about self-defense scenarios, we are always viewing them from being at the point of crisis, we are failing to recognize that we may have had a part in getting them there; either by what we said or what we didn’t say.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=679 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=678 When I first moved to the greater Boston area (2008), I wanted to get a “feel” for crime in the area. At the top-level, the crime statistics for the various cities that make up the greater Boston area are a good place to start. However, even in relatively small units of space, offending isn’t uniformly spread out e.g., there may be particular streets, or street corners, where certain types of offenses tend to be committed, with these concentrations forming crime hotspots. Sometimes the built environment can split a neighborhood, restricting crime to specific areas; a busy road may keep offending to one side increasing the risk of victimization there, whilst the other side of the road, although geographically close, is virtually crime free. So, although top level crime statistics such as the number of street robberies per year in a particular locale can make a town/city appear relatively safe or dangerous etc., they don’t give the full picture. I once had a flat/apartment in Bootle, Liverpool, and when I used to tell people I lived there, the first thing that they’d mention would be the crime rate. However, where I lived, I never experienced any crime, saw any crime, or heard of any of my neighbors and the people on my street being targeted or victimized. In colloquial terms I was living in the “good part” of Bootle. So, when I moved to the greater Boston area, I started to load police incident reports into my GIS (Geographic Information System) to create heatmaps so I could get an idea about where certain offenses took place. When I loaded up the data for street robberies, two very different streets popped out: Blue Hill Ave, and Boylston Street. This month I ran the same reports adding the last 5-years-worth of data, and I got almost the same, exact results (differences were negligible). One of the things that this suggests is that crime hotspots are extremely stable. In this article I want to look at some of the reasons why these two streets account for such a high percentage of Boston’s street robberies, and how some of their features can help us identify when we might be in a similar type of environment, so we can either up our awareness and/or leave. The two streets are very, very different in their geographic features. Blue Hill Ave is approximately 4 miles long whereas Boylston Street is much shorter at 0.35 miles long. In terms  of street robberies, if the two totals for the roads are combined, then Blue Hill Ave makes up 60% of them and Boylston Street makes up 40%. However, Blue Hill Avenue’s Street Robberies aren’t spread out equally or uniformly. There are two hot spots: one located where the road intersects with Warren St and another about 2 miles south in Mattapan, where the road intersects with Morton Street. However, these two hotspots aren’t as “hot” as the two on Boylston Street, which center around two transit stations: the Boylston T (subway) stop and the Copley T-stop. When drilling down into the Boylston St T-stop hotspot, it can be seen to comprise of two smaller hotspots, which are separated by a relatively busy road (Tremont St). One of the hotspots centers around St Francis House, which is the largest shelter in Massachusetts serving homeless people. It would be easy to quickly jump to the assumption that it is homeless people committing robberies, however it is as likely that they are the ones being victimized – and there are staff nearby who can encourage and help them to file an incident report. Because such populations are extremely vulnerable, they often attract the attention of those whose intention is to prey on them, this can mean that anyone in such a location gets targeted whether homeless or not. The second hotspot, within the larger one, is opposite Emerson Colonial Theatre. In fact, nearly 30% of all the street robberies committed along Boylston St, occurred opposite the theatre. It is likely that the street segments outside both the theatre and the homeless center represent “Crime Attractors” rather than “Crime Generators”, in that offenders who are planning to commit offenses come to these locations looking to target individuals. This is in contrast with the hotspots along Blue Hill Ave, where the combination/intersection of bus routes and stops with fast food restaurants make the hotspots place which “generate” crime by bringing offenders and potential targets together due to each group’s routine activities. As well as crimes happening in space, they also happen in time. Offending sometimes has a seasonal factor to it, and this can illustrate whether a location tends to be crime generator (a location that finds potential offenders in it due to their regular routine activities), or a crime attractor (a location that specifically attracts motivated offenders because they know that a large pool of potential victims can be found there). The hotspots on Blue Hill Ave are fairly consistent in the number of street robberies throughout the year. There are some slight increases in offending during the summer months, but nothing compared to the jump that takes place on Boylston Street as the days get longer and warmer etc. Locations that tend to generate crime, tend to be more consistent, and have fewer fluctuations throughout the year, whereas those that attract offenders to commit crime are more likely to do so when it is known that a location is going to have a large number of potential targets in it e.g., it is like predatory animals knowing the times of year those they prey on will be in a particular location, and making sure that they will be there at the same time. If time of day is considered, most of the robberies in the Blue Hill Ave hotspots, take place between 3pm and midnight, whereas the largest percentage of those that took place in the Boylston St hotspots took place between midnight and  4 AM, when there would have been fewer people around, suggesting that there were “active” predatory individuals working those areas. Individuals who knew there would be late night stragglers making their way home. Blue Hill Ave and Boylston Street also represent two slightly different criminological environments. Whilst they share similarities, they also differ in that Blue Hill Ave looks more like a “pathway” than it does a “node”. Nodes are places we visit and spend time in e.g., Emerson Colonial Theatre is a place that people visit/go to. Pathways are the routes that we take to get from one node to another e.g., the route we take to get from our house or place of work to get to a node, such as the Emerson Colonial Theatre. Offenses that take place on pathways are more likely to be the result of crime generation than attraction. By beginning to understand the environmental factors behind incidents of crime we can get a better understanding when we may be at a greater risk of being targeted. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=678 Mon, 05 Feb 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=677 The Virginia Tech active shooter, Seung-Hoi Cho, like many other killers who engage in rampage killings in educational settings left a “manifesto”. In it he stated, “You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.” Cho like many other mass killers, believed that he had run out of options and there was only one left to him i.e., to engage in a rampage killing. It would be easy to view this explanation as the work of someone trying to justify actions and behaviors that they knew were wrong, but this would be simplistic reasoning. Many active killers have exhibited this “last resort” type of thinking, and it is one of the most consistent risk factors – when available (Cho’s manifesto only became available after his murder-suicide spree) – for predicting lone killers engaging in mass killings, whether they are depressed, isolated individuals like Cho or lone-wolf terrorists (self-motivated individuals like the Oklahoma Bomber, Timothy McVeigh, who didn’t belong to any organized group). The first school shooting of 2024 (4th January), saw a 17-year-old kill one and injure six more, at Perry High School, in Des Moines, Iowa when they returned to school from the winter break. Whilst this is unfortunately unlikely to be the last such event of the year, it is worth getting a better understanding of how “Last Resort” factors, can be used to evaluate the rising risk of an individual who might be contemplating engaging in a similar active shooter incident. The idea of “Last Resort” was first suggested by Meloy et al., in 2012. The research identified eight factors that signaled an acceleration and increase in risk, with “Last Resort”, actions and behaviors being a significant predictor that an individual was contemplating an act of mass violence. Further research has found it to be one of the most consistent predictors, concerning acts of mass killing and violence, from Timothy McVeigh to Elliot Rodger. Before the Oklahoma Bombing, McVeigh wrote an Op-ed piece for his local neighborhood stating in it, “Is civil war imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that, but it might”. Leading up to the bombing he gave away personal possessions to his sister and in a letter to her stated, “Who else [but a private citizen] would come to the rescue of those innocent women and children at Waco!?! Surely not the sheriff or the state police! Nor the army…I’m no longer in the propaganda phase…Now I’m in the action stage.” Elliot Rodger uploaded a video to YouTube that contained his “manifesto”. In it he stated that, “I didn’t start this war…but I will finish it… finally at long last I can show my true worth.” McVeigh was protesting federal government overreach, and Rodger, was punishing the popular, good-looking people who were enjoying active sex lives; something he was not. Rodger is often looked up to and heralded as a hero by “Incels” i.e., involuntary celibates – those who are angry and feel an injustice at the fact that though they want to be in active sexual relationships they are unable to do so. Both McVeigh and Rodger believed that they had no other choice but to engage in their acts of violence. To them the world/circumstances had backed them into a corner which compelled them to engage in acts of mass killing – this was their last resort. They may have believed, prior to reaching this conclusion, that there may have been better options for them, but at some point, those disappeared, and the only option left open to them was to engage in an act of mass violence. They may at first feel that being cornered is a negative thing, wishing that they had been able to take better choices earlier etc., however they may feel energized now that they can focus on acting rather than weighing up options and engaging in decision making. This often results in time being imperative i.e., they have an urgency to act. When an actor has started to engage in last resort thinking patterns the only thing that starts to mean anything is the act of violence itself e.g., someone who once closely followed a sports team may stop paying attention to that team’s performance/result, because this has no relevance to the event they are fantasizing about, thinking, and planning etc. Losing interest in the things that once made them happy, without replacing them with other things that bring them joy, may mean a person is fixating on a private thought, which is all consuming. There may also exist physical manifestations, that can act as warning signs e.g., a person may stop or reduce eating, washing and/or engaging in other acts of hygiene; someone who once cared about their appearance may stop caring etc. Someone who once slept well or a lot may spend less time doing so; this may be for both psychological and practical reasons e.g., they need to spend more time thinking about and planning their actions. A person who was once conservative with their money may become reckless with it e.g., going to casinos and placing large bets etc. Perhaps one of the most significant last resort acts is giving away possessions and wanting people to have things that they once valued. This is something which is often common amongst those planning a suicide, and there is often an overlap between the actions and behaviors of those contemplating ending their life, and those engaging in acts of mass violence, which are likely to end in their death; either at their own hands, or by the actions of law-enforcement. Last resort behaviors should never be seen as warning signs when they happen in isolation e.g., there may be individuals who are giving their possessions away as part of a “spring cleaning” drive rather than because they’re planning an act of mass violence. These actions and behaviors become warning signs when there is no apparent reason for them, and when they cluster together with others. We should understand that our natural tendency when we see them is to rationalize them rather than investigate and analyze them, as we naturally deny and discount the possibility of potential violent events. This is something we need to fight against whilst at the same time making sure that we continue to treat the person we are concerned about with dignity and respect.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=677 Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=676 It is reasonable to assume that crime statistics can and are manipulated to some degree, in order for police departments to appear to be meeting certain goals, such as a reduction in violent crime. There are simple ways of doing this e.g., by classifying a street robbery as a theft/act of larceny, a violent offense can be categorized as a non-violent one etc. This is why criminologists and crime analysts often use homicides as a corroborating indicator to whether crime rates are falling or rising, as it is difficult to reclassify a death as something else. A strange thing happened in the last quarter of 2023. Overall, homicides were significantly down – in some cities to 1960’s levels that preceded the crime “surge” that took place till it peaked in the early 1990’s – however on Sunday 3rd December (2023), two mass shootings (the 37th and 38th incident of the year) turned 2023 into the year with highest number of mass shootings since 2006 (when accurate records of mass shootings began). The two shootings, one in Dallas committed by a 21-year-old (who was meant to be wearing an ankle bracelet to track his movements, due to a previous assault charge) who walked into a house and shot five people, and the other, an apparent murder-suicide which saw five family members die, brought the total number killed in mass shootings to 197 (shooters not included). A further 91 people were wounded in these incidents but survived. Often, such mass shootings (where four or more people are killed, excluding the gunman), fail to make the national headlines unless they occur in public settings, or children are amongst the victims. Most mass shootings don’t adhere to the public perception of “active shooter” incidents because most occur in private settings, such as people’s homes, rather than in restaurants, bars, shopping malls and academic institutions etc. From a risk perspective, we are more likely to be shot in our homes than in places that are open to the public. In this article I want to look at these types of mass shootings, and why in recent years we have seen a rise in them. There appear to be five primary themes around mass shootings (though several of these, rather than just one may form the motivation(s) for killing). The first is revenge where a resentful and unhappy individual seeks payback from those who they believe have held them back, are responsible for their failures in life/employment/academia, and have stood in the way of them accomplishing the things they were entitled to etc. I have written before about “injustice collectors” who are constantly adding up all the negative things that have happened to them and blaming others for these occurrences. There are those who engage in mass killings to experience and enjoy a sense of power that has been denied them in their ordinary lives. Often the power and revenge motives go together. Another motivation is that of “loyalty”. It is hard to understand why a parent would kill their children out of supposed love, but there are those individuals who engage in murder-suicides because they want to spare those around them from the miseries of daily life and see/have all of their family members meet together in the afterlife, where things will be better. Two more specific motives are “terror” and “profit”. There are those who engage in mass shootings/killing as acts of terrorism, and there are those who do so for profit/financial return e.g., an armed robber kills others to eliminate witnesses as they commit their offense(s). Primarily, the two motivations that account for most of the mass shootings that occur are those of “revenge” and “power”. In both cases this doesn’t mean that revenge and power have to target those individuals who have directly harmed them or caused them injustice etc. They can also take revenge on and enjoy power by targeting individuals who “represent” those they are looking to get even with. Whilst 2023 goes on record as the highest number of mass shootings since 2006, it would be incorrect to say that this signals that we are on the cusp of an epidemic. There is a great deal of variability, year-on-year, concerning mass shootings. There is nothing to suggest from past figures that 2024 is going to see more mass shootings because of what has happened in the previous year e.g., in 2025, I could be writing an article about why 2024 had the lowest number of shootings etc. It could be that there is a surge in the number of terrorist mass shootings, and a drop in those motivated by revenge etc., due to changes in the political landscape that are unique to that particular period in time. What was experienced in 2023 was a significant increase in those motivated by revenge and power, and in many ways, these are the result of a serious of unique factors affecting a small number of individuals, that may not reflect on societal changes e.g., by “chance” more individuals found that their partners had been cheating on them and were motivated to use lethal force etc. Mass shootings are still statistically “rare” events and to suggest common underlying causes with such a small sample size of incidents would be dangerous.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=676 Mon, 22 Jan 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=675 One of the concerns that most people have when dealing with potentially violent situations is the fear that doing something will only escalate the incident. This fear or concern exists for security professionals as well. In a video obtained by the Portland Press Herald, concerning a discussion between Sagadahoc County Sheriff Seargent Aaron Skolfield, and Army Reserve Captain Jeremy Reamer, there is concern expressed about attempting to seize Robert Card’s firearms under Maine’s “yellow flag” law, as it was felt doing so may escalate Card’s behaviors and actions. A few weeks after the conversation, Robert Card carried out a mass shooting/rampage killing (25th October 2023) at the “Schemengees Bar and Grill”, and the “Just in Time” bowling alley, in Lewiston, Maine. The shooting saw 18 people killed, and another 13 injured. It is important to note that even had Card’s firearms been removed/taken prior to the 25th of October, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have found a way to acquire others, and commit a rampage shooting. The point that I am trying to make is that even seasoned professionals with a background/history of making such decisions have concerns about the repercussions of intervening in a potentially dangerous situation, even when they are legally justified to do so. Human beings are naturally optimistic creatures, and we have a bias that sees us wanting to believe in the best possibilities and downplay the worst etc. This means that we sometimes don’t intervene and/or ignore situations which have clear and urgent warning signs. Doing nothing is a coping mechanism that allows us to not have to face difficult realities, such as dealing with a potential mass killer. In this article I want to look at why it’s important – however difficult it may seem – to address entryway behaviors that alert us to danger, rather than ignore them because we believe confronting them would escalate a situation. As someone who was bullied as a kid, I became conditioned to the fact/belief that it was better to endure what I was experiencing rather than change the script and risk making things worse. Like the proverbially frog that gets gradually boiled to death but fails to recognize this is happening because the incremental increases in heat are small enough to avoid detection, I failed to identify the escalation of events. When you are used to being treated badly it is hard to register if one incident is worse/more significant than the last one etc. However, from the bully’s perspective and enjoyment, things can only head in one direction. Like any addiction the next fix has to be stronger than the last. There has to be an escalation, even if it is undetectable to those being targeted/who are supplying the fix. I don’t know to what degree an individual is conscious of this, or whether it is something they realize much later but a verbal insult given today isn’t going to yield the same reward when it is repeated a few days or weeks later. If I had my time again, and know what I know now, identifying and addressing the first slight, the entryway behavior, at the earliest opportunity, would have in all likelihood stopped the further abuse, or at the very least constructed a very different context and exchange of power. However, at the time of my first incident of bullying, I laughed it off, telling myself that it was a one-off event, that wouldn’t be repeated, and it wasn’t worth saying anything in case I escalated things. There are times to ignore things, and that’s usually when you have an opportunity to immediately disengage, and never see the person again. However, when a “relationship” has to be extended beyond an initial social interaction, calling someone out on the way they are treating/interacting with you is usually the safest way to avoid them being given a green light to treat you however they want. One of the things I’ve learnt over the years working in security is that addressing entryway behaviors as soon as they occur – if you don’t have a disengagement opportunity, which allows you to exit the environment immediately -is usually the best way to stop situations escalating e.g., if you don’t address shouting, pointing, swearing at you straight away, an angry and emotional person understands that this is acceptable behavior, and that this represents a baseline of what you are prepared to tolerate etc. This doesn’t mean that you have to address such behaviors in a challenging and/or confrontational manner which would escalate things, but you need to address the behaviors themselves e.g., “I understand that you might be angry but it’s not necessary to use that type of language in order for me to address/solve the situation,” etc. I have found that one of the best ways to assess where a person is at is to talk to them. If they don’t/are unable to verbally communicate, there’s a problem. If they mix up the order and/or garble their words, there’s a problem. If they fixate on the issue/injustice and can’t get past this to look for a solution etc., there’s a problem. Using positive language is unlikely to escalate a situation that isn’t already heading there, and by judging how a person responds to your verbal communication, you should have a better idea about whether you need to prepare yourself for dealing with a physical assault. Often social awkwardness will see us wanting to avoid confronting someone who is acting aggressively towards us. At some point in our lives, we have probably been informed that if we ignore angry/bullying people etc., they will go away. It would be nice to think that such a universal rule exists. If you can physically disengage, and get out of a situation immediately, ignoring someone may work, however if such an option/opportunity doesn’t exist, it is safer to address entryway behaviors as soon as they are expressed.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=675 Mon, 15 Jan 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=674 In recent years there has been a considerable amount of research on the Dark Triad (DT) and its role in predicting aggression and violence. The Dark Triad is made up of three socially aversive personality types. One of these is a personality disorder recognized by the DSM, i.e., narcissism, with the others being psychopathy, that although not recognized explicitly within the DSM is clinically definable and measurable (and falls under/within the DSM’s anti-social personality disorder), and Machiavellianism, a less well researched/established personality trait, but still scientifically measurable, that was first defined in the 1960’s by psychologists, Richard Christie and Florence Geis (who developed the Mach IV test, which has become the standard self-assessment test, to diagnose and measure the trait). Although the term the “Dark Triad” first appeared in a paper that was published in 2002 by Paulhus and Williams, the idea of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism sharing common traits was first put forward by McHoskey et al., who argued that the three disorders/traits were ostensibly the same thing e.g., there were no real differences between psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. However, whilst all three do share many similarities, such as callousness and low agreeableness (two solid predictors of aggression and violence), there are also differences between them e.g., individuals with psychopathy tend to be impulsive, whilst a significant trait of Machiavellianism is that of calculation/planning etc. Also, narcissism is not a “singular” disorder but is made up of phenotypes e.g., there are “grandiose” and “vulnerable” narcissists who may express themselves in very similar ways, but the motivations for doing so are somewhat different. One of the values of the Dark Triad is that it brings to the forefront anti-social behaviors that may be common to different personality disorders and traits e.g., someone might fall short of a clinical definition of either/or narcissism and psychopathy but express themselves in a way that it is dangerous and harmful to others, which is more important for violence prevention than making a clinical definition. In this article I want to take a look at the Dark Triad and how it may help us to better understand violent offending. One characteristic of the Dark Triad that can lead to aggression and violence is callousness i.e. a lack of empathy/sensitivity and coldness that can lead to cruelty. Whilst narcissists, psychopaths and those who score highly on the Mach IV test, may engage in cruel acts, they do so for different reasons e.g., a narcissist may verbally attack someone to re-establish their self-esteem, whereas a psychopath may do so to relieve boredom and as an act of excitement, whilst someone having the trait of Machiavellianism will use a person with a sense of indifference in order to achieve a particular goal. Whilst the three traits/disorders engage in cruelty for different reasons and motivations, they share one thing in common: people are there to be used for their own gain, whether that is practical, emotional, or psychological etc. All of these three traits/disorders also exhibit non-existent or low levels of remorse or guilt. The psychopath lacks the emotional intelligence to experience such feelings – though they may be cognitively able to “fake” remorse if it benefits them to do so. The narcissist believes their feelings are more important than others, and so doesn’t see other peoples’ experiences as relevant, and those individuals exhibiting Machiavellian traits would rationalize what they did, that caused another harm and suffering, as the ends/outcome justifying the means i.e., you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs etc. All of these traits/disorders share the belief that others are there to be exploited and manipulated. From a personal safety/relationship perspective it is more productive to identify this than the underlying motivation and reason that someone has for doing so. There has been a push by some to expand the Dark Triad to include other socially aversive personality disorders and traits, such as borderline personality traits and moral disengagement etc., however amongst those looking to do this, the consensus has been to include sadism, and this has led to the creation of the Dark Tetrad i.e., the Dark Triad, plus sadism. Whilst the psychopath or those who are Machiavellian in nature don’t necessarily benefit emotionally from the suffering of others – it’s either part of the means to and end, or a slight relief from boredom – it is the pain and the suffering itself which motivates the sadist. Whilst a large percentage of the prison population have anti-social personality disorder, which covers psychopathy, those diagnosed as sadists are not great in number, and are more likely to be the perpetrators of sexual homicides, making them statistically, a very small and specific group. One of the major problems with just about all large-scale research on these personality disorders and traits, is that samples tend to be drawn either from prison populations or university students; two groups which from a socio-economic perspective tend to exist at two opposite ends of a spectrum. This means that more representative societal groups need to be studied in order for a fuller, more realistic, and relevant picture to be gained. Whilst there are often commonalities of behavior between certain disorders there are also differences in the way offenses may be committed e.g., someone with psychopathy isn’t going to care too much about risk and may commit an offense because at the time it excites them to do so, even when the chances of getting caught are high. Whereas someone with Machiavellian personality traits is likely to plan and then execute their offense with the reduction of risk being a significant factor. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=674 Mon, 08 Jan 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=673 Sometimes our natural reaction in a socially awkward situation, where there is a dispute/conflict, is to apologize; especially if we have been brought up to be overly polite i.e., politeness being stressed when we were children as something we should never fail at – meaning that we’d rather be polite when we don’t have to than take the chance that we don’t need to etc. However, apologizing won’t always diffuse an angry person and in certain instances may in fact escalate the incident/interaction, rather than calm it down. If we have a habit of always apologizing, especially when the other person is in the wrong, we may want to address this, and evaluate the situations where an apology will work, and when it probably won’t. When doing so we shouldn’t just go off of past experiences, as something that may have worked once may not be replicable. In this article I want to take a look at how apologizing “works”, and at what stage in a confrontation it may be applicable. Most anger is actually constructive, or is attempting to be constructive, rather than malevolent. Even anger that is born out of a frustration or injustice is usually about overcoming an obstacle/eliciting change in the person targeted. This doesn’t mean angry people are rational or know, or have a plan, of how to create a change in another person’s actions and behavior, but this is usually the point of anger and aggression. Often, a part of anger is a seeking of validation e.g., that the “injustice” or “frustration” a person is experiencing is real, and is acknowledged etc. Research by Frantz and Bennigson (2005), has shown that apologizing later is often more effective than doing so immediately, or early on in the interaction. In Western culture an apology is often seen as a closing statement e.g., we acknowledge our “wrong”, we say we’re sorry, and then everyone moves on. By saying sorry too early, we take away an angry person’s opportunity and ability to express themselves and how they’re feeling and/or for them to think about a way to resolve the dispute/conflict. Obviously, as the target of their anger we want the incident to end as quickly as possible because we are having to deal with a volatile and socially awkward situation, and the last thing that we want to do is extend the interaction; especially if it is in a setting where there are observers. A large part of de-escalation is slowing things down, and this usually means extending the time we spend with an aggressor, rather than simply shutting everything down straightaway, and exiting the incident. If an angry person feels that they have not been heard, and that you think/believe that the interactions should now end because you have apologized, the situation may well escalate. Asking open ended questions such as, “what can I do to sort this out?”, gives an angry person a chance to express themselves, to feel validated and to be acknowledged. By taking responsibility for addressing their frustration or injustice, you aren’t acknowledging wrongdoing or guilt but are expressing that you’re willing to help them deal with whatever they’re facing.                 Some people will see an apology as a sign of weakness and of a desire to avoid conflict at all costs. This means they may take an apology, especially one offered straight-away as an invitation to become more aggressive towards you. Making an “urgent” apology before you’ve actually had time to understand the situation, and the reason(s) why the other person is angry demonstrates an overly submissive attitude towards conflicts and disputes, and an aggressor may decide to exploit this. Even if they don’t you are communicating to others in the environment that you are someone whose response to conflicts and challenges is to try and end them quickly by taking the blame and apologizing. One sexual predator’s MO (Modus Operandi) was to watch women pushing shopping carts in supermarkets and see how they acted and behaved when someone else bumped a cart into theirs. If they immediately apologized even though it wasn’t their fault, he judged them to be extremely conflict adverse. His assumption – which turned out to be mostly correct – was that if he then approached them in the parking lot and demanded that they got into his car they were likely to acquiesce, rather than challenge him and fight back. Whilst our primary concern may be dealing with an angry person, we should be aware of how others may interpret how we behave. This also goes for any time we are in a public setting e.g., if you are constantly moving out of people’s way, and apologizing for this, you are not sending a message of confidence out into the world etc.                 There are of course times to apologize but when doing so it is usually best to follow this up with an explanation that validates the other person's injustice/grievance e.g., “I’m sorry I bumped into you, I was just trying to make space for someone who was moving by me.” Doing so acknowledges the injustice i.e., bumping into them, and explains that this wasn’t you being disrespectful, it was merely an accident etc. This now opens up the opportunity for dialogue, if the person feels a greater injustice was experienced e.g., they spilt some of their drink over themselves etc. This then allows you to move to open ended questions such as, “I hate it when that happens (validation of the injustice), what can I do to sort it out?” Simply saying “sorry”, may look like as far as you are concerned the incident has been dealt with. In a faster moving event where someone has become incensed it is usually better to leave the apology more towards the end of an incident as a closing statement e.g., “I’m sorry about that, are we all good now?” The last question gives the “offended” party a chance to end the confrontation (their choice/decision not yours), or to continue if they still feel invalidated and a need to express themselves. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=673 Mon, 01 Jan 2024 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=672 On March 24th, 1964, a story appeared in the New York Times, stating that 38 people watched - for more than half an hour without intervening – the stabbing of Catherine “Kitty” Genovese. The story came some two weeks after the rape/murder, and was inaccurate in many regards, including the number of people who witnessed the incident. However, it was true that several people had watched the event from their apartment windows and hadn’t called the police – each recognizing that others were watching the stabbing, but unaware as to their reaction(s) and response(s) to it. At the time many put the lack of intervention down to a moral and societal decay, portraying those who had witnessed the homicide cold and uncaring. However, there were others who recognized that something else may be responsible for “Genovese Syndrome”, and looked to explain why crowds and groups of people may not intervene, or even do anything, in a crisis event where someone’s life was at stake.                 Two of these individuals were psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley. In 1968 they conducted an experiment where an individual was placed in a room that started to fill up with smoke. They were either on their own, with another person, or in a group of three. The other/extra people taking part in experiment were confederates who had been instructed how they should act and respond. They found that 75% of their research subjects would report the smoke if on their own, whilst only 10% did when in the room with confederates who showed no reaction to the room filling with smoke. They also ran other experiments where individuals heard a person in another room have what sounded like an extreme epileptic type of fit. In one experimental condition the individual thought they were the only one aware of what was going on, whilst in another they thought there were four others who were also aware that someone was having a seizure. Those on their own were both more likely to act and do so faster than when they were part of a group. Latane and Darley concluded that the most likely reason for people responding less when they were part of a group was down to a “Diffusion of Responsibility” i.e., if an individual was on their own then they believed they were the one who was responsible for reporting an incident, however if there were others present then this responsibility was shared/diffused between the group members. Latane and Darley did note that when there were times a group could interact and talk with each other then sometimes collective action was taken. Linked to the idea of there being a diffusion of responsibility, Latane and Darley also identified a corresponding diffusion of blame i.e., if someone was the only person present when something bad happened (such as an assault resulting in a homicide) and the individual did nothing to intervene than they may feel that they have 100% of the blame to bear, however if they were one of 20 who witnessed  the incident they may only feel 5% of the blame is theirs to bear etc., and they may feel that they are able to cope with that – they may also feel that none of the blame is theirs because there were other more capable individuals present who could have intervened.                 Bibb and Latane weren’t the first to look at how individuals act when they are part of a group. In the 1950’s, Solomon Ash researched the idea of there being a “herd mentality” i.e., people would go with the group consensus even when they knew it was wrong/incorrect. He placed a research subject in amongst a group of confederates and asked them questions which had fairly obvious answers, including basic math questions/calculations etc. The confederates who made up most of the group would sometimes collectively agree on a wrong answer, and it would be seen whether the subject would disagree with them and make the case for the right answer. In around 75% of cases, they would stick with the group and give the incorrect answer. Most individuals will do almost anything to avoid a socially awkward situation. Better to go along with the group than stand out as an individual. This was one of the reasons why only 8.6% of those in the Twin Towers on 9/11, evacuated their desks the moment they heard the alarms. Most (91.4%) waited an average of 8 minutes to start leaving, with a significant number taking up to half an hour. These were individuals who had experienced the impact of the planes hitting their buildings. It wasn’t just the alarms going off that gave them a warning that something extremely dangerous was happening. However, when the majority of co-workers are staying at their desks, there is social pressure to do the same, and not look like you’re scared and panicking e.g., what if later it did turn out to be nothing? Would that person become the laughingstock of the office?                 These studies and examples demonstrate that we should not rely on others to come to our assistance if we are assaulted. However, it also shows us that if we do want to intervene in a conflict, we will have to direct others in assisting us, possibly implying responsibility and guilt to help motivate them. Far better to intervene as part of a group than as an individual. We should also have confidence in our own abilities to assess a situation and not rely on others to do it on our behalf.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=672 Mon, 25 Dec 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=671 If you are involved in a physical altercation where afterwards you have to make a claim of self-defense, you will want to make sure that what you say fully supports your claim. The first thing you should be aware of is that when you are making such a claim you are admitting to the use of violence – your argument in making the self-defense claim is that you were legally justified to do so. The importance of this is that if you say you punched someone in order to defend yourself, you can’t go back on this and say you didn’t punch them i.e., you are admitting to using violence albeit in a certain context. It is also important to note that whilst it’s easy to make a claim of self-defense – you only have to say the words – it’s another matter demonstrating and proving it, even with video and CCTV (Closed-Circuit TV) footage at your disposal e.g., a prosecutor can often make the argument that what was captured doesn’t represent the entire incident and that there were things that happened before and after that which the footage shows, etc. This means that as clear and obvious as an incident was from your perspective, when a prosecuting attorney presents their case before a judge/jury, you may find yourself dealing with an entirely different event to the one you recall/remember. Because your first interaction with the criminal justice system (CJS) is most likely to be with a law enforcement officer – one who either witnessed the incident or is investigating a reported incident – it is important that you know what to say and what not to say when talking with them. In this article I want to look at a scenario where you have been involved in a physical altercation, where both you and your aggressor threw some punches etc., and law enforcement officers were called to the scene, arriving just as the two of you separated for a moment due to exhaustion, or because you both were done with the fight.                 You “know” what has happened, but the officers don’t, and this is key to remember. They don’t know which is the “innocent”, and which is the “guilty” party. For them they are dealing with two combatants. You may believe they are turning up to support you because you weren’t the aggressor but that isn’t likely to be their perspective; both of you will probably be viewed as having broken the law and being guilty of assault and battery. This means that you shouldn’t expect them to be sympathetic towards you, at least initially. When the SAS stormed the Iranian embassy in 1980 to rescue the hostages that had been taken, everyone was initially handcuffed, as in such situations hostage takers often try to hide amongst the hostages to escape and/or to attack those involved in the rescue. This may seem an overly harsh way to deal with hostages who have just experienced a traumatic ordeal, but from an overall safety perspective it is necessary. It is always worth remembering that law-enforcement officers don’t know your perspective and experiences and have their own procedures and protocols that they work to. It is also worth remembering your current emotional state. Whilst your sympathetic nervous system – the one that triggers your adrenal system – is quick to act, your parasympathetic nervous system – the one that brings your body back to its “normal” state – isn’t. It can take hours or even days to return your body back to its relaxed, everyday state. This means that in all likelihood you are not thinking calmly, and you are still interpreting things from an emotional perspective. This is not a good time to be saying things that a prosecutor will want to investigate and challenge in a legal setting, if that is the direction that things go in.                 You only really have two obligations when talking to law enforcement and those are to identify yourself and state what you are doing in the moment - for anything else your attorney should be present. However well you believe you are able to articulate events you may forget to mention something that you later rely on in court, or say something you wish you hadn’t, or in a way you wish you hadn’t e.g., something that could be interpreted in a number of different ways – especially by a lawyer/attorney – rather than the way in which you intended it to be. In the U.S., it used to be that the “right to remain silent” (that is part of the Miranda Rights, read at the time of arrest), wasn’t seen as an indication of guilt e.g., the Supreme Court saw “silence” as something that someone may use as a “protection” of their innocence. However, in 1999, Justice Scalia, made a statement that changed this i.e., “If I ask my son whether he saw a movie I’d forbidden him to watch, and he remains silent, the import of his silence is clear.” The Conservative majority of the court went on to rule that: only the guilty wouldn’t speak to law-enforcement and that those who are innocent have nothing to fear from the criminal justice system i.e., there are no miscarriages of justices etc. Therefore, silence implies guilt. So, whilst you still have the right to remain silent, that silence may now be seen as an implication of guilt; prosecutors are now (they weren’t always) able to tell a jury whether a person talked or remained silent. Rather than claiming the Fifth Amendment (that allows the right to remain silent though now with the implication of guilt), you should claim the Sixth; the right of representation by a lawyer. If you are going to talk with law enforcement about anything other than your identity, and what you are currently doing, you should do so with an attorney. This is not because law enforcement officers are trying to trick or implicate you but because your right to remain silent may be interpreted as a sign of guilt, and because, “anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”  Refusing to speak to law enforcement officers, or remaining silent, should be two things that you avoid. Making it clear that you are willing to speak – about more than your identity, and current activity - is important, and something that you should agree to do, but only in the presence of an attorney. It is also worth noting that if you say you are only willing to talk with an attorney present and you continue to talk before they arrive, what you say will be admissible in a court of law – in other words, after you ask for an attorney to be present, stop talking. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=671 Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=670 When we are trying to communicate to resolve a conflict, we need to ensure that the other person is receptive to what we are saying. At the same time, we need to demonstrate that we are also willing and receptive to hearing what they have to say. However, if we use the same methods and linguistic tools that we do when dealing with and discussing “facts” we are likely to be unsuccessful in accomplishing this. When dealing with a person who is emotional because they are angry, frustrated and/or upset, they aren’t often ready to take a look at the “facts”, they may also in that moment have a very different idea as to what the “facts” actually are. To develop conversational receptiveness, we are likely to have to rephrase some of our everyday language and responses, and avoid using certain “trigger” words, or substitute them for others. In this article I want to look at how we can do some of these things in order to prevent an interaction from escalating and set the foundations for de-escalation and eventual conflict resolution. When dealing with angry and emotional people we may want to set boundaries and express how we want the communication exchange to be conducted. This is to prevent “entry(way) behaviors” from potentially developing into more serious ones, such as veiled and then overt threats, which a person may then not be able to walk back. Sometimes when a person has escalated to making threats, they have crossed a line that they don’t know how to get back to the other side of. It is similar to when angry and scared people draw knives and other weapons; they find it almost impossible to put the weapon away even when the threat or danger has passed. This is why when training emergency room staff in de-escalation and conflict management, I teach addressing behaviors such as shouting and swearing, as if left alone they appear as permissible behaviors to the person engaged in them. There is always a fear that engaging with such individuals makes things worse, but the truth is that not saying anything allows for the person to engage in further, escalating behaviors. In the early stages of a conflict/disagreement when a person may not yet be in a volatile state setting the terms for the interaction at the outset can prevent things from escalating. It may be that every time you go to speak the other person cuts you off and talks over you, and this is something you need to change in order to stop the conflict from escalating further. If this isn’t addressed it may set the tone of the conversation and be interpreted as a “power move” on the other person’s part i.e., they get to talk and express their opinion you don’t. A natural response when someone is doing this is to express your frustration by saying something like, “I hate it when people cut me off, and talk over me!” However, by expressing your frustration in this way, you are telling the other person not to do something, which can be interpreted as posturing. By reframing your response to this issue by saying, “I really appreciate it when people let me finish what I’m trying to say.”, you are far more likely to encourage the other party to change their behavior. Just like changing negative statements into positive ones, there are certain words which people either react badly to and/or have alternatives that are more effective in instigating change in someone’s behavior. It has been found that in crisis situations substituting “speak” for “talk” is more likely to be effective in developing rapport. There may seem little difference between the two questions, “Can we talk?”, “Can we speak?” Despite the word speak generally being seen as a more “formal” word than talk, speak focuses on the speaker, rather than on the process of talking/communication. In many situations where someone has become angry due to frustration, being acknowledged is an important part of the de-escalation process, and focusing on the speaker helps accomplish this. Using the word “help”, in sentences such as, “I’m trying to help you here” should be avoided, as it implies a power differential, with one party requiring assistance from the other. However, it can also be used to help balance what may be perceived as a power-differential, such as in a request like, “Can you help me understand what’s making you angry?” etc. There are also trigger words that can automatically escalate a situation. Using words such as “obviously” and “clearly” e.g., “Obviously/clearly, what has happened here is…”, “It’s obvious/clear what needs to be done here.”, are likely to increase the emotions of the other person. The inference is that the person making the statement understands what has happened and/or needs to be done, and to offer a different explanation and/or solution, would be to admit to not understanding what is going on and to being stupid. Starting sentences with the word “obviously”, also has a note of finality to the interaction, when the other party may still be processing what has happened/is happening. Whilst something may appear obvious/clear to you, it doesn’t necessarily mean it objectively is, and/or the other person is ready to accept that.          Whilst substituting certain words for others, and avoiding the use of certain words at all, may seem trivial, this is only because we are thinking about their use whilst we are in a calm and rational state. Words and phrases that wouldn’t necessarily upset us normally, can have a very different effect when we’re emotional. Thinking about these things before we are in a verbal conflict with someone, and even developing “scripts” that avoid them, will see us better prepared to deal with angry and emotionally volatile people. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=670 Mon, 11 Dec 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=669 Some pieces of safety advice intuitively seem to make sense e.g., don’t walk down dark alleys; when a mugger asks for your wallet throw it on the ground a way from you; always ask for identification before letting any workmen/contractors into your house etc. However, many pieces of advice and safety tips don’t stand up to any form of testing whether superficial or rigorous e.g., when we consider that most street robberies involve more than one offender how does throwing the wallet away from you actually give you an advantage? Another piece of advice I hear a lot involves mixing up your routines e.g., leave your house at different times to go to work, mix up the routes you take etc., basically never follow the same schedule. Whilst there are “merits” to do doing this in certain contexts, adopting this as a universal strategy is often burdensome and unnecessary from a personal safety perspective, and is an example of blindly/universally applying a tactic used in professional security (close protection, anti-surveillance etc.) needlessly and without context to personal safety. Often people who do this – using professional tactics in civilian contexts – do so with an air of smugness, believing themselves to be “operating” at a higher level than everyone else. I have heard people talk about the fact that they’re always scanning and on alert, without ever talking about what they are “scanning” for, or what/why they always need to be on alert. It sometimes seems that they are adopting all the stressful and negative aspects of being the central character in the Bourne Identity unnecessarily. There are times that we should up our awareness and be more “in the moment” however we shouldn’t be leaving our front doors imagining and looking for the sniper who’s been waiting for the right moment to take our life. In this article I want to look at when it may be suitable to mix up our routines, and when doing so may actually put us at a disadvantage. Most violent offenses occur when our routine activities (going to work, going to the gym, going shopping etc.) intersect with the routine activities of a motivated offender (who may also be going to work, shopping and engaging in other leisure activities). There may have been times when this has happened to us, where we have found ourselves in the same time/space with individuals who have a history of offending but for whatever reason weren’t motivated to offend at that particular time e.g., we find ourselves in a parking lot, at the same time, as someone who habitually commits street robberies, but who in this moment is not motivated to do so because they recently committed an offense which netted them a good payday, and so they don’t feel the need – motivation – to engage in a robbery etc. However, if on a regular basis, our routine activities keep intersecting with such individuals, then statistically our chances of being victimized increase e.g., if you decide to go drinking at a pub which is known to have a long and regular history of violent incidents, there is a good chance that at some point you may become the target of violence i.e., you will be finding yourself in the same place and at the same time with individuals who have a propensity for fighting. If you’ve been walking to work for several years taking the same route without incident, this routine activity has not seen you intersect with a motivated offender’s routine activity. Space and time are six times more likely to predict future offending than the identity and characteristics of offenders. Conversely the absence of crime in a particular location and time is a good predictor of future safety. If you have not seen or experienced any offending on the route you have been routinely taking, why would you change this for the sake of being “random” and “unpredictable”? By being random and unpredictable you may find yourself in relatively unfamiliar locations that you don’t have a long history of experience in. In fact, changing the routes of your routine activities is putting you in a numerically greater number of locations, increasing the possibilities of you intersecting with a motivated offender’s routine activities. If you have a history of taking a certain route to work (or from any location to any other) without incident, there is a good chance, as long as you have been aware of your surroundings, that you have established a good baseline of what the location looks like, and who is in it, at a particular time. For example, when I lived in London, I used to go to the gym each morning catching a bus at 5:45 AM. My house was near the start of the route and there would be the same three people waiting for the bus each morning. I only used to go a few stops before catching a tube train to the gym, but I knew everyone who got on, and so when someone “new” got on, I took notice of them. Something I could only do because I had a baseline. Part of situational awareness is being able to recognize when a situation changes e.g., a “new” person enters the environment. If I’d constantly been changing routes – walking to different bus stops, changing tube stations etc. – I wouldn’t have this baseline. Now, if someone had set up an ambush for me as I exited the bus at the stop I used to transfer to the underground rail, my consistent routine would have assisted them i.e., they would know where I would be at a particular time etc., however, I’m not Jason Bourne, who is consistently running from people. I recognize and understand that I’m just not that important to someone. This is not naivety but reality. Yes, I can mentally “create” such enemies that mean me harm, however if they do exist, there are plenty of other opportunities they have, beyond my “predictable” routines to intersect with me. I don’t need to change up the running routes I use because I don’t run in spaces and at times when/where I’m likely to cross paths with a motivated offender. Personal safety is more about how we use space safely, than the predictability of our movement(s). When I worked in close protection we would change and mix up the routes we were taking because we knew there was a possibility due to the importance of the principle (the person we were looking after), that someone(s) may be planning to interact with them along a route. If I had an “important” job that potentially made me the target of a crime I would do the same e.g., if I was the key holder to a cash storage depot – a person of interest to criminals – I would in all likelihood mix up and change my route, recognizing that I am potentially vulnerable when in transit etc. I would also recognize that there are those skilled in anti-surveillance and so wouldn’t simply rely on this tactic alone. However, in day-to-day life, there are few of us who really have a need to keep changing the routes we take, though knowing how to do so should a threat present itself is a good skill to have.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=669 Mon, 04 Dec 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=668 One of the consistent findings about street robberies/muggings, is that it appears statistically that most involve more than one offender; something that is often not reflected in self-defense and Krav Maga training. Whilst not every potential gun or knife threat is going to be in the context of a street robbery, when we look at the situations most people are going to find themselves in this is one of the most likely scenarios e.g., a person is more likely to be targeted for a mugging than an abduction, and in most forms of social violence – unless you live in a certain locale – your aggressor is unlikely to be armed etc. Context is often lost in training, with techniques being practiced as choreographed movements rather than as solutions to defined and identifiable situations. Whenever looking at research and statistics it is always worth noting that with official records and reporting, such as with police incident reports, there is the potential for both under-reporting crime e.g., someone who is robbed by a single mugger may feel a sense of shame that they were unable to deal with their aggressor and therefore not report the incident, whilst if they are threatened by a group they may feel less likely to be judged for acquiescing and handing over their assets and so report the offense. This is why it is always useful to compare such official statistics and findings, which support the idea that most street robberies are committed by multiple assailants, with self-report studies which have those who commit these offenses describe and give accounts of how they go about committing their crimes etc. In this article I want to look at some of the reasons why most street robberies involve more than one offender, as this may seem to some people as counter-intuitive e.g., whatever is taken has to be divided up meaning each mugger has to give up and share rather than keep all the money and/or goods for themselves. One of the things that just about all criminologists agree on is that crime is a young person’s game, and more specifically a young male game. When offense data is aggregated offending rapidly declines as people enter their early/mid-twenties. When we consider our own teenage years, we probably spent much more time with others than we do now. That was certainly true of my life. A good percentage of it was spent with friends, as part of a group, in public spaces i.e., away from the home and parents etc. This is largely true of young offenders who are responsible for the majority of muggings and street robberies. If we look on street robberies as being largely opportunistic affairs, whilst there may be a primary offender who initiates the incident, it is likely that they have other people with them who have varying degrees of willingness, simply because socializing with others is part of their routine activities. Single offender incidents often occur where the offender is older, and/or the offender has an immediate need for cash, such as needing to acquire drugs etc. An individual committing a street robbery as part of a group means that others see them in action, which increases their social standing in the group, gaining them respect and reinforcing their own self-image and identity. Elijah Anderson who wrote, “The Code of the Street”, and who conducted ethnographic studies in socially and economically deprived communities, wrote about how in the absence of material wealth “respect” became a valuable commodity that young men wanted to acquire. In the UK, street robbery and mugging is often referred to as “taxing”, by those who commit these offenses e.g., people who walk on the streets of their community have to pay a tax to do so. Collecting such a tax puts the individual in a position of power and control that in line with the values of the group gains them respect and status. It also bonds the group and helps to create a social identity. Numbers improve the chances of a target acquiescing to the demand. A confident, fit individual may believe they have the physical abilities to take on one individual, however as numbers increase this belief is likely to decrease. In one 2007 study, offenders acknowledged that there was little a victim could do to prevent a robbery occurring, especially when those targeted were dealing with multiple offenders. If those targeted did try to resist and fight back the outcome was usually bad for the individual, and they usually ended up giving up their assets. As one respondent in the study recalled, “A guy near here, I think he was a businessman he fought for his shit, so, he weren’t giving it up, so we had him for about 15 minutes, just punching the fuck out of him, he weren’t giving it up, he gave it up in the end.” Numerical superiority in a violent confrontation is a serious advantage. It also allows for the absence of weapons that could see the offense quickly escalate to a more serious one such as a homicide. This is one of the reasons that most street robberies are “strong arm” affairs i.e., the presence of others as a show of force means that weapons don’t need to be shown and/or used. In self-report studies and research, a consistent finding is that those who commit street robberies take confidence from co-offending, as they know they’ll have backup, should a target offer resistance. It also allowed the sharing of knowledge and expertise, that improved a mugger’s education of how to commit street robberies. When we train to deal with mugging scenarios, we should try to replicate the different components present in such incidents. There is value to training how to deal with individual offenders however we should also accept the reality that most street robberies are committed by groups, for some of the reasons described in this article, and include this into our training. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=668 Mon, 27 Nov 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=667 Because de-escalation involves emotional people, it is good to have a number of tools that can be used to help direct an aggressor to consider non-violent alternatives during a verbal confrontation. De-escalation is not a universal approach that can be applied to all aggressive interactions e.g., a mugger who is engaged in a street robbery is unlikely to be “talked” out of it, as they have a defined goal/outcome that they have set out to achieve i.e., relieve you of your possessions. However, someone who has become aggressive due to an external event, rather than an internal motivation, presents an opportunity for attempting a de-escalation process e.g., someone who has become aggressive towards you because they return to their car in a parking lot and believe that you’re responsible for the dent in their fender/bumper, is a suitable candidate for de-escalation and conflict resolution etc. In this article I want to look at two different tools that can be used as part of this process: “But” questions and Positive Choices. It should be noted that these two solutions are not appropriate in every situation, and that they may need to be used in conjunction with others. Part of the “art” of de-escalation is understanding when a particular tool may be effective and when it will not. Part of the de-escalation process is to keep an aggressor in touch with their “Reasoning Brain”. When people become highly emotional and aggressive this starts to switch off, and they are unable to think rationally, considering violence as the only permissible and inevitable outcome. The quickest and easiest way to get an aggressive individual to re-engage with their “Reasoning Brain” is to ask open-ended questions, such as “What can I do to sort this out?” This gives them an opportunity to consider which outcomes might be satisfactory to them. However, sometimes these outcomes might not be good ones for you, or ones that you are able to meet and fulfill e.g.,  a driver who believes you hit their car – even though they didn’t see it happen, might demand that you immediately hand over $500 to them. This is both unfair and unreasonable and something which you shouldn’t have to acquiesce to. However simply saying “No” is likely to escalate the situation, so you want to try and keep your aggressor working with their “Reasoning Brain”. So far, they’ve at least been able to consider at least one alternative to acting violently i.e., you giving them $500.  This means that they’ve at least started to think in a slightly more rational way, which is something you’ll want to help them to keep doing. One way to do this is to use “But” questions. This is where you say something along the lines of, “I understand why you might feel/believe/think that would be fair/reasonable but I’m not able to agree to that, is there anything else you can think of that would solve this situation?” In this moment if the person is still seeming extremely aggressive and emotionally volatile, they will not be in the right headspace to hear your reasons and explanations as to why you couldn’t be the one responsible for hitting their car. It may be that you have to repeat your “But” questions several times (possibly changing up whether you use the words feel, think, and believe to make it sound less rehearsed) before they are ready to hear this. Trying to explain that they are wrong in their accusation too early whilst they are still highly emotional is likely to see the situation escalate as they’ll take your response to be one of posturing. Another tool you can use to help de-escalate a situation and change a person’s behavior is to give them choices. This is something that I used to use a lot when I was working in pub/club/bar security. Sometimes, I would have to intervene when a fellow doorperson was talking to a member of a group, and those in their party wanted to get involved. I might initially make a request, “If you’d like to just stand over there, I’ll find out what’s going on.” If they refused the request, I might give them a couple of options, “Would you rather stand over there, or stand with the rest of your group?”. The first request was usually used as a setup, for providing them options i.e., to stand over there, or back with their group. I usually presented/requested the less favorable option first. If they acquiesced to the request, it was a win (I also had the opportunity to see how malleable and easy to handle they were), if they didn’t, I could then give them a better option to take. This allowed them to feel that they weren’t necessarily being told what to do but rather that they had some control over the incident. There were a couple of directions I could go from here. One would be to give them slightly more control by asking them, “What could I say or do, to make you either go and stand over there, or rejoin your party, whilst I find out what’s going on with your friend?” It might be that I then had to use some “But” questions if whatever they wanted wasn’t something I could entertain. At some point I might have to enforce a boundary and give a third choice e.g., “OK, you can either go and stand over there, rejoin your group/party, or I can call some other of the security staff over and we can have you, your party, and your friend, leave the club. What do you want to do?” The individual has now been given two pretty good choices – stand in a space or rejoin their group – and a bad one i.e., have them and their friends removed from the club. Framed in this way most people would choose one of the good/positive choices, rather than the bad one. I used to work with some door persons who would ask why I took the time to go through this process rather than simply go straight to enforcement i.e., throwing people out. The first reason is that many people are extremely litigious and would call law enforcement claiming that they’d been assaulted etc., as they were removed from the club/pub/bar etc. This was primarily a headache, and secondly could potentially result in a legal case – most people who involved - and complained to - the police never took it any further. The main reason though was that any physical altercation that could see the police getting called to the club could affect the renewal of the liquor license when it came up for renewal and/or see an increase in the organization’s insurance policy. If de-escalation rather than enforcement can be used to control a situation it is preferable whether that is as an individual or performing a role as a professional.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=667 Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=666 In developing a de-escalation skillset, it is necessary to be proficient in “Active Listening” – this is especially true in workplace settings where you don’t necessarily have an option to disengage e.g., you have to resolve an emotional client/customer’s complaint. It is important to note that there is a difference between de-escalation and conflict resolution i.e., de-escalation is about reducing and removing the emotion in a confrontation so that an individual is able to consider ways that the conflict could be resolved etc. Active listening is a process that contains elements of de-escalation and conflict resolution. In a quickly escalating situation that is starting to become highly volatile, more immediate de-escalation methods are normally more effective at bringing an incident under control, however in situations where things are escalating in a more controlled fashion, and/or when someone’s initial outburst has been brought under control active listening can be highly effective. Most of the time (approximately 90%), we are passive listeners i.e., we don’t really pay attention to what someone is saying. We have probably all had conversations where we’re responding to the other person saying, “yes”, “yes”, “yes” etc., and then we finally catch on to what they’re saying and go, “hang on a minute, you’re saying what?” Up until something particularly significant was said to us, we’d not really been paying attention to the other person. If we take this approach when trying to resolve a conflict and/or dispute we are likely to be unsuccessful. One of the reasons being that we’re not taking the other person and their position seriously; we are making them, and their issue appear trivial and irrelevant and not worth our time; something which is only going to escalate the situation. Active listening follows a process: we receive information, we attempt to understand it, we evaluate it, and then remember it – remembering and “returning” information to the person we are dealing with demonstrates that we are actively listening to what they’ve been saying. Active listening as a process takes time, however when we consider that physical violence is potentially the alternative it is a process worth engaging with. Often in certain professions individuals want to resolve an “issue” - even if it isn’t a conflict - as quickly as possible e.g., it has been found that doctors in general practice, often don’t wait for a patient to finish describing symptoms before prescribing medication/a solution, and police officers taking witness statements have been shown to often interrupt if they feel the witness isn’t getting to the pertinent information that they need quickly enough etc. We need to avoid “rushing” the active listening process because we want to resolve the conflict/dispute as quickly as possible. There are five basic components of active listening: paraphrasing, mirroring, labelling, I-messages, and summative reflection. Paraphrasing is simply putting what is being said into your own words. It shows that you understand what is being said, and what the complaint, conflict and/or dispute is about. Often, emotional individuals will find it hard to fully articulate themselves, and so paraphrasing can help direct their thinking by having something they’re saying returned to them in another set of words. It is important that when you do this you stick to what has been said and don’t elaborate on it by introducing “new” thoughts and ideas. The idea of mirroring is to build rapport, demonstrating that you can see the world in the same way as they do; you understand how they feel because in similar situations you often feel the same way too – saying this helps to create an emotional connection. Labelling allows anger and emotion to be put into a “rational” context. In some ways it shares similarities with paraphrasing but is somewhat more structured in its approach. It uses a “When”, “Feel”, “Because” structure e.g., when something happens it causes the person to feel a certain way because of a certain reason or issue. The “reason” being the crux of the complaint, conflict and/or dispute. This can be a good way of getting to the actual reason behind the person’s anger, because if they correct your “because” on this portion of the response you have discovered the “real” reason for their anger. You normally start the labelling process by making a statement such as “You seem really worked up/angry” etc. and wait for the person to respond and then structure your response using the when/feel/because method. The fifth component is “Summative Reflection”. This is something that should be done periodically, and not overused. It’s a way of summing up and reducing/condensing the content of everything that has been said to just the pertinent points necessary to resolve the conflict. Summative Reflection also demonstrates that you have both understood what has been said and remembered it. It is worth reiterating that active listening is one of a number of tools that can be used as part of a de-escalation and conflict resolution process. It should also be noted that the outcome that an aggressive and highly emotional person wants may not be possible/permissible, and that boundaries must be maintained i.e., conflict resolution should never simply be about acquiescing to someone’s demands because that will move them on. In workplace settings when dealing with emotive clients an organization’s policies may mean that it is not in your power to acquiesce to what the other person wants e.g., if an item that was bought is being returned a long way outside the window of time allowed and the company has a strict policy on this, the customer is not going to get the outcome they desire. In such cases active listening should be used to demonstrate respect for the customer’s feelings and position and as a tool for helping them understand why the policy is in place etc. In next week’s article I will look at some other tools that can be used to de-escalate aggressive and emotional incidents. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=666 Mon, 13 Nov 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=665 I recently saw a meme of a dog – probably a comfort/service animal – sitting on a plane, looking at the flight attendant in the aisle giving the safety demonstration; it was captioned, “The only one on the plane watching the safety demonstration.” These safety measures/instructions along with the safety cards in the seat pockets are often ignored by passengers. Airplane safety cards were first introduced in the 1960’s and then were made mandatory in the US in 1978. Originally text heavy, they sometimes took the form of booklets, rather than cards – and were rarely read. They are still rarely read, despite a lot of work and analysis going into their design e.g., it was found that when images more closely resembled “people” rather than simple doodles, passengers more closely related to the imagery and were more likely to read them. However, they are still rarely read, and the flight attendant’s demonstrations of what to do in an emergency rarely watched. The reason(s) why people don’t read the safety card and/or follow attendant’s demonstrations, also explain why many people don’t take the time to inform themselves about personal safety and/or learn self-defense. In this article I want to look at some of the parallel reasons why people ignore safety information when flying and in daily life. One airline safety organization found that there was an 80% failure rate when conducting in-person lifejacket donning tests. They found that many people assumed that a lifejacket was a lifejacket and that those used in maritime activities were the same, and worked the same, as those used in aviation. People thought that they already knew how it all worked and so didn’t need to be instructed as to how to put one on and therefore didn’t bother to watch the flight attendant’s demonstration and/or read the safety card. Studies have also shown that many passengers don’t really understand the speed with which an oxygen mask needs to be deployed e.g., some study participants thought they had several minutes, as opposed to times that may be as short as twenty seconds. Such individuals believed that they would have the time to work out in the moment what they would need to do in order to survive etc. I have lost count of the conversations I’ve had where people have made the argument that personal safety is just “common sense”, and that they’re very good at figuring things out in the moment etc. They fail to recognize that offenders, including violent offenders, are usually operating to a script that doesn’t match up with common sense, in very fast moving and dynamic situations where time is of the essence. For example, the person who has become highly emotional and aggressive due to something you have done/said or they perceive that you’ve done or said is not acting rationally and is probably not in the right space to receive your common sense explanation of things. This situation will develop so rapidly, with events overtaking you that you won’t have the time to work out what you should do in that moment. In aircraft emergencies, people have been shown to head for the exits where they boarded the plane, rather than the nearest ones. Without educating ourselves as to where the nearest exits are, we are likely to rely on memory, and head to where we remember there was an entrance/exit. So, to believe that we will work out what we should do in the “moment” – everything will be alright on the night – is a naïve viewpoint/perspective. There are also those who don’t want to acknowledge the possibility of having to deal with an air disaster, because it would spoil their flight/trip. These are often the individuals who take a fatalistic approach to air travel, believing that there is probably nothing they can do anyway, should the aircraft hit problems. The truth is, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) more than 95% of passengers involved in air traffic disasters/crashes survive. One of the simplest things that a person can do to try and ensure that they are part of this 95% - rather than being part of the 5% - is to start moving as soon as the plane comes to rest i.e., don’t sit in the seat waiting for the flight attendant’s instructions. Taking control, deciding to move, and acting upon this rapidly increases a person’s chances of surviving a crash. As does knowing how to operate the doors - and these can differ considerably between aircraft - another reason to read the safety card and familiarize yourself with the operation of them before you take off, and possibly before you are due to land; these are statistically the riskiest parts of a flight. Likewise, predicting, preventing, and even dealing with most forms of aggression and violence we may face doesn’t have to be complicated; there are always simple things you can do to increase your survival chances. Whilst the psychology behind de-escalation and conflict resolution can be quite involved, the actual processes of doing so are extremely simple and straightforward.  The card in the seat pocket, and the safety demonstrations by the flight attendants may be seen as too simplistic and not worthy of our attention but observing them increases our survival chances considerably. Even if that’s only because somewhere in our mind we have recently considered the slim possibility of having to deal with a disaster and have acquired or reacquainted ourselves with the knowledge of what to do if that were to happen. As with all potential risks and dangers, we should not adopt the mindset that because our experience of flying has always been without incident that every flight we take will follow this pattern but rather accept that there are certain risks to every activity we engage in and we should be prepared to mitigate, manage and handle the situations we potentially face. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=665 Mon, 06 Nov 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=664 I am a fan of AI (Artificial Intelligence). I first started using machine learning to analyze data sets somewhere around five or six years ago and found that the machine does it much better than me. My manual linear regression analysis was significantly inferior to my computer’s multi-linear regression analysis, which it did in a fraction of the time. I didn’t instantly accept this, but over time came to find that the computer could analyze data, consistently, in many more different ways than I could, and come out with more useful results e.g., the computer was better at using past crime data for forecasting where and when future crime would take place etc. I’m not saying that any of this analysis is “new” or “revolutionary” but that I’m a fan of using technology for crime detection and prevention. I was fortunate enough to do some work with the CCTV (Closed Circuit TV) operators who assisted transit police in the UK, which was a great example of trained individuals using technology to identify offenders who were about to offend e.g., they had come to recognize individuals who didn’t look up to the displays which told when the next train was coming (something everyone actually riding the transit system did), and “passengers” who would move between northbound and southbound platforms, without getting on a train etc. These operators could watch multiple stations and locations in a way that someone on the ground couldn’t. It was a great partnership between humans and technology, however from an efficiency point of view the more the machine and/or camera could do and take the burden of the operator, the more locations and stations could be monitored. In this article I want to look at the effectiveness of recognition technologies both for faces and car registration/number plates.                Early facial recognition technology that began in the 1960’s and 1970’s relied mainly upon manual measurements of facial features. In the 1980’s this method was largely replaced by eigenfaces, which basically involved plotting faces as vectors, with a pixel or group of pixels containing data/information about that particular part of the image, on which lines and axes are drawn (eigenvectors) where the data varies the most. To recognize a face, an image of a face is projected onto this, to see how closely its eigenvectors match. One of the restrictions this method had was that it reduced the face to a two-dimensional model, and so could only have a chance at being accurate if the face to be recognized was captured directly front-on – in fact, most of the software developed to do such facial recognition at the time stated this. From a security perspective this was an extreme restriction because facial recognition would only work if someone looked directly at a camera. In the early 2000’s 3-D facial recognition became available, which was greatly enhanced in the last decade (2010’s) as AI, neural networks, and machine learning came to play a role. However, despite these quite amazing technological advances, facial recognition is far from perfect/accurate. One of the issues that any machine learning software has is the sample of data it learns from (supervised machine learning), and how strict the parameters are for how it learns. If the sample dataset that it uses to learn from contains only white, male faces, the “machine” will get good at learning how to identify white male faces, but in applying the “rules” it has learnt to women, people belonging to other ethnic groups etc., its “predictions” (how closely someone’s face matches a stored image), may be highly inaccurate. Other factors also come into play to confound the problem. If a stored image in a database was taken under a certain light setting, such as a traditional police “mugshot” using flash photography, this will likely lighten the skin tone of a person. If a CCTV image taken late at night is compared to this, without accounting for the change in light, then a match is unlikely to be made, as without good light the skin color will likely appear much darker i.e., comparing images in controlled and uncontrolled environments is more likely to lead to inaccuracies. Also, the near impossibility of keeping up to date stored images of faces is going to mean that aging will make FR (facial recognition) a more complex task. This is not to say that FR doesn’t benefit the CCTV operator, as a computer is far faster at processing the faces in a crowd than a human. If FR can help filter and reduce the number of persons of interest to be investigated/studied, then this “assistance” will aid an operator greatly.                Whilst facial features can vary significantly, numbers and letters don’t. Especially if the same font/typeset is used. The first “fixed” speed camera installed in the UK, was in 1992, in Twickenham, and was calibrated to catch only the very worst offenders (in the UK these cameras are known as a “Gatso” after Maurice Gatsonides, a Dutch rally driver and inventor, who used cameras to measure his driving speed). Modern day “fixed” cameras claim they are calibrated to a 2% degree of accuracy. This figure is lower for mobile cameras that may be set up temporarily on stretches of road. Whilst these UK cameras are primarily designed to capture offenders who speed, they also catch stolen and unlicensed vehicles, and those who are driving unlicensed and uninsured (around 17% of all captures). One of the big civil criticisms is that jurisdictions both in the UK and US use them more as a means to generate revenue than enforce safety, however as someone who was once hit by an uninsured driver and suffered the economic consequences of this (at a time when I was young and really couldn’t afford the costs of repair), the more uninsured drivers that can be identified and forced into getting insurance, the better. In a two-year (2013-2015) period Chicago erroneously issued $2.4 million in fines e.g., in areas where there wasn’t correct speed limit signage, and at times when a particular speed limit shouldn’t have been enforced (in school areas when schools were on vacation). In the U.S., there have also been issues where it was impossible to identify which car tripped a camera – often the person making the decision will simply default to the one nearest the camera, without any other evidence. However, wherever technology exists to do one thing, technology exists to block it e.g., “noPhoto” devices exist to create a light flash, which obscures the number/registration plate where red-light speed cameras are detected, and then there are laser jammers that intercept police lasers, and then bounce them back at the same frequency etc. There are also companies that will provide “cloned” plates that match the year and model of your car, but in fact belong to someone else’s similar car that may be located in another city/state/locale etc. A ”trick” that some New Yorkers are using is rather than use another car’s number/registration plate is to put a plastic film/sheet over theirs which pixelates the plate e.g., presents the number three as a “B” by drawing the requisite lines etc.                Whenever technology is used to either enforce a law, or even prevent a crime, offenders find a way to circumvent or exploit it. Self-driving cars are overall statistically safer than human drivers but they’re not perfect – which is why we have concerns about them. Facial Recognition (FR) software/programs are extremely effective, as are speed cameras and their like, but they’re not perfect and they either have failings and/or people find ways to exploit their vulnerabilities etc. Rather than rely solely on any technology to ensure our personal safety we need to learn how to work with it, and recognize its vulnerabilities.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=664 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=663 It was a black Harvard professor, Chester Pierce, who in 1969/1970 came up with the term “microaggression” to describe some of the subtle and seemingly negligible “slights” and devaluing statements he received from some of the white students he taught. Sometimes these microaggressions came in the form of a compliment, and may have been well intentioned such as, “you’re a credit to your race”, however such statements may reinforce a stereotype and include an underlying implication; that African Americans are not as smart or educated as White Americans etc. To the person making the statement such a remark may seem negligible and inconsequential, however when these types of comments are received on a daily basis, they have been shown to have a cumulative effect that is significant. Whilst the term microaggression was originally used only in the context of race it has been expanded to cover any intentional or unintentional behavior and communication that “targets” a group e.g., a remark like, “you got beat by a girl”, reinforces a stereotype that women are inferior to men etc. (in 1973 MIT professor, Dr Mary Rowe, started applying the term to backhanded remarks aimed at women). Often when the idea of microaggressions is brought up for discussion – and this includes in academia – the argument will be made that those who are offended are being overly-sensitive and that they need to “toughen up” etc., and/or that this is political correctness gone mad – “you can’t say anything anymore without somebody getting offended” etc. however this is to ignore and discount the cumulative impact that these everyday statements and comments have. It is also important to separate the impact from the intention. Someone who pays a compliment concerning how Jews are good at business (they’ve certainly not seen my books/accounts) may be genuinely well-intentioned in what they are saying, however the impact is that they are perpetuating an age-old stereotype, which isn’t factually based. In this article I want to look at microaggressions, not in a judgmental way, so that we can either feel good or bad about ourselves but from a practical perspective; how we can avoid perpetrating them – even when well-intentioned – and how we can respond in a non-combative/non-offensive manner if we are members of a group that sometimes receive them. Overt racism is easy to spot. I have on occasion been called a “Stupid Jew” on social media. I may well be stupid, have said stupid things etc., but linking stupidity to my ethnicity/race i.e., that’s why I’m stupid, is clearly meant and intended as an antisemitic comment/remark. The person making it wasn’t trying to disguise or hide their intent. They wanted me to know their thoughts/thinking and hoped to have a certain “impact” from making such a statement. Such forms of prejudice are easy to spot. However, in my experience, the majority of racial prejudices aren’t so open and loud. They happen quietly and to small audiences e.g., I was once at a social event – where someone who didn’t know I was Jewish – told an apocryphal story about how he’d been walking around a Jewish neighborhood in London, and had seen bed sheets drying on a washing line with holes cut out of the middle them, and to quote him, “If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes I wouldn’t have believed it either.” This is a common myth/urban legend, that I’m not going to go into the origins of, which promotes the idea that religious Jews have sex with a sheet between them. Joining extremist groups and making public statements to large audiences, can have negative consequences, perpetuating myths, and stereotypes, in small, “quiet” group settings, to people who may be too polite to say anything is a much more effective and low-cost way of spreading lies and offensive opinions (I’m not too polite and called him on it). This is one of the ways stereotypes can easily spread, and we can all be affected by them e.g., we have a “truth bias” that makes it hard for us to believe that someone wasn’t walking around a Jewish neighborhood, and hadn’t seen what he’d seen etc. I’m not questioning the “story teller’s” intent e.g., he may have thought he was simply being entertaining and telling a “funny” story, however the impact was to support and reinforce a myth, that would in turn support other Jewish myths, making them more believable etc. Although this was a “subtle” way of supporting a prejudice (that Judaism doesn’t promote intimacy, and sex is a cynical transactional act to over-populate the world etc.), microaggressions are far more subtle. One of the pioneers in the field of microaggressions is an Asian American professor Dr Derald Wing Sue, a professor of psychology and education at Colombia University. One of the “compliments” that his new students often give him, is that he speaks really good English. The fact that he was born in the US and that English is his first language doesn’t seem to occur to them. Obviously, the intent behind such remarks is to give a compliment, however they contain an unintentional idea, that is often at the heart of anti-Asian American sentiments, that Asian Americans aren’t quite American enough. The compliment, although not necessarily meant that way, is to praise the speaker for integrating into American society to the point where they speak English fluently etc. The impact though is to remind the professor of this idea that Asian Americans don’t usually integrate themselves into American culture/society as fully as they should. One of the methods that the Professor uses to both combat and educate this microaggression is to respond to the person making it by saying, “And you speak good English too”. The comment about his good English doesn’t make the person saying it a racist, however they are unintentionally perpetuating a subtle stereotype and an incorrect assumption – that most Asian American are immigrants and aren’t born in the US i.e., they are not fully/complete Americans; a view that the US government supported after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1943 (reparations for internment and confiscated property were only completed in 1987). Microaggression should not be confused with jokes that are open and obvious. One of my favorite Jewish jokes is the one about the Jewish Father Christmas who came down the chimney and asked if anyone wanted to buy a present. The person who told me that wasn’t Jewish and saw the humor, rather than the race, in an absurdist stereotypical joke. I don’t see the danger in the telling of such jokes in the appropriate context – at the meeting of a far-right nationalist paramilitary group I would interpret the intent and the impact differently. However, microaggressions aren’t obvious and the underlying meaning is implied rather than demonstrated. Learning how to respond to them in a non-confrontational manner can be empowering (which reduces the traumatic effects of them), and to acknowledge when we unintentionally commit them, can help make a calmer and less aggressive society. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=663 Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=662 I’ve never really liked multiple choice tests. I was fine at them for subjects like math and physics where there were “absolute” answers to questions e.g., four plus four always equaled eight etc. However, I have taken professional exams, where an answer might depend on a context, and if a particular context wasn’t given then there might be “alternate” answers to  the “correct” one etc. This is one of the reasons it is usually wise to buy the board’s official reference material before taking one of their exams, even if you have a wealth of prior experience, because you will want to understand the context and perspective they are coming from. However, when dealing with real-life violence, the options are rarely “a” or “b”, or even “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”, or “e” etc. Context is so important when dealing with violence that phrases such as “always do this”, and “never do that” shouldn’t be in a self-defense instructor’s vocabulary. “Always” and “Never” can lead to dead ends and inhibit/stifle the “creativity” that is sometimes needed in a moment to survive a situation. Sometimes these creative moments become standardized e.g., Backburning – something that is now taught as a life-saving strategy to firefighters when dealing with out-of-control wildfires – that literally involves fighting fire with fire was developed in a moment, when a firefighter realized he could not outrun a wildfire he was dealing with. In the moment he had the clarity of mind to think outside the box, and start burning the ground around him, so that he would be able to remain in a small area which deprived the approaching wildfire of fuel. He survived. A principal is a fundamental truth, that is enduring and universally applicable. Whilst there may be mechanical principles that apply to power generation when striking and throwing etc., when it comes to decision-making what we think of as “principles” are really Heuristics, things that speed up and guide decision-making but aren’t absolute truths. In this article, I want to look at some of the “principles” which are often talked about in Krav Maga and reality-based self-defense which if applied as “rules” could reduce/eliminate our effectiveness at dealing with violence.                There are many ideas and views about fights and the ground. There are those who believe that most fights go to the ground, those who believe you should never go to the ground in a fight, and those who think you should always go to the ground etc. One “truth” that almost everyone will agree on is that some fights go to the ground, and all fights have the potential to end up on the ground i.e., to have a comprehensive self-defense strategy you are going to need to know how to fight and survive on the ground and get back to your feet. It is beyond the scope of this article to get into a debate/discussion about what is the best way to do this, and different people are likely to have different ways to accomplish this which are effective for them, which will not necessarily be everyone’s preferred method etc. One of the lazy phrases that is often used in social media “discussions”, when commenting on a video of a technique/solution is “good way to get yourself killed.” If you are a boxer who has never trained knife defenses, you are going to rely on your boxing skills, if you are ever attacked with a knife. Your boxing skills are going to increase your survival chances. Your footwork, movement, your control of range, your ability to punch with power are advantages that you would never have had if you hadn’t taken up boxing. If your solution to a knife attack is to use your boxing, rather than this being a “good way to get yourself killed”, your boxing skills have done the opposite. The same is true of fighting on the ground. Yes, it contains risks, such as multiple assailants and weapons, however if this is where you fight best, and you are “losing” the conflict by remaining standing then your most effective strategy may be to take the fight to the ground. This doesn’t mean I’d recommend this as a default strategy, however trying to work to a rule of “never go to the ground” takes away an option that may deal with an immediate problem. Not going to the ground is a good heuristic/starting point but it should never be an absolute rule that is followed and enforced regardless of the situation you are facing. Another Krav Maga rule/principle that often gets “enforced” due to trying to keep the system simple/straightforward is, “if it’s a life-threatening attack, attack the attack, if it’s a non-life-threatening attack, attack the attacker.” Again, this is a good heuristic, but it falls down if applied as an immutable/unchangeable principle or rule. An example of this would be, if you are being choked, clear the choke – the assailant’s hands or arms - before attacking the attacker. If someone grabs your wrist or clothing, attack them before they can initiate a more serious threat/attack. However, context changes things. Although someone grabbing your wrist constitutes assault and battery, the setting in which this attack takes place matters e.g., if this happens in the workplace during or after an argument, either work-related or non-work related, even though the grab would in all likelihood go against a company’s policy, to start striking and punching a colleague would probably be seen as a disproportionate response – even if “legally” you were justified to do so. If this was a family event where a drunk relative tried to stop you from leaving an argument the two of you were having, you may be judged as overreacting etc. If you are in a pub/bar, and someone grabs your wrist, for whatever reason, and you start punching them, you may find yourself dealing with three of their friends, who interpret you as the aggressor etc. I believe in heuristics, they help us make complex and generally effective decisions quickly, however principles can become rules that prevent us from making effective decisions and deny us taking opportunities that may actually improve our survival chances. There may be times when it’s best to go to the ground, to throw a high kick, to not try to directly control a weapon but simply redirect it and run and/or pull our own weapon etc. Context dictates all of these things/responses, whereas principles ignore context, and dictate we act in a one-size-fits-all, universal way. Casting principles as heuristics allows us to keep their benefits without having to blindly follow rules.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=662 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=661 Like everything, Krav Maga was not created or developed in a vacuum. Whilst Imi Lichtenfeld is credited with founding the system, he could also be looked on as a curator of many people’s experiences and ideas; a person who brought these things together, not necessarily as a “system” but as an “approach” to self-defense and fighting. A system is something that is defined by boundaries, and is limited, whereas an “approach” is something which is much broader and allows for things to develop in many different directions. A system is rigid, whereas an approach is fluid, and allows for development and evolution. This is why Krav Maga can adapt and change as threats and dangers modernize themselves e.g., with long barrel weapon disarms developed in the 1940’s it was possible to grab and keep hold of the barrel of a rifle/carbine, something not possible with a modern weapon that heats up too quickly. To fully understand how Krav Maga came to be, and continues to be, it is necessary to understand the environment in which it was first developed, and some of the individuals who may not have necessarily directly influenced its creation/development, but provided significant background to the Israeli approach to combat and fighting. One such individual is Orde Wingate, after whom the Wingate Institute in Israel is named. In this article, I want to take a quick look at how Orde Wingate changed the Kibbutzim – the Jewish farmers/settlers in then Palestine – from being defensively minded, to individuals who acted offensively, and took the fight to their aggressors, rather than waiting to respond etc. This is a key concept within the Krav Maga approach i.e., attack must follow defense at the earliest opportunity, or be pre-emptive. When Orde Wingate - assigned as an intelligence officer - arrived in then British-controlled Palestine in September of 1936, he found himself dealing with the “Great Arab Revolt” (something that lasted for another three years). The revolt was an uprising of Palestinian Arabs who were protesting against British rule, and the presence of Jewish communities in Palestine. It was comprised of strikes, riots, and acts of civil disobedience and terrorism etc. It also directly targeted Jewish settlers and Kibbutzim with acts of violence. A Kibbutz is traditionally an agricultural community/farm, where members share in the work for the benefit of the community, rather than for the individual. Wingate discovered that, often during the night, Arab guerrilla groups would attack these sometimes-isolated communities with small arms fire, remaining at a distance, which made it difficult for members to engage and defend themselves. Wingate, who was known for his unconventional strategic thinking, proposed that the best solution to dealing with such attacks – along with attacks to British infrastructure and resources – was to seek out and proactively engage with these groups, thereby preventing the attacks from being initiated. He proposed that groups of Jewish settlers, led by British Officers, should go out in the night to disrupt the Arab guerrilla groups, that were operating in Palestine. In 1938, the British command agreed to the idea, and the Special Night Squads were formed. These primarily comprised of members of the Haganah, the Jewish defense force that was working towards establishing the state of Israel; something that Wingate himself believed in. Wingate embodied and put into practice the line from the Talmud (a compilation of Jewish law, and commentaries on the Hebrew Bible), “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill them first.” The Special Night Squads, introduced the Jewish Settlers to the benefits of striking first, and initiating the attack, rather than waiting and responding etc. Moshe Dayan (who was Minister of Defense for Israel during the Six Day War – where Israel preemptively attacked the surrounding Arab Nations as they were preparing for their own attack on Israel), once said of Orde Wingate, “He taught us everything we know.” The idea of attacking at the earliest opportunity is a core concept in Krav Maga, as simply blocking attacks, invites more attacks. At some point – and the earlier the better – the attacker themselves needs to be disrupted/shut down so that their attacking sequence can be interrupted/stopped. If possible, this should be done pre-emptively before an aggressor even launches their first attack, and most western legal systems allow this. Battery, is the act of “unwanted touching” and assault is the phase that precedes it i.e., when a person is in a position to engage in “unwanted touching”, which could be to grab, punch, or push you etc. The touch does not have to potentially cause pain or injury, it simply has to be unwanted e.g., if someone was to put their hand on a woman’s thigh, and its unwanted and deemed aggressive, that would suffice. Whilst a person who is in a position to potentially commit battery, fulfills one of the requirements of assault, there is a second: the person who may potentially be “touched” must fear for their safety. Only when this second part is present is an assault committed. In a crowded bar or pub there may be many people who are in a position where they could touch us, however it’s only when one of them gives us a reason to fear for our safety that we can make the claim that we are being assaulted. At this stage, we are entitled to defend ourselves i.e., attack pre-emptively. Obviously, we need for legal reasons to be able to demonstrate why we feared for our safety, rather than just say we did, however we don’t have to actually wait to be attacked before we defend ourselves. The Special Night Squads (SNS) gave the Jewish settlers access to Orde Wingate’s unorthodox methods of combat, and his philosophy of pre-emption and attacking at the earliest opportunity in order to disrupt the enemy; a lesson Moshe Dayan (who served in the SNS) took and applied when initiating the Six-Day/June war, which saw the Egyptian air force largely destroyed on the ground with a pre-emptive air-strike. Many other members of the Haganah, served in the Palestine Police Force, using the training they received to educate themselves about tactics and the use of weapons etc. All of this to some degree had an influence on training and tactics and set the background for the development of what became referred to and known as Krav Maga. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=661 Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=660 I’ve written before about scenario-based training for self-defense, and why I believe it’s not only important but essential. Training “techniques” is great but without putting them into context, they merely become choreography. Full-on scenario-based training can be time consuming to set up, as participants need to be “trained” to play roles and act on pre-built decisions e.g., if someone does this then do that, but if they do this then do that etc. However, simple contexts can be trained in regular classes, with simple decision-making being trained etc., and this is important, because how we train is how we act. This was brought home to me on a close-protection course (learning to be a “bodyguard”) I attended many years ago. Towards the end of the course, we were starting to work through scenarios that replicated real-life situations. These scenarios forced us to act and work under a certain degree of stress and duress – enough that we often had little time to think and decide upon what to do i.e., we had to act in the moment. There were a couple of participants on the course who were ex-law enforcement, looking to transition into close protection. Often, they would try and engage with assailants at the expense of disengaging with the principle (the person they were meant to be protecting). Under pressure they did what LEO’s (Law Enforcement Officers) are called to do, which is to engage with those who represent a threat/danger. When the heat/pressure was on, this is what they defaulted to, despite “knowing” that their primary goal, in these scenarios, was to disengage with the person they were protecting. In the classroom they could tell you exactly what they should do, but under pressure they did what years of training and experience had taught them. If you don’t consistently train something you think is right/believe in but only talk about it, then come the time, it is unlikely you will do it, this is why experiential learning is so important. In this article I want to talk about two things that are often given as “advice” in reality-based self-defense but rarely trained: disengaging and handing over assets.                Many people train self-defense and fighting systems so that they can learn to engage/fight with an aggressor; few – at least initially – train with the goal of disengagement. However, disengagement is the way a fight/violent encounter conclusively ends. That’s when it is truly over i.e., when you are in a different location to your assailant. However, many people envisage that this outcome involves either their aggressor disengaging due to being completely overwhelmed, or being left in a bloodied pile on the floor unable to continue etc. This is a matter of ego, not survival. The outcome of/for an aggressor/assailant is really an irrelevant matter. I care about myself, not the other person. This is the essence of close protection, making sure the principle (the person you are looking after) gets home safely and unharmed, rather than punishing and/or teaching a lesson to those that mean them harm. If you train a particular technique and after performing it remain in the same place as your partner you are not practicing solutions to violence, merely techniques to deal with a specific attack or threat. If you are training to escape from a rear-strangle, a side-headlock, a guillotine, then after doing so, run a few steps and make distance between you and your partner. Train “getting away”. If you practice stomping the head when you’ve put someone on the ground stop doing it – you are no longer in imminent danger, you have a chance to disengage, and so by doing so you lose your claim/right of self-defense. How you end practicing a technique is likely to be what you do in reality e.g., if after completing a technique you stay with your partner and don’t “run”, that is the context you are training, and that is what you are likely to do. If in training you throw someone to ground, and then follow them there, and/or stomp kick their head, that is your context, and that is what you are likely to do – and you shouldn’t refer to it as “self-defense” (the argument that they “could have had a knife/gun” etc. doesn’t carry much legal weight). In  training knife attacks, when a knife is pulled, and you see it, do you always wait to block an attack, or do you practice turning and running before an attack is made? After “successfully” or even “partially” blocking do you practice disengaging? If training knife attacks under pressure and you fail, do you practice disengaging, or doggedly pursue a technique attempting to make it work, when you’d be better cutting your losses and running? Training when and how to disengage as safely and as quickly as possible is an important part of training to survive.                An important part of training for reality should involve not only training to disengage but training not to engage, and when to comply with a demand/threat. If someone wants/demands your assets, such as your wallet, phone and/or laptop, it is safer to comply than resist. The person(s) may not be displaying a weapon, but it should be assumed that they have one on them in order to enforce their demands if denied. For them there is one outcome, they leave with your assets, the variable is whether you are harmed in the process – and they are probably experienced and practiced in this. When training how to deal such threats we should not only train physical solutions – as, if after complying with their initial demand they don’t leave, we may have to do so - we should also actively train compliance i.e., mimicking handing over something, or actually handing over something, and not engaging physically. I will sometimes give students some fake money so that this physical transaction takes place. This may seem like play-acting and unnecessary, however it helps overcome our evolutionary reluctance to part and/or leave the things we possess. Human beings for millennia have relied upon tools for survival. In our earliest days the loss of a pot for cooking, and/or a knife for cutting could result in us failing to survive. This is why we have to be told not to gather our belongings in the event of a fire, because we have a natural and inherent proclivity to do so. Under stress and duress, such as with a fire or when dealing with a potentially violent aggressor, these emotional urges often override our conscious knowledge and understanding of what the right thing to do is. Which is why we have to train things such as handing over the wallet etc.                Practicing disengagement and acquiescence aren’t as “sexy” as learning a choke hold, a joint lock and/or how to punch hard etc., but if we are training for reality, they are things we need to do in our training. Merely paying these things lip-service and saying “yeah, yeah, but I would do that in reality”, is not the same as practicing them, and is not any guarantee that this is what you will actually be inclined to do. Training for reality means training the things that you are actually going to do in real-life situations. If you only ever train to engage this in all likelihood is what you will do.              https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=660 Mon, 02 Oct 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=659 Many years ago, when I was living in the UK, a neighbor from a few doors down told me that he’d disturbed a burglar/intruder in his house the previous night/early morning. The first thing to note about this incident is that nighttime residential burglaries are statistically uncommon. Most break-ins to houses occur during the day when the homeowners/residents are out at work, leaving the house unoccupied (commercial burglaries are more common at night, when offices and other buildings are empty). Signs of occupation, such as cars on a driveway, lights, and the TV on etc., are usually a deterrent to offenders looking to break into a property. However, nighttime burglaries do occur e.g., burglary may be a second income for an offender who has a day job, leaving them with only the night as a time they are free to offend etc. They may also occur when an offender, who may not have been planning a burglary, becomes motivated when they see an opportunity that is too good to miss e.g., an open window in what may appear to be an unoccupied property etc. What had happened in this instance was that sometime during the night my neighbor had gotten up to go to the bathroom, and when he opened the bedroom door there was a man at the top of his stairs, just about to step onto his landing. When the man/burglar saw him, he said, “get back in your room and shut the door.” Which my neighbor did. He then called 999 (the UK equivalent of 911). As expected, by the time the police arrived the intruder was long gone. My neighbor’s question to me was, did he do the right thing by following the intruder’s instructions. My general and usually default response when people ask me such questions about personal safety, is that if nobody got hurt/injured then “yes” they did the right thing – this doesn’t mean that the same response should necessarily be applied to similar future incidents of a similar nature but rather, in that particular instance their response “worked”. Going back into the bedroom and closing the door – as requested – allowed the intruder an opportunity to escape whilst knowing that he wasn’t going to be physically challenged or pursued etc. It was not an instruction given to try to gain access to someone, etc. In this article I want to look at certain strategies that can be used when encountering someone in the home who is committing a burglary etc. Being burgled/broken into is frustrating for a number of reasons. There is often damage done to doors, windows and other access points, property may be taken, police reports need to be obtained, insurance claims made etc. Perhaps the most significant impact of having a home broken into is a sense of violation, with a place that used to feel safe now appearing somewhat vulnerable etc. All of these things evoke an emotional response, and one that may cause us to respond poorly if we confront someone in the process of committing a break-in e.g., we find ourselves in the middle of the night (or during the day), standing across from someone who has broken into our home. We may be tempted to physically engage with them, in response to the injustice committed against us etc. However, caution should be applied here as there is a good chance that even if they came unarmed, the person who has broken in, will have on them the tools that they used to do so, whether this is a wrench, a box-cutter or screwdriver that they used to force a window or door etc. You may also be dealing with two or more, rather than just one individual. This is especially true of young and adolescent offenders who tend to co-offend as they learn their “trade” and gain confidence. My neighbor’s burglar was middle-aged and probably had a fair amount of experience, giving him the confidence to take control of the situation when disturbed. Younger offenders with less experience are much more likely to panic and do something stupid, rather than recognize that their best option is probably to call it a day, and disengage/escape, even if that means doing so empty-handed (my neighbors experience). Also understand that if this is a multiple aggressor situation and you have other family members in the house, you will be putting them at risk if you chose to engage with someone who has broken in e.g., whilst you may be tackling one offender there may be others making there way to the other individuals in your home. If you have a room that has been designated as a safe room, that should be where you try and get to, and depending on the layout of the house/apartment, you may want to have more than one, so that nobody has to fight and engage with an intruder to get there. Even if you haven’t yet called, it may be worth taking control of the situation, and tell the intruder(s), that the police are on their way and the dispatcher has told you that they will be with you in five minutes, letting your intruders know that this is ample time to escape and get away etc. They should feel pressured to leave rather than feel that their only option is to turn the incident into a hostage situation etc. If you hear something in your home that could potentially be a burglar, calling law enforcement, and then shouting out from the relative safety of whatever room you are in, that you have done this and they’ll be here in 5 minutes, may prompt a swift exit of any unwanted guests in your home. As a note to firearm owners, if you choose to engage, be prepared that you may find yourself in a firefight, if your intruder is similarly armed, and what this may mean for others in your building, as well as making sure your actions are defensible both from a criminal and civil perspective.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=659 Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=658 When we look at other people’s lives, we often simplify the decisions they have to make, i.e., their choices seem obvious to us. We don’t understand why a friend we have is having trouble deciding whether to take a better paying job with more benefits (better healthcare, more time off, opportunities to work from home), or stay at a job they hate, and have been complaining about for years. The choice seems obvious. However, we fail to recognize that change and uncertainty are things that human beings avoid like the plague and/or the emotional attachments our friend may have to their workplace e.g., although they hate the job, they like the people they work with etc. When the subject of abusive relationships comes up, many people don’t understand why the individual being victimized doesn’t just leave their partner, especially when there are no children involved, and there are no shared assets e.g., joint ownership of a property etc. Often phrases like, “there’s nothing keeping them there”, will be used to express the confusion as to why someone would stay in an abusive relationship rather than “simply” leave. Rationally – which is a perspective we can have when we look in from the outside – this would seem the obvious and sensible thing to do, however for the individual in the relationship there is an emotional component, which will produce a skewed psychological perspective concerning the abuser. In this article I want to take a look at “traumatic bonding”, a concept that psychologists George Dutton and Susan Painter developed to explain how those who are continually victimized within a relationship whether that is psychologically, emotionally, physically, financially and/or sexually (to read more about different forms of intimate partner abuse click here) form certain emotional bonds with their abuser, that often keep them in the relationship and prevent them from leaving. Often Trauma Bonding and Stockholm Syndrome are used interchangeably and as synonyms, however there are a few differences. A component of Stockholm Syndrome is that the victim starts to identify with their captor’s/abuser’s goals e.g., after Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army, and given the chance to be free, she decided to join and fight with them etc. In this regard she was no longer being abused/victimized. Also, with Stockholm Syndrome, there is no prior relationship between the victim and their abuser/captor. However, in saying all of that Trauma Bonding does contain elements of Stockholm syndrome, and the two conditions are related. Both involve a process that those being victimized go through, with the result being that a person feels an emotional attachment to their abuser – one that is so strong it compels them to remain even when their better judgment tells them otherwise. For individuals in abusive relationships, they have two basic choices in trying to understand what is happening to them i.e., they can form the belief that they are deserving of the abuse, and they themselves are the reason they are being abused, or they can believe that responsibility lies at the feet of their abuser; someone they willingly formed a relationship with. In trying to come to terms with being victimized many individuals come up with reasons that fall into both camps e.g., they may believe they are partly responsible for the abuse because they’re not always the “good partner” they should be, and the reason their partner engages in abusive behavior is because of the hard life and lack of opportunities they’ve had etc. They may feel that their partner needs their help and support because they’ve so far been unlucky in life and not had any of the same advantages that they’ve had etc. This is not simply sympathy for their abusive partner, they’ve joined their team i.e., the two of them are in it together, regardless of the abuse that they are receiving. Human beings are optimistic creatures even in the face of all odds against them. It may be that an individual in an abusive relationship believes that if they can help change one thing, the relationship will return to how it was in the early days. Trauma Bonding is a process that begins with what is colloquially referred to as “Love Bombing”. This is where a potential abuser overwhelms their partner with lavish gifts, excessive displays of affection, and a constant stream of admiration. Being the center of someone’s attention and having them signal you as an “amazing” individual is both flattering and somewhat addictive, to the point where an individual disregards or discounts their partner’s negative/abusive behaviors. When this is coupled with “Gaslighting”, where the individual being victimized starts to question their beliefs, consistency and take on reality, the confusion that this creates can make their partner seem like the only reliable and stable person in their world. Because the victimized individual exists in a world of “highs” and “lows” this can create an addictive (and toxic) relationship e.g., if an individual is feeling down because they don’t seem to have a grasp on reality and their self-esteem is in question, suddenly being given an extravagant gift gives them a “high” which they will seek again. This is really no different to the way that sex-traffickers treat their sex-workers i.e., provide the drugs that release them from their reality after they have been sexually exploited. Both create the same cortisol (stress) dopamine (pleasure) cycle that results in a physical/pharmacological addiction. At some point in this process the individual being victimized will start to lose their own identity and start to see that by “accepting” the situation they are in they are actually solving/managing it. This means that their idea of “self” is dependent on their abuser, and they become dependent on their abuser for validating who they are. If their abuser every now and again throws them a bone they will remain dependent on them, because there is only one individual’s recognition of them which means anything. Eventually those victimized hand over complete control of themselves and the relationship to their abuser. It would be easy to think that only the weak would “fall” for this process and be taken in, however I have been part of martial arts/Krav Maga associations, and trained with “Grand Masters”, who use a similar process, and it is addictive. I remember talking to a fellow instructor, in Israel, about why a certain other high-profile instructor put up with the way his head instructor treated him, and was met with the response, “there are two types of loyal dogs: the loved and the beaten.” Unfortunately, in all types of relationships we are vulnerable to being the beaten dog and staying in unhealthy relationships. We should reserve our judgment of those who stay in abusive relationships because they are far more emotionally complex than our rational minds can comprehend. We should also recognize the processes that such individuals employ, because it is far easier to get out in the early stages of the relationship than let a bond be formed.                  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=658 Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=657 One of the things that many people find boring/tedious about traditional martial arts is their focus on what appear to be small or insignificant details e.g., a block should see the arm finish in an exact position, or when moving a foot, it should only move so far, and no farther forward etc. Trying to manage all of these seemingly small details can be mentally exhausting and may seem to be unachievable. Without constant practice, focus and discipline, it is. For some this process is appealing i.e., the striving for perfection is an inviting challenge, and for others the payback doesn’t come quick enough. One of the blessings and curses of Krav Maga is that it offers – at least initially – a very quick return e.g., I can have someone blocking, moving, and striking, in an “adequate” fashion very quickly, however if someone is satisfied by their performance at this “level” they will never progress. If they want to progress, they will need to be disciplined in their approach and pay attention to and focus on what may seem small details i.e., some of those things that traditional martial arts demand at the outset. Hopefully a practitioner will reach a point in their Krav Maga training where they are able to understand this; that whilst aggression can compensate for technical ability to a point, in order to improve and become a better fighter, there must be a focus on technical abilities and the development of skills. Unfortunately, there are those who believe that advancement comes through learning more “advanced” techniques e.g., practicing long barrel gun disarming equates to advanced training etc. In reality “advanced” is doing the basics better because it is these that provide the foundation for everything and are the things that you will most likely be relying on in a real-life confrontation. In this article I want to look at two things, basic foot movement and hand positioning, and why inadequacies in these areas can see practitioners come unstuck, especially when dealing with someone who knows how to exploit such vulnerabilities. When I used to compete, one of the things I looked for at the very start of the fight was whether my opponent had consistent foot movement; when they stepped forward/advanced with their front foot, did their rear foot adjust by stepping exactly the same distance? Often people will not be consistent in this, and adjust by bringing the rear leg further forward, shortening their stance. The same is often true of those that do this when moving backwards. That is when they move their rear leg back, they will pull back their front foot/leg to a greater degree. Once again shortening their stance. This narrowing of stance creates a vulnerability that can be exploited via a double leg takedown/Morote-Gari. In a long and wide stance, it’s extremely difficult to get a strong enough grip on the legs to lift. When the legs come closer together this becomes much easier. Also, when the feet come closer together, a person’s center of gravity rises, and they become less stable. Often people with poor/inconsistent footwork create other opportunities e.g., they may sometimes take longer steps with their front foot than are necessary, allowing for their front foot to be stepped. With good consistent footwork these opportunities are generally denied. Another thing that inconsistent footwork creates is the inability to always be able to launch a powerful attack e.g., if an individual consistently moves the rear foot forward to a greater degree, after they move their front foot forward, they limit the power they can create when punching/striking. Part of power generation in striking comes from shifting weight in the direction of the strike/punch. If the distance between the legs is shortened, then this shift is reduced, reducing the power of the strike. If a good striking opportunity presents itself when a person has shortened their stance it will not be able to be fully exploited. Whilst a “Fighting Stance” isn’t something that is static i.e., if you’re not moving, you’re not fighting etc., it is a reference point to work from, and always moving to/through it as you fight means you will always be in a familiar position to exploit the opportunities that present themselves. Another “inconsistency” I often see in training is where the hands are positioned when the arms/hands are in “guard” e.g., someone will start a strike/punch when the hand is in one position and then on retraction return it to another position. This often happens when someone “paws” a straight punch/strike like the cross or jab i.e., their punch doesn’t go in or come back in a straight line on the same level, but rather has at the end when connecting a circular motion resembling the way a cat “paws” an object. The issue with the hand returning to a different position is that there can be no consistency in punching/striking as the punch is always starting from a different position or has to return to the “original” position before being thrown. One easy way to increase hand/punching speed is to return the hand to the same position after blocking and striking etc. Obviously there will be times when this doesn’t make sense, such as blocking, and then striking with the same hand but as a general rule, moving the hands through, to and from, the same guard position will improve striking and blocking speeds etc., and give you a consistent reference point to work from. Focusing on and refining footwork and hand positioning may seem like small and/or insignificant details however shortcutting them is likely going to result in hitting a plateau, and not being able to progress much further until addressed. If your footwork and movement isn’t consistent you will find your feet in positions that make it hard to strike/punch with full power and quickly adjust position in response to a change in an aggressor’s movement and position etc. Focusing on consistency may not be as fun or engaging as learning a “new” technique but in order to become a better fighter, it is a necessity.             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=657 Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=656 Overall, men are somewhere between six and seven times more likely to kill than women, outside of domestic settings (around 23% of killings in partner-related homicides are committed by women – usually after themselves being physically, emotionally, and psychologically abused by their partner over a long period of time). When it comes to serial killers, female offenders are extremely rare, and of those we know of, in almost half the cases they committed their crimes with a male partner/counterpart. Earlier this month, nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of the murder of seven babies, in the UK hospital (Countess of Chester Hospital) where she worked, adding her name – especially in the UK – to a very short list of female serial killers. The fact that female serial killers are so rare, helps explain why she was able to evade detection for so long i.e., those working in healthcare settings generally believe themselves and their colleagues to have the patient’s best interests at heart. This in one of the reasons that Dr Harold Shipman (the UK’s most prolific serial killer, with 15 confirmed victims, and possibly over 200 more) was able to commit so many killings, without the coroner(s) becoming suspicious; why would a doctor want to kill elderly patients when there was no financial gain. He was only caught when he altered one of his patient’s wills, and a taxi driver who used to drop many of his patients off at the surgery, came to pick them up after their visit only to find they had died during it (most elderly patients die at home, not whilst visiting their doctor at a surgery). Lucy Letby was able to fly under the radar due to biases concerning her profession (like Shipman), and the fact that women rarely engage in such offenses. In this article I want to look at the Lucy Letby case and take a look at female serial killers (FSK), and why although there doesn’t exist either a classification system concerning FSK or a distinct profile of the “typical” female serial killer, Lucy Letby shared several characteristics with those that preceded her. Even defining what constitutes serial killing can be difficult/problematic, as law-enforcement and academics working in different locales may have slightly different definitions of the offense e.g., length of time between killings, number of victims, length of time within which all offenses were carried out, whether to include those victims the killer knew etc. However, when it comes to the study of serial killers, most can agree that statistically such offenders are extremely rare, and the vast majority are male. This provides a challenge when engaging in the science of “bottom up” profiling and applying a scientific approach to the subject. In “bottom up” profiling only the “facts” are used to create a profile. Alternatively, the “top down” approach used by the FBI includes the “ideas” and “experiences” of the profiler; which results in some startling successes but also creates many failures. Because of the rarity of the FSK, there is only a small amount of data to use, however there is enough that nobody should have really been surprised when Lucy Letby’s offenses were discovered. In the US, around 40% of female serial killers are either nurses or work in some form of professional capacity in healthcare settings (Harrison, 2015). Letby was also not unique in the methods she used to kill. Two of her intended victims – who survived – were two prematurely born babies; she had added insulin to their intravenous food bags. Poisoning, rather than causing trauma and/or direct physical injury is a preferred method of killing used by female serial killers. Letby is also not unique in her choice of victims. Studies have shown that two groups that a FSK is likely to target are: children and the elderly. One area where FSK differ from their male counterparts is that they tend to be geographically stable/consistent. Last year I wrote an article on the types of occupations that male serial killers tend to favor/gravitate towards (click here to read the article). When seeking employment, they tend to look for jobs that offer them a lack of supervision (nobody is watching them), freedom of movement, and solitude. Male serial killers are often found in types of employment like long distance truck/lorry drivers (Peter Sutcliffe, John Robert Williams, William Bonin, and Keith Hunter Jesperson etc.). Letby killed in one location, rather than several, as did the FSK Rose West, who along with her husband (who is now seen as likely to have been her accomplice, rather than the other way round), killed and then buried their victims in/at their home. It may be that Letby believed nobody would think to link a female nurse with a number of suspicious incidents. Beverly Allitt, another UK nurse, avoided detection until someone realized that of twenty-five suspicious incidents that had occurred at the hospital, including four deaths, over a fairly long time period, she had been present at all of them. Hospitals are places where deaths occur, and nobody wants to believe a colleague is either deliberately or negligently the cause of them, making it easier and simpler to adopt a state of denial and excuse/explain away incidents, rather than investigate something we emotionally don’t want to find a particular answer to. We often don’t see things coming due to the biases we naturally have e.g., women don’t kill and not in a serial fashion, and those working in healthcare always have our best interests at heart. We would rather believe that a sports coach has taken a special interest in our child because they are likeable and gifted kid, than go through the thought process of questioning whether their actual motivation is darker and more nefarious. Predators don’t announce themselves and use our lack of curiosity concerning them to avoid detection. Lucy Letby looked like a typical, 30-something nurse, and Rose West appeared from the outside to be an ordinary, middle-aged housewife etc. Neither announced who they truly were.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=656 Mon, 04 Sep 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=655 We have all had moments when we “lost it”, when we allowed our emotions to take over from our rational thinking. In most cases this “switch” involves a decision e.g., if someone deliberately cuts us off in traffic, and we decide to aggressively chase them, flashing our lights, slamming our horn etc., we decided to lean in, and hand over control of events to our emotional self, and let it make the decisions for us concerning our following actions i.e., we decide not to think rationally; it is a choice we make. The term for such “thinking” is “bounded rationality”, a state of thinking and decision making that recognizes the cognitive impairments and limitations of the decision-maker e.g., if someone comes home to find their partner in bed with another person, the shock and surprise of this is going to effect how they respond etc. The legal system recognizes this, and if such an individual were to shoot that person, the charges and sentencing etc., would reflect this e.g., it may be described as a crime of passion. Violence is often categorized/classified as being instrumental or expressive e.g., if someone was to shoot/kill their partner in order to cash in on their life insurance, this would be an Instrumental act of violence, however if in the case above they shot their partner and their lover, it would be seen as an Expressive act of violence. Obviously, there is an instrumental aspect in Expressive Violence, even if that is just to satisfy and dispense emotions, such as anger and revenge. Often, when we consider self-defense scenarios and situations, we see ourselves as the innocent and/or aggrieved party and don’t consider how our responses may be seen as threatening to others and escalating the situation. We may even determine in the moment that we have a right to do so e.g., someone shouldn’t be allowed to talk to and/or treat us in a certain way, such as cutting us off in traffic, or shouting at us when we accidentally cut in front of them in a queue/line etc. In this article I want to look at some different methods we can use to help us control our emotional state and why this is important. One of the first things we must establish when making a legal claim of self-defense is that of innocence i.e., have we taken any available opportunities to avoid a verbally aggressive confrontation from turning into a physical one etc. If we step towards an individual who has initiated an aggressively verbal dialogue and are in arm’s reach of them – where we can touch them – legally we may be deemed as having committed an assault (assault being the preceding stage before battery i.e., unwanted touching/contact). This may seem unfair as the other person “started it”, however our response of moving forward to engage may give the other person the claim/argument that we put them in imminent danger, and that was why they responded to our movement by physically attacking us. Recently I read a piece of research on CT-R (Recovery Orientated Cognitive Therapy), and how it was being used to help newly released offenders who had just completed long-term prison sentences e.g., fifteen years plus etc. Often such individuals have some form of PTSD (it is believed that around 24% of the US male prison population meet the criteria for PTSD) and talking about the events that led to their trauma can be triggering. With CT-R, the therapy talks about the future and reinforces positive behaviors to incidents that may involve conflict(s). It is worth noting that some of the institutions that those involved in the research had been housed in were environments that to survive an individual would have to be hyper-alert and aware for most of the time. This makes “peacefully” integrating into society challenging. What may seem a minor event on the outside, such as someone engaging in direct eye-contact for an overly long period of time, would be taken as a significant and major challenge/threat in a prison/jail setting. CT-R teaches an individual to give themselves at least 10 seconds before they respond to anything, and in that time to think about the potential consequences of their actions should they give in to their anger/emotional state e.g., what might be the potential consequences of being seen as the “physical” aggressor – stepping forward to engage – during a verbal dispute i.e., losing a legal claim of self-defense, and facing criminal charges etc. As one member of the study aptly put it, “if you stop when the light is yellow, you ain’t ever going to get into an accident.” One of the most common types of situations where law-enforcement officers end up using excessive force is after a foot chase. It may be that the offender stops running because they are exhausted and know that it is unlikely that they’ll evade capture, or that they have to be tackled and brought down etc. The officer who has been in pursuit is adrenalized, possibly dealing with some anger and frustration at having their commands to stop ignored/disobeyed, and probably not in the most comfortable physical and emotional state. In such moments it’s understandable that they may be thinking in a cognitively impaired state and take the decision to use more force than may be necessary to apprehend and control the individual who forced them into a foot chase. This has also been seen in pursuit driving, which adds additional stressors on the officer engaged in the pursuit e.g., they must give chase whilst attempting to ensure the safety of other drivers on the road, and in certain situations consider the unpredictable actions of pedestrians. Many departments have an officer other than the one who made the pursuit make the arrest in order to avoid “pulling the suspect out of the vent window” etc. When the Las Vegas police applied a “hands off” policy for officers involved in foot chases (that was researched and evidentially based) use of force dropped by 23% with an 11% drop in officer injury. Many departments also have adopted “count to ten” style guidelines for foot pursuits where the suspect/offender is not putting them in immediate danger or appearing to be a threat. Some aggressive situations move extremely fast, and so it may be useful to employ something like the “help scripts” used in forensic and psychiatric settings. These are scripts that allow you to slow a fast-moving situation down using preprepared lines, so that you can effectively count to ten as you are doing so. These scripts also allow you to quickly engage with an aggressor and demonstrate that you don’t represent a threat to them in any way. All of us have got caught up in a moment and allowed our emotions to take charge however this risks escalating a confrontation to a volatile point, when it could possibly have been de-escalated and a physical confrontation avoided. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=655 Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=654 I have written a lot over the years concerning de-escalation. I believe it is an extremely important skill to learn and develop as most acts of aggression/violence are a result of social interactions. Whilst we may spend a lot of time and effort devising personal safety and protection strategies to reduce the risk of being targeted by persistent and hardened offenders (which isn’t a bad thing), we may do so at the expense of thinking about and training to deal with the more likely aggressive incidents involving everyday social interactions e.g., we are far more likely to get into an argument/dispute over a parking space, jumping a queue, or cutting someone off etc., than being involved in a pre-planned/premeditated street robbery, car-jacking or abduction. When thinking about and dealing with violence there is often a tendency to focus on the extreme, rather than the more common and likely events involving disgruntled, frustrated and/or annoyed individuals; people who have often become too aggressive, too fast, over what are at the end of the day minor and unimportant events. Incidents, which can often catch us by surprise/unawares because from the non-emotional/rational perspective they don’t appear to warrant the emotional depth/importance that the other person is giving to them e.g., we don’t recognize that the other individual may be prepared to use lethal force in order to “punish” us for taking what they believe is their parking space etc. Most of these types of incidents can be successfully dealt with using de-escalation strategies – only the most emotional and volatile individuals won’t want to be given an exit route from being involved in a physically violent confrontation. Whilst I have written and presented a lot on the verbal component of de-escalation, I haven’t written so much on the physical aspect of de-escalation, other than talking about the need to have a certain stance etc. In this article I want to look at different types of range and space, relative body positioning and how/when to make eye-contact. The first thing to understand about de-escalation is that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution and that it is a process which requires a certain level of adaptability. It is often useful to think about de-escalation from the perspective of escalation i.e., what would make the situation worse. When situations escalate it is often around 30%  due to the aggrieved/disrespected/frustrated individual, and around 70% due to the reaction of the other person. This reaction could be one of fear, panic, and/or confusion etc., rather than an overly aggressive and challenging response. Escalation usually needs some type of reaction/response to feed off. Therefore, responding in the “right” way is extremely important and is essential if the de-escalation process is to be effective. Part of an effective response is to understand how we understand space and distance, and ways to control range effectively, so that we appear engaged but not challenging. There are four types of “space” that we need to understand how to use. These are: Intimate Space Personal Space Social Space Public Space Often when people become aggressive towards us, they invade our intimate space; they get up in our face. Violence isn’t just personal, it is intimate. We can think about “Intimate Space” as being that between our elbow and our shoulder (if the arm is stretched out in front). At this distance and range, if someone were to make an attack it would be almost impossible to protect ourselves. We wouldn’t have time and space to cover, let alone block. Whilst we remain in this space, we are both at risk of physical attack, and also presenting a challenge and potential threat to the person we are dealing with i.e., we aren’t  seen to be “backing down”, even if we are wanting to avoid a physical altercation. Personal space can be measured as being between the fingertips and elbows of an outstretched arm. Being within someone’s personal space means we will still be perceived as a threat, and so we should move into what is termed “Social Space”. Social space is measured as being just outside someone’s outstretched arm e.g., if someone wanted to punch, grab, or push another person etc., they would first have to move forward to do so. However, because de-escalation involves engaging with the other person we don’t want to move too far back as this puts us in what is referred to as “Public Space”. If/when we are in public rather than social space, we are signaling that we don’t want to interact with the other person. This can be seen as ignoring, discounting, and/or devaluing the other party’s grievance, which is likely to escalate things. Trying to walk away from an aggrieved person, even if you believe their grievance is unwarranted, is only likely to make things worse. When you ignore someone, you devalue both them and their experience(s). This is why it is key to occupy the “Social Space” where you can engage with them.        It is also important to angle yourself slightly off-line, rather than “square off”, facing your aggressor directly. This accomplishes a few things. It means that your aggressor will have to re-align themselves before making an attack, increasing your time to physically react/respond, as well as presenting yourself in a non-physically challenging position. Although you will want to be in a position to make contact, if you can present yourself as wanting to listen first – averting your gaze somewhat by leaning your head slightly to one side – this can indicate that you are taking what the other person says seriously. When you are ready to speak in response, this is the time to make eye-contact. This is a subtle way to demonstrate that you are trying to understand the other person’s grievance, instead of challenging it. Obviously, if the person is already at such a heightened emotional state where their only thought is to cause you harm, such subtleties will be lost, and your range and positioning are there to best prepare you for a physical confrontation. Effective de-escalation involves using both physical and verbal skills to diffuse the emotion from an incident. How you compose yourself and what you say (often more important than the way you say it) is important in de-escalating verbally aggressive, and potentially violent, incidents. Not only should your physical positioning appear confident and non-threatening, it should also put you in the best position to defend yourself whilst putting your aggressor in a disadvantaged state. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=654 Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=653 Sometimes when I’m presenting to a group on personal safety, there will be an individual who will claim that the advice I’m giving doesn’t match up with their experience(s) e.g., if I advise that you should always lock your front door, they will state that they always leave it unlocked and in 30 years nobody has ever broken into their house etc. In one sense it is hard to argue with someone’s experience, even if it only constitutes a sample size of one. This is one of the issues with “Survivor Bias”, we use our experiences of winning/success to blind us to the reality of our situations e.g., each time we leave our house unlocked, and it isn’t broken into we count it as a win, and this “win” blinds us to the fact that in other parts of town offenders are taking advantage of other situations where homeowners have forgotten to lock their doors etc. The first recorded instance of the idea/concept of survivor bias comes from a conversation between the Greek philosopher, Diagoras (5th Century BC), and a friend. Diagoras was an atheist who was challenged concerning his lack of belief in the gods by a friend who pointed to all the paintings in a temple showing sailors in a violent storm praying to the gods to save them. Diagoras’s friend made the argument that because these sailors survived it was proof that not only did the gods exist but that they had answered the sailors’ prayers. Diagoras responded by asking where all the paintings of the sailors were who were shipwrecked and/or were drowned i.e., didn’t survive. When we only look at the survivors or focus on our successes, we are only getting half the story and seeing half the picture. Whenever someone demonstrates a survivor bias concerning crime and violence, it is worth coming back to Routine Activities Theory (RAT) - that for an offense to take place there must be a motivated offender, a suitable victim, and the lack of a capable guardian. If a motivated offender is lacking then an offense can’t take place e.g., if you leave your door unlocked and nobody is motivated to exploit this vulnerability then you won’t suffer a break-in, however it would be incorrect to assume that somewhere else this isn’t happening i.e., you just got lucky. Certain types of entertainment rely on the existence of a survivor bias. I remember as a kid watching the illusionist/psychic Uri Geller on a panel show bend spoons and perform telekinetic “feats” and being completely taken in. Just before a commercial break he asked people at home with broken watches to hold them up to their TV screens, and he would attempt to get them working again; anyone with a success should phone the TV station and tell them. Geller was playing a simple game of chance – if enough people/viewers start moving a stopped clockwork/mechanical device around a very small percentage are likely to start working again, even if this is just temporary. Geller only needed this to happen for a few viewers who were motivated enough to phone in – and if they had engaged in the action of holding their broken watch up to the TV set, they had probably already bought in. After the commercial break, Geller claimed a success; some broken watches had started, and some people had phoned in. As an eight-year-old who wanted to believe that ESP (extra-sensory-perception) existed he’d sold me. However, like with Diagoras, there was no record of the unsuccessful. As a practitioner of a reality-based self-defense system, I am always encouraged when I hear an account of someone, military or civilian, getting their Krav Maga to work in a real-life violent encounter. However, I am more interested, from a technical perspective when something doesn’t work, or doesn’t seem to be effective i.e., I don’t want to develop a survivor bias around what I practice and teach, only listening to the success stories and the “wins”. As much as I believe in the Krav Maga approach and accept some of its apparent shortcomings in some very specific areas are a necessary “cost” in order for the overall approach to be successful/work, I try not to simply accept the relevance of something based on a few success stories; over-promote the wins without acknowledging the losses. Understanding when and why things go wrong is a necessary first step in evolving and developing the method, to ignore this is to allow the system to stagnate – and eventually become irrelevant. As an instructor it is extremely gratifying to see students make something work (have a success) when under pressure, however if there were some common failings amongst students to get there, then it is an opportunity to review the teaching/education process and find ways to expedite the learning process i.e., it is easy to get rewarded by the successes, and not examine the failures that took place to get there. There are few areas of our lives not affected by the survivor bias. Academic research which presents itself as being “honest” often suffers because of it e.g., a piece of research that failed to prove something is less likely to be submitted and be published than one that does. However, this doesn’t make the research irrelevant because it might prove something else. For my criminology master’s degree thesis, my basic hypothesis was that burglars travel further to commit their offenses than muggers i.e., those who engage in street robberies. The data didn’t support this, and my “idea” was proved wrong e.g., there were those who committed burglaries in their own apartment blocks, and there were muggers who travelled quite far to specific locations, such as certain shopping malls, to commit their crimes. However, there were so many other “ideas” that sprouted out of the hypothesis that couldn’t be proven that it would be incorrect to say the research project produced no “findings” or other questions to investigate e.g., were there certain types of offenders, both burglars and muggers, who commuted to commit their offenses, and others who were purely opportunistic (professionals versus amateurs)? Sometimes by focusing purely on the successes and failing to look and learn from the losses – falling foul of the survivor bias – we stop questioning, and this can eventually lead to a failure to evolve and develop. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=653 Mon, 14 Aug 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=652 The vast majority of human beings have a natural aversion to kill, even in combat settings where survival depends on killing another person. However, the further away – geographically - we are, and the less personal it gets, the easier it becomes e.g., it is easier to fire a mortar round, or drop a bomb, than it is to look a person in the eyes and pull a trigger etc., even though rationally we might know the consequences of each of these actions result in the loss of life. There is a “fatigue” and stress amongst many drone operators, who despite flying these aircraft from another continent, often observe their target(s) for days and even weeks before ending their life; they have gotten to know them as “people”, and despite rationally knowing that these individuals have committed heinous terrorist attacks against their fellow countryman, ending their life often doesn’t come easy. This isn’t a criticism, rather it is a celebration that most of us have an innate aversion to kill; and this makes us human. However, someone who takes on the role of a soldier has to overcome this. The UK army still conducts bayonet practice (or “sword” if you’re from certain regiments). Whilst many other militaries have abandoned the practice the UK has successfully used the bayonet in modern military conflicts and continues to train with it e.g., the Falklands War saw several “bayonet charges”, and in 2004 a detachment of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders engaged in a bayonet charge against a large group of insurgents in Iraq etc. However, perhaps the bayonets’ most important use is in training aggression. To an outsider it may seem overly theatrical to hear the answer “Kill! Kill! Kill!” to a sergeant’s question of “what’s the bayonet for?” But as those words are being shouted there is no room in the mind to question what is being done. The words fill it. All the moral doubts that may exist are lost to these three words. In this article I want to look at the importance of mantras and self-talk, when engaging in violence. I’m not suggesting that when we are having to physically deal with someone in a civilian setting that our intent should be to kill – it should be to create an opportunity that allows us to disengage safely – but rather we can use other words and phrases etc., to help us complete this task. When you decide to use physical force (lawfully) against another person(s), you should be committed 100% to what you are about to do. This is why it is so important to have answered your moral and legal questions before you engage in violence. Once engaged there can be no room or time for doubts, all questions must have been answered. Part of learning to use the bayonet, is not questioning its use e.g., if a soldier crashes/bursts into a room and their weapon jams, there can be no question or hesitation about using the bayonet against an individual who means to kill them. Any questions about when and how to act have to be worked out during and after training. What is required in that moment is commitment. Whilst the stakes may not be as high concerning a verbal altercation in a bar or pub, all questions about how you should act and respond need to have been answered beforehand. An “it will be alright on the night” approach rarely leads to a successful and safe outcome; in such situations we rarely rise to the occasion. Whether you decide to act pre-emptively (the person’s actions constitute an “assault” and you recognize the inevitability of violence), or have to physically react to an attack, you want your mind to be focused on the task at hand. There can be no questions and no doubts about what you are doing i.e., you are looking to hurt and use violence against another person because you are in imminent danger yourself. Whilst such actions require full emotional commitment, your conscious mind will catch up, and start to ask questions. Hopefully these are “relevant” ones, such as “Where’s the nearest exit?”, “Is anybody else moving towards me looking to engage?” etc. These are positive, background questions that are relevant. However, often irrelevant, and insidious questions enter our thoughts e.g., “Is this legal?”, “Why am I not hurting them?”, “Do I have enough energy to keep doing this?” etc. This is where you need a mantra like, “Kill! Kill! Kill!”, to fill the void. As I have written before, in civilian settings, mine was/is, “Not me! Not me! Not me!” The other value that having a mantra brings to the game is in controlling breathing. Many people, when engaging in violence, tend to hold their breath. It’s one of the reasons why people get exhausted so quickly in a fight. It’s not that they’ve expended so much energy, but rather the moment the physical conflict started, they stopped breathing. After a few seconds they’ve no oxygen in their lungs, and possibly no oxygenated blood in their brain. If there is one “fuel” that the body needs in abundance when engaged in a fight it is oxygen. Whilst breathing can be tied to striking e.g., you exhale when you strike, and/or deliver a combination etc., it can also be tied to your personal mantra, and in the moments when you’re not able to deliver strikes/punches, this may be the one thing that keeps you breathing. It can also be used to help regulate your breathing in the post-conflict phase (when you are no longer in imminent danger) where you need to bring everything back to stasis. By slowing down your internal recital of “Not me. Not me. Not me.” You can match your breathing to it, start to regulate your body’s state, and start to bring all of its processes back under control. Violence is something that is up close, and personal, and which happens face-to-face, with the breath of the other party on you. Psychologically disconnecting from such incidents and attempting to approach them in a state of Zen calmness is extremely unlikely to be successful. Instead, you have to embrace that moment and lean into it. Whilst “Kill ! Kill ! Kill!” is an appropriate mantra when your goal is to end another person’s life, it isn’t necessary for most incidents and events that we are likely to have to deal with i.e., “Not me! Not me! Not me!” (or something similar), should suffice. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=652 Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=651 When I first received an email from a Nigerian prince, with a ridiculous story about him needing to get $300 000 out of his country, and that if I helped him, I would be entitled to get a cut etc., I clicked trash, and thought to myself - who would fall for that? Then the stories started to come out about people who had fallen for this exact, or similar scams. I recall the account of one individual, who after weeks of back-and-forth by email had ended up travelling to Paris to meet the people he’d been dealing with. He was shown into a hotel room, that contained several suitcases packed with bundles and bundles of banknote-sized papers that had been painted black. After being told they’d been painted this way to help smuggle them into France, and that the bottles of fluid next to the suitcases would easily clean them, the man -after a quick demonstration - handed over his bank details. He spent the next few hours in a hotel room applying the solution to the bundles of paper, hoping that at least some of them would be genuine banknotes. Of course, none of them were. It would be easy to judge this individual for being foolish and gullible, and falling for something that we never would, however, to do so would be to disacknowledge our own blind spots – and we all have them. The “Nigerian Prince” scam wasn’t targeting people like me (and if you never fell for it, you), however this doesn’t mean we aren’t susceptible to being scammed, we’re just not susceptible to this scam. In this article I want to look at some of the warning signs of scams, where they may not be so obvious, and how we can protect ourselves and our assets (I include family members, information etc., as well as financial assets). In 2008, Bernie Madoff was arrested after admitting to family members that his investments had all been a lie, and that he’d in fact been running a giant Ponzi scheme. The judge sentenced him to 150 years partly on the basis of victim accounts, including that of an 86-year-old widow who recounted how Madoff had assured her that her money was safe with him – she lost everything. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, although working off the same premise as the original 1920 scam, whereby existing investors were paid out dividends from the money of new investors etc., was a little more subtle. Instead of offering ridiculous payouts that would fall into the “too good to be true” category e.g., an annual return of 35% year-on-year etc., Madoff’s scheme offered a return of 8-12%. A good return but one which someone could convince themselves was plausible. The Nigerian Prince scam is something that promises so much that it will only attract a few people (which is all it needs to work), whereas Madoff’s scam was much more “realistic” in what it promised in return. This made it far harder for those he targeted to spot that they were being scammed. However, one warning sign was that year-on-year, there were never losses or shortfalls in payments to investors. The “consistency” with which people were paid was the “too good to be true” element of his scam. In fact, month-on-month the investment portfolio he “created” never lost or went down. This is something which is highly unrealistic, however if you are still being paid the return you were promised then there is little reason to question things e.g., it is normally the unexpected, not the expected that we question. Most Ponzi schemes aren’t on the scale of Madoff’s, involving amounts averaging about $200 million, with a life-expectancy of under five years, with the perpetrator(s) (mostly solo-operators) taking around a third of all money invested. Many of these schemes are run over the internet, and marketed visibly, making them appear legitimate. Whilst some will promises amazingly high yields, the best way to check their validity is by checking their histories e.g., do they seem to defy the markets. Most scammers don’t have a complete picture of those they target. They will take specific pieces of information that they do have and get us to focus on them. Many years ago, in the UK there was a sexual predator who would check local newspapers that printed photographs of school teams and matches. He would then look for children with more unusual last names and go through the phone book, attempting to identify the phone numbers of the houses where they lived. Making a list of these, he would go to a phone box/pay phone, during a school day, and start working down the list. He was looking to contact mothers who stayed at home during the day/didn’t work. When someone would pick up the phone, he’d get them to confirm that they were the mother of one of the children from the paper, and inform them that he’d abducted them, and unless they followed his orders, he would hurt them etc. A large part of his plan relied on a panicked parent believing that they were on a time-constraint, and that they didn’t have time to call the school or the police. This is a common indicator of a scam: that the window of opportunity is limited whether it is to receive a benefit or experience harm etc. The mother would then be ordered to a local park/recreation ground, and told to strip and masturbate, whilst he watched them. Armed with just a few pieces of information – a child’s name, and a vague description – he was able to get those he victimized to follow his orders. Fortunately, he was caught after someone spotted a man in a phone box/pay phone watching/observing a woman he’d targeted. With social media we present so much more information than a school soccer team’s photo in a local newspaper, however there is always information about us that others don’t know. If an individual seems to be focusing on a few details that could be available publicly and doesn’t know much beyond this, then it’s right to start questioning what they actually want. With the advent of AI, scams are only going to become more sophisticated, and so our means of detecting them are going to have to become more involved e.g., it is possible to clone a person’s voice from a video that is put up on social media etc. A scammer can now call you and have a conversation pretending to be a friend or a family member, asking for help or to meet you somewhere etc. It is going to become more important to have “proof of life” style questions that will need to be asked to make sure the “person” you are talking to is who they say they are. It’s not always easy to spot the “too good to be true” element of a scam (and in certain cases that part may mean you aren’t the intended target e.g., Madoff targeted those who wanted a good consistent return over time, not those wanting to get rich quick). However, taking a moment to gather more information, and assessing the information another person has is a good way to start looking at how things may be presented to us.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=651 Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=650 The term/word “stereotype” originated in the print industry. It refers to a metal plate that printers used to hold an entire page of print. This enabled them to print identical pages over and over again. The journalist, Walter Lippmann, brought the term to public attention in the 1920’s, when he used it to refer to “pictures in the head”, whereby people created fixed ideas of the attributes that all members of a group shared e.g., all Jews and Scottish people are tight/cheap with money (as a Jewish/Scottish person I obviously adhere to both stereotypes thereby giving value for money – two stereotypes for the price of one). Lippmann, generally used the term “stereotype” to refer to negative attributes e.g., if a seemingly positive attribute was presented such as that Jews were good at business, the actual messaging would be negative e.g., Jews are “good” at business because they are taking advantage and exploiting others etc. The problem with stereotypes is that they are a natural part of human thinking, and they don’t necessarily make us “bad” people. They offer us a shortcut that allows us to engage in quick decision making, which in certain instances can be useful e.g., if we see a large tattooed biker, sporting Hell’s Angels patches, walking decisively towards us, there may be a chance that he’s looking to have an intellectual discussion with us about the works of Voltaire, however it may be safer to assume that the large array of steak knives he’s carrying don’t indicate that he’s on his way to a cooking convention etc. The stereotype of Hell’s Angels having a propensity for violence, may mean that we at times interpret things in an unfair manner but as a heuristic means that we can make decisions quickly, and this is why our minds create stereotypes in the first place. However, the danger to our personal safety (and to others) comes when we create stereotypes, or folk devils, that have no basis in reality. These can divert our attention away from actual danger and direct our focus/attention onto those who actually present no threat/danger towards us. We all have and use certain stereotypes, and the first thing we must do is acknowledge this and understand that this is part of the way the mind works, because it is only by doing so that we can start to distinguish actual behavior(s) that signal danger from our stereotypical thinking of what violence looks like. In the UK, in July of 2000, a tabloid paper (the News of the World) named 82 convicted child sex offenders and promised to name and produce photographs of over 100 000 more. In August it abandoned its campaign, due to inciting violence against innocent people e.g., people who might have shared the same name as those listed, and lived in a similar neighborhood etc. It also resulted in vigilante groups targeting individuals who adhered to the “stereotype” of a child molester e.g., single older men who generally kept themselves to themselves etc. The truth is, and this may have been known by some of those targeting these individuals (who may have themselves engaged in child sexual abuse), is that most child sex offenses aren’t committed by strangers but by people the child knows e.g., family members, friends of the family and people trusted by the family, such as teachers, religious leaders, and sports coaches etc. This is one of the reasons I don’t engage in specific “stranger danger” programs when I teach children and teenagers self-defense, but rather teach more generalized personal safety that can be applied to all people and situations etc. I have lost count of the number of ridiculous scenario-based training videos where an instructor plays the role of someone attempting to abduct a child, adhering to the stereotype of a “creepy” old man who is trying to lure a child away with a bag of sweets etc. Whilst child abductions by strangers may play on a parent’s greatest fears, they are statistically extremely rare occurrences and when they do occur the methods used are usually more subtle than a bag of sweets and a snatch and grab e.g. someone may see a child with their name printed on their school bag and approach them by name, stating that they are a friend of the family who has been sent to get them because a parent or other family member is in hospital etc. Such a story is much more likely to motivate a child to accompany them than the “reward” of a sweet etc. By presenting to children a “stereotypical” danger we are at risk of blinding them to the more realistic and likely ones. Another group that gets “stereotyped” as being predisposed to violence are the mentally ill, especially those who are schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is an extremely complex mental illness, and there are in fact those people who overcome it e.g., they are plagued by it in their teenage years but recover from it through treatment etc. These occurrences rarely get reported or make the news because they are uneventful. Unless someone has a firsthand experience of knowing an individual who went through this it is unlikely that they would be aware of such a thing happening. Most individuals with schizophrenia “manage” their illness without ever engaging in violent or threatening behaviors and in all likelihood someone with schizophrenia who has violent/paranoid/threatened ideations will probably target those they know, rather than strangers. However, holding on to a stereotype such as that the most dangerous people that exist are those with schizophrenia allows us to live in a state of denial concerning the actual and real risk(s) of violence. Having a “Folk Devil”/stereotype to fear is one way of managing our actual fears. Stereotypes are natural and useful for making quick decisions, however quick decisions that are wrong are both unhelpful and dangerous, and so there are times when we should question why we have reached the decisions we have. When I’m facing what I believe is a threat – that is when I have the luxury of time to do so – I will often take a moment to examine if what I’m experiencing is actually “fear” or if I’ve “created” the fear. There are monsters out there but not every shadow I see is from one of them, and jumping at them potentially takes my attention away from those that actually cast them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=650 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=649 On June 27 (2023), The US Supreme Court threw out the conviction of Billy Raymond Counterman, who had been sentenced (in Colorado) to a custodial sentence of four and a half years for stalking a female musician. The case is significant a one and has some potentially far-reaching effects, concerning not only stalking, but also possible claims regarding self-defense. A significant aspect of what defines stalking and harassment cases is how the person targeted perceived the actions and behaviors of their stalker/harasser as opposed to how the stalker/harasser intended their behavior to be interpreted e.g., an ex-intimate partner may have sent flowers to their ex every week thinking/believing that what they were doing was cute and romantic, however the person receiving the gift may have interpreted it as being a threat or act of intimidation e.g., “don’t think that you no longer belong to me”. In the Counterman case it appears that the Supreme Court has taken the position that just because someone makes a threat, it shouldn’t be interpreted as a threat if the person never intended to act upon it, and that this protects such utterances under the first amendment. It assumes that the target of Counterman’s campaign should have in some way been able to interpret and know that Counterman’s “threats” weren’t genuine and that he never intended to act on them. Once the perception of a threat becomes less important/significant than the intention behind it, which can only be ascertained to be null and void when an event hasn’t occurred – the person making the threat hasn’t acted upon it – then the person they have targeted loses the few legal protections they have regarding stalking/harassment e.g., would attempting to obtain a restraining order against someone who constantly made threats via social media be an infringement of that person’s civil liberties because they say in their defense that these were just words and had no actual meaning etc? Without getting caught up in all of the potential legal consequences, I want in this article to look at how to prevent stalking campaigns from potentially starting in the first place, and the one single most important thing to do when you find yourself targeted. The Counterman case is statistically rare in terms of stalking, and without taking anything away from the woman targeted (a local singer/musician), a campaign that statistically speaking was unlikely to result in physical violence e.g., stalking of stranger/celebrities is less likely to result in actual violence, than campaigns committed by ex-partners. In saying that, the Colorado court which sentenced Counterman to four and a half years obviously felt that his online threats were serious enough to warrant such a sentence, and that the things he said/wrote were not protected by free speech rights (something that they actively considered and debated when deciding the verdict, but which the Supreme Court disagreed with and over-turned). As ex-intimate partners are the most likely individuals to engage in stalking campaigns, I want to first look at the best ways to end relationships, so that they don’t open up the window for potential campaigns. In such incidents, stalkers are unable to give up on the relationship and want to continue it in whatever way they can. Sometimes, with the initial goal of trying to convince the other party to get back together with them. However, when this doesn’t happen, they often continue their harassment campaign because they simply don’t know how to stop acting and behaving in this way, or their motive changes to one of punishment and vindication (for the injustice of the relationship being ended/taken away from them etc.). This means that when ending a relationship, it is important to draw a line under them, and make sure that there is no room for the other person to think/believe that the relationship could be rekindled/restarted etc. Trying to soften the blow by using phrases like, “it’s not you it’s me”, and/or, “I’m just not ready for a serious relationship at this time”, can be interpreted in a number of different ways. “It’s not you, it’s me” type phrases make it seem like the problem isn’t with the partner or the relationship, rather it’s a personal failing; something which can be worked on. If someone says they are not ready for a serious relationship “at this time” then they may be at a later date etc. When ending a relationship, everything has to be clear with little to no room for interpretation. Even when ending a relationship clearly and cleanly it doesn’t mean that the other individual will respect what you want. If your relationship is with a narcissist or someone who has narcissistic characteristics etc., you may find that they go into full “attack” mode and look to destroy you in every conceivable way. They may spread false rumors about you, “share” personal information with others and generally attempt to ruin your reputation. Their stalking and harassment campaign may involve them trying to get you to notice that they are engaging in these things. For most stalkers their goal is to have you be thinking about them all the time e.g., every time you pick up your phone you worry that there may be an unread text message from them etc. For stalking campaigns to work, the stalker needs fuel to keep engaging and that usually requires some form of feedback e.g., having the person they are victimizing beg for them to stop, or even making deals with them to get them to stop etc. In the Counterman case the person he was stalking gave him feedback that his campaign was having an effect, even though she never responded to his requests on social media; by blocking the accounts he kept creating to communicate with her, he was getting confirmation that what he was doing/saying was having an effect. Although in one sense he was being ignored, in another he wasn’t, and this provided encouragement.      Having worked with people who have been the subjects of stalking campaigns, I can say that dealing with a stalker is exhausting, unnerving and unsettling even when you are fairly sure it is not going to result in physical violence. At face value, the different forms these campaigns tend to take, and the tools that are used e.g., constant emailing, phoning etc., in isolation often don’t seem particularly frightening, but when they are combined to create a constant wall of noise they are deafening and overpowering. Just because someone makes the argument that they were never going to act on a threat, doesn’t take away the power and influence of that threat, over the person being threatened, just as someone who is blackmailing another person doesn’t lose the effect of blackmail even if at the end of the day they had no intention of revealing the information/secret they had acquired. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=649 Mon, 17 Jul 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=648 On July 4th, 2023, there were sixteen mass shootings, resulting in fifteen people being killed, with another 94 injured. The shootings occurred across thirteen states as well as in Washington DC. The Gun Violence Archive’s definition of a mass shooting (this database of mass shootings is managed by North Eastern university professor, James Alan Fox), is an incident where four or more people are killed or injured (excluding the shooter), due to the use of firearms. It should be noted that not all of these events involve what would be described as an “Active Shooter” incident, as many of these incidents were the result of arguments between individuals and groups, rather than the indiscriminate selection of targets which tends to characterize active shooter incidents. The US Homeland Security’s definition of an active shooter incident is one where, active shooters have “no pattern or method for the selection of their targets.” However, it is worth noting that even in active shooter incidents, although specific individuals may not be targeted, specific populations and groups usually are i.e., whether that’s a particular school, a workplace, a religious site etc. Even when there may seem to be little reason to target a particular group, such as country and western music fans attending the Las Vegas, Route 91 Harvest musical festival in 2017, to the shooter – 64-year-old Stephen Paddock – that group represented something and was significant to him in some way. In many ways we should not be surprised that this July 4th (2023), was such a deadly/injurious one, involving gun violence, as historically July 4th and July 5th, are statistically the riskiest days for gun violence in the U.S. Over the past decade there have been 52 mass shootings on the Fourth of July, averaging just over five a year (2023, with sixteen, is going to raise that average noticeably). In this article I am going to examine some of the reasons why July 4th, is America’s deadliest day. Violence is largely the result of opportunity i.e., Cohen and Felson (1979) state that for a crime to take place, there must be a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the lack of a capable guardian. It is  important to note that their “Routine Activity Theory”, doesn’t imply criminality i.e., an offender may have no history of offending, they simply have to be motivated in that moment. Someone who has been a law-abiding citizen all their life, may in a particular moment become motivated to “offend” against someone who they deem as a “suitable target” e.g., an argument/dispute may see someone becoming motivated to act violently against the individual(s) they perceive to have wronged them. One of the things they must consider in their decision to act violently is their ability to do so. If they are carrying a firearm, when motivated to use violence, then regardless of their physical/athletic ability, they have the ability to act violently. In 1958, the UK government started to restrict the Carbon Monoxide content of the UK gas supply. At the time suicide by Carbon Monoxide poisoning (putting your head in a gas oven and turning the gas on without lighting it), was the most common method that individuals in the UK used, accounting for just under half of all suicides. As carbon monoxide in the gas supply declined (by region) so did suicides at similar rates. Although there was a slight increase in the use of other methods, suicide rates fell dramatically. When the ease of an available and non-painful method of suicide was removed suicide rates went down. When there is little/no control of firearm carry (lack of a capable guardian), such as at a block/street party, then an individual is given the ability to act violently, when motivated; over an argument, a sense of disrespect, and/or some form of frustration etc. July 4th/Independence Day is a celebration that involves partying and bringing large numbers of individuals together. This increases the number of social interactions that can occur, and some of these aren’t going to be positive ones. After July 4th and 5th (the result of parties going past midnight), the 3rd most violent day in the U.S. calendar not surprisingly is January 1st; another day which sees large numbers of people gathering and creating potentially negative social interactions. Two other reasons: heat and alcohol. One of the most dangerous places created was the UK pub beer garden. In theory it sounds great: sit outside in the sun, drinking a cold one. In practice it is a security nightmare, mixing alcohol, and heat, two things that are known to independently increase the risk of violence, and when combined do so exponentially. If you have people drinking all day, in the sun, then there’s a good chance that they will experience a lowering of tolerance and patience for other people and an increase in irritability. Put together a large group of people in this state, and the chances for negative social interactions that lead to aggression and violence increase significantly. I used to see this firsthand when working pub and bar security e.g., first hot weekend in Summer, people would get drunk during the day in the Sun, and then come into the city/town bars in the evening, already on a short fuse and ready to take offense. Throw in access to firearms, and the ability to easily act violently, and there are going to be poor – and fatal – decisions made. Whilst most people who shoot believe that they are “good”, most aren’t, and shooting drunk, in a crowded space is likely to lead to many people who weren’t involved in the original dispute/argument getting shot – something that appears to largely be the case with those killed and injured this July 4th (2023). It would be easy but too simplistic to conclude that all of these shootings took place at locations where people with a history of violence gathered. In one of the incidents, it does appear to be gang-related (a drive-by shooting) however in most, the acts of aggression were carried out by those who weren’t affiliated with known offenders. Most violence is social, not predatory, and is the result of negative social interactions. The more potential interactions – the greater number of people – the greater chance of those that lead to acts of aggression and violence. Throw in heat and alcohol and the potential numbers increase again. July 4th may well be a time for celebration but that celebration comes with a cost. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=648 Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=647 Up until the 1960’s it was thought that chimpanzees were largely vegetarian and somewhat peaceful creatures. It wasn’t really until Jane Goodall’s groundbreaking research into chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park (Tanzania), that it was understood that chimps can be highly aggressive - hunting and killing monkeys, committing infanticide, engaging in intra-group conflicts (ganging up against individuals) and even attacking troops/bands of gorillas (considerably larger primates), when in groups. Whilst chimpanzees can be capable of social and mutually beneficial cooperative behaviors, they also at times engage in extreme violence against each other, that not uncommonly involves genital mutilation i.e., forms of sexual violence. That this violence is often committed by groups of chimpanzees who may not as individuals directly benefit from it, shows that involving themselves in such attacks, and acts of aggression benefits them in other ways. Acts of shared violence create and reinforce social connections between members of the group, promoting social inclusion and a sense of “belonging”, something that social creatures such as humans and chimpanzees seek. Chimpanzees share 98% of our DNA, and are genetically closely related to us - they are also the only ape species that actively wages “wars” that are similar to those that humans engage in. Whilst it would be overly simplistic to simply take the actions and behaviors of one species and attribute them to another, there is a benefit in looking at the similarities and parallels between closely related species, and in this article I want to look at the way violence is used to create social cohesion within a group, and specifically how acts of hazing, that are used by certain groups such as college fraternities and sororities, accomplish this same thing i.e. a sense of belonging and social unity. Often, when football hooliganism is looked at, it’s from the perspective of abnormal social functioning i.e., those who engage in it are maladjusted individuals, who aren’t able to interact and perform in mainstream society etc. However, as more light has been shone on the individuals involved, it has been discovered that there is a significant number of highly successful and professional individuals (senior managers, directors, and city bankers) who trade their weekday office attire on a Saturday afternoon, for their soccer team’s shirt and a pair of jeans, in the hope of “finding” a fight with supporters of a rival team – sometimes these “encounters” are well organized and planned events etc. Whilst it is easy to look at and explain anti-social behavior, as a reaction to frustrations, a lack of economic/social control etc., rarely do simple explanations offer full ones. A 2018 study in Brazil (Newson et al.), that comprised of a survey involving 465 Brazilian football fans found that the major reason for intergroup violence was that of social cohesion/identity fusion i.e., fans bonded with each other when engaging as a group that had a shared identity. Members of a violent group don’t lose their individual identity, they find – or rediscover - a new personal social identity. They become someone in that group. Unfortunately, as a social group, they are more likely to perceive threats to the group than if they were on their own, as there are now potential threats to the social identity they are experiencing and not just to themselves. Many groups have what could be termed “initiation rituals” for new members, some of which aren’t psychologically or physically harmful e.g., several indigenous peoples have coming of age ceremonies where an individual spends time in solitude and meditation before attending a ceremony that marks their tradition from childhood to adulthood. These are looked on as being positive and welcoming experiences, where the individual involved is meant to come away with a greater understanding of themselves and their community etc. In contrast to this when fraternities, sororities, sports teams, and other groups use hazing as their initiation ritual, only the existing members of the group benefit and have a “positive” experience; albeit an unhealthy one. Regarding sports teams, hazing has been defined as, “Any humiliating, degrading, abusive or dangerous behavior of a junior ranking athlete by a more senior teammate, which does not contribute to the athlete’s positive development, but is required to be accepted  as part of a team, regardless of the junior-ranking athlete’s willingness to participate.” (Crow & Mackintosh, 2009). The elements of hazing are clearly stated in this definition, and these are: The act(s) and behaviors(s) required to join the group are humiliating and/or dangerous. Performing them is the only way to be accepted by, and/or join the group. The act(s)/behavior(s) required doesn’t require the participant to be willing. The only shared power exists between members of the group, and the act of hazing is an expression of the power differential between the group and the person being initiated into it. Team and group members who engage in hazing are using such acts to accomplish two things: 1. They are testing the initiate’s loyalty and commitment to the group (are they willing to humiliate and debase themselves to become a member, just as those engaged in the act of hazing did), and 2. To reinforce the social bonds between existing members of the group. It is perhaps this second element which is the most important aspect of hazing: group bonding. Just as the soccer hooligans gain or regain a social identity in their acts of violence, so do the members of the group, when the group collectively forces the initiate to engage in humiliating and degrading acts. They are reinforcing social bonds with members of the group, sharing an experience that reinforces their in-group status. Whether it is a chimpanzee war party on a territorial raid against another troop, a group of soccer hooligans searching out a rival team’s fans, or a fraternity putting new pledges through a series of degrading tasks, the social identities of the members of each group are reinforced. In all of these instances the in-group targets members of the out-group, intending to harm and/or make them suffer in some way. Rather than being individuals who become anonymous in the group they find themselves a social identity which they lack when not part of it.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=647 Mon, 03 Jul 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=646 Between 2010 and 2017 there were on average 357 peer reviewed articles each year studying narcissism. That’s a lot. Anecdotally, I see around five references a week on social media, regarding this personality disorder and self-defense/personal safety. However, it should be understood that within both the academic and clinical communities, there is much debate and even controversy surrounding this personality disorder. Whilst the DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) provides the foundation and definition of what narcissism is, this should be seen more as a starting point than a conclusion e.g., it lists the behaviors that define narcissism however it doesn’t rank them in any order of importance/significance, or identify which constitute the core and central behaviors and which may be the peripheral ones etc. This has led to the creation of sub-categories of narcissism, such as “Grandiose Narcissism” and “Vulnerable Narcissism” etc. Whilst colloquially the term narcissist tends to get ascribed to anyone who thinks only about themselves, and doesn’t consider anyone else’s feelings, this behavioral trait could actually be applied to many other personality disorders. In fact, for someone to be clinically defined as a narcissist even in the “general” sense, they have a pretty high bar to clear. There are those individuals who display some of the traits and behaviors associated with narcissism, however that doesn’t necessarily mean they are a narcissist. In this article I want to look at some of the emerging sub-classifications of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), in order for us to be a little more specific, and detailed when we discuss the disorder or use the term narcissism/narcissistic. Very briefly I want to re-iterate something I always mention when I write or talk about narcissism. That is, Narcissus (the Greek god, from which we get the name), fell in love with the reflection of himself, when he looked in the pool, rather than falling in love with himself. This is an extremely important point and separates those with NPD from those who are simply in love with themselves. Without understanding this distinction, we won’t be able to understand why narcissists behave in the way that they do. Narcissists have created an image of themselves (the reflection in the pool), that they are obsessed with, one which they project to the world, and which they expect the world to accept. Anything they perceive as a question concerning this projection needs to be vehemently and rigorously defended – usually by attacking, verbally but possibly physically, the person they perceive to be questioning them i.e., the image they have created. The reason this image they have created is so important to them, is that it allows them to look at something other than their real self. If someone is “questioning” the validity of their created persona, then they may be forced to do the same, and this would mean looking at their actual self, which would result in extreme psychic trauma. In many ways the Wizard of Oz is the perfect example of a Narcissism as when the curtain was pulled back it was discovered that the booming and dominating voice that was originally presented belonged to a small, frail man using effects to present himself as someone dominating and intimidating etc. Narcissists fear having the curtain pulled back and having others as well as themselves have to see who they truly are. Whilst this is a central, underlying feature of the disorder, it can be exhibited in a number of different ways, which have led to the creation/definition of certain sub-classifications. We will look at three of them. The first is “Malignant Narcissism”. Not all narcissists require or seek attention and adoration in the same way. Whilst narcissism and psychopathy share many similar traits, and it can sometimes be hard to distinguish the difference between individuals who have the two disorders – certainly in non-clinical settings i.e., everyday situations, narcissists do feel guilt; something psychopaths don’t. Despite this, Malignant Narcissists are deliberately and proactively mean. Whereas in a conversation many narcissists would try to turn the conversation to be about them, possibly even interjecting with the phrase, “I don’t want to make this about me, but…”, the Malignant Narcissist would go on the attack, looking to ridicule and bring down someone they are talking to. This isn’t reactionary, as in narcissistic rage - when a narcissist feels threatened and attempts to undermine the person they are dealing with - but rather it is them going on a pre-emptive attack, so the person they are dealing with either now lacks the confidence to question them, or the support of the group they are in etc. There are also “Covert Narcissists”, these are individuals who believe that the world has failed to notice their greatness and it is their job to bring this to the attention of everyone they interact with. These are individuals who believe that life has done them wrong, and they need to fix this. In clinical settings, such individuals may be seen as vulnerable (hence the classification of being “vulnerable” rather than “grandiose”) and be diagnosed as suffering from depression. However, depression is usually treatable to some degree pharmacologically i.e., with drugs, whereas personality disorders aren’t, meaning you can medicate a covert narcissist and never see an improvement. This illustrates one of the central differences between what a mental illness is, and what a personality disorder is i.e., you can’t medicate personality disorders, as they are rigid patterns of thinking, and not something that is the result of a chemical imbalance etc. Covert narcissists often express themselves through passive aggressiveness. They are individuals who are unable to acknowledge and take responsibility for where they went wrong and are instead angry that they weren’t acknowledged every time they did something right. Although not everyone who engages in intimate partner violence (IPV) is a covert narcissist, many share this belief that they are not being recognized as they should. There are also those who are termed “Communal Narcissists”. At face value these individuals seem to be motivated by a need to do good, however they are using their good deeds in order to receive recognition. They may have learnt, as a child, that one of the best ways to receive recognition – interpreted as adoration – is to engage in good works e.g., save the whales, raise money for good causes etc. Such work puts them on the stage and allows them to be in the spotlight. The truth is that they lack empathy for who they are trying to help, believing that they are better and superior to them. Their motivation is simply that of gaining recognition. Whilst it would be wrong not to acknowledge that good may be being done, that is not the motivation of the communal narcissist. These are often the individuals who raise the money for a charity or good cause but believe they are entitled to a large share of it. Their justification being that without them, there wouldn’t be any money etc. The problem with all classification systems is that few people fit neatly into them e.g., an individual may exhibit behaviors that are attributed to both malignant and communal narcissism etc. This is why trying to define people as one thing or another, or even as a narcissist in the first place, is from a practical perspective often unhelpful, and may not lead us to truly understand what is driving them e.g., someone who is self-obsessed, and in love with themselves, may engage in narcissistic behaviors however they are not doing so to promote and protect an image of themselves, who is not actually who they are. It is more productive to look at how we can deal with certain behaviors and actions in ways that will work in all instances and don’t rely on us making clinical diagnoses in non-clinical settings.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=646 Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=645 Thoughts don’t need words. An idea does not need a vocabulary to exist. Language is an external thing which societies have created in order for members to communicate with each other. It is not necessary to know words to be able to think. If a person grows up without other people, they are still able to have ideas, however when we have words, we are able to create/have an “inner voice”. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to recall your phone number. When you do this, you will form and articulate the numbers in your mind e.g., if your phone number contains the number three, you will say to yourself “three” as you put together your phone number. If we are thinking about something we might say to someone, such as the answer to a question we are expecting to be asked at a job interview, we may prepare and formulate our answer using our inner voice. However, we also use our inner voice to chastise ourselves e.g., if we realize we have fallen for a scam, we might say to ourselves, “why am I so stupid!”. So, our inner voice can be used in a positive way, such as coming up with prepared statements/answers, or running over in our mind a speech we are going to give etc. However, it can also be used negatively, to articulate and confirm the failures we have made in our lives etc. In this article I want to look at ways we can use our inner voice to improve our performance when training, and when dealing with real life violent encounters, and how we can distance ourselves from the doubts and concerns we have about our abilities to deal with crime/violence. Our “inner voice” can sometimes deter us from breaking the law. It can articulate our doubts and concerns about doing something. Our subconscious may sometimes reinforce a “feeling” by giving us the words to describe our fears. Schuchter and Levi (2013), in research looking at Donald Cressey’s fraud triangle, describe how the inner voice of those considering committing a white-collar crime, such as fraud against their company, initially acts as a deterrent, voicing all the potential and negative issues engaged with the offense e.g., telling the individual that they’ll never get away with it, that their supervisor will spot them, that it is wrong, that they’ll slip up etc. However, over time as the unregulated opportunity to make money keeps presenting itself, the voice becomes quieter, and/or changes to one of encouragement e.g., you’d be stupid not to take advantage of this opportunity, anyone in your position would take advantage of it, if you don’t do it someone else will etc. Whilst a “negative” inner voice can be useful in preventing us from doing things that we shouldn’t, such as telling us, that scanning an avocado as an onion, isn’t worth the risk etc., when it comes to surviving a violent encounter, such a voice can impede and encumber us. Often when we are dealing with an aggressive individual(s) our thought processes are invaded by “peripheral doubts” i.e., our inner voice questioning our potential actions e.g., what if hitting them just makes things work? Am I legally entitled to do this? What if my punch doesn’t hurt them? Etc. Our – cautionary - inner voice, that may be useful in preventing us from committing an offense, such as theft or fraud, can trap us, and cause inertia, making us indecisive and reluctant to act decisively; something which is necessary in order to survive a violent encounter. To counter this, we must fill our mind with a conscious and “active” voice, one that doesn’t give space to our doubts and fears. I use a mantra that I repeat to myself, when I find my inner voice, voicing these peripheral doubts. I repeatedly say to myself, “not me.” i.e., the person I am dealing with is not going to make me their victim. Whilst I internally repeat this mantra, making it my inner voice, no other voice can invade my thought process. We can also choose how, using our inner voice, we refer to ourselves using pronouns. This is a method that therapists often use with people suffering from anxiety. They use a process called “distancing” to help someone suffering from fear or anxiety to personally remove themselves from what is causing them distress. We are usually better at giving other people advice than taking our own e.g., we are great at solving other people’s problems, and not so great at solving our own etc. This is because we are looking at an external rather than an internal issue, allowing us to be more clinical and objective. When we try to solve our own problem(s) we lack the distance to do so objectively. Psychologists will often try and get people who suffer from crippling anxiety to distance themselves by thinking about themselves as an actor, who is viewed on a stage etc. They may get them to refer to themselves by their name, rather by using “I” e.g., rather than “I” am having an issue, “Gershon” is having an issue etc. We can reverse this to remove any doubts when we are dealing with a violent encounter e.g., whilst “I” may not have control of this situation, “Gershon” does. For many of us we may doubt our abilities to handle and deal with violence, but when we distance ourselves, and hand over control to ourselves as an actor on a stage, then the personal issues, fears, and doubts disappear. Our inner voices are real and can serve practical and positive purposes, but they can also stall and upend us. This means we must learn to control them and make them work for our good/benefit. Sometimes we must drown them out, when they advise caution where decisiveness is needed, other times we must distance ourselves from them, and allow them to speak to the person/individual we believe in.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=645 Mon, 19 Jun 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=644 I have written about mobile phones, from a personal safety perspective, before e.g., about how they can make us feel safe, even though they put us in more danger (Click Here), how they allow us to hand over control of a situation to someone who is not there (Click Here), and how we can hand over control of our safety to apps and devices, rather than taking responsibility for ourselves (Click Here) etc., however I haven’t written much about security concerning the device itself. In this article I want to look at how to mitigate the risk of devices being stolen, and what to do/not do, if they are. There is a saying in the cyber-security world that hackers don’t cause breaches, they simply exploit and use them. If someone didn’t update the patches sent to them, and some of these included the latest security updates, the hacker didn’t cause this breach or gap, that allowed them to get in, the individual who didn’t apply the update “allowed” the breach to occur. Software companies such as Microsoft often get a bad rap for having leaky and unsecure software, however on many occasions when hackers gain access to our networks and machines it is down to the individual having not run the patches sent to them, and/or working on an outdated and no longer valid supported version of the software. One very easy “breach” or “opening” that individuals give criminals, concerning their mobile phones is having them unlocked when they are in public spaces/places. If an unlocked mobile phone is snatched/stolen when a person is using it, then whoever takes it has access to whatever apps are open on that device. Having it unlocked is akin to having not applied an up-to-date security patch on software; it provides an easy gap for an offender to get through and gain access to a person’s data/information. In many European cities (though this type of offending isn’t restricted to these locales) there are criminals who ride around on mopeds – sometimes with an accomplice riding pillion – snatching phones out of people’s hands; possibly whilst they are waiting at pedestrian crossings or standing at the side of the road etc. Few people, when using their phones, are aware of their surroundings (or at the very least are easily distracted), and so they fail to see a bike, synchronizing its movement with them and getting ready to snatch their phone. A good general habit to get into when using a device, is to make sure it is locked the moment that it’s not being used. A bad habit to get into is putting your mobile phone down on a table in a restaurant or café. People often do this because they want to make sure they don’t miss a call or a text etc., and to keep taking a phone out of a pocket when it buzzes would become tiresome. However, putting things such as phones, wallets, and keys on a table, makes them accessible for thieves looking for an easy snatch/grab. Sometimes such thefts may be extremely overt with the offender making no attempt to hide and disguise what they are doing e.g., if a person has their phone and/or other assets on a table at a street café, an individual can easily grab these items and run off, before the target realizes what has happened. In other instances, the theft may be more covert e.g., in a crowded bar or restaurant a thief may be able to take whatever is on the table unnoticed, whilst the target is engaged in conversation with others who are with them. When alcohol is involved and people become relaxed, their awareness often drops, making them more susceptible to such crimes. Just as an open street can give an offender an opportunity to create distance quickly, so can a crowd, and if the individual was able to make the theft without the target getting a good look at them, then it will be difficult to identify them as they make their escape. If your phone is stolen in one of these scenarios, from a personal safety perspective it is unwise to go after, and give chase to the individual who has taken it, unless there are security personnel present e.g., there is a doorman who you can get to intervene on your behalf etc. In many cases these types of simple thefts involve more than one individual, and giving chase to someone may mean that you end up having to confront a group, if you even catch up with them (the fact that you ae having to react and decide what to do probably means they are too far in front of you, however you might want to imagine you’ll react). This could see you then losing more than just your phone, as you may now find yourself dealing with multiple assailants who may be armed. If someone was able to physically get hold of your phone then they exploited a breach that was created for them, and although not to blame for having your phone stolen (that is entirely on the offender), you should recognize how you helped facilitate the crime, and move into damage limitation mode. This means accepting that the device has gone, and taking the decision to wipe all the personal data that is on it, before the offender(s) unlock it. Most offenders will not have this knowledge and ability and will need to take it to someone who does, such as a third party who sells used mobile phones etc. This means that you should have enough time to clean the device. Android phones have a feature called “Find my Device” (Click Here to access), that allows you to remotely wipe your data, and for the iPhone it can be managed remotely using “Find My” (Click Here to access). There are also a variety of third-party apps you can use/install etc. to accomplish the same thing. If your phone is switched off when you use these tools as soon as it comes back on, your data will be wiped, and the factory settings restored. Whenever thinking about mobile phone security and safety it is always worth remembering that it is the data and information on the phone that is valuable, not the device itself (that is something that can easily be replaced). If you use your phone to store a lot of data and have turned it into a repository of information and apps that would be hard to replace, you should think about regularly cloning it, so that you are able to restore your phone onto another device (a quick google search for “cloning a mobile phone” will bring these up. There are many cloning tools that exist and are easy to use. Ultimately, never leaving your phone accessible (and unlocked) to potential offenders is one of the best security measures you can take. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=644 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=643 Debt collectors know how weak doors are. In certain jurisdictions if a door is open, it’s a legal invitation to enter a property and once inside, possessions can be removed, and the debt recovered; the value of the goods is determined by their auction value, which at best is usually a third of their actual worth. I could write several articles on why most debt that is bought isn’t “legal”, and the companies selling it don’t have a right to,  however that is not the point of this article. Those who recover debt(s) know how easily a front door can be kicked in. I knew many recovery agents who would carry a wet foam dish cloth in a plastic bag, that would adhere to a door, and was used to disguise/mask the footprint of their shoe/boot when they gained “access” to a property. I often come across ads for lockpicking courses and products on social media as if these are the primary methods that people use to gain access to places they shouldn’t go etc. Whilst there may be some “academic” pleasure in learning how to pick a lock, most professionals whose job it is to legally test physical security i.e., get into places they shouldn’t be able to, will tell you that picking a lock is rarely the first option they test/try. Most doors, whilst seeming to be well-fitted, often have gaps and room that someone with experience can exploit, and these are usually the first vulnerabilities that anyone with experience will try to manipulate and utilize. However, this article is not about how to defeat a modern day “Raffles”, who is able to overcome any and every obstacle presented to them etc., as they attempt to break in, but rather how to implement a few simple steps, which will stop, or slow down, your “average” offender from being able to kick your door in. Firstly, doors that open outwards are far harder to kick in than doors that open inwards. If your front door opens outwards, the frame that the door sits in offers a lot more integrity and is able to spread the force of a kick throughout the frame. However, this type of construction is often more common in commercial, as opposed to residential buildings/units etc. Whilst a door that opens inward may be a weakness, if it is accessed by steps e.g., you have to walk up a set of steps to reach it, then this may not be so much of a vulnerability. If someone wants to kick your door down, they need a platform which gives them the room to stand on and make their kick; steps don’t provide this. One thing that often gets forgotten about glass and wood is that they have a degree of elasticity. If you ever have to break a window (to get out of a building or car) don’t aim your striking tool/implement at the center of the glass, but rather at the edges. Modern glass used in automobiles and homes is extremely strong and elastic. Whilst wood may not appear to be so, when a panel is kicked it will spread the force. This is why anyone attempting to kick/knock a door in will focus their energy on the lock/handle i.e., they won’t try and actually kick the door down, they will attempt to smash the wood around the lock. In general, unless the wood is rotting around the hinges this is the single point of weakness. If I’m testing the integrity of a door, this is usually the first thing I look at. You would be surprised at the number of locked doors which will open or give, when you turn the handle and apply constant pressure by leaning on them. Ill-fitting locks, that have perhaps worn over time are a major/significant weakness in home defense. Most locks/bolts are also not secured well. It should always be remembered that when homes are built/constructed it is usually to a “good enough” standard. I don’t mean this to disparage those who work in the construction industry. The usual spec that they are given is to install a lockable/securable door, rather than to make sure that it’s to a standard where someone can’t kick it down etc. This is why from a security perspective it is always good to give whatever asset you buy/acquire a look over from a security/safety perspective e.g., whenever I buy a new laptop – I’m a PC rather than Apple person – I take the time to update all the patches etc., and lock it down; As a kind of rule of thumb where security is concerned, with Apple you need to “open” things up, whereas Windows you need to close them down. The same is true of your home. Don’t assume that everything you’ve acquired is good enough as it may be you need to tighten things up. The depth of the screws used to attach the strike/brake plate, which the lock/bolt goes into is usually enough to hold the plate in place but not enough to stop it being ripped out with a strong kick. If the wood around has weathered over time, it may not take much force at all to separate the plate from the frame. In many cases – and it is worth taking a look – the plate may only be secured by four screws, with the plate itself being relatively small. A cheap DIY/Home Improvement project is to remove the existing plate and replace it with a much larger one, using longer screws. A plate  that measures six to eight inches and can accommodate six to eight screws of a good depth (that go all the way into the door frame), is an inexpensive way to deal with this potential vulnerability. As a kid who often forgot his front door key, I would look at the front door and think to myself, it’s just a thin piece of wood that’s preventing me from getting inside; and watching TV. Knowing now what I do about gaining access to places and how vulnerable that piece of wood, that is meant to stop me, is, I wonder why I ever felt that my house was a safe and impregnatable place it was. I’m glad for the ignorance/innocence of childhood. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=643 Mon, 05 Jun 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=642 When you teach a reality-based self-defense system such as Krav Maga, there is often an expectation, and to a lesser extent a “demand”, that the way you train is chaotic and unstructured, in order for you to replicate, the messy and confused nature of real-life violence e.g., sparring should involve groin attacks, unfettered aggression, and wild strikes etc., because these are some of the components of actual violence, and to leave them out would be disingenuous. I have seen video clips of Krav Maga “sparring” that basically resemble (with protective headgear), UK military “milling”. Though I’m not sure milling is taught/used anymore, because even the UK army – at some point – must concede, or have conceded, to the danger and evidence of concussions. The basic/simple premise behind milling was to have two combatants, wearing boxing gloves, swing at each other, in an uncontrolled fashion, without any consideration made for/to defense, in order to train aggression, and a never give up attitude etc. I’m not going to get into a debate/discussion as to whether such methods of training are beneficial, or whether they are conducted by instructors who reflect upon a time, when men were “real” men etc. My point being that the lack of rules in milling didn’t actually develop any skills or improve an individual’s technical abilities. To develop skills, you need rules that discipline and confine you, i.e., that prevent and restrict you from doing anything and everything that you might want to do. There is a reason that Judokas and wrestlers generally have better grappling skills than boxers and Tae Kwon Do practitioners, and that is down to rules i.e., boxing and Tae-Kwon-Do don’t allow grappling, and Judo and Wrestling don’t involve striking (punching and kicking). The rules allow for the development of specific skills, which is the purpose of the particular martial arts e.g., those who practice Tae-Kwon-Do are not looking to be able to fight on the ground, just as those who practice BJJ, are not looking to become great at kicking and punching. The problem comes when practitioners of both arts, don’t acknowledge this, and argue that if you know how to punch and kick when standing, you don’t need to know how to fight/survive on the ground, or if you can always drag someone to the ground, you don’t need to know how to punch and kick etc. Both arguments are fine, if you restrict context, and only ever use your art/system in the context that it was designed e.g., Tae-Kwon-Do doesn’t allow grappling and BJJ doesn’t allow striking etc. However, when you argue that what you have learnt in one context extends to all, there is a problem. I used to take private yoga classes. I had very specific goals. My flexibility and range of motion have always been poor. There are many reasons for this, including that I have always lifted “heavy” weights and being “too flexible” compromises this. I found a great YOGA instructor however they were of the opinion that if you did yoga, you didn’t need to run, lift weights etc. To her, yoga was the best way to develop both aerobic and anaerobic fitness. Obviously, if you want to improve your aerobic capacity, or your ability to lift more than your body weight, yoga isn’t the most efficient or effective way to do this; great for improving other things such as flexibility, strength at various ranges of motion etc., however exercise, like developing various fighting skills and abilities requires specific types of training e.g., if you want to get good at punching, start training with rules that restrict grappling and kicking; if you want to get good at ground-fighting, then train with rules that promote that type of fighting etc. This doesn’t mean that you are “selling out” as a reality-based self-defense instructor/practitioner. This means that as Krav Maga practitioners we can acknowledge the value of Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling and other martial arts, and don’t have to dismiss, undermine and/or devalue the benefits of training in these ways. In fact, we can start looking at how to develop other skills in a similar linear fashion, such as focusing on knife attacks, in a “restrictive” manner. However, from a reality perspective, we will at some point need to “open” these training methods up.               This has always been the Krav Maga method. Starting out with “closed” drills where there is a determined outcome e.g., someone throws a Jab, which is then blocked, and then “opening” the drill up so that the initial strike/punch may be Jab, or a “Cross”, and/or it could be a “Jab” followed by a “Cross” etc. There is definitely a role for putting in rules, restricting options in order to discipline an individual to respond and react in a certain way – in order to develop a specific skill. There also comes a time when “creativity” must be developed where practitioners learn how and when to respond to something based on the circumstances and context. When a Krav Maga practitioner/instructor responds to other martial arts, and/or forms of training that don’t fully reflect reality, and therefore sees them as obsolete and invalid, there is a major misunderstanding as to what are productive and beneficial training methods. There is a time to train striking as striking, a time to train wrestling as grappling etc., and when this is done by leaving out other dimensions of a real-life fight, it doesn’t invalidate them.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=642 Mon, 29 May 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=641 I remember when the policy of “Care in the Community” started to be rolled out in London and the UK. It began with the 1983 Mental Health Act, that attempted to better recognize the rights and autonomy of those who had mental health problems. One of its goals was to try to provide treatment, care, and support in the least restrictive type of environment. The idea was to move many of those who used to live in large institutions into residential houses, in the community, and provide support for them there. It was a noble idea, however many individuals who had benefited and come to rely upon the daily structure that these institutions provided them, suddenly found themselves with time on their hands and little to no instruction as to how to manage this. The London tube and rail network became a place where many of those with mental health problems spent their days. The rail network provides a relatively safe and neutral space, where individuals with mental health issues can be anonymous, whilst being in a social situation i.e., not alone. Travelling a rail route can also provide enough of a distraction that someone suffering from mental health issues doesn’t have to focus or fixate on them. However, travelling on public transport can also bring those with mental health issues into contact with people who may not be in a position to effectively ascertain and measure risk i.e., if a person is actually dangerous or not. Earlier this month Jordan Neely, who was homeless and struggling with mental health issues, was choked to death on a New York Subway train, by a man who reacted to his hostile – but not violent – behavior towards him and other passengers. There is video of the man who applied the choke hold (an ex-marine named Daniel Penny) holding it for almost two minutes (with witnesses alleging that it was for around 15 minutes), with Neely being in a state of consciousness/semi-consciousness for most of it; other passengers tried to control his limbs whilst he was being choked. In this article I want to look at some of the issues surrounding this incident but primarily try to answer the question: when and how to use chokes for self-defense? It is not clear whether Penny intended to choke Neely out or was using a choke hold as a method to control and restrain him. It took almost two minutes before Neely was rendered unconscious. Anyone who has experienced a choke applied to them on the mats, knows that it takes mere seconds to be choked out. As a Judoka competing in the 1990’s this was something we’d do to each other before we competed - we believed that because blood was drained from the brain by the choke, we’d get “new” oxygenated blood when we came to. It would take seconds for us to be rendered unconscious. There are several reasons why Penny might have taken so long to choke him out. It may be that his goal from the beginning was to have Neely pass out, and he was just ineffectual in doing so, with his choke taking a relatively long time to be applied. It could be that his goal was to bring Neely in and out of consciousness based on Neely’s responsiveness e.g., if Neely calmed down, he would release pressure, if he became more aggressive and agitated, he’d apply more etc. Using chokes as a form of pain-compliance is inadvisable. Pain-compliance techniques work when the person being subjected to them is able to make the connection between their behaviors/actions and the level of pain they experience e.g., if you are applying a wristlock, the person being subjected to it “realizes” that when they comply with your demands the pain is reduced, and when they don’t it is increased. This doesn’t work with chokes, as the person becomes less and less conscious as the choke is increased i.e., they don’t have the mental capacity to make the connection between their actions/behaviors and the force being applied. A third option is that Penny didn’t intend to choke Neely out but was attempting to use the choke as a headlock (with his legs around his body), whilst other passengers held/controlled his arms. Again, this is an inadvisable strategy, as applying pressure in this way, for a prolonged period of time is not something you can accurately measure the effects of. Bottom line: if you believe the situation requires you to render someone unconscious then apply a choke, but if it requires something else, don’t. My guess is that Penny went into the situation without a clear goal as to what he was attempting to do and believed he'd probably figure it out along the way. He may have had an expectation – possibly based on his training – as to how Neely would respond e.g., if he had experience “rolling” BJJ style he may even have expected his partner (Neely) to tap. One of the things many people don’t understand about the rear naked choke, that Penny applied, are some of the consequences that can result from it. The pressure applied to the neck/throat by applying chokes that use the pressure of the arms to constrict the arteries, is that they can also cause swelling of the windpipe and damage to cartilage in the neck, which can result in breathing difficulties. The effects of these can be exacerbated if pressure is also applied to the lungs, such as placing a knee on the back of someone whilst they are being choked out. Drugs can also dramatically exacerbate the effects of choke holds. Depressants, such as opioids (fentanyl and heroin), and those that affect the central nervous system, such as alcohol, can also depress the respiratory system. If someone has any of these substances in their system, whilst they are being choked, then they may experience respiratory distress or failure when they are choked. Stimulants, such as methamphetamine or cocaine, can put an additional stress on the cardiovascular system, when a person is being subjected to a choke hold. If they have a weak heart or a pre-existing condition this extra stress may lead to cardiovascular and/or respiratory failure. Whilst not all homeless and/or mentally ill individuals use drugs and alcohol to self-medicate, (and there is no indication that Neely did) many do, and whilst Penny may not have been aware of Neely’s personal situation, using a choke-hold against someone who appeared to be in an agitated and distressed state – Neely allegedly was shouting, “I don’t have food, I don’t have drink, I’m fed up…I don’t mind going to jail and getting life in prison. I’m ready to die.” – should not have been a “go to” move. There are too many who make the argument that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, as if these are the binary options, and there will be some that will argue that these were the options that Penny faced. However, it doesn’t appear that Penny himself was in imminent danger, and as uncomfortable as Neely’s behavior may have made people, it doesn’t appear that any of the other passengers were either. If we ride the subway, take public transport etc., it is likely that we will experience the mentally ill etc., however in most cases, as odd and awkward as their actions and behaviors may make us feel, they are rarely a danger to us. If we are to use/apply choke holds as part of our self-defense strategy we should do so with a clear goal (rendering someone unconscious) and an awareness of the issues associated with chokes and strangulations. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=641 Mon, 22 May 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=640 Unfortunately, thoughts about security and safety tend to occur after an event has happened, as a reaction/response, rather than in anticipation of one e.g., a person buys a burglar alarm because their house was broken into. This is often the case with the implementation of violence prevention programs in corporations, enterprises, and educational facilities; only after a serious violent incident occurs do members of an organization question their safety. This is because most organizations have a focus that takes up most of their time and energy. A business is trying to sell more of its products and/or services, whilst an educational institution is attempting to find better ways to educate its students etc., and so safety and security needs often take a back seat, until something happens. Until a threat/danger is experienced, and the impact of it is felt upon the core goals of the institution/organization, safety and security is at best a secondary consideration. Sandy Hook Elementary School was permanently closed after the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, after 20 children and six teachers lost their lives. Students were relocated to nearby buildings, rather than have to return to the place where the shooting took place. Edgewater Technology in Wakefield, Massachusetts, relocated its headquarters in large part due to a workplace shooting that took place in 2000. When a location becomes associated with violence, it is not a productive place to be in. This is one of the reasons why violence prevention programs are so important, and necessary; they prevent individual and collective trauma, and reduce potential financial costs (including increased hiring costs because prospective employees don’t want to work at a company or organization that is associated with violence).  Whilst it may not seem like it, schools are statistically safer places for children to be in, than their home and/or other spaces/settings they frequent. The times when children are most at risk of violence - associated with schools - are the times immediately before and after attending, when they are either on their way to or from the building (most crimes that occur within schools are acts of theft not assault). However, this is not to say there is no risk of violence, be it from active shooters/killers, or bullying etc. In last week’s article I looked at some of the policies that were/are largely unsuccessful in preventing violence – particularly active shooter incidents. In this week’s, I want to look at some of the common components of successful violence prevention programs and interventions that have reduced aggression and violence within schools. Unsurprisingly, one of the most important components of successful violence prevention programs in schools is introducing them early. The younger children are when they are exposed to programs that emphasize the importance of developing empathy and self-control etc., the more successful these programs are. Whilst most serious acts of violence are committed by adolescents, in senior years, the development of good personal and social skills should be started much earlier. Such programs should also include peer, family, and community components so ideas taught, and skills learnt are experienced and reinforced in a variety of settings i.e., behaviors are nor siloed, where a child learns how to behave in one setting differently to others etc. Research has shown that students who feel committed to family, community and school are less likely to engage in acts of violence. In many school shootings, the school is seen as a representation and symbol of the larger community. Creating ties between students and the community is one way of preventing violence within and against schools. It is possible that many schools and communities already believe that the two entities enjoy strong ties, because of the ways in which a town may support the school’s sports teams etc. However, it is worth noting that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, who committed the Columbine High School Massacre, often voiced that the support that the local community gave to the High School Football team, left them feeling isolated because it seemed that the only thing their community valued was sports and athleticism. Any program focusing on building ties between schools, families and communities should be genuinely all inclusive. Successful violence prevention programs have to be adaptable and changeable based on the child or teen’s age. Violence is largely contextual, and changes as a child/teen ages and any violence prevention program should acknowledge this, otherwise it becomes largely irrelevant. The risk factors for delinquency, aggression and violence vary by developmental stage e.g., whilst employment for adults tends to reduce drug use, it increases with teens; teens who have jobs tend to spend less time being “supervised” by adults, and are equipped with an income that allows them to purchase drugs etc. Whilst drug use by itself is not necessarily associated with violent offending, it may introduce teenagers to those who are engaged in other criminal enterprises, such as burglary and auto-theft etc., which in turn may introduce them to more hardened, violent offenders. Another factor to consider when looking at developmental stages of children and teenagers, is how the role of being the “outsider” changes with age. For younger children, being rejected by others is something that individuals do everything to avoid, however during adolescence being rejected by the majority, and being accepted by a minority or sub-group can be interpreted as a badge of honor. Any successful school violence prevention program needs to acknowledge how socialization changes with age. Klebold and Harris began to accept that they were the outsiders, and even relish this role, using it to fuel their violent fantasies. Part of any violence prevention program has to be the creation of a climate of inclusion, safety, and positivity, and this should be done at the earliest opportunity, and span the wider community as well as the school itself. Whilst schools may measure success through grades and academic performance, the creation and development of empathetic individuals should not be forgotten, and/or seen as secondary. In any institution it is always possible for individuals to gain more knowledge, skills and abilities, however once core values become embedded in someone’s personality, these are extremely resistant to change and education. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=640 Mon, 15 May 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=639 Last week, I wrote about some of the differences between active shooter incidents that take place at K-12 schools, and those that occur at colleges and universities. In this article I want to look at the effectiveness of certain policies in preventing and dealing with active shooter incidents, primarily at K-12 schools, however some of these policies and procedures are practiced, enacted, and enforced in colleges and universities. The Ineffectiveness of Zero Tolerance Policies Zero-tolerance policies often seem attractive ways to deal with violent offending, because they appear to deal with thoughts of violence before they occur. However, zero-tolerance policies often involve ignoring context e.g., in 2013 a 6-year old, at the Lincoln Elementary School, in Canon City, Colorado, was ordered by his school to attend a reform school for 45-days because he used a cub-scout pen-knife tool to eat his lunch with, and this featured a “knife” (that contravened school policy), along with a spoon and a fork etc. Whilst many people argued that this was political correctness gone mad, the truth is that this is how zero-tolerance policies work; there isn’t room for interpretation – there are no exceptions, and no room for common sense or discretion. At first glance they are appealing, especially when we envisage them being applied to others rather than ourselves e.g., other people who take a certain illegal turn on red, in our neighborhood should be punished, however when we are caught doing it we usually feel/believe it is only fair that we should at the very least be given the opportunity to explain ourselves. Often, zero tolerance policies start off as reasonable and fair, such as anyone caught bringing a gun onto school premises is immediately suspended etc., however often the argument is made that maybe this policy shouldn’t be restricted to only handguns - why not apply it to all weapons? The result being a 6-year old spending 45-days at a reform school; something that did little/nothing to improve school safety. Zero tolerance policies that see mandatory suspensions and expulsions, do not look to change behavior, or address the problems. A teenager who brings a firearm to school is not likely to refrain from doing so because a zero-tolerance policy would see them suspended/expelled. Suspension is likely to result in student disengagement along with an increase in absenteeism, which may in fact increase the likelihood of future violent offending. Whilst zero-tolerance polices offer an attractive and immediate quick fix for dealing with violent and potentially violent students, they are really just kicking the proverbial can down the road. The Ineffectiveness of "Profiling" Students Whenever I write or talk about mental illness or personality disorders, I always start by saying I’m not qualified to diagnose anyone of having/suffering one, and that this can really only be done in a clinical setting by a suitably trained professional. However, I am constantly hearing/reading of people being referred to as narcissists and/or psychopaths, because they are selfish, self-centered and don’t seem to care about others etc. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are narcissists and/or psychopaths but rather that they are self-centered individuals who are happy to use people for their own end, without thought of the consequences for the other party etc. It is easy and convenient to label someone as having a personality disorder, and then developing a profile, based off of this. The FBI provided a list of prototypical personality characteristics, along with social factors that may increase the risk that someone would engage in a school shooting etc., and whilst I have a great deal of respect for the FBI as a law-enforcement institution, their methods of analysis, rarely reach the standards of scientific enquiry i.e., their profiling methods – by their own admissions – rely largely on the interpretation of evidence by profilers, rather than on the evidence alone. Whilst, there are certain “red flags”, which should raise concern these should not be overly simplistic e.g., labelling a student who is simply stating that they wish to kill all their classmates, or profiling an introverted child who has difficulty making social connections, as a would-be killer etc. Whilst, certain “Red Flags” may be a good starting point for thinking about some form of intervention, they shouldn’t be used to determine, judge, and condemn someone as a potential killer. There is also a risk of stigmatizing and labelling those with mental illnesses, and personality disorders as being high risk individuals, due to labelling, when they haven’t exhibited any of the warning signs that would suggest they were. The Ineffectiveness of Physical Security I have always advocated that process trumps physicality where security is concerned e.g., you can implement every physical barrier you want, installing bullet-proof glass, blast-proof locks etc., and it doesn’t mean anything if someone forgets to make sure the door or window is properly closed/locked. Some time ago I worked for a bank that had installed “blast proof” curtains in their data center. This meant that if a bomb exploded outside and the windows were smashed inwards, the curtains would catch the glass etc., protecting people and equipment inside. However, there was an issue with this plan. The Bank’s data center was located on a very high floor of a building on Canary Wharf, in London, that had a magnificent view. On almost every one of my “random” inspections of the facility the curtains were drawn back, as people working in the center – understandably – used to pull the curtains back, so that they could enjoy the view. The physical security was there, the process was not. Every report I made, specified that the curtains were drawn back, and never in place etc., however everyone seemed to be “happy” that the physical security “requirement” was in place, even if it wasn’t operational. A certain box had been ticked, and the safety requirements had been met. The Uvalde school shooter, Salvador Ramos, entered Robb Elementary School, via an unlocked side door, that should have been secured. Often physical security measures can be bypassed, and really only serve to slow shooters down, rather than prevent them access, and therefore need to be part of a larger solution e.g., Adam Lanza, entered Sandy Hook elementary school by shooting out a window, bypassing the school’s security system that required visitors to be buzzed in. Conclusion There is no single policy that will be effective in preventing every potential killer/killing, however there are anti-violence programs that schools have initiated, and which have been successful in reducing violent offending. The core features and components of these will be looked at in next week’s article. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=639 Tue, 09 May 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=638 I have written before about the need to differentiate between active shooter incidents that happen in workplaces, public spaces/settings, and educational institutions. There is a tendency to think of them as all being extremely similar or the same, such as all events having the same root cause. This way of thinking, often leads people to conclude that there is a single and universal solution to all of these incidents, such as a greater investment in mental health services; although what these exact services are, and look like are rarely specified, along with how they would be applied etc. In this article I want to look at some of the differences between active shooter incidents at K-12 schools, and how these differ from college and university shootings i.e., events at a different type of educational institution. Hopefully by comparing and contrasting some of the core differences between shootings at such institutions, some of the motivations behind these events can be better understood. In some ways college and university shootings share more in common with shootings in workplace settings than K-12 schools, both in the motivations and events that trigger them, and in who is targeted. College/University shootings are often triggered and motivated by inter-personal conflicts; though obviously the underlying motivations are more complex and shouldn’t be attributed to one single thing. On June 1st, 2016, Mainak Sarkar, a Ph.D student at UCLA, went to the office of Dr William Scot Klug (his thesis advisor), and shot him. He then went on an attempted killing spree of fellow students on the 4th floor where Klug worked. Fortunately, the alert that there was an active shooter in the building was announced in time, and students were able to successfully barricade themselves in rooms. Sarkar eventually shot himself when he heard police sirens outside. Sarkar, had been having issues with Klug for awhile, writing about him in his blog (“thelongdarktunnel”), and on social media, accusing him of stealing computer code he’d written and passing it on to other students etc. Police, later found at his house a “kill list”, with another professor on it – this professor was off campus at the time of the shooting. If we compare this shooting, with workplace shootings, such as Pat Sherril’s (Edmond, Oklahoma) in 1986, which was “triggered” by a disciplinary hearing, he received the previous day from two supervisors, and the 2021 shooting at the Valley Transit Authority Railyard in San Jose, that was triggered when Samuel Cassidy, heard he was about to undergo a disciplinary hearing (Cassidy deliberately passed over certain individuals and targeted others), it can be seen that a component driving all three incidents was inter-personal conflict. This is not the case with most K-12 shootings, where the relationship the shooter had with the institution appears to be more important than the relationship they had – or didn’t have – with particular individuals etc. The choice of weapons are also often different, when comparing K-12 shootings with college/university ones, and once again university shootings share a commonality with workplace incidents. Sarkar, armed himself with two handguns, as did Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho. This was also the case in the 2019 University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting, where Trystan Andrew Terrell, used a 9mm Glock pistol. Whilst there have been workplace shootings that have involved long-barrel weapons, such as the Edgewater Technology shooting, in Wakefield, Massachusetts (December 26th, 2000), where the shooter - Michael Morgan McDermott – used an AK-47, and a shotgun, he’d previously smuggled into the building, most workplace mass shootings feature short-barreled weapons, such as revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. In many K-12 school shootings, the killer arms themselves with long-barrel weapons, as did Kip Kinkel (responsible for the 1998, shooting at Thurston High), who armed himself with a Rutger Rifle, and Salvador Rolando Ramos (2022, Robb Elementary School, Uvalde, Texas), who was armed with an AR-15 style rifle. One of the reasons why long-barrel weapons tend to feature in K-12 school shootings, and not those in universities and workplaces, is due to the more open nature of schools, and their tendency to have fewer security measures. It is likely that McDermott was only able to smuggle in his long-barrel weapons because the facility was pretty much empty over the Christmas period. It is much easier to get a handgun, which can easily be concealed, past security and other employees, in workplace and university settings. Another reason why long-barrel weapons may feature in K-12 school shootings is due to a contagion effect. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine School shooters (1999), were armed with a carbine and two shotguns. For many school shooters, Harris and Klebold, developed the “template” for school shootings, walking around a school unobstructed and in complete control for close to an hour, taking their revenge on the institution and killing freely. It is likely that there has been to some degree a “copycat” effect, with each successive shooter, taking inspiration from previous ones. It could be that the “model” for engaging in K-12 shooting, involves using long-barrel weapons. Whilst many mass shooters and killers share similar profiles, such as being “outsiders” (Klebold, Harris, Cho, and Cassidy) regardless of the institutions they target, there are also significant differences between workplace shootings, university killings, and K-12 mass shootings. Although it is hard to know what goes on in the mind of a shooter who engages in murder-suicide, the fact that very few who engage in workplace shootings leave a suicide note (11%), would imply that these are more spontaneous affairs that are triggered by specific events, such as disciplinary hearings, or exit interviews etc. The commonalities between workplace and university shootings should also be noted; that they are often the result of interpersonal conflict between the student and specific individuals, rather than as “punishment” against an institution and/or community e.g., in contrast, Harris and Klebold in many ways were targeting the school as a symbol of the community that they felt they didn’t belong to. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=638 Thu, 04 May 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=637 Unfortunately, deception rarely takes the form of blatant or outright lies, which could be detected by basic fact checking etc. Also, because we – along with professionals in forensic settings, and law enforcement – process information through the lens of a truth bias, we are not very good at detecting deception. It also appears that those working in law enforcement, as “professional” lie catchers are little better than college students at detecting deception. In short, we are often no better than “chance” at detecting deceit. We may tell ourselves otherwise, and that we know certain “tells”, such as liars avoiding eye-contact etc., however those who engage in deception also know these things, and will make sure that they never avert their gaze. In reality we are better at detecting deception through verbal, rather than non-verbal, cues, however we rely on them both when detecting deception e.g., if someone tells us that they are really looking forward to something but their body language says otherwise we are not likely to believe them. With online deception we are deprived of these non-verbal cues, and we are also usually deprived of context and setting e.g., we are on our keyboard, and the deceiver is somewhere else, on theirs. This often leaves us with only with verbal cues when we are analyzing and evaluating digital statements. In this article I want to look at some of the linguistic differences between truthful and untruthful digital statements. When somebody is engaged in digital deception, they must construct a story that is believable to their intended audience, and manipulate language in order to communicate this narrative. Digital deception, like all deceptions, consists of two components: the withholding of truthful information (such as the deceiver’s real/true identity), and the promotion of untruthful information (such as selling a product online that they don’t have/own). This means that digital deceptive statements tend to be more vague and possibly evasive e.g., the person(s) engaged in deceit being unclear and ambiguous about who they really are etc., and shorter in length, than truthful ones. There are several reasons why deceptive statements tend to be shorter than truthful ones, with the main one being that the more “facts” which are presented, the more likely it is than one will be proved wrong; it is easier to manage a single lie/untruth than many. This is why someone’s initial statement might be believable but as they give out more information they lose track of the individual lies they’ve told, and start to contradict themselves. To counter this reduction in statement length, someone engaged in digital deception may engage in superfluous repetition in order to “pad” their statement(s) out. This also means that deceptive statements tend to contain fewer distinct words, than truthful ones. For example, someone responding to a chat on a dating site, might say, “I like your hair” (statement one), or, “I really like the way you’ve done your hair” (statement two). Statement one has fewer distinct words than statement two and is simpler and less complex i.e., statement two from the perspective of detecting deception is likely to be judged more truthful. However, certain caveats may apply e.g., the use of fewer distinct words may reflect a more limited vocabulary, or an inability to express, rather than be a sign of deceit, and so this shouldn’t be used as a “Pinocchio’s Nose”. Another linguistic clue that someone may be engaged in deception is a lack of specificity. Truth tellers tend to make definitive statements, such as, “I didn’t do that”, as opposed to statements, like, “I don’t think I did that.” With a definitive statement, if it is found to be untrue, the person has no way out/back, however with a statement like, “I don’t think I did that”, there is room for error, and the person engaged in deception can correct themselves, if/when challenged on something. Like everything, context is important. There is a big difference between someone who creates a deceptive online dating profile as part of an eventual scam, where they ask money for a plane ticket so they can meet you in person, and someone sending you an email informing you that you have won the Norwegian Lottery, and your bank details are required in order for the money to be paid. In the first example (the dating profile), it is likely that the profile description, will contain many “small” lies (as has been shown in numerous studies), whereas the second example is likely to contain one or a few bigger ones. One of the warning signs that has been found concerning fake/deceptive dating site profiles, is that the profiles contained fewer self-references. An example of a self-referencing statement would be, “I like good food, wine and great conversations, so if you are looking for a nice evening out, we should get along great.” i.e., the person behind the profile is referencing the things they like, hoping to attract someone who likes the same. Deceptive dating statements tend to lack these types of statements, as the person engaged in deceit is in some way not wanting to reveal too much about themselves, distancing themselves from the profile. Also by self-referencing themselves they might later contradict something they’ve said in a chat/conversation e.g., “I don’t drink”, “I’m not really into long conversations, I’m more of the quiet type” etc. Another feature of such profiles is a lack of self-deprecation and negative emotions i.e., they are trying to present something/someone who is too perfect. Detecting digital/online deception is difficult, as often the mode of communication is somewhat different to how we would communicate face-to-face e.g., texting/messaging uses a mix of shorthand and emojis etc. There is also the possibility in certain forms of digital communication, to revise and alter what is being said, after writing it. The fact that it is possible to read something before “sending” it means that someone who is engaged in deception, can look at previous messages/texts first, and check that what they are saying complies with what they’ve said before (long pauses and long response times may indicate someone is multi-tasking but it could also mean they are verifying previous statements). However, communication is communication, and putting our “truth bias” to the side, especially when there is a potential safety risk, and looking at statements from the perspective of being truthful or untruthful, may allow us to hesitate before committing to something that may put us in danger. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=637 Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=636 Research estimates that people on average tell one to two lies every day (Hancock et al., 2004). Usually these acts of deception are seen by the individual engaged in them as being trivial in nature and of little harm or consequence, such as telling someone they are looking well, have lost weight etc. With the growth of the virtual world, including chat rooms, dating sites, and social media, there are “new” arenas and environments where deception can occur, and for a variety of reasons e.g., a study by Utz (2005), found that women in chat rooms, engaged in deception for reasons of safety, and to avoid harassment etc., (to reinforce their anonymity) whereas men engaged in deception, hiding and masking their identity, so that they could be more expressive and reveal more about their true thoughts and feelings etc. Paradoxically, when someone’s anonymity is increased they are more likely to be honest, truthful, and engage in self-disclosure (Ma et al., 2016). However, the internet has also become a place where predatory individuals, can use the virtual world to engage in deception for financial and/or sexual gain. Whilst, for many of us, receiving an email from a Nigerian prince, informing us that they need to deposit several million dollars in a bank account, and that our help is required to do so, is an obvious act of deception, for others it was/is not. Whilst certain studies have shown that face-to-face scams tend to be more frequent and more costly than virtual ones, this doesn’t mean that virtual/online deception doesn’t present a serious threat. Also with digital deception, a deceiver doesn’t have to worry about a tremor in their voice and/or hand (non-verbal cues) etc., when engaged in deceit, and usually have a greater degree of time to construct answers and responses to questions – even in real time – than they would in a face-to-face conversation. In this article I want to look at some categories/types of digital deception, and some of the ways we can identify if “someone” we are dealing with is engaged in deceit or is in fact authentic. Hancock (2007) classifies online or virtual deceptions, as falling into one of seven categories/classifications (these aren’t necessarily restricted to the online world): 1. Masking – failing to disclose certain important pieces of information e.g., if a blog writer who appears to be writing an “unbiased” review of something is in fact being paid to do so. 2. Dazzling – sending an email that promotes a “free trial” of something etc. but is in fact intended to get someone to sign up for a newsletter and further advertisements without them being aware. 3. Decoying – sending someone a link to a free Dewalt Drill, that just requires them to pay for shipping etc., and requires them to give payment and shipping information/details. 4. Mimicking – taking on another person or institution’s identity e.g., pretending to be a bank or credit card who is asking you to confirm your identity by logging on to an illegitimate site (which mirrors the legitimate one) via a link provided in the email/communication. 5. Inventing – an Ebay or Amazon store owner etc., who doesn’t actually own any of the inventory/stock they have for sale. 6. Relabeling – deliberately trying to mislead individuals about something e.g., packaging and promoting a piece of swamp in Florida as a prime real estate opportunity etc. 7. Double play – this is a method where the scammer/deceiver convinces the other party that they are taking advantage of them e.g., sending someone an “unintentional” email that looks like it contains confidential/secret information between two parties, about the sale of a stock at a ridiculously low price, in order for them to take advantage of this information, and buy it etc. It should be noted that deception, both online and face-to-face, tends to fall into two categories: opportune and planned. An example of “opportune” deception would be when a friend, co-worker, or acquaintance messages/emails us about a favorite film or tv-show that we should watch, which we actually hate, and we respond saying that it sounds good i.e., we are caught in the moment, and due to social embarrassment and/or the need, not to start an argument we agree with a position/viewpoint we don’t actually believe in etc. A planned act of deception, might involve someone sending us an email, with an offer or deal, that is intended to get us to hand over personal details such as our credit card number, password, social security number and/or shipping/home address. Generally, opportune deception results in less serious consequences than planned ones, as the message/communication – at least at the time – doesn’t contain any harmful intent. Three basic ways of determining virtual deception are to look for the following: 1. Inconsistencies – for example, does the domain address of the email a message is being sent from match the domain name from which the offer came e.g., if an “offer” related to a particular company such as Ace hardware comes from a Gmail or Hotmail account, or if when you hover over the link (don’t click it) it shows a different website/domain than Ace, it’s likely to be a scam/hoax. 2. Lack of/or too many details -Those engaged in deception, both online and face-to-face, tend to misjudge the number of details/facts they should give. Often, they will give too few details, because this prevents the receiver of information being able to ask too many questions, which could cause the deceiver to slip up, or when engaged in acts like plagiarism they become too verbose, adding their own words to the original author’s (increasing both the word count and complexity of the statement). 3. Inconsistencies and over correction – If a scam is targeted at a large number of people, the person engaged in deception may have trouble keeping track, of who is who, and what they have told to each person, meaning that in individual chats and conversations, inconsistencies start to occur. Another feature of deceptive statement is that the author may engage in over-correction(s) in an attempt to be seen as more honest; this normally involves correcting minor rather than major facts. In next week’s article I will look at statement analysis/composition, and linguistic factors which may indicate that the communication you are receiving is deceptive rather than truthful, whether that is a conversation/chat, an email, or a dating profile someone has put up etc. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=636 Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=635 This is the second of two articles looking at labelling theory (the first can be accessed by clicking here). Labelling theory is a model that comes from Social Interactionism, where crime and deviancy is defined not by the action itself, but society’s reaction to it e.g., spray painting your name on a wall, doesn’t become a crime or deviant behavior until someone labels it as “vandalism”, and the person(s) who engage in the act as “vandals”. In this article I want to look at who decides these labels, and how labelling plays a part in the process of “moral panics”. Although Becker, who proposed the idea of labelling in his book “Outsiders – Studies in the Sociology of Deviance”, was looking at those who were deemed deviant, his theory was fundamentally about power and the unequal distribution of power i.e., who gets to decide what is, and who is, deviant, and is this view shared by those who are being judged and labelled as deviant? In a school setting a child may be unjustly judged by a teacher as engaging in bullying behaviors, when in fact they are simply engaged in mutual teasing with another child etc. The teacher who has the power in this relationship may then label the child as a “bully” and/or a “troublemaker”. There is no debate or discussion in this matter, as the child has no power in the relationship. The teacher may then talk to other staff members about that child and the label starts to stick. Other children may now start to interact with the child based on the label, trusting that the person in power knows what is right and wrong etc. The child may also start to believe the teacher’s assessment of them, interpreting and analyzing their internal thoughts and beliefs through the lens of the label they have (incorrectly) been assigned. In fact the most reflective and introspective child may spend more time analyzing who/what they are, than those who are less self-aware etc. In time, it may be that as Frank Tannenbaum states, “The person becomes the thing he is described as being.” This is one of the dangers of “over enthusiastic” school bullying programs, that present zero-policy programs i.e., they are sometimes too quick to label children as bullies, in an attempt to eradicate bullying, and by doing so “create” more bullies, and perpetuate the problem. Over enthusiastic labelling is self-defeating. Stanley Cohen, the British Sociologist/Criminologist was very interested in the role that the media played, in what Jock Young, described as “Deviance Amplification” i.e., how did the media create “folk devils” out of minorities and sub-cultures that really didn’t pose any major threat to society at all. Cohen suggested that such folk devils were the creation of moral panics, and identified a number of steps/stages that led to such panics. The first step was “stage setting”. This is where those in positions of power, such as the media and/or politicians, draw the attention of an audience/society to a particular problem. This normally involves sensationalizing and exaggerating the extent of the problem. In a 1995 article, John Dilulio a political scientist, wrote an article in the Weekly Standard, where he introduced the idea of the “Super Predator”. He argued that there was an alarmingly high number of young offenders who were beyond rehabilitation, and who would only go on to commit more and more violent crimes unless they were stopped early on in there criminal careers. He never provided in this article, or since, any empirical evidence to support this position/idea. In fact if it is one thing that is pretty much accepted amongst all schools/disciplines of criminology – due to the overwhelmingly statistical support – it is that most young people age out of crime, rather than increase their offending as Dilulio argued. The next step/stage is exaggeration/escalation. This is where the rumor mill, and gossip train, gets started. People start to believe that what is a minor problem, involving a few, is a major problem effecting the many. The arguments are normally extremely simplistic and lack nuance. They have to be, to be communicated quickly and widely. In the 1990’s politicians and the media, got caught up with the “Crack Epidemic”, and started to link it to the idea of the “Super Predator”, casting any young black male, living in impoverished urban areas, as being violent and dangerous. The media often labelled these areas as “War Zones”, where the police were unable to go. This then leads to the symbolization, and labelling of the group, with politicians or other leaders engaging in “Moral Entrepreneurship”, promoting their own agendas under the guise of advocating for the labelled group. This is then followed by some form of crackdown. In the case of the “Super Predator” moral panic, the Criminal Justice System, introduced three-strike laws and mandatory minimum sentences, with law-enforcement being directed to focus on eliminating the “Crack Epidemic”. Eventually there is either a decline in interest, and/or some type of resolution. Labelling and Moral Panics, stick and are remembered, even long after the panic, and their effects often linger, and/or create new issues – one that those in power aren’t interested in as they only effect the individuals and the group who were labelled e.g., the fact that large black, urban areas, were depopulated of young black men, had significant effects on members of those locales, including the reduced opportunities for young black women to find partners, which in turn affected the birth rates in those areas etc. Labels give us a quick, shorthand, that allows us in one word to communicate a lot of ideas and opinions, and should be used wisely and sparingly, especially when they form part of a moral panic. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=635 Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=634 Children get ascribed labels all the time e.g., some kids are identified as “good”, others “bad”, whilst others may get labelled as “troublemakers” and/or “bullies” etc. Growing up, our parents may have told us to not play with, and stay away from certain other children, on the basis that when you hang out with bad people there’s a greater risk that you will engage in risks you might otherwise not take etc. These labels, influence how we view people. For some of us, being told that another child was a “troublemaker”, may have elicited feelings of fear, and made us want to stay as far away from them as possible, whilst for others the label “troublemaker” was seen as a badge of honor, that we wanted to acquire for ourselves. Our reaction to the label, and the acts and behaviors associated with that title, helped us form a view and opinion of both the person committing these acts, and the acts themselves. Our parents were trying to help us form a negative opinion of troublemakers, and to stay away from them. I remember my parents talking about a kid in my neighborhood as if he was the devil incarnate, who I ended up working with on a Saturday job I had. I remember when I first met him at work, expecting all manner of trouble and shenanigans, only to find him an extremely nice guy and an exceptionally hard worker. As I got to know him and we shared our experiences and bits about our lives with each other, I learnt that the things he had supposedly done weren’t actually as serious as my parents had made out, and that they’d assumed his intentions were bad and destructive, when this actually wasn’t the case. If I hadn’t met him, I’d probably be still labelling him as a “troublemaker”. In this article I want to take a more in-depth look at labelling theory as it relates to violent offending, and how what Jock Young termed, “deviance amplification”, can cause these labels to reach a wider audience (such as my parents, and their friends etc.), which reinforces the label. I was first introduced to labelling theory over thirty years ago, and my initial response was to reject it. As I’ve gotten older, and my studies have both broadened and deepened, I have started to see its value in explaining how we both view violence and violent offenders, and how these views can reinforce the label, prompting those labelled to increase their offending etc. Although, not explicitly referred to as “labelling”, the social interactionists, Frank Tannenbaum and George Herbert Mead, along with others had played around with the idea. However, it was Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert who first introduced the term. Becker, in his book, “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance”, developed the idea more fully. The premise behind labelling theory, is that it is society’s reaction to an act or behavior, rather than the act itself, which determines whether an act is judged deviant and the person a criminal e.g., in most U.S. states marijuana is now legal, however for a long time this was not the case, and those who smoked were labelled/treated as criminals – certain sections of society may still label those who smoke weed as “potheads”, and view them as being deviants (even though the law doesn’t recognize the act of smoking marijuana as being inherently criminal). If society and the law treat someone as a criminal and exclude them from “mainstream” society because of this, their reaction to those who engage in marijuana use, may force such individuals into sub-groups and sub-cultures that embrace the idea of criminality and deviance i.e., react to the judgement of society and the law, by “becoming” what they are viewed as. If we look at this now from the perspective of violence, if a child is repeatedly told they are a “troublemaker”, they may come to believe this, and find themselves hanging out with others who share the same stigma. It may be that those in the group start to compete amongst themselves as to who is the biggest troublemaker etc. The CJS (Criminal Justice System), also plays a large part in the labelling process. If someone is picked up on a charge of vandalizing property by spraying their initials on the wall of a disused railway tunnel, and then charged and convicted of this offense, they are officially labelled as a criminal. This “label” may mean that they have difficulty finding employment, as they will have to declare their record. This can have long-term consequences e.g., because they are unable to gain legal employment, they may end up hanging around with others in a similar position to themselves, and eventually commit more serious offenses such as robbery and theft in order to make money etc. Society and the CJS, also look at certain offense differently e.g., the middle class woman who scans her avocados as onions, isn’t automatically labelled as being a criminal, even though they are guilty of retail theft (maybe on many occasions). Arguments will be made that this isn’t a crime because, “everybody does it”, the shops have over-priced their goods in order to take into account such losses, so this is just evening things out etc. It’s still a crime just like spray painting your initials on the wall of a disused railway tunnel; in some ways it may be viewed as a more serious crime, in that it forces the store to raise its prices on all goods to cover the loss, effecting a far larger audience, than the vandalized property does. Whilst labelling theory may not fully explain why people engage in “deviant” activities in the first place, it does offer a compelling argument as to how individuals and groups may find themselves on the outskirts of regular society, and continue to engage in such behaviors, even when they may have normally stopped or aged out of offending etc. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=634 Mon, 03 Apr 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=633 I have written about the “pull” factors involved in violent offending before e.g., that for some, violence can be an exciting and attractive experience; soccer hooligans enjoy the emotional high that they experience from fighting etc. In this article I want to look at the allure of revenge, and why for some people, there is a need to engage in violent acts against those who they believe have committed injustices against them. I want to focus primarily on planned/premeditated acts of revenge, that happen some time after the “injustice” took place, rather than violent reactions and responses that happen in the moment e.g., there is a difference between someone who comes home to find their partner in bed with someone else, and shoots them in the heat of the moment, and one who waits until a later date to exact their revenge. I also want to exclude, delayed acts of aggression and violence that are motivated primarily by fear, and a need to reduce or eliminate a threat e.g., a victim of intimate partner violence (IPV), who plans to kill their abusive partner because they believe it is necessary for their own – and possibly their children’s – survival. In short, I want to look at why people hold “grudges” and often feel a pressing need to “get even” i.e., violent acts that are purely about retribution. A ”grudge”, is usually defined in psychology, as persistent feelings of resentment, against one or more parties/entities (an individual can have ill will towards a business or organization), that is the result of a past injustice. Many active shooters/killers, hold grudges for long periods of time e.g., the Columbine killers, Klebold and Harris, expressed through journals, and videotapes, over a number of years, the need to punish fellow classmates, and the institution (the school), for the unfair and unjust way(s) they had been treated etc. A study by van Monsjou et al., (2021), found that there are six underlying components, that are involved in holding a grudge. These are: 1. A need for validation from all parties 2. Moral superiority over the transgressor 3. Inability to “let go.” 4. Latency & triggering events 5.Severing ties 6. Expectations about the future It may be that if we experience an injustice against us, we feel that we are being personally invalidated e.g., Joseph T. Wesbecker (who was responsible for the Standard Gravure workplace shooting), felt that his supervisors were giving preferential treatment to co-workers, and were deliberately treating him unfairly; something he took personally. He felt a need for both management and his co-workers to “validate”, the person he saw himself as, and when this didn’t happen, and he experienced a continuation of these invalidations, he formed a grudge, against all parties involved in the injustice. Joseph T. Wesbecker sought validation from: the transgressor (management and supervisors), from others (the co-workers who witnessed his personal invalidation), and from himself. Wesbecker was an “Injustice Collector”, who added each transgression to the others. People who hold grudges, believe that they are right to do so i.e., they are a better person than their transgressor(s) i.e., they are the righteous one. Sometimes, an individual may feel sad about the individual(s) who were responsible for the transgression, such as when it has caused them to lose someone they though of as a friend (severing ties) etc., however sadness is often replaced by indignation, which fuels the grudge further. Often people cannot simply “let go” of the transgression, having constant thoughts and reminders about it. The need to remove this sense of powerlessness – that the grudge is in control and has taken over their life – is one of the things that motivates the need for revenge. Revenge is seen as a way to take back control. Sometimes, a “grudge” lies dormant until there is a triggering event e.g., someone may have forgotten about an injustice over time, until something happens that brings it up again e.g., this could be hearing a song on the radio, which was their cheating partner’s favorite etc. Many people who have held a grudge, will be less trusting in the future, fearing that others may also betray them in some way. Many will argue that this has made them a tougher and more careful individual etc. These are the individuals who have learned to live and cope with the injustice, however there are others who feel the need for revenge. Narcissists, have the need for everyone to see them in a certain way i.e., the image that they have created of themselves; Narcissus fell in love with his reflection in the lake, not with himself. When a Narcissist feels that this image is not being validated, they will often respond with Narcissistic Rage. This is an intense, uncontrollable anger, that sometimes results in physical violence, against those they believe aren’t seeing them as they should. Once this initial “psychic defense” occurs, and they calm down, they will often feel the need to exact revenge against those who caused them this psychological and emotional harm. As long as this individual has the ability and capacity to question their “reflection” in the future they will need to be “harmed” in some way. This could be physically, but it could also be socially e.g., they may engage in a series of acts which socially discredit the person, so that their future thoughts and opinions are devalued. They may also engages in a campaign of psychological and emotional bullying both as a punishment, and as a deterrent so that the person acts differently towards them in the future etc. Narcissists, have many of the character traits that make them grudge holders, who exact revenge, and this is why I am using this personality disorder to demonstrate, how multiple components of a grudge work together to fuel revenge i.e., there is a need for validation, a sense of moral superiority, an inability to let go, the need to sever ties with those who transgressed them, and a negative belief about the future, which they want to turn into a positive one etc. Not everyone who holds a grudge engages in revenge. However the more components of a grudge exist, the more likely it is that someone will. Bearing a significant grudge over a period of time, and especially one that constantly invades a person’s thoughts, is psychologically and emotionally costly. At some point a person may want to be released from it, and revenge may be the only way they can see to do this. Another cost, which is often not realized, is the physical cost to a person’s health who is bearing a grudge over time. A study in 2009, by Messias et al., found that those who held long-term grudges had an increased association with cardiovascular disease, and stomach ulcers. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=633 Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=632 In last week’s article I provided some commentary on a piece that appeared in the Boston Globe (Sunday 12th March 2023), which implied that a short street in Dorchester was responsible for generating a disproportionate amount of crime i.e., the article reported that in 2022, the police were called to this particular street 132 times. As I pointed out in last week’s article, this resulted in 17 incident reports, indicating that the majority of calls were probably for excessive noise, verbal disputes etc., rather than for serious crimes. However, there were two separate shooting incidents that occurred in 2022, along with a firearm that was either found or confiscated on this street. However, a question remains, and that is one of context i.e., is this street responsible for more crime, including serious crime than those around it? Also is this street the “hub” of a hotspot, or a street amongst others within a hotspot? In this article I want to examine the amount of crime, that occurs within 100 meters of this street, including the nearby Russel Auditorium, and the nearby Talbot Ave rail transit stop. I also want to look at the surrounding street segments to see if the amount of offending on Helen Street, is in fact very different from that of neighboring streets. I am using police incident reports rather than 911 calls to measure this, as these mark events that required a police intervention that was notable. In a five-year period (2018 to 2022) there were 50 recorded incidents on Helen Street, including 14 separate incidents associated with violent offending e.g., assault and battery, shootings (two events happening almost a year apart), and firearm offenses etc. The street is approximately 120 meters/391 feet in length. The next street over is Kerwin Street, which is approximately 190 meters/624 feet in length. In the same period there were 80 recorded incidents on Kerwin Street, including 12 incidents that would constitute acts of violence. Browning Ave, the next over from Kerwin Street (approx. 787 feet/240 meters long), for the same period, generated 111 incident reports, 17 of which could be classed as violent. A quick “crime density” calculation shows the following; over a 5-year period there were: 1. 0.41 total incidents/meter, and 0.12 violent incidents/meter on Helen Street 2. 0.42 total incidents/meter, and 0.06 violent incidents/meter on Kerwin Street 3. 0.46 total incidents/meter, and 0.07 violent incidents/meter on Browning Ave Whilst it may at first glance, appear that although there are a few more crime incidents per meter on Kerwin Street, there are twice as many violent incidents on Helen Street, it bears remembering that it only takes a few “extra” events in such a small sample size to significantly skew the data. However, considering the total number of incidents, there are fewer on Helen Street, than on the other two streets. Whilst offending might be slightly more violent on Helen Street, from a total crime perspective Helen Street, looks to be more representative of the immediate area, rather than an exception and an outlier. Using the same sample size (incidents occurring from 2018 to 2022 inclusive), I looked at two other potential “hubs” for crime and all offenses committed within a 100-meter radius of them, to see if they might well be responsible for generating and attracting crime in the area. These were the Russell Auditorium (located 350 meters/ from Helen Street), and the Talbot Avenue rail transit stop (a 270-meter walk from Helen Street). Within a 100-meter radius of Helen Street, for the five-year period, there were a total of 283 incidents reported (68 of which would be classed as involving some act or threat of violence). Within a 100-meter radius of the Russell Auditorium, there were 154 incidents reported, 14 of which could be classified as violent offenses. When looking at offenses committed within a 100-meter radius of the Talbot Ave rail transit stop, there were a total of 291 incidents reported, 67 of which would be classified as violent offenses. There are a few things to note about the methodology used in this analysis. It doesn’t consider land use, density and direction, which are three basic things that are needed for such analysis. Land use is important, because not all space is the same regarding crime e.g., if the hub from which a radius is being calculated and analyzed is based right on the edge of an industrial area, fifty percent of the area being studied will be residential and the other half industrial. Also, single industrial units are likely to be much bigger than single residential units e.g., a burglary of a single industrial building, may sit on the same size plot of land as ten residential buildings. From a statistical reporting perspective, comparing a single break-in at an industrial building with three burglaries of residential buildings sitting on the same amount of land, is not a like for like comparison. Linked to this is the population density of an area. More people in an area of land, increases both the number of potential offenders and targets, making offending more likely. Direction is also an important consideration. Things such as major roads, bridges, and rivers affect the direction that both offenders and targets can move in e.g., Talbot Avenue, is a major routeway, that has a park on one side, with the Russell Auditorium on the other, this could mean that 50% of the land looked at in its radius is parkland (land use), and the road cuts it off, making it less accessible from the other side, affecting direction/human flow etc. This could go some way to explaining why its total offenses within a 100-meter radius were around half the number of both Helen Road and Talbot Ave transit stop. The next step in the analysis was to create a heatmap of crime clusters, of incidents that occurred within one kilometer of Helen Street, to see whether there were “hotter” clusters than that of the incidents committed in and around Helen Street (these clusters measure “groups” of offenses within a 200 meter radius). It can be seen that the Helen Street/Kerwin Street/Browning Ave area located North, and to the right of the park - the area just across the road from the park and to the left of the train track - isn’t the most incident/crime-dense location within the area. There is a stretch of dark red hotspots on the far right of the map, that run along a stretch of Washington Road, just North of Talbot Avenue. This stretch of road is a fairly busy routeway, with a number of fast food restaurants, and several bus stops located closely together. Such areas both attract offenders to them, due to the relatively high foot traffic and also generate crime when offenders find themselves in this locale as they go about their routine activities, such as going out to eat etc. This stretch of road appears to have a number of overlapping dense hotspots, that indicate it is a significantly higher crime location than Helen Street and its surrounding streets. From a residential perspective there are two hotpots, one just north and to the west of Helen Street, and another further north and to the east of the rail transit lines which have much higher concentrations of incidents/offenses. If we look at all incidents within the reporting area, a much greater number of incidents are located south of Helen street. When we extend the range of a cluster to be 1000 meters, we can see that the majority of incidents, occur around the intersection of Blue Hill Avenue and Morton Street. The convergence of two major routeways brings a potentially large number of people, which increases the risk of offending. At the micro-level, Helen Street may appear to be a high crime location, however when put in context at the meso-level, there are other nearby areas that appear to have higher concentrations of crime, and at the macro-level, it is certainly not the hub. It is all too easy to look at offending in one location, without putting it into any type of context, and lose the true/full picture of what is actually going on. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=632 Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=631 Four years ago, I wrote an article on crime hotspots, that contained the line, “Crime isn’t evenly spread across a geography, it is concentrated in “hot-spots”, even down to the house level e.g., those working in law enforcement will tell you there are homes they are repeatedly called to etc.” (You can access the article by clicking here). The Boston Globe ran the following headline, last week in its Sunday edition (Sunday 12th March): “A tiny street in Dorchester is a magnet for street violence. Police say one house is the source of so much trouble.” The article states that in 2022, the police were called to this particular street 132 times, with offenses including shootings, drug activity etc. Something worth bearing in mind is that of these 132 calls made to this street (Helen Street in Dorchester), only 17 were serious enough to warrant an incident report e.g., it could be that a call is made concerning a verbal dispute between two partners, that is considered a “verbal domestic”, something which in many jurisdictions doesn’t require a report to be written. This dispute may later develop into a physical, domestic assault, with a second call being made, that now warrants a report to be written up etc. Something also to consider, is that it might be one person or a few people making 911 calls e.g., a “curtain twitcher” who is continually watching the street and overly sensitive/paranoid to any type of disturbance, calling the police at any minor infraction etc. This is not to say that this street doesn’t have issues but rather it is worth looking at all of the “statistics” in order to get a better/fuller picture of what is going on, and it may well be that the majority of the calls were for low-level offenses, such as excessive noise, verbal disputes etc., rather than for shootings, weapons violations, and aggravated assaults etc. It may also be that this street rather than being the hub/center of a hotspot, is located somewhere within a larger hotspot, that may have other streets and places with higher crime concentrations (something that we will look at in a later article). Another important thing to note, is that at the end of this short street is a tire shop, and there are a number of incident reports that relate to offenses concerning vehicles/automobiles etc., so when considering activity on this street, the presence of this establishment should also be considered. Again, I am not trying to argue that this street doesn’t have an issue with crime but rather that we should try to understand all of the things that may influence offending in a particular location e.g., what is the low-level anti-social activity that warrants the attention of law-enforcement, and what is the sporadic but regular, high-level offending that occurs in this location. It is important for us to establish such a picture, because otherwise we can form an opinion that such “hotspots” are locations which feature daily drive-by shootings, murders, robberies etc., and even in the most “active” hotspots this is rarely the case. In this article I want to look at some of the environmental/geographical aspects that may contribute to this short street seeing the high level of anti-social, and sometimes criminal, activity that it does. There has long been an association between middle/high schools and higher rates of neighborhood crime. However, many studies, have looked primarily at the school, and not considered socio-economic factors, concerning the neighborhoods in which schools were located. In 2018, Willits et al., conducted a study, which considered such factors, and found that neighborhoods that had middle and high schools in them, regardless of any other factors, had higher levels of violent, property and narcotics crimes, than locales without i.e., schools raise crime rates. The street in question is less than 100 feet from an elementary school. Most juvenile crime constitutes low-level offending, that doesn’t result in an incident report. This could potentially mean that some of the “disturbances” that occur on this street, are not committed by hardened criminals, but by kids after school, who are roaming the neighborhood, bored and looking for fun/excitement. Also, located within 100 feet of the street, is the Perkins Community Center, which has a “Teen Center”, along with a gym, pool, and other leisure facilities. Such buildings often become a hub for young people to hang out at, and bring in large numbers of teenagers and young people. Such places may become “Crime Generators” i.e., they don’t necessarily attract potential offenders to them, but because of the large number of people that visit them for leisure activities, they bring a relatively high percentage of would-be offenders into the vicinity. People with a history of offending don’t come into the locale looking to/with the intention of offending, but find themselves in an area, due to other reasons, and take advantage of opportunities to offend e.g., someone with a history of breaking into cars, comes to the center with the intention of working out at the gym, but whilst in the neighborhood spots an opportunity they can’t resist. Another factor which can raise the crime rate in a location is accessibility. The street in question is off a main routeway, Talbot Ave, which is connected to Blue Hill Avenue. When I first started looking at crime hotspots in Boston – with a focus on violent offending – two things became immediately apparent. There is something exciting about putting the crime data, of a city you are not that familiar with, into geospatial mapping software, and seeing the results i.e., you have no expectations or preconceived ideas about certain districts and neighborhoods, which is not the case if you are engaging in the same exercise in a city you know well, such as where the “bad” neighborhoods are. Not surprisingly, there were some notable and significant hotspots close to the city center (one at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Melena Cass Boulevard, which I later learnt was a major hub for illicit drugs; the hub of which shifted in a largely predictable fashion throughout the day), but then there were a series of hotspots, that popped up along one major routeway into and out of the city: Blue Hill Avenue. Anyone living in Boston would probably not be surprised by these findings e.g., there was a 2001 crime-drama film called Blue Hill Avenue about crime in that area set in the 1980’s, so the road’s association with violent offending is both long and well-known to residents of the city. Most of these hotspots were not located directly on Blue Hill Avenue, but on nearby streets that were off it – just far enough away to lack “eyes on the street”. The street in question has four bus stops and a rail-transit stop, within 100 yards. This makes it an extremely accessible location e.g., if the said-mentioned house on it, is a location where drugs are being dealt from, it is easily able to serve an extended audience who are located outside of its neighborhood. This means it may attract individuals who use public transportation to get around as well as those who drive, including city workers who want somewhere accessible but far enough away from their places of work, and where they live, to acquire recreational drugs etc. There is no doubt that this street statistically constitutes a hotspot, both in the number of calls it receives and the number of incidents it generates. However, it would be overly simple, to conclude that the reason for this is solely down to the people who live there; the same people in another location may not generate or be subject to the same level of anti-social activity that they experience in this location e.g., without being so close to a school, a community center (as well as a large park/recreational area), and being so accessible (roads/transit routes) etc. This is why whenever we look at crime hotspots we should consider the environmental factors at play. In next weeks article I will do a fuller statistical analysis of Hel https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=631 Mon, 13 Mar 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=630 Human beings are by nature optimistic and resilient creatures, and capable of dealing with great changes both physiologically, emotionally and psychologically. I am not saying this in a motivational, “we can achieve anything we set our minds to”, type of way, but more as a scientific observation. Our bodies are very effective at dealing with extreme temperatures. When experiencing rapid drops in temperature our body will engage in vasoconstriction (moving blood away from our peripheries to core areas, keeping major organs warm), and shivering, which generates heat, helping to raise body temperature. This has allowed for people to survive drops in body temperature, from an average of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37 degrees Celsius) to 56.7 degrees Fahrenheit (13.7 degrees Celsius). We are capable of surviving extreme changes. Perhaps one of the most remarkable “changes” we experience is at birth, when we transition from what is basically a “water” world, to an “air” one. There is perhaps a no more physiologically traumatic event than this one, and it is necessary for us to experience this trauma in order to survive. In the womb, a fetus’s lungs are full of water. Oxygenated blood is sent to the placenta via the umbilical cord, and to the fetus’s heart. The lungs are bypassed. However when a baby is born, a transition has to occur. During labor, through pressure on the baby’s body water is pushed out of the lungs (and is absorbed into its body). As it enters the world of “air”, it experiences cold for the first time. This shock/trauma is necessary to trigger the breathing system to kick in. In response the umbilical vein closes. As this happens CO2 starts to build up and the baby is effectively suffocating. At this moment, when a baby takes its first breath, a one-way valve to the heart permanently closes (before oxygenated blood, and non-oxygenated blood used to mix together), and the heart is divided, into a left side and a right side. This is an immensely traumatic experience. Fortunately, we don’t remember it, because although we have a brain (a physical “organ” capable of thought), our minds are not developed enough to create a “memory” of these events – something we should all be grateful for. Moving from one world to another is a traumatic experience, however our survival is dependent on it, and we are built/designed to be able to handle it. Dealing with violence is a traumatic event, that also involves us moving from one world to another, both psychologically, emotionally and physically. I am always trying to communicate to members of my school, that the “pain” of being punched, isn’t largely a physical pain, it’s the shock and awe of suddenly realizing you are not in your comfortable and predictable world anymore. You have just entered a world that is unpredictable and doesn’t follow social norms and conventions. This is where/when fear really kicks in. As humans we hate the unknowns. It’s why couples who argue, usually come back to familiar disputes, as they know how these end. To keep going with a “new” argument could lead them to an unfamiliar and unpredictable place, that could see the relationship ending (another unknown, to avoid). This is perhaps the first thing to understand and expect, when involved in an aggressive altercation. You are in a new world, and the old systems you relied on don’t work here. Too many times, I’ve seen people try to resolve conflicts with someone they’ve upset in a bar/club, as if they were dealing with a disgruntled colleague or co-worker in a business setting. They don’t realize that the world they have just entered needs an entirely different approach in order to survive. Often people don’t want to acknowledge this because it means experiencing the “trauma” of realizing that they are no longer “safe”. However, it is experiencing this trauma that allows us - and is necessary in order for us - to survive. However, unlike birth, we are able to prepare ourselves for this change from one world to another: the world of violence. Unfortunately, many of us don’t want to go through this process – and its understandable. If it could be explained to a baby, all of the trauma it would experience at birth, there would probably be a reluctance to be born. However, violence is something that does exist, and something that we may experience, and therefore is something that we should prepare for. Haim Zut (the highest tested and graded Krav Maga instructor by Imi Lichtenfeld), once said, if you are only attacked once in twenty years, you will have wished that you had trained for twenty years. Unlike birth, dealing with violence is a trauma we can train for. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=630 Mon, 06 Mar 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=629 Once when conducting an active shooter/killer training session, I started to describe the process of what to do (and what not to do), after a shooter had been brought under control, and separated from their weapon etc. As I was detailing the various steps and options that were available someone asked (and I paraphrase), “Why don’t you just shoot them? After all they were trying to kill you.” It’s not a stupid question, and it contains a logical argument, however it misses a fundamental element from a self-defense/legal perspective i.e., if the shooter has been secured and isolated from their weapon(s), are you in imminent danger? In the scenario we were working with an “improvised” team of co-workers had the active killer under control. Nobody – in that moment - was in imminent danger. Some may feel that it would be morally justified to shoot (execute) the killer, especially if they had shot and killed fellow co-workers etc. However in that moment, because nobody was in imminent danger, doing so could not be construed as an act of self-defense, and individuals don’t get to be either judge and/or jury, whatever their emotions may be telling them. It would be a different matter, that if in the course of attempting to subdue the shooter someone used lethal force by striking them with a fire extinguisher, because in that moment they were in imminent danger, and their life was at risk. In this article I want to look at the importance in imminence as it applies to making a claim of self-defense, because sometimes what we think is the “right” thing to do, may not be the legal thing to do. By understanding the importance of “imminence” to making a claim of self-defense we can make sure that we don’t suffer any negative legal consequences of our actions. Many times, when I watch Krav Maga video clips of gun disarms, the technique and scenario, end with the person making the disarm, backing off, pointing the weapon at its original “owner”, and instructing them to get on the floor etc. It’s a morally satisfying vignette e.g., the aggressor has been dealt with and put in their place, and the person they tried to victimize has “defeated” them. Cue credits and theme music, because many people don’t seem to think beyond this point as to what happens next e.g., do the police turn up, immediately identifying the “new“ shooter as the “original” target etc. There may be contexts wherein it’s appropriate from a practical safety perspective to hold someone in place after disarming them, but it has many, many risks to it, and from a legal perspective can potentially jeopardize a self-defense claim i.e., the moment you step back and train the weapon on them, it becomes harder to make the claim that you are the one in imminent danger, in fact your original aggressor may now get to make that claim. Whilst from your perspective everything that occurred may seem to be one singular event, in the eyes of the law, the confrontation may be seen as a number of separate incidents, where at times it wouldn’t be deemed that you were acting in self-defense. In fact, the legal claim to who was acting in self-defense can switch hands over the course of a physical confrontation. This can seem confusing when someone else “started” the confrontation by sticking a gun to your head and putting you in imminent danger. However, the right to claim self-defense doesn’t stay with you to the end, regardless of what happens; when you are no longer in imminent danger and you continue the confrontation, you may in fact end up being seen as the aggressor. In some regards this may seem crazy i.e., the person who initiated the fight, may end up getting to the make the “final” claim of self-defense, however the importance of imminence protects all parties in a fight, and can prevent excessive force from being used. For example if you were to throw someone to the ground who turns away, whilst you remain standing, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), you are not in imminent danger; you also may have an opportunity to leave the incident. If you now start kicking the person in the head, it is likely that you will be found to have used excessive force; you were not in imminent danger and didn’t have a need to physically defend yourself by kicking the other party. Coming back to the active shooter scenario, where the killer has demonstrated their intent, and their ability to act on it, if you were kicking them in the head to render them unconscious, because they were crawling across the floor trying to reach a weapon this would be another matter because you are still in imminent danger. However, if you have been given no reason to believe that the person you threw to the floor has a weapon on them, that could put you in imminent danger, it is going to be hard for you/your attorney to justify your actions. Claiming that “they could have” had a weapon on them, isn’t reason enough to continue assaulting them. A good way to make sure that you are able to make a successful claim of self-defense is to question your actions in the light of imminence i.e., if you are not in imminent danger, and can disengage safely do so etc. Disengagement reinforces your “innocence” in a situation, that is you didn’t want to be involved in a physical altercation or to use violence; at the first opportunity after defending yourself, when it was safe, you left. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=629 Mon, 27 Feb 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=628 Although not initially a suspect, or a person of interest, in the Boston Strangler investigation (13 women had been strangled using items of their clothing in the Boston area during the early part of the 1960’s), Albert DeSalvo confessed in prison to being the aforementioned killer, after being convicted of a sexual assault in 1964. At the time there was a lot of doubt surrounding his claim, with many in law-enforcement, including the FBI’s Robert Ressler and others within the organization, making the point that in the rape he’d been convicted of, DeSalvo had apologized to the woman after sexually assaulting her, something that characterized this assault as being somewhat different to those attributed to the Boston Strangler e.g., under the FBI’s typology, such behavior i.e., apologizing, is characteristic of a “power assurance” rapist, whereas the Boston Strangler’s rapes and murders, looked to be motivated more by “power assertion” and anger, than assurance/reassurance. Under David Canter’s typology, which is more thoroughly researched and evidentially based than the FBI’s typologies, the act of apologizing would demonstrate that DeSalvo saw those he victimized as being people rather than vehicles or objects. Either way both categorization methods would see the rape/sexual assault that DeSalvo was convicted off as being very different to those attributed to the Boston Strangler. In 2004, the body of Mary Sullivan (the Boston Strangler’s last victim), was exhumed and subjected to forensic scientific analysis that wasn’t available at the time of her murder, in order to establish if DeSalvo was indeed the Boston Strangler; as legal, law-enforcement and forensic professionals were/are divided on this matter. Fluorescent material found on Sullivan’s body and underwear generated two mitochondrial DNA sequences. These didn’t match the victim, members of the forensic team which had worked on the body, or Albert DeSalvo, suggesting that DeSalvo wasn’t in fact the Boston Strangler. In 2013 new chromosome testing methods, using DNA provided from one of DeSalvo’s nephew’s and later DeSalvo’s exhumed body, matched that DNA found on Mary Sullivan’s body and clothing. This conclusively linked DeSalvo with the murder of Sullivan, however it didn’t by default make him the Boston Strangler. DeSalvo was linked to this homicide, but there was no physical evidence linking him to the other twelve. In fact, DeSalvo, got the time of death wrong with several of the victims casting doubts on his claim(s) that he was the Boston Strangler. Interestingly he also got facts wrong in his confession about the one homicide he could be linked to, that of Mary Sullivan. In his confession he stated that he strangled her with his bare hands rather than using a ligature (her nylon stockings), something that linked the crimes to potentially being the work of one person. With the release of a new movie (starring Kiera Nightly as Loretta McLaughlin, the journalist who broke the story), on March 17, 2023, I want to use this article to examine some of the investigative methods that are used in such cases, why DeSalvo may not actually be the Boston Strangler, and why these homicides that are attributed to one individual may in fact have been committed by two or more killers, working independently. To understand why there are doubts concerning DeSalvo’s claim to being the Boston Strangler, we need to distinguish between an offender’s Modus Operandi (MO), and their signature. Modus operandi refers to the mode of operation, or the way an offender commits their crimes. Of the thirteen women the strangler(s) killed (the police at the time believed there were multiple stranglers, and that there wasn’t a lone single killer but several murderers), in all cases there were no signs of forced entry i.e., the women had let the killer into their apartments/buildings either because they knew them, or because they had reason to believe that the individual has a reason to be there e.g., they could be a maintenance man for the building, or could have assumed the role of someone who had a legitimate reason to enter their premises, such as a detective/police officer etc. This would lend credibility to DeSalvo’s claim, as he’d gained access to the one sexual assault that it was known he had committed by pretending to be a police officer. However, an offender’s modus operandi, is not stable and can change e.g., a sexual offender may have initially forced open windows in order to get into their victim’s apartment, and then at a later date start to use guile in order to do so, before resorting back to physically forcing their way in etc. This is why MO (modus operandi) is rarely used in linking crimes. An offender’s signature however is much more stable, and in linking crimes this is what needs to be discovered/established. What may at first appear to be a signature of the Boston Strangler, is their method of killing i.e., strangulation using a ligature, commonly the victim’s nylon stockings. However the method of killing may also be part of an offender’s MO – something that is subject to change – rather than a signature e.g., in two of the killings attributed to the Boston Strangler, the victim was also stabbed. If all of these homicides were committed by one person strangulation seems to be more part of their MO than an absolute signature. Something else that suggest DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler – and/or the killings were the work of different individuals - is the timeframe over which the attacks took place. They started with four attacks in June of 1962, followed by two in August of the same year, and another two in December. There were four further murders matching the Strangler’s MO in 1963 (one each in March, May, September, and November). These were followed by a final homicide in January of 1964. The longest the Boston Strangler - if the homicides were the result of one individual - had gone between each murder was three months. DeSalvo was convicted of a sexual assault that took place in November 1964, which would represent a “cooling off” period between that attack, and the last murder, of around eight to nine months (the January 1964 homicide took place on the 4th, with DeSalvo’s known assault taking place on October 27th1964). There is little doubt that DeSalvo committed the January 1964 homicide, as post-humous DNA testing with the victim of that murder (Mary Sullivan), link it to him, but from an overall behavioral offending pattern his known sexual assault for which he was initially convicted doesn’t marry up. It may be that DeSalvo was a serial rapist who committed a homicide, maybe as a “copycat” event and/or to heighten his thrills etc., but his known assault does not fit the pattern of a serial-killer, based of off the timeframe over which the Boston Strangler homicides take place. The spread of these homicides over time suggests that there was more than one killer operating within the Boston area e.g., whilst eight of the killings took place in Boston, with one in Cambridge, the others took place further up North in the cities of Lynn, Lawrence (two murders) and Salem. Another factor that may also suggest there was more than one killer/strangler, may be found in the victimology of the homicides. Most sexual offenders (not all), have a preferred demographic or “typical” victim, with age often being a significant factor. Those whose killings were attributed to the Boston Strangler vary in age greatly, with the youngest at nineteen and the oldest eighty-five. If DeSalvo was indeed only responsible for one or possibly several of the killings attributed to the Boston Strangler, why did he claim to be responsible for them all? DeSalvo, spent time in the Bridgewater State Hospital, a correctional facility for those who are classed as criminally insane, or whose sanity was being evaluated. Although not diagnosed as insane, DeSalvo was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. The first person he “confessed” to, was another inmate not a member of staff, and it may be that he was unable control his boasting in a search for fame and notoriety etc. He may well have believed that the fact that the police had been unable to identify and apprehend the killer, meant that he had an opportunity to paint himself as a criminal mastermind etc. It could also be that he knew or suspected who the other “Boston Strangler” was and knew that the attacks would stop after he claimed them, or because the other individual was already incarcerated etc., or it could be that DeSalvo’s behavior was genuinely so odd, irregular, and wacky that it defies any logic, and he is the one and only Boston Strangler. I will be interested in how the Boston Strangler movie approaches DeSalvo and if they offer up any new and/or different perspectives. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=628 Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=627 I have written before about poverty and crime, and violent offending, stressing that the relationship between offending and poverty is not a straightforward one e.g., that in the postwar period, crime, including violent offending increased significantly up until the early 1990’s despite standards of living rising considerably, and poverty levels falling dramatically. The conclusion being that the creation of “opportunities” to offend was a more significant and important factor e.g., people had greater amounts of leisure time, and had disposable income that allowed them to spend more time away from their homes in public settings etc. You can read more about this in the articles: why crime rates rose, and why crime rates fell. However, it would be wrong to conclude that poverty, has no effect upon violence and violent offending, and in this article I want to examine some of the reasons why this is the case, as well as look at how certain changes in the criminal justice system may have contributed to increases in crime in lower-income communities. Before starting this examination, it is worth reminding ourselves that the majority of low-income people, don’t commit crimes, and that there isn’t a direct relationship between poverty and offending. Poverty by itself does not create violent offending. It may be the underlying reason, but it is not the direct cause. However, poverty can create the conditions that lead to violent offending e.g., poverty may cause certain stresses in family life that lead to intra-familial violence; parents who are financially stressed and on edge may behave aggressively or violently towards their children, leading to a normalization of violence etc. Such conditions may be created by poverty and more common amongst low-income households, but they can exist in families which are economically stable as well. This is why it is dangerous to make a direct link between poverty and violence. We should instead look at the conditions that lead to violent offending and recognize when these conditions may be present in other circumstances as well. If parents are holding down several jobs in order to pay the rent, pay bills and buy food they may not be around to exercise “Capable Guardianship” over those they look after. Eck, put forward the idea that parents and teachers act as “handlers”, who look after potential offenders and keep them out of trouble. It is largely accepted that a fair amount of crime happens around schools, soon after afternoon dismissal i.e., the time between children and teenagers leaving the care of their teachers, and before getting home and into the care of their parents/legal guardians. Schools in low-income areas often receive lower funding, and are unable to provide the same level of services than schools in higher-income neighborhoods and districts, such as after school programs etc., that could also provide a form of “guardianship” and prevent offending etc. Changes in the criminal justice system (CJS) may have inadvertently created “criminals” out of low-income people. The 1990’s saw the creation of “Drug Courts”. The aim of these courts was to provide alternatives to incarceration for offenders with substance abuse disorders, who had committed minor, non-violent offenses. One of these alternatives was to issue fines, rather than custodial sentences. The use of fines has also increased and been expanded for other minor offenses, such as minor traffic violations, and even jaywalking. These economic sanctions, often include administrative fees and surcharges, that accompany the fines themselves, meaning that a minor violation can cost someone several hundred dollars if they want to avoid a custodial sentence. If someone lacks the financial resources to pay a fine, or defaults on a “payment plan” then the CJS, may take away/suspend an individual’s driving license, cut public benefits they receive, or impose a custodial sentence. These “poverty penalties”, can further reduce an individual’s ability to pay the original fine e.g., if a person is reliant on their car to get to work, and their license is suspended they may end up losing their job, further inhibiting their ability to pay etc. This means that the punishment for a minor offense, such as a traffic violation, may never actually end, because the person committing the offense never has the means to pay off the fine, and the further penalties that are imposed due to non-payment. This means that the individual is perpetually labelled a “criminal”. Howard Becker (1963), formalized the notion of “labelling”, as a cause for further offending. His theory was that if someone was labelled or classed in a certain way, they may at some point start to identify with that label. The chance of this happening increased if the “label” became public, and other people started treating, and interacting with an individual based on the label. This may mean that rather than poverty simply creating offenders, the way that the criminal justice system deals with low-income offenders plays a part in creating them. As stated, poverty itself does not create crime and violent offending however it can create the conditions that make these things more likely, and it is these things we should focus on addressing if we wish to reduce crime. Whilst, they may be more prevalent in lower income communities, they are not restricted or limited to them. The CJS, should also look to address how the expanded and increased use of fines, whilst making up for financial deficits provided by tax cuts to the voting middle-classes, may in fact act as an unfair tax upon the poor. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=627 Mon, 13 Feb 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=626 One of my most over-used sayings is, “experience by definition is limited”. I say this to remind myself, that just because I have experienced something in a certain way, it doesn’t make it the norm. Another thing that I say a lot is that violence is contextual. I find that on social media, context often gets lost e.g., someone puts up a video demonstrating a certain technique, and it is clear that that they have a certain context in mind, and then others criticize it, because they are envisaging a threat or attack from another perspective and context etc. The reason I want to draw attention to the limits of experience and the importance of context, is that my experiences of dealing with knife attacks, are very specific, extremely dependent on context, and don’t reflect the majority of attacks. I have only had to deal with knife once in a non-security role, which means the vast majority of my experiences of dealing with knives, is from a security perspective, where I was fulfilling a role, and also had – if not immediately – some form of backup i.e., I was working as part of a team. Rather than examine these limited experiences, which were largely defined by context, I want to, in this article, look at what various research articles have to tell us concerning knife attacks, and how this perhaps should influence our training. It is tempting to watch and conclude from a couple of YouTube clips showing real-life attacks, what the majority of knife attacks look like – and this is not without value – though this method lacks a scientific foundation i.e., you are seeing attacks which have been captured on video, and that are determined by your search criteria etc. By looking at publicly collected statistics and academic research – that also has its own self-identified limitations – we can expand our understanding and get a more accurate picture of what the majority of knife attacks look like. Almost every time I was attacked with a knife, I was stabbed rather than slashed. The one time I was slashed was with an old-fashioned, cut-throat razor, which probably would have taken an eye out, but ended up cutting through my lips, as I flinched back – by reaction rather than design. Research by Bleetman et al. (2003), in the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, reports that most victims of knife attacks, visiting hospital emergency rooms have slash type wounds to the face, with only 11% having multiple wounds i.e., having been repeatedly stabbed or slashed. In a later study, that same year, by Bleetman et al. (2003), it was found that the average number of stab and slash wounds, out of a sample of 500 patients who’d been admitted to hospital after being attacked with a knife was 2.4. This would suggest that knife attacks, tend to be short rather than prolonged affairs, with attackers making one or two quick attacks etc. In a 2022 US study, in Forensic Science International, it was found that most knife attacks occurred between 0.61 and 1.07 seconds, this means that if an attacker was in striking distance of their target it is unlikely that an adequate defense could be made, regardless of training. This highlights the importance of understanding aggressive situations as they develop and maintaining/controlling range in the pre-conflict phase of the confrontation i.e., relying on physical techniques and athletic/trained ability alone is unlikely to be successful, however “effective” such techniques and solutions may be deemed. Lemos and Crane (2004), researching knife crime in the UK, found that although the reason most people initially chose to carry a knife was fear, the vast majority of the times that a knife was used was not defensively as a tool of protection, but one of aggression/offensively. This stresses the importance of “opportunity” in knife attacks i.e., a person may intend to carry a knife as a means of protection, however if an incident results in them becoming angry/aggressive, then it may see them use their weapon against another. It should be noted that this “need” to carry a weapon is the result of living in close proximity to violence, which explains why the majority of both homicides and “near miss” homicides tend to occur in a small number of geographic hotspots (Massey et al., 2019), and amongst people who know each other. A 2020, study in Merseyside (UK) – Campana and Giovannetti - found that one of the biggest predictors for knife carrying and violence was a prior association, with someone who already carried a knife. Thomsen et al., in a 2020, study in Denmark, looking at knife homicides between 1992 and 2016 (471 homicides), found that only 15.9% of killing involved strangers in public/nightlife settings. Whilst we may see ourselves as being at risk for knife attacks, the truth is, that if we avoid certain districts/locations and don’t involve ourselves with people who carry knives (usually younger people), the chances of encountering a knife-wielding assailant are relatively slim. This doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to learn how to effectively deal with knife attacks, but rather to understand, that where we go, and who we go there with are important factors. We should also note that if we choose to carry a knife for our own personal defense, we may be inadvertently creating our own “opportunities” to use it aggressively/offensively e.g., when someone commits a “wrong” against us. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=626 Mon, 06 Feb 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=625 Many years ago, when I was still living and working in the UK, I was asked to make a sales pitch, to a Health and Safety Director concerning some personal safety/self-protection training that they wanted to provide for their employees. It so happened that on the morning I was about to do so, the London papers had just reported on an incident where a WWII veteran had been stabbed to death after refusing to hand over his wallet to two muggers. In the eyes of the Health and Safety Director, as well as the media/general public, the victim had been in the right, in hanging onto his wallet. The general pitch of the story, as presented to the public, was a contrast between the personalities of those involved i.e., the muggers were cast as individuals who had no values, morals, or sense of purpose (a reflection on UK youth and modern society etc.), and the person victimized (an upstanding, righteous, moral, hero of WWII, who had stood up to two bullies etc.). The media often frames such news stories in these simplistic terms, casting those involved as either heroes or villains, good or bad, noble or deviant etc., without any further investigation into who the characters involved actually are. Whilst I am sure there is a part in all of that admires the fact that this elderly individual stood up for the values he believed in and didn’t acquiesce to the demands of two individuals committing an offense etc., I’m not sure that his family members necessarily felt the same way, because they had to bear the cost of losing a loved one. I’m guessing that at the end of the day they would have rather had him hand over his wallet, and potentially still be alive, than stand up for a value/belief that got him killed. In street robberies those committing them always believe that they are walking away with whatever they demanded, with the variable being whether they have to use force/violence to obtain their goal(s), which is why from a “survival” perspective it is better to start the interaction by complying; a different response may be needed, later on based on their reactions, but as a starting point compliance is usually best. In this article I want to look at the potential danger(s) of looking at violence from the perspective of heroes and villains. In some situations/incidents there are clear “rights and wrongs” e.g., two muggers demanding the wallet of an elderly man is morally and legally “wrong”; the roles of offender and victim have been clearly drawn - the news media likes simple stories where there are few grey areas and a simple narrative. However, a large number of violent incidents are the result of social interactions, where all parties involved believe they are in the right. It is worth noting that even the most persistent offenders are able to convince themselves that they are entitled and justified to commit their crimes, such as making arguments to themselves that if society had dealt them a better hand, they wouldn’t have to engage in offending etc. People who use violence, or the threat of violence, do so because they believe they are entitled to. Two individuals who end up in a parking lot fight over a parking space, both believe that they are in the right, and the other person is in the wrong. Both assume that the other is working to the same belief/value system that they are. One party may believe that because they have been looking for a spot for 15 minutes, it should be theirs, whereas the other person who just entered the lot, may believe that they are entitled to it, because they saw it first etc. Both parties may feel/believe that they have to stand up for their rights, and challenge the other person, however nobody is really right or wrong in this situation; both from their perspective, have a case and argument to make in this dispute. However, it is highly unlikely that either will get the other to understand and accept their point of view. Even if one party decides to walk away there is nothing to say that they won’t come back later to seek revenge – either on the vehicle or the other driver. Standing up for your rights, usually comes at a cost, because the other person sees it as “losing” their own. It’s also worth remembering, that it is other people who recognize you as a “hero”. You don’t get to claim that for yourself. The news media, and the general population, may be happy to present your actions as being heroic, and maybe even more so if there is a tragic ending, however those closest to you, might wish you hadn’t been, and that you’d either complied with a demand for your wallet, and/or walked away from a dispute in a parking lot, that could have had a fatal ending. Living in the US, I am well aware that in any argument you get into there is the potential for a firearm to be pulled, and having lived in the UK, I always assumed that any person I might have an aggressive interaction with would be carrying a knife. I also know from firsthand experience that when someone pulls a weapon, they usually end up using it, even when the other person backs down. There are times when physical solutions are necessary, but not just because of a need to be “right” or a “hero”. This would be a fight for ego, and ego is never a reason to fight. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=625 Mon, 30 Jan 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=624 Crime, and violent crime, are not statistically common occurrences. This is not to diminish the seriousness of such events and the impact(s) that they can have on a person’s life. There tend to be two types of perpetrators, who engage in violence: persistent offenders who at some level actively look to engage in violence, and those who sometimes find themselves in social situations where they lack the skills, knowledge and/or awareness to prevent a verbal/social conflict from escalating to a physical one. Whilst persistent offenders may be motivated by a variety of factors that vary from the expressive to the instrumental e.g., frustration and a sense of injustice (expressive), and/or using violence for material gain, as in committing street robberies (instrumental), there is also a wide range of reasons as to why most persistent offenders at some point desist from offending. By looking at the factors that play a part in desistance, we may begin to understand the push and pull components that lead or contribute to violent offending in the first place. Violence is a rejection of social norms and societal values, whether violent offending is committed by a normally law-abiding citizen in the moment, or a persistent offender who has embarked upon a criminal career which requires its use. It is this rejection, which is the scariest part of violence. Many people when they think about being involved in a physical altercation believe it is the fear of pain, injury and even death which is the most frightening part. Whilst these are certainly significant reasons to avoid being involved in a fight, the scariest part is the “unknown”. When someone chooses to use violence – and even in the “heat of the moment” violence is a choice (not necessarily a truly rational one) – they are rejecting the way in which society has “agreed” to deal with conflicts and disputes i.e., rationally, verbally and non-physically. When such a rejection occurs, anything and everything is potentially possible: there isn’t a predefined outcome. It is this unknown that makes violent incidents such frightening events. Whilst much research into desistance – the reasons why people stop offending – has looked at micro-level events on individuals, such as the effects of family, the moving away from criminal friends, and the effects of regular and rewarding employment etc., little has been conducted at the meso-level and macro-level, looking at societal effects, and social structures. If violence is considered and looked at from a social inclusion and social exclusion perspective, we may start to gain a better understanding of some of the reasons behind both persistent and serious/extreme violent offending (such as the recent Monterey Park shooting near Los Angeles – Saturday January 21st, 2023 – that left ten dead and the Evansville, Indiana shooting that took place the previous Friday). When looking at desistance from violent offending, it is easy to reduce everything down to age, and the aging out of crime argument. If there is one thing that criminologists agree upon, is the statistical argument, that offending – including violent offending – peaks in adolescence, significantly reduces when people reach their mid-twenties, and continues to decline as they get older. I have written about this phenomenon before i.e., that crime and violence, by and large, is a young person’s game. However, there are those who don’t “age out” of violence, and some who take longer than others, so it is worth examining some of the reasons why, beyond emotional/psychological maturation, the influence of family members/partners over time, and the effects of employment etc. Whilst these are important factors, the desire for social inclusion is also a significant motivator, even if it is less tangible and harder to define/measure. Repeat offenders – generally looked on as those with two or more convictions – are often socially excluded, or are presented with barriers that prevent inclusion, such as having to acknowledge this criminal history on job applications etc. In this short article I am not making an argument that prospective employees don’t acknowledge past convictions etc., but rather demonstrating that those who may want to be socially included i.e., gain legal employment, can experience barriers that prohibit them from doing so. It is far easier for someone to desist from crime and violent offending, if they received a high school education and left with some form of qualification(s). Society has a tendency to “include” people, more readily, if they have received and/or can demonstrate a level of education. Exclusion can occur due to “labelling” at a young age, with someone being categorized as uneducated and a persistent offender e.g., a teenager who under-performs at school, and who picks up a couple of minor offenses, may start to be seen by society as someone who exists outside of it, and will therefore feel excluded from it. When I present on active shooter/killer solutions and preventions in schools, one of the first things I talk about is social inclusion and exclusion. Whilst there is no single preventative solution to rampage killings in schools and colleges, social exclusion usually plays a part, and it should be recognized. Exclusion does not have to occur “actively” e.g., as a result of bullying etc., but can develop due to a person’s inability to fit in and socially communicate etc., and this needs to be identified and addressed. Whilst violent offending occurs at the micro-level, with the individual, the effects of social inclusion and exclusion (at the macro-level) cannot be ignored. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=624 Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=623 Cohasset missing person, Ana Walshe, apparently told Washington DC police in 2014 (by phone), that her partner, Brian Walshe (although he wasn’t specifically named, but was identified as the person she was referring to), had threatened to kill her and a friend. The case was dropped because she failed to cooperate with the investigation, leading to the charges being dropped. In any investigation, involving a missing person this is a significant piece of evidence, because it tells something about the relationship between the couple i.e., there is at the very least a degree of volatility, and high emotion between them. It could be that these events occur because of a need for drama in the relationship, rather than out of necessity, and so may not necessarily indicate that the person making the complaint/charge was in danger etc. This may sound a controversial viewpoint, and I am in no way saying that those who bring such concerns to law-enforcement should be disbelieved and dismissed, or that there should be no subsequent investigation but rather that relationships can be complicated, emotional and volatile, and that people can say things in a moment that they don’t mean, and/or that get interpreted as indicating a genuine intent, when there is not etc., and that when then the other party goes missing, is taken to be a smoking gun (this “new” evidence is important and extremely significant but shouldn’t be viewed as conclusive). In this article, I want to examine why someone who might genuinely believe that their life was in danger, would stay with – and then marry – the person who had threatened their life i.e., why would you choose to stay with, and plan your life with, someone who had threatened to kill you? Our “rational” selves would tell us that this makes no sense, and that should someone indicate that they mean to harm, injure and/or kill us, we would exit that situation immediately. However, these situations often don’t play out that way. In this article I want to look at two reasons why people stay in abusive and potentially dangerous/deadly relationships. One of the reasons people stay in abusive relationships, and/or go on to have future relationships with abusive partners is familiarity. As humans we hate the unknown, and will stick with something or someone that we understand and is familiar to us, rather than risk putting ourselves in an unknown situation. This is one of the reasons why partners who argue usually return to a familiar argument/dispute e.g., an argument that starts off about a “new” thing, such as spending too much money on an item of clothing, often returns to and ends up at a commonly repeated argument about not doing laundry, washing up etc., even though the two are unrelated. A 2015, study by Cravens et al., looking at why women stayed in abusive relationships, found that a majority of participants in the study expressed that “fear of the known was better than fear of the unknown”. The fear of change, and resistance to change is a well known and understood phenomenon in psychotherapy. Recognizing the need for change, means that we have to recognize that the social structures upon which our lives our built and our concept of self is partly constructed are flawed, incomplete and an untrustworthy foundation for our lives. Another reason that a person might stay in a potentially dangerous/deadly relationship, is due to something referred to as coercive control. This was a term coined by Dr Evan Stark, to refer to the non-physical aspects of abusive relationships. Often violence against women in abusive relationships is reduced to specific incidents and events. This is because when looking at intimate partner violence there is a tendency to view it from a legalistic perspective e.g., when did he hit you? etc. This misses a large part of abuse, which includes the psychological, emotional and sometimes financial aspects, that runs continuously in the background and is not specific and therefore difficult to quantify, or even identify e.g., a “sense of fear” cannot be measured, and often has no specific evidence or incident linked to it, however this is one of the most defining attributes of an abusive relationship – the fear of what might happen. It is this that abusers use to control the individuals they victimize. Ana Walshe called her mother (asking her to come and stay with her) and friends several times before she went missing. It may be that she knew what her “present” meant, and what her “future” may have looked like. At this stage in the investigation we don’t want to draw too many conclusions about what actually happened as new evidence is still coming to light; and although it may seem to point in a certain direction, what has been shared publicly is far from conclusive. However, the information that has been presented can serve to illustrate and demonstrate certain things, such as why someone would stay in an abusive relationship where/when their partner has previously indicated that they have harmful intentions towards them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=623 Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=622 The Idaho student murders case, involves the murder of four students (Ethan Chapin, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Kaylee Gonclaves) – who shared a house, in Moscow, Idaho, with two others (in the affidavit, referred to as D.M., and B.F.) - who attended the University of Idaho. The suspect, at this time, Bryan Kohberger (age 28), is a graduate student at Washington State University, who appears to have been stalking one, or possibly more, of the victims – cellphone records have placed him in close proximity to the victims over a period of weeks leading up to the killings. Whilst, there may be much speculation over the killer’s motives, and the exact timeline of the events that occurred in the house, one of the key findings to come out of the investigation, is that one of the roommates (D.M.) had opened her door three times due to various noises (a man’s voice, crying, a dog barking etc.) she had heard (somewhere around 4:00 AM), and on the last occasion saw a masked man leave the house, after which she locked her door, however authorities weren’t called to the house until seven hours later. This has led to some degree of speculation as to why she did nothing, and whether she was in some way involved etc. It is easy to believe that we might act differently to others, given a certain situation e.g., we might watch a quiz show and give every correct answer to what we believe are easy questions, and wonder why a contestant on the show is having such difficulty etc., or we might believe that if we heard strange noises in the night, we would have gone and investigated, or at the very least called law enforcement etc. In this article I want to look at some of the reasons why people fail to act, in certain situations and why this is “natural”. When we are confronted with a stressful and dangerous situation, one of our first responses/coping mechanisms is to go into a state of denial, or to discount the seriousness of what we are facing. It is easier for us to ignore or “explain” away what is happening to us rather than face and deal with it. It is one of the reasons why when we hear footsteps behind us, we rarely turn to investigate if someone is indeed following us. If we turn around, we are admitting to ourselves that we may have to confront a violent aggressor. It is much more comforting to believe that we are being paranoid and imagining things, or that the quickening footsteps behind us belong to someone who has no harmful intent towards us. The more reasons we have to explain something away, the more likely we are to do so. From details in the affidavit, it sounds like the student house was a fairly active one, late into the night and early morning e.g., Chaplin and Kernoodle had been at a sorority house between 9:00 pm and 12:45 am, whilst Gonclaves and Mogen had been at a club between 10 pm and 1:30 am, and Kernoodle received a Doordash delivery at 4:00 am, with phone records showing that Kernoodle was on TikTok at approximately 4:12 am etc. The house was a student house, with young people leading young people’s lives e.g., coming in late, staying up late etc. This meant that there probably wasn’t a stable baseline from which to judge what was out of the ordinary, making it easy to explain away noises such as somebody crying and/or an unfamiliar male voice etc. D.M.’s fear system and “gut instinct” correctly identified that something was wrong (this is why she opened her door to investigate three times), maybe that all of these different noises together, signaled danger, however she was probably able to rationalize each individual noise, and even the masked man leaving the house e.g., it could be someone leaving late with a mask around their nose and mouse due to a precaution against COVID and/or the cold etc. As human beings we are very adept at explaining away danger, so that we don’t have to deal with it. Another factor that was probably also at play was the “Genovese” or Bystander Effect e.g., bystanders assume/think that someone else is intervening, and so they don’t need to. Research has shown that the more people who are present at an incident where some form of intervention is required, the less likely anyone will. At the time of the murders, six people were in the house. It would be easy to convince yourself that someone else might be investigating/dealing with the situation. Also, D.M., was on the ground floor of a three-floor building. The first murders took place on the top floor. There were people nearer to the source of the disturbance than her. She was the roommate furthest away from the initial incident and noise. It would be easy for a person in such a situation to assume/argue to themselves that if something was happening, then those closer were probably more likely to be investigating. Another factor to consider is that of “social awkwardness”. These were friends who lived together. If D.M. had tried to intervene in an argument/fight that didn’t concern her, or call the police etc., and she later found out that she’d overreacted or totally misjudged the situation, it could potentially create a socially awkward situation that she’d have to live with and experience on a daily basis. When you consider that this is the more likely reason for the noise(s) – rather than a multiple homicide – locking the door and going back to bed can make a lot of sense. In Routine Activities Theory (RAT) for an offense to take place, there must be a: motivated offender, a suitable target, and the lack of a capable guardian. Whilst, it is easy to imagine and picture a motivated offender, and a suitable target, it is less easy to define who and/or what makes a capable guardian. In some cases, the presence of CCTV, or a pair of eyes on the street, who could witness an offense, may be the capable guardian that prevents a crime from occurring. However, it should be noted that people are actors who play different roles at different times etc. Sometimes an offender is motivated to commit a crime other times they are not, sometimes a person may be a suitable target, other times they may not. The same is also true of capable guardians. Sometimes individuals take on this role, other times they may not. Presented with a different set of circumstances, D.M., may well have behaved differently e.g., she may have called law enforcement; but when you are woken up at 4 am, by some strange noises that you are trying to make sense of, and then these stop etc., it is easy to play the “role” of the concerned but not overly concerned roommate. The fact that she didn’t investigate further and/or call law-enforcement makes – at the time – complete sense. However, what has been questioned is why it took so long for law enforcement to be called after the event; somewhere around seven hours. Again, when looking at student life, sleeping in late etc., maybe this length of time really isn’t so long. At the end of the day it is easy to judge someone for not doing something, once some key facts become evident, and the reality of what happened is understood, but at 4 in the morning, interpreting some out of place noises and coming to the conclusion that what is happening is a multiple homicide committed by an intruder in the house, is a lot to ask. It is also easy to forget what student life is like, and how the noises in the house whilst enough to peak interest might not have been as out of place as they would be in a single family home etc. Couple all of this with our natural ability to deny and discount danger, especially when we might believe others will, and are better qualified, to deal with it, and locking a door and going back to bed becomes a lot more understandable. One of our confirmation biases, is that when we do something bad, or fail to act etc., it is down to external factors, but when others do or don’t do these same things it is down to who they are and their internal characteristics. Whilst, events may transpire that show D.M.’s account has gaps, and is fabricated etc., all of her actions, or lack of action, that we know of at this point, makes sense and can be explained. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=622 Mon, 09 Jan 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=621 I never had an Atari console, but I remember playing “pong” at a friend’s house, when these “computers” first came out. Our family’s first computer was a BBC Electron with a whopping 16K of memory; enough to load – from a cassette – and play games such as “Chuckie Egg”, the goal of which was to engage in acts of larceny in a henhouse, stealing as many eggs as you can etc. By the time I went off to university, games were still largely played on home computers (the Nintendo came out in 1983, but in my community such items were pretty rare), but the graphics had evolved to a point where the facial expressions had advanced beyond those found on Lego people. Although I didn’t use IT (Information Technology – as it was referred to), much throughout my undergraduate years – we still had to calculate CHI squares, and Regression Analysis by hand – I was always fascinated by what computers could do. However, I was never that interested in virtual reality (VR), as I’d always, and still am, someone who would rather kick a football to a real person than play FIFA 2022, on a screen etc. I do vaguely remember sometime during the nineties about a breakthrough in software development that allowed a kind of flying seal/penguin (?), to move continuously through different landscapes that changed and were never identical, and being somewhat impressed (I’m the guy who went and saw the pyramids and came away with the memory that they were a bit too small to be classed as impressive i.e., basically an uninspired, crap Jewish building project, that resembles many of my own). However, the virtual world is becoming much more real, sometimes to the point where it’s difficult to determine CGI (Computer Generated Images), from reality, and this raises a question about how acts of violence that are perpetrated should be seen/judged in this realm. I am not talking about 3rd Party Shooter games, where those participating, are consenting to both shoot others and be shot at, but environments where avatars (characters that represent an actual person), engage in non-consensual acts of violence against other avatars. From my understanding, the first known/recorded instance of a virtual rape, was reported by a New York journalist, in the “Village Voice”, in 1993, detailing a sexual assault that had occurred in 1990, in a virtual world known as LambdaMOO. A user (Bungle) took control of two other users’ avatars (legba and Starsinger), and forced them to have sex with their avatar, as well as commit degrading acts against themselves. This was done using a “voodoo doll”, a subprogram that attributed non-consensual actions to other user’s avatars. A similar rape/sexual assault, using the same process was committed in 2003 in the virtual reality program, Second Life, prompting the Belgian Police to initiate an investigation. These incidents started a debate concerning how events such as these should be legally addressed i.e., was a crime committed? And if so what law/statute was broken, in what jurisdiction, and who was harmed e.g., just those whose avatars were “attacked”, or extending to the larger number of players/avatars who witnessed the event etc. Whilst nobody experienced any actual physical harm, a person whose avatar was assaulted in this way, could understandably feel a degree of violation and subjugation, as their character – a representation of themselves – was forced against their will to engage in non-consensual acts etc. Because I don’t (as of now) interact in the metaverse or other virtual worlds, I have no personal conception of how someone might feel, being assaulted, and dominated in this way; especially being completely helpless to “fight back” because they had completely lost control of their avatar i.e., the assailant had 100% power over it, meaning that there was no option to even attempt to resist or fight back etc. Such assaults differ from cyber-bullying, in that the attacks target the avatar (a person’s representation of themselves – a virtual alter ego), rather than the actual individual. In many ways these virtual sexual assaults share many similarities with a lot of real-life rapes e.g., a sense of violation, helplessness etc., but they are also somewhat different to most rapes as there is a “performance” aspect to them (something which is significant), in that they are conducted in front of a non-consenting audience; something that makes them different to a gang-rape, where everyone, apart from the victim, is at least somewhat complicit if not an active participant. This creates an added complexity to understanding the emotional/psychological trauma behind such assaults e.g., whilst there may be a level/degree of anonymity in that other users may not know who the “owner” of an avatar is in real-life, that character/personification has been sexually assaulted before the users of that virtual world, making the rape a very public affair/event. It would be easy to dismiss virtual rapes, sexual assaults, and non-consensual acts of violence as not being harmful, or even not containing malice e.g., accepting the argument that it’s just users having a bit of fun with made up characters, and that no real/actual harm occurs etc. However, to view rape purely as a physical assault against an individual would be to dismiss the emotional and psychological trauma that results from such attacks, and to deny that a non-physical attack doesn’t potentially contain these elements. As virtual reality becomes a more immersive experience the lines between virtual and reality will become even more blurred, especially when the goal of the metaverse – and I’m using the term in its broadest sense, rather than to refer specifically to what Facebook/Meta is building – is for there to be a world which is virtually indistinguishable from the real world. By considering how sexual violence occurs at present in the virtual world we can increase our understanding of it in the real-world because the significance of the emotional and psychological aspects of such assaults has the spotlight shone on them due to the absence of the physical component of the attack. However, as the virtual world expands the phenomenon of virtual violence is one that will need to be addressed both societally and legally. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=621 Mon, 02 Jan 2023 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=620 In last week’s article I wrote about the short-term effects of dealing with violence e.g., experiencing the parasympathetic nervous system as it brings the body back to stasis etc. In this article I want to look at the longer-term effects of dealing with a violent encounter, including PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Many people first became aware of PTSD, from the news coverage, concerning the mental health issues that veterans returned from Afghanistan and the Gulf Wars with. Whilst it has always been understood that there is a psychological toll from combat e.g., the “shell shock” that many soldiers experienced in the first world war etc., these “ongoing” (the Afghanistan conflict lasted over two decades – 1999 – 2021) conflicts in the Middle East, that involved occupation and a degree of ambiguity concerning the goals, what was trying to be accomplished, and who the enemy actually was etc., brought attention to the long-term effects of the stresses that those involved in violence experienced. In this article I want to look at and examine the longer-term effects that may be experienced when dealing with a past violent event, and how we can possibly limit the effects that such events have on us by improving our psychological and emotional resilience. From a personal perspective violence is depressing. Every time I have had to act violently against someone (in a professional capacity), I have been left with a sense of futility; that this was the only way this situation could have been solved/ended; that there was no other choice/option available. It may be that I have a tendency to over-think and analyze these things, however from having had conversations with others who work within the security industry I know I’m not alone in having these thoughts and feelings. It is not that I have doubts concerning the justification(s), or the legalities, of the times I’ve had to use violence, but rather the fact that it was necessary. I would also add that I’m not dealing with any long-term mental health issues, nor comparing/equating my experiences to those who served in Afghanistan etc., or that my overall life has been affected by these experiences but rather to add a personal note that there is little to celebrate when you have to act physically against another person(s). If you are someone who is looking to “welcome” the experience of violence, in order to “test” and “show” what you know and are capable of etc., what you take away from a violent confrontation may be something very different to what you are expecting. There are several definitions of what “trauma” is but one that I have found useful is that offered by psychologist Dr. Lenore Terr, who undertook a longitudinal study into the trauma experienced by twenty-six children who were kidnapped from their school bus, and buried alive in a purpose-built container, before eventually escaping – the motive behind this abduction is still unknown. Terr, defines trauma as being the result of two things: the first component is the experience of something that causes an extreme stress response (such as being abducted and buried alive), the second part being that the individual(s) when experiencing said stress have the sense that they are helpless to influence and control it (the abducted children were not physically capable of resisting their adult abductors’ actions – they had to comply with them). We may not always be able to avoid stressful situations but if we can exert some degree of control when we do, we may not suffer as much trauma afterwards. This might be as simple an act as “actively” handing a wallet to a mugger; having made the decision to do so before finding yourself targeted for a street robbery. Resiliency, the ability to dynamically adapt in the face of a threat/adversity, is also something that can be trained and developed e.g., exposure to manageable, stressful events, which an individual has some degree of control over, can help develop resiliency. That is, we can learn how to manage and cope with future potentially traumatizing events, through a “mild” exposure to less traumatic incidents. This is where scenario-based training can be extremely effective, as long as it has an emotional component to it. Another way to train such resiliency is through visualization where you “expose” yourself to a threat/danger, whilst managing and staying in control of the outcome. Just as with scenario-based training there needs to be an emotional element/component to the visualization. This could mean, that if you have a fear of heights, you visualize yourself, standing on the edge of a tall building looking down i.e., the visualization doesn’t have to be one where you experience yourself dealing with an assailant etc., but rather one that creates a degree of emotional stress. This type of visualization, is one where you learn to manage the “resulting” trauma, experienced during the process, whilst remaining in control. Another way of helping manage and prevent trauma from developing as a response to a highly stressful incident is that of cognitive reappraisal (CRA). Cognitive reappraisal is a conscious, emotion-regulation strategy/process, wherein an individual when they recognize that they are having a negative thought, replaces that thought, with a positive one. Such positive reappraisal has been linked to lower levels of anxiety in trauma-exposed individuals. However, it should be noted that studies have shown that this strategy is only successful when being applied to stresses, over which an individual has no control. In contexts/situations where the individual has control over their stressors, it instead leads to an increase in depression and anxiety, rather than the reverse. It is believed that this result occurs because of a reduction in an individual’s overall ability to solve problems e.g., not changing a negative situation that is in a person’s control, leads to greater levels of anxiety etc. Dealing with violence is stressful and can lead to both short and long-term mental health issues. If we are looking to be individuals who can physically deal with a violent incident, we should also look to be those individuals who can recover from it fully. This means that resiliency training in some form should become part of our overall personal safety and self-defense training. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=620 Mon, 26 Dec 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=619 It is very hard to put into words, and describe, how it feels to be violently victimized, whether an actual physical assault occurs, or whether a threat of violence/intimidation is used. Often those who have experienced some form of assault, will go into a form of denial, because they find that their experience(s) contradict their previously held world view, concerning violence and personal safety. It is extremely common for survivors of violent attacks, to change their narratives of what happened, in order to protect themselves from a complete psychic breakdown, where they must live perpetually on edge, in a state of constant vulnerability and risk. Sometimes, people will look to take control of the event(s) they have suffered by explaining to themselves that it was down to their actions and behaviors that they were responsible for the attack(s) they endured. This “idea” may get reinforced by people around them who want to reassure their own illusions concerning their personal safety, and that they would never be targeted or experience a violent assault, because they wouldn’t make the same “mistakes” that victims of violence have/do. In this article I want to look at some of the immediate effects of experiencing violence, that occur in the aftermath of an attack, and in the next, look at some of the longer-term effects of being violently victimized. It should be noted that these can occur, even when an individual was ”successful” in defending themselves and fighting off an attacker(s). There is always a cost to being involved in a violent encounter. I have written about the Sympathetic (SNS) and Parasympathetic (PNS) nervous systems before (an article on the way they work/interact can be accessed by clicking here). Basically, your SNS is your “fight or flight” system, and your PNS is your “Rest and Digest”, or “Eat and Sleep” system. Your SNS is about action, and your PNS about recovery. The SNS is very quick to activate, because if there is a threat or danger present you will want to be in the best physical/physiological state to deal with it. Your PNS is much slower to complete its tasks e.g., bring heart rate down, decrease blood pressure, release bile for digestion, contract the bladder etc. Everyone’s time rates for this recovery, and to be returned to “normal” vary, however it is not uncommon to remain in a somewhat heightened and aroused state, for a couple of days, as the PNS works at bring your body back to stasis, and into its previously relaxed state; especially if the SNS is getting stimulated because you are over-sensitive to responding to stimuli that may “resemble” threats but aren’t i.e., you are jumping at proverbial shadows. It’s all well and good to consciously/rationally recognize that you are now safe, after a violent incident, however it takes much longer for your fear system to return to a less vigilant state i.e., after experiencing a recent danger, it is more likely to be triggered, than when the body has returned to its previous and normally relaxed state. This means it is normal, in the days after you have experienced violence, to still be in a heightened emotional state, even though you are no longer in danger. Part of this comes from the fact that if you were unable to anticipate the attack – you didn’t recognize or were unable to recognize – some of the events that may have preceded the assault, you have no assurance that you will be able to recognize any future violent events before they develop. You will also be in a state where you are trying to make sense of events and remember what actually happened. Whilst there is little evidence of Tachypsychia (“time slowing down”, or as William James described it as, “time stretching out when events conspire to slow it down” (1988)), occurring during a physical assault, the phenomena does seem to occur when we recall our experiences of such events e.g., we may remember a physical confrontation that lasted five to ten seconds, being a much longer and extremely detailed affair etc. The reason for this is that our brains abhor a vacuum, and will “create” details and additional events, in order to have a complete story of what occurred. In the moment it is likely that we were only cognitively processing a few significant actions and behaviors and weren’t actually recognizing and/or understanding everything that was going on around us. However, this doesn’t stop our minds from creating and adding details in order to make our overall memory of the event complete. In fact, we go through a process where we retrieve and recall a memory, reference it, and then memorize/encode it again. Each time we do this it is likely that we add to it, change it, and forget items in it. If this process is repeated enough times we can create a memory, that barely reflects what happens but makes sense to us. This phenomenon is often observed when siblings, now adults, recount a common experience from childhood, and disagree on major and important “facts” concerning it. As we try and make sense of a violent event, we will try to make sense of it from our perspectives and knowledge concerning violence, our need to avoid further psychic trauma, and to try and take some form of meaning from it. It is likely that we will keep going through this process until we come up with a “narrative” that meets our psychological and emotional needs. Until we come up with a version that we are “happy” with, it is unlikely that memories of an incident won’t invade our thoughts. We should not be surprised that it takes a relatively long time to reach a psychological, emotional, and physical stasis, after we have been involved in a physically violent encounter. It will likely – depending on the degree of trauma experienced – take several days before we stop jumping at the proverbial shadows. We should also recognize that these acute symptoms may stay with us for a longer time, and this is what will be looked at in the next article on long-term, and post-traumatic stress disorder. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=619 Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=618 Debates and discussions in Krav Maga and Reality-Based Self-Defense communities are often binary in nature, with one side arguing that “their way” is the only/right way, and the other side is wrong etc. Rarely do opposing groups want all parties to be right, and see acknowledgment of the value of the other side’s point of view, as demonstrating a weakness in theirs. The problem with the adoption of “absolute positions” is that they ignore context. Arguing that you should only do something, or never do something, fails to acknowledge that context is important and that violent incidents can contain many moving parts, requiring those involved to adapt to the situation they are in, rather than blindly follow a set of rules that may work in one context but not in another. In this article I want to re-visit/look at the debate concerning striking with an open hand, and striking with a closed fist. Whilst the discussion is often framed in a “open palm versus closed fist”, I believe that it is the use of “versus” that is divisive and forces people to adopt a camp/side. As I prefer to discuss, rather than argue, and to come out with a better understanding of whatever the subject being examined is, I think the more profitable way to frame the discussion is to look at when and why you might use a closed fist for striking, and when and why you might use an open hand/palm. From an evolutionary perspective – which I have written about before – there seems more evidence that our fingers “shortened” over time, as we became better, and more dependent on using tools i.e., we needed to get better at making things, and shorter fingers and an opposable (and relatively longer than an ape’s) thumb allowed us to do this. This construction isn’t so great for swinging from tree to tree, but it does allows us to grasp and manipulate things in a much finer and more precise way. Some have argued that our hands evolved in order to make fists, so that we can punch, however there is little evidence for this, because nobody makes a strong fist, that is designed for punching with power, naturally. This is why inexperienced fighters sometimes come away with a “Boxer’s Fracture” or “Brawler’s Fracture”; a fracture of the fifth metacarpal – this is the bone of the little finger, that comes out from the knuckle. This results from the fist connecting with the smaller rather than the larger knuckles, and without the fist and the wrist being properly aligned etc. So the first thing we have to acknowledge about using a closed fist for striking/punching – when we want to connect with the knuckles as opposed to the bottom of the fist when we use hammer-strikes – is that we have to learn to do this, it is not an innate skill we have. Even skilled boxers, such as Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Amir Khan often end up with hand issues; Khan spent most of his career fighting with a broken hand that prevented him from punching full power with his right hand – this being the case, if he was ever involved in a real life altercation, he would probably be better using an open hand/palm as he wouldn’t have to hold back or measure his power. However, closed fist punching does allow us to potentially deliver the most power with our straight strikes, as the force can be focused, and for this reason being able to punch with a closed fist properly is an important skill to develop and have. Another reason why it is good to learn how to make a fist correctly is that when we become angry/emotional we often clench our hands involuntarily, and we may find ourselves doing this even if it is our intention to strike with the hand open, using the palm. Open hand striking does have several advantages over closed fist punching, though it has to be acknowledged that a degree of force is lost due to the increase in the striking area. However, if someone is going to “pull” their punches because they are worried about causing damage to their fist, then they may actually generate more power with open hand/palm strikes because they will be confident in throwing them with full force and power. There may be times when even though an individual’s default preference is to use closed fist punches, it may be better or them to use open hand strikes. If in a situation an individual’s primary means of self-defense is their firearm, they may want to “preserve” their hand, and reduce the risk of injury, by using open palm strikes instead. There may also be times to mix up the use of open hand and closed fists in a confrontation e.g., a bad open hand strike is generally more effective than a bad punch (closed fist), therefore it may be better to start by using open hand strikes and then transition to punching, as you mentally switch into fight mode. It may also be that if palm strikes are doing the job and achieving their objective - which is to create a safe opportunity for disengagement - you may not want to use closed fist punches as they are more likely to cause serious damage. If your punches end up knocking someone’s teeth out, or fracturing an eye socket – things unlikely to occur with an open hand strike – then you may be creating an opportunity for the other party(s) to bring a civil suit against you for their dental costs etc. It is always worth remembering that in a civil case the burden of proof isn’t “beyond reasonable doubt”, but on the “preponderance of the evidence” – this is often explained/demonstrated by having two even stacks of paper, with one sheet being moved from one to the other i.e., that one extra sheet being enough to result in a guilty verdict. In general the open hand is a more “versatile” tool as it can be used to both strike and to mask/obscure an assailant’s vision. Fingers can be used to gouge and rake the eyes, after impact etc. However, a correctly formed fist, that can deliver concentrated and focused power is much more likely to deliver concussive force. This benefit does come at a potential cost e.g., a fractured hand, which may mean that one of the tools you had planned on using during a physical confrontation is now inoperable. How/when to use both palm strikes and punches (closed fist) is down to the individual working within the context they find themselves and should not be decided by camps/groups who want there to be absolute truths and singular/exclusionary ways of dealing with violence. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=618 Mon, 12 Dec 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=617 On October 12th, 2000, a small boat approached the USS Cole, which was anchored in the port of Aden (Yemen) as part of a routine fuel stop. As it approached the port side, the two men navigating it smiled and saluted to some of the sailors on board. It was interpreted as a friendly gesture. Once it was close enough, the two suicide bombers detonated the explosives that the boat was carrying, ripping a 40-foot wide hole in the Cole’s hull, close to the waterline. The blast killed 17 service men and injured 40 other crew members. It was calculated that the boat had somewhere between 400 to 700 pounds of C4 explosives that had been shaped to maximize the blast. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. It was discovered that a similar attack had been attempted against the destroyer USS The Sullivans in January of the same year. However, the boat being used to transport the explosives sank before it could reach its target. Both ships had been designed to counter attacks from the air and at sea e.g., other ships and submarines etc., but had no defenses against such acts of terrorism. Both had been built as a show of force and dominance, that would deter other countries from challenging the US at sea, in a conventional conflict. Neither was developed and built anticipating being the target of terrorism and suicide bombings by boat specifically. In this article I want to look at how we sometimes get deterrence wrong and misidentify the nature of the threats we face. It may be that because we strongly believe we are not a target due to some of the things we do, that we may develop blind spots/vulnerabilities that threats can exploit. I have written before (probably more than necessary) of my hate for safety lists, and top ten things to do etc., concerning personal safety and self-defense. Reducing a complex subject such as violence, which comes in multiple forms, and targets audiences differently, to a few simple do’s and don’ts is extremely misleading, and to quote that lazy, over-used phrase that plagues social media, “a good way to get yourself killed”. A top-ten tip on a safety list, such as, “Don’t walk down dark alleys”, probably isn’t even on the top-ten of safety considerations, of someone who experiences intimate partner violence (IPV) on a regular basis. That person will have developed their own list of safety measures and precautions, which will never make it into a magazine. This doesn’t mean that the “Don’t walk down dark alleys” safety precaution isn’t valid, but placing it on a top-ten list at number five, suggests that it has priority over other security measures, and this can be misleading e.g., a person who follows the top eight or ten tips religiously may come to believe that they will never be selected as a target etc., and so think that they have their personal safety bases covered. One such tip that often makes its way onto these lists, is to always make sure when you’re carrying a bag, to have the strap go across your body. The belief being that this deters offenders who commit street robberies from targeting you i.e., because it is going to take them longer to relieve you of it, and you have a better chance of holding on to it, they will ignore you in favor of someone else. This may lead people to believe that one of the safest types of bags to use/carry, are cross-body bags, and the closer they can wrap around you the better etc. Whilst such bags may have a deterrent effect on one type of offender, such as those who engage in rapid bag snatches, they may not deter others e.g., the pickpocket who slits your backpack open as they stand behind you on an escalator, isn’t going to care how securely your bag is attached/fixed to you. It’s also going to be a hindrance to you if you are targeted for a street robbery, as it will take you longer to remove it; and if your hands are shaking due to the extreme fear you are experiencing you may be encouraged to speed things up, through physical/violent means. If you are targeted it will be more likely because whoever has selected you, has done so because they believe you have things of value on you, rather than because of the type of bag you are carrying. They will have factored in, if they want your bag, the time it will take to acquire it. Those who work bag snatches on motorbikes, or from cars, will likely have a knife to cut the strap should you try and hold on to it, though that may see you dragged behind the vehicle whilst they are in the process of doing so. If we are targeted for our assets, the quicker and easier we give them up the less chance there is of us getting hurt. Being able to quickly release a bag that is being pulled away from us, is much safer than trying to hold on to it. This doesn’t mean there aren’t precautions we can take to avoid our bags being grabbed, snatched, and taken. One simple measure is when walking in public to have our bag on the side, over the shoulder etc., nearest to the buildings on a sidewalk/pavement and away from the road. If we also walk – where possible – a bit more deeply into the pavement/sidewalk, further away from the road we reduce the chances of having our bags grabbed from those on motorbikes and using other vehicles. If we can also walk on the side of the street, to move in the opposite direction of traffic we will also see those on/in vehicles as they approach us. It is by considering our environment and surroundings and how they can be exploited for crime that we increase our situational awareness and safety, not by blindly following rules. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=617 Mon, 05 Dec 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=616 Between 1985 and 1986, a number of rapes, attributed to the same offender(s), were committed initially around railway stations in North London (UK), and later further afield. The early crimes appeared to be committed by two offenders working together (a fairly rare occurrence for a sexual assailant to have a consistent accomplice) at the weekend, with there being reports of other rapes occurring with a single assailant during the week; these weekday assaults were characterized by more violence and a greater degree of planning. The press dubbed the pair the “Railway Rapists” because they chose railway/transit stations as the sites/locations where they searched for women to victimize. On Saturday 12th November a 64-year-old woman was abducted from Wollaston MBTA Station in Quincy, MA (a southern suburb of Boston) and taken to the kidnapper’s (Christian Lynch, aged 26) apartment where she was raped and sexually assaulted for around eleven to twelve hours, before being dropped off/deposited at the Westgate Shopping Mall parking lot in Brockton; some 16 miles from the abduction site. In this article I want to look at safety in and around transit sites, and look at some of the shared characteristics between the sexual assaults and murders committed by the railway rapists/railway murderers John Duffy and Patrick Mulcahy (they went on to murder three of the women they initially targeted for rape), and the abduction and subsequent sexual assault(s) that took place at the Wollaston MBTA station in Quincy. Every crime has to take place in time and space i.e., there are temporal and spatial aspects to offenses, and the “where” and “when” of a crime is important for predicting future events. In court, Duffy stated that through observation and surveillance, he and Mulcahy had worked out that there were certain times of day when young women would exit railway stations alone. The pair had spent a long time driving around to different railway stations in order to work out when these times were. They would then set up at a station around these times and wait for young women who they could target and victimize. The woman who was abducted at the Wollaston Station, was kidnapped early Saturday morning, as she went to work. However, she wasn’t the first person that Lynch targeted. Ten to twenty minutes earlier, he had attempted to abduct a woman who had successfully fought him off (this was caught on surveillance footage). Different stations will be busy at different times, because they fulfill different functions e.g., stations towards the end of lines such as Wollaston, are likely to serve commuters going into and out of the city etc. This means there are going to be different times when they are crowded. There will be “traditional” morning and “evening” commuting times during weekdays, which will cause trains and stations to be busy. There might be certain evening/night times on Fridays and Saturdays, which see trains and stations relatively busy during the evening and night, as people return from going out to drink and eat in the city etc. Early Saturday morning, at such a station, is likely to be a quieter time, due to the fact that people are less likely to be engaging in leisure activities at this time, and it is not a traditional work day. It may be that Lynch has had in the past a “legitimate” reason to be at Wollaston Station, during this part of the day, and recognized that the station tended to be mainly occupied by women, who were going into work on the weekend. Lynch lived in Quincy, so the station may have occupied both his “Awareness” and “Activity” spaces. The first rape committed by Duffy and Mulcahy, occurred near Hampstead Railway Station in London, only several miles from Duffy’s house. When looking at serial offenders, they usually commit their initial offenses in areas that they are very familiar with e.g., locations near where they live etc., however they soon begin to move further afield as they start to risk apprehension, either due to being recognized, and/or because of an increased security presence in that location. This means that offenders begin to commit their offenses in their “Activity Spaces” i.e., locations where they actively live, work and engage in leisure pursuits. Often, they will use a “base” that they set out from and return to. In the case of both the Railway Rapists and Lynch, this was their home. However, with other offenders, their bases have included pubs/bars which they frequented regularly, and/or places of work etc. It may be that a serial offender uses their time at work in an “activity space”, to return there later to commit an offense e.g., Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper), used to use his time at work as a lorry driver to scout out potential locations that contained suitable targets, to then return there after work and commit his abductions and assaults. Committing an offense in an “Activity Space”, increases the chances of being recognized by someone an offender victimized e.g., if Sutcliffe had to return to a location where he’d abducted someone as part of his work, a witness to part of the event (who also works, lives, or engages in leisure activities in that space) may have recognized him etc. This is why such offenders will often start to commit their offenses in their “Awareness Spaces”. These are locations which they “know” about and are familiar with but don’t usually visit, such as a part of town where they used to live. Duffy had worked as a carpenter for British Rail, so he had a familiarity with the rail network and the layout of train stations e.g., railway stations that were located in sparsely populated areas, had wooded footpaths that ran alongside the tracks, which often ran over bridges etc., thus providing secluded places in which a sexual assault could be committed without being disturbed. It wasn’t necessary for Duffy and Mulcahy to necessarily visit these locations first, in order to understand their layouts, because they all followed a similar pattern. Although Lynch, had committed a previous sex crime, exposing himself at Squaw Rock in Quincy, a few weeks earlier, it may be that a spree of assaults has been averted due to his apprehension. Although there was a degree of planning to his assault (he had chosen a time and location where/when he would be able to find a suitable target, and had brought handcuffs and duct tape with him), the fact that he was unaware of the presence of CCTV (security cameras), and did nothing to try to disguise or hide who he was shows a lack of sophistication in the execution of his crime. Both Duffy and Mulcahy planned how they would commit their offenses beforehand and made every attempt to ensure that they couldn’t be recognized etc. One significant take-away from this assault, is that it is always worth fighting back, when a predatory individual tries to move you from one location to another, as in many cases where there is a sexual motive involved resistance is often enough to discourage an assailant from continuing their attack. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=616 Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=615 Any drug or substance that is administered surreptitiously to reduce sexual inhibition, in order to increases the chances of non-consensual sex, should be viewed as a date rape drug, which means alcohol is still the leading substance of choice for sexual assailants, followed by marijuana, and then cocaine, if we are to use analysis of rape victims’ urine samples. It should be noted that such statistics leave out cases where rape/sexual assaults are not reported, or reported days, weeks, or months etc., after the offense took place – and the length of time that it takes for someone to report a rape or sexual assault, should/does not discredit the validity of their claim. The reason why this is worth knowing/remembering is that we may be so vigilant in protecting our drinks from being spiked with Rohypnol or GHB (or its predecessor GHL), that we fail to recognize when someone is deliberately and predatorily trying to get us intoxicated or stoned, via alcohol or weed, etc, so that our inhibitions are lowered to a point where we might not fully understand/realize how not to “consent” to someone’s sexual advances; this doesn’t mean that such an act doesn’t constitute rape, as consent must be actively given, and not simply assumed, but rather that if we find ourselves in such a state, we may not be able to either verbally or physically resist etc. This doesn’t make us to blame for being sexually assaulted but means we aren’t in a position to defend ourselves. Interestingly, a series of studies by Dr Heather Flowers at the University of Leicester (UK), has found that although the over-consumption of alcohol may reduce the amount of what we remember, it doesn’t reduce the accuracy of our memories; this has now changed the way that the UK’s Criminal Prosecution Services (CPS) views victim’s testimonies in rape and sexual assault cases, where alcohol is involved (around 75% of cases). There are also those predators, referred to as “scavengers” (usually sober), who trawl the streets around bars and clubs, preying on women, who are unable to resist, exhausted and suggestible – and who have probably been thrown out of a club/bar for being too drunk - to bring home and rape (on the forums these women are known as SNLs – Single Night Lays, with users trading advice on methods and techniques as to how to gain access to them). Whilst this article acknowledges that alcohol is still the “drug” of choice for most sexual assailants and rapists, it also recognizes that drugs such as Rohypnol (roofies) and GHB, are also used in sexual assaults and are a significant threat to an individual’s safety. The aim of this article is to help inform people about these drugs and how to reduce the vulnerabilities around being targeted etc. Rohypnol (flunitrazepam), came to prominence as a date rape drug in the early 1990’s, with its primary usage being amongst club-goers as a recreational street/party drug that lowered inhibitions etc. However, because sexual predators are constantly thinking of ways to gain access to those they target it started to be adopted/used as a date rape drug. The fact that the drug also had an effect on distorting memory meant that assailants had an added advantage in avoiding detection and/or prosecution. The original drug was odorless and tasteless, however in response to its association with sexual assaults, the manufacturer reformulated it to taste salty and not be fully dissolvable. So, although still in use by sexual predators, other similar drugs have started to become more prevalent. GHB, known as “liquid ecstasy”, “scoop”, and “grievous bodily harm”, appears to have started to overtake Rohypnol as a date rape drug i.e., in urine samples of sexually assaulted women in the U.S. and Canada, GHB accounted for 3% of all samples, with Rohypnol accounting for 1% (alcohol 69%, Marijuana 18%, and Cocaine 5%). GHB is a faster working drug than Rohypnol, taking around 15 minutes to have an effect, whereas Rohypnol can take up to 30 minutes. Although Rohypnol is easily accessible and cheap, usually produced illegally in Mexico, and bought on the internet for a couple of dollars a tablet, GHB can be synthesized locally from “recipes” available on websites. In low doses it lowers inhibitions, but in high ones it can result in drowsiness and coma. Unlike Rohypnol there are no drugs/treatments available to reverse its effects, should a fatal dose be deliberately or inadvertently administered. Whilst its effects can be somewhat predictable by dosage if consumed/taken on its own, when mixed with alcohol the two substances become synergized and effects/symptoms become less predictable e.g., the UK serial rapist/killer Stephen Port (aka, the Grindr Killer), killed four young men, whilst using GHB mixed with alcohol – at trial it was not clear whether his intention was to kill them, rather than simply rape them - or whether this was a result of his inability to predict the amount of GHB he was using to sedate them. GHB, like Rohypnol has a salty taste. GHB is also quickly eliminated from the body in urine, which may mean that it isn’t as frequently detected as it is used. Whilst blame and responsibility always lie with the assailant, there are precautions that can be taken to reduce the number of vulnerabilities that a predator can exploit. If you are on your own, don’t leave drinks unattended (obvious), however if you are with friends and ask them to watch your drink, don’t by default assume that it is safe on your return. If it was possible that their eyes weren’t on it 100% of the time, you can’t be sure that it wasn’t tampered with, however certain they are that nobody could have accessed it. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t a “good” or “trustworthy” friend, but if they got caught up in a conversation, or were distracted – something that is totally normal on a night out in a club or bar, or at a party – then this might have presented someone with the opportunity they required; slipping something into a drink can happen in seconds. Bottles are less easy to drop something into, simply because the size of the opening is smaller than a glass, and if you are holding it because there isn’t somewhere to put it down, placing your thumb over the top seals it – depending on the setting or situation if there’s a choice of your drink in a bottle or in a glass (a certain brand of beer you drink comes both in bottles and on draft), you may want to select the bottled version. If returning to a drink, that you haven’t had your eyes on all of the time, and it tastes somewhat different (both GHB and “modern” Rohypnol add a salty taste), assume someone has tampered with it – this may not be the case, but its always better to be safe than sorry especially with drugs such as GHB, which have no antidote. Without suggesting that you come up with a timetable for how you consume beverages, don’t purchase a new drink just before you think you’ll need the bathroom, or when you may want to go on the dance floor with some friends. There are chemical tests that identify both Rohypnol and GHB, however social awkwardness usually prevents people from using these, although there are companies developing types of nail polish that when dipped into a drink, change color, so testing can be done surreptitiously. There are also cup/glass covers available, which can be placed over a glass like a lid, that can show if somebody has tried to tamper with it etc., however, social awkwardness often precludes people from using these as well. The use of date rape drugs is nothing new, nor is it restricted to just Rohypnol and GHB. There have been cases where Valium and Xanax have been used – anything that lowers inhibitions and/or can cause drowsiness has and will be used by sexual predators. Neither are such drugs limited to sexual assaults in public settings or by strangers. Whilst we should be alert and recognize the danger that date rape drugs pose, neither should we be creating a moral panic concerning them. They are a significant threat but they are not the greatest, as alcohol alone is still the most widely administered/used substance by sexual assailants. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=615 Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=614 It appears that serial killers, whether in the UK, the US, or Canada, select occupations that offer them three things: lack of supervision, freedom of movement, and solitude. It is not clear, whether they seek these types of occupation consciously and deliberately or whether because of these conditions they are given an advantage in offending. This is similar to the discussion regarding pedophilic sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church i.e., were/are pedophiles attracted to the priesthood because celibacy – with adults -would not be an issue, and being in an organization like the church would give them access to a large number of potential victims, and have the protection of the church etc., or once in such an organization, and presented with opportunities to offend, along with sexual frustration, did/do they take advantage of their situation etc. The question remains; if Harold Shipman, had never been a doctor with such a large number of elderly patients, would he have engaged in serial murder? Or would Peter Sutcliffe if he'd never obtained his HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) license, have engaged in the geographically widespread killing spree that he did i.e., a large part of his ability to evade detection and capture for so long came from the fact that he understood UK road networks extremely well, and was able to target victims from a large number of different locations etc. In this article I want to finish up this series on serial killers by looking at how their various occupations may have helped them/facilitated their crimes. In Routine Activity Theory, for an offense to be committed there must be: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. Eck built on this model suggesting that there were three controlling aspects, that were either present or absent. He put forward the idea that because an offender and a victim, must meet in time and space, there were such things as place managers e.g., if a shopkeeper had eyes on the streets outside their shop, they would act as a place manager, who had an investment in making sure that crime did not occur in this location, as people would stop visiting their shop etc. He also introduced the idea of “Handlers” who could influence and prevent offenders from committing their offenses e.g., whilst children and teenagers are in school, their teachers act as handlers stopping them from offending, and when they go home after school, their parents act as handlers etc. The times when a handler is absent are the times when the risk of them engaging in criminal activity increases (this is where after school programs, where there are other handlers present, can have a significant influence on reducing crime). One of the most amazing aspects of Harold Shipman’s offending was that he was able to administer so many massive and lethal doses of diamorphine to his elderly patients, for such an extended period of time; killing what is suspected to be somewhere over 250 individuals. Each death certificate issued by Shipman had to be countersigned, and the sheer number of them was not typical of the average GP (General Practitioner). Shipman lacked a “handler”, who could supervise his work. He was a respected doctor, in a profession that is/was generally trusted. He is not alone in being a healthcare professional who engaged in serial murder. Four Viennese nurses (named the angels of death) working together killed at least 49 patients between 1983 and 1991 – the case is rare because the perpetrators were female and didn’t work alone (something that appears to be more of a characteristic of female serial killers than male ones). Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, began his killings, after becoming a lorry/truck driver, having exhibited warning signs before this e.g., he’d assaulted two sex workers, with a weapon before he began his killing spree. Sutcliffe resented supervision and craved solitude, admitting that he hated working when others were present whether he was in the supervising or supervised role. When he was demoted from a supervisory position back to a position where he could work on his own, rather than being angry and resentful, he was both relieved and ecstatic. Although he never committed any of his offenses during working hours, he used his time driving a lorry, to visit areas that he would then offend in. His time unsupervised and on his own, gave him time to fantasize and plan his killings and aquaint himself with the road networks, that allowed him to enter and exit an abduction site, quickly and effectively. His knowledge of the local geography also gave him an understanding of what would make a good killing site, and a later disposal site. Having, a different abduction, killing and disposal site is one way to make detection more difficult, and Sutcliffe is neither the first nor the last serial killer who has worked in the transport industry as a truck/lorry driver e.g., in the US, John Robert Williams (thirty known victims), William Bonin, who became known as the Freeway Killer/Strangler (fourteen counts of first degree murder), and Keith Hunter Jesperson (who confessed to 185 murders) etc. In fact, the FBI recognize that the US road networks, and those whose work is associated with them, offers offenders a huge number of offending opportunities and in response to the John Robert Williams case created a special division to examine crimes that are related to them. We may often think of offenders as having crime careers that have no relationship to legitimate occupations, however the number of offenders who “work” full-time is far less than those who have are employed in some capacity and offend on a part-time/secondary basis etc. Sometimes, offenders will choose a career/occupation that allows them the opportunity to offend or helps facilitate their offending (Sutcliffe), and other times it may be that an individual engaged in an opportunity (such as medicine/healthcare) recognizes the opportunities that their job and working environment afford them e.g., Harold Shipman. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=614 Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=613 In the previous article (which can be accessed by clicking here) I wrote about serial killers from a structuralist/sociological perspective. In this article I want to look at serial killing from a psychological/neuropsychological perspective i.e., what causes a specific individual to commit serial murder. Obviously, motivations to kill differ between offenders e.g., Ed Kemper was largely motivated by the hatred he had towards his mother, whilst Fred and Rose West were sexual sadists who progressed in their “exploration” of those they victimized to become killers. However, there are certain common traits and histories that may go towards creating the mind of a serial killer. In this article I will look at some of the personality disorders and psychoses that certain serial killers have been diagnosed with, and how such disorders develop. I will also describe some of the “symptoms” of these disorders that certain killers have exhibited, even though they may not have demonstrated all the criteria necessary for a clinical diagnosis of a disorder e.g., many serial killers have shown to have abandonment issues, but do not have any of the other conditions of borderline personality disorder etc. It is worth noting at this juncture, that personality disorders are different to mental illnesses. Although there is no “formal” distinction between what constitutes a mental illness and a personality disorder, it is accepted that a personality disorder such as borderline personality disorder, is largely unchangeable i.e., it represents a way of thinking/viewing/interacting with the world that can’t be changed via treatment etc., whereas a mental illness, such as depression or schizophrenia is episodic (comes and goes in its severity and extent) and is treatable. Whilst personality disorders contribute significantly to crime and violence, mental illness plays less of a role. Two personality disorders that are common amongst serial killers are anti-social personality disorder (which includes psychopathy) (APD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD), both of which are over-represented in the prison system, when compared to the general population e.g., around 60% of the male prison population in the US have APD, contrasted to 2% of the general population. It would be incorrect to link these disorders – especially BPD – directly to criminality i.e., there are those who have these disorders who don’t commit offenses, however they do constitute a risk factor when considering violent offending. It would also be unwise and unethical to connect serial murder to these personality disorders. Two symptoms of these disorders that might explain serial murder are boredom and abandonment. One of the facets of psychopathy is extreme boredom, and the need to seek thrills and engage in risky/dangerous activities. An intelligent offender such as Ted Bundy, may well have engaged in his sexual murders as a way to alleviate his boredom and dissatisfaction with the lack of excitement in his life. One of the symptoms of BPD, is the fear of abandonment, that can often lead to violence; sometimes against others, and sometimes against themselves (self-harm). When someone with BPD, makes a strong attachment to somebody, the psychic pain when they receive some form of rejection (including personal slights), can be extreme, resulting in uncontrollable rage (“borderline rage”). Jeffrey Dahmer killed his first victim, when Steven Hicks wanted to leave his house, and in Dahmer’s words, “I didn’t want him to”, bludgeoning him into unconsciousness with a dumbbell, and then strangling him to death whilst he remained unconscious. Certain serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer, as well as being diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder (not to be confused with the mental illness schizophrenia, though it is sometimes a precursor to developing this illness), was subject to psychotic episodes. In a psychotic episode an individual may, for example, have the delusion that the government has planted a chip in their brain, in order to track their movements, so that some hired assassin can find them and kill them – they may then believe that someone they interact with is said assassin etc. With schizotypal personality disorder an individual may hold to some unconventional beliefs, which although would not constitute as a psychosis, might cause someone with this disorder to act and behave in strange way e.g., someone might believe that you should only engage in killing when the moon was in a certain phase (they may not be motivated to kill, every time the moon went through this phase, but that if you do engage in murder it was only permissible at certain times). When categorizing symptoms of mental illnesses and disorders, they can often be classed as falling into two categories: positive symptoms and negative symptoms e.g., a positive symptom is a symptom that is additional to normal behavior, such as having hallucinations (hearing voices/seeing things that aren’t there), whereas a negative symptom is the absence of a normal behavior, such as alogia (the inability to produce language), which results in individuals not speaking for long periods of time etc. Dahmer, was socially and emotionally limited, having many negative symptoms, which led to him being isolated and lonely. It has been speculated that one of the reasons Dahmer may have engaged in the cannibalism of his victims was to engage in something so extreme that the act might change/cure him of his social inabilities and his lack of ability to function in the real world etc. Whether there is a biological/genetic link to personality disorders, or they are the resulting personalities formed from the experiences that individuals with certain character traits have etc., is still unanswered e.g., whether serial killers are “born” or “made” is still not fully understood. However, without question there is a definite psychological element to their offenses. This does not mean that the sociological/structuralist perspective is incorrect but rather that a person’s decision to repeatedly offend – however rational that is – is heavily dependent on their individual mental state, and that societal norms, values and conditions have an influence on this to a greater or lesser degree. In the next article I will look at the types of occupations that serial killers often gravitate to, and the extent to which these occupations present, create, and/or, enable opportunities for serial murder. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=613 Mon, 07 Nov 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=612 In the previous article on serial killers (which can be accessed by clicking here), I presented a definition of what constitutes a serial killing spree. There were three components, that must be present: 1. At least three people killed 2. Each death/killing must be a distinct/individual event and be separated by a "cooling off period" 3. Motive(s) may be varied, and do not have to have a sexual aspect to them With this in mind, I now want to look at some of the criminological theories that have been presented concerning why individuals commit such strings of offenses. If you’ve ever watched a film, and/or crime drama that features a serial-killer, the psychologist/profiler brought in to help crack the case will usually talk about the psychological motivations behind killing, often labelling the killer as a sexual psychopath, who is only going to increase their number of murders, at an ever-increasing rate, with shorter periods between each killing, until they are stopped etc. They may talk about the killer’s history, and how the killing spree is motivated by revenge, for having a mother who emasculated them as a young child etc. They will rarely present serial killers as being a product of society e.g., sociological factors, and yet there are criminologists who view serial killing as being the result of societal conditions, rather than purely psychological and neuropsychological/biological factors. In this article I want to take a look at serial-murder from this perspective and see how society may play a part in the creation of some serial killers. Those who hold to this structural/sociological tradition or perspective of serial killing, will point to the fact that there have been periods in a country’s history where there have been few or no serial-killers, and times when there have been several/many e.g., in the US, in the early part of the 20th Century, there were far fewer serial killers, than in the 1970’s and 1980’s. This could be the result of improvements of crime linkage. That is, as policing and forensic methodologies improved throughout the century law-enforcement got better at identifying the similarities between murders and linking them to a single killer e.g., one of the things that helped identify Ted Bundy as being responsible for a variety of otherwise geographically unconnected killings was the ability to share photographic information/evidence between different agencies working in different jurisdictions; someone noticed that all of his/the female victims had long, brown hair that was cut in a similar style – in fact one of his intended victims (Sotrias Kritsonis) survived because when Bundy ordered her to take off her hat (it was snowing when she accepted a ride from him), he found out that she’d had her hair cut short, and he let her go i.e., he’d been carrying out surveillance on her, targeting her because of her previously long hair. However, those who propose a sociological perspective, will argue that historical context plays an important part in shaping serial killing, and will point to the fact that the 1970’s and 1980’s saw a significant increase in the number of serial killings, in a similar way that the number of mass-shootings/killings have been steadily rising since the 1990’s. If mass-shootings are the result of, and the response to societal changes and shifts, then an argument exists that serial murder could also be the result of structural changes in society. This is not to say that society is responsible for “creating” serial killers, but rather that as society entered late modernity (the latter part of the 20th Century) it set the conditions that enabled serial-murder e.g., widening gaps in economic equality, the erosion of traditional gender roles etc., all played a part in creating the serial-killer phenomenon. This period also saw an increase in individualism, that has left certain people feeling marginalized and angry. The idea of full employment began to be eroded in the 1970’s, and the “American Dream” began to be questioned. The idea that each successive generation would improve its financial and social position no longer seemed inevitable. From a feminist criminological perspective, the fact that the majority of serial killers are men who target women sees serial killing as the result of an increase in misogynistic male violence, during this period of late modernity, that is the result of societal changes in gender relations e.g., it is a way in which a section of the male population demonstrates its power and control over women etc. There may also be a “copycat” element to serial killing that emerged in this period as killers started to be viewed like celebrities e.g., Ted Bundy, in representing himself at trial, had a nation captivated – factor in that he was good-looking, charming, and highly intelligent, and it’s almost possible to forget about the horrific and uncontrollable rages that left thirty women (those killings he confessed to) dead. This new awareness that people gained concerning serial killers has led many to develop a morbid fascination and curiosity concerning them, that for some individuals might create a limelight that they want to step into e.g., Colin Ireland killed in part because he wanted to be notorious - “idolized” and “remembered” by the public as a criminal mastermind. This same motivation can be seen in many school shooters who view Klebold and Harris (the Columbine School Shooters), as heroes, and whose killings they want to emulate. Whilst it would be difficult to make the argument that sociological and structural changes are solely responsible for creating killers, the societal environment in which one lives and develops, is likely to have an influence in setting the conditions for such offending. It is not that everyone who lacks social capital is at risk of engaging in serial murder, but rather for some this may be a motivating factor. In the next article I will look at the neuropsychological/psychological tradition and perspective on serial killings. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=612 Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=611 Crimes – including violent offenses - are statistically rare incidents, compared with other activities people engage in. Even persistent, repeat offenders engage in other activities, such as going to bars and restaurants, buying food etc., far more frequently than they engage in offending. When looking at different types of offenders and offenses, there is far more data on burglaries and car thefts, than there is on murder, simply because they are much more common events. One of the least common and rarest of all violent offenses is serial murdering/killing. In this and the next few articles I want to look at certain aspects of serial killing, and current theories regarding the phenomenon. A lot of people’s knowledge concerning serial killers comes from “true crime” documentaries that investigate individuals like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy etc.; characters whose lives were either “colorful” (Gacy who often dressed up as Pogo the clown, whilst Bundy was good looking and charming), or whose killings had an extreme degree to them e.g., Dahmer, the “Milwaukee Cannibal”, would eat his victims after killing them. However, serial killers are often more mundane individuals, whose killings are more efficient rather than spectacular affairs, often lacking in the rich symbolism that Hollywood likes to present. In this article I want to look at defining who/what a serial killer is and introduce two schools of thought regarding what causes individuals to engage in serial killings/murder. The term, serial murder, was created in order to separate this type of mass killing from other types of mass murder, such as active shooter incidents, and other similar types of spree/rampage killings. The most significant difference between an active killer event, such as the Sandy Hook shooting (2012 – where 26 people were killed), or the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival were fired upon (60 people killed, and 413 wounded), and a serial killing spree, is the length of time between the deaths of each victim. In a mass shooting/killing event, the killer is trying to kill as many people as they can in the shortest possible time; the killing spree is a singular event, which takes place within a certain timeframe. With serial killers, on the other hand, there is a “cooling off period” between the murder of each victim e.g., after committing his first murder on 5th July 1975, Peter Sutcliffe (the “Yorkshire Ripper”), waited forty-one days before killing his next victim. Although Hungerford shooter, Michael Ryan (who killed sixteen people), killed his victims, at different locations throughout the day (19th August 1987), with sometimes hours between each killing spree, his rampage was effectively one singular and definable event; his emotional state was largely consistent and unaltered. With serial killers, there is the idea/concept that there must be enough time between each killing for the murderer to experience an emotional cool down, so that each incident is its own emotional event, rather than a continuation of the last. There is some degree of debate as to what this period should be e.g., the FBI simply states that there must be a “cooling off period”, and is flexible as to what this actually is (possibly because it may start off in the early days as relatively long, and then shorten considerably as the killer becomes more addicted and driven by the act of murder), whereas certain criminologists will put a very precise timeframe on it e.g., thirty days (Holmes & Holmes, 1994; Newton, 2006). Another potential area of debate/discussion is the number of victims that a killer must accrue in order to be classified as a serial killer. However, there is a general consensus, that there must be three or more victims for a killing spree to be defined as a serial killing(s). One of the issues that plagues most Hollywood/media depictions of serial killers, is that they are all sexually motivated, whereas in reality this isn’t always the case. Even in cases where those targeted are sex workers, the motivation may not be a sexual one. It may be that a killer chooses this population because it provides them with a large, identifiable, and vulnerable group to target. Sex workers, who work on the street are also some of the few individuals who will voluntarily get into a car with a stranger. It is important to recognize that serial murder does not have to have a sexual element to it, despite true crime documentaries tending to focus on those killers for whom there was. It is always possible to make a sexual connection, as happened with Colin Ireland, who targeted gay men in London, in the Spring-Summer of 1993. Ireland was an under-achiever who had strived to be successful all his life. He eventually concluded that he could achieve notoriety as a serial killer who could outsmart the police; something that he was initially able to do – he eventually handed himself in when he recognized that CCTV footage published in a newspaper clearly identified him as being with his last victim just before he killed him. Ireland told law-enforcement that he targeted gay men, because they were used to meeting men in bars and taking them back home. Although he tortured his victims before killing them, there is little to suggest that this was sexually motivated or even homophobic: Colin Ireland simply wanted to be the center of attention – he used to phone the press to make sure that they were aware of each killing, and the details of it (he used to stage each crime/murder scene as if it was a macabre theatre set). If we look for a solid working definition of what a serial killing is, we must recognize that it can have any motive, there must be at least three victims, with each killing separated by a significant period (a “cooling off period”). In next week’s article, I will present two schools of thought concerning the reason(s) why individuals commit serial murder. These are referred to as the “Structural Tradition”, and the, “Medical -Psychological Tradition”. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=611 Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=610 Many people take up learning a martial art or a self-defense system in the belief that by learning techniques and solutions to violence, and by developing skills, they will be able to make up for a lack of athletic and physical prowess i.e., a smaller, weaker individual will be able to overcome a larger, more powerful aggressor etc. That was certainly my belief and motivation when I first started training. At the time I thought everything came down to technical proficiency, and it was only through training, that I began to understand a certain level of strength, fitness and aggression was needed in order to become technically proficient. There will be of course martial arts purists who will argue against this, and state that the art alone, once mastered is enough, and that if you need a certain level of fitness and aggression to get your system to work in real-life than it is a failing of your system; with the implied argument that maybe you should quit training in whatever martial art you are practicing, and recognize that their way is the correct way, and start training in their style. Experience by its own nature is a limited thing, but from my own experiences working in security, I’ve never worked with such purists, everyone I’ve worked with has acknowledged the role that fitness, strength and aggression play in dealing with real-life violence, and that technical ability is simply another factor/component. In this article I want to examine some of the memes and “martial arts proverbs” that simplify dealing with violence, and possibly divert our focus away from other aspects of our training that we should be working on. Some of these are simply truisms, which actually aren’t particularly helpful, and others are trite, meaningless quotes which when examined don’t really contain any meaningful substance. I grew up in the seventies, and one of the TV shows I avidly watched was Kung Fu, starring David Carradine, as an ex-Buddhist monk, wandering around 19th century America, kicking ass, and delivering life lessons via esoteric quotes that could be unraveled and interpreted in numerous “meaningful” ways. As a child, although I knew this was all fictional, I didn’t quite understand that it was a scriptwriter in LA who was coming up with these proverbs and believed that what I was listening to was ancient wisdom that had been kept secret from the world, until Carradine opened his lips and spoke it. As a kid who was bullied and dealt with violence on a near-daily basis, I believed that if I could discover the truth and the meaning in these quotes then they would provide me with a solution to my problems e.g., if I could understand how my enemy’s strength was also their greatest weakness, then I might have an advantage that I could exploit etc. However, as much “meaning” as a quote or proverb might contain, it doesn’t change a reality. A quote doesn’t reduce the size, strength, or numbers of the threat/danger you are facing/dealing with. Learning, from Carradine or someone else that multiple attackers will end up getting in the way of each other, doesn’t mean that dealing with two people is easier than one etc. However, this is the implication: to make a seemingly difficult situation, something that is easy to deal with. By reducing something that is complex and difficult, to something that is simple and easy is misleading, and usually results in us not taking a problem as seriously as we should. Some quotes and sayings are true but unhelpful. Growing up, training in Judo, one that used to get bandied about a lot was, “the bigger they are the harder they fall.” I don’t disagree with this but how does it help me i.e., I’ve still got to make them initially fall, and they are still bigger than me. Yes, bigger people, especially those who are top heavy, may have a harder time regaining their balance than smaller, lighter people etc. but the same problem remains: how do you get a larger person to fall? The saying doesn’t change the problem. The world of real-world self-defense is also full of meaningless, dismissive and extremely lazy quotes. One of the most common ones I see on social media is, “good way to get yourself killed”, usually in response to someone showing a video of a technique etc. A better way to get yourself killed when attacked is to do nothing; to be completely untrained. I’m not convinced that an individual who makes such a statement has undergone a thorough scientific evaluation of all the possible techniques, solutions and responses to a particular threat or attack, and is in a position to turn around and rank them on a scale of “how to get killed”. I have and teach techniques and solutions I “prefer” but I also recognize context is a major factor, in evaluating the effectiveness of solutions to violence, and understand that it is easy to judge something without understanding/recognizing the situation that the person demonstrating is envisaging etc. The problem with lazy sayings like “good way to get yourself killed”, is that they preclude discussion. They are not about seeking a “truth” but about being right, which is basically bad science. Part of the scientific process is to publish research in order for peers to review it. Just as esoteric mumblings that don’t really say anything, sayings that judge without inquiry and discussion aren’t useful either; if someone is not prepared to engage in that process then it is probably better to say nothing. I am not saying that all martial arts/self-defense quotes, sayings, and proverbs are meaningless, however when they are used to simplify dealing with violence, then they are misleading and can cause us to neglect areas of our training that we should be working on. It was Einstein who said that “if you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.” If you ask someone a question about dealing with violence and they give you an answer like, “there are many colors of the cherry blossom” etc., you are probably dealing with someone who doesn’t understand your question or have a proper answer to it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=610 Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=609 I have written about detecting deception before, looking at both verbal and non-verbal clues. In this article I want to look specifically at non-verbal facial cues, and how these can be used to detect deceit. Whenever we look at interpreting facial expressions, it is worth reminding ourselves that we need to see an individual’s expression in context, or we may misinterpret their emotional state etc. We just simply aren’t good at recognizing and identifying emotions from facial expressions without any contextual information (to read more about this click here). The other thing we need to be aware of when using facial cues, is that they may be very small, and at times constitute what Eckman refers to as “micro expressions”; which are much easier to detect when playing/replaying a video of a person talking, rather than trying to identify them in the moment. To illustrate some of the cues, I’m going to use footage of a 2019 BBC interview with Prince Andrew, that was part of a Newsnight Special about his relationship with financier Jeffrey Epstein (a convicted pedophile). Prince Andrew was involved in his own sex scandal at the time, having been accused of raping a minor at one of Epstein’s properties; he later settled with his accuser for 20 million dollars. Although his advisors told him not to take part in the interview, he ignored them and went ahead, obviously believing he could steer the narrative; something he failed at quite spectacularly. You don’t need to watch the interview (which can be accessed by clicking here) to read the article, but I will put timings next to the cues I write about so that if you would like to see an actual example, you will be able to watch it on the video.                Before talking about specific facial cues that may reveal deception (it’s importance to state “may”, because we may not always have a “baseline” from which to judge behaviors e.g., somebody may naturally blink a lot, and so what may seem excessive eye movement, actually isn’t the case – with Andrew we can judge that his blinking was excessive because there are other interviews to compare it with), it’s worth mentioning some more general things about the interview to get an idea of the context within which it was conducted. It is very likely Andrew received some form of coaching by his aides, as to how he should sit, and the approach he should take. For an interview that lasted nearly fifty minutes, he only ever moved his hands and his feet, not even his arms and his legs, suggesting that somebody on his team was aware that if he used larger gestures, changed his posture, moved his body etc. these could be used to detect deception. It would appear that he wanted to give as little away as possible, and so kept the same rigid and unnatural posture for the entire interview. He also takes the tactic of attacking what may be minor and insignificant inaccuracies in the interviewer’s facts e.g., he denies that he threw a birthday party for Epstein’s girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell (who was also found guilty of child sexual abuse and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence), stating that it was a “shooting party”, and then referring it as a “straightforward shooting weekend” (4:55), in order to make it appear even less significant, whilst adding in an extra fact to make it seem a less important event; weekend versus party. The strategy here is to correct a lot of minor and unimportant details in order for the questioner’s/interviewer’s knowledge and facts to not appear as credible. This flawed logic if taken to the ridiculous extreme would be akin to saying something along the lines of, “You say I stole $100 from you, however it couldn’t have been me because I only stole $20. Get your facts right before you start calling me a thief”. Both physically and verbally this is one of the strangest interviews/interrogations I have ever seen, with some of the most bizarre explanations as to why he couldn’t have sexually assaulted his accuser – she stated amongst other facts, that he was sweating profusely, when he actually has a rare condition that doesn’t allow him to perspire. Giving multiple, and too many reasons (over denying) why you didn’t do something when the first reason you gave – that you weren’t there at that time – would explain how it couldn’t have been you etc., has the appearance of a guilty man over-explaining his innocence.                The first facial cue I want to look at is something referred to as “confirmation glancing”. If you are giving a truthful account of a series of events, you don’t need confirmation from the person that you are talking to that they believe you. However, if you are engaged in deception, you need to check as you tell your story that the person you’re telling it to believes you. Someone who is lying needs to keep checking/confirming with their audience that they are being believed. If they’re not, they may need to alter their story somewhat. This is why If you are ever questioning someone in an interview or interrogation setting (The Wicklander-Zulawski method classifies an interview as being where the goal is to gather information, and an interrogation, being something that is directed at a suspect), a good approach is to allow the individual being questioned the opportunity to tell their story without interruption e.g., if you are asking someone about the route they took home from work on a particular evening, and you notice an inaccuracy or inconsistency in something they say and bring this up in the moment, then at that point you give them the opportunity to revise their account. If you let them move on with their account uninterrupted, they may mention something that becomes dependent on their initial inconsistency, which prevents them from revising or explaining it. Those engaged in confirmation glancing, are waiting for this engagement i.e., “you don’t believe me”, then tell me now; if you don’t, I’ll assume that you do believe me because you’re not telling me otherwise etc. Silence is taken as acceptance.                Despite saying at the start of the interview that he had always wanted to do it (0:50), one facial expression that betrayed this was that throughout the interview his mouth was constantly tense, when listening to facts being presented or questions asked etc. This is not the relaxed facial expression of someone who wants to talk. He is there because he feels he has no other choice but to state and argue his case. It should be remembered that everyone around him had advised him not to do this interview, so it would have been something he would have spent some time considering, and possibly looking for alternative ways to claim/prove his innocence, however once he realized this story wasn’t going to go away, and questions were continuing to be asked, he probably believed he would be able “win” any interview. It was conducted in Buckingham Palace, so he may have felt that having home turf advantage, and him being a member of the Royal family, that whoever interviewed him would be intimidated by the process. Unfortunately for him, he was interviewed by Emily Maitlas, who was prepared to express her feelings towards his answers, and lack of them e.g., when Andrew said he regretted his relationship with Epstein whose actions were “unbecoming” (48:05), she reminds him that he is talking about a child sex offender.                  Although not a facial expression, Andrew makes an interesting head movement that may betray his real motives for spending time with Epstein. At (2:20), the interviewer states/confirms that Epstein’s appeal to Andrew was purely professional, as he listens to her say this he verbally confirms “yes”, whilst at the same time shaking his head i.e., saying no. Some people will look on this as a definite tell, and state that his body language is the true/correct answer or “leakage”. It is more likely that the contradiction between his head movement, and his verbal response is more that of a confusion in his answer i.e., he wants it to be seen that his relationship with Epstein was simply a business one, but he understands that although this was part of it, their relationship was somewhat more complex and involved than that.                 Another facial expression that those engaged in deception use, is to sneer, in order to ridicule what is being said, making it out that what is being presented is outlandish and preposterous. Andrew does this around the (11:50) mark in the interview when he refutes that he was the “Guest of Honor” at Epstein’s release party in 2010. This response is often used when given a minor detail, rather than a major one. As mentioned before the focus on the insignificant in itself is a good indication that someone is engaged in deception. It is an approach that attempts to treat all facts as being equal, in order to dismiss and diminish the seriousness of the actual subject matter e.g., the interview was not about establishing whether Andrew invited Epstein to Sandringham, for a birthday party or a shooting party etc. It was about giving him an opportunity to explain why he wasn’t a sex offender like Epstein and wasn’t involved in that part of Epstein’s life. The other point of sneering is to try and mock the other person, treating them as if they are an idiot to believe such a fact/piece of information and then have the stupidity to present it to them. This is one of the strange things that often happens in acts of deception; the individual switches between wanting to appear polite and helpful, but then behaves in a nasty manner which looks to undermine the other person’s position. Sneering is more than a representation of frustration, it represents an opportunity for the other party to make a power play and undermine the person asking the question. Sneering is a way to communicate to the interviewer that they don’t really know what they are talking about.                Towards the end of the interview, the interviewer asks the question that now that Jeffrey Epstein is dead, how will Prince Andrew move on. On being reminded that Epstein is dead, Andrew laughs and his facial expressions change to ones of abject relief (40:37), and for the first time in the interview he relaxes, knowing that the nature of his relationship with Epstein, and many of the things the two were privately involved in, will never be known as they effectively went to the grave with Epstein, the moment he committed suicide. There is also probably relief that the interview is coming to an end, and that he has discovered through the process what evidence the BBC has and what the organization does and doesn’t know. The most significant “smoking gun” moment occurs at the (13:43) mark when the interviewer informs Andrew that the literary agent John Brockman, reported that he saw Andrew getting a foot massage from a young Russian woman. When told this he reacts in a surprised manner. However, the degree of his surprise is so great it is hard to determine whether it is genuine or deliberately exaggerated i.e., he uses a look of extreme surprise to try and make the statement seem too outlandish. This is one of the difficulties when using facial expressions to discern deception, as the person engaged in deceit can make deliberate responses in order to deflect, however Andrew’s hand movement – he starts to open them up for the first time, whereas before he has been pressing the fingers together throughout – suggest that the surprise may be genuine; it is hard to consciously manage all of these things together. Also, he questions whether Brockman was there (saying “really”), and then later goes on to say that he doesn’t know who Brockman is – if you don’t know who someone is you wouldn’t know whether they were there or not etc.                Andrew’s relief towards the end of the interview – especially when he is reminded that it is coming to a close (4:43) – is obvious. While this is understandable, for someone who is looking to prove their innocence, it is also a strange response. He claimed that he wanted and was willing to engage in this process, because it offered him an opportunity to clear his name/explain his relationship with Epstein etc., however if this was truly the case, and he had irrefutable proof as to his innocence (which has to be questioned in light of him financially settling the case brought against him), he would likely be looking for more opportunities/time to provide evidence that he didn’t commit any offenses. People who are innocent of a claim against them are often desperate to keep providing details and information that show they are/were not guilty of the offenses laid before them, however Prince Andrew, actually presents very few “facts” and details in the 50-minute interview, despite the interviewer (Emily Maitlis) giving him the space and room to do so. From a content analysis perspective, this is indicative of deception i.e., he wants to give as few details as possible that could be investigated further, at a later date. Whatever “truth” Andrew is hiding, that he is engaged is deception and hiding something is fairly evident, however the interview does illustrate the fact that there are no clear rules for detecting deception, there is no one sign or “Pinocchio’s nose”, but it is the totality of content, body language and facial expressions that must be used.                             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=609 Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=608 I don’t know if you have ever had your car stolen, but if you have, you may have walked around the spot where it was once parked – in a state of disbelief – secretly hoping that somehow, you’re in the wrong place, and that maybe, just maybe this wasn’t the spot where you left it. Between 1994 and 1995, I had three cars stolen, and each time this was my response. The problem was that I lived in a high crime area (best I could afford when I left university), and I drove old cars, that had few security features – cars over a certain age are more valuable for their parts than they are as a vehicle, and the parts are extremely hard to trace and identify compared with an original/complete car. Vehicle thefts in the UK, US, and Western Europe have fallen steadily since the mid-1990’s as manufacturers started to respond to the security issues their products had. When new products come on the market, such as mobile phones, security isn’t usually the first priority, and it takes time for such issues to be addressed e.g., my first mobile phone didn’t even require a pin to login. A study in the Netherlands has found that E-Bikes (electric bikes) are three times more likely to be stolen than a standard bike. E-Bikes are a much higher valued asset than a normal bike e.g., the cheapest are normally around the $1000 mark, and can be over $10000 etc., and are as easy to steal. They share all the same vulnerabilities as a conventional bike. Most do not have GPS trackers by default, and although they do have a distinct serial number, this doesn’t make it easy to identify stolen bikes. In this article I want to look at some different ways to improve the security of E-Bikes.                Although bikes (both E-Bikes and standard bikes) are often stolen in public places, many are stolen from garages and sheds where they are stored overnight, or for longer periods of time. These may be criminals who come across a bike by opportunity, in the course of another crime e.g., they are breaking into garages in order to steal tools for resale, or it could be a targeted theft, where they have observed a homeowner coming and going on an E-Bike and know that it is probably stored there. Garages and basements are often not the best secured units, and fairly easy to access (something that is an extreme vulnerability, when the main house/property can be accessed from them). The longer a bike remains in one place, the more vulnerable it is to theft. With an E-Bike, one way to reduce the risk of theft is to remove the battery from it (batteries typically weigh about 10-20 pounds, so as long as you only have to carry it a short distance, such as from a parking lot to the office etc., this shouldn’t be a major ordeal). It is also worth noting that batteries on their own may be worth stealing. This makes it a less convenient item to steal, as although it could still be stolen e.g., carried out and transported in a van etc., for it to be resold, an offender would have to first buy a new battery (reducing the amount of profit they get from the theft), and this may be for many an inconvenient step in the process e.g., they can’t turn it into cash as quickly as if it had the battery with it. Also, the longer that an offender has to hold on to stolen goods, the higher their odds of being apprehended. These may seem minor obstacles to overcome, but unless the individual stealing the bike has already calculated out these issues, then in the moment they may seem like major ones. It is probably also worth locking the E-Bike to something secure in the garage or basement etc., rather than relying on the security of the building alone.                As for locking the bike, whether in a public or private setting, it is better to use two locks than one. This means any offender looking to steal a bike, will have to contend with two locks, and increase the time the offense takes, increasing the likelihood of being spotted and apprehended. Most offenders engaged in property thefts are looking for a quick and easy opportunity, and if something may appear harder than they envisaged, they may look for easier targets. In a UK study of burglars, offenders were found to engage in easier break-ins that carried more risk of being caught, than harder ones where the risk was significantly less. Adding an extra step to a theft, such as having to break an extra lock, may cause an offender to decide to look for easier opportunities. If you have the ability to lock your E-Bike near to other E-Bikes that may not be so well secured, then an offender already has access to these easier opportunities. Bike locks with alarms are also available, and these may offer an added layer of protection. If removing the battery isn’t going to be practical, a chain lock should be wrapped around it, to help prevent it being stolen on its own. Hopefully, E-Bike manufacturers, will start to address some of the security issues that E-Bikes have, as they come to understand the methods that offenders use to either steal them or their batteries etc. Often manufacturers initially like to believe that security measures, such as having to use a key to lock and unlock the battery on to the bike will be sufficient, only to find that criminals have found a way to remove them without one. Security is often a cat and mouse game which takes time for changes and responses to be made in order for vulnerabilities to be addressed. However, even when this occurs, double locks etc., will still be good additions to help deter offenders.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=608 Mon, 03 Oct 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=607 A key aspect in preventing persistent offenders from re-offending is the idea of “seemingly unimportant decisions”. These are choices that non-offenders can make without the risk of consequence, which would likely result in an offender with a history of behaving in a certain way re-offending. For example, most people can go to a bar or pub and watch a sports match without becoming physically violent, however someone who has a propensity to become violent in emotionally charged situations, is more likely to react and respond badly in such an environment e.g., if someone accidentally knocks into them as they are cheering on a team, in that emotionally charged moment, they may interpret the action as a threat/challenge, and so respond violently. However, we all make seemingly unimportant decisions that can result in ourselves being exposed to threats and danger. In this article I want to look at why we are sometimes blind to the inherent risks in decisions we make. This links to the article I wrote, on Richard Felson’s “Potato Chip Principle”; the idea that you may only think you are going to have one potato chip, but in fact eating one leads to eating another, which leads to another, and so on etc. In this article I want to look at why we initially make these seemingly unimportant decisions, knowing that they may lead to others, that eventually put us in danger.                Human beings like to work with heuristics i.e., simple rules of thumb, that help us make quick and speedy decisions. A heuristic allows us to quickly evaluate a situation, without having to engage in a detailed deliberation process, which can be a good thing e.g., you pick up on someone’s fast moving footsteps behind you as you are walking, and you quickly start to quicken your pace. You haven’t engaged in a full-on and detailed threat analysis, weighing up all the possibilities etc., but you have used a rule of thumb that states, someone who is moving fast behind you is a potential threat to your safety. However, our heuristics aren’t perfect, as our most dramatic and accessible memories affect them e.g., if you recently saw a documentary on shark attacks, and are going to the beach – one that does not meet the general conditions for shark attacks – it is likely that you will overestimate the risk of a shark attacking you if you go in the water. In some ways this is good, in that it is making you consider the possibility of a danger, but in another way, it is not, because it is taking away some of your enjoyment of being at the beach. One heuristic that works in the opposite direction, potentially putting us at more risk is the fact that we associate important decisions with difficulty, and easy decisions as being largely inconsequential. If you are looking for a new job, have attended a number of interviews, and are considering a number/variety of job offers, you will probably see your selection of the “right” job as an important decision, and unless there is a very obvious choice – higher salary, shorter commute time, more flexible work schedule etc. – you will probably engage in more complex decision-making process. Conversely, if reaching a decision, over something seems difficult, the inference is often that it is important and significant, when this may not actually be the case e.g., I have been in group situations, where choosing where to eat became a very complex decision to reach and took on an importance that the eventual outcome really didn’t deserve. In the same way, we may inherently associate simple choices as being unimportant ones. If a friend calls you up and invites you out for a drink on a Saturday afternoon when you’re not doing anything, it’s a fairly simple decision that you have to make, and one that you probably don’t see as an important or consequential one. However, this may not be the case e.g., you may not have considered that it’s a match day, with a rival team and its fans which have a history of violence, visiting your town/city,.                When making decisions and considering risk, the simplicity or difficulty of the decision-making process, should not blind us to the potential consequences and importance of the outcome. Seemingly unimportant decisions, that are easy to make, may have major consequences and put us in danger. Video footage of the 2004 Tsunami, that hit Thailand, captured crowds of tourists on the beach at Panang, laughing and continuing with their beach holiday as the waves started to come in. Whilst some had left the beach when the sea initially receded, many hadn’t. It was a simple choice people had to make, leave the beach, or continue with their vacation etc. Some people though engaged in more deliberation and left. Some may have decided that an unknown and unexpected phenomenon was likely to signal danger; this is an example of an “anchoring” heuristic, whereby we use something we know to judge how different or similar something is e.g., a beach setting, should have a predictable shoreline, not one that suddenly recedes beyond sight. Other people may have engaged in a more complex set of decision making and worked out that if all the water had moved away, it was going to come back at some point, and it might do this all at once. The decision to continue with a day at the beach may have seemed unimportant but it was one that had serious and deadly consequences.                I am not suggesting that we spend our time “overthinking” things, and/or imagine and construct unlikely scenarios. However, sometimes it is worth hesitating over what seems like a simple decision, rather than infer from its lack of complexity that it is unimportant and lacks consequences. Neither should we, due to social anxiety and awkwardness etc., feel that once an initial decision has been reached, we can’t reverse it.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=607 Mon, 26 Sep 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=606 Between 1978 and 1995, Ted Kaczynski sent universities, and airlines sixteen parcel bombs, which resulted in three deaths and injured twenty-three others. He saw violence as the only way to bring down a techno-industrial society, which he believed was destroying the planet. Because of his media profile, and the message behind his terrorism, which was unique, in an era where terrorist acts tended to directly address specific issues, it would be easy to quickly dismiss him as a one-off. However, on Tuesday evening (September 13th, 2022), a pressurized device was sent to a Northeastern University (Boston, Massachusetts) building (Holmes House), where a virtual reality (VR) program is located. The device when it detonated, caused minor injuries to an employee.  An accompanying note was found railing against VR, and Facebook. Although not well reported/covered by the media, there has not been a gap of over twenty-five years, in terrorism that is motivated by a fear and hatred of technology e.g., in August 2011, a parcel bomb was sent to two nano-technology researchers, who worked in a university, in Mexico City, by a group who referred to themselves as “Individualidades Tendiendo a lo Salvaje” (Individuals Towards the Savage/Wild – ITS). Like Kaczynski they had written a manifesto – which they published online – attacking technology. Similar attempted bombings have taken place in Switzerland (2010), where a group (the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front) tried to bomb IBM’s nano lab. The purpose of this article is not to examine eco-terrorism (though it is worth reminding ourselves that such groups exist), but to examine the threat/danger of parcel/package bombs and devices e.g., who sends them, why they choose this form of attack, and how to recognize such packages etc.                Parcel bombs have the benefit of remotely targeting specific individuals, as they can be addressed to a person or group. A bomb that is placed in a building, may target a specific individual or group of individuals, but may end up harming others, and missing those it was actually intended for, if they don’t happen to be there at the time of the explosion e.g., on 8th November 1939, Adolf Hitler, finished a speech he was making at a Munich beer hall early, in order to return to Berlin. Just 13 minutes later a bomb that was intended to assassinate him exploded, resulting in eight casualties, in the area where Hitler would have been standing. Parcel bombs are usually detonated when opened, so as long as it is the individual being targeted who opens the package, then their presence is guaranteed. In the case of the Northeastern parcel bomb, the bomber may not have had a specific individual in mind, but rather anyone who was associated with the virtual reality program would suffice as a target. Using the mail system, also means that bombs can potentially be sent from great distances i.e., the bomber does not have to travel or be local to the target they have selected. This can also mean a reduced chance of detection. If the package weighs less than a pound (just under half a kilo), it doesn’t have to be weighed at a post office, and can simply be stamped, and left i.e., there is no formal record of the transaction reducing the chance of a bomber being caught. This also affords an opportunity for detection, as it is likely that the bomber will use excessive postage/stamps on what will be a relatively small package. One other way that many bombers limit detection is by destroying the tools that they used to make the bomb(s), which limits forensic identification, should a parcel be traced back to a specific individual. This makes identifying a terrorist who sends bombs through the post extremely difficult e.g., they will not be caught on CCTV footage at the site of the attack, have travel documents (tickets, GPS records) that link them to the locale, or much forensic evidence to link them to their crimes. This is one of the reasons that it took over seventeen years to identify Ted Kaczynski as the Unabomber – and then it was down to a family member who identified some of his idiosyncratic speech and ideas, contained in his manifesto that was published in the Washington Post as his demand to stop his bombing campaign i.e., he wasn’t initially identified by linkage to the bombings. Most of the packages and parcels I receive, I’m expecting e.g., I can go to my Amazon orders and see what is expected that day. Obviously, for large organizations this is less predictable, however unexpected packages should be treated with caution – especially those that are lacking a return address (or have a return address that looks suspicious), and/or have excessive postage etc. If there are instructions that state who should specifically open it e.g., “only to be opened by…”, this should be taken as a warning sign. Another warning sign is excessively secure packaging; if this is an explosive device being sent through the mail, the bomber wants to eliminate/reduce the risk of it going off prematurely. This may see the individual using some form of packaging paper and string to encase the box, the bomb is contained in, and writing on the outside things such as “handle with care” (they may also write instructions such as “Do not X-ray” – to limit detection of the contents of the package; using some form of X-ray machine is how most parcel bombs are initially identified by those responsible for their disposal)  and instructions, “such as this way up” – an instruction that they may also be giving to the person opening the parcel, to ensure that their actions of opening the package trigger the explosion and/or result in them receiving the maximal blast etc.       Whilst receiving a parcel bomb is highly unlikely for most of us, there have been random cases of individuals, with little in common, being targeted e.g., in 2018, parcel bombs were sent to a number of individuals in Austin, Texas, with no obvious motive – the suspect, 23-year old, Anthony Conditt, committed suicide (by blowing himself up, when pulled over by the police), and left no record as to his motives. We should also recognize that there are individuals like Kaczynski and the Northeastern “Bomber”, who targeted individuals who worked in the technology field, an area that we wouldn’t naturally think of as one that would be targeted by terrorists. As with all security precautions, if something looks suspicious, it should be treated as being suspicious, even if that is something as ordinary as our mail.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=606 Mon, 19 Sep 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=605 In both of my Master’s degrees (Psychology and Criminology) there was a common essay question; was behavior – in Criminology, offending - a result of nature or nurture? With crime in general, there really can be no direct linkage, as what is defined as a crime, is something that is socially constructed, and subject to change e.g., at one time crystal meth was legal in the US, and recently cannabis in many states has been decriminalized etc. However, if we get more specific, and ask a question about a particular behavior, such as aggression, that leads to violent offending, then we have a relevant discussion point i.e., are people born with a certain level of aggression that is “hard-wired”, or do they develop their level(s) of aggression based on their experiences, and interactions with the environment? Although, Criminology rarely touches upon an idea of “morality”, the same question could be re-phrased to ask, “are some people just born bad?” Though, it is far beyond the scope of a blog article to fully answer such questions, I want to present the arguments of two opposing schools of thought (Ethology and Behaviorism) concerning this question of aggression/violence being the result of nature or nurture, in order to better understand the roots of such behaviors.                An Ethologist such as Konrad Lorenz, who in 1973 was jointly awarded the Nobel prize in “Physiology or Medicine” (along with two other prominent ethologists Niko Tinberg and Karl von Frisch), makes the argument, that human behavior is inherent e.g., a stimulus elicits an inbuilt response; a fixed action pattern (FAP), that is sometimes referred to as an “instinctive movement”. Lorenz and Tinberg believed that these FAPs gave animals, including humans an evolutionary advantage, as they were born already knowing how to respond to a threat or danger, without having to learn by trial and error e.g., a rat is born already knowing that the scent/smell of a cat signals danger – a 2001 experiment saw lab rats when exposed to a cat odor, spend 87% of their time in a “hide box” (a place of safety) during a 20-minute exposure, compared to 20% with a neutral odor. From an ethological perspective the fixed action pattern of a rat would be to hide, when exposed to the scent of a cat. Behavioral Psychology (started by John Watson at the start of the 20th Century) would make a different argument, stating that all behaviors are learned from the environment, and that there is no distinction between animal and human behaviors e.g., human behaviors could be inferred from animal ones; if a rat responds to a stimulus in a certain way, such as being exposed to a predator, then a human would have the same response. Behaviorism gave us the idea of “tabula rasa”, the idea that we are born with a “blank slate” that our behaviors are written on, as we learn them from our interactions with the environments, such as copying and imitating the actions of others when we see them respond in a certain way to certain stimuli e.g., we see someone recoil away from a snake, and so we learn that the snake is dangerous etc. Another big difference between these two schools (Behaviorism and Ethology), is the importance of context. Ethologists believe that the only way you can study behavior is in the environment where it is experienced e.g., a rat in a laboratory setting may behave differently to a rat in its natural environment. For Behaviorists, such as Watson, context was not so important. As with most things both schools of thoughts got some things right and some things wrong. Monkeys and Apes have to learn how to look after their young, they are not born with the innate ability to do so. This is one of the reasons why there are so many parenting books, and why so many new parents buy them i.e., they understand that they don’t actually know what to do. It’s also the reason why the parents of new parents offer to help; there is an understanding that parenting is not a natural thing. This is also seen in the wild; monkeys and apes, with siblings that have had young, make better parents of their own babies because they have already seen how to be a parent. However, we don’t learn things at the same speed. We learn to be afraid of snakes at a far quicker rate than we might learn to be afraid of a puppy, and if at some point in our lives we are scared by puppies, we are much more likely to lose that fear (fear extinction), than we would our fear of snakes. It would seem that we have a degree of “prepared learning”, when it comes to creatures such as snakes and spiders etc. We aren’t instinctively scared of them, but their shapes, colors, patterns/markings, and movement make us more wary of them than other creatures. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. If we had a hard-wired fear of snakes, and snakes evolved to somehow be different, then our fear would no longer be applicable, however the threat/danger would still remain. By having this prepared learning, we could adapt to “new” snake, as its evolutionary changes would be small enough that we could still identify it as a potential threat/danger. Rather than try to make nature versus nurture a binary argument, it is better to look at how the two interact together to produce behavioral responses to stimuli. There is certainly evidence that nature has an effect e.g., certain dog breeds are bred for aggression etc. However, at the same time “aggressive” dog breeds don’t always produce aggressive dogs – only a very small number of pitbulls, ever develop the levels of aggression for dogfighting, and their aggression can be unlearnt when rehabilitated. Not every child who grows up in a violent household or neighborhood, will become a violent offender, and equally there are those who grow up in middle class, loving and stable environments, with every advantage who go on to commit the most heinous crimes. We are certainly not blank slates, but neither are we hard-wired automatons.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=605 Mon, 12 Sep 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=604 Several large companies/agencies/organizations announced this month that they expect workers to return to the office full time. This has meant that many employees are evaluating the work environment in ways that before they had just accepted e.g., in-person collaboration had always seemed the only way to get projects completed, but during the pandemic it was shown that many of these things could be accomplished remotely/virtually and/or with limited face-to-face meetings. Another aspect of office life which is being considered in a way that it perhaps wasn’t before, is safety. For many people their “activity spaces” shrunk during the pandemic e.g., people restricted the places they went to for their leisure and social activities, which has meant that now they may be reevaluating these spaces from a personal safety perspective. When we get used to being in a location, that doesn't result in us getting harmed, familiarity tends to result in complacency as regards safety. However, as we look to return back to these places after an absence, the lack of familiarity may cause us to consider whether it is actually safe or not. The recent spate in mass shootings has led to many employees thinking about their safety in the workplace, and how returning to the office, instead of working from home/remotely may compromise this. Although workplace shootings are not a common occurrence, when they do occur it is often because many apparent warning signs have been either missed, dismissed, or discounted. In this article I want to look at some of the common signals that can be used to identify an employee/co-worker who may be at risk of becoming violent in the workplace.                Workplace killer, Joseph, T. Wesbecker, was an “Injustice Collector”; a term coined by retired FBI profiler, Mary Ellen O’Toole. Injustice collectors are individuals who never forget, never forgive, never let go, and engage in violence against those who they perceive as responsible for the unfair acts and behaviors committed against them. Most of us, who have siblings, have had the experience of a brother and/or sister mentioning something from childhood – that we’ve forgotten – where we treated them unfairly or badly. When this happens our normal response is one of surprise, and bewilderment that after all these years the incident is still significant to them. When we look back on the injustice that they are referring to, we probably think of it as something that is irrelevant, insignificant or that it has been misremembered etc., however to the other person the event was a major and important one. More importantly, it is one they have attached meaning to. There are individuals who attach significance and meaning to every interaction they have e.g., if somebody forgets to say thank you, or they don’t hear it being said, it’s taken as a deliberate slight etc. If they aren’t complimented on every piece of work they do, then their manager must not like them. Each injustice is collected, and an overall narrative created. Joseph, T. Wesbecker, became convinced that he was being treated differently to his co-workers. He believed he was being singled out by his supervisors, and he eventually came to believe that the only way he could rectify these injustices was to engage in a shooting spree against them. He started on the top floor, where management were located (those who he believed had committed the most significant injustices against him), and then worked his way down to the printing press floor, where he eventually killed himself – of all the different types of rampage killers, those who do their killing in the workplace have the highest success rate of suicide; even higher than suicide terrorists. Whilst, we have all experienced injustices against us – whether deliberate or inadvertent – most of us get over them. However, a few develop a victim narrative, where they come to believe that the world is conspiring against them. Insignificant events become meaningful, and the benign actions and behaviors of others become deliberate and conspiratorial. This doesn’t mean that all individuals who see the world in this way go on to commit violent acts, but coupled with other behaviors etc., it becomes a warning sign.                Injustice collectors, identify with other injustice collectors, and when those they identify with are those who have engaged in violence, such as mass shootings, then this is a significant red flag. Wesbecker, talked about Pat Sherrill as being a hero. Sherrill had committed the 1986 mass shooting, at his workplace in Edmond Oklahoma, in 1986, three years previously to Wesbecker’s shooting spree. Like Wesbecker he was an injustice collector whose rampage was triggered by a disciplinary meeting with his supervisors. This is another characteristic of workplace shootings i.e., there is normally an identifiable triggering event that prompts the killing spree. This is something that those in Human Resources should take note off e.g., it is better to do a disciplinary hearing or a firing on a Friday afternoon, rather than mid-week. This gives the person who has been fired or disciplined the weekend over which to “cool off”, rather than possibly reacting emotionally by coming in the next day with a weapon etc. For an injustice collector, a disciplinary hearing may be the culminating event in a string of injustices that convinces them that the only option left is a violent one. It is also worth those involved in the hiring and firing processes of employees looking for signs of a potential injustice collector at the interview stage; most injustice collectors are more than happy, when prompted, to tell of the unfair ways they were treated in their last job/position. Whilst the ability to do the advertised job is an important factor of any interview, so is ensuring the safety of existing employees.                When predicting risk, it is important not to rely solely on one factor, such as whether an individual is an injustice collector, but rather to look at how different elements that signify danger cluster together e.g., does the person with a sense of injustice, also identify with individuals who have committed violent acts, do they have permanent exclusion narratives (something you can read about my previously published article “Permanent Exclusion Narratives” by clicking here) etc. It is when these things come together that the risk of violence increases. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=604 Mon, 05 Sep 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=603 The problem with labels, is that they don’t always fit exactly. After the Columbine school shooting there was a lot of debate and discussion as to whether Klebold and Harris had been bullied – and there was a reluctance to cast them in the role of the “victim” because although this wouldn’t have excused them of their violence, it would have opened the way for a simplistic argument to be made, that their actions were somewhat justified. Whether Klebold and Harris were bullied – in the true and complete sense of the world – is unclear, however what is evident, is that their social lives were lived on the fringe of the larger school community. It is also unclear as to what initiated this social exclusion; did they remove themselves, did others actively exclude them, or was it a mixture of the two and to what degree etc.? When we are attempting to identify risk factors and warning signs of future violent acts, behaviors rather than labels are better indicators and predictors. In this article I want to look at some of the conditions and thought patterns that lead to violent fantasies. This doesn’t mean that everyone who thinks about acting out violently will, but this is the starting point for those who do. All violent acts start with a rewarding fantasy whether that is a street robbery or a mass shooting and/or killing spree. Some people become surprised and shocked at some stage of their violent illusions, and pull away, whilst others lean into them, and begin feeding them – until they get to a point where they have put themselves in a position where they have no choice but to act upon them. A common theme in many acts of predatory violence i.e., that which is premeditated and planned, is the existence of a permanent exclusion narrative. If you grow up in a deprived environment, where there is a lack of resources, such as good educational facilities, a lack of employment opportunities etc. you may conclude that you will never have the opportunity to better your situation by legal means i.e., you have been permanently excluded from having a good job, a nice house, and a decent car etc., and as such you may turn to illegal means to achieve these things. This idea is at the heart of Merton’s Strain Theory. However, Merton was researching and writing in the 1950’s, looking at crime and violence from a largely capitalistic/economic and structural perspective. He wasn’t so much concerned with a broad array of different “social” strains, that weren’t societal at the macro-level. Robert Agnew, several decades later extended the idea of “strain” to include, anything which created personal strain/trauma e.g., a person may act out violently after experiencing the death of a parent/guardian etc. However, one type of strain that is a stable predictor of violence, especially that which targets a group, and/or a larger unfamiliar population – such as with mass shootings/killings – is the development of a permanent exclusion narrative i.e., the belief that we will never be accepted, as ourselves, into a larger community, in which we want to belong. There are those who don’t want to fit into “normal” society such as those that belong to outlaw biker gangs; however, they do want to be accepted by these groups. Individuals who feel and believe that they will never be accepted by any larger group, may then start to think about retaliation, which could include either or both suicidal and homicidal ideation. Often this retaliatory fantasy will fixate and focus on a small group. Possibly a group of individuals that the wider community respect and promote e.g., at Columbine High School in Colorado both the school and the wider community were somewhat fixated on the school’s football team. It could have been that initially this group became the focus of the fantasy. However, such fantasies often grow and come to include a much wider and broader group, such as everyone, including staff and students who had an association with the high school. Often this “rage” and “injustice” will spread to include anyone who may be deemed complicit in the exclusion. In certain instances, an institution such as a school, workplace, or restaurant/bar/club/bar, may come to represent the exclusion, and so itself becomes the target. It is important to note that exclusion from a group/community may occur not because a group actively, or even tacitly, refuses to engage with an individual(s) e.g., there is a belief that the serial killer, Colin Ireland, lacked the requisite social skills to be part of the gay community in London, and this was part of his motivation for targeting gay men. It is also possible because he identified himself as being heterosexual, that he was in a state of turmoil regarding his sexuality, wanting to come out and be active in the London gay scene, but unable to reconcile himself with that. Ultimately, we are unlikely to ever find out whether this is the case or not, however we should understand that exclusion isn’t always a deliberate or active act. Permanent exclusion narratives develop over time, and those who identify as being permanently socially excluded i.e., never being accepted, choose to use violence as a response whether that is to themselves and/or others. Human beings are social creatures, and the conclusion/realization that isolation is a permanent thing can become too much for individuals to bear. Solitary confinement is often used as an extreme punishment within the penal system, however those subjected to it understand that it is usually a temporary affair. Even so, being socially isolated in this way increases the risk of suicide either during confinement, or afterwards, significantly. It is easy to forget that lack of inclusion (when it is actively done) is a part of bullying, because it’s the absence of something unlike physical and verbal bullying, however it is perhaps one of the most severe forms of bullying, especially when it results in a permanent exclusion narrative.                https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=603 Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=602 If someone were to attack you, completely by surprise (no warning at all), with a knife, slashing at your face what would you do? Hopefully, your startle reflex, would be activated by the motion and your arm would find itself moving to protect your face – if you’re a Krav Maga practitioner and you think that in that moment, you would make a simultaneous punch at the same time, you may be surprised if this doesn’t happen – remember this attack was a complete ambush and surprise. You may be fortunate enough to connect with your attacker’s arm, and not get cut, but they will already be starting to recoil their weapon in order to make their next attack; knife attacks are generally repetitive affairs, and although they may start with large movements, these will soon start to shrink, partly due to the way body movements naturally begin to get smaller under the effects of adrenaline, and partly due to the attacker closing distance etc. What happens next is crucial. Does your fight/flight response kick in, and you start to quickly engage or disengage, or do you freeze? Hopefully your time training, starts to pay you back and you move to action, whether that is defending yourself and starting to fight back, or managing to disengage and run – perhaps scanning for improvised weapons as you do so. However, you may freeze in this moment, taking longer for you to react and respond. In this article I want to look at why we sometimes freeze when confronted with a threat and consider some ways to reduce the risk of this happening. A long time ago a student asked me in class, why I was always so “pessimistic” about the outcomes of techniques i.e., I always train the failure points of any solution I teach, and how to adapt and move on if/when this happens etc. The reason I do this is because I’ve experienced and seen enough real-world violence to know that failures happen – even to the best and most experienced individuals – and we should not be so confident and optimistic in what we have been, and our own abilities, to recognize that in a dynamic, fast-moving altercation, we are probably going to perform sub-optimally and feel pressurized by our attacker. From my own experiences I have always found that you run out of time and space very quickly; two things that we often have when training. This is why I believe there are benefits to training from a position where you have frozen – and directly training methods to help prevent this from happening. To understand why we freeze, we need to look at our psychological and physiological responses to threats. In the scenario presented at the start of this article, with somebody making a slash that stimulates your flinch/startle reflex, your body has not become adrenalized – this process, unlike the startle reflex is not instantaneous, and takes some time. Our nervous system has two systems, one for heightening and increasing our ability to physically defend ourselves (the autonomic nervous system – ANS), and one for decreasing our heightened state, and bringing us back to “normal” – the parasympathetic nervous system. The ANS prepares us for fight or flight, whilst the PNS deals with the effects of our heightened emotional state once the danger has passed, and we can relax again. Sometimes though when a threat is detected, both systems are activated, and there may be times when the PNS dominates the ANS, and parasympathetic dominance occurs. When this happens, we freeze. Part of the reason we have this response is the coevolution that we’ve experienced as being both predator and prey animals e.g., freezing, or “crouching” as it was originally called, where we engage in a complete absence of movement, was/is a good response when dealing with predatory animals who rely on movement to identify their prey. This is one of the reasons why we shouldn’t see freezing as a “passive” response to a threat, it is in fact an active one. The other reason it is believed we sometimes freeze, is for observation purposes, so that we can get a better understanding of the danger we face. The problem is we rarely train from a position of being frozen, and so don’t have an emotional/physical reference point to work from – we’re not understanding the purpose of freezing in that moment, and that it should be a very temporary state for us e.g., we might bring our arm up to defend the initial slashes and freeze as we do so, but we should in that moment be gathering information, and starting to move. Historically, in our evolutionary past, when we spent a much larger part of our existence as prey creatures, we would have been better at understanding, the “next steps” that needed to be taken when we would freeze – and have been better at making the linkage between situations where staying still and observing were more effective solutions than fighting or running, along with when it would be time to move from that freeze state. In many senses we have the tools – fight, flight, and freeze – to deal with danger, and these are by-and-large, effectively triggered (from a species, if not always individual perspective), but as live safer and safer lives, we have lost touch with them. One of the simplest ways I’ve been taught to respond and react from a frozen state, is to have a student stand with their eyes closed (the target), and have another student (the attacker) assume an “attack” position e.g., to stand as if they are about to make an icepick style attack, arm up, knife pointing down towards the target etc. the instructor can then shout “eyes open!”. There is a moment of hesitation, to allow the target a moment of observation (training them what to do in the freeze state), and then the attack itself continues, with the target responding. When training to respond from the freeze state, the experience must be non-traumatic and low stress. The reason for this is that many studies have shown that people who have a greater experience of traumatic and stressful events tend to freeze more when threatened/attacked, rather than less. The freeze response shouldn’t be viewed as a bad thing, as it is an active rather than a passive response to threats and dangers. Instead, we should recognize its purpose e.g., mass shooters’ attention may be drawn to movement, and so in the initial moments of a killing rampage, freezing may well be a good response, as we observe and work out where the shots are coming from (meaning we can now move away rather than towards the killer) i.e., we still have predators who hunt by movement etc. Importantly we should also train from the position of being frozen, so that we can learn to take advantage of the moment and use it as a strength. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=602 Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=601 Fortunately, society and law-enforcement have come a long way from the days, when the first question that was asked of those who had been raped/sexually assaulted was, “what were you wearing?” However, there is still a long way to go in changing attitudes around victim blaming, and that includes implicit blaming, that is contained in statements such as, “that would never happen to me,” in response to hearing about someone who was sexually assaulted. In this article I want to look at some of the reasons and theories as to why we sometimes find ourselves holding people somewhat responsible and/or to blame when they have become a victim of crime, whether that’s a sexual assault, or a property crime such as a burglary, or car theft etc. I also want to conclude by suggesting that using a risk-perspective, we can take a more clinical and less-judgmental appraisal of those who are victimized. The psychologist Melvin J. Lerner puts forward a “Just World” theory to explain why some people tend to blame victims for the crimes that are committed against them or make them in some way responsible for them. The “Just World” theory suggests that many people see outcomes, good or bad, as directly related to a person’s actions e.g., if you go on a diet, start exercising, and as a result lose some weight and start getting fit, you deserve those outcomes as they directly relate to the effort you put in to achieve them. Working off of the same “logic”, if you go out and get drunk, accept a ride home from someone you’ve just met, and get raped, then just as you deserved the positive outcome(s) that came from dieting and exercising, you deserved to be sexually assaulted i.e., the outcomes are a result of your poor decisions. In a “Just World”, outcomes are a result of either good or bad decision-making, and the only person who is responsible for those decisions is you. It is worth noting why this logic is “false”. When we cross paths with a motivated offender, we are dealing with an external threat/factor that we are not in control of, when we decide to get fit, lose weight, improve our education, get a better job etc., these decisions are largely internal ones that we have control over. We can never be responsible for, or to blame for someone else’s harmful intent towards us, in the same way that we can be responsible for our own health etc. The logic of the “Just World”, only stands up when we employ very rigid thinking processes, which judge every decision and outcome to be equal. Another theory that looks to explain why we may be sometimes sympathetic to a victim, and other times not, is “Defensive Attribution”, a type of attribution error. We make attribution errors when we blame our mistakes on external factors, and other people’s errors and shortcomings on internal factors e.g., when we cut in on a line, it’s because it wasn’t clear that a queue had formed (external), when other people do so it’s because they’re rude and entitled (internal). An example of “Defensive Attribution”, would be where a middle aged, employed, and middle class, man heard about someone like them – their age, social position, and class – who had been robbed, and because that person was similar to them in many ways felt a degree of sympathy for the victim. However, they may then hear of a younger, unemployed man who lives in a socially deprived area having had the same offense committed against them and feel very little sympathy, even going so far as to suggest that this type of behavior is part of the society and culture they belong to, and even if it’s something that shouldn’t happen, it’s something they should expect etc. This younger individual is part of an out-group, and not a member of their in-group. Perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of such an attitude is that it suggests that some people because of their socio-economic background don’t experience trauma in the same way as everyone else. There may also be an inherent/underlying viewpoint that certain people aren’t even “entitled” to feel and experience trauma after being subjected to a violent event. The media – who sells its services to the middle classes – often goes at length to highlight the level of fear, unjustness, and sense of violation that a middle-class homeowner experienced during a home invasion, whilst not reporting on those that happen in more deprived areas and/or showing much interest in the effects that the offense had upon the residents of that home.  Although both theories – “Just World” and “Defensive Attribution” - may seem to want to paint people in a negative way, I don’t think that is either’s goal/point, or that they actually do. As human beings we have certain inherent behaviors and leanings. If we are successful, we are likely to attribute that to our own decisions and efforts, with any failings or shortcomings we experience being down to external factors – this is one of our coping mechanisms that allows us to keep believing in ourselves when things keep going wrong. It’s part of who we are. Both theories just recognize that we have these ways of thinking. Personally, I want to believe that there are things we can do, steps and actions, we can take to improve our safety, and I don’t think it’s necessary to make the argument that those who didn’t take these actions were in some way responsible or to blame for being victimized. From a risk perspective there are assets, threats, and vulnerabilities. Threat actors are those individuals (sometimes groups/organizations) that take advantage of our – the assets – vulnerabilities. If I have too much to drink and am mugged on my way home from a night out, I am not to blame; a threat actor exploited a vulnerability of mine e.g., I wasn’t as aware as I would have been, had I been sober etc. When we take the view that those who have been victimized, have had a threat exploit a vulnerability of theirs, we can take the judgement out of the equation, and see clearly where the blame resides: with the threat actor.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=601 Mon, 15 Aug 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=600 There are no secret techniques. The martial arts do not contain secret killing techniques that only they know. It’s a myth at best, and a lie at worst. To believe that either modern or ancient martial arts have found ways unknown to science, to kill a person is completely ludicrous. That some grand master, or grand wizard etc., has a greater understanding of the way(s) in which the human body operates, than modern science is so far-fetched that it is unbelievable, and yet I still hear instructors talk about the “secret killing techniques” that exist in their system, that are so “deadly” that only a small handful of dedicated and responsible instructors can be shown them. If I was ever to compare martial arts organizations and associations to religious cults, this idea of “higher” and “secret” learning might be one of my core arguments i.e., the holding back of knowledge from the disciple until they have shown their commitment to the organization etc. The attraction of secret “killing” techniques is an obvious one. It gives a person powerful knowledge that only they and a few others share; it makes them somewhat unique. I am sure that those who “have” such knowledge will make the argument, that I am either jealous because I don’t possess it, or am simply ignorant because I don’t know, what I don’t know etc. However, this argument that certain systems have found otherwise unknown ways to end a life lacks credibility. I also find it hard to believe that any system has found a “new” method to apply a scientifically proven way of ending a life e.g., a new way of applying a choke or strangulation, that hasn’t been discovered before etc. In this article I want to look at why the argument for the existence of secret, including secret killing techniques, is still in existence, why people want to believe in these things, and how such claims reduce the credibility of martial arts and self-defense systems, on the whole. I have always made the argument that “advanced” is just the basics done better. An art like boxing is a great example of this i.e., boxers don’t learn more techniques, they get better at applying the ones they know. They improve their head movement, their footwork, and a small repertoire of punches etc. I’ve never heard of a trainer, tell a fighter, that now they have been training for ten years, they’ll be shown a “secret” punch that they’ve been holding back to teach them until now. The boxer knows that to get better there are no shortcuts. In order to get better they have to put the time in developing and building their skills. Part of their training may be hard, tiring, uncomfortable and painful etc., but that’s what you need to do in order to get better. There will be times that they fail, that they doubt themselves and question whether they’ll ever improve. That’s part of the journey, and that’s what makes improvement rewarding. However, there are those who want the rewards, without the work, without the knocks to the ego, without having to experience failure. For such people “techniques” become everything. If you can learn a few “tricks”, you don’t need to put in the same amount of work, because the technique will make up for a lack of fighting ability. There is nothing faster than the speed of light, except perhaps the speed at which Krav Maga practitioners and instructors, comment on the videos that other Krav Maga practitioners and instructors put up on social media, claiming the ineffectiveness of the other’s “techniques”. I’ll put it simply: a good fighter, with poor technique, will beat a poor fighter with great techniques. I am not saying that techniques don’t matter but when this becomes the focus of self-defense, credibility is lost. For those who believe that it’s all about techniques, there need to be higher-level techniques, and perhaps even secret techniques; techniques so powerful, that fighting skills and abilities are irrelevant. I have had people refuse to spar – in my younger more egotistical days - with me because their techniques were so dangerous, or the rules wouldn’t allow them to use them. If you don’t know how to move, strike, wrestle/grapple in a dynamic setting I’m not sure that you have the skills to get these amazing – and sometimes secret – techniques to work in a real-life confrontation. Secret techniques are appealing, like magic. There’s a large part of me that would love to believe, that if I could somehow tap into a certain energy I possess, I could shoot fireballs from my hands. That would be cool. I think everybody could agree that that would be cool. I would only use such magical abilities for good – and maybe the odd party trick – so I’d use my powers responsibly. I’d need to find somebody who could teach me how to do this, and it would only be fair to pay them the appropriate amount of money, and I’d accept that I might have to put some time in practicing some other things along the way. I’m a realist, it takes time to shoot fireballs from your palms, you don’t just get there on day one, and the grand wizard who is teaching you how to do these things needs to be sure that you can be trusted, but eventually you’ll be shown how. When martial arts and self-defense practitioners talk about “secret techniques” to non-practitioners, this is how they sound, and this is why many people don’t believe in the effectiveness of self-defense training; it sounds too much like magic. Most people know the difference between real-life violence and that portrayed in the media. They know that violence is a dirty and messy affair and doesn’t take the sanitized and/or sensationalized form that Hollywood portrays. Many may hope that there are tricks and techniques that will give them a fighting edge, but know in their heart that it is about being able to fight – and that involves hard work. To keep selling the message that there are secret techniques just undermines the credibility of every fighting system, and reserves training to those who want to learn how to shoot fire from their hands.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=600 Mon, 08 Aug 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=599 In 1962, the playwright Arthur Miller (Death of a Salesman, The Crucible etc.) wrote an article in Harper’s Magazine, entitled, “The Bored and the Violent”. Violent crimes had been rising in the post-war period, and although part of this may have been due to returning soldiers who had been normalized to aggression and violence, due to their experiences of war (this has been a commonly observed phenomenon post conflicts), it would be hard for such explanations to account for the increase in violent offending during the early 1960’s. Much of the violence, during this period, had become politicized, with many politicians blaming it on rebels, who were espousing a counterculture, to that of 1950’s America. However, Miller made the argument that America’s youth weren’t rebelling against anything in particular, they were just bored; that everything society offered them, from religion to the media and the entertainment industry, simply didn’t interest them. Although, the saying that the Devil finds work for idle hands had long been in existence, Miller’s argument and article was one of the few times, that this idea was expanded and built upon. The common viewpoint at this time was still that crime and violence was linked to poverty, even though the statistics weren’t backing this up (GDP and the standard of living had been increasing steadily after the war), and in fact it would have been in line with Miller’s political thinking and affiliation to support this belief. However, he chose to give a different explanation for the rise in violent offending, one which now has a lot of support, especially amongst those who work with juvenile offenders. In this article I want to take a look at boredom, as a motivating factor in violence. One of the traits of psychopathy is chronic boredom; very little excites psychopaths. It takes a lot for them to get excited. Things that most people get enjoyment from, such as watching a good film, playing sports, reading an interesting book, socializing with friends and family members etc. doesn’t give those with psychopathy the same pleasure; they are in a state of constant restlessness, looking for something that will interest and excite them. This is one of the reasons that they engage in complex lies and acts of deceit; they are trying to fill this void and alleviate their boredom. This is also why some may engage in acts of aggression and violence, getting a thrill from the risks that they take. The other reason boredom is a problem for those with psychopathy is that in idle moments they have time to reflect on who they actually are, and this may cause them – like narcissists – to question the grandiose image of themselves that they have created. In the self-preservation of the “reflection” of themselves, which they adore – and believe others should too – it is better to fill time that could be spent questioning it, with some other activity, possibly one that would help reinforce and support their self-image, such as dominating another person physically, using violence. Whilst those who would be clinically defined as psychopaths, make up a very small percentage of society (possibly less than 1%), there are many people who have some of the symptoms and attributes of the condition – as with many personality disorders. Many people suffer from some for of grandiosity, and elevated self-worth, would not be diagnosed as being psychopaths and narcissists, as they lack some of the other symptoms of the disorder etc. There are also individuals who are easily bored and crave excitement, who would not meet all the criteria of psychopathy. However, by looking at psychopathy we can better understand why/how boredom can be linked to, and result, in violent offending. In Glasgow in the 1950’s and 60’s, there was an initiative to deal with inner city decay and violence. This saw the creation of new housing estates and projects, around the city’s edges. Those who had been living in and near the city’s center were relocated to these. Part of the thinking behind this was to break up some of the established communities that had a history of crime, allowing for these newly created estates, to give people a fresh start. The main issue with this policy was, that although people were being given more modern homes to live in, there was little other infrastructure, such as shops, and places of entertainment. People, especially young people, quickly became bored and started to look for activities that were exciting, most of which were illegal e.g., joyriding, drugs, underage drinking, and violence etc. Some of these activities, such as drug use, brought more violent people into these communities, and led to people using violence to support their habits. Knife crime spiraled, and Glasgow soon became the murder capital of Europe; more people survive gun shot wounds than knife attacks. Many of the initiatives, that saw the successful reduction of this increase in violence revolve around projects that diverted young people’s boredom into legal activities, such as sports leagues etc. It is tempting to think that the increased access to the internet, has created an environment where time can always be filled e.g., with online gaming, and streaming movies and tv shows etc., however not all communities have the same access to these things, and there is a limit to their consumption i.e., people will always have a degree of boredom, and will look for ways to fulfill their time, with violent offending being one of these activities. Boredom, may not always be the main motivating factor, concerning violence, however it may be a much more significant contributing factor than we first think. It may also explain how factors such as poverty contribute to crime e.g., it is not that poverty directly influences crime, but rather that a lack of access to legal activities – that could deal with boredom - either because they are not provided in certain communities or cannot be afforded is really the reason why people offend.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=599 Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=598 Whenever there is a mass shooting/killing, whether it occurs in an educational facility, a workplace or in a public setting such as a shopping mall or at a concert etc. there are those who are quick off the mark to present solutions, such as tightening legislation on gun ownership, investing more in mental health etc., however not all mass shootings and killings are the same, and so a solution that might be appropriate for dealing with one type of violence, may not be effective in preventing another type e.g., raising the legal age for gun ownership, may have an effect in preventing future school shootings, it is unlikely to have much of an impact on workplace shootings, which are predominantly carried out by white, middle-aged men. In this article I am not looking to propose or judge the effectiveness of any potential solutions, as this can sometimes end up being – unintentionally – divisive, but rather look at some of the key differences between different types of active shooter/killer incidents so that we don’t fall into the trap of treating them all as being one and the same. Firstly, even forgetting the settings in which such events take place e.g., workplaces, schools, colleges etc., there are significant and fundamental differences between offenders who commit mass murder, and those who commit mass murder-suicide. One major difference between the two groups is age. Murder-suicide (including “death by cop” i.e., actively looking to be killed by law-enforcement officers) is much more common between those aged 25 and above, than with those who are younger. Therefore, policies that may be aimed at deterrence via the severity of punishment for committing offenses etc., are unlikely to be effective with this older group. Also, from a predictive perspective, whilst murder and suicide do share some common risk factors and predictors, such as an anger at society, groups and/or individuals, suicidal-ideation and murder-ideation are also distinct ways/forms of thinking e.g., there are fewer and less severe signs, and indicators of depression with murder-ideation than there are with suicidal-ideation etc., so whilst depression, along with substance abuse may be some of a number of warning signs with adult mass shooters, this may not be the case to the same degree with younger mass killers etc. When investing more in mental health is proposed as part of the solution to dealing with mass killings, there isn’t a simple cause, or motivation that is shared by all killers, that is easy to identify; and often those, such as family members, who witness actions and behaviors that may be indicators of murder and suicidal-ideation, aren’t always in a position to recognize, what the end result of these may be i.e., a mass killing. Taking a look at the statistics shows that there are stark differences between those who engage in mass killings as murder-suicides, those who do so as terrorists, those who are employees or ex-employees who kill in their workplaces, and those who engage in school shootings. In less than 11% of workplace murder-suicides does the perpetrator leave a note, compared with 67% of terrorists, and 50% of those who engage in mass-killings in educational facilities, such as schools and colleges. This along with the fact that in most workplace shootings (80%), there is an identifiable crisis event, such as being reprimanded by a supervisor (Pat Sherrill, Edmonton Post Office, Oklahoma, 1986) or having an employer garnishing wages on behalf of the IRS (Michael McDermott, Edgewater Technology Shooting, Massachusetts, 2000) etc., suggests that in workplace shootings they are somewhat less planned and more impulsive. Whilst crisis events feature in other types of mass killings they are less of a factor. Workplace shootings also tend to have both fewer fatalities (3.26) than other types of mass killings, such as rampage killings in public settings (5.67), as well as fewer casualties; 5.94 compared to 10.56. It is always worth noting that when looking at the number of fatalities in mass killings, a significant factor concerning who lives and dies, is the speed at which those shot and/or stabbed can get medical assistance. The pulse nightclub shooting, in Florida (2016), resulted in an extremely large number of fatalities (49), partly as a result of the police being involved in a three-and-a-half-hour standoff with the shooter (Omar Mateen). It would be impossible to say how many people might have survived if they had received immediate medical attention for their injuries etc. but it is likely that some people could have survived had this been the case. There is also a category of mass shooting (incident with four or more fatalities, not including the perpetrator), that gets little media attention, but is responsible for a significant number of shootings. Analyzing data (110 incidents) between 2014 and 2019, from the Gun Violence Archive, Geller, and co-authors of the study, found that over two-thirds (68.2%) of all mass shooting incidents were related to domestic violence e.g., either the perpetrator had a history of domestic violence but directed their killing at strangers (9.1%), or they were actively targeting partners and/or family members (59.1%). These types of incidents go largely unreported because those victimized have a relationship with the perpetrator. The media tends to be more interested in focusing on those incidents and events which appear random, and where anybody could potentially be a victim etc. It is also worth noting the link between domestic violence and workplace shootings; many women who escape from abusive relationships are able to keep their new address secret from their ex-partner, however it is much harder and takes longer to change jobs and workplace etc. This means that the abusive partner knows where they can find them, and at what times etc. It would be wrong to look at any solution to active shooter and mass-killer events without considering the role that domestic violence plays. We may have in mind when we think of mass shooting/killings those that may affect us directly, such as those which take place in public spaces that we may visit, or schools and colleges that our children and family members may attend etc. We may not really consider the threat of violence in the workplace, unless we are aware of a co-worker that has made threats, and/or talks admiringly about past shooters/killers etc. However, mass killings, are complex affairs and aren’t homogenous, meaning that preventative solutions will need to be targeted and focused.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=598 Mon, 25 Jul 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=597 Criminals have always built firearms, especially those who perhaps weren’t tapped into criminal fraternities and networks, that would allow them to illegally obtain manufactured weapons. In the 1960’s and 1970’s these were often referred to as “Zip Guns” and would be constructed out of parts from non-working firearms, and/or other mechanical parts, such as car locks that could be used to construct a firing mechanism. Often these improvised weapons were as much a danger to the person pulling the trigger as they were to the person they were pointed at. However, these firearms used to make up a very small percentage of all those used in illegal activities; most were stolen, serialized weapons that had been stolen from homeowners who had licenses for them, and/or gun shops and stores. An even smaller number were stolen from manufactures, before they had a serial number assigned to them. This is beginning to change, and in various parts of the US, PMFs (privately manufactured firearms) are starting to become more prevalent in crime, than company manufactured weapons with a serial number that is federally registered e.g., legally registered firearms that are obtained for illegal activities. This is especially true for certain models of Glocks. These firearms are often referred to as “Ghost Guns” because there is no actual record of them. They have been privately manufactured, legally, whilst missing out on the serialization step, in their manufacture. This means that when one is used in a crime, there is virtually no record of its existence anywhere. In this article I want to look at why these weapons have become more prevalent, and their use in crime likely to keep increasing. For the sake of the article, I am going to refer to these weapons not as “Ghost Guns”, as labels of this nature are often used to create moral panics, and have certain connotations to them, such as those who manufacture them are deliberately doing so for nefarious purposes etc. Instead, I am going to use the accepted term, Privately Manufactured Firearms (PMF) to refer to them. Most PMFs, come from two sources. The largest percentage, around 80% come from kits, that are partially built weapons consisting of the lower receiver, but require the addition of other parts such as the barrel and the slide etc. Another, growing source, is through the 3-D printing of weapon parts that are then assembled. Despite the way the media likes to present the 3-D printing of firearms as a simple and effective process, this at the moment is not the case, and many of these weapons are extremely unreliable when assembled. However, with the speed at which technology is advancing in this area, this is likely to change. The kits used to require some form of knowledge of milling and access to a “shop” with the necessary equipment to perform some simple manufacturing processes etc. However, in recent years the manufacturers of these kits have simplified some of these processes so that anybody with a garage, and a few home-improvement tools would be able to put together a working firearm. This has changed the demographics of those who are purchasing these kits. It used to be that it was mainly individuals who worked in the selling and maintenance of firearms that were building these weapons, whereas as now, almost everybody has the equipment, resources, and access to the knowledge to do so. This allows most people the ability to manufacture an untraceable and non-serialized weapon, with really the only way to identify the weapons owner being the method they used to purchased it, such as a receipt or credit card transaction etc. Whilst these kits have been around for awhile, the demand for them sky-rocketed when the Obama administration announced after the Sandy Hook school shooting, in 2012, that there was going to be a ban on sales of the AR-15 rifle. Rather than simply buying registered weapons, concerned firearm owners, didn’t want to buy licensed weapons that could be traced, in case a ban also involved the confiscation of any previously registered weapons etc. Although no such ban took place, firearm owners started to buy PMF AR-15 kits that they could assemble and own, without having to register them. At that time there were no PMF kits for short-barreled weapons. However, around 2016 this started to change, and Glock PMF kits started to come onto the market. In many ways Glocks are the equivalent of the AK-47, in that they are reliable, and you can interchange parts from one pistol with another, and still have a working firearm – many other handguns have parts that are too individually precise to allow this to happen. This meant that the forgiving nature of the Glock design(s) made it a very suitable weapon for private manufacture. It is estimated by the ATF, that in states such as California there are more non-serialized Glocks than serialized/registered ones. As reliable and well manufactured as these weapons may be, there is always the chance that a criminal who manufacturers their own weapon may not do so to the same standard as a manufacturer e.g., they might not use the same quality of materials, or find themselves missing steps and/or lacking the exact skills needed to make a firearm that is safe to use/fire etc. I have long been an advocate of not looking to use a disarmed weapon “hot” because of the fact that it is not your weapon, and you lack full knowledge about it, and that it is more reliable to use it “cold” as an impact weapon to deliver concussive force and pain to your assailant etc., as you know that as a piece of metal that it should be able to do this. Historically, my reasons for doing so, were because after the firearms ban in the UK took place ammunition became scarce, and you never knew if a disarmed weapon was even loaded etc., but also because legally when you step away, separating yourself and putting distance between you and your assailant, you may now be seen as the aggressor if you level the weapon at them and don’t disengage etc., losing your claim of “innocence” which is needed to support any claim of self-defense. I would, in the light of the prevalence of facing a “ghost gun”, also include doubts concerning the integrity of the weapon e.g., has it been built/constructed correctly, and if not, what could be the potential consequences of pulling the trigger? The fact that anyone – including those who have been banned from owning guns - can make their own untraceable firearm, using an idiot-proof kit, receiving an education/instruction from YouTube, without needing access to machine shop tools etc., means that we are likely to see more of these weapons on our streets. In May of this year, law enforcement in Dorchester, Boston raided a “ghost gun mill” where weapons were being manufactured for sale on the street i.e., to those who were looking to commit crimes with unregistered and untraceable weapons. With the improvements in 3-D printers and printing this technology is only going to get better at producing reliable and accurate firearms, which are going to be less traceable and identifiable than those sold in kit form. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=597 Mon, 18 Jul 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=596 I sometimes get asked about violence, and fight scenes in films and tv shows, and whether certain scenes capture/reflect real life violence etc., and/or whether the security tactics that a character uses to evade danger etc., are ever applied in real life etc. When looking at media violence it should be remembered that its goal is for entertainment purposes, and that the director will frame a shot in order to tell a story e.g., they will have the protagonist hold their gun close to their face, in order to communicate to the audience, the intensity of the scene, and that something major is about to happen etc. That said, I was recently introduced to, “The Vantasner Danger Meridian”, in the show, “The Patriot”, which although completely fictional and made up, has some foundation in reality, and was an interesting take on a fallacy that is found in psychology, and the General Aggression Model or GAM. In this article I want to investigate further the workings of the Vantasner Danger Meridian, and see how Hollywood sometimes stumbles upon, or creates something that isn’t entirely without foundation.    In the show, the Vantasner Danger Meridian, is defined as being, “the point or line after which danger to your mission and/or sense of self increases exponentially. Often used to demarcate conditions of grave and approaching danger.” Considering this from a violence perspective, it recognizes that violence occurs along a timeline, and that there is a point along this continuum where the risk of being victimized increases exponentially e.g., a moment of commitment from an aggressor. This can be seen in both premeditated acts of violence (asocial), as well as spontaneous ones. In a premeditated act of violence, which involves a degree/level of planning and/or orchestration in order to achieve a goal, such as engaging in a street robbery to acquire another person’s assets such as a wallet or mobile phone etc., a process is followed, and with the completion of each step, the risk of being victimized increases. The first step a motivated offender takes is that of a “Search” phase i.e., they must choose a location (or recognize the suitability of the one they are in) where they can engage in the search for a potential target to victimize. The next phase is that of victim-selection, where a suitable target is identified. It could be that during the surveillance phase, they are discarded, and the selection process begins again, however if they are confirmed as being suitable, the risk of them being victimized, starts to increase exponentially i.e., the Vantasner Danger Meridian has been reached/pass. If the predatory individual now engages in a synchronization of movements (SOM), and starts to correlate their movement with that of the target, the danger of being involved in a violent incident is almost confirmed e.g., it will be environmental and situational factors that dissuade them from committing to the strike phase, where they directly engage either verbally and/or physically with the person they have selected e.g., a suitable guardian, such as a security officer or law-enforcement officer drives by etc. The General Aggression Model (GAM) – Anderson and Bushman - looks to explain all types of violence, and not just that which is criminal, such as when a law-enforcement officer legitimately uses force, or a country goes to war etc. It recognizes both the characterological factors that are at play, such as a person’s individual propensity to use violence, and the situational inputs that exist in violent incidents, such as a triggering event, like somebody having a drink accidentally spilt over them, and the presence of others who may affect social status etc. The GAM also recognizes that there is often a “Violence Escalation Cycle”, which comprises of sets of interactions between the parties involved, based on the various perspectives that each hold e.g., party A spills a drink over party B, party B shouts at Party A to be more careful and watch themselves etc. Party A believes this is an overreaction and tells Party B that they are being unreasonable and need to calm down etc., Party B, now decides to push Party A, believing this is a justified and reasonable response to being told/ordered to calm down. Party A sees this as a complete overreaction and, unjustified so they push Party B back. In response Party B throws a punch at Party A etc. Somewhere in this escalation, the Vantasner Danger Meridian (that completely fictional “line”) gets crossed. This is somewhere around the point where the Sunk Cost Effect/Fallacy, kicks in for one of the parties. The sunk cost fallacy involves pursuing an inferior alternative because significant but non recoverable resources have been invested. In the case of the aggressive interaction and escalation described above, the inferior alternative is the physical fight; unless one party is clearly physically superior to the other both are likely to get hurt in the exchange, and with society as a whole eschewing violence as a means of demonstrating social superiority the rewards for most people are going to be slim. However, the more emotional and psychological resources each party invests, the likelihood of either walking away is significantly reduced. Most forms of social violence have a tipping point, a point at which someone is unable to back down, and this point can be reached very quickly, which is why aggressive spontaneous/social interactions need to be shutdown quickly. Whilst the Vantasner Danger Meridian, doesn’t actually exist, and was created for comedic effect, it does recognize a very simple truth: that the further a party moves along a timeline, the chances of a violent outcome being reached, increase exponentially. This is why understanding the phases violent offenders must pass through, or the cycles of interactions that emotionally charged persons engage in, is key to avoiding violence. The further you are away from reaching the Vantasner Danger Meridian, the more likely it is that you will avoid being in a physically violent event. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=596 Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=595 There are a number of reasons why offenders choose to commit the crimes they do. Sometimes they are introduced by a peer, or group of peers to a particular type of offending e.g., they are with a group of friends, when one decides they should target an individual they come across for a street robbery etc. When they discover how easy it is to obtain money by these means, they branch out on their own etc. However, they may also be unnerved by the interaction, and realize that they lack the confidence to commit such an offense but at the same time realize that crime does result in financial reward, and so decide to engage in petty theft, and/or stealing automobiles which allows them to commit offenses without having to confront/threaten people, and the potential consequences that might result when doing so e.g., finding out that the person confronted isn’t going to acquiesce to the demands made of them etc. Often, when criminologists look at the reasons as to why people offend, they end to look at the “push” factors e.g., how poverty, lack of legitimate opportunities etc., influence and direct people into offending – someone who grows up in a socially and financially disadvantaged area, with poor schooling, who fails to obtain one of a small number of low-paying service jobs in their locale, begins to sell drugs for a dealer etc. There is often a reluctance to consider the “pull” factors that draw people towards offending, and violence; the thrills that people often get from offending, or the lifestyle that accompanies violent offending, including the respect it generates. In this article I want to look at and consider some of these “pull” factors that draw people towards violent offending. I don’t want to debate whether push factors, are more important than pull factors, or the other way round etc., when looking at offending in general, as this could result in an ecological fallacy, where we incorrectly draw the wrong conclusions about individuals’ motivations based on that of the group as a whole. Jack Katz, coined the phrase, “sneaky thrills”. Katz posited that crime had a seductive element to it, that it could result in sensual rewards such as excitement, even when the focus of the offense was material. His focus was primarily on shoplifting, and that termed by those in loss=prevention as “Amateur” e.g., young people impulsively stealing goods for personal use, that they could possibly afford to buy themselves etc. Such thefts are not motivated by necessity, but are committed for the thrill of it i.e., for emotional reward. In interviewing university students he taught, he found that many had engaged in these types of petty thefts and crimes, and that the phenomena was widespread. He also found that those who had committed such offenses, didn’t identify themselves as “criminals” even though they had clearly committed crimes. This is actually true of many shoplifters, even those that steal on a regular basis for personal consumption (casual shoplifters), or those that steal to sell on their goods to others to generate cash (professional shoplifters). Many people who commit these crimes see them as “victimless” as the target of their offenses is a commercial institution/organization rather than an individual. Violence also has an allure for some. This is clearly evidenced in soccer hooliganism in the UK, where “firms” made up of people from all walks of life and backgrounds – including city bankers, financiers, company directors etc. – regularly meet up for the sole purpose of fighting. The level of organization that these firms/gangs represent is often misunderstood by those whose only exposure to them comes from reading a news headline. All of the leaders of the various firms know each other and are in regular contact with each other. Not only do they schedule showdowns with rival firms, but they will also accept members of rival firms to join them when their team is playing an international game, and they have scheduled a fight with that rival team’s fans. For some members of these groups there may be some push factors, such as peer pressure, but for many it is the simple thrill, adrenaline rush and sensual/emotional rewards that they get from fighting. Whilst many in Katz’s study didn’t see or identify themselves as criminals, there are those that want to be recognized and labelled as such. For some people their identity as a gangster and or “hardman” is central to them – although may city workers who engage in weekend football violence don’t want their co-workers to know how they spend their time, they do want to enjoy the prestige that their violent activities bring them from fellow members of their firm (and potentially others). In certain communities where there are limited opportunities to gain respect, violence is one way that this can be accomplished. One of the things that those in Katz’s studies commonly remarked upon was the thrill of getting away with it, and this is something that many of those who lead “criminal lifestyles” remark upon i.e., that nobody including the police can stop them from committing their offenses. This feeling of out-witting others, and being above and beyond the law etc., doesn’t itself result in material gain(s), however it does bring with it a sensual reward, and for some is a seductive motive that draws them towards a criminal lifestyle. Individuals’ motivations to engage in violent offending are a mix of push and pull factors e.g., youth gangs in the West of Scotland have a history of engaging in recreational violence because of the lack of other ways to “entertain” themselves, however members do enjoy the thrills that come from chasing down a rival gang member they find on their “turf” and the physical exhilaration and sense of power that they get from physically punishing and hurting them. They also get the sense of belonging that comes from acting as part of a group etc. These can be rich rewards when there are few other alternative ways to accomplish these things. When considering violent offending we should recognize that for some people there are sensual rewards that come from their actions, and not look on every party as engaging reluctantly. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=595 Mon, 04 Jul 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=594 Goldstein (1990), concluded that illicit drug use contributed to violence in three ways: psychopharmacologically, economically and systemically. From a psychopharmacological perspective there are certain drugs that cause mood swings, lower inhibitions, and increase aggression etc., which can/may result in violent offending e.g., a person who may not have otherwise engaged in an act of violence, but due to consumption of an illicit drug, reacts violently to a benign threat due to a state of heightened anxiety etc. Illicit drugs also contribute to violence economically; a user may engage in violent street robberies in order to finance their habit. Simply being an illicit drug user, and operating in that environment exposes users to a potentially violent criminal underclass (and system), in terms of mixing with dealers, and other possibly desperate users, who are prepared to use violence to meet their personal needs etc. Several studies have shown that a leading cause of death amongst users of illicit drugs is homicide – some studies have shown that this is more significant than overdoses; this is changing somewhat with drugs such as fentanyl, and synthetic opioids where the risk of overdosing is extremely high (in 2020 synthetic opioids were responsible for 82% of all opioid-involved deaths). Using illicit drugs may increase both the risk of using violence, as well as being violently victimized. In this article I want to examine the first two contributions to violent offending that Goldstein identifies i.e., the psychopharmacological effects of drugs and violence, and the ways in which the economic needs of the user contribute to violence, as these have the potential to affect those who don’t take/use illicit drugs. Before we begin looking at the psychopharmacological effect of illicit drugs and their relationship with violent offending, it is worth noting that there is a much stronger relationship between alcohol, violence, and non-violent crimes. Many non-violent offenders such as burglars use alcohol to lower inhibitions and increase confidence before breaking into a property, and if we look at social violence that may be committed by individuals who otherwise are law-abiding citizens, those incidents largely take place in establishments where drinking is prohibited/encouraged such as bars, pubs, and clubs etc. Alcohol abuse and heavy drinking is also a significant risk-factor, in incidents of Intimate Partner Violence. It can be difficult to determine the exact causal relationship between illicit drug-use and violence, as each individual user may have risk-factors that are unique to them, such as poor social control, a propensity to anger etc., which play a greater part in their violent offending than the drug itself. The lifestyle of those who use illicit drugs is also a significant factor, that can cloud the pharmacological impact that drugs have on violence e.g., recent research is showing a correlation between marijuana use and violent offending; what is not yet apparent is whether marijuana causes aggression at certain dosages or whether offenders who are prone to using violence are starting to use the drug as part of their lifestyle etc. Those psychoactive drugs which do seem to have a causal effect and increase the risk of violence amongst those who may not normally behave aggressively, are stimulants such as amphetamines and cocaine. However, both amphetamines and cocaine are illicit drugs which are often taken recreationally by a large number of people, and so in one sense may be statistically over-represented, and their effects on violence exaggerated. The second reason that illicit drugs may increase the risk of violence, is due to economic reasons i.e., the need to acquire money to buy them. This is going to be less true of recreational users, who may be able to acquire the funds to support their use through legitimate means e.g., the city banker, or finance professional who works legitimately during the week, and buys what they need for the weekend etc. There are of course those violent offenders who engage in robberies and muggings etc., to fund a certain lifestyle, which involves partying and illicit drug use. When we look at the links between street robberies and drugs, it is these individuals who tend to provide the connection rather than the “full-time” addict – these individuals are more likely to engage in property crimes and thefts to support their habit e.g., breaking into homes and raiding the medicine cabinet, or committing crimes such as shoplifting, and stealing from one another etc. To commit a street robbery means having the social skills and confidence to interact with regular members of society, those who have removed themselves from this due to addictions, often have difficulty communicating with those who live regular lives etc. This is not the case with those who live a criminal lifestyle, that involves partying and illicit drug use, as they are used to interacting socially with a greater variety of people. Whilst there is certainly a connection between illicit drug use and violence it is still not clear to what degree various factors play a part e.g., just as not everybody becomes violent when they consume alcohol, the same is true of illicit drug consumption, and it may be that both amplify existing aggressive tendencies and behaviors etc. It could be that certain lifestyles that are inherently violent also involve the use of illicit drugs etc., and this is where we may see a link between marijuana use and violence, and here like all substances potency and level of consumption play a part e.g., not everybody is going to get stoned and/or inebriated to the point where they are incapable of committing an offense.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=594 Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=593 This is the first of two articles looking at how drugs can affect violence. In the first article I share perhaps one of my own experiences of dealing with a pain-resistant assailant on drugs, back in the early 1990’s when I first started working pub/club/bar security, and in the second I will look at drugs and violence in a broader context.   I have seen the effects of PCP (Phencyclidine) on pain tolerance firsthand and understand why one of its street names is “rocket fuel”. Although you do your best to prevent the use of drugs in a club, invariably someone at some point manages to smuggle some in – a lot of times this isn’t a problem, and you’re not aware of the fact that someone is on drugs because the effects are just exaggerated behaviors that can be hard to distinguish from the effects of alcohol. Sometimes though it is very, very clear that someone is under the influence – and control – of something very different to booze. One of the clubs I worked at was a converted theatre, which meant not only did the dance floor have to be covered and managed by security, but each of the two higher levels did as well. Whilst I was on the second level, I saw a scuffle break out between two of the security team, and a skinny man in a football shirt, down on the dance floor  – it turned out that he’d had a top on over this when he first came in, and so it hadn’t been picked up when he tried to gain entry, and now two doormen were trying to evict him from the club (the club had a strict no sports team shirts/insignia etc.). It quickly became clear that they weren’t having an easy time of it, and so I started to make my way down towards the dance floor to assist. By the time I got there, the guy in the football shirt was spinning around like a swirling dervish, lashing out with fists and feet at anyone who came near him. It’s hard to describe, the speed, irrationality, awkwardness, and desperate intent of his movements, as this 5’8”, 160-pound, individual spun around looking to connect with anyone and anything that got in his way. As I started to get closer to the melee it became clear that the first two doormen were getting pretty much nowhere in trying to subdue him and were having to resort to striking/punching in an attempt to deal with the situation (this was something we generally tried to avoid, for a number of reasons, including potential legal claims of having used excessive force etc.). However, despite taking several solid punches, nothing was working; one of these two doormen went on to win a commonwealth title at cruiser weight, so he wasn’t lacking in skills and abilities. Most times, drunk people lose their energy fast, especially after taking several body shots, which can be very physically draining for them, however this individual kept going and going, and like the Duracell Bunny looked like he was never going to stop. The head doorman was a 280-pound Behemoth, who was a professional powerlifter, and one of the strongest men I’ve met. Out of nowhere, like a rhino breaking cover, he rushed out of the onlooking crowd, and managed to get a pretty solid, front bear-hug on this individual. I practiced Judo with him and knew just how powerful a grip that he had, so I knew the situation was now at least under control. As I moved towards them, to help assist in putting the assailant in a control position, I heard the head doorman shout that he was losing control, and that he wasn’t going to be able to hold on to him much longer. Breathing heavily, he shouted for me to choke him out – I was behind the attacker. My initial thought was to try and choke him out using my arms, as I’d be able to exert some control of the head, and this would help assist the bear-hug, in restricting his movements. However, he was pulled so tightly to the chest of the other doorman that there wasn’t enough room to slide my arm round the neck, and I was concerned that if I did, I’d be loosening his hold. Coming from behind I slipped my right hand, palm up, into the left collar of his shirt, and my left hand – in the same position – inside his right collar (an improvised rear, Gyaku-Juji Jime – Reverse Cross Strangle; something that wouldn’t have worked against a GI but worked well on a t-shirt/soccer shirt). This wasn’t something I’d been taught but was something that I realized in the moment could be done; often effective self-defense isn’t about performing practiced techniques but about improvising in the moment.  Turning my wrists and pulling my elbows out and back, the front of his shirt, was pulled across his throat, and started to cut into his carotid arteries. I remember praying that the material wouldn’t rip, and as the polyester shirt started to stretch, having to deepen and reapply my grip to accommodate this give. As I was doing this, the sweat off my hands was soaking the shirt which made it less slippery to hold on to, and easier to grip. My back muscles were burning, and I couldn’t pull anymore. Then he started to go limp. I was so tunnel-focused on my task – and strangely hypnotized by the dance music playing (it’s strange what goes through your mind when dealing with such incidents) - that one of the other doormen had to pull me off him, as they took him to the floor; in that moment I just didn’t want to release any pressure. Fortunately, the paramedics and police, had arrived, and as he came too (he was perhaps out for 10-15 seconds – or that’s what I recall), initially combative, was rolled on to and strapped to a gurney. It was when his pockets were searched, and he was interviewed by the paramedics, that it was discovered he’d been mixing PCP with his drinks over the course of the evening/night. Experiences aren’t universal, and this is the trouble when their importance is over-emphasized. This incident I’ve described is a singular event and it would be wrong to conclude that drugs increase the chance of individuals acting violently. In next week’s article I want to take a more research and evidence based approach that looks at studies involving larger populations so as to get a better understanding of the relationship between drugs and violence. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=593 Mon, 20 Jun 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=592 In the UK a new – non-medically defined – personality disorder was created, after Michael Stone, was convicted of the 1996 murders of Lin and Megan Russell, and the attempted murder of Josie Russell. Five days before these killings, Stone had announced to a psychiatric nurse, that he was intending to kill his probation officer, his family, along with staff members at the psychiatric facility. In the U.S. – in most states - Stone could have been admitted/committed because, he had demonstrated that he intended to harm others; the two other criteria for such, are if the person is intending to harm themselves or is unable to look after themselves in terms of meeting basic day-to-day needs. However, in the UK, at the time, a person could only be detained if his mental health disorders could be treated – and personality disorders, such as anti-social personality disorder etc., would often fail the “treatability test(s)” as specified in the 1983 Mental Health Act. Although personality disorders are a type of mental illness, they are often separated from illnesses, such as Bi-polar, Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder because of the system patterns they cause, such as large-scale and long-term emotional shifts etc. Also, people with personality disorders tend to be able to function within society to a degree, to which those with mental illnesses can’t and don’t, such as withdrawing, and socially isolating themselves. However, after Stone’s killings there was a political effort – which almost all of the psychiatric community objected to – to extend what was understood “traditionally” to be a mental illness to include personality disorders. Part of this involved the creation/definition of a condition, referred to as “Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder” – an extreme form of anti-social personality disorder, which contained certain features of borderline personality disorder etc. Although mental health professionals in the UK needed more tools to handle cases such as Michael Stone’s, the extension of mental illness to include personality disorders had the potential to be draconian in nature, and probably not particularly effective. In this article I want to look at the question, are people with mental illness more likely to act violently in the future? The first question, this raises, is more violently than who? The question tends to regard society as being homogeneous i.e., that all members, apart from the mentally ill, are the same. However, this is far from the case, and society can be subdivided into many distinct groups e.g., are juvenile offenders with a history of violence, more likely to be violent than the mentally ill? Probably yes, and if we split that group by gender, we will find that men are more likely to engage in violent offending than women. Age, being young, along with gender, being male, along with having a history of violence is a much greater predictor of future violence than someone simply having a mental illness, such as schizophrenia, despite public opinion to the contrary i.e., a 2018 poll showed that 60% of Americans believed that those with schizophrenia were likely to be violent in the future. Part of this misconception comes from sensational media coverage when those with a diagnosed mental illness engage in violent acts, along with how the mentally ill are depicted in movies and TV shows. Studies, which have looked at characters in TV shows such as Law and Order, Criminal Minds, CSI etc., find that people who are verbally identified in some way as having a mental illness make up about 5% of all cast characters, but in 51% of their stories, they engage in some form of violence, as compared to 18% of non-mentally ill characters i.e., TV shows portray the mentally ill as violent. To put this in context, and compare it to reality, if all mental illnesses could be cured, not simply treated, but cured, it would result in only a 4% drop in serious violent offending i.e., 96% of all serious violent offending is carried out by people without a diagnosed mental illness (this figure does include individuals with personality disorders but as we’ve looked at before they are categorized/characterized differently).     Just as normal/general society is not comprised of identical individuals, neither are different mentally ill populations e.g., the way one person experiences schizophrenia may be very, very different to the way another person does. For instance, two people may both hear voices, however only one of them hears commands to act violently. Some people learn to manage the voices, others don’t etc. There are sufferers of schizophrenia who stay on their medications (which are largely effective), and others who don’t and choose to self-medicate using substances, such as illegal drugs and alcohol. Just as there are specific risk-factors that are applicable to people with certain mental illnesses, there are also general ones that apply as well e.g., somebody with schizophrenia who is younger is more likely to engage in violence than somebody who is older; the same for the non-mentally ill etc. Mental Illness, as a factor in terms of predicting violence should be looked at from the perspective of the symptoms the sufferer has, rather than from the diagnoses itself. To simply treat the “mentally ill” – in terms of predicting future violence - as one group, whose members all act and behave in the same way, would be completely ineffective. The mentally ill, act as great scapegoat, when we consider incidents of violence – though this is not to say that there are none with such illnesses who engage in offending. However, often when we look at contributing factors such as substance abuse, we find that there is little difference between their offending rates and those of non-mentally ill substance abusers etc. The problem is that we often look at the illness as the main driving force in the offense, rather than the substance. The truth is that the mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of crime rather than the perpetrators, and are far more likely to self-harm than harm others.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=592 Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=591 There is a difference between emotions and feelings, even though we often use the terms interchangeably. Feelings are the conscious processing of our emotional state – they are the “words” we use to describe our emotions. Sometimes, we don’t even have the words to describe our emotions e.g., people suffering from depression often can’t describe or explain why they “feel” the way they do i.e., their emotional state. Emotions are, our physiological responses, to thoughts and experiences, whereas our feelings are our understanding of these. This is of course an over-simplification of the relationship between the two, as our conscious and subconscious processing of information and events don’t occur in isolation e.g., we can create emotions from feelings – if we think about something that makes us sad, we can experience a physiological response to this thought. We can also experience/feel the same emotion in different ways. It may be that sometimes we experience fear i.e., becoming adrenalized, as being frightened, such as when we hear footsteps behind us, as we are walking home at night, and other times we experience the same emotional state, as exhilaration e.g., when we do a bungee jump, parachute out of a plane, or ride a rollercoaster etc. We have, to some extent, an ability to interpret our emotional state in different ways, due to the fact that feelings are produced and altered consciously. In this article I want to look at several ways, in which we “deliberately” alter and change our emotional state, for a number of different reasons, so that we can better understand ourselves and others. The first “change” I want to look at is one that many people suffering from trauma go through, which is changing shame to guilt. A good working definition of trauma is an experience – or number of experiences – where an individual is exposed to a stress – or a number of stressors – over which they have little or no control. If we consider cases of sexual assault and abuse, these are events where an individual experienced/was exposed to a highly stressful incident/event which they were unable to prevent from happening, which could be down to any number of reasons, none of which they were to blame for. Most people feel ashamed that they weren’t able to prevent the assault from happening. There is a big difference between shame and embarrassment. Embarrassment is fleeting, and rarely lasts long – if it does it usually develops into shame. Shame is a state, that affects identity, and an individual’s self-awareness. Shame is social; it is about how individuals perceive other people’s perceptions of them. It doesn’t matter if those around them are aware of the high stress “event(s)” they were unable to control or not, there is an understanding that this is who they are in relation to others. This can become an overwhelming burden to deal with and the mind looks to find ways to cope and reduce the turmoil that it is experiencing, and so it rewrites the incident, in an attempt to reduce the stress that it is experiencing. It is unable to re-write the emotional distress that was experienced, but it can change the level/degree of “control” that the individual had over the event in order to lessen the degree of trauma felt. It does this by changing “shame” into “guilt”, by looking for reasons as to why the victimized individual was to blame for what happened to them e.g., perhaps they led their assailants on, perhaps they were dressed too provocatively, perhaps they had too much to drink etc. If they are responsible in some way, then they had a degree of control over what happened to them, and this lessens the trauma. Shame is social, guilt is personal, and therefore an easier state to deal with. People will also turn humiliation into rage. Humiliation is also a socially derived feeling, that the mind wants to turn into something private. The path from humiliation to rage, involves justification e.g., a person in a bar who has a drink spilt over them, may feel a degree of humiliation; this was a situation in which they had no control, and now everyone is looking at them (and perhaps in their eyes laughing at them). In that moment they may simply feel a bit embarrassed but by accepting an apology, are able to acknowledge to the onlooking crowd that this was not their fault, and they shouldn’t be thought of as anything less etc. However, they may also be someone who has little control of the events that happen to them in day-to-day life and interpret this embarrassing incident as a humiliating one. Using justification as a bridge, they may take their humiliation and turn it into righteous anger. Individuals who use violence have to in some way justify it to themselves, whether they are involved in a bar fight or a mass killing. Sometimes we can understand their reasoning/justifications, other times they are completely baffling to us. Whatever they are they make sense to the violent individual and allow humiliation to experience and manifest itself as rage instead. Human beings are capable of changing one feeling and/or emotional state into another through a variety of cognitive processes. When we talk about fight or flight, we are talking about a different feeling/response to the same emotional state – the emotion, not the feeling, comes first. When we find ourselves experiencing a physiological change in response to a threat, we can cognitively intervene and “decide” how we experience it. Fear is an emotion, that doesn’t have to be interpreted as such e.g., it can be positively transformed into righteous anger, through justification; nobody has the right to make me feel scared etc. We are unique creatures in our ability to do this, and we must be aware of when we do it to the detriment of our mental health, as well as when we can do it to increase our survival chances. We must also be aware that others also can and do go through these shifts, and what may seem a minor incident to us, may create a righteous anger in others.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=591 Mon, 06 Jun 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=590 One of my earliest memories of violence occurred when I was five years old. My parents had forced my reluctant older sister to take me with her to play with a group of her friends, at a park, on a recreational/sports field not far from our house – this was the seventies when it was much more common for groups of young kids to be out in public spaces together, without an accompanying adult. Many people look back on these days wistfully, and man a bygone era, when it was safe to let kids roam freely etc., I don’t remember those times in the same way, because I grew up being bullied, and much of my childhood was spent living with some degree of fear, anxiety and apprehension (it’s a major reason behind the career path I’ve chosen, giving up on academia in my twenties, and finding “regular” jobs unfulfilling). Up until this point I’d seen my older sister as a “capable guardian” i.e., someone who I’d been led to believe would look out for me. However, she had her own social issues going on, and her need to fit in and be part of the group, was stronger than her drive to protect me – this was 1970’s UK, where everybody was dealing with issues of one type or another. An older kid in the group decided it would be fun/entertaining to start head-butting me. I’m sure he’d just seen/learnt this and as the smallest member of the group, found me to be about the right height to practice on. He must have spent the next fifteen to twenty minutes doing so. I remember being in pain, but more significantly I was confused. I hadn’t done anything to trigger this violence, and these were older kids who were meant to look after younger kids etc. I didn’t try to protect myself, or run away, I just kept looking at him, as he repeatedly rammed his head into mine. All the time I was just questioning, why he was doing so, and why anyone wasn’t stopping him. The social order and conventions, that I believed kept me safe had collapsed. “Confusion” isn’t a response that many people think about when considering violence, however it is a very common and extremely significant one, and one that if we are not able to overcome, will inhibit us from fighting back, or responding in another way, such as running/disengaging if we are targeted for assault. I have written before on the denial and deliberation loop i.e., our first response to a threat is usually to deny or discount it, before we get caught up in a deliberation loop, where we try and find the most effective solution to our predicament etc. This those doesn’t occur in a vacuum. There is psychological and emotional background noise as we go through this process – a rational decision-making process that isn’t particularly productive in incidents that require an immediate decision and solution (this is why you should choose the first viable/effective solution that comes to mind, and not search for, and compare it to other potential solutions e.g., if running away would work, do it). As a five-year-old I had got past the denial part i.e., I knew what was happening to me, but I hadn’t even started the process of deliberation, on how to solve the problem, because I was still caught up trying to answer the question “why?” Part of this, as I would later learn, was due to the psychological development/state of my childhood brain, which also explains why the toddler, Jamie Bulger continued to follow his two ten-year old killers after they physically tortured him i.e., as somebody so young, and dependent on others for his needs, they were the only individuals present who had the potential to assist him. Young children, occupy a “simple” world, and sometimes this simple world aids survival – young children who get lost in the wilderness, generally conserve energy better than adults, as they don’t have a concept of the world beyond the horizon, so they don’t end up running needlessly; they only move to where/what they can see. Sometimes, though this “simple” world is more complex i.e., when the people who should be keeping us safe, choose to do the opposite and/or standby etc. then the social order collapses, and we are left questioning how the world operates – and what are the new rules to it. Confusion is a common response to violence as an adult e.g., we may be engaging in a verbal confrontation, never believing it will escalate to anything more significant because the dispute is seemingly trivial. However, to the other party(s) it something much more important to them. If they initiate a physical assault, our response may be delayed because we are attempting to answer questions about “how” and “why” the confrontation has now moved into this phase, when we really should be focusing on how to defend ourselves and escape/disengage from it. Another time we may be caught in a state of confusion and slow to react is when somebody we know and consider as a friend attempts to sexually assault us i.e., this is the last thing that somebody who occupies such a role in our life should be trying to do etc. Managing physical pain is often easier than managing psychological and emotional confusion; getting punched in the face often isn’t as painful as the realization that the world we have come to trust and believe in has just collapsed etc. The way out of, and to manage, confusion is to understand that when violence occurs, it has no rules and/or direction. It simply has to be dealt with. The time to dissect and answer the questions as to why the incident occurred is not in the moment but afterwards.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=590 Mon, 30 May 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=589 Striking rhythms often get overlooked in reality-based self-defense, as most real-life confrontations tend to be short affairs, where neither party has time to fall into one. However, understanding different striking rhythms, and when and where they can be used, can be extremely useful, and such knowledge and ability doesn’t have to be reserved for the ring or the cage. In this article I want to look at three different rhythms and how they can be utilized in real-life settings. In almost every confrontation, each party is looking to end the fight as quickly as possible – which is understandable. This is why you tend to see a lot of big – and often wild – punches thrown at the start of the fight e.g., many fights start with a disruptive push, followed by a large, swinging haymaker etc. Power certainly has its place in a fight, however what often gets the wild haymaker to land is the “disruptive push” i.e., the taking of a person’s balance so they are unable to block/cover what is, an otherwise relatively “easy” punch to defend. People innately know this, and so whilst the push may not be technical, sophisticated etc., it is understood inherently that the best way to land strikes is to somehow overwhelm the other party so that they are unable to deal with them. This is the purpose of using an over-lapping rhythm for striking i.e., throwing a second strike, before the first one is retracted/pulled back. The first combination that I usually teach beginners is a Jab, followed by a Cross, and I teach it using a metronomic rhythm – as a one-two. Each punch is being delivered, fully: the Jab is fully extended, and completed with the front step hitting the ground, followed by the Cross, as the Jab pulls back, and the rear foot steps forward etc. This allows the student to feel how the body generates power e.g., pushing off of the back foot, weight transfer, hip/shoulder turn, and back engagement etc. However, because each punch is thrown independently, each punch can be blocked/defended as a single entity, and the rhythm predicted – this of course can be used as a setup in a longer fight, by breaking the rhythm, however most real-life confrontations rarely last the length of a 3-minute round, and so there may not be the opportunity to use this tactic fully. Sometimes the most effective way to make sure punches land is to cluster them. This involves – for example – throwing the right, just after the Jab, “over-lapping” them, so that the person you are dealing with has to deal with two strikes/punches at once, rather than one at a time. Each punch will lack the power, that they would have achieved, if delivered independently, however the time taken to throw the combination is much less, and the effect more overwhelming. When practicing striking rhythms, whether on the bag or pads etc., it is important to be disciplined, and ensure that when you are practicing metronomic punches/strikes you don’t cover up bad form by telling yourself you were practicing over-lapping striking etc. In boxing matches and MMA contests, fighters usually spend some time “feeling” each other out, and understanding each other’s natural rhythm etc. In professional contests they will have watched tapes of each other to see things that the other commonly does etc. In a real-life confrontation, it is unlikely that you will know your assailant and/or have watched them fight. Likewise, neither will your assailant. Both of you – and how you fight – will be unknown to each other; this is one of the big differences between combat sports and reality-based self-defense. Boxers such as Jersey Joe Walcott, will often use a “broken rhythm” to make themselves much more unpredictable fighters, and prevent others from being able to recognize when they are about to setup a strike and/or combination. Sometimes this will involve a pause between punches e.g., throw three jabs, and pause before throwing the fourth, so the other fighter starts to make the block/parry in anticipation and gets caught off-guard etc., or it could involve stepping back twice, allowing the other fighter to move in, and then on the third step back throwing a jab out, as their opponent follows them. This second tactic works very well, in real-life confrontations, as aggressors are often very eager to close distance and land strikes, interpreting any backwards movement as being defensive/submissive etc., and an opportunity to end the fight quickly. In a fight, driven by ego, an aggressor may see movement back, as confirmation that they are the superior party, and that everything is going their way; a head moving forward onto an oncoming punch is going to have more effect than the same punch thrown against a static target. As I’ve written before, it doesn’t matter how good your punches or kicks are, if you can’t position your aggressor so that they have maximum impact. So, whilst the reason for a broken rhythm working may differ from the way it works in a professional fight, where the other fighter is lulled into thinking a certain movement/striking pattern is being repeated again and again, the tactic can still be used in real-life scenarios.     These two striking rhythms/patterns should not be seen as a replacement for metronomic striking/punching or to be superior. They are a compliment. There will probably be the moment/time in a fight where you want/need to land a hard-hitting, power strike that is capable of delivering concussive force, however this should never be rushed, or seen as the only way to deliver a strike. There are too many people who are so fixated on that finishing blow, with the rear hand that they neglect to have an effective Jab that sets it up. In the same way we may need to alter our rhythm in order to get the conclusive strike to land. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=589 Mon, 23 May 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=588 There is a danger that comes from focusing on headshots, which unfortunately many people do, prizing concussive strikes and punches above all others. By searching for the “elusive” knockout punch to end the fight, other opportunities that could equally finish the fight, such as liver, spleen and kidney shots may be missed. Also, by focusing almost exclusively on the head, people will often forget to defend these targets, usually whilst they can imagine the results of a concussive strike, they’ve never experienced a devastating body shot, and so fail to protect these areas and organs e.g., when they raise their hands up to guard their face, rather than having the elbows tucked in, protecting the floating ribs (possibly not a fight-ender if broken, but certainly an inhibitor, as breathing becomes an extremely painful activity – talking from personal experience), and liver, the elbows flare out exposing these vulnerable areas. In this article I want to look at why these areas need to be protected, why body shots can be so devastating and why they shouldn’t be ignored. Firstly, regardless of the one-punch knockouts featured on social media, these are pretty rare occurrences. Whilst we don’t fully understand what causes a concussion, we know that it is tied to the speed of the head moving, when punched. This is why concussions are more likely to occur when sucker-punched and the body is in a relaxed/unprepared state. The other reason being punched when blind-sided is more likely to result in a knockout, is because such punches normally come from an angle/ direction where the head gets turned. If a person is prepared, or even recognizes that they are in a fight, and a punch is directed head-on, the neck muscles will usually tighten somewhat to prevent this happening. Another factor, is that people will often naturally pull their head away from a punch, making the head a dynamic target, in the way that the body is not. This is not to say that power shots/punches to the head shouldn’t be trained and used etc., but rather we should understand that they are much harder in reality to land, than we may think, and we are not going to score the same ratio of power shots that we get when working the pads. Punches to the body, even when not hitting specific areas, have a greater chance of landing, due to the size of the target, and the difficulty of moving it away from a punch, as one might the head. Punches to the body, even when not hitting an organ, can quickly tire, and slow down an aggressor, especially if they have been drinking etc., and this may create easier opportunities for landing head shots e.g., the hands start to drop due to tiredness and/or a need to protect the body, and foot movement slows down etc. Certain targets on the body, when struck with accuracy, have the ability to shut it down. One of the most neglected areas of striking, in my personal opinion, is accuracy. People train speed, and power and often neglect accuracy e.g., their goal is to hit the focus mitt as hard as they can, on any part of it, without realizing that the dot in the center of it is there for a reason. When working the heavy bag, many people will practice body shots without really visualizing what targets on the body they are going for. There are three locations that I attempt to visualize, when using a heavy bag, and I mirror these, on my own body i.e., I imagine punching someone my own height, so I aim for where my own liver, spleen and kidneys would be on the bag – this gives me a reference point from which to train striking accuracy, rather than simply throw punches all over the bag. To understand why these punches are so effective, it’s worth taking a moment to understand what immediately happens when these targets are hit (there are obviously potentially longer-term consequences, but if we are looking at surviving the fight, these are not so important to us). Both the liver and spleen are somewhat protected by the ribcage; the liver is a large organ that sits on the right-side of the body, and extends slightly below the ribcage, whilst the spleen sits to the front of the left-side, just behind the lower ribs (it is still reachable by punching up and under the ribcage). When punched/struck, both organs get compressed – the spleen is small/tight enough to rupture, whilst the liver being a larger and more flexible organ is more likely to absorb this compression – stimulating the vagus nerve (the longest in the ANS – Autonomic Nervous System). When the vagas nerve is stimulated a number of things happen; things that you can’t consciously override – this is not about pain management. Blood vessels throughout the body will start to dilate (but not those in the brain, as the body does not want to lose consciousness). Under “normal” conditions the heart rate would increase to maintain blood pressure, when such a dilation would occur, however as a consequence of the vagus nerve being triggered/stimulated this doesn’t happen, and the opposite occurs; the heart rate slows down. The net result is that blood pressure starts to rapidly fall. This means that unless something happens, oxygenated blood won’t reach the brain resulting in unconsciousness; something that the body/brain wants to avoid. To try and prevent this it will “instruct” itself to bend over, and/or lie down, so blood can reach the brain with less pressure – this response is involuntary and instinctive, and equally debilitative as losing consciousness (though in very extreme cases this may occur as well). Whilst it is possible to condition many parts of the body to absorb punches and strikes, without experiencing significant pain and/or learn how to manage pain, there are certain areas where this simply isn’t possible, such as with the liver, the spleen, and the kidneys. All of these when hit with enough force will stimulate the vagus nerve, resulting in an involuntary collapse. This will create a safe disengagement opportunity – in the same way that a concussion would.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=588 Mon, 16 May 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=587 It is widely acknowledged that women (and children), are more often victimized than men when it comes to war crimes (shelling of non-military targets, civilian executions, torture, and sexual violence etc.), and that the majority of perpetrators of these crimes are men. However, it would be a mistake to distill from this fact that men are naturally more violent, and less peace-loving etc. than women. One major reason for this is that in most armed conflicts, women remain at home, whilst men are sent to fight, creating a population that is potentially vulnerable to victimization by soldiers of the opposing military forces. Out of all the numerous types of war crime, sexual violence is one of the least reported and least prosecuted crimes. Whilst this mirrors, sexual assaults and rape, in non-conflict settings, there are added reasons as to why this is the case during wars and armed struggles, including the law-enforcement agencies that would normally handle such crimes either being absent or non-functioning due to their focus on handling the conflict, and the fact that those victimized may not have the physical, emotional and psychological bandwidth to report the crimes committed against them, as all of their efforts are focused on theirs and their family’s survival during the conflict. As the war in Ukraine continues to rage, reports of sexual violence by Russian troops are starting to come out, reflecting the strategy of using sexual violence, as in the Bosnian conflict (along with others such as Darfur, and the Democratic Republic of Congo), which included, rape, sexual torture/mutilation, along with forced prostitutions and forced pregnancies etc. to traumatize and demoralize the civilian population and its military. Such war crimes against women are often framed as “collateral” damage i.e., crimes committed by a few rogue individuals, whereas often they are in fact well-organized and coordinated military affairs that deliberately target women. “Tactical Rape”, is something that is managed by military leaders based on their understanding of its effects upon the morale, and commitment, of those that resist/fight against them. In this article I want to look at why rape is used as a deliberate weapon of war, and what this tells us about rape and sexual assault in other contexts. In a 2015 NPR interview, the writer John Krakauer, stated that before he began work on his book, “Missoula – Rape and the Justice System in a College Town” - which investigated sexual assault in an “average” American town - he’d not considered rape as a particularly significant event in the lives of those who had been victimized. In his own words, he’d originally thought that those victimized, should simply “get over it” – something which he admitted was a viewpoint he was extremely ashamed about, after investigating and interviewing women who had been subjected to sexual assaults. For many people who have not personally known people who have been assaulted, this is a fairly common point of view. However, for military leaders who are looking to demoralize and psychologically/emotionally subdue both the civilian population, and those who are fighting for it, rape is a potent weapon. When viewing rape in this context it is important not to lose sight of the individual who has been victimized by talking about sexual assault on a larger scale; it can sometimes be easy to forget the suffering and trauma of each individual, when talking about something that is so widespread. When rape is viewed as a strategic and tactical weapon, the true content of sexual assaults is displayed. The act is less a sex crime, than a crime that involves sex. Rape is about the demonstration of power and control, along with the dispensation of anger – often anger due to the personal inadequacies and frustrations of the perpetrator(s). When rape is used in a conflict setting this demonstration of power and control is not just to those who are victimized but to the whole of society; both the civilian population and the military that represents it. When we view sexual assaults in this context, rapes on college campuses take on a far more sinister overtone. Whilst they may not occur in an organized manner, to achieve a strategic goal, these sexual assaults also communicate a disturbing message to the campus community – especially when they are not properly investigated, and the perpetrators go unpunished (something that routinely happens with war crimes involving rape and sexual assault). When we look at the traumatic effects of sexual assault on those victimized during armed conflicts, we can see many of the psychological and emotional damages that those raped in non-conflict settings experience, and those points I want to highlight are by no means exhaustive. One of the things that many survivors of sexual assaults highlight about their experiences is the loneliness that they felt post-assault. In a conflict setting, personal suffering often has to take a back seat, to the shared and common goal of resisting an enemy. Due to the fact that everyone is suffering to some degree, individual suffering can get lost, resulting in emotional loneliness and isolation. Also, the individual may not have the bandwidth to process and deal with what they are going through, as they deal with the hardships that living in a warzone bring e.g., the search for food, the maintenance of shelter etc. Things which may be exacerbated when there are family members to care for. In many cases of campus rapes and assaults, those victimized end up dropping out (sometimes with high levels of student debt, and reduced employment opportunities as they lack the qualifications they were attempting to obtain), because they can’t cope with the stress of studying, whilst processing what has happened to them. In a conflict setting obtaining food and shelter is not an option, and so those victimized often have to “drop out” of processing their experiences, suppressing them, which carries an added layer of trauma. In using this comparison, I am not trying to say that some sexual assaults are more significant than others, but to illustrate how different settings can result in different types of traumas. That rape is used as a tactical tool in many conflicts demonstrates that it takes little investigation by society to understand its effects both on the individual, and any audience who witnesses or hears about it etc. However, whilst we are quick to condemn rape in conflict settings, we are much slower in others e.g., rape is the only crime where those victimized are routinely questioned as to whether the crime actually occurred or not e.g., if you are mugged, and have something stolen, nobody is likely to question whether you are making it up or not – and it is virtually impossible to prove the absence of something such as your wallet etc. Whilst rape as a war crime, needs to be taken more seriously, so do rape and sexual assaults in every other setting.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=587 Mon, 09 May 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=586 In this article I want to look at two common misconceptions that some Krav Maga practitioners and instructors sometimes have. I am using two examples which hopefully can be used to illustrate other related misunderstandings, regarding the application of self-defense solutions. I am not calling out any particular instructors or associations (as rarely does this have any constructive purpose), but rather commenting on things that I have noticed over the years will crop up on social media, posts, and comments etc., by many different individuals and practitioners etc. For some practitioners and instructors these things may represent an elephant in the room, so to speak i.e., they are things that are obvious, but there is an uncertainty as to whether they should be pointed out, as they could be seen to undermine the validity of Krav Maga, and what they teach and practice etc. I don’t believe this is the case, and I think its important to recognize limitations, and when/where things are not applicable, and where other – different – approaches may be more suitable; also acknowledging that as individuals we are limited by our knowledge and experiences and there may be areas of violence, which are not in our wheelhouse etc. We all have areas we are informed, educated and/or have experience in, and those where we are not.    When people are into something, they often think that whatever it is they’re enthusiastic about, is the answer and solution to everything. I remember once getting into an argument with a yoga instructor, because they were telling me that I should stop running and just do yoga instead, because it was an equally good cardiovascular workout. There are things that yoga is good for, there are things that running is good for etc. but they are not directly interchangeable. Krav Maga or any other physical martial arts/self-defense system is not a solution to every type of violence, and I don’t mean because it lacks certain techniques, or doesn’t focus enough on fighting skills etc. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) historically referred to as domestic abuse, is one of these areas where teaching physical self-defense as a solution, is somewhat misleading. Whenever there is an existing relationship between two individuals, whether it is between partners, and or other family members, such as parents/guardians and children, violence becomes extremely complicated, due to the potential need to continue the relationship, even if that involves maintaining it in the short-term, whilst an exit-strategy is being enacted e.g., saving money so that children can be provided for after the partner is able to leave etc. It may be satisfying to think of an abused partner fighting back against the person who has been victimizing them for a number of years etc., but without considering the “what happens next”. part of things, after the physical encounter has ended, trying to promote Krav Maga or any other system, as a solution is both naive and potentially dangerous. It is also to a degree patronizing to the abused party, who has in all likelihood developed their own survival strategies over the years, for minimizing and dealing with their abuser, as well as minimizing the psychological, and emotional component of abuse, which a large percentage of those victimized state as being far more painful than the physical abuse. I lack the experience, education, and qualifications to be able to help any traumatized individuals and/or those who are involved in abusive relationships, so I don’t. I do try and teach people how to recognize abusive individuals and the early warning signs of unhealthy relationships etc., but if someone is in an existing, and established relationship, despite from an academic perspective understanding some of the dynamics at play, neither I, nor what I teach, is the solution. To get a technique to work you need fighting skills, however there is often a mistaken belief within certain Krav Maga communities that aggression can be used as a substitute and/or a shortcut when learning how to defend yourself. Whilst an aggressive mindset is an important factor when learning how to fight, it does have its limits. One is that you may meet someone who has a greater level/degree of aggression than you can muster. None of us should fool ourselves that simply hitting the pads as hard and frantically as we can whilst screaming is a true measure of our levels of aggression. There are individuals who have been conditioned from a young age, sometimes deliberately but always inadvertently, to survive at all costs, without any inhibitions, to the point where this is their natural and default way of thinking. For most of us, we take our survival for granted e.g., I have gotten much “softer” as I’ve gotten older, and further removed from the years where I was bullied, and/or when I worked as door security etc. Those experiences, injustices etc., don’t drive me in the same way anymore. If I were to meet someone in a physical confrontation, whose experiences of hardship, suffering and abuse were more recent, and this had helped develop their aggressive mindset and personality, I know that they’re bringing more to the game than I am in this regard e.g., if I was to face off against an adult who had up until a few years ago been a child soldier fighting a bloody war, I know that their aggressive mindset would trump mine. To believe otherwise would be foolish and delusional. If someone can outperform us, so to speak, in one facet of fighting, we need to find another area where we are able to have the upper hand. Having good fighting skills may allow us to do this. Techniques are something you learn, skills are things that are developed, and take time – there is no shortcut.    To be able to handle violent situations, we must educate ourselves about violence. Perhaps, the first step being to understand when and where physical self-defense is and isn’t applicable, without distilling down and forcing every incident to be dealt with in the same way. Being able to defend yourself also requires honesty, recognizing where we might have a deficit in our abilities, and whilst training on reducing that relative deficit, developing those areas in our fight game that can compensate for it, when it is found to be lacking etc. Ideally, we want to develop all of our fighting facets, so that we can be the most complete and comprehensive fighter. I believe that all of us have the ability to do this and that it isn’t simply reserved for an athletically, gifted few. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=586 Mon, 02 May 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=585 All criminal acts, including those that involve violence, aim to achieve a goal. In some cases, the goal is tangible, such as stealing a wallet, in others it may be social, emotional and/or psychological etc., such as an individual selecting a person to victimize in order to maintain some “badass” image they have created for themselves etc. Such criminal behavior(s) is the result of criminal thinking and thought processes; and both are interrelated. Although the initial act of committing a crime may be the result of an idea or thought, it is the continuation of such behavior, which starts to influence the way the offender thinks and starts to view the world e.g., somebody who offends occasionally, when opportunities present themselves will develop a different process of thinking than those who actively and perpetually offend. In 1976, Yochelson and Samenow, found that there were 52 common thinking errors, that they believed characterized the “criminal personality”. Whilst there were many problems with their study e.g., their study sample was a group of prisoners who had been judged not guilty by reason of insanity, and several of the “thinking errors” they defined were better classified as emotions or behaviors etc., their study awoke an interest in the ways those who commit crimes think. Any decision/thinking is based on “thought processes” and “thought content”. Content contains the “what”, and processes reflect the “how” of thinking. Both interact and work together. An example of a thought process may be, “How do I improve my status in a criminal network?”, whilst a thought content might be, “The network I belong to respects individuals who win fights”. This would lead to the criminal thinking that the way to attain greater status is through engaging in fights. Whilst Yochelson and Samenow were looking at very specific types of criminal thinking, forensic psychologist Glenn D. Walters in a study of 450 inmates found that there were eight general thinking styles that inmates shared. In this article I want to take a brief look at these, as when we better identify and understand the “style” in which someone thinks we will be better able to communicate with them, and direct their behaviors and actions. The first thinking pattern identified was one of “Mollification”. This involves rationalizing and justifying offending based upon some perceived injustice, whilst also downplaying the significance of each offense e.g., they were asking for it/I didn’t hurt them that much, it’s not fair that they get to be rich, and I don’t/they’re not going to miss the money I stole from them etc. In the “Cutoff” style the offender is able to quickly overcome the fear and anxiety that most of us would have to overcome in order to commit an offense; these offenders are quick to seize any opportunity to offend without considering the potential consequences of their action. Whilst risk is often found to be the least important factor for seasoned offenders, with ease of opportunity, and the degree of reward being the most important factors in an offender’s decision making, for these individuals their speed at overcoming such anxieties differed from other inmates in the study. In the “Entitlement” style of thinking, the offender has created a worldview where objects and people are there for them to use. Whilst all of us may want to have more money, someone thinking in this fashion will define it as a need that must be met, and is something that they are entitled to, even if it requires the use of force/violence to meet it. With the “Power Orientation” style of thinking the offender recognizes the need to maintain and achieve status amongst their peers, and therefore attempts to exert and demonstrate control over them. This was the style of thinking that came through in ethnographer Elijah Anderson’s study of inner-city life, in Philadelphia, where he came across a, “Code of the Street”, which was basically a set of rules that had to be adhered to in order to command respect. Some offenders in Walter’s study expressed a degree of “Sentimentality” in their thinking. At times they would feel the need to atone, or do some good deed in order to balance out their offending e.g., one right will cancel out two wrongs etc. Such offenders may give away some of the money they stole and/or buy groceries for an elderly neighbor etc. Cleckley, describes psychopaths, as wearing “a mask of sanity”, to hide their underlying personality disorder, and whilst others such as Narcissists also engage in the creation and wearing of masks, we all do it to some degree i.e., we project an image of ourselves that we want other to see, and to help us convince ourselves that we are the “good guy”. Few offenders will class themselves as bad e.g., they behave the way they do due to social injustice, or because they need to in order to survive the culture in which they live etc. But some tend to sentimentalize their lifestyle and thinking in order to see themselves as one of the good guys. Walters also identified a “Superoptimism” style of thinking, where the offender believes that because of their innate abilities and qualities there is no chance that they will get caught e.g., criminals are clever, and cops are dumb etc. Another style of thinking is referred to as “Cognitive Indolence”, where the offender doesn’t even bother to consider the risk(s) of their endeavor. This is often the thinking pattern that leads to initially successful offenders being caught i.e., they start off cautiously, considering the risks involved when they first begin offending, but after awhile without getting stopped/caught, they become lazy in their thinking. Related to this is the “Discontinuity” style of thinking. Like those with a “Cognitive Indolence” style, these individuals also fail to plan, however there is less of a degree of premeditation, and these offenders want to do the right thing but lack the self-discipline to do so. Whilst these eight different styles of “criminal thinking” may be classified as distinct, it is likely that many offenders will share traits from other styles than the one that they gravitate towards, and their style may change somewhat over time e.g., the meticulous planner may at some point become lazy etc., however understanding the different styles in which offenders think and process opportunities, information etc., should give us a better idea of both what and what not to do when we find ourselves interacting with them.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=585 Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=584 Some people are more keenly attuned to interpreting a person’s vulnerability via the way they walk, move, and carry themselves (non-verbal cues), than others. Serial Killer, Ted Bundy, once stated that he, “could tell a victim by the way she walked down the street, the tilt of her head, the manner in which she carried herself. “In last week’s article I took a look at the oft quoted, and referred to, 1981 study by Betty Grayson and Morris Stein, where they videotaped people walking on a New York Street, and then showed the footage to offenders, asking them to select those individuals they would likely target and victimize, based off of their non-verbal cues etc. Because the results of this research appeared to be quite clear and seemingly conclusive, many other researchers were prompted to start investigating how predatory individuals perceive and judge vulnerability from movement. In this article I want to look at a few of these studies so that we can better understand how the way we walk and move may put us on the radar of certain predators. One of the questions I often get asked about the Grayson and Stein study, concerns gender i.e., were women more likely to be targeted then men etc. As stated in the previous article, age was a more determining factor; older people were more likely to be selected as targets/victims, regardless of gender. However, studies based off of the Grayson and Stein research have focused on how relevant a target’s movement is, to the victim selection process in regard to rape and sexual assault i.e., in assault where the perpetrator is a stranger, does the way the target walks/moves affect their perceived vulnerability. In 1996, Murzynski and Degelman, attempted to test this. Rather than use convicted felons to select/judge vulnerability, they used students at a university, as well as a group of law-enforcement officers. These groups were chosen, based off the fact that women attending university are more likely to be sexually assaulted by male peers than women not attending university, and because it was hypothesized that those working in law-enforcement, in a similar way to the predatory individuals in Grayson and Stein’s study, would recognize and understand signals of “vulnerability” that are communicated through movement, based off the fact that they would often have to deal with the victims of crime etc. The experiment involved coaching female actors to move either as victims or non-victims based off the criteria from the Grayson and Stein study. The actors were split into three groups, two of which walked like “victims” and one which moved as “non-victims”. All those involved in the study were of a similar height/build, had brown hair and were instructed to have “neutral” facial expressions. The actors were filmed walking in the same direction, and for the same length of time, and had to turn a corner, which led them away from the camera; this gave an additional angle from which to view movement (something that wasn’t part of the original Grayson and Stein study). The students (of mixed gender), and law-enforcement officers who viewed the video of these actors were asked to rate them on a six-point scale, for both vulnerability and confidence. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the actors in the two victim groups scored significantly higher on both vulnerability for “sexual assault” and low self-confidence, than those in the non-victim group. These findings suggest that detecting vulnerability and low self-confidence is something that all individuals have, not just those who have a history of acting in a predatory fashion/manner i.e., those individuals in the Grayson and Stein study. Whilst it appears that we all have some degree of ability in recognizing vulnerability and lack of confidence by the way others walk and move, it has been found that one group of people are particularly good at identifying vulnerable individuals. Psychopaths and those with psychopathic traits are better than non-psychopaths at identifying vulnerability through both movement and conversations. This could be because those who score highly on the PCL-R (Revised Psychopathy Checklist), often have to consciously learn and process emotions, as they themselves don’t feel them. As Cleckley famously said, “they know the words but not the music”. Successful psychopaths, those that learn how to fit in, in society, don’t intuitively read a person’s emotional state like most of us do, but instead have learnt which expressions and body language, accompany anger, fear and other emotions. In some ways they may be better at identifying how other people are reacting etc., because they are actively and consciously having to study, inquire and read other people is order to respond correctly and appropriately based on the context; it is usually those psychopaths who are unable or fail to learn how to interact and respond to people that end up in the prison system – “successful” psychopaths know how to play the game. This conscious learning of emotion may be the way that they learn most things, such as being able to identify vulnerability and low self-confidence and self-esteem. In trying to understand the world around them they are almost checking actions and behaviors off against a list of things that need to be present in order for them to recognize what a person is feeling or not. Ted Bundy, could be correct in his assertion that the tilt of someone’s head could determine their degree of vulnerability etc. Although, those in the Grayson and Stein study weren’t able to articulate why they selected the “victims” they did, those with psychopathy, who have analyzed these things, may be better able to describe them, due to the way they learn to recognize emotions. There have been many other studies that have looked at gait, walking style etc. that appear to confirm the findings of the Grayson and Stein study – some have even replaced human actors with created imagery that replicates the victim and non-victim walking style. The research seems to show that walking upright, in a connected manner, avoiding an exaggerated stride length, is a good way to stay off of a predator’s radar.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=584 Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=583 There is a piece of research conducted in 1981 by Grayson and Stein that I reference a lot, when talking about victim selection, both in this blog, and when conducting corporate self-protection training or teaching my regular classes etc., however I realized recently that I hadn’t explained the research method(s), or the results in one place/article. In this article I want to take a look in more detail at this extremely important piece of research into the non-verbal/physical cues which indicate the level and degree of perceived vulnerability that predatory individuals look for when selecting victims. In the next article I will look at some other pieces of research that have expanded and built on this study on vulnerability and non-verbal cues, and have taken it in a number of different directions. The original 1981 study by Grayson and Stein was incredibly simple. It involved setting up a video camera on a street in New York City, filming people (60 persons) as they walked by (between 10:00 AM and 12:00 pm over a three day period), and then showing the footage to convicted offenders (12 of them), whose crimes involved violence, and asking them to select those individuals who they would target/victimize (on a scale from 1 to 10), in order to discover if there were any identifiable non-verbal cues that were commonly picked up on/identified. A second set of inmates (53 individuals) were used to review the tapes, and “confirm”/“establish” the rating scale. Both groups labelled twenty of the people filmed as being “potentially easy victims” (as having a value of one to three on the rating scale), with nineteen individuals being labelled as “non-victims”. When considering age and gender, older individuals (as categorized by the researchers and a panel), were more likely to be judged as “assault targets”, and older men were more likely to be selected than older women – although not specified in this research, other studies/research have shown that offenders who commit street robberies often express the opinion that committing these type of offenses against women isn’t “masculine”, and that for this reason they only target men (something that the Grayson and Stein study confirmed for all age groups). The two groups – “victims” and “non-victims” – were then subjected to Labananalysis (a study of movement by 21 different components) by two separate analysts, where they were compared so as to distinguish what types of movement were different i.e., how did victims move differently to non-victims. It was discovered that between the two groups there were three distinct things that differentiated them. The first was stride-length. Depending on your height you have a “natural” stride-length e.g., if you are shorter your stride-length is shorter, and if you are taller, it’s longer etc. It was found that in the victim group a large percentage (42%) had a longer stride length than in the non-victim group. It is important to note that when inmates were rating and selecting those individuals they would potentially victimize, none of them could explain or articulate why they chose the individuals they did. This means that any explanation as to why stride-length matters in victim selection is speculative and theoretical, however I will offer my own thoughts on its relevance. When I used to carry out surveillance on large crowds, I wasn’t ever searching for specific individuals, I would simply look at a large body of people and let my eyes be drawn to “unnatural” movements e.g., If I was watching a crowd moving towards a football stadium, I would “gaze” at the advancing mass of supporters and let my eyes be drawn to those individuals who were moving in the opposite direction etc. In nature this is known as the “oddity effect” where predators looking to select a target from a herd/flock/shoal will target an animal that looks different, for no other reason than it looks different e.g., a gazelle or wildebeest that has its horns painted white etc. This was one of the ways that was used to identify the Boston Marathon Bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers) in 2013; everyone else caught on CCTV at the finish line where the bombing took place were watching the runners complete the race, two individuals were turned away looking into/at a bag etc. It could be that a long stride length doesn’t indicate inherent vulnerability but rather that it simply draws the attention because it is something that is “out of place” and different. However, it could also be seen, as someone trying – even if this is not consciously – to look bigger/taller than they are; if you ask someone to try and look taller when they move they will usually increase the length of their stride when walking. Another difference between the groups was that all of the non-victims swung their feet, whilst no one in the victim group did, with 35% of them lifting their feet up and down as they walked. Overall, the typical victim would walk unilaterally rather than contralaterally. The best way to think about this is by examining the way in which you walk e.g., if when you take a step with your right leg, your opposite/left arm swings you are walking contralaterally, however if your same side arm/right arm swings you are moving unilaterally. This lack of fluidity may draw the attention of predators, purely because it is different to the way the vast majority of people move, or it may demonstrate a lack of co-ordination and athleticism, which indicates a greater level of vulnerability etc.  Another factor that contributes to “fluidity” is whether the body’s movement is postural or gestural. By and large those individuals who were perceived as victims, moved/walked in a gestural manner, where the arms, and legs, rather than the core seemed to dictate the movement e.g., the legs and arms were pulling the body/torso along, rather than the torso/main body moving, with the legs and arms assisting it etc. Postural movement also saw the head remain upright above the shoulders and the hips, rather than slumping with the eye-line directed towards the ground – something that signals low self-esteem/depression along with a lack of awareness concerning the environment. From a practical perspective the Grayson and Stein study shows that walking upright, in a natural/fluid manner, without an exaggerated stride-length is one way to lessen your chances of appearing on a predator’s radar. This piece of research has since been replicated in a number of different ways, with different groups being investigated, and different elements being focused on etc. In the next article I will examine a few of these. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=583 Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=582 Incels (a portmanteau of the term Involuntary Celibates) are members of a group/online community who believe that they are inherently incapable of forming intimate/romantic relationships due to a number of factors, including the idea that they are unable to compete with others who are better looking, physically more acceptable etc. Prior to the early 2000’s, most research into celibacy focused on individuals who had decided not to pursue/engage in sexual activities, rather than those who wished to but were unable to do so. The term first came to light in the early 1990’s through a number of discussion boards, which were originally meant to be supportive and discuss why some people had difficulty finding partners and others didn’t etc.  However, over time many participants began to form online communities where they would talk and discuss the unfairness of the world, and how societal norms actively worked against them, preventing them from having intimate relationships and sex etc., both of which they desired. These websites, forums and groups started to become avenues that promoted self-loathing, and violence towards the women (who chose to ignore “Incels”), often referred to as “Stacy”, and the men (“Chads”), who “outcompeted” them in the sexual/relationship “marketplace”. Many people first became aware of the existence of Incels in 2018 when Elliot Rodgers went on a shooting spree killing seven people in Santa Barbara, California. Prior to his rampage killing he posted a video to YouTube, where he explained and justified the actions he was about to engage in, stating that it was revenge upon women for rejecting him, and on the men that they chose over him etc. Rodgers said in his statement, “If I cannot have it [an intimate/sexual relationship], I will do everything I can do to destroy it [those who have intimate/sexual relationships]”. Rodgers is often referred to as a “Saint” in Incel communities and groups. In March 2022, the US Secret Service published a report detailing the rising threat(s) of violence from these groups, and those that identified as Incels, based on several years of research. In this article I want to look at some of the views that are commonly expressed within these groups/communities and how these are used to justify pedophilia, rape, and racism, and encourage those who identify as Incels to engage in acts of violence. One of the foundations of the Incel “philosophy” is that there is a certain inequality regarding the way in which gender is defined i.e., that “womanhood” is defined biologically by puberty whereas “manhood” is defined socially and culturally. This means that anyone female automatically achieves “womanhood”, whereas not every male does e.g., some are unable to achieve this status, because of looks, body type and/or the ability to conform to society’s idea of “masculinity”. This perceived injustice often underlies a lot of online misogynistic and violent rhetoric, that justifies rapes and sexual assaults against women. Such attacks are often justified in these terms, as well as the argument that bystanders and third parties shouldn’t intervene when they see such assaults occur etc. As with many extremist subcultures there is often an attempt to legitimize the group’s doctrines and beliefs, using accepted science or re-interpretations of mainstream ideas – this is often necessary to communicate with and attract “new” members, who may not have yet adopted the group’s extremist doctrine and manifesto. Using concepts from Evolutionary Psychology and natural selection, Incels will promote the idea that women are wholly driven by reproductive urges, which results in them being narcissistic, selfish, and judgmental etc., in their pursuit to find the “perfect mate”. This leads to a bio-deterministic world view which affirms a society where men do and should have more power than women. For Incels, Feminism is simply a hypocritical and false claim of oppression, and a tool for women to use in order to gain illegitimate power over men. All of these arguments are used to legitimize and promote violence against women. Many Incels echo Rodgers’s sentiment, that if they are unable to engage in reproduction there is no purpose to their lives, so their goal should be to prevent others from doing so. This view also promotes violence against men; those who they term as “Chads” – attractive men.    Unsurprisingly, they believe women in their reproductive “prime” i.e., young women, to be the most attractive to men, and cite the injustice of society harshly judging older men who are attracted to young women and labelling them pedophiles/hebephiles etc. The idea of “Young Love” is something that is widely promoted online in Incel forums. Many Incel men, feel/believe that because they missed out on dating women during their teenage years, that they have missed a major reproductive opportunity. Viewing older women – mid-twenties and older - as inferior, and fixating their attention on younger women, as they get older, they feel that the opportunities to reproduce are slipping away from them – not due to their fault, but because society/women judged them as being inferior during their teenage years etc. Women are largely seen as having only one purpose, which is reproduction, and Incels will often refer to them as female humanoids or “Foids”, stating that they are childlike, simplistic, and not equal to men in any capacity. Any time a group is looked on as inferior, whether it is a matter of race, class, nationality of gender it opens the door for, and justifies, the use of violence against them. Before the advent of social media and the internet it would have been difficult for a subgroup such as Incels to form, as such individuals would have been socially isolated and geographically remote from each other. They would also have had to present themselves to each other in person rather than by online personas, that offer a degree of anonymity and allow them to discuss highly personal viewpoints and promote negative personality traits knowing that they wouldn’t be judged or have to feel ashamed about them. When a group is centered around an injustice, caused by another group who is judged inferior, then the justification to use violence is ever-present. In the privacy of online communities members are free, and may feel pressure, to present more extreme viewpoints in order to please the group, and so promote and encourage the use of violence against women, and men who are judged as overly-masculine. Elliot Rodgers is not the only Incel who has engaged in mass/spree killings.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=582 Mon, 04 Apr 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=581 Several weeks back I wrote an article on why crime, including violent crime, rose significantly in the post-war era. In this article I want to look at some of the reasons why crime has declined dramatically and consistently since the early 1990’s; something that many people are unaware of due to the way that the media reports and presents on criminal acts etc. I also want to look at the connection between certain crimes such as burglary and car thefts and how a decline in these activities can create a decline in other offenses, such as street robberies etc., rather than creating a displacement effect e.g., if offenders can’t steal cars, they will start engaging in other criminal acts in order to generate cash etc. Before getting into all of that I want to briefly explain again why crime rates rose so dramatically from the 1960’s to the 1990’s. Despite increases in the standard of living in this period – crime was originally thought to be the result of poverty – crime rates increased dramatically. This was down to several factors, including changes in people’s daily routines e.g., people started spending more leisure time in public spaces, creating opportunities for assaults and muggings etc., and because of this houses were left vacant/empty for longer periods of time, creating more opportunities for burglary etc. At the same time car ownership increased, resulting in more chances for automobile theft, and many valuable items, such as radios and television sets became smaller and more transferable making them easier targets to steal etc. Basically, there were more opportunities for offenses to be committed. Before looking at why crime rates have been consistently falling since the early 1990’s it is worth remembering that the reasons behind the decline do not have to be a reversal of the reasons behind the increase; other “new” factors may explain the reversal e.g., an increase in home security could explain a decrease in burglaries, rather than a change in people’s routine activities – people may be spending the same amount of time away from their homes as they did in the 1970’s, but due to better security systems their houses are harder to break into etc. I bought my first car in the early 1990’s, when car crime was still extremely high in the UK; cars were stolen for joy-riding, for sale etc., and were broken into for their radios and stereos etc. My first car was an Austin Metro built in 1982. At the time it was made, car security wasn’t a priority for automobile manufacturers – their emphasis was on performance and other features that gave them a competitive advantage. The only feature my car had to deter criminals was an “internal” steering lock that could easily be broken. I found this out after my car was stolen for the first time (it was subsequently stolen two more times, with it being stolen and set alight by joyriders on the last occasion), and the “lock” – a small piece of plastic – had been snapped. Car manufacturers really only started thinking about security in the mid to late 1980’s, as a response to rising automobile thefts. Lock designs started to change, so that it was no longer possible to simply put a coat hanger through the rubber holding the window in place and loop it round the lock – something I used to do when I accidentally locked my keys in the car. Central locking started to become a standard feature. Car keys started to get “smart” technology, with chips that electronically validated that it wasn’t a foreign key that was being used to open and start the car. Initially these measures had little effect on overall crime rates, as traditionally car thefts tended to target older models; one of the reasons for this was that stolen cars were sometimes broken down for parts, and it was older models that needed these for repairs i.e., there wasn’t really a market for new car parts etc. Also, there is a larger number of older cars on the road than there is new – more opportunities. However, by the early to mid-2000’s, most older cars that lacked security features were off the roads, and from 2002 to 2008, car thefts dropped at a significant rate. There are people who don’t believe that increases in security work, making the argument that if someone wants to steal a car, they will find a way to, etc. There is definitely truth in this, however most offenders are opportunists who looking for easy opportunities - denied them they move on - and not necessarily to other offenses. Burglary is an offense, that many offenders of other crimes, including sexual assaults, have committed i.e., if you look at persistent offender’s charge sheets many of them have convictions for burglary. An interesting feature of the motivations to commit burglary show that “excitement” as a motivating feature is fairly similar to the desire to acquire goods/money; the thrill is as important as the financial reward etc. However, burglary rates have been falling in the US since the 1980’s, suggesting that it is no longer as popular a crime as it once was. One reason behind this might be that the value of various goods has been declining, that the venture is no longer as financially rewarding as it once was, and that there may be more rewarding ways for offenders to get their thrills, and/or that the risk of getting caught is no longer worth the financial reward. If you plot TV inflation, looking at what $1000 in the 1960’s would buy you versus what that would get you today it can be seen that the value of television sets has fallen dramatically i.e., that $1000 is worth less than $10 today. It is possible to get a new, 32-inch flat screen TV for less than $150. The stolen value of such an item would be significantly less. In 1960 stealing a $1000 television set would be much more financially rewarding than it would be today in monetary terms. There used to be a time when a residential burglar could make a good deal of money, and even do it as a profession, however today with the proliferation of cheap economic goods it no longer offers such a viable career. But why/how would a reduction in burglary and car-crime cause a reduction in other offenses? Both offenses are often entry-level crimes, meaning that they are the ones, which most offenders start with regardless of the other crimes they later commit. If a young offender commits a burglary, they will soon find themselves interacting with other offenders such as those who will fence their stolen good etc., and in turn these individuals may introduce them to others within their criminal network. The same is true of car-crimes. If someone steals a car to go joyriding, they will likely find themselves doing so in locations where other joyriders hang out etc. If increased car security reduces the ability for such offense to be committed and burglaries no longer offer a good risk-reward ratio, then those who might have become persistent offenders through being introduced to others etc., no longer have/take the opportunities to do so. Obviously, there are other factors at play to explain the drop in crime rates since the early 1990’s, but these are some of the reasons that don’t relate to public policies which often claim responsibility for the decline.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=581 Mon, 28 Mar 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=580 When I first became academically interested in psychology, over thirty years ago, I was interested in learning what made people tick i.e., why do certain people have certain personalities, character traits, etc. – so I was initially disappointed when in my first class, I was informed that psychology was the study of behavior, not personality. It soon became obvious why this was: behaviors can be identified and to a degree measured (could be subject to a scientific process), whereas personality cannot e.g., a person may be reserved in almost all of their day-to-day dealings, leading us to believe that they have a non-expressive and unemotional personality, and then on match days when their sports team is playing, be the most excited, emotional, and expressive person in the room. It is the observable/measurable behaviors that allow us by deduction to understand and “define” personality. This is the method used in diagnosing personality disorders, such as narcissism, and/or anti-social personality disorder where the person being diagnosed has to have engaged in a certain set of behaviors in a consistent manner over a certain period of time. In this article, I want to look at a physiological experiment concerning behavior that has important ramifications for understanding aggression/violence and certain aspects of Krav Maga. The experiment is one that is commonly known: Pavlov’s Dogs. For those who don’t know the full details of the experiment, it was a very simple one. The experiment involves a dog in a harness standing on the table in an empty room. Pavlov stands behind a one-way screen, watching and recording the dog’s responses when it is presented with different stimuli (one of these is a bell). A glass is on the table catching the saliva from the dog as it salivates in response to the various things it experiences. The dog hears the bell ring (known as the conditioned stimulus – CS) but it provokes no response i.e., no salivation, but when it is shown some meat, it starts to drool – an unconditioned stimulus - UCS). The experiment concerns connecting the conditioned stimulus, with the unconditioned stimulus, to see if the conditioned stimulus can produce the same response as the unconditioned stimulus. To do this the bell is rung (CS) just before the dog is shown and then given the meat (UCS). Eventually the dog begins to salivate when it hears the bell being rung, as it anticipates being shown/given the meat i.e., the dog has been conditioned to salivate. Most people are aware of this part of the experiment, but it goes further. The bell is now changed so that it has a different tone and sound i.e., how specific does the conditioning need to be to elicit a response. Even with a different sounding bell the dog continues to salivate, however the degree to which it does changes somewhat in relation to how the bell sounds. The closer the sound is to the original bell the more it salivates, the more different the sound is, the less it does. This is known as the law of generalization and helps explain why someone who is an aggressive driver, who reacts violently when frustrated (stimulus) in one setting, is likely to react violently in others when they feel frustrated. It is through recognizing a common behavior/response in situations that resemble each other, that we can determine that said individual has an aggressive/violent personality and may be­ – along with other factors – diagnosed as having an anti-social personality disorder. In Krav Maga, one of the principles is that attack should follow defense at the earliest opportunity i.e., you don’t survive a violent altercation without at some point attacking your assailant – even if it is just to stun and run – and the sooner this is done, the better. This idea is often represented in the idea of simultaneous attack and defense e.g., when you make an Outer Defense/360-degree block, you make a simultaneous punch (perhaps one of the first techniques/solutions that most Krav Maga practitioners learn). Because the Outer/360 Defense is based off a startle/flinch response (an Unconditioned Stimulus), there is often a belief that this response can be altered to include the simultaneous punch e.g., when someone throws a swinging punch to your head, you will automatically block and simultaneously punch. However, this is not the case e.g., the dog’s response didn’t differ, it didn’t do something else other than salivate, such as defecate – the stimulus just changed. This is not to negate the role of simultaneous striking and blocking i.e., the sooner an attacker can be disrupted and forced to go on the defensive the better, but rather expecting to perform a simultaneous strike when startled is unlikely. I say unlikely rather than never, as it is possible to a degree to “assemble” a non-automatic response to an automatic, instinctive one but it is largely based on context and awareness and is certainly not a default behavior that comes after a few years of training that is specific i.e., there is not an automatic transfer of training. I have used/made simultaneous/near-simultaneous strikes and punches, however these have always occurred when forcing/guiding an attacker to make a certain strike e.g., by positioning and posturing “encouraging” them to make a swinging/circular attack rather than a straight one etc. I have flinched and “blocked” punches when completely surprised yet despite my years of training have never found myself in such moments immediately going on the offensive. Pavlov’s experiment(s) is extremely important in demonstrating how specific a stimulus has to be in order to generate a certain response – as long as the sound was bell-like, the dog would salivate. This idea of generalization helps explain why there are “angry” people in the world, who will respond violently whether it’s a perceived insult in a bar, or being cut off in traffic etc. However, it also demonstrates that there is a degree of specificity – the stimulus has to have a degree of “resemblance” to others. What the experiment also demonstrates is that it is difficult to “assemble” an unnatural action to a natural/inherent/instinctive response.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=580 Mon, 21 Mar 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=579 Although we are better at detecting deception verbally, rather than through non-verbal cues, we tend to trust and rely on and use body language more when discerning if someone is being truthful e.g., if someone says – genuinely – that they are really excited about something, but their body language doesn’t seem to suggest/confirm this, we are more likely to believe that they aren’t telling us the truth. This is partly based on the correct belief that people have greater difficulty concealing their body language than their words (this is because most people are better practiced at “telling” lies/using words when engaged in deception), and this is therefore something that we should pay greater attention to. This means that we may pay more attention to non-verbal cues that we are unfortunately prone to misinterpret, and less to what is being said, which we are actually better at evaluating. This means that if we are going to be successful at detecting deceit, we need to actively educate ourselves as to what actual non-verbal cues look like, and not rely solely on our intuition and exaggerated urban myths e.g., that a person when lying will look downwards and to their right etc. This is not to say that there isn’t a degree of validity is such things, but rather that there isn’t one definitive/conclusive behavioral cue that indicates when someone is lying, as attractive as this idea may seem. In this article I want to look at three theories/ideas about detecting non-verbal cues, these are: the cognitive effort approach, the attempted behavioral control approach, and the emotional approach. Telling a lie takes more cognitive effort than telling the truth, creating a “cognitive load”. When telling the truth, a person simply has to recall – to a varying degree of detail – actual events that have happened. When someone is engaged in deception, they have to both alter the truth, and remember what they have altered, which takes a certain degree of effort. It is important to remember that over time a person’s memory of an incident, or something they have said may be subject to change, and so an inconsistency between something recalled today, versus several months ago etc., may not indicate that the individual is engaged in deceit but rather that their memory of the event has changed/altered (something that is a natural phenomenon). This changing and monitoring facts is not the only load that the person engaged in lying is burdened by. They must also closely monitor the reactions and responses of the person they are trying to deceive, to check if their story seems credible and believable, and if not, they may have to alter and add to their account in order to be more convincing. A set of non-verbal cues that may therefore help us to detect deception is to try and identify how closely a person observes our responses. This will knock on the head the idea that those who are engaged in deceit avoid eye-contact, as a skilled liar will be closely observing our reactions to what they are saying, which involves making eye-contact. Not making eye-contact is more a signal of guilt than of deception and many people engaged in deceit don’t feel guilty about telling a lie e.g., the pedophile sports coach or priest who is planning to sexually abuse a child is likely to look a parent squarely in the eye, and tell them that their child will be perfectly safe on the sleep-away trip, etc. The additional cognitive effort engaged in creating, remembering the lie and monitoring the audiences’ responses often results in a lessening of expressive body language, such as hand and arm gestures/movement, which naturally accompany truth telling.        We have very little self-awareness concerning our own body language, and how we look/appear when we behave in certain ways e.g., when we are angry, we don’t really know how we appear to other people etc., unless we are shown video footage of it later. Certain reactions and responses are hard to hide, such as surprise; people may try to suppress and hide the fact that they are surprised however the initial reaction to being told something unexpected is very hard to control e.g., we know what other people look like when surprised but aren’t so much aware of our own reaction. Therefore, when we are trying to appear as if we are not surprised, we are likely to copy and try and emulate, what someone who wouldn’t be surprised looks like. This means that someone engaged in deceit will often look unnatural when trying to control and suppress their behavior when being told/informed of something they didn’t expect. Other emotions and behaviors that are hard to control include anger and fear, and it is important to judge the difference between the initial reaction that a person makes and the subsequent way in which they try to control it. The emotional approach to detecting deception, puts forward that there are three emotions associated with deceit, these are: guilt, fear and excitement, all of which lead to a degree of emotional arousal. This arousal could be subject to change during the telling of a lie e.g., a person initially may feal fearful when telling a lie because they are worried about being caught however as their audience seems to believe what they are saying they become excited, as they start to think that they will get away with it. This may result in a change/shift in body language as the person initially seems anxious and nervous but starts to grow in confidence and eventually becomes excited. Some people who are practiced in deception may even start off excited due to the power that they enjoy in “getting one over” on others. It is important to understand the context in which deception detection is attempted e.g., there are few people who won’t appear anxious or fearful to some degree when being interviewed by the police, even if they are genuinely innocent of whatever they are accused of doing – one of the reasons that it is worth having an attorney/lawyer present with you when you are involved in a police interview (the confidence that comes from professional legal representation – even if you are confident in your own understanding of the law – will help control your emotions). When detecting deception, it is far more productive to look at a person’s emotional and behavioral responses as a whole, rather than focusing on specific cues, such as how they are sitting, or the direction of their gaze etc., as people may attempt to control certain things, like maintaining eye-contact, and if gaze aversion is the cue you are using to detect deceit, you will fail. It is important to also use verbal cues (which I have written about before) in conjunction with non-verbal cues to get a complete picture rather than focusing on one physical “tell” that you believe indicates that somebody is lying.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=579 Mon, 14 Mar 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=578 Cohen and Felson’s Routine Activity Theory (RAT) posits that for a crime – including an act of violence – to take place there must be a motivated offender, a suitable victim/target, and the absence of a capable guardian. In the previous two articles I have described what constitutes a motivated offender and a suitable victim/target (click on the underlined links to read these). Both of these ideas are fairly obvious and straightforward e.g., in an act of spontaneous aggression where someone has had a drink spilt over them, it is easy to understand their motivation e.g., they feel an injustice has been committed against them and they are probably feeling somewhat embarrassed and the social pressure to regain some self-respect etc. If the person who spilt the drink is a member of a notoriously violent biker gang, whose members are also present, then they’re probably not going to be seen by the “motivated offender” as a “suitable target” for violence, compared to someone who appears nervous, unconfident, and anxious etc. However, the idea of what constitutes a “capable guardian” is somewhat more ambiguous e.g., does the presence of CCTV cameras represent a capable guardian, or does it have to be a person such as a member of a security team, and/or a law-enforcement officer etc. In this article I want to look at this third component of the theory and examine what defines something or someone as a capable guardian. As I’ve stated before it’s important that the three components of RAT are examined in an interrelated manner i.e., they should not be seen as isolated variables. The opportunity that the presence of a “suitable” victim creates may be what motivates the offender e.g., an offender with a history of committing street robberies might not be planning to do so, but when they cross paths with someone who fits their profile – appears to have a lot of cash, and is likely to comply – they may in that moment be motivated to commit an offense etc., especially if they believe that they will be able to get away with their offense without being identified and/or stopped by a third party (the capable guardian). What constitutes the person/technology fulfilling that role is subjective to the offender. For some, the mere presence of another person in the vicinity who could possibly identify them will act as a capable guardian and deter them from committing their offense, for others this individual may be irrelevant e.g., they know that they are unlikely to actively intervene and/or give a significant description of what they look like that could be used by security or law-enforcement to identify them in the future, etc. Anyone who has worked in bar/club/pub security for a decent period of time, acting as a supposed “capable guardian”, whose role it is to deter physical confrontations etc., has probably had a fight break out in front of them at some point in time; where both participants were motivated to use violence against the other, and saw each other as “suitable” victims. In that moment, fueled by alcohol and emotion, the presence of someone fulfilling the role of a “capable guardian”, wasn’t significant to them, even if they’d registered that someone was there who could break up the fight (which might have factored into their decision-making i.e., they knew a capable guardian would probably break things up before the fight became too serious). This doesn’t mean that RAT is flawed per se, but rather that certain types of crime may not be adequately explained by the “absence” of a capable guardian. However, the role of the capable guardian is still an important factor in explaining offending. It is important to understand what RAT was trying to explain; which was why crime as a whole went up in the post-war period despite standards of living rising at the same time. The theory was intended to be a general one that explained increases in robberies, thefts, and assaults etc; crimes that tended to be committed in public and semi-public places. It wasn’t designed so much to explain offenses such as intimate partner violence, or child abuse, where the person who should have been acting as a capable guardian was in fact the motivated offender etc., so there will always be some offenses and incidents which don’t fit neatly into the model. Because RAT has an emphasis on time and place, the location where the offense is committed is often more important than the relationship between the motivated offender and the suitable victim e.g., when both parties know each other such as in incidents of intimate partner violence etc., and so Routine Activities Theory may be less useful as a starting point in explaining the nature of such crimes. An important development of Routine Activity Theory by Clarke and Eck was the role of “Place Managers” as capable guardians. This built on an idea first put forward by Jane Jacobs in her landmark 1960’s work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), where she argued against many of the urban planning principles of 1930’s – 1950’s America. Jacobs is famous within Criminology for her term of “eyes on the street”, as a means of preventing crime, however in many ways what she meant by this has been misunderstood or misinterpreted. It is widely accepted in crime prevention that natural surveillance is one of the best deterrents to crime, however not all natural surveillance is equal e.g., a shopper on a street witnessing a crime is less invested in intervening in some way (such as calling the police), than a shop owner. The shop owner is invested in the success of their store and if the street it is on becomes known as a high-crime area, their business is likely to suffer. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, when Jacobs talked about “eyes on the street”, she was talking not about other pedestrians’ eyes, but about those of shop owners, and street vendors who had a vested interest in keeping the areas surrounding their enterprises safe. These individuals were described by Clarke and Eck as “Place Managers” and were a specific and important type of capable guardians. Place managers can also be other individuals e.g., there have been studies that showed that groups who engaged in public drinking in certain open spaces have acted as place managers intervening in burglaries and break-ins as they didn’t want the police to start patrolling the area etc. Such individuals may not have had an “economic” interest in preventing other crimes being committed but they had a “leisure” investment in the space they occupied.  Whilst RAT may not adequately describe every single offense, especially those where there is an existing and/or complex relationship between the offender and those they victimize, it offers a great starting point and framework for understanding how many crimes and acts of violence happen. It demonstrates the importance of time and space in offenses, and how this is affected by lifestyles both those of the offender(s) and their target(s).   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=578 Mon, 07 Mar 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=577 What makes a suitable target or victim differs by offenders e.g., a suitable target for a sex offender who victimizes teenage girls will not be the same as one targeted by an offender whose preference is for young boys etc. An experienced shoplifter will probably have more suitable targets, than someone who is looking to steal for the first time, as they are going to have a more intricate understanding of how store security operates, and have more options etc. The same can be said of a burglar who has broken into a large number of homes and is aware of a variety of ways to break into a property compared to someone who is new to burglary. Time of day also plays a role in suitability e.g., a house that is unoccupied during the day because everyone is out at work or school etc. is a more suitable target for a burglary than at night when everyone is home, and the premises are occupied i.e., there is a capable guardian present (next week’s article will look at what constitutes a capable guardian). In saying all of this, suitable victims and targets do share some commonalities e.g., they have to be available – a car that is being driven can’t be broken into, as it is moving and occupied, however this does put it at risk for a carjacking etc. One of the nice things about routine activity theory is that due to its simplicity, though it is far from simplistic, it has the flexibility to be used with other theories and worked into other frameworks, such as “risk”. Risk occurs where assets, threats and vulnerabilities intersect e.g., if you own a car (an asset), whose doors do not lock properly (a vulnerability), there is a greater risk of it being broken into and/or stolen by a car thief (a threat), than one that has up to date modern locks, and GPS tracking etc. When looking at defining what a “suitable” target or victim, is we can look at assets that have vulnerabilities an offender (threat) can exploit. We can better understand suitability by understanding vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities are those things that a threat can exploit. Predatory individuals prey on and exploit vulnerabilities. Pedophiles and child molesters (adults whose primary sexual preference is adults, but who sexually assault children and juveniles) will target those they deem vulnerable e.g., children with busy parents who aren’t able to give their children the attention that they seek, etc. A healthy and natural search for adult attention and affection that is unmet can be a vulnerability that a child sex offender looks to deliberately exploit. It is important not to look to blame individuals for creating vulnerabilities e.g., the single mother who is holding down two jobs and looking after an aging and ill relative may not have enough time to provide the level of attention that certain of her children may need. The only person who is to blame if a child molester took advantage of this situation was the perpetrator, not the victim or their family members. If someone leaves a window open (a vulnerability) that a burglar exploits, they are not responsible or to blame for having their house broken into, even though their action/lack of action may have made their house a “suitable” target etc. Blame and responsibility should always be attributed to the perpetrator, rather than those who were victimized. However, reducing vulnerabilities is a practical measure in reducing target suitability, and therefore risk. Suitability also suggests a degree of rationality when deciding upon a target and indicates that there is a thought process that offenders engage in when selecting someone to victimize, even if this involves targeting the first person they come across. Whoever a street robber selects, suitability will in all likelihood have to fulfill at least two criteria: a belief that the person has whatever goods or cash the mugger requires, and that they are likely to comply and not fight back. Such offenders are not looking for a fight but rather a quick and easy transaction that sees them exit the interaction without any real fuss. This means that these offenders are looking for signs of compliance to assess suitability. One sex offender who targeted young women used to hang out in supermarkets, watching how female shoppers interacted with each other e.g., if he saw a woman quickly apologize when another accidentally knocked into her cart with theirs, he judged that this individual was extremely conflict-averse, as they were apologizing for someone else’s actions – it should have been the other shopper who said sorry. Assessing that such an individual was unlikely to refuse any demand he made, he would follow them outside to the parking lot, where he would walk up to them and quietly order them to come with him to his car. How we act, interact, and behave in public can give predators a clue as to how easily we will comply with their demands e.g., if when we are walking in a crowd and we are continually moving out of everyone’s way, and doing so in an unconfident, almost furtive/apologetic manner, we may be sending a signal to those who mean us harm that we are a suitable target. This doesn’t mean that we need to be those people who simply barrel ahead expecting everyone else to move out of our way, but rather that we move with purpose, rather than reacting to everyone else’s movement. Suitability may be based on many factors, some of which aren’t things that we would think might make us suitable, and so have no control over e.g., Ted Bundy’s victims all had longish, dark hair, parted in the middle – he let one woman go who he’d selected some days, weeks earlier, when he pulled off a winter hat she was wearing, revealing that she’d had it cut differently a few days earlier. However, there are other things over which we do have control, such as making sure we lock our car and close open windows when we are not in our houses, etc.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=577 Mon, 28 Feb 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=576 Crime, including violent crime, is a statistically rare phenomenon, when compared to other activities, such as driving, shopping, and going out to eat/drink etc. Even in high crime areas, acts of offending are low in comparison to other routine activities – they are just more likely to occur in these locales than in lower crime areas. This is not to diminish the impact of crime, especially violent crime, on those who are victimized, or to suggest that there is little or no need to take steps to avoid victimization but rather for us to understand that crime for most of us is a statistically unlikely occurrence. When studying local crime reports, arrest logs, and statistics it soon becomes apparent that the majority of crimes are committed by a few people, in a relatively small number of locations etc. One of the reasons that crime hotspots develop is not simply because of the geography, but because the same offenders return to these locations time and again due to the success they have enjoyed in them e.g., the street robber who has gotten good pickings – without getting caught - every time they have committed muggings on a particular street corner is likely to continue offending there; possibly targeting the same victim, who needs to pass that corner in order to get to the place where they work. It may not be that the mugger deliberately and specifically returns to this location to look for victims but rather that this street corner is one they frequently pass on the journey from their home to a pub/bar that they frequently drink at, and they take the opportunity to commit robberies when they find themselves there at the same time as somebody who qualifies as a “suitable” victim. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that every time such an intersection occurs that they will commit an offense, as sometimes they may not be motivated to do so. For an offense to occur the offender has to be motivated in that moment, and there are times when they may not be. Committing street robberies involves risks, and the mugger knows that it is not possible to mitigate all of these e.g., there is always a chance that a police foot or car patrol passes them whilst they are engaged in a robbery, they may be in a hurry to meet someone, and/or be so financially flush that they can’t be bothered to expend the effort required etc. Most muggers are not perpetually on the active lookout for potential targets, just as most car thieves aren’t trying the doors of every car they pass. Both won’t look a gift horse in the mouth e.g., a mugger sees a person getting out of a taxi, displaying a lot of cash as they pay their driver, or the car thief passes an unoccupied car, with the keys in the ignition and nobody else around (the absence of a possible guardian), however there will be easy opportunities they pass up, because of a lack of motivation in the moment. Many people who engage in poor safety protocols get away with it, not because they are particularly street smart or savvy - though this is often what they tell themselves - but rather that they as the “suitable” victim have been fortunate enough never to have crossed path with an offender who was motivated at that time – until they do, their poor safety protocols won’t be punished. Motivation doesn’t have to involve any level of premeditation, such as in the case of the mugger or the car thief, who look to take advantage of or orchestrate offending opportunities. Normally non-violent individuals may be motivated to act aggressively and engage in threatening behavior if they feel/believe an injustice has been committed against them, such as having someone take a parking space they’d been patiently waiting for, or having someone bump into them and spill their drink over them etc. In such instances, people who have never been motivated to act violently might find that they are. Just because somebody is motivated to act violently towards someone and believes that they would a) get away with it, and b) would be physically successful in doing so, they may still choose not to because there is a “handler” present. A handler is somebody who can exert social control over the motivated offender, and in doing so prevent a crime/act of violence occurring. A handler is not the same as a “capable guardian”, they are somebody that the motivated offender is socially influenced by such as a parent, in the case of youth offending e.g., a teenager may be motivated to engage in an act of vandalism but won’t do so because one of their parents is with them at the time they see a “suitable” victim, such as a blank wall that they feel compelled to graffiti over etc. Before they can commit this offense, they must first slip and evade their handler, such as pretending to be in their room at home later that day, whilst returning to spray paint the wall etc. If you have ever seen YouTube clips of neighbors shouting and arguing with each other in the street, there is often one or both partners telling them to exit the dispute because the other party, “isn’t worth it” etc. In such incident the partner telling the other to disengage is acting as a “handler”.   Just because an offender has committed a crime before, it doesn’t mean that they will do so again when presented with the exact same opportunity. If in that moment they are not motivated, no offense will be committed e.g., a street robber flush with cash, and with a partner they want to impress may not be motivated to do so, and even if they are they may not want their “handler” to know that they engage in such behaviors. It is not that the person they are looking to victimize isn’t a suitable target to them, but rather that this moment is not the right one. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=576 Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=575 Something that confounded many criminologists in the post-war period (1940’s – 1970’s) was the fact that crime increased dramatically – including violent crime that went up almost six-fold both in the UK and US - at the same time as standards of living increased. This went against the prevailing view that crime, and acts of violence, were largely linked to poverty, and that it was largely poverty that was responsible for creating criminality i.e., developing individuals who could be labelled as criminals and offenders etc. To try to explain why there had been such a rapid increase in incidents of crime, Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen, analyzed data for this period and postulated that the rise was not due to a rise in criminality (people becoming “criminals”), but due to an increase in the number of potential opportunities for crimes – including acts of violence – to be committed e.g., as car ownership increased there were more cars that could be stolen, as more people started to spend more time in public spaces such as pubs and clubs (due to increased leisure time), there were more social interactions that had the potential to result in conflict and become violent etc. This led them to develop Routine Activity Theory, which looked to explain, not why people engage in criminality, but what components have to be present in order for an incident of crime to take place. In their model, three things must be present/absent for a crime to be committed: there must be a motivated offender, a suitable victim, and the lack of a capable guardian. Rather than looking at what may motivate a person to engage in an offense, the theory simply recognizes that a motivated offender must be present for a crime to take place. Instead of looking at the victimology of the person targeted, the theory states that there must be someone who is “suitable” to the offender e.g., if a sex offender targets teenage girls aged between thirteen and sixteen, and they come across a 22-year-old woman at the time they are “motivated” to offend then this person doesn’t constitute a suitable victim. However, if they come across someone who falls within their target group, when they are motivated to offend, and that person is with a parent, or there is a law enforcement officer present (both suitable guardians), they are unlikely to commit an offense. In this and the following articles, I want to take a look at how Routine Activity Theory, can help us understand how – rather than why – acts of violence (and other crimes) take place. The focus of Routine Activity Theory is on the criminal event/opportunity, rather than the criminal, and most of us at one time or another have engaged in a criminal event, often without seeing or labelling ourselves as criminals e.g., there are few people at one time or another who haven’t broken the speed limit, because we were in a rush; and because we didn’t think we’d get caught (there was the absence of a capable guardian, such as a law-enforcement officer in a cruiser). Most people when they have an opportunity to offend, the rewards seem high enough, and they don’t believe they will get caught will be at the very least tempted to offend. This doesn’t mean that they will see themselves as an offender or a criminal. Petty crime is extremely widespread demonstrating that certain crimes are committed not by a criminally-hardened few but by a large number of people e.g., a significant number of people on occasion “accidentally” scan avocados as carrots and/or onions but they would not label themselves as a shoplifter. In many cases, they may justify their action by viewing it as a small victory against the over-pricing of commodities by supermarkets, and/or as a price a retailer should have to pay for making them do the work of a person at a checkout etc. We have a natural tendency to see the actions of others as being bad and unjustifiable, whilst seeing our own actions as good and right. This is clearly illustrated when drivers who have been caught speeding make the argument to the police that they shouldn’t be focusing their attention on them but be out catching the “real criminals” etc. Many white-collar crime such as fraud and embezzlement, which costs the economy significantly more than burglary and theft against individuals, is another example of “good” people, when presented with an opportunity, committing offenses; justifying it because the “victim” is a company or an entity so there is no real harm to their offense i.e., nobody got hurt etc. Routine Activity Theory (RAT) also brings to the fore, the influence of time and place regarding offending i.e., the motivated offender and the suitable victim’s paths must cross, at some point in order for there to be an incident of crime/violence, and this must occur at a time when a capable guardian isn’t present. This starts to introduce the importance of lifestyle both for the victim and the offender i.e., why are they both in the same place at the same time? E.g., why does the motivated mugger happen to be in the supermarket parking lot, at the same time as somebody who fits their profile as a target? Were they there deliberately looking for people to victimize or were they there because they were also doing their grocery shopping? The strength in the simplicity of Routine Activity Theory is that it allows these further questions to be asked rather than try to explain every part and component of an offense. In the next few articles I want to use the theory to try to ask and answer further questions, such as what motivates an offender to engage in an act of criminality, are there things which we do that may make us appear as a “suitable” victim (without engaging in victim blaming), and try to define what a capable guardian looks like.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=575 Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=574 In last week’s article, I looked at how being part of a group effects the way that people think, act, and behave i.e., that when somebody identifies as belonging to a group, whether that’s a temporary (such as joining in with looting during or riot), semi-permanent or permanent thing (being a member of a formal or informal gang), the group can influence the way they think etc., and redefine their identity. In last week’s blog, I detailed two theories that go some way to explaining why someone might act differently when they are part of a group compared to how they would behave if they were on their own etc. As always, it is worth looking at how a mix of theories may contribute to the explanation of someone’s behavior(s) rather than simply looking at one to offer a complete and full explanation e.g., there may be a degree of Deindividuation (the anonymity that a group offers), and a degree of “Risky Shift” (behaving in a more extreme way because of a belief that this is what other group members want), that explain why an individual engages in activities that they wouldn’t if on their own – such as looting, rioting and/or acting violently etc. In this article I want to look at two other theories (Groupthink (Janis, 1972) and Conformity (Asch, 1951)) that can help explain how/why people act differently/violently when they are part of a group.      The term Groupthink was first coined by Janis (1972) to describe a phenomenon whereby individuals give up their own evaluation and decision-making processes, and accept the viewpoint of the group e.g., if the group believes an individual or group is bad/wrong/dangerous then rather than evaluate whether this is actually the case, the individual simply accepts what they perceive to be the group’s position etc. This can occur when a “new” member of the group – who wants to identify with the group – feels like they lack the experience and knowledge to make their own accurate evaluation of something and so feel/believe that they are better off simply accepting the group’s decision, which someone who went through the same process as them, is informing them on etc. This is something I have experienced in my time training with different Krav Maga associations, where certain members have informed me that they are the only true/authentic association and the others are imitators, fakes etc., based on certain pieces of information and history, that they are aware of – there are of course practitioners who do think independently and acknowledge the legitimacy of others who are not members of their group/organization, and understand why others think the way that they do etc. Certain personalities are more susceptible to Groupthink than others i.e., there are people who need there to be absolute and certain truths in their lives. People who have rigid thinking patterns, who look to remove the grey areas of life and see the world in black and white terms, may fall prey to Groupthink. If the group can present a world view where members of the group are “right”, and non-members are “wrong”, then any ambiguities are removed, and the individual doesn’t have to go through the process of trying to make sense of things in absolute terms, themselves. Groupthink is often linked to cults and sects, where a strong leader tells the members of the group what/how to think, and believe etc. Often, when people think about cult members, they believe them to be “stupid” for falling for the message and beliefs of the group however this would be an incorrect assumption. It is not that such members are stupid – many are highly intelligent – they just need to see the world in absolute terms and being a member of the group allows them to do so. Asch (1951) was interested in how individuals conformed to social pressure. To study this, he put a subject in a group of seven confederates (people who were aware/involved in the experiment) and presented a series of challenges/questions where the answers were obvious. The confederates had been told beforehand that they would deliberately agree wrongly on twelve out of the eighteen tasks. The questions posed to the group were designed to isolate conformity – i.e. they were simple questions with objective and obvious answers. The question was, would the subject agree with them (conform to social pressure) or choose to be the only one who stuck to, and maintained the right answer. Around 32% of subjects stuck with the group answer consistently, and around 75% of participants did so on at least one. Social pressure is a powerful thing, especially when other members of the group are insistent or put a lot of energy into convincing and/or reinforcing the group’s viewpoint etc. If everybody in a group is behaving/acting in a certain way, it is difficult not to succumb to the pressure to conform i.e., it takes strong almost unshakeable convictions to either not have doubts about a decision, and/or to behave in a way that is different to everybody else. This is especially true if an individual wishes to be seen as part of a group, where they may at times – just like 75% of those in Asch’s experiment who conformed at least once – feel the pressure to act and behave in ways that they wouldn’t normally. Conformity and social pressure go a long way to explaining why normally good kids sometimes do bad things etc. Humans are social creatures and most have a need to fit in and be part of something larger, which may mean at times conforming in ways that they wouldn’t normally/inherently. In the past two articles I’ve described four theories that attempt to explain how the group influences its members. All of these examine facets of group behavior and look to describe particular phenomena that might be at play however they are better understood as contributing to behavior rather than explaining it fully e.g., in certain situations conformity/social pressure may play more of a role than deindividuation/anonymity, and in others “risky shift” may be more of an influence than groupthink etc. Another factor that is going to play a part is how strong and persuasive other members arguments, beliefs and actions are, and the degree to which somebody wishes to be part of the group etc. However, one thing we should understand is that being part of a group, even if the group forms in the moment (such as in a riot or disturbance), is likely to influence its member’s actions, making groups where violence is concerned less predictable entities.              https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=574 Mon, 07 Feb 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=573 When we consider that many criminal incidents, including violent ones, occur in group settings (where there is more than one person), and that a large number of violent acts are preceded by a pre-conflict phase, that involves dialogue and a degree of social interaction, it can be readily understood that having a working knowledge of how groups work psychologically and socially can be to our advantage. In social psychology there are basically two opposing views to how groups work/interact: one states that there is no collective influence of the group on individual members, whilst the other suggests that individuals maintain their identity within a group and are not influenced by being part of it. This latter view was more preeminent in the early part of the twentieth century, and has largely been undone by research starting in the 1950’s which demonstrated that people are influenced when they are part of, and start to identify as part of a group etc. In this first article I want to take a brief look at two different psychological phenomena that occur when an individual is part of a group, these are: Deindividuation (Zimbardo, 1973), and Risky Shift (Stoner, 1961). In the next article I want to examine Groupthink (Janis, 1972) and Conformity (Asch, 1951). Before looking at these theories it is first worth noting some of the different characteristics and components that make up groups. Even in a group of two offenders (regardless of the nature of the offense), there are roles, and these are necessary, for the group to attain its goals – such as in the case of a street robbery e.g., one party is likely to make the demand and do most of the speaking i.e., it would be confusing and slow down the transaction if the person being victimized had to communicate separately to both parties; one may add their voice such as instructing the target to “hurry up” etc., in order to reinforce the idea that the subject being robbed is outnumbered but their role is to reinforce the demand etc. Even in such a pairing there will be one person who assumes the leadership role. The group will also have “norms”, such as the agreed level of violence that should be used; this may be tacit/implied or explicit/instructed. Over time in stable groups, such as a pair of muggers who work together on many robberies, norms will be developed and subconsciously understood and communicated e.g., both parties will “instinctually” understand when violence is required, and at what level it should be meted out. This requires group members to be able to communicate to each other either directly or indirectly (such as through body language etc.). Different groups also have different levels of cohesiveness i.e., how closely the members of the group are bound together. The greater the level of cohesiveness the greater the influence the group has over its members e.g., a perceived slight to one member may be seen as a slight against all the members etc. The first group theory I want to look at is Zimbardo’s idea of Deindividuation. Most people have heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), where a group of college students were randomly divided into guards and prisoners and observed in a “prison” setting. From a scientific perspective the experiment was extremely flawed in that it could be perceived that Zimbardo overly “coached” the guards and their actions and behaviors subconsciously started to conform to the outcomes he was expecting i.e., he indirectly influenced the outcome of the experiment. However, his idea that good people will behave badly given the “right” setting, offers some explanation as to why US Military Personnel engaged in extreme acts of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Zimbardo – reluctantly - had to end his experiment after six days due to the cruelty of the “prison guards”, which involved similar acts of sexual humiliation that those in Abu Ghraib experienced; something that may suggest that this is one of the most extreme forms of humiliation that the human psyche can conjure up. Zimbardo believed/concluded that the reason the “prison guards” behaved so badly towards the “prisoners”, who were college students just like themselves, was due to something he referred to as Deindividuation – a term originally coined by Leon Festinger. A process that occurs when the individual believes that the group they belong to gives them a degree of anonymity, and that their actions and behaviors reflect the norms of the group e.g., if everybody is doing it then it is acceptable – if everybody during a riot is destroying property and looting, then this is what is expected, and in such a large group there is a degree of anonymity. Anecdotally I have witnessed on several occasions, members of a crowd kicking a pair who are fighting on the ground, because others are doing so, and they clearly don’t believe they will be identified. Risky Shift posits that a group is more likely to engage in extreme ways than the individuals would on their own, because each individual believes that other group members are more likely to want to behave in extreme ways than they would, and in order to remain part of the group they must adjust their viewpoint etc. This motivates the group to engage in much more risky activities. Risky shift can be seen as a form of overcompensation by an individual to meet what they see are the perceived requirements of being part of a group. If we try to understand Capitol rioter Danny Rodriguez’s actions on January 6th 2021, where he tasered a police officer (Mike Fanone), risky shift can help explain why he did what he did. In his interview with the FBI, he broke down whimpering, sobbing, and seemingly regretting what he did. When asked as to why he tased the officer, Rodriguez breaks down and says, “I don’t know”. It is likely in the moment when he did so, Rodriguez thought that other members of the group expected him to behave in this way, and in order to conform to the group’s expectations, he did what he did. This in no way reduces or takes away his individual responsibility for his actions but it does help explain why he would engage in a much riskier behavior as part of a group than he would on his own. When we try to understand why people do what they do, one theory on its own is usually unable to explain all of the reasons, and it normally takes a number of theories combined to give a fuller explanation e.g., Risky Shift may in part explain why Rodriguez tased Fanone, but he may have also done so in part because he felt anonymous at that moment etc. In next week’s article, I will look at how Conformity and Groupthink influence individual behaviors when part of a group.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=573 Mon, 31 Jan 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=572 Over the past ten years writing this blog, I’ve covered many subject areas, including the startle reflex, adrenaline, the “high and low road” processing of threats etc., however I’ve never joined them up to present a more complete picture of how they interrelate to each other. In this article I want to try to explain the different cognitive, emotional, and physiological processes that are at play when somebody throws an unexpected punch at you. Hopefully this will help give us a better idea of how we can expect ourselves to respond when these things happen, and not over-estimate our abilities at dealing with such surprise attacks. Depending on the way the punch is thrown, the first thing that is stimulated is our flinch or startle reflex, which will see us bring our hand/arm up to attempt to intercept the strike that is being delivered to our head. At the same time, we are likely to bend our knees, and raise our shoulders up whilst we pull the neck down in an attempt to bury – and protect - our head. It is important to note that at this point we haven’t consciously identified that we are being attacked, we are simply reacting to the movement. Without delving into the depths of cortical visual processing, there is some debate as to how the eye processes this movement. To some degree the stimulus/information gets split into two streams/networks: dorsal and ventral; the dorsal handling the “action”/reflex component, and the ventral, the perception and understanding of what is going on. At this point the eye has just received the information and is passing the relevant information on to the “brain”. We should not underestimate the complex processing power of the eye and its capability to think on its own, as it were. There are some people who think that adrenaline is responsible for powering the startle reflex however it is the ATP energy system that is at work here. ATP is stored in the muscles to provide energy for such quick and sudden movements, whilst the other “slower to start” energy systems (anaerobic and aerobic etc.) are able to catch up e.g., an Olympic sprinter’s initial power off the blocks, and perhaps for the first 60 meters or so is powered by the ATP system (this is why sprinters who false start are at a severe disadvantage to their fellow competitors as they have already expended some of their ATP before the real start of the race begins). Information is now sent to the Thalamus. Without over-complicating things, the Thalamus is the first “decision maker”, which decides what to do with the information it has received from the “eye”, and it decides to do two things in parallel: it sends information to the Amygdala, and at the same time to the Sensory Cortex. This is sometimes referred to as the “low road” and the “high road”, and can be thought of as a “better safe than sorry” process. The Amygdala is going to make a quick and dirty decision based on very limited information about what needs to happen next, whilst the Sensory Cortex and the Hippocampus (in that order – the Hippocampus plays a significant role in memories) are going to take a little more time to try and process what is actually going on. Imagine you are walking in the woods, where it is covered in leaves, and you suddenly feel something move beneath your feet (there isn’t really a natural reflex response for this), so your Thalamus quickly sends a message to your Amygdala, your Amygdala recognizes this could be potentially dangerous (a snake moving, ground giving way etc.), and sends information via the Hypothalamus, that instructs your body to jump back – this all happens subconsciously. As all this is going on, your Sensory Cortex and Hippocampus are trying to make better sense of the “supposed” threat to work out whether it is genuine and still dangerous, or whether you can stand down – this information is then sent to the Amygdala so it can make a more “informed” response i.e., “Yes”, the punch constitutes a real threat/danger. The Hypothalamus in both cases is going to trigger the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS). Our Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) is comprised of sub-systems, two of which are the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) and the Parasympathetic Nervous System (PNS). The Sympathetic Nervous System increases and heightens functions and responses, such as increasing heart rate, converting glycogen to glucose (to provide energy once the ATP has been expended), and dilating the Bronchi to increase breathing capabilities etc. The Parasympathetic Nervous system brings everything back to normal, such as reducing heart rate etc. The SNS is quick to activate and the PNS slow to regulate, which is why when you have received a fright, it takes some time to feel calm again. When there is an “Acute Stressor” such as an attempted punch to the head, the Sympathetic Nervous System is triggered, which starts to stimulate the Adrenal Medulla, causing Adrenaline/Epinephrine to be released. At the same time the heart and breathing rate are increased. The released Epinephrine bind to liver proteins, which results in glycogen becoming glucose – an easily consumed, ready and powerful energy source. As we become adrenalized our emotional state starts to change, and largely because of this we start to understand that we are in danger e.g., we start to either feel fearful or angry etc. This understanding, coupled with the information that the Sensory Cortex and the Hippocampus have processed, give us our first real conscious awareness of what has happened i.e., somebody has tried to punch us. We now have to decide what to do i.e., we have to cognitively evaluate our potential responses and reach a decision – and hopefully this is where our training starts to kick in. In just under a thousand words I have attempted to explain what is going on when we experience a surprise attack, such as someone throwing a haymaker to our head. This explanation is obviously devoid of nuance, and has been extremely simplified, not because I believe its above anyone’s head but rather because it is sometimes easier just to think of the Hippocampus as being responsible for “memory storage” rather than getting caught up in how memories are actually stored, encoded, retrieved etc. Hopefully, having a basic understanding of what goes on when we experience a threat/attack can help us realize how much our brains and bodies do to help us deal with the initial assault, and that there does come a moment when we have to be able to consciously respond to the situation we are dealing with, and that even with good training, we will experience a huge degree of pressure and uncertainty in that moment. If we have too high an expectation of ourselves we will probably find that we are unable to do the things we were told, and believed, that would come naturally to us, such as simultaneously attacking as we block etc. This does not mean that such techniques and strategies are not relevant, but to think that we will always do them when surprised may be asking a bit too much of ourselves.             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=572 Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=571 A common tool that is often used in academia for remembering the DSM’s (the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) ten personality disorders is to group them into three sets: the mad, the bad, and the sad – these names represent the three different clusters that the manual uses. Those that are considered “mad” (Cluster A), are the disorders where the psychosis is significant enough to cause the sufferer to act in bizarre/eccentric ways, such as having a rigid pattern of thinking which makes the individual believe that everybody is conspiring against them e.g., Paranoid Personality Disorder etc. Those disorders in “Cluster C”, the “sad”, are those that result in anxiety, fear, and depression etc., such as those who have a Dependent Personality Disorder. The “bad” (Cluster B), personality disorders are those that put others at risk, such as Anti-Social Personality Disorder (which includes Psychopathy). Whilst many violence prevention programs talk about the importance of this last group of disorders and the need to be able to understand and recognize, Narcissists and Psychopaths etc. This is perhaps not the most effective way to make use of the DSM in real world self-defense. Firstly, it is impossible for the lay person to make a diagnosis e.g., just because somebody is extremely self-centered, and believes they are extremely important, this doesn’t make them a Narcissist, other conditions have to apply. Likewise, many people may fit our definition of Psychopath, but not score highly on the PCL (the Psychopathy Checklist). Secondly, many violent people (but certainly not all) have comorbidities, such as suffering both from Anti-Social and Borderline Personality Disorder etc., and unless you are trying to treat that individual, understanding which one is “driving” the violent offending, is of little importance. What is more useful when using the DSM to understand violence is to look at what types of character traits and behaviors people have – within the “bad” group (Cluster B) that increase their risk(s) of behaving violently etc. This means we don’t have to make an actual diagnosis that may see somebody who behaves in a risky manner fall short of the set of conditions that they may need to have in order to be labelled with such a disorder e.g., there are a lot of people who have many traits of Narcissism who wouldn’t have enough to be diagnosed as such, but who may cause harm to others due to those that they do have etc. In this article I want to look at some of the character traits and behaviors that are contained in Cluster B personality disorders that can lead to violent offending without having to make a diagnosis of what disorder a person may or may not have. A common feature that both those with Anti-Social Personality Disorder (which includes Psychopathy) and those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder share, is a lack of empathy. Empathy is what allows us to see each other as people rather than as objects. Both disorders are seen as being “immature” disorders in that those who have been diagnosed with them, operate in an emotionally immature/unevolved way. If we take Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs as a tool to help explain and illustrate this, we can see that people with these disorders are only concerned with the basic needs, such as having their safety and physiological needs met, they are not interested in attaining “Self-Actualization” which would involve them developing a deeper understanding of who they are as an individual etc. They are unable to recognize that other people have needs too. Having empathy recognizes that other people have their own interests, and needs and that it is important that these are met. When individuals have low empathy they are focused exclusively on meeting their needs, regardless of how this affects others – a characteristic shared by Narcissists, who believe they are more important than anyone else, and psychopaths who are unable to make an emotional connection with others, and emotionally “read” other people’s needs. There are people who would not meet all the conditions to be diagnosed with either of these personality disorders who also lack empathy, and because of this are more likely to respond violently to an incident or situation than somebody who is highly empathetic i.e., thinks about how their actions and behaviors affect others.          A lack or inability to regulate emotional responses is a characteristic/trait that is something that is common with those who have ASPD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder) and those who have Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Both personality types (especially when looking at psychopathy more specifically), suffer to varying degrees from alexithymia i.e., the individual’s inability to recognize and describe their own emotional state. This means that they may not be sure of how somebody else’s actions and behaviors may be emotionally affecting them (those with BPD will talk of an emotional “emptiness”), which may lead to a degree of uncertainty about how they should respond. When we consider that we judge threats and danger largely from interpreting our emotional state, we can see that those with alexithymia lack the ability to do so, they can only understand these things cognitively, which means there is the potential for misinterpreting benign situations as dangerous ones, and vice versa etc., however it is perhaps more likely that such individuals have learnt, or have a tendency to err on the side of caution, and to respond aggressively when a safe situation includes certain components of a dangerous one etc. If we think of emotions as being short cuts that allow us to recognize and interpret an event without having to analyze all of the components in it, we can quickly see that individuals who lack the ability to interpret their emotional state are at a distinct disadvantage when trying to make sense of their experiences, and are likely to misinterpret what is happening to them – it simply isn’t feasible to make sense of all of the components of an incident cognitively in the time that a response to that event is needed. It is important that not everyone who would be clinically diagnosed with Psychopathy, Anti-Social Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and/or Borderline Personality Disorder have, or will, be violent offenders – in the case of BPD, they are much more likely to self-harm than harm others etc. However, there are certain common traits and characteristics that these disorders contain that do pose a risk of violent behavior, and it is better to focus specifically on these when looking at violence prediction than looking at the disorder as a whole. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=571 Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=570 When you can create hesitancy in the person you are dealing with, whether it’s when sparring, competing, or dealing with a real-life aggressor, you create for yourself opportunities. The same is true if you can make a person over-commit; in fact, it is often hesitant people who end up over-committing, in order to overcome their hesitancy e.g., they figuratively – and sometimes literally – close their eyes and swing in the biggest haymaker they can, with the fingers of their other hand crossed – hoping that it will deliver the result they were looking for; in many cases they have no plan beyond this. Hesitancy can occur due to a number of reasons other than just fear, and if we can understand what causes people to hesitate, we can help create an environment/situation where a person may do so, and if we can learn to recognize when this happens, we will have created a moment and an opportunity that we can exploit. In this article I want to look at some of the ways we can do this. Two of the biggest reasons I see people hesitate when sparring is: a fear of the consequences of an action, and over-analyzing the problem i.e., seeing/making it much more complex than it is. The two of these often go hand in hand, with those involved creating complex “what-if” patterns in their heads, that always result in them getting punched, kicked, or thrown etc. When forced to do something, because you have to do something when sparring, the result is something that is either half-hearted or over-committed. This means that if I want to create and exploit hesitancy in the person I’m dealing with, I need them to start thinking about the consequences of their actions, and making it appear as if the problem they are dealing with is more complicated than it is. This is one of the reasons I emphasize the use of the De-escalation/Interview Stance, in the Pre-Conflict phase of an altercation, and am a firm believer in the use of pre-emptive striking. A good, solid Interview stance when you are dealing with an aggressor who has not yet thrown a strike, should see you standing tall and looking confident i.e., you should appear as if you know what you are doing. Communicating that you are in control of the situation and that you know what you are doing is a good way to get the other person to question whether they actually are. By keeping your hands/arms out in front of you and controlling range, you are creating a problem for your aggressor i.e., they don’t have easy access to you, and must find a way to gain access to you. All of these things make you appear a much more complex problem to solve than if you stand there with your hands down, letting the person have an easy opportunity to swing at you etc. Putting a few doubts in the other person’s head concerning their ability to manage the situation goes a long way to start creating an assailant who is hesitant and is likely either to under- or over-commit. Most people are not that confident in their fighting abilities and if you are able to slow things down for a few moments their confidence soon drops. Whenever you make physical contact with somebody, they should experience pain and discomfort, and so start to fear the consequences of getting physical with you. This is true of blocking. Every time you make a block, and your assailant’s limb comes into contact with you they should experience some form of pain, whether that comes from the block itself or your simultaneous attack. If you can think of an outer/360 block involving you ramming the blade of your forearm into your attacker’s arm, as an offensive rather than defensive movement with the aim of causing pain and trauma, your blocks will start to become attacks. If an assailant comes to experience pain every time they expect to cause you pain, they will soon begin to hesitate when attacking. Not only are they experiencing unexpected consequences, but they are also starting to understand that the problem they are trying to solve is somewhat more complex than they first expected, which should result in them either hesitating more or over-committing. In turn when you attack them, they need to experience pain and disruption, whether this is a thumb to the eye, or a punch designed to deliver concussive force. I have dealt professionally with people who could suck up punches all day long (or who realized after a while that getting hit/punched wasn’t as bad as they’d expected), which means you must have other tools that you can use to get round their pain management systems. Eye pokes, rakes, and gouges may be unsophisticated, but they are easy ways to deliver pain, and also elicit responses that can be used to your advantage e.g., most people’s natural reaction to have fingers and thumbs in their eyes is to try and grab the arms and wrists of the person attacking them, which means that they are not hitting/punching you in that moment, and they are vulnerable to other attacks that you can launch whilst their arms are in this position. Another good way to deliver pain and get attackers to experience and think about consequences is to throw them. People may think that some of the punches you land are “lucky” ones, however there are no “lucky” throws and people understand this vey clearly when they find themselves on the ground looking up at someone. Having a number of ways – rather than just one – to deliver pain is a good way to get assailants to start thinking about consequences, and when this happens it creates hesitancies that can be further exploited. Just as we look to create hesitancy and force over-commitment, we should recognize the things which make us hesitant, whether it is over-thinking a problem, or a fear of the consequences etc. This means we should test ourselves and our abilities concerning these things, to make sure that we have met and dealt with them before we are tested for real.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=570 Mon, 10 Jan 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=569 There are two groups we tend not to think about regarding committing sexual assaults: women and young children. However, both groups do commit rapes and sexual assaults - just not at the same rates as men – and are largely under-reported and under-studied due to a variety of reasons (Turner et al., 2008). In the case of some child offenders, these assaults can’t be officially recognized as they fall below the age of criminal responsibility. By not recognizing the danger that such groups can potentially pose, we can create blind spots that they can exploit. This was illustrated this past week in the trial and conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex-trafficking (amongst other charges) having procured under-age women for her former boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, to sexually assault; assaults that she was also sometimes present at, and at other times directly involved in. There is sometimes a public perception that those who are sexually victimized by female offenders aren’t as traumatized as those victimized by men, however there is substantial research that shows this is not the case (Denov, 2004) – and victims are generally less likely to be believed than those assaulted by men, especially when the perpetrator is the mother. In this article I want to look at the Ghislaine Maxwell case and how it serves as a representation for female sexual offenders and the ways in which they offend. One of the reasons that female sexual offending against minors is under-researched is that such offenses go against the public perception of mothers – and women in general – as being naturally nurturing, protective, and not sexually aggressive etc. This was a view that Maxwell exploited, presenting herself as a trustworthy and caring individual to those she victimized. This perception of women not being natural predators, has led to the view/belief that women only commit such acts if suffering from some form of mental illness and/or are forced/coerced by men into behaving this way. Something which in turn ascribes a victim status to the offender. However, whilst co-offending, with a male partner is more prevalent with female sex offenders than with male, it still only accounts for around a third of all cases where women are involved, many also solo offend before and after these incidents (Cortoni et al., 2017). Like male sex offenders, women engage in sexual assaults for a variety of reasons, including sexual gratification, intimacy issues, humiliation, and revenge (Harris, 2010) etc., and so it is important to acknowledge these motivations rather than try to explain all sexual offenses as being acts of coercion. Whilst it may at first seem that sexual offenses by women are rare, and arrest and conviction data would appear to support this, an NSPCC study (2007) of calls to their child line found out that 5% of girls and 44% of boys reported that their sexual abuser was a woman, suggesting that male victims were almost as likely to be assaulted by a woman as a man. As we try to understand Ghislaine Maxwell’s offenses, it would be easy to write her off simply as an “accomplice” to Epstein, and downplay her role, believing him to be the primary predator and her simply facilitating and supporting him in these assaults, however we should not simply on the basis of gender see her as less culpable for these offenses; one of the women victimized referred to Maxwell as being “more evil” than Jeffrey Epstein (Anguiano, 2021). Rape and sexual assaults are motivated by a number of factors, but underlying motivators are the need to experience power and control, something that Maxwell would have experienced in sourcing out vulnerable young women for Epstein, and on occasion herself, to sexually/physically assault. She may well have also enjoyed a sense of power in being a woman, operating at the highest level, in a male dominated sex ring. Sexual assaults usually have issues of power reassurance and/or assertion (Fox et al., 2021), and simply by being a part of such a group would have offered her these things. The role of women in sex trafficking has a long history, and Maxwell is by no means unique i.e., it is estimated that internationally 38% of those involved in human trafficking are women and in Eastern Europe and East Asia, women are twice as likely to be involved in trafficking than men (68% female, 32% male) (UNOCDC, 2010). Despite the relatively high number of women involved in this activity, a Dutch study found that women only made up about 14% of those at the top of sexual exploitation trafficking organizations, making this a largely male-controlled crime industry (Van Dijk et al., 2002). Women are better at gaining the trust of other women than men, making them ideal as offenders at convincing young women that they are safe, and acting in their interests. What perhaps makes Maxwell’s crime seem more heinous, is that many women involved at the lower ends of sex-trafficking are doing so for financial reasons, such as to escape poverty. This is not meant to justify their crimes or lessen the impact of them in any way, however Maxwell was part of a multi-billion-dollar media industry and had no financial reasons to engage in this activity. She was simply a sexual predator searching for victims in order to meet her own personal needs and desires. There are no mitigating circumstances to her crimes, and this is perhaps one of the most important take-aways concerning sexual predators: they come in all shapes and sizes, and don’t fit a particular socio-economic profile etc. They do however use whatever they have to gain our trust, and in Maxwell’s case her status, smile and wit were the tools she used. None of those she victimized had any reason to believe she meant them harm. Each person she targeted, was groomed, in a way that saw them do something small first, something that they would have difficulty telling themselves was sexual, such as giving a foot massage to Epstein, but at the same time being emotionally aware that it was. Each step and act closed a door behind them meaning they could only, always go further. Maxwell seems to have been fully aware of the process she was engaged in. I hope that the Maxwell verdict changes our view about and towards female child sex offenders (FCSO), so that we can start to see them as sexual predators who are as dangerous as their male counterparts, whether they offend alone or with a partner. Whilst children, and young people, are still statistically safer with women than with men, we should acknowledge that this is a statistic, and doesn’t change the personalities of those we interact with, and money, status and a nice smile are not indicators of good character. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=569 Mon, 03 Jan 2022 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=568 Over the past 18 months, homicides and incidents of aggravated assault have increased sharply in the US (this has not been the case in the UK or Europe) e.g., around 33 000 deaths due to violence, 8400 more than in 2019. Overall, this is a significant increase, made more significant by the fact that many other types of offenses, such as property crimes, fell (by 7.9%). However, it is worth noting that from a historical perspective violent crime – including homicide – is relatively low i.e., at the moment this 18-month period represents a “spike” in a rate that has been consistently declining since 1992. This rise in violent crimes was experienced primarily in large cities, and in the Midwest and the South; it was not experienced universally across the United States. In comparison with other crimes, homicides are still, even with this rise, relatively rare events (making up less than 1% of all reported crimes); in fact, compared to other human events, such as going shopping, driving etc., all types of crime are relatively rare. However, spikes and sharp drops in certain crime give us an opportunity to explore the nature of these offenses, against the landscape in which they occurred e.g., how did certain changes in lifestyles and routine activities caused by the COVID-19 pandemic affect violent crime, including homicide? As well as looking at lifestyles changes etc., it is also worth considering other changes which may have impacted the crime rate, including economic factors such as inflation, food shortages, and the reduction in certain social services etc. A country going into lockdown sees most groups and communities changing their routine activities, as members generally don’t go to work, and/or frequent places such as bars and restaurants etc., and so end up spending a greater percentage of their time at home, often in close proximity to family members etc. One section of society whose routine activities carried on largely as normal – no social distancing etc. - were members of organized gang whose rates of offending appeared to be largely unchanged during the pandemic (Brantingham et al., 2021). However, for most people the lockdown meant an interruption to previous daily routines, that saw them stuck in their homes, living 24x7 with family members etc. leading for many to heightened levels of stress and anxiety (Srivastava et al., 2021). When we consider that for the majority of homicides the perpetrator knows their victim, then this change of routine that sees people who know each other spending more and more time together, the number of potential opportunities that could lead to violent, and potentially fatal, offending increases significantly. Prolonged periods of “Cabin Fever” increase levels of aggression, as well as the number of opportunities upon which to act on it (Ussher et al., 2021), which may help to explain the rise in homicides. Another factor that could explain why the US experienced a spike in homicides where the UK and Europe didn’t is the presence of firearms (handguns are used in 77% of US homicides). All countries may have experienced a similar rise in household aggression etc., however with the presence of a firearm during an aggressive exchange there is a greater chance of it ending with a fatality etc. This may also explain the discrepancies between homicides in different states with those in the Midwest and the South seeing a larger increase in murder rates, than others, due to higher rates of handgun ownership. It is however worth noting that Alaska, the US State with the highest percentage of gun ownership, saw a decrease in its homicide rate, so there may be other factors, that are at play. It is always worth considering the impact of “background” factors, which may not directly lead to incidents of violence but are reflective of conditions, which may create or be conducive to violence i.e., they may act as correlating indicators, for a number of things that can lead to violence etc. There has been a fair amount of research on the relationship between inflation and crime, though it has largely been focused on acquisitive crimes such as robberies, thefts and shoplifting etc., with people either searching for cheaper stolen goods and products to buy, or engaging in robbery to acquire more cash etc. However, Rosenfeld and Vogel (2021), building on the work of Fischer, have shown that homicide rates do, to a certain extent, follow that of inflation. This is not to suggest that there is a direct link between the two but rather that the conditions that high and especially unstable prices cause, such as price uncertainty may be “stressors” that lead to or cultivate violent behavior. Another similar factor that correlates with increases in violent offending, including homicides, is food insecurity i.e., individuals and communities who don’t have a predictable supply of food are more likely to engage in acts of violence than those that do – including those who suffer from food scarcity, but have a predictable supply (Miller et al., 2021). The Pandemic has seen both a rise in prices, and a period where food supplies were – and to a certain degree – still are, unpredictable. Both of these may create, or simply represent, environmental factors, such as “unpredictability” that could result in a greater degree of violent offending – including murder. When the threat of job uncertainty is added to these other unpredictable factors, it can be understood that many people were/are living their lives in a heightened and unstable emotional state. It is tempting to look for a single reason and cause for the upsurge in violent crime, however in all likelihood it is due to a combination of factors, including changes in the way policing was conducted in the early part of the pandemic etc. Perfect storms are usually the result of several things coming together, and this may well be true of the increase in homicides during and after the lockdowns. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=568 Mon, 27 Dec 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=567 The practicing of self-defense techniques outside of the contexts, within which they are designed to be used, can never be categorized, or defined as being reality-based. Practicing a gun disarm, or a solution to knife attack from the perspective of, if somebody points a gun to your head, so you do this, or when somebody threatens you with a knife, you use this technique etc., is only applicable for threats and attacks that take place within your school/training space, as this is the context within which you are practicing them. If you want to make the training relevant, the correct and accurate context/scenario needs to be created, and effective threat analysis and decision-making trained alongside the execution of the technique (or the decision not to apply a physical solution). It is easy as an instructor to satisfy a student’s desire to always be able to physically control a potentially violent situation, but this isn’t always realistic. And it would be irresponsible to bend and mold reality so that every physical solution and technique taught worked in every scenario and context. In this article I want to look at some pieces of research around street robberies/muggings, so that we can have a better idea of what such activities actually look like, rather than simply trying to imagine how such offenses are committed, and/or use anecdotal evidence from friends and acquaintances who may have been victimized. I have in the past had people argue that academic research is “theory”, and I think it is worth knocking this myth/argument on its head at the beginning. My own experiences of violence are limited to myself, and the contexts within which I experienced violence. A researcher interviewing multiple victims of a particular offense, along with those offenders who commit them, has access to many, many more experiences, and many different contexts which are able to inform us as to what the real world – outside of our own experiences – looks like. Research by Smith (2003), commissioned by the UK Home Office, found that 76% of personal robbery victims and 94% of offenders were male i.e., muggings are by and large male-on-male affairs. There may be several reasons for this. One reason is that in many cases, where committing certain crimes are concerned, especially those involving violence, the offenders are trying to establish and demonstrate “masculinity” – this has been consistently demonstrated in research conducted both in the UK, US, and Australia (Bookman et al., 2007). Whilst an offense such as street robbery may seem to be primarily motivated by the need to acquire assets, namely money, it is also an expressive crime where the perpetrator gets to express an identity, they’ve created for themselves, gaining a sense of power and control over those they target and victimize. This may require them to target men, rather than women. Another reason may be due to “opportunity”. Research by Harding et al. (2019) in Scotland, showed that in certain cases muggings were committed recreationally, as a means of entertainment, by groups (some formal others informal) to stave off boredom. They found that this was especially true of groups of male teenagers and young boys, who would target others they came across as a means of establishing reputation within the group i.e., there was a performance element to these crimes. These groups, as they got older, would then start to commit street robberies as a means of generating cash in order to buy alcohol and drugs, maintaining the same methods that they did when they were younger i.e., they already had a model concerning who they targeted and the way they committed their crimes. It is worth noting that street robberies aren’t just about the money, they are also used to establish identity, both to self and to the group; Smith’s research found that 62 % of all muggings were committed by two or more people, with Deuchar (2018), finding that committing offenses together, was a form of bonding for those who did so. Whilst it may be tempting to suggest that there are major differences between street robberies in one country compared to another, Wright et al. (2006), found that this wasn’t the case. When we start to treat a street robbery as an expressive, rather than a purely instrumental crime, there is a lot more at stake than just a wallet etc. Smith’s research also led to her creation of four basic typologies, based on the level of violence, and interaction with the victimized individual. These are: Blitz, Snatch, Confrontation and Con. She also recognized a fifth, where the person victimized, initiated the interaction, such as a drug user being mugged by a dealer etc. In a Blitz robbery, there is a low level of interaction and a high use of violence e.g., instead of engaging in any form of dialogue the offender simply starts physically attacking those they’ve targeted – it was found that 48.6% of individuals who engaged in these types of assaults, were either on drugs at the time of the robbery or looking to get cash to buy drugs. Snatch robberies tended to involve long periods of surveillance, and synchronization of movement, where the offender watched and followed those they’d targeted, waiting for an opportunity to “snatch” whatever valuables were visible e.g., mobile phones (if in use at the time these would be unlocked), handbags, purses etc. These types of incidents tended to use little violence, unless the person being victimized tried to fight back (Brookman & Bennett, 2011; Wright et al., 2006). It is again worth remembering that in the majority of muggings there are two or more offenders, so most instances of fighting back will involve multiple assailants. High violence, and high interaction, robberies used physical intimidation as a means to force those targeted to acquiesce, these were the interactions where a weapon might be used, though it is still worth remembering that many muggings (43% according to a 2013 FBI report – though this isn’t universal across the US) are conducted without i.e., are categorized as strong-arm robberies. When you consider that the majority of street robberies involve two or more individuals, that is usually going to be enough of a show of force without a weapon being required. Smith noted that the con approach accounted for the smallest percentage of street robberies, suggesting that it was the most involved and took longest to plan e.g., muggers are looking for a quick and easy crime. By understanding that street robberies are expressive rather than simply instrumental/transactional crimes, we can understand that there is a deeper level of emotional content to muggings than we may have first thought i.e., it is a higher-stake type of offense than something that simply involves acquiring assets. When we start thinking of it as an offense that is largely committed by two or more people, we may want to think about incorporating this into our training, and see what our solutions now look like e.g., gun disarming whilst being attacked by a second assailant etc. In short we should make sure our training is relevant and contextual. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=567 Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=566 There are times when otherwise “peaceful” people who believe in the rule-of-law, will act violently because they believe that they have been socially sanctioned to do so i.e., the group they belong to, and/or identify with has given them permission to do so. Sometimes, this position is “formal”, where a leader(s), directly instructs members of the group to act and behave in a certain way, and sometimes it is informal, when individuals take cues from each other as to how they should act e.g., whilst a faction of a crowd may be violently attacking another person, bystanders who are not yet taking part may receive looks from those that are, suggesting and pressuring them to join in etc. In the moment it may seem that the violence being used is for a greater good, and sometimes it is, such as when demonstrators are attempting to overthrow a corrupt government or regime as part of a revolution. However, there are times when it is not, such as when members of a social group join in on a retributive attack by one of their own, who believes that somebody slighted them in some way e.g., looked at them in the “wrong way” etc. In that moment it may seem that the violence being used is just and fair, even though in no way could it ever be claimed that it met the requirements of acting in self-defense. In this article I want to look at the power of socially sanctioned violence, that goes beyond simple peer pressure in the moment, and considers how sections of society and certain groups view “violence” and the use of physical force, believing mistakenly that the values of the group are either in-line with the law, or believe – in that moment - that they are above it, because it is socially sanctioned. I remember the 1990 poll tax riots in London, where protestors who had gone on the march not intending to become violent, did so. This became apparent in interviews where protesters justified their use of violence by claiming it was only in response to excessive force by the police etc. Whilst this is also the claim that is made by demonstrators who plan and orchestrate violent acts, when the sheer number of people involved, and arrested, for acts of violence and property damage, is taken into account a large number of them were those who got caught up in/responded to the moment believing that they were socially sanctioned to do so i.e., that the larger community of the British public was in agreement with them, that the use of violence was justified. Whilst a good percentage of British society felt that the poll tax/community charge, was unfair and unjust etc. only a small percentage would likely condone the use of rioting, violence, and destruction to facilitate a change in government policy etc., and this is where there can be a confusion as to what society sanctions and what it doesn’t. It would be easy and simple to make the argument that societal values played no part, and the poll tax riots were simply the result of an overly emotional and adrenalized mob who got carried away with the excitement of rioting etc., however when you witness the euphoric response of the crowd to South Africa House going up in flames, you can see the collective idea in the crowd that a blow against apartheid has been struck i.e., a certain socially sanctioned goal has been achieved. When I lived in a certain city in the North of England, one of the social values, that was very different to where I had grown up, was the general acceptance amongst certain sections of society that it was OK to hit/punch women. This was something I first witnessed when working door security at pubs and clubs. Whilst I was obviously aware of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), and that violence against women happened largely behind closed doors, I can still remember my shock and surprise at seeing a man punch a women square in the face – and the indifferent reaction/response of the crowd. Obviously, this was a clear case of assault and battery, however there was no shame on the part of the aggressor concerning what he’d done, and those that I was working with expressed no thoughts concerning the gender of the person who was attacked. Although not perhaps a universally socially sanctioned incident, violence against women (by men) largely was in that locale. Other similarly sanctioned acts of violence that were present in certain other sections of society in the UK, included the incidents of “Paki Bashing”, which were all too common in certain districts of London in the 1980’s, where groups would target Pakistani Immigrants with violence. Although many may look on the 1970’s/80’s as the era of racial violence in the UK, it should not be forgotten that such incidents started in the 1950’s, with the most notable incident being that of the 1958 Notting Hill Race Riots where gangs of white “Teddy Boys” actively searched for West Indian immigrants to attack. Again, watching and reading interviews, from the time, those involved believed they were socially sanctioned, as they believed that immigrants were taking away jobs and affordable housing from the residents in the area. Individuals and groups may act violently believing that in that moment they have societal approval for their actions, and they may even equate this with a legal right e.g., what feels morally justifiable, must be legal etc. A good example of this type of misconception is a person’s belief that after disarming a firearm and moving away, that they are then – in every incident - legally permitted to shoot their unarmed assailant i.e., this would now constitute a self-defense situation, and society would approve of such an action etc. Where groups are concerned, societally sanctioned actions can become less “abstract”, as an individual gets their views and perceptions reinforced by those around them e.g., a demonstrator who sees those around them responding to a police presence by using violence, may believe that because those around them are acting in this way they too have the right to use physical force against law enforcement, and because everybody seems to be doing the same, this is socially sanctioned. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=566 Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=565 In last week’s article I looked at the cognitive processes that people use in spontaneously violent incidents. Before looking at how emotions and feelings are involved and influence these processes, I want to look at some of the characteristics of Spontaneous Incidents (in comparison to premeditated ones), so that we can better understand how and why emotions effect our responses. As a quick reminder, Premeditated acts of aggression are those that have some degree of planning and premeditation to them, such as muggings and street robberies, whereas Spontaneous Incidents are caused by some external event happening that causes the person to become aggressive e.g., such as someone spilling a drink over them etc. Below are some of the major differences between these two types of aggression and violence, which will help us better understand the role of emotions in spontaneous events: Spontaneous acts of violence are motivated by feelings of fear or contest, whereas Premeditated ones are motivated by desires and needs. The function of Spontaneous aggression/violence is to reduce and eliminate a threat, whether real or perceived, whereas the function of a Premeditated act is to achieve a goal. The emotional arousal in Spontaneous incidents is high and unstable whereas in Premeditated ones it is largely controlled and stable. The initiation of Spontaneous acts is sudden and volatile whereas Premeditated acts have steps and stages, which are largely controlled. In Spontaneous incidents targets can quickly be switched e.g., aggression that is initially directed at one party can be redirected to another, if that individual is deemed a threat to them, whereas in premeditated acts that target usually stays constant. It can be seen that spontaneous events are usually much more emotional and volatile, with the aggressor seeing everyone as a potential threat etc. The first thing to note about social information processing and the cognitive scripts that are used (click here to read last week’s article on this), is that they are directly affected by a person’s emotional state. In fact, someone who is highly emotional is likely to use the first solution that they come across, rather than evaluate it against others. They are also less likely to process the scripts they use, such as those associated with retribution, against those that inhibit them e.g., an individual who finds their partner in bed with another person and becomes highly emotional because of it, is more likely to act upon a retribution script, and less likely to filter their response with inhibitory scripts, such as using violence to hurt or kill somebody is wrong etc. Feelings are our interpretations of our emotional state(s), and if using violence would “feel” good to us, we are more likely to act violently i.e., a retrieved script that feels good is more likely to be acted upon than one that feels bad – if it would feel gratifying to use violence there is a good chance we will. Something that can play into this is our level of sensitivity to violence. Individuals who have become desensitized towards violence, perhaps through upbringing and experience, are less likely to view acting violently negatively, and may instead have positive experiences using it. Emotions can also be misattributed or transferred. Emotions lead to arousal, and that arousal is interpreted cognitively, which results in a “feeling”. The way to understand this is that “arousal” is a general physical state, and that we give meaning to that state based on external factors e.g., physiologically anger and fear are the same emotional state, however if we are walking down a street late at night when we become adrenalized we are likely to interpret this state as “fear”, when if we become aroused in the same way by an injustice we see we will experience this state as “anger” etc. This means we can sometimes misinterpret and mislabel our feelings e.g., if we are at a bar or club talking to someone we are attracted to and experience a level of emotional arousal, and then as we go to buy a drink someone bumps into us, we can transfer the interpretation of aroused state from one of sexual excitement to one of anger i.e., we switch our interpretation of what caused our emotional state, from one stimuli to another. What this means is that in any environment where emotions run high (even if they are interpreted positively), if something happens to us that might be perceived as a threat, a challenge, or a contest, we will now interpret our already aroused state as being a result of that. This is something I have seen at soccer/football games where the exhilaration at watching a goal be scored is suddenly replaced by extreme anger after someone accidentally bumps into someone else etc., as everyone is celebrating. We should be aware that when we are in highly emotional environments minor behaviors and actions can be quickly emotionally misattributed, and that if our subsequent actions seem to confirm that we are perceived as a threat and the reason for a person’s already aroused state it is likely that an aggressive confrontation will ensue. It is important to understand how our emotional state(s) affects the retrieval of our memories and our cognitive scripts, both in interpreting others’ and our own propensities for aggression and violence. Understanding things such as misattribution of emotions may helps us explain why people who would seem to be the most unaggressive and risk-averse may become violent when highly aroused due to other reasons etc. We should also acknowledge there are times when acting aggressively and violently may “feel” good but that this doesn’t necessarily mean that we should. Angry people often believe they are right to feel the way they do, and are justified in using violence, and a lot of this is due to the fact that they choose the first solution they find and fail to run it through any filters – something we should be aware of in both ourselves and others.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=565 Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=564 In this article I want to look at the cognitive processes that are at play in incidents of spontaneous aggression and violence. This includes how social information is processed using scripts and schemas etc. Spontaneous acts of aggression/violence occur when a cue or trigger in the environment causes somebody to become aggressive; this is also sometimes referred to as reactive or affective aggression etc. The cue/trigger can be something somebody says or does, or even a look that is interpreted as a challenge or a slight etc. Spontaneous violence is different to planned or premeditated violence (sometimes referred to as proactive or instrumental violence e.g., violence used to accomplish a goal such as obtaining a wallet in a street robbery, through the use of threats and intimidation etc.), in a number of ways: There are usually no defined goals e.g., the aggressor doesn’t have a clear idea of what they are trying to obtain (unlike a mugger). The aggression is triggered by external stimuli – such as being bumped into – as opposed to internal urges/desires (the mugger’s need to obtain money) The aggression/violence is largely the result of situational events, as opposed to being characterologically driven; this is not to say that a person in a spontaneous incident doesn’t have a predisposition to use aggression and violence. In premeditated acts of aggression and violence the confrontation is largely impersonal i.e., the offender committing a street robbery has no personal vendetta against the person they are mugging, whereas in Spontaneous acts of violence the incident is highly personal to the aggressor. Despite these characteristics of spontaneous incidents, making it appear that all such events can be neatly categorized, and responded to in the same way, this is not the case. Solutions to violence, involve dealing with people, and different people respond differently to the same and/or similar events, meaning that trying to fit a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with violence is a dangerous way to go. Hopefully by understanding how threats, slights, perceived challenges are processed we can better understand where and when solutions such as de-escalation and conflict resolution may apply. To read another blog that looks at similar issues from a different perspective please click here. A social interaction – that can be classed as a conflict, such as stepping on someone’s foot, bumping into them, jumping a line/queue etc. – is a problem that needs to be solved; it is possible to solve the problem by ignoring it e.g., letting the person who jumped ahead of you in the line/queue go first, because the potential confrontation is not worth your time etc. However, if we consider what could be seen as a more personal affront to somebody - when you accidentally bump into them in a bar spilling a drink all over them, for example, it becomes more complicated. In such a scenario, the individual who has had this “injustice” committed against them, needs to find a way to solve the combined problems, of their social embarrassment, their social standing, and their need to have the wrong righted in some way. To do this they will start to make a social evaluation of the system, which will end with a decision on how to respond.  This will involve the running of certain scripts and the use of a variety of schema. All of this takes place in memory, with some parts being consciously driven, and other parts happening at the subconscious level. Human memory can be thought of as a large number of nodes (created by experience), being associated with other similar nodes along a variety of pathways. An external stimulus, such as having a drink spilt over them, will cause a node to be “lit up” and it will start to “light up” other nodes that it is connected with based on the strength of the connections etc. It could be that memories associated with challenges to social status become primed, or it could be memories associated with accidents in social settings, and it is these memories and their various relative strengths, which will be used to interpret what is happening and start the process of how to respond. These knowledge structures are held in associative memory along with a variety of scripts and schema. Because we often need to respond quickly to things, we create scripts that allow us to do so e.g., we might have a “personal retribution” script that we use to regain social status etc. When we experience a loss of social status, and the various memory nodes are primed, the script becomes associated with them, and we have a response that is ready to go. However, the process doesn’t stop here. We also run the script against other scripts to evaluate how effective and appropriate it might be e.g., somebody might have a set of values that says it is inappropriate to hit women, or a script that says they will physically lose to somebody who is bigger and stronger them. So, the initial response gets filtered by other scripts that inhibit certain behaviors and outcomes. It is the lack of these inhibitory scripts that often result in people becoming aggressive and/or violent e.g., if somebody has found that using violence is a successful strategy for them, then it is likely that they won’t have strong inhibitory scripts associated with their memories of violence etc. In many ways we all share similar evaluations of situations to greater or lesser degrees e.g., everyone will be angry to some degree at having a drink spilt over them, but some people will evaluate the situation more as an accident than a challenge and may have stronger inhibitory scripts that prevent and discourage them from becoming aggressive – especially if doing so in the past has largely been unsuccessful for them. Obviously, this is a very simplified view of the thought processes that individuals use when considering violence, and it is worth remembering – however emotional – it is still a conscious decision that is made, however impulsive and emotionally driven it may seem. In next week’s article I will look at how emotions, misattributions of emotions and violence, influence this decision making process.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=564 Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=563 If you’ve ever watched someone work the Heavy Bag in the gym, it is easy to tell those individuals who have a competitive, rather than fitness, boxing background i.e., those who have been taught how to spar etc. It’s not about how they punch/hit, but rather about their use of head movement. Those that have been trained as “fighters” move their head before a combination, and after finishing one. Someone who is working the bag, from a fighting perspective, will understand the importance of head movement, in a way that is totally different to someone who is using the bag as a fitness workout (and there is nothing wrong with using the bag this way). In this article I want to look at how head movement can be used both defensively - and more importantly - offensively. One of the first things I train every student in – and perpetually reinforce to existing students – is the ability to control range. At first, this is a conscious skill (making sure they can see their partner’s/opponent’s front foot, with their peripheral vision, whilst looking at the center of the chest), which later turns into a subconscious one i.e., they “automatically” know when they are in or out of range. At this stage I’m also very much about them keeping their head over their shoulders, and their shoulders over hips, and moving in a stable and balanced stance etc. Understanding range, means that they know how to force an opponent to physically move in order to make a strike, and how/when it is “safe” for them to move into range in order for them to make a strike/punch etc. For me this is one of the building blocks for developing a range of fighting skills. However, control of range in this way means that the only time they can come into range to make a strike/punch is to move forward, which is fine if an opponent allows them an opening to do so, and/or if they can create an opening through their movement etc. This may be extremely difficult against an opponent who is putting them under extreme pressure with constant forward momentum. There will be those in the Krav Maga community who will make the argument that in such situations you should simply “fight fire with fire” e.g., turn up your aggression, start moving forward and swinging back etc. Whilst this strategy has its place, against a larger, committed assailant it might be as effective as running and throwing yourself against a castle wall. However, a clever use of head movement, can effectively bring an attacker into range, whilst keeping yourself safe i.e., avoiding being hit. For the sake of example let’s imagine a fighter with some training who is constantly moving forward with a left jab, recoiling, and firing it so fast, that there isn’t a “gap” in which to counter. Not only is it fast but they know how to throw it with power, stepping forward with it, and pushing off from their feet. Initially, you might back up, controlling range, avoiding the punch, but at some point, you will need to interrupt their striking pattern; each time you move back becomes an invitation for them to throw another strike. However, if you suddenly don’t move back, but instead slip the punch, by turning your head to the right, dropping your weight, by bending your knees, their Jab will/should go over your left shoulder, with your assailant now moving into range (life is rarely as simple as this but I’m using a simple example to illustrate the point). Rather than you moving into range, you have brought your attacker into range. This is how head movement can be used offensively, which is the preferred way to use it, and how by using good control of range in conjunction with it, you can set up attacking opportunities e.g., you don’t necessarily have to use head movement to deal with an aggressor coming forward, as described above, as you can “draw” an assailant towards you by moving back. With good control of range, you can force them to over-commit, by moving back and giving them the illusion that with every next strike/punch they might just reach you. As they become more desperate to land the punch there will come a point where they over-commit to it, and overreach and/or commit too much forward momentum. A well-timed slip at that moment will see them move deep into range, with their arm fully extended over your shoulder. Counters that work well at this range are low hooks, and body shots; head shots can be difficult if an assailant is so close to you and has over-committed the punch, as it is unlikely to have been recoiled leaving the punching-arm guarding your attacker’s head/face – the body and ribs though are nicely exposed. Sticking with the left-jab and slipping to the right - by turning your right shoulder and pulling your head to the right – if you’re fighting in an orthodox stance your weight will have been transferred to your right foot, meaning that you are all set to transfer it to your left foot, as you swing in the right hook. This is how you use the slip to not only evade being hit, but to set up your punches with power. This is why actions such as slipping should be seen and used as offensive rather than defensive maneuvers. Head movement is also an extremely good way of distracting an opponent/aggressor - this is something I have written about in a previous blog (click here to read) - and whilst it is first important to learn how to control range though body movement and positioning, at some point adding in head movement is a necessary addition to your skillset. Although, not primarily meant as a defensive tool, when finding yourself in range, either because you have moved in, or caused your attacker to move in, it may become your only way of evading punches at this range, and being able to do this with the ability to quickly counter with your own punches becomes important and necessary.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=563 Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=562 One of the things that first attracted me to Krav Maga was its codification of fighting concepts and ideas. Where fighting is concerned there is very little “new” however Krav Maga brings these concepts to the fore and teaches by them. Krav Maga is less about techniques than it is about the application of these heuristics to fighting, in fact I would make the argument that the techniques are a way of communicating these ideas, rather than things to be blindly performed. In this article I want to talk about one of these ideas: “Hand Defense, Body Defense.” It’s not other martial arts and fighting systems don’t contain this idea, for example Retzev, the idea of putting an opponent/aggressor under continuous, unbroken pressure can be found in other systems, is not unique to Krav Maga e.g., when I was a competitive Judoka that was the way I was taught to attack: find an opening, and keep working, working, and working it, until you got the Ippon etc. Where Krav Maga does a lot better than many other systems though is in articulating these ideas. In this article I want to focus on the importance of the body defense component of this fighting idea. Whilst there is often too much emphasis on being taken by complete surprise in Krav Maga training, which doesn’t mirror or reflect how most real-life incidents occur, the idea that you will probably respond sub-optimally is realistic; even staples of Krav Maga, such as simultaneous blocking and striking, are often a tall order to pull off successfully in an actual altercation etc., however much an armchair pundit may argue. I’m not saying it can’t be done but most people’s heads are not fully in the game at the start of a physical confrontation i.e., most of them are still dealing with the shock and awe of somebody physically assaulting them, regardless of the amount of aggression training they have done (and that isn’t to knock the importance of this type of training). When you are attacked for real, the social order/contract you have come to accept and rely on has been thrown out of the window, something that doesn’t happen during a stress test, or even sparring (another important aspect of training). However, perhaps more important – when looking at reality – than the simultaneous strike with the block, is the body defense component that accompanies the hand-defense, as it is this that breaks up your assailant’s rhythm and flow. You might block/defend the first strike, however if you are still in the same place when they throw the second it’s unlikely that you will do so again, as they’ve not had to change their response if you are still in the same position. Part of your movement, your body defense, is to force them to have to respond to you e.g., to attack again, they now have to recognize where you are and reorientate themselves to make their next assault – this creates opportunities, and possibly better ones than a badly thrown simultaneous strike that lacks power and/or effect. Again, if you are able to get the simultaneous strike/punch, along with the hand and body defense that’s ideal, but getting all three together is often a lot to ask. The importance of the body defense can clearly be seen in stick and baseball bat attacks, where the majority of the defense comes from closing distance, so that you are inside the last third of the stick/bat, where the power is concentrated. If with an overhead strike, you can get inside this, the power the bat or stick can generate is greatly diminished. In such instances the “hand-defense” component is largely about insurance, protecting the head should the body-defense not be sufficient. The focus should not be on intercepting and deflecting the bat (your arm may not break but it will feel the impact), but on getting as close to your assailant as you can – and as far away from the end of the bat as is possible. The importance of the body defense can also be seen when dealing with a knife-shank or “Oriental” attack; without pulling the hips back, you will not be able to bring the forearm down to a position where you can stop the knife. Pulling the hips back, as well as being instinctive, also adds to the defense if it is a longer knife. This is also a good illustration of how the body defense introduces latency into the defense, as if the block isn’t sufficient on its own to make a full defense, then the body movement will assist in it e.g., if the block is performed 50% correctly, and the body-defense is performed 50% correctly, this still adds up to 100%. Performed correctly, the body defense can also add weight and power to the block, meaning that the arm isn’t doing all the work in stopping the upwards movement of the blade. This addition of force can be necessary, especially when the knife/blade has momentum. By combining a body defense – however small, such as pulling the neck away from a strangulation as you remove the offending arm etc. – with a hand-defense, you aren’t relying on one thing to make you safe, and when you consider that you are likely to perform sub-optimally under the stress and duress of a real-life confrontation this is extremely important. In any fight we should not be thinking that it will be ended with one response or comprise of just one phase; real-life violence is never that simplistic. If our body defense breaks our assailant’s rhythm and creates an opportunity for us to move from prey to predator, then it has already accomplished a lot. Unfortunately, it is often the least practiced component of a defensive maneuver with most people getting caught up in making the hand-defense perform an undue amount and share of the work etc. It is worth taking time in your training to emphasize this component of your techniques. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=562 Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=561 I have written a little bit about crime journeys and the “distance decay” effect before, however in this article I want to explore it in a bit more detail. In terms of predicting crime – including violent crime – it has been found that place/location is a better predictor than offender characteristics and offender history etc. Most criminal acts happen in a few distinct places, rather than being evenly distributed across a city or urban landscape etc. This is also one of the reasons behind repeat victimization i.e., if someone has a reason to be in a place, that is susceptible to crime, it is unlikely that being in that location is a one-off event e.g., if someone’s journey to work sees them walk along a street/block where street robberies take place, they are likely to come across motivated offenders more than just once etc. Just as an offense has to happen in a particular space, and at a particular time, an offender has to start from a particular location, to get there e.g., they must leave a “base” that they use such as their house, their place of work (many criminals have a full or part-time job), or a bar they frequent, and journey to the location where they commit their offense(s). By better understanding how the crime location, the starting point/base, and the journey to crime (JTC) relate, we can form a better understanding of how offenders operate. In this article I want to take a look at how offender decision-making and space/geography affect offending. One widely accepted idea in Environmental Criminology is that of distance decay; that an offender’s offending declines with distance from the base(s) that they start from. It is worth noting that whilst there is empirical evidence to support this idea, it can not be used as a universal theory/concept e.g., if I am planning to break into Fort Knox in Kentucky and am assembling a team of specialists from around the world to do so, the distance that each team member has to travel is likely to be pretty irrelevant. There is only one Fort Knox on the planet, and if we want to break into it, we will have to travel to it, whatever that distance is. It is unlikely that offenders who live nearby are more likely to try to break into Fort Knox than those who live further away, because the skills and abilities needed to do so, are unique enough that they are unlikely to be geographically concentrated in that particular area, and the perceived reward of breaking in – if successful – is going to significantly outweigh the cost of travel etc. However, it is more likely that a team based/living in the US, will attempt such a crime than one based in Europe. The reason for this is that some local knowledge will be required to pull off such a job, such as knowing how to get rid off the gold bullion once stolen, including how to transport it, where to store it, and who to sell it onto etc. Even if the goal is to fly/ship it out of the country, some US contacts will be needed. This restricts the distance between associates, and their distance from the place of the intended crime, due to the social networks that they operate in e.g., a team committing such an offense are more likely to be geographically close to each other, sharing common social networks etc. This means that it may be equally likely, for example, that a criminal team located in Texas would plan such an offense, as a team located in Massachusetts. Whilst I have chosen a high-profile target, and a professional gang to illustrate these points, the same concepts apply to a loose gang of friends (living/based in a rural town), travelling to a particular city, to engage in shoplifting, and/or recreational drinking and violence etc.     In many crimes, distance decay does have an effect on offending, especially where mobility is concerned e.g., if an offender doesn’t have a car (or access to one), and/or limited public transport options, they will be limited to locations that are within walking distance etc. This is one of the reasons that many young offenders commit crimes close to their homes. Another reason why young offenders often limit their offending to such locations is that they have a limited number of awareness and activity spaces. As we get older, we experience – and become more comfortable – in a greater number of different spaces; these are our activity spaces. We also become aware of other types of spaces, maybe through news reports and other media, or from friends who have visited other places i.e., as we age our world tends to become much larger. This allows older offenders to know of areas and locales that are not in their close proximity e.g., there are probably towns and villages that you know now, that you didn’t know of when you were younger e.g., when I was at university, I became much more aware of the geography of the UK, and what different places were like, through meeting and interacting with students who lived in these different towns and cities etc. Older offenders will be aware of more places than younger ones and are probably also aware of the types of criminal opportunity available to them in these locales; especially if their knowledge of a place comes from another offender. When an offender has a specific target in mind, distance decay is less of a factor in their offending. However, not all offenders do have specific targets in mind. Most, especially where low-level crimes such as street robbery are involved, are more opportunistic in nature. They may set out from their home or base with deliberate intent to offend, or even head to a location that is conducive for offending however if a suitable opportunity presents itself, they will take it. Some criminologists make the argument that offenders won’t commit crimes within a certain distance from their home/base, however my own research has shown both burglars and street robbers committing crimes within their own apartment buildings, and/or on the streets outside their homes etc. There may be some more careful criminals who travel a certain distance before engaging in criminal activities, but this is certainly not true for all. A suitable opportunity that presents itself is all they need in order to offend i.e., the right person, in the right place, and at the right time. When we boil low-level crimes down to this definition of “opportunity” we can see how central time and place are to predicting crime. A forensic scientist named Stuart Kind, working on the case of the Yorkshire Ripper (who killed 13 women in the 1970’s), used a very simple method, involving the Journey to Crime, to predict the home location of Peter Sutcliffe i.e., the Ripper. He deduced that victims killed in the morning, or in the evening, were those probably close to the perpetrator’s house, and represented those he targeted as he was leaving for work (morning killings), and those when he was returning home after work (evening killings); with those homicides in the middle of the day representing his maximum journey distance before returning home etc. By working out how far a car/vehicle could travel in these times, he was able to limit the killer’s home location to a very small area. This can help demonstrate how powerful an understanding of the Journey to Crime can be, as well as showing how important both time and space are in understanding criminal decision-making and predicting future crime(s).           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=561 Mon, 08 Nov 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=560 Often when I am presenting solutions to violence at corporate events, someone will come up to me afterwards and ask me why I didn’t mention or talk more about the dangers that a particular a group posed e.g., why didn’t I talk about the mentally ill, the homeless, street gangs etc. The underlying question being, why didn’t I focus on the real reasons and causes of violence. There are many reasons why an individual might genuinely believe that the homeless population – for example - are the biggest danger to their safety; it may be that they had a bad experience with an aggressive panhandler, and then had the media reinforce their experience by reporting on homeless issues in their neighborhood etc. From their experience(s) and media inspired perspective it is easy to see how they would view criminality (the belief that certain individuals and subsets are responsible for crime) to be the reason for crime and violence, as opposed to opportunity e.g., they were a suitable target, who happened to share the same place and time, as a motivated offender etc. I have written about the phenomena of “folk devils” and “moral panics” before (click here to read the article) however in this article I want to look more at the psychology behind our need/desire to attribute crime and violence to certain groups, and why we are wrong to do so. If we want to be successful in identifying, predicting, and avoiding violen ce we must be sure that we aren’t focusing our attention on the wrong people/groups, and finding that our decision-making processes are being unduly weighted and biased based on incorrect assumptions. The human mind is an incredible creation. The way the brain forms the mind is something that I marvel at consistently i.e., how the various physical areas/aspects of the brain, combine, and interact with our experiences both within and outside of the womb, to form our mind that is able to think, evaluate information, and make decisions. The same “identical”, “physical” brain is capable of creating a multitude of very different minds. However, interestingly, we all share some common “flaws”. The mind abhors a vacuum, it is constantly searching for information to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. It wants our understanding of the world to be perfect, with everything fitting together in a neat and ordered way. This can cause it to over emphasize the importance of certain facts, and even create “new” ones in order for us to be able to join up the dots. It’s one of the reasons – that however confident they may seem or be – witnesses’ recollections of events can be extremely unreliable e.g., events, that didn’t happen, can be created by the mind to join up other events that did, in order to make sense of the totality of the memory. Assigning responsibility for violence to a group such as the mentally ill, is a simple way for us to make sense of violence i.e., violence is the result/product of mental illness. Any uncertainty or gaps we may have had before about the causes of violence are now filled. Yes, we may be able to recognize that there are acts of violence due to out-of-control emotions,  such as bar-fights etc., but at the root they may be a result of minor, underlying, mental issues. Our mind will latch onto these simplistic explanations because they give us a complete understanding of something. It is somewhat comforting and reassuring to understand something completely and have an explanation that covers everything – just like a conspiracy theory. It also gives us a very simple safety strategy, that is unrealistic but makes us feel safe, such as to avoid gangs of young men in hoodies, avoid the “obvious” homeless people etc. Every time we do one of those things, and nothing happens to us, we both consciously and subconsciously, congratulate ourselves that we got it right – forgetting that unless we were to interact not just with a potential offender, but an offender who was motivated to offend/become violent in that moment, we were never in danger.           Once we have adopted a particular viewpoint, we will tend to want to confirm it. There is a stance in psychology, that most of our opinions and perspectives become defined in/by adolescence, and that the rest of our minds’ development is about confirming these things i.e., as we become older our mind is less susceptible to change and more inclined to reinforce existing ways of thinking. This doesn’t mean that changes in perspective don’t occur but rather that we are more inclined and likely to reinforce an idea, when presented with new information, than we are to change it. This phenomenon can be seen constantly on social media where people holding a minority viewpoint will latch on to piece of research that might suggest the position the majority takes isn’t completely conclusive and may have certain flaws or inaccuracies etc. I have sometimes been met with inaccurate presentations of statistics concerning violence that individuals have used to reinforce their perspectives. One of these concerns the mentally ill e.g., the statistics show that the mentally ill are more likely to act violently, than people with no mental illness. The truth is, that individuals suffering with a mental illness – as a diverse, and complete group – are no more likely to act violently, compared with individuals without a diagnosed mental illness etc. However, there are certain specific mental illnesses, where those who suffer are more likely to act violently, but by comparison there are also specific bars and pubs where you are more likely to be assaulted, if you go drinking in them compared to others. I know this is comparing apples with oranges, but the point is just as not all drinking establishments are the same, not all mental illnesses are the same. It is easy, and we are inclined to do it, to search for simple explanations that take aim to make sense of the world around us, and with a 24-hour news cycle bombarding us with whatever current wave of information that the news agencies want to promote, we can easily become susceptible to having our existing ideas reinforced, with what is ostensibly a small sliver of the actual truth and big picture. If we are to have a true understanding of violence and the risks we face then we need to actively prevent ourselves fixating on groups we believe are responsible for violence, and look at they types of opportunities that are required for violence to occur. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=560 Mon, 01 Nov 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=559 Organized Retail Crime (ORC), can affect our safety both from an individual and public perspective. If you have ever bought cheap goods online from an individual seller on an ecommerce site there is a good chance that some of them might have been stolen, as a part of ORC. Historically, Criminologists have tended to study the act of theft with little focus on how these goods are resold, however with the explosion of online selling where products can be sold anonymously, this has started to change. Where an individual shoplifter used to be geographically restricted in the sale of the goods, and so had to deal with a limited market size, with the advent of online selling their market size is potentially unlimited. Because of this ability to sell to anyone, shoplifting has been taken to a new “professional” level and has become an important revenue stream to both crime rings and terrorist organizations. After the economic crash of 2008 and the loss of income from its legitimate enterprise, Al Qaeda started to depend more on ORC for its funding – and this is true of many other terrorist groups e.g., the IRA always relied on the smuggling and reselling of cheaply imported cigarettes and gasoline from the Republic of Ireland to the North as a means of funding its operations. To get an idea of the impact that ORC can have, Walgreens recently announced it would be closing five branches in San Francisco as a direct result of Organized Retail Crime, and branches of Target in the city have reduced store hours as a result of it, as well. With supply chain shortages due to the COVID-19 pandemic, theft on the scale that Organized Retail Crime is capable of, means that the shortage of goods from legitimate channels is shrinking even more, directly affecting individuals by limiting available products and raising prices. As stores are forced to raise their prices, this can push more consumers to buy cheaper stolen goods online, exacerbating the issue. This is just one of the ways that we are affected by ORC. Legitimate businesses have a legal responsibility to store their products in a safe environment, and respect things such as expiry dates. Illegitimate operations have no such restrictions on what they do with their goods, and can keep them in conditions/locations that may be too hot or too cold for safe storage etc. Aside from the obvious dangers this poses to food items, other goods that are also affected by sub-par storage include makeup, perfume, and aftershave; some of the items most commonly stolen and resold online. Hot products that consistently fall within the “top ten” stolen goods in the Centre for Retail Research’s list, are vitamins and pregnancy tests, with baby formula also being high up in the rankings. These are all goods that are directly affected by the way that they are stored, however consumers are unlikely to be aware of such issues when they receive the product. To increase the value of a stolen good, a crime ring may repackage the item to make it look like a more expensive brand. This is common with items such as baby formula, where a store brand formula, may be re-packaged as a name brand one; and may also be cut with powdered milk. Couple this with the fact that the expiration date may also have passed, and the product stored incorrectly, and it can be seen that the consumer/buyer could be receiving a potentially dangerous product. When thinking about making an online purchase from an “individual” seller it is worth considering if the type of product you are buying could be one that is repackaged easily, or could be affected by sub-optimal storage and expiration dates etc. Before looking at the link between ORC and terrorist groups, it is worth taking a look at what is meant by “Organized Crime”. We traditionally think of criminal organizations in terms of the Mafia or Yakuza, where there is a direct hierarchical leadership structure, and formal membership etc. Whilst such organizations do exist, many criminal groups/gangs, operate on much less formal lines based on loose social relationships, interacting with each other when a crime takes place e.g., a professional shoplifter may know a fence who gives a good price for batteries (another item that is commonly stolen and resold online – and that may have a certain shelf life), who is a member of a more formal organization etc. Al-Qaeda, is a good example how a once centrally, and tightly knit, organization with clear lines of control from its leadership has decentralized and become a much looser outfit, losing some of its control of both power and financing. Once the US focused its attention on destroying Al-Qaeda it started to become much more dynamic organization, losing its hierarchical structure and becoming a collection of loosely connected networks, not just an organizer of acts of terrorism but also a sponsor for those who wanted to commit atrocities using its name etc. The same is also true to a certain extent of Hezbollah and the Taliban. This is an important factor to bear in mind when we consider the link between ORC and terrorist groups i.e., it is not so much that Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, the current leader of ISIS is ordering his members to go down to Walmart and steal goods to resell, but rather that a local group that has ties to ISIS, is engaging in theft to support an operation within their own locale. This is not to say that some terrorist organizations aren’t directly involved in such activities. In the UK the Tamil Tigers set up a very organized operation, skimming credit card information at independently run petrol stations. This article is not intended to dissuade anyone from internet shopping but rather for us all to take a moment and consider when we do make purchases who and where we buy it from, as unfortunately much of ecommerce lacks the means to identify the quality of the goods third-party sellers offer, and who they really are. It is worth noting that studies show that online classified ads are still the preferred means that ORC groups use (around 44%), with ecommerce sites being the next largest channel (23%), followed by social media sites, which account for the rest. Organized Retail Crime, takes many forms, including counterfeiting and cargo theft etc., but ultimately the goods that are illegally acquired must be sold to consumers, and usually online. When we look at the links to terrorism, and human trafficking, that ORC has, we should be playing our part to reduce its impact.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=559 Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=558 I have written about deception before e.g., about the changes in pronoun use that people use to distance themselves from events, and the disproportionate number of disfluencies – “Umms”, “Errs” etc. – that are present in deceitful statements. However, I have not written about the structure of deceptive statements i.e., how a person structures what they say, when engaged in deception. In this article I want to take a closer look at the structure and content of deceptive statements. The structure of deceptive statements is one of the few commonalities shared by those who attempt to engage in deception e.g., Some studies (Vrij et al., 1997) for instance have found that increases and decreases in hand movement occur at almost the same rate when people engage in deceit; 52 % of people increase hand movement when lying, whereas 48% decrease it. This illustrates that there are few universal cues to alert us when someone is engaged in deception i.e., different people lie differently. However, there are certain things that do appear to be largely universal, and the way that a deceptive statement is structured is one of these, and by comparing them to the way truthful statements are structured, we can/may start to understand when someone is attempting to deceive us.  If someone is giving us a truthful account of an incident/event, or how they spent their time etc. then they will tend to focus on getting to the main part of their story relatively quickly. The opening part of truthful statements tend to be very light on details, as the emphasis is on recounting the “Main Event”. The reverse is generally true for untruthful statements. If someone is engaged in deception, they want to establish trust and belief before they get to the lie itself. By over-detailing things at the start of a statement they can demonstrate that they want you to know everything and that they’re not holding anything back. Being very detailed in their account early on allows for them to do this, especially if their details can be easily corroborated and established as facts e.g., someone giving an account of what they did yesterday afternoon, might mention that they bumped into someone you know (which they did and can be checked), and then spends a long time detailing what they talked about, which is completely irrelevant to the “Main Event” of the story. By using a lot of truthful statements early on it’s easier for someone to keep track of their story, as they don’t have to remember too many untruthful things, which may trip them up when they have to recall their account. An over-detailed, truthful introduction/opening can be used to bury a few untruths, that can be hidden in the main event. Basically, irrelevant but truthful details are used as a means of deemphasizing untruthful details later on. If someone takes an overly long time to get to the main event and overloads their introduction with a large number of truthful but irrelevant facts/details, then there is a good chance they are attempting to engage in deception. A person attempting to deceive may also do a lot of auto-correction of the details in their introduction e.g., if a person is trying to hide what they were doing yesterday afternoon, they might say that they left their house at 2:00 PM, and then correct themselves by saying it was actually 2:15 PM, and then correct themselves again to say it was 2:20 PM etc. This is a very simple way that they can communicate to you that they want to be completely open and honest with you, and make sure that you understand that it is their desire for you to know the complete and honest truth. In actual fact whether they left the house at 2:00 or 2:20 pm is pretty irrelevant to what they did that afternoon (something which accounts for a much greater span of time). This desire to appear accurate also prevents their account from coming across as a bit vague. Take two accounts, one deceitful, one truthful. Let’s say you wanted to know what somebody was doing between 1 and 3 PM, and you ask them this. One account/story is: “I went to the pub at 12:30 pm, no I’m wrong about that it was 12:45 pm, because I was intending to leave the house at 12:30, but then I remembered I had to move some clothes that were in the washer to the dryer. It took me about 10, maybe 15, probably more like 20 minutes to walk there. So, I must have got there sometime around 1 pm. I had 3, no sorry 4, beers and then left around 3 pm. No, it was 3:15 pm because I watched the first few minutes of the match, and then I walked home.” The other is: “I went to the pub sometime around 1 pm, I had a few drinks, and then left sometime after 3 pm and was home soon after.” The truthful account is concise, communicates the right amount of detail, whereas the other is too detailed, and is probably missing a key fact or event/incident. Omission is one of the four types of deception the other three being: Falsification (outright lies and contradiction), Exaggeration (modifying facts), and Misleading (misdirection using irrelevant information). Unsolicited details should also be concise and in context. Compare the statement, “The man who pulled the gun on me was wearing a grey suit”, with, “The man who pulled the gun on me was wearing a cheap grey suit. The sort that somebody without any style or class would think looked expensive, but really just showed how little taste they actually had.” This introduces the element of “genre” into detecting deception. If the person you are talking to, is someone who is creative and humorous in the way they re-tell events, their style or genre might be one where they scatter jokes and humorous observations into their accounts of events. This should be a consideration that you take into account when trying to assess whether somebody is engaged in deception. As Hartwig and Bond (2011) state, there is no, “Pinocchio’s Nose” to indicate when somebody is lying. There are so many “myths” concerning deception, such as people not making eye-contact when lying, or looking up and to the left when engaged in deception, or show nervousness or unease when being untruthful etc. The reality is that different people, perform differently, when engaged in deception and so rather than investigate the individual, we should investigate the lie, and that means largely looking at its structure and then at its content. It has been found that when we are asked to detect a lie we are – without training – about as good as chance. However, if we are asked to identify if somebody is thinking too hard about what they are saying (a sign of deception), our detection rate rises to about 75%. Asking the right question, with the right knowledge and understanding, is the key to detecting deception. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=558 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=557 Every now and then someone will leave a comment on a video I put up making the argument that because my students and I train barefoot, that this represents unrealistic training. Often such individuals believe that unless you are practicing in the clothes you’ll be wearing when attacked, etc, then you’re not training realistically. In this article I want to explain some of the benefits of training without footwear, and how if you train this way, you will not only be able to operate when wearing shoes or sneakers/trainers, you will in fact be less constricted by what you wear on the street e.g., if you always trained in sneakers but find that you are wearing dress shoes, then you will find it much harder to adapt to this “new” footwear, than if you’d been training barefoot. Obviously, there are times, such as when training outdoors, where I don’t train barefoot but by and large there are many tactical and physiological benefits to training barefoot, so it is makes up the largest percentage of my training. Benefit One: You think more about your footwork – or you should - when training barefoot. Studies – including one by Allloway et al. (2016) – have shown that athletes give more attention to their footwork when training/running barefoot, which helps improve their working memory. Due to the fact that the feet are unprotected, athletes participating in the study gave much more consideration to where they placed their feet, compared with when they had the relative protection of a shoe. When we have footwear on, we tend to disregard where we place our feet, trusting the shoe to protect us. It is also easier to learn how to generate power in striking/punching when your foot is in direct contact with the ground, as sneakers/trainers direct the weight towards the toes, making it difficult to feel the heel lift, and push off from the ball of the foot – all of which is needed to initiate a punch; (there is a good reason why boxing shoes are flat, and don’t have a raised heel). Once you have learnt how to do it barefoot, it’s easy to transition this movement to different types of footwear. The other issue with learning how to punch in a sneaker, is that the sole is designed to absorb energy, so when you are learning to push off of the foot you are experiencing a compression of the sole as you drive/push off. Training on a martial arts mat, you get a degree of compression but it’s much easier to sense than when wearing footwear. There have also been several studies (Villiers & Venter, 2014; Ozer et al., 2009) that have shown that training barefoot improves ankle stability and agility by considerable margins. The gains in proprioception, as a result of barefoot training, also significantly improve balance – and this isn’t lost when athletes transition back to wearing shoes. Another improvement that comes from this increase in neuromuscular awareness, is reduced leg fatigue. A very good way to actively train proprioception, is to stand on one leg – barefoot – and then close your eyes. Now, without a horizon to help keep you balanced, the feet and ankle will have to do a lot of the work. You should feel your foot, ankle and calf start to make small adjustments to help keep you upright. Your feet having the ability to automatically make these adjustments when you are on uneven terrain is a key fighting skill, along with having the sensitivity to know when the floor/ground has changed, especially when moving backwards e.g., one of the places where I worked as security, had a line of carpet at the top of some stairs, being able to recognize this change in flooring use to alert me to the fact that I shouldn’t move back anymore; sometimes when crowded it wasn’t possible to get a good visual cue on exactly where I was, and in the middle of a confrontation you don’t have the time to look around - it’s being able to feel these things that alert you to danger. Training barefoot is a great way to learn how to stay connected with the ground. Another reason that we train barefoot in my school, is because we train in a fully matted area, the surface of which has some grip to it. This means you have a surface which gives your feet (which are slippery compared to it), good traction. If you were to wear sneakers/trainers or even wrestling shoes on it, it would give you too much grip, and wouldn’t create a realistic training surface/environment, and using “Glisha”/sliding steps to add power to kicks wouldn’t be possible. Concrete and other similar surfaces are smooth, and so when you put a trainer/sneaker on that has grip, you replicate the experience that you get on the mats, just this time it is the shoe that has traction rather than the mat surface. There are times when you will want to train in footwear – and different types of footwear – in order to get the feel of it, however just walking around in shoes for a large part of the day gives you much of this experience, and training barefoot gives you a lot of other training advantages. It has been scientifically proven to increase proprioception, which leads to strength, agility and balance improvements. It allows you to learn how to connect with the ground, and understand/feel how to generate power from the feet/floor, that will add considerable power to your striking/punching. Training barefoot might seem like an outdated martial arts tradition but it delivers serious and positive benefits.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=557 Mon, 11 Oct 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=556 There are many reasons why systems fail, whether they be physical systems (such as engineering systems) or security ones. Often, when it is security systems, failure occurs due to multiple goal conflicts e.g., an individual wants to avoid a physical confrontation, but at the same time get the other person(s) they are in conflict with to admit that they were wrong, and make an apology to them etc. Unfortunately, in the moment, many people, don’t recognize that these goals are in opposition to each other, and so continue to pursue a strategy, and use a “system” that is unable to accomplish both. This often occurs because outcomes are looked at in isolation, rather than within the dynamic and complex interaction, that is an aggressive dispute. The connections/disconnections between the different potential outcomes are not considered. One of the other reasons that systems often fail is that a system that works in one environment/context doesn’t in another e.g., de-escalation and conflict resolution methods that can be applied in a workplace setting, where all parties agree to buy in to the process, and adhere to the social structure of the organization, cannot be directly applied to a dispute in a bar/pub between two strangers. In this article I want to look at how people often drift towards failure without recognizing they are doing so, and how once they have, there are often few paths back. In 1995 Barings Bank collapsed, after Nick Leeson, gambled the bank’s money on futures contracts. The reason he could do this unnoticed and unchecked was due to Baring’s effectively giving Leeson two roles that were meant to keep such activities in check. Without having to report his losses to anyone else,  there was a complete lack of oversight concerning his activities. This is something that is common with many white-collar crimes; the organization creates an opportunity that an employee can exploit. What normally happens is when such an opportunity is recognized the employee makes a “small” test to see if they will be apprehended and when they aren’t, they increase the extent of what they are doing, usually only getting caught when they get lazy and make a mistake or do something so big that it’s impossible for it to go unnoticed. In many ways by hiding his first loss, Leeson set himself up to fail spectacularly, as the only way he could make up a loss was to make ever bigger bets on the market, in an attempt to try and cover up each successive loss. There could have been a point where Baring’s could have survived, if Leeson had come clean, and stopped making bets and covering up his losses, but his system only had one way it could work, and that was to make a big win. Unfortunately for him the route to get there was fundamentally flawed. During my time working bar/club security, I saw so many people get so invested in a trivial dispute that they were unable to walk away, with each word spoken being a gamble that they hoped would “pay off” e.g., get the other person to back down, and admit they were wrong. Both parties drifting towards failure. Predictable but misunderstood outcomes also create ineffective systems. I’m always amazed when people on hearing a disturbance or loud argument, either go to have a look or send somebody to have a look for them etc. Turning up at an argument/confrontation rarely goes well, especially if it is some form of domestic/relationship dispute. Even “qualified” people who have experience dealing with such volatile situations understand that there are no easy or straightforward solutions to these types of incidents, and yet many unqualified people believe they have the necessary negotiation skills to de-escalate such confrontations. Walking towards what could be a volatile and violent conflict is never a good idea, and if you believe someone is actually in danger, rather than just being somewhat curious about what is going on, making a 911 call, to pass this over to law-enforcement would be a better idea. I am reminded of an incident a few years back where a homeowner was woken from their sleep by someone breaking into their car on their driveway. Their initial response was to shout out of the bedroom window, but this didn’t deter whoever it was from continuing to break in. This should have been the warning sign, as in most cases criminals engaged in property crimes will flee the scene when spotted, so someone who doesn’t leave probably when disturbed, probably has other motives/motivations at play. When the car’s owner went out to confront him, he was attacked with a machete and suffered serious injuries. This obviously wasn’t the script that he thought the incident would follow. Determining the outcome before questioning the steps that will get you there often results in failure and should be avoided. To be effective our self-protection systems must not have opposing goals e.g., making a point in an argument and de-escalating the other person’s emotion are two competing outcomes, that are largely incompatible. We must also understand how a certain step, such as confronting a car thief, might end in a critical failure, because we didn’t take feedback from a previous step, in not questioning why someone trying to break into our car continues to do so after they’ve been discovered. Often, we don’t recognize the flaws and blind spots in our systems as we rarely get to test them, and so they remain unchallenged. One way to remedy this is to do scenario-based training, and another – if you don’t have other individuals to interact with - is to “war game” it, looking at the many different directions a confrontation or threat could head in. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=556 Mon, 04 Oct 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=555 There are some people who believe that Krav Maga is simply a mish mosh of the “best” techniques from other systems e.g., if traditional ju-jitsu has an effective escape from a particular hold, then that should be put into the system, if Kali or Escrima has a good “technique” for dealing with a knife attack then that should be incorporated into the syllabus etc. Whilst there is no doubt that other fighting systems, including boxing and wrestling, actively influence – and in some ways provide a foundation for – Krav Maga it would be incorrect to believe that Krav Maga is simply a collection of the best of the best techniques from around the world with some aggression and fitness training thrown in for good measure. In this article I want to remind ourselves of some the ways in which Krav Maga differs from other martial arts/fighting systems, and how this makes it a distinct system in its own right rather than just a system that borrows from others. I also want to look at how these differences give the approach an advantage when it comes to real-world self-defense and fighting. I have been teaching a lot of introductory/beginner classes recently and there is a phrase that I find myself repeating constantly, it is, “Krav Maga is about what you will do, not what you want to do.” I have been teaching and training so long, I don’t know if I picked this phrase up and it resonated with me, or if it simply reflects a sentiment that hit home to me when I did my first instructor course with the IKMF (the 29-day course was taught largely by Eyal Yanilov and Amnon Darsa). As I’ve gotten older, I’ve learnt to keep mouth shut – somewhat – when I see something I disagree with, or think is questionable etc, but not so much in my youth. I remember being shown the traditional “scooping” defense, to deal with an attack aimed at the stomach area. In it, the hand drops to knock the attack away (hand-defense), and you turn the body away from the strike (body-defense). At the time I’d fought competitively and had a different defense, which in my naivety I thought was superior, and due to the arrogance of youth decided to demonstrate and present as a superior alternative. To give him his credit, Amnon listened, and then said something along the lines of, “yes, but in reality, you won’t do that.” I decided to agree to disagree on this one and accepted his answer, not believing it. Later that day, the class was standing around listening to Eyal give a lecture on some subject, and Amnon was walking around, between different individuals. As he passed by me, he threw a punch towards my stomach. I didn’t do what I thought I’d do, and what I wanted to do (despite years of training) but instead dropped my hand and did something that resembled a “scooping” defense. That was a turning point in my understanding of Krav Maga i.e., “Krav Maga is about what you will do, not what you want to do.” I will readily admit that there may be systems that within the contexts in which they fight – the ring, the cage etc. - have “better” techniques and solutions but when it comes to situations where you are caught by surprise, Krav Maga techniques often overrule them.    Just as “Krav Maga is about what you will do, not what you want to do,” differentiates it from many other systems, the fact that techniques are grouped into families, makes it somewhat distinct. Jigaro Kano (the founder of Judo) stated that if you knew one throw you knew them all i.e., all throws in Judo are variations of a common process; you break balance, you enter/fit in, and then you execute the throw – once you understood and could perform this process, then every throw was simply a physical variation of this. As a Judoka, I appreciated how Krav Maga took this idea and formalized it somewhat, grouping techniques into “families”. When you look at the relative position of the person being strangled from the rear to their attacker, with that of somebody putting a knife to the front of their throat after coming up behind them, there is actually little difference between the two. The relative position of the two bodies are the same i.e., in both situations the attacker is behind the person being attacked/threatened, and has their arm across/around the other’s neck – the only real difference being that in one scenario the arm is putting pressure across the throat, and in the other a knife is positioned against the neck/throat. By recognizing this, a similar solution can be applied to both. There are two huge advantages to doing this: one, there is less for a practitioner to have to remember and two, when a practitioner is training the defense to the knife threat, they are also practicing the defense to a strangulation. If common movements can be used against a multitude of different attacks and threats etc. then somebody training in this method can approach the 10 000 perfect repetitions needed for mastery very quickly. If you can deal with all/most attacks to the front, and all/most attacks to the rear using the same movement, with only a slight variation in hand/arm positioning, then you are effectively training the same response again and again, regardless of whether the threat/attack involves a weapon or not. That Krav Maga strives to do this means that its simplicity is its genius. The difference between simple and simplistic is massive, though the two are often used synonymously. Simple, is straightforward and uncomplicated, whereas simplistic, is basic and lacking. Krav Maga as a method takes the former rather than the latter approach. By acknowledging how we naturally respond, and how we only need a few basic responses to threats and attacks, Krav Maga has distilled self-defense into a few basic movements that can be continually trained and practiced, and that can easily be recalled under stress and duress.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=555 Mon, 27 Sep 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=554 When two elephants meet, at the end of their greeting ritual they defecate. Giraffes when meeting wrap their necks around each other, whilst highly social African Wild Dogs have a complex and involved greeting ceremony, which involves running, licking each other’s lips, and sticking their noses into the corners of each other’s mouth. Humans also have greeting rituals, but they aren’t as standard or universal, as those found in other mammals and hominid species e.g., in some cultures the greeting ritual involves shaking hands, in others rubbing noses, and in others touching feet (Charanasparsha) etc. Humans innately recognize the importance of having a greeting ritual, but we simply don’t have a biologically in-built form like other mammals. We have adapted our greeting rituals based on societal factors e.g., the formal handshake used in England is as culturally reflective as the hugging and kissing used by Italians when they meet. We have also seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, other forms of greeting becoming more universal, such as replacing handshakes with fist bumps, and elbow touching etc. Whilst other animals may place a somewhat greater deal of importance upon greeting rituals as humans, the ritual is still extremely important, as it avoids conflict; refusing to shake somebody’s hand is considered rude and confrontational. Whilst rituals may be used as tools to identify group members (certain street gangs have complicated handshake rituals that only members know) and demonstrate a commitment to the shared values of the group, increasing the cohesion of the group etc. all of these things share one common goal and that is to avoid confrontation, establishing order in the group and/or between two parties. Unfortunately, there has been little psychologically based research on human rituals due to the disciplines of anthropology and psychology being historically extremely separate from each other. In this article I want to take a deeper look at the danger of believing that our rituals around violence and aggression are universal across all groups and cultures, and are set in stone biologically/psychologically, and are in fact - like our greeting rituals - somewhat socially diverse. Over the years I’ve swung from seeing humans as very complex creatures, to very simple ones e.g., self-aware animals etc., though I’ve gradually been inching towards the conclusion that the human mind is in fact extremely complex, and plastic e.g., for a long time fight or flight was seen as a universal fear response however on the island of Bali, in Indonesia, people over many generations have been taught to go to sleep when they feel afraid, and now getting tired when afraid has become a response to dangers and threats etc. To get a better understanding of this, we need to separate the physical brain from the mind that it creates and houses. In many ways our physical brain resembles that of other mammals e.g., all mammals have a cortex, ours is just much larger than many others – and in one sense the size of the cortex doesn’t matter when it comes to rationality and creativity as Elephants’ brains (including the cortex) are much larger than ours. What is unique is the human mind, that the brain creates/develops, that allows us to perform tasks that other animals can’t e.g., monkeys are unable to recognize themselves in a mirror, as they lack the sense of awareness that our mind enables us to have etc. Somewhere in our evolution our greeting – and other - rituals became socially constructed things, as we had the mind that allowed us to change them from one thing to another, something that was lacking in the minds of other species. This also applies to our rituals around fighting and violence, which reflects the societies and cultures that we grew up in. I have watched people who have never had to deal with violence before completely miss the warning signs and/or be in complete denial when dealing with an aggressive individual; suggesting that our ability to recognize, understand and respond to aggression is not innate. Posturing before a fight can also differ in the forms it takes e.g., in Scotland it usually involves taking your top off and shouting at the other person “tops off!” – it’s a ritual that isn’t universal across all cultures. The part that is largely universal in these types of encounters is the need to posture, or act submissively, to the other party in some form or another, with the goal of intimidation, or demonstrating subservience within the bounds of the conflict. This is where we are still social mammals. However, where our posturing and submissive actions fall down within this pre-fight ritual, is that they’re not always able to recognize each other, as is the case with other mammals e.g., a wolf knows when it sees another lying on its back with its throat exposed, to lay off, when aggressive/posturing humans see another cowering there is no automatic end to the conflict. In some cultures, there can be an appeal to an external, and formalized ritual in order to avoid conflict e.g., the Bedouin Arabs of the Negev have an ordeal by fire (Bisha) that a person can voluntarily agree to if the conflict/confrontation is based on the other party’s belief that they are lying, which involves inspecting the wound on the tongue after it has licked a hot spoon/ladle three times etc. The fact that we have created such “formalized” rituals to avoid physical conflict, suggest that we humans have no innate psychological/biological ones. We share a lot with other social mammals e.g., we have greeting rituals, parting rituals (waving a hand when saying goodbye), and grieving rituals (humans aren’t the only species that mourn the loss of a friend or member of a social group etc.). However, the form that these human rituals take differs between cultural groups. Where we are extremely deficient in our rituals is around violence avoidance, and there may be several reasons for this. Lorenz puts it down to us missing out the development of such rituals, that are prevalent amongst other species, because at the time the mind was developing into what we recognize as the human mind, we lacked the physical capabilities to cause each other serious harm. Whatever the reason, we should understand that there is no universal form that the “Monkey Dance” between two aggressors takes, and that we must be aware of the forms that it does within the groups that we interact with. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=554 Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=553 During the 1980’s and early 1990’s there was a real focus in the martial arts and reality-based self-defense on “street fights” i.e., would the system you were training in prepare you for a street fight. The term street fight was ill-defined, and was generally interpreted as a sparring match that took place not in a dojo but on the street, with two combatants squaring off in a consensual manner etc. There was an attitude that violence needed to be engaged with rather than avoided, and that “fights” would resemble the format of how we trained and sparred; real world violence basically replicated and reflected our training, where two people squared off and then looked to beat the crap out of each other. There were never any ambushes, there were never any realistic weapon attacks (knife attacks were always singular, large and telegraphed), multiple attacker situations weren’t addressed, and unless you trained in a grappling system groundwork was minimal or non-existent etc. What most instructors envisaged about a “street fight”, was that it was basically an MMA fight on the street – you would be able to see your opponent, know when the fight was going to start, and there’d be a clean finish to it. If truth be told few instructors understood how the “street” operated/operates. In this article I want to look at the “street” and “street fights” from a slightly different perspective, which might hopefully give us a better understanding of what this type of violence actually looks like. Without being overly dramatic, when you leave your house, and step out in public, you are a visitor to another domain. The street is probably not a place where you live, hang out and socialize, but rather an artery/pathway that allows you to get from one destination to another where you do these things. When you are out in public you are sharing space(s), with people who live and do business in them – and walk to the beat of a different drum. When you move through these spaces your movement differs to those who are homeless or looking to score their next hit. Most of the time we are so busy or unaware that we don’t notice these individuals, until they notice us, and decide to include us in their business. The times we do notice them is when the statistics change and we find ourselves in locations and/or at times, where there are more of them, than there are people like ourselves. When this happens, we have no baseline upon which to judge whether we are in danger or not e.g., we probably can’t differentiate the “usual” drug addict from the potentially violent/psychotic one etc. I am not advocating that we spend time doing ethnographic research amongst such communities in order to understand them better, but rather that we should take a reality check, and recognize that when we are in public spaces, there are people who understand them much better than we do. We are simply visitors into their world, and there are times that it is worth remembering this. We may like to think of ourselves as savvy players who understand how things work, however more often than not, we aren’t. In truth we can’t be, as different locales have different ways of operating e.g., the homeless communities in Boston, may represent a different ecology from those of Los Angeles – there will be commonalities but there will be differences as well, due to differences in public services, policing and the drug scene etc. This is why talking about the “street” as if it is a homogenous and universal setting makes little sense, especially where violence is concerned. One thing that is rarely addressed by self-defense professionals/instructors is the fact that when you are confronted by an aggressive and potentially violent individual who lives their life on the “streets”, is that you are stepping out of your comfortable world into theirs. Whatever rules and conventions your society operates along are no longer relevant. Do you know how to and/or have you previous experience communicating with such individuals? Because, most violence starts face-to-face, and is preceded by some form of verbal exchange. If you are socially awkward in such situations, and don’t know how to communicate outside of your comfort zone, you are likely to be victimized. Because many instructors themselves don’t know how to navigate these types of situations, their self-defense purely focuses on the physical e.g., what to do when somebody grabs you, rather than how to handle the incident in such a way that somebody doesn’t want/feel the need to grab you etc. By always training from the perspective of being physically attacked, this type of training and education can be avoided. The true fear of violence usually comes not when you are attacked, but in the moments when the grim realization that you are in the presence of somebody who wants to harm you, finally hits home. It is often easier to deny and dismiss this reality than to accept it e.g., it is easier to keep walking away whilst being followed, dismissing and denying the reality of your situation than to admit to yourself what is happening, and turning to confront and deal with the potential threat/challenge – admitting to yourself that you are in a world that operates to a completely different set of rules than the one you live in is perhaps the most daunting proposition when looking at confronting violence e.g., that there are dealers who will set homeless addicts on a middle class person walking in their neighborhood, with the promise of a free hit if they make the violence entertaining etc.  It is easy to tell ourselves that we always avoid bad neighborhoods and the people who live in them but that’s not always possible e.g., our car might break down in one, or where we work could border one etc. Understanding that those who operate on the streets work to a different rulebook, and that the way they engage in violence may be different to what we expect and train for is an important part of our training e.g., where I went to university it was common for gangs of twelve to fifteen years old’s to target a lone student, and through weight of numbers, drag them to the ground ad kick them into unconsciousness. Are you prepared for such an attack, and would you feel comfortable punching a twelve-year old in such a scenario? Recognizing that there are times when we will rub shoulders with those who have a different set of codes and values to us is imperative if we are going to be able to deal effectively with all types of violence.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=553 Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=552 We aren’t good at reading emotions from facial expressions, and/or even describing faces. This is one of the issues that forensic sketch artists face e.g., if you had to describe to a sketch artist what a friend’s nose looked like, how would you go about doing that? There is little in our language i.e., few words, that allow us to accurately and fully describe facial features. However, up until relatively recently, it was believed that humans had an innate, biological ability to recognize facial expressions; one that was universal and transcended all cultures. This was largely down to the work of the American Psychologist Paul Eckman who postulated that there were six facial expressions that could be internationally recognized, and emotionally interpreted. These were: Anger, Fear, Disgust, Surprise, Happiness and Sadness (see image below). Eckman, used these photographs in a large study, to try and demonstrate that across all cultures, these emotions could be recognized and interpreted, purely from the facial expressions (the actors who staged these emotions were told to exaggerate them). Unfortunately, Eckman’s research methods were later found to have been compromised by researchers in the field – who were working on his behalf – as it was discovered that researchers had led and directed subjects in helping them interpret these emotions. This was largely down to language issues as the translation of emotions, from one language to another took place e.g., the word for anger in one language didn’t have a direct and exact equivalent in English, and so researchers had to “discuss” what the correct interpretation should be. There may also have been a level of confirmation bias, with researchers wanting to prove Eckman’s hypothesis true – something that can easily take place within studies of this nature. More recent research by Barret et al. (2010, 2011) has shown that a person’s emotions are not interpreted from facial expressions alone but are socially constructed based largely on the context of the situation that people find themselves in. If you take a look at the photograph below, you will probably interpret the person’s emotion as one of anger or rage, or something similar. However, once we understand the setting and context, we can understand that the facial expression is actually one of exuberance, happiness and exhilaration etc. The face belongs to Lionel Messi, who is celebrating his second goal during the 2014 World Cup Match between Argentina and Bosnia-Herzegovina. What this demonstrates is that interpreting a person’s emotional state from their facial expressions alone can be misleading, and from a violence prevention perspective, dangerous. Our focus should be on, understanding the situations and contexts within which confrontations and incidents happen, and socially constructing our interpretations of a person’s emotional state from them. If we rely on recognizing a person’s emotional state based on their facial expressions, we are likely to mislead ourselves and respond in a way that could jeopardize our safety.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=552 Mon, 06 Sep 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=551 In the last five articles I went through a common process that predatory individuals engage in when looking to victimize strangers i.e., search, selection (victim), surveillance, synchronization and strike. In this article I want to take a closer look at social/spontaneous violence, where individuals are externally rather than internally motivated. In a crime such as street robbery, an offender exploits the opportunities that are presented to them however their crime is internally motivated and has a goal i.e., to acquire assets from those they victimize. In spontaneous incidents, the aggressor(s) is externally motivated by events, which have happened to them e.g., somebody has knocked into them and spilt a drink over them etc. Luckenbill (1977), in his “Character Contest Theory” contends that for such incidents to result in violence, the confrontation over said event, must move through five phases. In response to an incident, where somebody (person A), is responding to an injustice – either real or perceived – that has been committed against them, such as having a drink spilt over them (by Person B), these would be: Person A (the aggrieved party), would decide to respond in a way that would threaten Person B’s self-respect/identity/honor etc. setting up a “Character Contest” Person B must decide to take offense at this and feel that they have been insulted in some way e.g., they apologized for bumping into Person A, however Person A is not accepting the apology, and is shouting insults at them. Person B now decides to respond to Person A, either verbally (throwing insults back), or physically. Person A and B now “agree” to settle the contest physically i.e., neither party is looking for a non-violent solution. In stage five, one or other party (or simultaneously), makes a physical attack Whilst Luckenbill’s Contest Theory has some strengths i.e., it recognizes the interdependent nature of social violence (that everyone plays a part in some way), as Lonnie Athens points out, it wrongly assumes that both parties are consenting to use violence, whereas in reality most social violence is non-consensual, with one person(s) assaulting someone who wants to avoid the use of violence. However, the sequential nature of the conflict that Luckenbill lays out, can be a useful tool, in understanding how to respond in such a way that we can avoid escalating a situation. To do this, it is worth expanding the idea of what a “Character Conflict” is, as “Character” is a very ambiguous term. An individual who has had a drink spilt over them isn’t really concerned with the “Character” of the other person, they are more concerned with righting a wrong, and somehow undoing an injustice that they’ve experienced. The person’s character may motivate them somewhat e.g., if they believe the person deliberately spilt a drink over them, they may have a greater motivation to use violence etc., however the “contest” is more about demonstrating to themselves, and those around them, that they are higher in the social pecking order than the other person. The contest is more about “Status” – and regaining it – than about “Character”. If we can keep the idea of “Social Status”, at the heart of our solutions, then we are more likely to be able to avoid the contest becoming a physical confrontation. Unfortunately, many people fail to recognize this, and confuse/muddle up, conflict resolution methodologies with de-escalation methods e.g., searching for common ground on which to build a resolution, rather than recognizing that until status is restored/recognized the other party is not looking to amicably resolve the issue. The first task in dealing with social/spontaneous violence, is to de-escalate and remove the emotion around the loss of status. This is why it is imperative to let the other party drive the solution, rather than informing them of a solution, such as offering to buy them another drink etc. Luckenbill’s model, has a strength in that it recognizes that our response plays some part in escalating the incident (the interdependent nature of violence). If we respond to a person - who has become angry and aggressive due to something external, which has happened to them, and which they hold us responsible for (such as cutting in front of them in a line/queue) - by taking offense at the things they say or do, we are contributing to the conflict. Being effective rather than right is key to avoiding this. Take a situation, where you are walking past a line of parked motorcycles, and as you do so one falls over. The owner who is in a shop, sees this and starts shouting at you, saying that you knocked their bike over etc. This isn’t the case, however if you try and argue this, at this moment, they are not in an emotional space to deal with that information/argument. All they will see is you challenging their status, by telling them that they are wrong. A physical confrontation may be avoided by refocusing their attention away from a dispute over status, and onto the issue e.g., “It’s a really nice-looking bike, let’s get it up and see if there is any damage.” There is no admission of guilt here, which there would be if you apologized, but it effectively gives the other person the time to metaphorically count to ten, before you engage further with the de-escalation process. By not engaging in phases two and three of the model i.e., deciding to take offense at the other person’s word/action, and then responding in a challenging way, you are not engaging in the escalation of the conflict. No single model can explain all violence e.g., if you are dealing with someone who has a certain personality disorder – such as psychopathy – the way that such an individual may respond to social conflict, will probably fall outside of the bounds of the model/theory etc. However, it is worth looking at what is specific, and what is universal, in models of violence, so that we can gain a better understand how the dynamic interactions in conflicts can either escalate or de-escalate a situation. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=551 Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=550 The fifth, and final, stage in the predator process that I have been detailing over the previous week’s articles is the strike or attack phase where the attacker(s) makes their move to use violence against you, which is why it has to be preceded by them first synchronizing their movement with you (the previous stage). In professional surveillance, synchronization usually occurs as a means to gather information, however in non-professional settings it is normally/usually the prelude to the attack/strike phase. Acknowledging awareness of this may be your last opportunity for deterrence, as by demonstrating that you are aware that your potential assailant has an interest, you remove their advantage of surprise. Acknowledgment of their presence will also send another clear message to your attacker, and that is you are not afraid, nor feel too socially awkward to confront them. Assailants are always looking to confirm that they have selected the “right” target, and so appearing unaware and non-confrontational will send a loud and clear message that they have the right person. Trying to justify to yourself reasons why not to communicate to an assailant that you are aware that they are in the attack/strike phase, such as telling yourself that letting them know would only escalate things further - things have already escalated to the point where somebody is looking to attack you! - or that you need to get into a better place and position to deal with them physically, or lure them somewhere else (like Jason Bourne would do) etc., are simply exercises in denial and discounting, that look to delay and put off the inevitable. Simple things such as turning and making eye-contact with someone who is following you, and then changing direction is often enough to interrupt an assailant when they are entering the strike phase; doing this at a time when you have an opportunity to cross a busy road can be a simple way to create a disengagement opportunity and slow down their decision-making processes. There are three main methods that an attacker(s) can use in the strike phase. These are: Blitzing Ambushing, & Grooming Basically, Blitzing is used to overwhelm you, Ambushing is used to surprise you, and Grooming is used to take control of the situation away from you. An attack might have components of the three styles, so it would be simplistic to say that every assault falls neatly into one of these three categories e.g., an assailant might engage you in a conversation where they get you to start giving up control of a situation to them before engaging in an ambush. An example of this using all five phases of the model could be as follows: A male sexual predator goes to a bar to engage in a “Target Search”, where women who fit his victim profile (age, socio-economic class etc.) can be found. He then selects a target who he believes is likely to acquiesce to his demands and not fight back.  He may observe that when people accidentally bump into her or move her bag off the bar stool next to her etc., that she is overly-apologetic; taking blame for things that aren’t her fault in order to avoid any type of confrontation. He observes her (Surveillance) for a time to confirm his selection, surreptitiously target-glancing, and/or going to the bathroom (changing his Observation Point(s)) so it’s not so apparent that he has an interest in her. After awhile, checking that it is likely, with enough time passed, that she is on her own, he walks over to the bar stool next to her (Synchronization of Movement) and sits down. At this point he is not going to physically assault her but instead use the three methods verbally first. In the conversation with her, he will engage in grooming (getting her to trust him and start handing over control of the situation to him, such as letting him decide what they are drinking etc.), he may also use “Blitzing” in the conversation, overwhelming her with irrelevant details that she’s unable to process and that are aimed at distracting her from his real motive. Eventually, he ambushes her, by saying that they should move to another bar etc., creating the opportunity for a physical attack. Of course, somebody can choose after synchronizing their movement to physically Blitz you by walking up to you and then throwing – without warning – a barrage of punches etc., in the UK gangs of young people, engaging in recreational violence, will often, after getting drunk/high, leave their neighborhood searching for a target to stab. After following or approaching somebody etc. they may simply attack them without saying a word. Waltham, Massachusetts, was plagued during the Autumn of 2020, by an unprovoked attacker who would look for potential victims to stab or hit with a blunt object etc. There was no verbal warning to these attacks, as they were designed to simply overwhelm the target. Other predatory individuals may use a physical ambush to catch somebody by surprise, such as approaching somebody asking for the time, and then pulling a weapon and demanding their wallet etc. The strike phase is where the predator makes some form of contact with the individual they have targeted; this can be verbal or physical. It is important to remember that this “contact” is different to that made in a social/spontaneous conflict, where the dispute is over some external factor that has triggered the other party’s aggressive response e.g., such as having a drink spilt over them etc. The contact in this process is planned with the goal of either physically or verbally, overwhelming, surprising and/or controlling the target.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=550 Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=549 A professional surveillance operation generally consists of three distinct and dynamic phases, whilst it is possible for the individual being observed to detect surveillance within these phases, the surveillance team are at greatest risk of detection when the principal (the person being watched) transitions between them e.g., the principal has been followed to a restaurant where they have spent some time (and are static), and then go to leave (become mobile), and now need to be followed; this means the surveillance team must also become mobile. It is this correlation or synchronization of movement, as the principal transitions from being static to mobile, that may alert them to the fact that they are being observed/followed. They may then decide to engage in some overt or covert anti-surveillance measures in order to confirm their suspicions, such as taking an indirect, and out of the way route that nobody else would have a reason to take, unless they were following them etc. In this article I want to look at the different ways someone could synchronize their movements to yours, the ways in which we may make this easy for someone, and ways in which we can both harden ourselves to this, and better detect when someone is doing it to us. Pickpockets working busy transit stops such as stations on the London Underground or the New York Subway, will often work in teams, with different individuals playing different roles e.g., there may be one member stationed on the mezzanine floor, looking to identify potential targets, such as watching for the person who has a full wallet of cash when they go to buy a ticket etc. They might then point this individual out to other members of the team, who will look to “dip” (pick the pocket of) the target. A common ploy to do this is to select a choke point that funnels people such as the top of an escalator, with one member getting to it just before the target. As they get on, they will suddenly stop, forcing the target to bump into them, causing a moment of confusion and distraction, that can be used by the team member behind the target to steal the wallet. However, the use of two people, means that they double the risk of detection, as two people are needed to synchronize their movement with the target, and although they can use the other people who are also getting onto the escalator to cover and hide their movement, they can’t risk doing this at a time when it is so busy that they might not be able to get to the top of the escalator at the same time as the person they’ve targeted. When someone synchronizes their movement with another, they may allow their subconscious, rather than the conscious mind, to take over the process. When this happens – and they switch off – they become vulnerable to detection, because if the person they’ve tied their movement to suddenly stops they will find themselves automatically doing the same. Persons involved in professional surveillance recognize this danger and have to keep themselves switched on 100% of the time to avoid this happening. This type of synchronization, where a person(s) tries to cross your path at some point – such as at the top of an elevator – is referred to as interception. By understanding how the landscape and terrain effects movement, we can learn to recognize the places where this is most likely to occur, and alter our movement accordingly, such as abruptly stopping as we approach an elevator to see if someone else in the environment mirrors this. Target Pattern Analysis, is something that surveillance teams use, to determine the habits and routines that the principal regularly engages in e.g., do they always leave their house to go to their place of work at the same time, do they always go to the gym on the same days each week etc. This predictability allows the team to operate more efficiently, and to determine when and where to devote resources. As I wrote in last week’s article, changing your route to and from work as an anti-surveillance measure in most cases, for most people makes little sense if the times you come and go are largely predictable. There are times though when altering times and routes does make sense. A young woman who once trained with me had been the target of a sexual assault – she was fortunately successful in fighting her assailant off and getting to safety – by an attacker who had watched her for several weeks, take the same route on her daily run, at the same time each day. He was able to piece together her route and synchronize his movement to hers by waiting at a spot where she was most vulnerable. Anybody who knows where you will be at a particular time or knows that at some point you will return to a particular spot (such as coming back to a parked car) will be able to wait for you. Following, Tracking or Trailing is another means by which someone might synchronize their movement to yours. A lot of self-defense training tends to assume that this type of ambush is an extremely common type of synchronization, as it gives an attacker the best ability to approach unseen and then make their attack etc., however there is little to suggest that those employing this tactic do so for this reason. It is more likely that there is a delay between the victim selection/surveillance phases and the movement phase due to making and acting on the decision that the person selected is indeed a suitable victim. This may mean that the assailant is simply having to catch up to the intended target, who has moved in front of them etc. If this is a planned and well-orchestrated street robbery, it may be that somebody is positioned in front of you, who will synchronize their movement to yours by approaching you, so that you are caught between two assailants. If the offense involves more than two assailants, they may fan out both in front of and behind you in order to limit your chances of escape. Whilst you may identify surveillance, and a person’s interest in you through glances (target glances) that they make towards you, it is largely through a person’s synchronization of movement with you that you can tell you have been targeted. By creating transition phases, where you change your direction and speed etc., you can confirm if this is the case. What you should always be aware of is that in most cases the synchronization signals the attack phase and is not simply an exercise in gathering more information about you, so trying to deal with it in a covert manner is unlikely to be an effective option.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=549 Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=548 Surveillance involves the gathering of information that a principal/person would not voluntarily give. It is the third step in a predator’s process, which is preceded by target search and target selection (the previous two articles, from this blog, talk about these things). It is important to note that measures taken by a security team hired to protect a principal, when dealing with surveillance, may not be suitable for private individuals who are on their own e.g., a team in a vehicle who believes they could be being followed may drive to a less populated area/destination, that would be unlikely for people to go to, in order to either lose car behind them (in most cases a surveillance team would rather lose command/sight of the principal’s vehicle rather than risk detection), or confirm that they are being targeted etc. It would be irresponsible to suggest that a lone driver, driving to work, employ such a tactic if they believed they were being followed, as driving to a deserted – and probably unfamiliar place – might give a predatory individual an opportunity to gain access to them that would otherwise be denied. I have had conversations with people who proudly tell me that they change their route to and from work every day, but leave their house and arrive at work, at roughly the same time each day, presenting a predictable pickup point and time etc. For most people changing their route in this way isn’t a measure that is likely to increase their safety by any substantial degree (especially if they don’t have a good memory concerning the cars that they encounter along the routes they take) and is an unnecessary hassle. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking you’re Jason Bourne, believing that there are tenacious and sophisticated teams of individuals who have harmful intent towards you. In this article I want to look at what surveillance realistically looks like from an everyday crime prevention perspective. Most offender surveillance of a potential target isn’t sophisticated, and is often used to confirm victim suitability i.e., has the offender selected the right target, such as somebody who they believe will comply with their demands and/or is unlikely to fight back etc. This is not likely to take much time, especially if the offense being committed is a petty crime such as a street robbery, where the monetary reward might be quite small. Surveillance will also occur within the environment, to check for the absence of capable guardians, such as “place managers” whose presence discourages crime/violence e.g., a bar/pub manager who is capable of breaking up fights etc. It has been found that it is the absence of good place managers, rather than neighborhood type/location, which explains why some bars and clubs experience high levels of crime and violence, whereas other don’t, even when they exist in close proximity. A cleaner or janitor who is responsible for keeping a particular location/area clean can also act as a place manager, in that although they might not be seen as being physically capable of intervening and preventing an offense from being committed, the fact that they may be able to act as a reliable witness could see their presence deter crime – overflowing trash cans at the end of a train station could indicate the absence of such a place manager. Offender surveillance may also involve checking for CCTV cameras, however research has shown that where acts of violence are concerned the presence of cameras is unlikely to deter someone. That said, a number of highly visible cameras does appear to reduce vehicle crime in an area, so this may be something to consider when choosing where to park your car etc. If someone who seems to have an interest in you (they keep glancing at you, and then looking away etc.), starts looking up as well as around, they may be checking for cameras. This process of scanning may also involve the search for an escape route. The question now is what should you do when you identify somebody who is carrying out surveillance on you? In most cases acknowledging the fact – as you make your way to a safe place, such as a location that is well populated, and that has a visible place manager(s) – is your best course of action. If someone knows you are aware of their presence and interest in you, and is confident enough to let them know this, you are in most situations less likely to be victimized than if you appear to be unaware. Most predatorial individuals rely on speed and surprise when they strike, whether it is forcing you to comply with a demand/threat they make, or engaging in a physical attack. Most understand that once they engage in their offense, those that they target rarely catch up in their decision-making (do you or don’t you hand over your wallet to a mugger), or in their physical response. Letting a potential assailant know that you are aware of them (in a non-challenging manner), demonstrates that you are, to one degree or another, able to think about how you should respond. It may be that an assailant brings their attack/strike phase forward because of this, however that means that they would now be playing catch up. In most instances - unless a predator believes that despite being detected, everything is still in their favor - they are most likely to wait for another target/opportunity. Once again it is worth noting that most violent crimes (and crimes in general) are opportunistic and rely on certain conditions – such as a target’s lack of awareness – being met. All crime is to some degree “on the clock” and so offenders who are forced to rush, and work on a target’s timeline are more likely (regarding the type of violent offense), to switch targets. Once again, this is not a movie, where your job/responsibility is to lure your potential assailant away to another location where you will then turn on them etc. Moving/getting to safety is your priority. For most of us, the types of violent crimes we’ll be selected for are opportunistic and unsophisticated, and offenders will be prepared to switch targets, if the individual/asset they originally selected is going to cause them problems. Most offenders are looking for the easiest opportunity, and if we can let them know that we are aware of the process they are engaged in, then that awareness has a good chance of deterring them from victimizing us.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=548 Mon, 09 Aug 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=547 In last week’s article I introduced the idea of “Target Search”, and how offenders must either actively go to a location – which could be virtual rather than physical – or find themselves in a location, as a result of their routine activities, where they can look for a potential target(s). In this article I want to take a look at the process of victim selection, and why some people are targeted rather than others, and why those people are often the subjects of repeat victimization. It should be understood that from the offender’s perspective victim selection is one of the later stages in their thinking/planning with earlier stages including their decision to offend, and their selection of a particular offense e.g., why commit street robberies rather than burglaries? In this article I want to introduce three theories that attempt to answer the question of why one person, rather than another, appears on a predator’s radar. Our parents probably gave us one of our first lessons in risk analysis, where through one form or another they informed us that if we hung around bad places, with bad people, bad things were likely to happen to us e.g., we were not to play with those kids, and/or go that location etc. What they were teaching us was a basic “lifestyle” theory of victimization, that does hold true for certain types of victimization e.g., if you are somebody who goes out drinking every Friday night at a bar or club which has a history and reputation for violence you are more likely to be assaulted than if you stay at home on your own watching Netflix etc. Lifestyle theories can hold true for certain types of crimes whilst failing badly for others e.g., being a woman or a child is not a lifestyle choice, it’s an act of being. A woman or a child can lead a non-risky lifestyle, and still be sexually assaulted and raped. When we consider that most of these types of offenses occur in houses and homes, which are generally regarded as safe places, lifestyle theories which explain victimization as people choosing to be, or finding themselves, in risky situations, fall down somewhat. This is not to say that certain people’s lifestyles aren’t riskier than others but as a universal explanation as to why some people rather than others are victimized, it falls short. Linked to lifestyle theories is Routine Activities Theory. Routine Activities Theory (RAT) states that for any offense to be committed three conditions must be met: there must be a motivated offender, a suitable victim, and the absence of a capable guardian i.e., somebody who could potentially prevent the offense from taking place, such as a law-enforcement officer, a potential witness etc. Routine Activities Theory would posit that the reason somebody was targeted was not due to them having a risky lifestyle per se, but because put simply they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time i.e., their presence in a location, at the same time as an offender, where there was no “Place Manager” to deter the offender, created the opportunity for the criminal event. However, being a woman or a child for example, is not a routine activity, and so although the theory can explain which things need to come together and be absent for an act of violence to occur, it doesn’t actually explain why one individual and not another may be selected for a violent crime. In this instance when it comes to victimization, Routine Activities Theory, is more a truism, than an explanation. Whilst lifestyle theories offer an explanation based on exposure to risky situations, and RAT on the lack/absence of guardianship, neither look at an offender’s motivation, and why they might select one person rather than another. Routine Activities Theory, talks generally about a victim being “suitable” or “attractive”, however what is often meant by this attractiveness is the value of the assets a person is deemed to have on them, in the context of street robberies etc. However, if we consider a mugger who is looking to steal mobile phones from people in an affluent neighborhood, there may be little obvious difference between the value of the phones people have on them, so there must be other factors which come into play when they are selecting a target to victimize. Target Congruence Theory aims to explain what these other less tangible aspects are. In this model there are three factors at play, these are: target gratifiability, target vulnerability and target antagonism. Rather than look at the “attractiveness” of a target, the theory looks at the level and degree of gratification that an offender gets from committing the offense, whether that is financial, sexual or a satisfaction based on revenge etc. What makes one target more attractive than another is the utility it gives the offender. There is also the perception of vulnerability that the offender considers e.g., they may choose to target one person rather than another because they perceive them to be weaker, and less likely to offer resistance than another. A key feature of the theory is that it recognizes the role of anger and antagonism that may be present in an offense. If a mugger is homophobic, they may select somebody based on that person’s apparent gender identity; they may even engage in a “target search” in areas around gay bars, hoping to find a suitable target. Their antagonism may also direct their ideas around vulnerability e.g., they might have antagonism towards gay men, and also believe that gay men are weaker and more vulnerable etc.         Whilst living a certain lifestyle can be a factor in increasing the risk of victimization, people who live safe/normal lifestyles can also be targeted, and whilst this may be the result of them going about their daily/routine activities, Routine Activity Theory doesn’t go far enough in explaining what makes an “attractive” or “suitable” victim. To understand this we must look at targets from the offender’s perspective and take into account their emotional decision making as well as their cognitive.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=547 Mon, 02 Aug 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=546 An important aspect of self-protection is “target hardening”. In the security industry, target hardening usually involves increasing the visibility of security measures so as to deter threats e.g., you might increase the number of patrolling security guards and/or place some CCTV cameras in open and visible locations, around a building, to draw attention to, and inform any potential intruders that cameras are in use etc. You would take such measures when it is already obvious that the building is a visible and attractive target, such as a bank, or a jeweler etc. You may however want to be more discrete in your application of security measures, when you don’t want to draw the attention of potential offenders that a building does contain valuable assets that may be worth acquiring. With any security measure, it must be designed and implemented in response to potential threats e.g., if you have a specialist engineering firm whose most valuable assets are its designs and research material, it does you little good to make the building like Fort Knox, if its information systems lack the relevant cyber-security, as it is more likely to see its servers hacked than have cat-burglars breaking in to steal paper blueprints. To understand how a particular threat operates – with regard to personal safety and security - we must understand two components of the predatorial process: “Target Search” and “Target Selection”. Target Search refers to the process of becoming aware of and gaining access to a pool of potential victims, whilst Target Selection, involves identifying somebody/something out of that pool to victimize. In this article I want to take a look at certain aspects of Target Search, and in my next article look at some aspects of Target Selection. If an offender has not yet selected a target – usually because they lack a prior relationship with it/them - they will need to go somewhere in order to search for one. That “somewhere” may be a physical location, or it may be a virtual one e.g., many sexual predators who target children and teenagers, will first engage in an online search using social media sites to look for and to gain access to potential targets, before selecting one or a number, and arranging to meet them – virtual searches and selections, allow multiple targets to be identified and targeted. In the case of an offense such as street robbery, an offender will have to either got to a particular “place” to search for victims, or recognize that the place they are in – as a result of their routine activities - already has a supply of suitable people they can select a victim from i.e., as an offender goes about their daily life, such as going out to a bar to have a drink, they find themselves motivated to commit an offense; it wasn’t originally their intention to do so but they realize that the location they’re in (at this particular time) is conducive to offending. Locations that criminals intentionally visit in order to commit crimes are referred to as Crime Attractors, whilst those that produce crime as a result of offenders finding themselves there are known as Crime Generators. An example of a location that may act as a crime attractor, could be something like an end of the line commuter train stop parking lot, that attracts offenders who break into the cars parked their whilst their owners are at work i.e., they are attracted to the location because there are no – or not enough – capable guardians to prevent them from doing so. A location that could be categorized as a Crime Generator, might be a neighborhood park in an urban area, where teenagers go to drink and hang out after dark. As a by-product of these activities, they may engage in acts of vandalism, and/or harass other people who may be walking through it etc. The key difference between a location that is a Crime Attractor and one which is a Crime Generator, is that an area/place which generates crime is one where there is nothing about the location itself that is criminogenic, it is simply a place where a significant number of potentially motivated offenders gather. It is also important to note that the use of the word offender, should not be taken as a character definition. One of the factors that might lead a location to become a crime generator is its proximity it has to those that are likely to commit crimes e.g., if a neighborhood park is close to a high school, it may be that it becomes a gathering place for unsupervised juveniles who because of their age, lack judgment and are excited by risk taking etc., and so end up engaging in illicit activities. A study in New Jersey found that young people would gather around bodegas after school, as these were places where they could get food and drink, before moving on to 24-hour gas stations as these shut; both of these types of locations ended up generating crime. Location is a far better predictor of crime – including violent crime – than both the history of offenders and their characterological profile. The majority of offenders are not motivated 100% of their time, and so the simple presence of an offender does not mean a crime will take place e.g., I’ve worked in bars and clubs that known criminals used to frequent, but at that time they were not looking for somebody to victimize, they were simply socializing and having a drink. Persistent and serial offenders have “normal” lives to lead, as well as “criminal” ones. By understanding the types of locations that both attract and generate crime, we may have the ability to avoid places at certain times, when we know a potential threat(s) may be present. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=546 Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=545 Over the years I have met a number of instructors and students who have voiced the opinion that unless you’re training at maximum effort, force etc., your training isn’t realistic. I’ve also heard many “old school” practitioners make the argument that training back in the 1970’s and 1980’s was so much harder, more physical and demanded students to be much tougher etc. There may be some truth in this, but I’ve also heard ex-students of mine, at social gatherings, tell current students the same old story; that “back in the day” when they trained, training was much harder, tougher and everyone was beaten up and injured after each session etc. Personally, I don’t remember that being the case, but everyone is welcome to their war stories. Whilst there is a place for hard – but safe – training, there is also a place for softer, gentler training however many people underestimate the value of this or don’t value it because in their eyes it de-legitimizes what they are trying to accomplish i.e., prepare them for a real-world fight where there are no rules and the emotional, psychological and physical consequences may be extreme. However, “play” and “games” are important ways and means for preparing ourselves for real-life encounters, and this is something we should take and learn from the way that animals prepare themselves for combat. In this article I want to look at why “fighting games” are such an important part of our training, and how we shouldn’t confuse them as being competitive events but something that we do together in conjunction with our training partners. If we can get it “right” this part of our training can become the building block on which we develop genuine fighting skills that can be incorporated into our other areas of training. When young animals play there are no consequences, however the reason they play is to prepare them for real life, in an enjoyable way. If their play is not enjoyable, then they will be reticent to engage in it and miss out on an education. Young lions will play together replicating the way they hunt e.g., they will put out a paw to try and trip another up, in the same way they might try to bring down a running antelope or zebra. They will play bite each other’s throats, mimicking the way in which they suffocate their prey. Sometimes adults/parents will join in to teach lessons. Play is an important way of learning in the wild which prepares animals for the real world, and it is important that there are no physical consequences, such as pain, when learning these lessons. In most classes I teach I use “Fighting Games”, which is one of the training methods that really attracted me to Krav Maga. Unfortunately, some people see these games as a chance to be competitive, with their focus on winning rather than playing. The point of a fighting game, just like “play” amongst wild animals is to replicate actions and behaviors that will be useful in real-life e.g., one game I play is having partners try and touch each other’s feet with their feet, a drill/game that should teach good movement and how to control range etc., however there are times when the footwork will start to resemble Irish Dancing, with participants jumping around in order to do anything but have their toes touched i.e., the play has become competitive and has lost its meaning. In the wild lion cubs will adopt different roles and play different parts to get the full experience of combat e.g., sometimes they will put themselves in a top position, sometimes a bottom, sometimes they will play the aggressor, sometimes the submissive etc. There is no competition in their “play”, they are practicing how they may have to act in a real-life encounter i.e., there are rules to the way in which they play. It is easy for humans to lose sight of the purpose of the game/play by becoming overly competitive and wanting to put undue pressure on our partner/opponent in order to win, rather than giving them the chance/opportunity to practice developing a skill or technique. Perhaps the most important part of “play” and “games” in training to fight is the opportunity to develop creativity – in my view one of the most undervalued and overlooked fighting skills. When I look back to real-life encounters I’ve been involved in I don’t remember performing and replicating techniques, I simply remember solving problems using ideas and solutions that techniques had taught me. In a fight you largely have to improvise, modify, and create solutions, as nobody attacks you exactly how you’ve trained. As “realistic” as you believe your training is, it will never entirely reflect the utter mess that reality is – and that means you have to be able to be creative in your approach. If you believe you will exactly follow the A-B-C steps of a technique in a clean and clinical fashion, and that afterwards when you throw your punches, strikes and combatives the fight will magically end, you are mistaken. Techniques exist to guide you, to teach you concepts and to give you an idea of how an attack might look and feel, they are not keys that unlock certain doors. “Play” and “Games” allow you to test out and develop ideas without a consequence, to create solutions that might sometimes work and might sometimes fail. In short, play should teach you how to be creative. You might have a great “idea” or tactic for sparring but be too wary to try it out because of the potential consequence of getting hit; you are human, and this is genuine concern. It may be that you try something out in sparring, get hit, and conclude that your idea was a bad one, when in fact it was a great one, but you simply lack the skills at this time to make it work. When you play, you have a chance to try things out and develop them, without receiving inappropriate feedback. Perhaps one of the most creative martial arts on the planet is BJJ. I have trained at overly competitive BJJ schools where play is not a part of the game, and the “best” guys are usually the strongest and heaviest, and I have trained at schools which are more laid back, and more playful in their approach, where the practitioner and the art are allowed to develop; and certainly, at the higher level these schools produce the better and more skillful competitors, who are able to create solutions on the fly. When a school/instructor wants to promote Krav Maga as the toughest, most badass system around, and so only trains in one way, their students lose a lot, and become fighters who can only bulldoze their way through a fight relying solely on aggression and brute force, rather than creative ability. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=545 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=544 Back in the 1980’s policy makers – not academics – started to talk about the rise of the “Super Predator” i.e., teenagers whose offending would worsen over time, and carry on growing proportionately into their adult years. This idea ignored one thing that almost all criminologists agree on, that crime overall involves young people who age out of it – excepting a few persistent offenders. The idea of the Super Predator also contained the idea that such individuals belonged to an identifiable sub-group, making them easy to pick out, allowing for them to be given harsh sentences to that would both keep them off the street and deter them from offending in the future. This idea of juvenile criminals – especially violent ones - belonging to definable and identifiable subgroups has historically been a popular notion in criminology, however those who have put forward this idea have by their own admission, consistently failed to demonstrate its validity. The search although attractive - as it would allow resources to be directed at dealing with these individuals - has proved elusive. In this article I want to look at some of the features of juvenile offending, along with the development of the adolescent brain, in order get a better idea of why teenagers/juveniles engage in violent offending, including how even the “best brought up kids” who seem perfect in the home etc., can engage in extreme acts of violence when in other situations etc. Every now and again we will hear the story of a good, middle class kid, who was a model student and son/daughter, going off the rails and/or engaging in some act of extreme violence. If it’s a news story, teachers and family members will be interviewed and all will talk about how the individual acted out of character, and the person they knew could never have done the things they did etc. This is the legacy of Sutherland’s Differential Theory, developed in 1924. Sutherland believed that an individual’s commitment to criminality was the result of competing good and bad influences e.g., if a child grew up in a good moral home where the right/legal thing was always stressed, then when they were exposed to bad influences etc., they would refrain from doing the wrong thing. Almost, as in the cartoons, where the “Good Angel” sitting on one shoulder, would offer countering advice against the acts the demon on the other shoulder was suggesting. Sutherland, saw all influences as competing together to produce one outcome. If a person had more and stronger bad influences than good ones, then the balance would be tipped, and they’d engage in criminality. However, this theory didn’t/doesn’t really explain why “good kids” will sometimes do incredibly bad things. The work of Judith Harris in the 1990’s gives us a better and fuller explanation. She introduced the idea of context-specific learning. That is, children/teenagers learn how to act and behave in different contexts; so they may be the model son or daughter whilst at home because they’ve learnt the punishments and rewards for behavior in that context, but be the full-on rebel with their friends because they’ve learnt that the rewards for being bad are better when with them – such as the status and admiration they get – and that being good and doing the right thing are looked on with disapproval in this context. Harris found that children and teenagers were extremely adept at context switching their actions and behaviors to meet the approval of any group they were with. This also applies if a person’s peer is well-behaved and follows the rules etc. Regions of the brain don’t develop at an equal rate – something that we’ve only been able to realize with the development of MRI technology. Those parts of the brain involved with emotional processing, such as the Limbic system, develop at a faster rate than those involved with information processing and learning i.e., the Prefrontal Cortex. This means that teenagers are much more prone to being guided by their emotions than older adults – where the “Reasoning Brain” is much more fully developed. A teenager, without experience and information, is not able to calculate risk in the same way that an adult can. An adult knows – or should know – that getting into a shopping cart, and then rolling yourself down the steepest hill you can find (and preferably one that is next to some form of water feature, such as a lake or canal), is not the best idea of that day. But having done it in my mid-teens, I didn’t fully appreciate the instability of a shopping cart at high speed, or the sheer speed such a vehicle could get to, in the same way I do now. At the time it was just something I needed to do, and with a crowd of friends agreeing with me, it would have been rude not to. This illustrates another facet of teenage/juvenile life: you spend a lot of time with your friends. Peer pressure is a major factor in teenage offending. Crime and violence is often carried out by groups rather than individuals, and unfortunately the US Criminal Justice System has a history of treating disorganized groups of teenagers as being members of organized gangs. An immature brain, that is ruled by emotions, coupled with the fact that most young people spend time in groups, is one of the major factors leading to Juvenile Offending. I remember being on a course where a female participant on one day wore a t-shirt that said, “Never underestimate the stupidity of boys in large groups”. It perhaps more than any other single statement succinctly captures the most recent research in criminology and juvenile forensic psychology. A “good kid” regardless of socio-economic advantage/disadvantage, in a different context, especially when others are present, is capable of acting in a way that teachers/parents couldn’t imagine.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=544 Mon, 12 Jul 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=543 Evolutionary psychology looks to explain universal human behaviors from the perspective of evolutionary adaptation, whilst evolutionary criminology looks to do the same concerning offending. However, it should be noted that crime is a socially constructed concept, and is often subject to change and redefinition e.g., Marijuana is now legal in US States where its use was once prohibited, and where sentencing was extremely harsh etc. This presents an issue/problem for anyone trying to make a claim that genetics and biology are solely responsible for offending behavior(s). Whilst genetics can influence an individual’s character, it would be extremely difficult to tie genes to specific types of offending etc. One area where evolutionary psychology/criminology has gained a lot of traction is in its argument that rape gives animals and individuals an evolutionary advantage in reproduction. In this article I want to discuss why this idea/view is both scientifically wrong (it has been largely rejected by the scientific community) and dangerous e.g., it makes rape and sexual assault inevitable, and gives those who commit such acts a biological/psychological excuse, that they were driven by evolutionary urges that they were unable to control etc. There is something that is referred to as the “Naturalistic Fallacy”. This is where certain animal behaviors that are shared by humans, are used to explain the reasons behind why humans act/behave in a certain way e.g., because certain species of monkeys such as Mantled Howler Monkeys will engage in forced/coercive mating as a part of “sperm competition”, human rape must therefore be driven by a similar “evolutionary” urge to reproduce, even if sexual assailants and rapists aren’t consciously aware of this. However, human beings are not monkeys, but are instead a highly individualized species that whilst sharing certain practices with other mammals, are also quite different and unique e.g., we lack the complex greeting rituals of other social animals such as elephants, as well as the rituals that wolves and dogs use to avoid violence, and unlike these animals are capable of great feats of engineering and creativity etc. Therefore, it would be incorrect to look at the way animals use/engage in coerced and forced sex, and deduce that this mirrors our own behaviors e.g., certain monkey species will see a new group/troop leader publicly rape all the female members after deposing the old alpha male as a show of social dominance, whilst most human acts of rape are private or semi-private affairs and are not committed to demonstrate social standing(s) to a particular audience etc. Such examples also show that animals use sex for reasons other than procreation, like Bonobos (pygmy chimps) who use it as a means of reconciliation after disputes and conflicts, and so to look at sex – both consensual and non-consensual - from a purely reproductive perspective is extremely narrow and simplistic. To look at the way Mallard Ducks use rape to increase their reproductive chances and make the argument that human rape is motivated by this fundamentally overlooks the facts concerning human rape. If we look at the statistics for rape by age, roughly a third of women victimized are below prepubescent age i.e., they are incapable of conceiving, and post-menopausal women are also victimized. The “evolutionary” argument that rape is an evolutionary tool to increase the chances of reproduction fails to explain such assaults. Sexual assaults which do not involve vaginal penetration cannot be explained using this evolutionary explanation, nor those where the assailant wears a condom to decrease the risks of detection – something which is more common in serial rapists, and which Chopin et al. (2019) believe to be a “forensic awareness” that occurs in around 10-15% of such assaults. The theory also doesn’t explain gang rapes, which increase “sperm competition”.  It is estimated (Beck et al., 2019) that roughly 5% of women who are victims of rape become pregnant, suggesting that as a reproductive strategy rape is not particularly successful. In other species where there are distinct mating seasons, when animals know that the chance of conception is high at a particular time, rape may be a viable and successful reproductive strategy, but in humans this is not the case, and it would be wrong to try and draw a parallel. This has not stopped some evolutionary psychologists and criminologists to engage in statistical gymnastics – usually trying to take into “account” the potential effects of birth control in sexual assaults – suggesting that conception rates in rapes are much higher than those involving consensual sex. The evolutionary psychological explanation for rape is both popular and pervasive, as it seems to give a simple, scientific and straightforward explanation for rape. However, as has hopefully been presented it doesn’t stand up well as an explanation when we look at the age of those who are victimized as well as the ways individuals are assaulted. It is also a viewpoint which suggests the full responsibility for reducing the number of rapes and sexual assaults, rests wholly with women, as it would be futile to try and fight against male biology and evolution. Whilst it would be dangerous to make the argument that rape and sexual assaults are fully sociological creations, the role that society plays in the way that women and sexual relationships are presented does influence male psychological development during childhood and adolescence and has the potential to lead to dark fantasies and distorted thought processes. Therefore, rather than seeing the underlying motivation(s) behind rape and sexual assaults as being hard-wired and unchangeable we should take a more optimistic position and look at the conditions which facilitate healthy psychological development. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=543 Mon, 05 Jul 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=542 I apologize if this article appears a bit preachy or even judgmental, however everything I’m writing about I’m first applying to myself. In my forty-plus years in the martial arts I’ve hit many plateaus – and I continue to do so – and had times where my skills development has stagnated. In this article I want to look at three reasons why we can end up feeling like we are not progressing as fast as we should. At some point I’ve been guilty of all three and had to change my way of thinking in order to move on. Reason One: You think you’re doing what the instructor is telling you but you’re not. This is perhaps the most common issue that people have, which is why I’ve listed it first. It’s especially prevalent amongst people who have failed to correct bad habits that they’ve built up over a number of years (and I include myself in this e.g., I practice Karate, and have a bad habit of not pulling the opposite fist back as far as I should when punching; it’s something I dedicate time and effort to correcting). Oftentimes it seems/feels like you are doing something when you are not, and you can become deaf to correction. Practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect. I don’t believe that there are advanced techniques etc. Advanced is just the basics done better, and “good enough” can become the enemy of “best”. Nothing in our practice should see us simply going through the motions. The only time we can switch off and let our subconscious take over (which is our ultimate goal when learning to fight), is when we’ve worked at it, putting in the highest degree of conscious effort, so that we are able to do something without thinking; this is generally estimated at around 10 000 repetitions – this is 10 000 perfect repetitions, which will need to be increased significantly for every poor repetition we perform. If you’re dialing something in because you think you’ve got it, the truth is you probably haven’t. If you think that you’ve got the basics, and you’re ready to move on to the next thing, you probably aren’t. Boxing is limited to a small number of punches however I don’t believe you’ll ever meet a professional boxer who doesn’t want a better Jab, Cross, Hook or Uppercut – and who won’t put in the time and effort to make that happen. If you find yourself in a class waiting for the instructor to move on to the next thing, you’re wasting your present training opportunity. One of the things I always do when an instructor makes a general point, criticism or observation to a class I’m in is to assume that he’s addressing me personally, and whatever is being said is something that I should focus on, and put more effort into addressing.    Reason Two: You think that something you’ve added in – or taken away – is an improvement on what the instructor is teaching you. A long time ago, when I was teaching a seminar, I had a participant fight back on a correction I was trying to make concerning how to throw a Cross. I took the time to explain that the Cross was a straight punch, and didn’t have a “swinging” action at the end etc. After I had gone through a fairly detailed explanation, the participant ended up “agreeing” but insisting that this was their own version of the Cross – they’d personalized it. The fact that almost every other element of the punch was also missing, or performed poorly, and inconsistently hadn’t registered with them; they were incredibly happy with the improvements they had made to the punch and weren’t going to be told by anybody that they were doing it wrong. It wasn’t as if I was teaching my “version” of a Cross, it was a standard Cross that you would teach a beginner who was starting boxing. There are things in the martial arts that can be improved on, or that may need to be amended due to the context of a situation etc., however when it comes to power generation when punching, certain things have to be present, and if they’re not, maximum power will never be generated. There isn’t a way for somebody – unless their body is somehow different from everybody else’s – to put a personal “twist” on something that is so standard and basic. If a person is having difficulty performing a technique, such as a Cross, correctly the solution isn’t for them to personalize it, and do it their way; they have to conform to the principles and components that make a Cross, a Cross. Jazz musicians who can improvise, can only do so because they went through the process of learning to play in a structured way; there is a huge difference between improvisation and random noise. There are boxers such as Muhammad Ali, who defied convention, and at times looked like he was ignoring principles, but when examined closely all the components were there. If you are going to try and “personalize” things it is likely you will quickly stagnate, as you will not be able to build on and develop your technique e.g., with the Cross if you decide not to turn the hip – because that’s the way you do “your Cross” etc. – you’ll never be able to turn your torso fully, and your punch will never be as hard as it could be. Ultimately you need to conform, rather than think that your adaptions are an improvement. Reason Three: You think the instructor is wrong, and you are right. I fight from an open stance e.g., my feet are pointed forward and my torso is turned, so that my chest is facing whoever I’m dealing with etc. My defense is my control of range, my movement, and my attacks, but if I were stationary, I would be a very open target, as my hands/guard are positioned for attacks, rather than defense, and my body isn’t bladed, which would make it a smaller target etc. Other systems and styles teach different types of fighting stances, and I wouldn’t even argue that I am right, and they are wrong. However, there are people who if they don’t understand the reasons why I fight from such a stance may look at it - especially if they are looking at a photograph, without possibly reading an explanation - think that my stance is “wrong”. Stances are designed to facilitate a certain way of moving/fighting, with some having more defensive attributes than others etc., and this doesn’t make some wrong and others right. However, if you are to come and learn how to fight from me you have to accept that this is the stance/position that I will teach you to fight from. If you don’t like it, you can’t replace it with a different stance, because everything I teach is built on this foundation/concept e.g., I teach power generation, movement etc., from being in this stance. If you like the stance that Muay Thai fighters use, or the way that Wing Chun practitioners stand etc., those are systems you should be learning, as they are built and designed around those particular stances and ways of standing/moving. You are not going to improve in a system – whatever it is – unless you conform to that system. Trying to bring things in from other styles to replace what you are learning because you think you know better will ultimately hold you back. I still cross-train in other martial arts but when I do, I do it their way, not mine. Fighting systems are systems, and there are reasons for the way things are done. It is worth being curious about these, rather than concluding that the approach is wrong. A good instructor should be able to explain why they teach something the way they do and should be open about explaining this. There are no short cuts to progression, but we should be aware of some of the thought processes, and “excuses” that we make to ourselves, which may hold us back. In my own experience practicing the basics whilst consciously focusing on and checking various aspects of what I am doing has given my performance the greatest boost. I have found that the biggest danger is the assumption that I’ve got something or am doing it perfectly, or at a level where I am able to switch off. Resetting my attitude and attention when this happens is usually what gets me across the plateau quickest. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=542 Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=541 There are times when violence is inevitable. There are times when you can’t avoid or escape being targeted and times when it is impossible to de-escalate a situation, that under a different set of conditions may have been possible etc. Unfortunately, some people can’t accept this and try to alter reality so that every potentially violent situation can be resolved in a non-physical manner e.g., there’s always a way to “talk” yourself out of danger etc. In this article, I want to look at when de-escalation isn’t an effective option, even when an incident may seem to lend itself to this approach. At the very top-level, violence can be classified as being one of two types: Premeditated or Spontaneous. Premeditated acts of violence are those that are planned (to at least some degree), and have defined goals e.g., street robberies where a predatory individual, aims to acquire money, a phone etc., from an intended victim are a good example of premeditated incidents. Spontaneous incidents by contrast aren’t planned and have no defined goals e.g., if you spill a drink over somebody and they become aggressive towards you they don’t really know what they want or need to resolve the situation, they simply feel there is no alternative but to act violently towards you. Premeditated situations don’t lend themselves to de-escalation because the individual has a goal which they are trying to achieve and will rarely settle for anything less than that, however Spontaneous situations may i.e., it may be possible to help an aggressor find a non-violent alternative/goal that will resolve the situation peacefully. I have written a lot about de-escalation tools and processes however in this article I want to look at factors which may prevent incidents from being de-escalated even when they fall into the category of Spontaneous incidents (that have no defined goals/outcomes). The degree to which an incident is situationally or characterologically driven will largely determine whether de-escalation will be successful or not. There are some individuals who are predisposed to using violence as a solution to any and every situation. This might be because they lack the social skills to navigate a situation where a perceived injustice has been committed against them, and/or because their personality type is one where they tend to react in a highly emotional and volatile fashion to any situation where they feel/believe they are the injured party etc. There are some people who don’t want to avoid using violence to deal with social situations and are not seeking or looking for non-violent alternatives and outcomes to an incident. It is not so much that these individuals are looking for trouble, but rather that when trouble “finds” them, they would rather deal with it physically. If an incident is situationally driven by the components of the incident, such as being focused on what has happened, rather than who it has happened to, then de-escalation is much more likely to be successful. If an individual who has had an injustice committed against them would rather seek a non-violent outcome to a situation – such as having had a drink spilt over them – but is simply in a highly emotional state because of what has happened, then they are more likely to respond favorably to de-escalation i.e., they want to be able to calm down, but simply don’t know how to given the circumstances of the situation. This illustrates the point that de-escalation and conflict resolution are two separate things. De-escalation being the process to remove the emotion from an incident in order to get to a point where the conflict can be resolved. Another way to look at this is to try and determine if an individual is “internally” or “externally” motivated/driven i.e., is the incident just a trigger that sets somebody off (internal intent) or is the incident primarily about what has happened (externally motivated). One practical way to determine this is to recognize when somebody engages in “Repetitive Looping”, where they keep repeating the injustice of what has happened to them, usually with an increase in volume as they go. This is a good indicator that the individual is not looking for a non-violent resolution but is instead getting themselves ready to use physical force. If a person is looking to use violence in an impersonal manner, then a situation is unlikely to be resolved using de-escalation. If a person is looking to use you as a vehicle or object, rather than seeing you as a person, in a somewhat emotionally detached manner, then de-escalation is unlikely to be an effective solution to the situation. De-escalation works best when a person has become emotional due to an injustice, they believe has been committed against them, something which they have taken personally. If, in a street robbery you are simply a means to an end – a vehicle – then the only thing that the mugger is interested in is taking/acquiring your possessions, they are not seeing you as a person; and are not taking things “personally” i.e., they are simply concerned with the “transaction” they want to take place. De-escalation is best suited to events where an individual feels personally offended and can view you as a person too. If somebody has a drink spilt over them, their emotional state, is a result of several things, such as embarrassment, social awkwardness, disrespect, injustice, shame etc., the drink itself and even the wet clothes are usually secondary to these things. If these other “personal” issues can be resolved and dealt with – through de-escalation – then it is likely that a non-violent outcome can be achieved. This is why it is vital to focus on restoring these things which the individual feels they have lost, such as the status they have in the group they are with, rather than focusing on the drink/action that caused the conflict; this may have to be dealt with as well, however not ignoring, denying or discounting these personal and social issues, whilst giving the individual not just a face-saving way out of the conflict but one where they can actually restore their respect and standing etc., is what allows de-escalation to be effective. It is important to note that de-escalation isn’t about “talking your way out” of a situation by using clever arguments, and making points that the other person is unable to come back at you from etc. It’s about dealing with the other person’s emotional state, and emotional people are not operating from a rational place. It is vital to be able to recognize that even when a potentially violent situation appears to be spontaneous in nature where the individual did not come to the situation looking to act/behave violently etc., that there are times – and people – where they are committed to responding violently, and in these situations it is either enforcement or avoidance, rather than de-escalation which is needed. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=541 Mon, 21 Jun 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=540 Without a motive there can’t be a crime. From a legal perspective, motive can be seen as the “desire which prompts conduct”, and whilst in a court room a lawyer may base their case on a single driving desire, such as revenge, most violent crimes are driven by several types of desire/motive e.g., there may be a need for revenge, however revenge is likely to be the product of frustration, shame, and the need to acquire some intangible goal, such as respect; and it is these underlying needs that combine to form a “motive” such as revenge etc. In this short article I want to look at five facets of motive, whose first letters form the acronym FABER. These are: Frustration, Acquisition, Boredom, Enjoyment and Respect. These combine at times, to differing degrees, to create/form motives, that we might give specific titles to such as “revenge”. I have written before about the Anger-Frustration hypothesis that was developed by Yale Psychologists, Dollard et al., in 1939, and modified in 1941, to look at how being blocked from achieving an anticipated goal, would result in frustration, that could lead to anger, which in turn could result in violent action(s) e.g., a person who is next in line to be served at a bar (anticipated goal), finds that the bartender chooses to serve you in front of them – which “blocks” their anticipated goal. If they’re an easy-going, mellow person, they might just shrug their shoulders and wait to be served, however if they are somebody who feels a level of injustice at what has just happened and are frustrated that they have been overlooked, they may choose to confront you and/or the bartender. This introduces the idea/concept of creating “scapegoats”, or what is more technically described as displacement. In the example given, it was the bartender who made the decision of who to serve next – not you – and so really if anger is to be directed at anyone, it should be at them, rather than you however they may feel that they need to stay on the bartender’s good side, and/or realize that with the bar in between them it would be difficult to gain access to them and so they turn/displace their anger towards you. This “displacement” is one of the reasons why there is an uptake in acts of Intimate Partner Violence during sporting seasons.  If someone’s team is doing badly and/or loses an important game (such as when playing a rival team, they have a history with), then they may take their frustration/anger out on their partner, as they lack the means to do so with the players themselves. So far, we’ve looked at specific incidents as they relate to frustration-anger, however frustration/anger can also develop over time in a more general way e.g., an individual may feel that they have been deprived – blocked - educational and work opportunities, and due to frustration, turn to violent offending in order to improve their financial situation etc. Combining frustration-anger hypothesis, with “Strain Theory” (which I have written about before), offers a good explanation as to why people engage in crime etc. As noted, people also engage in crime and violent offending, to acquire things e.g., an offender may engage in violent street robberies, bank robberies and/or car-jackings etc. in order to acquire money, and resources that can be turned into cash. However, there may also be “intangible” goals that people want to achieve that require the use of violence. In Sociologist, Elijah Andersen’s “Code of the Street”, a study on inner city “street life”, he talks of respect as a desirable commodity that is sought after in order to gain status – which in turn may bring its own financial rewards etc. In communities where violence is common, having status may reduce your chances of victimization on an ongoing basis. When I was growing up tough kids were left alone, and really had to only consider their safety when they had to interact with others from outside their district/community i.e., those who weren’t aware of their “status” or who were looking to directly challenge it. Boredom can also result in violent offending. Boredom was largely responsible for the recreational violence that plagued Glasgow during the 1990’s and early 2000’s and led to it becoming the murder capital of Europe, with the majority of homicides resulting from knife attacks. Without going too far into how Glasgow’s public housing policy of the 1950’s and 60’s played a part in this, it is worth explaining how projects such as the Easterhouse, housing estate led to increases in violent offending. The project was aimed at providing better housing for people living in the east-end of Glasgow by moving them to a newly built housing estate six miles to the north of the city center. Initially there were few shops, and people bought food from travelling vans. There were also few pubs/bars or any recreational facilities, meaning that people had to travel into the city center if they wanted entertainment etc. This left a vacuum which was filled with drugs, alcohol, and violence. A culture developed over the years that saw young people meeting together in the early evening, getting drunk, and then go looking for people, from other streets in the neighborhood to victimize, which often involved the gang running somebody down and repeatedly stabbing them. Boredom that leads to violent behavior(s) can also be the result of psychological rather than sociological issues. One of the characteristics of Psychopathy is that of getting bored quickly and easily, causing individuals with this disorder to engage in thrill-seeking and risk-taking activities, that may often involve violence. The reason that psychopaths will often select violence as an antidote to their boredom is that they derive enjoyment from it, and we should recognize that other individuals – who aren’t psychopaths – also derive pleasure from acting violently. Joining a football/soccer gang/firm is largely voluntary and attracts individuals who enjoy the process of violence. It may be that this is one of the few times in their lives that they get to enjoy feelings of power and control and find that this is so rewarding that they are prepared to risk injury and even death, in order to achieve it. Sadists, those who derive pleasure from the pain of others, are addicted to the enjoyment and pleasure that they receive by witnessing and/or being responsible for the suffering of others. We know extraordinarily little about sadists, because they usually refuse interviews in forensic settings – unless they want to enjoy an interviewer’s discomfort as they explain in great detail how they slowly and creatively abused somebody – they are acutely aware that they are generally despised by others. Dr James Gilligan, the forensic psychiatrist who turned around the Bridgewater State Hospital’s suicide and homicide rate to practically zero, once asked a violent patient/inmate who barely communicated with anyone, what he wanted so badly that he would sacrifice everything to get it. The reply was: dignity, pride, and self-respect. This wasn’t somebody who was trying to acquire respect as a commodity, like those who Elijah Andersen studied in “Code of the Street”, this was somebody trying to regain respect that they felt they had lost and were motivated by a sense of shame to do so. Shame can be viewed as “Public Guilt” i.e., when we are feeling guilty about something the only witness to our guilt is ourselves, whereas when we feel ashamed, we have to experience how we believe others see our “guilt”. We have asymmetric responses to positive and negative events e.g., a lottery that promises a 50-50 chance of equal gains against equal losses, makes the negative repercussions seem to weigh heavier than the positive ones. This is a referred to as a negativity bias. Tversky and Kahneman (1992) suggested that we value losses at about 2.3 times more than gains of the same value, while Baumeister et al. (2001) and others proposed that the true ratio is closer to five to one. This means when we experience a loss of self-respect, we work somewhere between two to five times harder to get it back than we would to acquire it in the first place. This helps explain why the inmate Dr Gilligan questioned was engaging in more and more violent behaviors: he was fighting to get his self-respect back. When trying to understand the motivations laid out in FABER, we should understand that there are more likely to be multiple motivations behind somebody’s violent actions, rather than just one. Sometimes a motivation is very clear such as in a street robbery, where the offender has a clear goal, in others it may not be obvious, such as with Recreational Violence etc. However, if we can add color to our understanding of a developing situation, by recognizing the motivations at play we can better tailor our response(s) in order to avoid having to use physical force. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=540 Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=539 I remember a boxing coach advising me about sparring with Southpaws (left-handed fighters, who fight with their right hand/leg forward), not to worry about “looking good” i.e., it would likely take the form of a clunky, clumsy mess etc. I have to say he was largely correct. I would also say that there’s a real difference between sparring with a “true” left hander, rather than a right-handed person who believes that they fight better as a Southpaw – in my experience, this is usually the result of a right-handed person not being particularly good at sparring in an orthodox stance, and switching in the hope that somehow this makes them better; in the short-term they often enjoy some success as people have more experience sparring against people in an orthodox stance than they do against southpaws, however because they’re not truly able to naturally function this way they quickly stagnate, and in many cases regress, becoming worse at sparring than they were before. The answer to slow progress in sparring is very rarely – I hate to use the word never - solved by changing your lead hand/foot to the opposite. In this article I want to look at why left-handedness is a trait that hasn’t evolved away, and a few simple tactics to deal with the truly left-handed fighter. On average, left-handed people account for 10% of any society/population; and there are no populations where left-handedness accounts for over 25% of people. It’s also of note that compared to ape populations, right-handedness in humans is significantly higher, making this bias a very human trait. However, left-handedness has not evolved out, and remains, suggesting that the genetics behind hand dominance is either an extremely complex affair (and so it is unlikely to do so) or that the benefits of being left-handed, increase when the number of left-handed people decrease i.e., those members of a left-handed minority have an evolutionary advantage as long as they exist as a small group, alongside a right-handed majority. Several studies have shown that left-handed people are over-represented in professional sports, such as boxing, but not in solo sports such as running and cycling, suggesting that in “interactive” pursuits, involving two competitors – such as fencing and other combat sports - being left-handed may present some advantages. It is worth noting that from a sample size perspective the number of people engaged in professional sports is relatively small. These findings support what is known as the “Fighting Hypothesis” to explain why left-handedness remains i.e., left-handed people have an advantage when it comes to combat, and this is why this trait has survived, etc. What is perhaps more important, where the “fighting hypothesis” is concerned is not the number of left-handed people in professional sports, but the number of “wins” they have – however it could be argued that anyone to even be playing at the professional level, must have “won” a lot at the amateur/non-professional level. Various studies involving boxers and wrestlers have shown that collectively left-handers statistically – as a group - have more success than right-handers, and even those who are ambidextrous or who use a mixed approach i.e., non- ambidextrous individuals who switch/change their dominant hand to an equal degree. Once again it should be noted that the sample sizes were relatively small, and there are other physical factors, such as reach, muscle-type etc., that could account for the success of left-handed people; with hand dominance merely being a confounding variable. However, there is also not enough evidence to suggest that the fighting hypothesis is wrong.    In terms of dealing with Southpaws – especially in sparring scenarios – there are two things that you need to focus on (and these also conversely work for Southpaws dealing with Orthodox fighters). Firstly, you need to make sure that your front foot is on the outside of theirs; this allows you to “pivot” round them, rather than the other way round. This may seem like a small thing, but it is extremely important, and vital to controlling and restricting their movement. Whenever they attempt to move to their right, you need to move to your left, so that your front foot remains to the left of theirs, so you cut off their movement and force them to pivot and turn inside of you. Also, you need to move away from their left-hand i.e., their power hand, by continually pivoting and moving to your left – the reverse direction to the way you would move if dealing with an orthodox fighter i.e., you don’t want to be moving towards their strongest hand. This is why right-handed people who fight/spar Southpaw, usually fail, as the hand which should be their power-hand in a Southpaw stance is their left, and they lack the coordination to deliver/throw it properly; it’s possible for them to fool themselves in light sparring that this isn’t the case, but when they are put under pressure where the contact and force is much greater, this short-coming soon comes to light. One mistake to avoid when dealing with a Southpaw is to avoid overcommitting with forward movement. With the right-foot forward a Southpaw can easily pivot to your left-side (away from your right-hand), if you move too far forward when throwing your Jab or lead hand strike, making you vulnerable – as they are on your dead side. There is a good deal of evidence – though certainly not conclusive – that left-handedness may not have evolved out because it gave a small minority an evolutionary advantage when it came to fighting e.g., left-handed people are more experienced at fighting right-handed people than the other way round. There are certainly advantages to facing a right-handed person with their left-foot leading when fighting as a Southpaw however it really only consistently works for someone who is truly left-handed, as opposed to somebody who “forgets” which foot they are leading with because they are not truly in control of their movement e.g., they unintentionally walk their feet, rather than shuffle etc. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=539 Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=538 Most of us are familiar with the idiom, “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, the idea that it may only take a small thing, when added to many others, to cause an extreme reaction or response. It is often used as a mechanism to explain, extreme acts of violence, where the trigger that caused the violent explosion seemed trivial and/or inconsequential e.g., someone smashes a glass into the face of a person who they believe jumped ahead of them in a queue at a bar etc. Such extreme reactions are often explained away by suggesting that the person had been having a bad day/life and this one action – being made to wait behind somebody who had jumped a line – was the “straw”/injustice that was one too many for them. There is no doubt that a build-up of stress/strain can be released due to what on its own would be something that would be of little consequence, however this idea cannot be applied universally e.g., there are people who have happy, fulfilled lives who grossly overreact, often aggressively and violently to what are minor incidents etc. We have probably experienced this ourselves, when/where we get angry at being cut off in traffic due to somebody’s aggressive and inconsiderate driving, and after we’ve experienced our emotions quickly rising say to ourselves, “why did that xxxx have to go and spoil my day.” The triggering event was basically insignificant, but we can’t explain what happened to us as being “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, as there was no preceding overload; our day/life up until that point was going pretty well. This article looks at some of the reasons why we and others can experience extreme emotional responses, that may turn violent, due to other people’s actions and behaviors, which really shouldn’t elicit such reactions; especially when we examine them afterwards. One theory, developed by Konrad Lorenz, is that humans have a certain innate level of aggression that needs to be dispensed. We do this in a number of ways, such as playing sports, engaging in physical activities, such as running or weightlifting etc., and even to a lesser extent through arguing and debating. In Lorenz’s view is that this is part of us being an animal, which needs to exercise its natural aggressive and violent urges. Due to our construction of a society that requires co-operation, we have created and found ways to channel this, so that we aren’t continually at each other’s throats. However, every now and again, we find ourselves in situations where we haven’t had previous opportunities to re-direct our innate aggressive tendencies, and so when we experience a minor injustice (something we see as being competitive/challenging) this acts as a release, oftentimes resulting in a response/reaction that isn’t measured or in-line with what has happened to us. We may not be consciously aware that we have this level of “unused” and latent aggression within us and find that our response takes us completely by surprise. Lorenz uses an example of a polar expedition to explain how this happens. Imagine you are on a polar expedition that is going to last several months, where you are living with a small group of individuals (all of whom have a necessary and required skill that is essential for the group’s survival) in isolation. In such a situation you have little time to engage in competitive activities that would reduce your overall aggression, and you can’t afford to “compete”, with others whose skills and knowledge are essential for your survival – and so you start to suppress your aggressive urges. However, the animal in you, won’t let you do this fully, and so you find yourself using other people’s minor actions and behaviors as a conduit for siphoning of some of this built-up aggression e.g., you find yourself getting annoyed at the way somebody taps their spoon on their plate when eating, and aggressively ask them to stop doing it, and/or a fellow group member’s whistling that didn’t originally bother you has started to send you mad, and shout at them about it etc. Small things, can cause an unwarranted emotional response. Another theory that was developed in the 1930’s and has stood up to robust scrutiny is the Anger-Frustration Hypothesis. This model suggests that when people are “blocked” from obtaining a “goal” their frustration leads to an angry, and potentially violent, outburst. This theory gives a good explanation as to why minor incidents can lead people to respond in an emotionally disproportionate manner e.g., if you are trying to merge on to a highway and another driver keeps deliberately preventing you from doing so – blocking you from obtaining your goal – your frustration at their behavior (which is inconsequential in the long run), may lead to you responding in an overly emotional manner etc. In controlling our own anger/frustration it is worth understanding why the person not letting us onto the highway is engaged in such a trivial act, as this may help us better control our own responses. I refer to this as the “sausage roll” effect. As a psychology undergraduate I had to watch a documentary on Provisional IRA prisoners convicted of Terrorism in the H-Blocks in Northern Ireland. In the prisons the IRA maintained the same hierarchical structure that they did outside, and they had a committee that used to meet with prison officials on a weekly basis to discuss issues, conditions etc. In one meeting the IRA committee brought up the issue that prisoners had noted that over several weeks the size of the sausage rolls had been shrinking. It was pointed out that the sausage rolls were from a third-party company and were the exact same ones that they sold commercially i.e., they weren’t specifically made for the prison. The size of the sausage rolls wasn’t the issue. The prisoners had so little control of their lives that this was one thing that they could try and exert control over – and so for 30-minutes they argued their point till all the prison officials could do was to offer to investigate: a “win” for the prisoners. When somebody is deliberately preventing you, and frustrating you, from merging onto a road it could be an example of the “Sausage Roll” effect; they have so little control in their actual lives, that they have to be the ones controlling this event. The Anger-Frustration theory initially suffered from the fact that it attempted to argue – before revision – that all frustration led to anger. Equally, it would be wrong to argue that all anger, and violence, is the result of frustration. Attempting to explain violence using just one theory or hypothesis is appealing but ultimately flawed, and we are better at understanding a variety of different perspectives that shine light on the different reasons behind acts of aggression. We should attempt to understand the reasons behind anger not so that we are able to simply identify why other people become aggressive but so we can recognize when/why we suddenly become angry so we are able to manage our own response(s) https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=538 Mon, 31 May 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=537 Every now and again I’ll have a conversation with someone who will tell me that they don’t really need to think about personal/property safety because they live in a locale where there is a strong/highly visible police presence, and/or law-enforcement response times are extremely quick etc. In this article I want to take a look at whether these things do in fact have an effect upon actual crime rates, or whether a strong police presence merely “reassures” residents that they are safe i.e., they reduce the fear of crime but not crime itself. Historically “patrol” has been seen as one of the most effective ways for the police to deter criminal activity, and whenever society sees crime rates rising there is usually a call to put more police on the streets, and increase their visibility/presence etc. However, whilst this may seem a logical response, and would appear to make sense, the statistics are far from conclusive in proving that increased foot and car patrols are effective in reducing offending. In a 1984 UK Home Office report, Clarke and Hough calculated that an officer on foot patrol randomly covering an assigned area, would only come within 100 meters of a burglary in progress every eight years. That’s a significant distance away, over a significant time period. This illustrates that the chances of a random patrol coming across a crime as it’s being committed is extremely small. It should be noted that this type of statistic does not apply to police who are located at known hotspots, at times when offenses are likely to be committed e.g., a law-enforcement officer located in a city center, outside a bar/club known for violence on a Saturday night at 11 pm, has a good chance of “coming across” offenses whilst they are being committed e.g., assaults, acts of vandalism, public urination etc. This statistic represents and is reinforced by significant studies and research in Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New York City etc., that a “random” patrol in a typical city suburb/neighborhood is extremely unlikely to discover an offense as it’s being committed, so an increased police presence in a district is unlikely to be able to interrupt crimes in progress. Whilst this is widely accepted, the role of an increased police presence – measured by the number of officers patrolling an area - in deterring criminals from committing offenses is not. However, the research would suggest that despite public perception, increased patrols don’t automatically lead to a reduction in crime, and when offense rates fall it is usually for minor property offenses such as vandalism, with violent crimes seeing almost no reduction at all; this would suggest that many acts of violence are spontaneous and situational, rather than carefully thought out, planned and premeditated. In my time working the door I’d regularly see fights break out in plain sight of police officers, sometimes right in front of them; drunk, emotionally charged people care little if there is a “Capable Guardian” or “Place Manager” present – if they have an injustice that needs to be addressed, they’re going to, regardless of the legal consequences they may face. Longitudinal studies have shown that if increased patrols do reduce offending it is usually short-lived, with crime rates returning to their original rates several weeks later; this appears to occur even when the increase in police numbers is significant. It is important to make clear with these studies that the statistics used are reported crimes, rather than arrests e.g., if there are more police in an area there is a potential to apprehend and arrest more offenders, which would in turn make it appear as if there are more offenses being committed etc. This is certainly not to suggest that we need fewer police on the streets but that random patrols are probably not the most effective tool for deterring offending, especially violent crimes. People put a lot of stock in police response times, and law-enforcement agencies devote a lot of energy minimizing the time that it takes officers to get to the scene of a crime. In most cases, with incidents of domestic violence, and ongoing events involving individuals with mental health issues, by the time most officers arrive at the scene of the crime, the offense has been committed, and the offender is no longer present. However, whilst police response times may have little effect in preventing and intercepting crime, a 2017 study showed that a 10% increase in response time had the potential to increase the chances of clearing the crime by up to 5% (this was more likely in the case of thefts and property crimes, rather than acts of violence). This is because the offender may still be nearby and/or because the closer to an event a witness is interviewed, the “fresher” their memory of what actually occurred. It is also important to note that average response times for a district are not necessarily “equal” i.e., there are going to be certain areas which are easily reached and accessed and others that are not – if your house is subject to a burglary, and it is located in a maze of one-way streets etc., it is likely unless there is an officer already nearby that you are going to see a longer response time, compared to a similar crime that is committed against a property that is easy to get to. Whilst increases in patrolling may have little long-term effects for reducing crime, they are not without their benefits e.g., forging community relationships which may be useful in reducing certain types of crime such as gang violence etc. However, if we believe that an increased police presence is going to reduce the chances of us being the victim of a violent crime there is little statistical evidence to support this viewpoint, and whilst increases in response time may increase the chances of our attacker being apprehended, it will have done little to prevent us from being victimized in the first place. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=537 Tue, 25 May 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=536 Humans have evolved to fight differently to most other animals e.g., we don’t have strong jaws that can rip flesh, or claws that can easily rake, causing serious damage and injury etc. This might explain why, unlike other animals, we didn’t develop “rituals” and “displays” designed to avoid conflict, such as the acts of posturing and submission used by wolves and other social canines to try and settle conflicts i.e., these animals have the physical ability to kill each other easily/quickly, in ways that humans are inherently lacking – by and large we need to use tools to accomplish serious and permanent damage to each other in a quick contest etc. However, as we will see we still share some commonalities, which aren’t always obvious – and that can be used to “reconnect” us with some ideas that can benefit us, concerning how we generate power. In this article, I want to look at some of the different ways we have evolved, such as standing/walking on two feet, the shortening of our fingers etc., and how these things may affect the way that we fight.    Humans are not the only animals that fight standing up (from a bipedal posture). It is a relatively common phenomenon for many mammals that normally walk/move on all fours, including bears, anteaters, and big cats etc. to raise themselves up on their hind legs when engaged in combat. This allows them to use their extremely mobile forelimbs to attack and defend with, whilst utilizing their more powerful back legs to push, drive and generate power. From such a heightened position, they are also in a position where they can take advantage of gravity and use their weight more effectively against their aggressor. There is a strong evolutionary argument to be made that aggression and violence played a significant part in leading to humans walking upright on two – our “back” – legs. Whilst all of this may be interesting from a theoretical perspective, it also has practical applications, illustrating how we too should engage our legs, and utilize gravity, to add power to our punches. Our feet have also evolved to be able to engage in both plantigrade (supporting weight on the heels of the feet) and digitigrade actions (supporting weight on the toes and balls of the feet). Although this probably occurred to allow us to walk more efficiently and effectively (we are one of the few animals that expend significantly less energy covering the same distance by walking as by running), it also gives us the ability to both drive off of the ball of the foot, and toes when striking/punching, as well as allowing us to sink our weight into the heels when we need to stabilize ourselves and base. We differ from other primates – Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Bonobos etc. – in several regards, one of these being the length of our fingers; we have much shorter fingers than our primate cousins. The most likely evolutionary reason for this is that it allows us a greater degree of dexterity, which allows us to make more intricate tools etc. This also allows us to tighten our hand into a fist, to create a “weapon” that can be used to strike/punch with – whether evolution intended this to be the case or not is still open to debate, and it seems most likely that the ability to create a fist for punching is a spandrel/exaptation i.e., a secondary tag-along trait, rather than something which drove that development. There are also other aspects of our evolution, which would suggest that being able to make a fist to punch with wasn’t a primary reason for the shortening of our fingers. However, the use of the fist in fighting may have led to other evolutions, such as "protective buttressing" of the face. This saw the thickening of certain facial bones around the eyes and jaws, as these became the primary targets for punching. If we err on the side of caution, we should view our ability to make a fist as something that our hand is not naturally designed for, and so consider what we need to do to ensure that we don’t injure our hand when punching. When we consider that the human skeleton is made up of 206 bones, with each hand and wrist comprising of 27 bones i.e., 54 total; 26% of all skeletal bones, we can see that the hand is one of our more intricate and delicate appendages and one that can be easily damaged. There is a reason that boxers wrap their hands inside their gloves. A good way to find the position the fist and wrist should be in when striking is to extend your arm, in the position it would be at the end of a punch and place your fist flat against a wall. In this position, you should start to maneuver your fist, so that only the largest two knuckles are making contact with the wall – this should result in your largest knuckle, now being in front of your wrist rather than off to the side.   It is important for us to understand what we do “naturally” and have evolved to do, and what may be secondary traits, such as the ability to make a fist e.g., if we assume that we naturally make a correct fist, then we may not see the worth of practicing how to form a fist correctly i.e., one that doesn’t damage our hands when we punch. As a side note to this, I would suggest that when you practice developing power, you wear gloves to protect your hands, as there is little point in punching bare-knuckle, and damaging your hand whilst you are trying to develop this specific attribute i.e., power punching. Develop your ability to correctly position and orientate your fist/knuckles, separately to other attributes. However, when you are practicing power punching, try to engage your legs and reconnect yourself with your feet, so that – like other animals – these are active in generating forward momentum etc. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=536 Mon, 17 May 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=535 One of the ideas/concepts that influenced policies regarding crime in the 1980’s and 1990’s was that of the “Super Predator”. There was a belief that certain urban environments were creating juvenile criminals who would go on to become committed offenders who wouldn’t age out of crime; one of the few phenomena that criminologists agree upon i.e., that most criminals cease or reduce their activities in their twenties and beyond, as they get older. Crime and violence are typically a young person’s game that is largely motivated by youthful impulsivity – something that decreases with age - and peer pressure etc. Like most “moral panics”, this idea of the super predator never materialized, and offenders continued, as they always have, to age out of crime. However, this idea of super motivated offenders who will stop at nothing to commit acts of crime and violence has been extremely pervasive and has led many people to believe that there is nothing you can do to stop criminals. Often the media will reinforce this with headlines such as, “Police have lost the war against crime”, suggesting that a) if the police can’t stop crime, what chance does the ordinary individual have? And b) that it is the police’s responsibility to prevent crime rather than everybody’s; yes, patrols by officers can act as a deterrent, but the police can’t be everywhere all the time. In this article I want to dispel the myth that criminals will stop at nothing to commit offenses, and that it often takes extraordinarily little to avoid being the victim of crime. In 1989 Mayhew et al., published a paper concerning motorcycle theft. Comparing the 12-month period prior to June 1st, 1973, with the 12-month period after, they found that motorcycle thefts dropped in the UK by 24%. They also discovered that Holland experienced a similar decline in motorcycle thefts in 1975. As I wrote about in last week’s article, statistics regarding property theft are quite robust, as most insurance claims require a police incident report to have been made, and so “lies, damn lies and statistics”, doesn’t have to be a position we take on these numbers. Their research also showed that West Germany experienced a similar decline in the early 1980’s. The drop-off in motorcycle thefts across all of these countries was down to one common variable: the introduction of fines/penalties, especially on the spot fines, for not wearing a motorcycle helmet. It would be natural to assume that those who had been engaged in such thefts would turn their attention to cars and other vehicles, however this didn’t happen in any of these countries i.e., auto-theft as a whole was reduced due to this legislation, and no displacement occurred. It could be that those who engaged in motorcycle thefts couldn’t be bothered to walk around carrying a helmet, or that they felt doing so would made them look conspicuous etc., however whatever the reason, the commitment to carry out these offenses was no longer there. Time and again, research into offender decision making has shown that the most influential factor in the choices that criminals make is not about risk and consequence but about the ease of opportunity; an increase in effort correlates with the reduction in target selection. By reducing opportunities/increasing the cost and effort of crime we can significantly reduce the likelihood of being targeted e.g., if every homeowner in a neighborhood made sure to close and lock all their windows during the summer, whilst they are at work, that neighborhood – ceteris paribus (all other things being equal) would likely see a reduction in burglary. In all probability, this would lead to a reduction in other crimes, as the conversations in criminal social networks, would start to see a particular locale get mentioned less by those who engaged in burglary, and certainly such neighborhoods would become less attractive to those offenders who not only engage in burglaries, but other crimes such as auto theft as well. We often assume that those who commit planned/premeditated acts of violence are more committed to their acts than those who engage in spontaneous acts of aggression, motivated by external factors, such as having a drink accidentally spilt over them, or having somebody cut in front of them in a line etc., however this is usually not the case. For somebody who engages in street robbery there is usually nothing personal about their crimes i.e., a suitable victim is a suitable victim etc. There may be occasions when what a person “represents” becomes important, such as a mugger looking to bring down and demonstrate to a businessperson in an expensive suit that they aren’t as important and significant as they may think they are, but this is less about them as a person a more about a societal statement etc. When somebody cuts you off in traffic, or accidentally bumps into you or steps on your foot, we may see this as a personal afront that takes something away from us etc. Research has consistently shown that people will be more committed to righting a wrong and getting “something” back – even if that is something intangible like self-respect – than they will about getting something new or advancing themselves in some way. It is individuals who engage in spontaneous acts of violence, where somebody’s action(s) and/or behavior(s) have caused them to become aggressive, who are more committed and motivated than those who engage in premeditated acts of aggression, such as those who engage in street robberies etc. When violence is personal, it tends to involve individuals who are more committed, and who are prepared to engage in more extreme acts and forms of aggression. There are of course exceptions to this, with psychopaths and sadists etc., who plan and orchestrate their crimes however these individuals are only responsible for a fraction of violent crimes. It takes very little to deter the criminal who plans to offend, and often a security measure that addresses one form of crime will have a universal effect. However, we should recognize that when we are dealing with a person who becomes spontaneously aggressive/violent because of something they have perceived/believed that we have done, then we are dealing with someone who is extremely committed to their cause, and we need to treat their grievance, however trivial it may seem to us, extremely seriously. This is one of the reasons that effective de-escalation should feature prominently in our training.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=535 Mon, 10 May 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=534 There is nothing like a statistic to make a point, even if that point is obvious without one. I’m a big fan of statistics and tend to enjoy quantitative research, far more than qualitative; that doesn’t mean that I don’t see the value of research that employs non-quantitative methods, but at the macro/”Big Picture” level, I like to have a “number” that is more significant than chance to explain a set of actions and behaviors etc. However, when such a number/statistic exists, it is not enough to merely accept it, even when it appears fairly conclusive e.g., 64% of street robberies in Boston don’t involve the presence of a weapon i.e., they are strong arm affairs etc. At first glance this may suggest that physical resistance may be a viable strategy, however what the statistic doesn’t tell us, if the person committing the mugging is concealing a weapon, and resistance would escalate the incident to a point where they draw and use it. The statistic also doesn’t show if there is more than one assailant involved, and on its own doesn’t include any information on the victimology e.g., age, gender etc., so simply basing a strategy of how to respond to a street robbery in Boston, based on this statistic alone would be a dangerous way to go. In this article I want to look at some of the issues that different statistics may have and how we should factor these things in when trying to understand and make sense of them. One of the first things to understand when looking at a statistic(s) is the source of the data from which its drawn e.g., the 64% of street robberies is drawn from Boston police incident reports, over the last 10 years. Even though the data source is official and “credible”, there is still a lot of potential issues with it, and it may not in fact give us the best understanding of what street robberies in Boston look like. Firstly, not all street robberies will be reported e.g., if you lose $20 in a robbery will you take the time to report it to the police, especially when there is little chance of the perpetrator getting caught, and you getting your money back? We know from victim surveys that many of these types of “petty” crimes aren’t reported and that it is property crimes such as burglaries and auto thefts where a police incident report is required for insurance reasons where victims are more likely to involve law-enforcement. It could also be that this figure is lower than what it should be, if those targeted are more likely to make a report if a weapon is involved e.g., an individual judges the incident to be both more serious, where they believe their life may have been at risk, and that they had little choice but to acquiesce etc. This may also skew the figures when the gender of the victim is considered, with men feeling more self-conscious about reporting an unarmed mugging – where they may feel that they would be expected to resist – than women etc. Another potential issue is that of reporting and recording offenses. Law Enforcement Officers record and categorize offenses primarily for the purposes of prosecuting an offender, not for analyzing crime. This is probably not so significant for a crime such as robbery, where the component parts are quite straight forward - property must be taken, and force or the threat of force used to do so – however for other crimes defining and classifying them may be somewhat more complex. Some statistics may come from data that has been aggregated to a level where it is practically meaningless other than recording general trends. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program takes data from around 18000 different agencies and produces reports which show crime trends over time. It would be easy to take a cursory glance at such reports and deduce that the U.S. is becoming a safer place to live, and that your chances of being victimized are low, however crime occurs locally and so such statistics aren’t necessarily directly relevant to you e.g., if somebody lives/works in a high crime locale where violent crime is on the rise, it matters little if it is falling nationally etc. There is also the danger when aggregating data of creating an ecological fallacy, where you draw conclusions about individuals based on the group data e.g., you believe that the majority of muggers don’t use weapons because the group data suggests that, when in fact the majority of the street robberies you are looking at were committed by a small handful of muggers who acted in this way – whilst the majority were in fact armed. When we start to aggregate data, we need to be careful about assuming what holds true for a group, may not hold true for the individuals in that group. This is one of the major dangers of looking at top-level/macro data, and assuming that it holds true for all e.g., violent crime is falling in the U.S. therefore it must be falling in my locale. There is also an added danger when aggregating data that comes from different sources/agencies that the way crimes are reported and classified is not uniform, resulting in different crimes being lumped together, and so skewing the results. When we consider all the potential issues with crime statistics it would seem that they are potentially too unreliable to be useful i.e., we can’t draw any concrete conclusions from them. However, I would argue that this isn’t the case, and that we can have confidence in what they are telling us, as long as we understand the source of the underlying data and the methodology that was applied. Statistics fall down when we use them in a lazy, haphazard manner, or latch on to results which confirm our own biases without looking at that research which may contradict, or color it etc. By using multiple sources and looking at the methodologies used to produce the result, we can understand the limits of a statistic and then go about exploring how we can answer the questions it raises, rather than simply looking on it as a conclusion.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=534 Mon, 03 May 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=533 In many potentially violent situations, where de-escalation is appropriate, the incident needs to be brought under control quickly i.e., there isn’t the time for a protracted discussion on the rights and wrongs of what has happened etc. If somebody is highly emotional and in a volatile state, this needs to be addressed immediately, however not everybody reaches a state where they are prepared to use violence right away; many people need some time to both reach a decision and get themselves psychologically/emotionally ready to act physically etc. I’ve walked people out of bars and clubs, where they’ve seemed in a passive and controllable state, for them to lose it completely a few minutes later – all that time they were silently stewing, till they reached their boiling point. In these types of situation de-escalation may need to be a longer and more continuous process, in order to ensure that the individual doesn’t reach that point where they are unable to consider any alternatives other than acting violently. This is where active listening can be a valuable skill to have – especially if you work in a field where you deal with customers/clients who have the capacity to become aggressive and belligerent e.g., almost every customer facing job. Active listening is not something we do naturally, or is a skill that is intuitive, as most of our day-to-day listening is passive e.g., where we are listening to the radio/TV, or somebody re-telling an incident that happened to them etc. Research has also shown that even at times where individuals should be actively listening, they don’t e.g., studies have consistently shown that doctors stop listening to a patient’s description of their symptoms before they’ve been fully explained and are already making a diagnosis before they have been given a full list of them etc. We are often so eager to solve a problem, that we don’t hear fully what the problem/issue is, and then become baffled when our solution is rejected, and the person we’re dealing with seems more angry/aggressive than when we started interacting with them. The process of Active Listening involves five stages: Receiving, Understanding, Evaluating, Remembering and Responding, and it is important that each one is completed in turn. Rarely do we check that we understand things, we naturally assume that we do, and often when we do check we understand things we are concerned with the facts rather than a person’s motivation(s) or emotional state etc. Angry people usually want some acknowledgement of their frustration, rather than just a straightforward solution to their issue/problem – in a fast-paced and dynamic confrontation the solution may need to be sought first, but somewhere in the process (when the person is less emotionally volatile), the frustration itself usually needs to be addressed. It is also important to actively remember what we have understood and evaluated, to make sure we stay on track, when addressing an issue/problem. There are five basic tools that can be used when engaging in active listening, these are: Paraphrasing, Mirroring, Labelling, Summative Reflection, and I-Messaging. It is not necessary to use all of these tools, and they are not listed in any particular order of importance. They are simply a set of tools that can be used singularly, or collectively depending on the individual(s) you are dealing with. By putting another person’s thoughts and ideas into our own words – paraphrasing - we demonstrate that we understand the meaning behind what is being said. The effectiveness of paraphrasing in demonstrating understanding can be seen in a 2004 study by van Barren et al., which showed that when a waitress repeated back what had just been said to her, using her own words, rather than simply confirming what had been said, her tips increased by 140%. By pausing for a moment and then paraphrasing she communicated that she was making an extra effort to listen and understand, and when she did this, customers reciprocated by giving larger tips. Frustration is a primary cause of anger and aggression, and many people’s frustration is a result of them feeling that the issue(s) they are dealing with has not been understood fully, and/or is not being taken as seriously as it deserves/warrants. Paraphrasing communicates that this is not the case, and if used effectively can help deescalate an incident. When we employ this method, we should make sure that we don’t simply parrot back what the other person is saying, and/or that we don’t ramble on trying to extend, and add meaning, to what the other person is saying. Another tool in the Active Listening toolbox is Mirroring/Reflective Feelings. This is where we try and demonstrate that we understand the emotional state of the individual we are dealing with by “reflecting” how we would feel if we were in their position e.g., “I understand you, I also feel disrespected when somebody jumps ahead of me in a line/queue. I just didn’t realize you there waiting there.” Making an emotional connection can demonstrate that you don’t just understand the issue, you feel it too. This can be combined with Labelling/Reflective Meaning, which starts to demonstrate that you understand why a person feels aggressive/angry. Labelling, takes the structure of “When”, something happens it makes the person “Feel” a certain way, “Because” of something e.g., WHEN somebody jumps a queue in front of a person it makes them FEEL angry, BECAUSE they’ve been disrespected etc. In practice it can often seem a clunky tool to use, and seem a bit contrived, however it can be useful in helping the individual you are dealing with to cognitively understand what the underlying issue is. Often people when they are angry become so overtaken by their emotions that they’re unable to analyze the actual reason for their anger. I-Messaging, can be used to show how a person’s anger/behavior affects us – and helps to build rapport e.g., “I find it difficult to understand what you’re saying when you shout at me.” This can be a way to get somebody to stop shouting, without making a posturing statement/command, such as “Stop Shouting”, which is likely to escalate the situation. Another way to get people to stop shouting, is to ask them to slow down with what they are saying; again, this can be framed as an “I-message”, by stating that you find it really difficult to make sense of what they’re saying when they’re talking too fast. It is hard for people to shout slowly, and so they naturally lower their voice, which also has the added effect of reducing their emotional state. When using these tools – in a more prolonged verbal confrontation – it can be useful to sum everything up every now and again; something referred to as “Summative Reflection”. Often, an angry person will start to lose track of the issue(s), as their emotions overtake them, and so keeping them on track to resolve the conflict can be difficult e.g., they become like a barking dog who’s forgotten why it started barking in the first place. By every now and again summing up the underlying issue(s), the real reason for their anger can be focused on, or even discovered e.g., the person you are dealing with can reject the summation, and the other Active Listening tools, can be used to discover the real motivation for their aggression. It should be remembered that these are tools that are appropriate for disputes and confrontations where the individual is not yet ready to go physical, and where they are still hoping/waiting for a non-violent resolution of the confrontation – if somebody is ready to go then other solutions are needed.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=533 Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=532 Whilst I was doing my master’s in criminology, one of my professors/lecturers asked me if I remembered the 1980’s. When I said I did, he sighed, and said, “it was a bleak and rough time for crime”, which looking back, was pretty much the case. The 1980’s saw both a rise in “street crime”, and drug use; the two often being related. In the UK, we had a heroin “epidemic”, whilst in the US, it was crack cocaine. It’s interesting to note that the results of almost all crime surveys, show that members of the public never feel that criminals, and especially violent criminals, are given harsh enough sentences, which people mistakenly feel is something that deters offenders from acting. Both countries responded with harsher sentencing measures for criminals, however the US, also made some “conceptual” and “philosophical” changes to how offenders and offenses were seen, that not only resulted in much higher rates of incarceration but also had far-reaching implications for those who claimed self-defense to justify their actions. If you are a student of reality-based self-defense and are training so that you can deal with real world violence, as opposed to engaging in combat sports or martial arts for other reasons, it is important to understand how the criminal justice system (CJS) might view you; as someone who has admitted to committing – albeit justified – violence against another person(s). Whilst the law itself may be sympathetic to you and your claim, the attitude of those involved in the CJS may not. In this article, I want to take a brief look at how some of the principles regarding violent crime in the US changed during the 1980’s and what this may mean. We have a certain confirmation bias which basically says that when we make a mistake its due to external factors and reasons, however if somebody else makes a mistake or does something wrong etc., its due to internal reasons, such as a flaw in their character e.g., if we cut somebody off in traffic, it’s because the person left too much space between themselves and the other car, and that’s the “law” of driving etc., however if somebody else cuts us off, it’s because they’re a disrespectful, selfish and self-centered individual. Before the 1980’s, crime was largely seen as being situational, with the focus being on the crime – the act – rather than the criminal – the individual. The premise being that most violent acts occurred because of what happened in the moment, rather than because an offender was inherently violent. Obviously, there are those individuals out there who enjoy violence and create/orchestrate violent events, however this isn’t the case for most offenders; and that includes those who may commit violent offenses e.g., a drug dealer may shoot another who is trying to steal their supply, not because they are looking to shoot somebody but because of the situation they were in. This doesn’t mean that they weren’t predisposed to use violence, or weren’t actively involved in a violent culture etc. However, to end the analysis here is to ignore the importance of the act itself, and the situational factors that may have contributed to it, such as the other person drawing a weapon first – even those engaged in criminal activities have a right to justify their actions and claim self-defense. The 1980’s saw a shift away from the situational components of violence and became more interested in the characterological reasons i.e., were the individuals involved “bad” people. If they were judged to be, then the act itself was simply seen as an inevitability and therefore of secondary importance. The idea behind this shift – from the crime itself, to the criminal committing it – was to identify, and apply harsher sentencing, to violent “career” criminals; those who had been convicted of three violent offenses (the three-strike rule, that added another 15 years to whatever sentence they received for the particular offense they were being prosecuted/tried for). However, there was no clear definition of what constituted a violent crime. For instance, a Homicide due to drunk driving, was not considered a violent crime, because there wasn’t an intent on the part of the driver to cause harm, however a car chase involving law-enforcement was deemed a violent act, as there was the potential for it to end in a violent confrontation. This idea of what could happen, and what could lead to violence, meant that burglary came to be viewed as a violent crime, as there was the potential for the homeowner to come into contact with those who’d broken into their house, which could lead to a violent incident – even though these types of interaction are extremely rare, as most burglars do everything they can to avoid having to deal and interact with property owners (which is why most residential burglaries happen during the day when people are out at work etc). It would seem that defining what was a violent act would be obvious and self-evident i.e., it should be one where violence had occurred, however this was not the case. The ownership – not just the use – of an illegal weapon could also be construed as a violent act. The intention of the three-strike rule was clear, however because the definition of what constituted a violent act was unclear, and open to speculation, somebody who’d had a couple of relatively minor incidents in their past could be viewed as a career criminal. Whilst we may believe that the Criminal Justice System is there to deal with bad people on our behalf, we should be aware of how we might be viewed by it, should we ever find ourselves having to interact with it. This is why it is so important that we seek legal representation when we find ourselves having to claim that we acted in self-defense, and before we make a statement, as attempting to navigate it on our own, or assuming that it by default has our best interests at heart is somewhat naive. This is not to suggest that the system or those who work in it are corrupt, but rather that it consists of many layers – and histories - that we may not be aware of. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=532 Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=531 I recently saw a t-shirt/top, aimed at women, that had emblazoned on it, “Want to See My Pepper Spray?” I’m sure the purpose/intention – other than to sell clothing – was that this was tied to a notion of empowerment, and this is where there is a great deal of confusion between empowerment and safety. Empowerment should not involve publicly drawing lines in the sand that people may choose to challenge; this is the opposite of empowerment. I am a great believer in empowering people, however we have to be clear about what we are empowering people for, and to do. From a personal safety/self-protection point of view, that may involve empowering a person (male or female) to have the confidence to deal with and exit a socially awkward situation, rather than telling them they must, always “stand their ground”. Having worked in security for many years, and seen/experienced a number of violent encounters, disengagement came to be my primary survival strategy, when not performing roles that required enforcement. In my experience, drawing lines in the sand which require other people to respect them, has almost always escalated an incident – the only times it hasn’t was when the individual(s) I was dealing with wasn’t particularly motivated. In this article I want to look at the issues with clothing bearing text, such as, “Krav Maga – Touch Me and Your First Lesson is Free” etc., and why the “empowerment” that wearing such clothing is intended to achieve, instead compromises the wearer’s safety.         A large part of personal safety and self-protection is avoiding appearing on any predatory individual’s radar. This is not about drawing the “wrong” type of attention to yourself, but about not drawing the attention of the wrong people – and there is a difference. There are still those in the self-defense industry who will tell women not to dress in short skirts, low-cut tops, etc because this draws the wrong type of attention from men, and puts them at risk of assault etc. There is absolutely no credible research or evidence to support this point of view/opinion. In terms of personal safety/self-protection we want to avoid being noticed by the “wrong” people i.e., those who are motivated to cause us harm, and put us at risk etc. They may look at a woman in a short dress, low top (I apologize for the use of this stereotype) etc. and see someone who is confident in the way that they dress and present themselves, and therefore someone to avoid attempting to victimize. At first glance, it would seem that a top with the line on it, “Want to See My Pepper Spray?”, portrays confidence, but it suggests quite the opposite i.e., if the fact needs to be advertised and broadcast, as a “challenge” then this denotes insecurity and vulnerability etc. We may choose to wear an item of clothing as a statement, that promotes a certain idea of empowerment to us, and at the same time might well send a different message, and be interpreted differently by a certain audience. If we understand that rape/sexual assault is primarily about power, control and anger, rather than sex, then we can see how somebody wearing such an item of clothing may attract the attention of a sexual predator e.g., they have a target who wants to appear to be confident and self-assured, but may in fact be attempting to disguise/hide a vulnerability etc. The message we want to send out, and the one that is received by others is not always the same. Sometimes, it is worth changing context to understand how our messaging might be “off” or “misinterpreted”. If you were to walk into a rough neighborhood, which has a reputation for violence and gang-related activity, would you be more confident in avoiding being victimized if you were wearing a plain t-shirt or one that said, “Krav Maga – Touch Me and Your First Lesson is Free”? I would want to hope that I could pass through that locale unnoticed and not draw any attention to myself. When I used to carry out surveillance work, I never wore clothing that had words on it, as this is one of the quickest ways to draw attention to yourself; people will naturally want to read what’s written on your clothing, whatever the words say. Now those in the neighborhood, are not only having their attention drawn to what’s written on your clothing, but are being told that if they touch you, they’ll get hurt doing so etc. People who need to make such statements about themselves are by-and-large relying on the fact that they will never come into contact with a motivated offender who is prepared to take them up on their offer/challenge e.g., it’s a good t-shirt to wear when you’re shopping at Wholefoods, etc. However, this is not how we should be thinking about personal safety. If there is something that puts us at risk, that we can easily change then we should do this, rather than start making exceptions for ourselves, as it will be during one of these times/exceptions that our path happens to intersect with a truly motivated offender. We all have an image we want to project of ourselves, and a narrative that we tell ourselves etc. As social creatures we all want to be seen, and interacted with, in a certain way. But when it comes to personal safety we shouldn’t look to explicitly insist and demonstrate that we are capable of defending ourselves through implicit challenges. This drawing of attention to ourselves creates a vulnerability, where there may have been no need for one.                   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=531 Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=530 I have written about repeat victimization before, however in this article I want to revisit the subject, along with near-repeat victimization, in relation to burglary. One of the reasons that crime hotspots occur is due to repeat victimization e.g., the same house is repeatedly broken into over the course of a year, and so the crime statistics – if reported at the neighborhood, or higher, level – make it look as if a particular locale suffers from a high burglary rate, rather than it simply being a few properties that are skewing the data. The same effect can also be seen in street robberies, where the same victims, are repeatedly targeted in the same area, making it appear that everybody is equally at risk of being victimized, when this is not the case. There is often a lot of judgment concerning repeat victimization e.g., if somebody was targeted once they were unlucky, but if they were victimized again it must be due to something they did – we naturally believe when bad things happen to others it is down to internal factors (the way the person looks, behaves, and acts etc.) but when bad things happen to us it is down to external factors e.g., we were just extremely unlucky etc. In the case of repeat victimization and street robberies it is easy/simple to ask questions like, “Why did they walk down that road again after having been mugged there?” The truth is, we can’t always perfectly control the routes we take, depending on where we live, work and/or go to school etc., just as we can’t always control the time of day when we are in particular places e.g., we work certain shifts, and use public transport to get to our place of work. It is easy to give out “good advice” such as telling people not to walk down dark alleys, but if using one cuts 20 minutes of your walk home, after a 40-minute bus journey, most people will make use of it – especially at the end of a long day of work. Whilst being targeted and victimized for any crime is undesirable, looking at why and how an incident happened can help us with further prevention. It’s worth taking a moment to look at some of the reasons that repeat victimization burglaries occur. If a criminal is successful once, they are more likely to target that property again, and/or share their experience(s) with those they interact with, such as other burglars. It may be that on their initial break-in they lacked the means to carry off all the items they wanted, or felt under a time constraint to get in and out as quickly as possible, later realizing that they could have stayed much longer in the property than they initially realized. Any or all of these factors could mean that the same burglar will re-visit a home they broke into previously. Most criminals understand how quickly homeowners become complacent after a break-in. Initially, there will be feelings of violation, of not being safe in their own home, and counting the cost of possessions stolen etc. There will also be initially a tightening up of security e.g., checking that doors and windows are locked etc., and the resolve to get better locks for the windows and doors, maybe a desire to install motion sensors on outside lights, and even get some CCTV cameras and/or a burglar alarm etc. However, as time goes on, and feelings of safety creep in, denial and discounting of a future break-in do as well, and the burglary becomes viewed as an “unlucky one-off”, and often none of these measures are implemented. It’s probably also the case that because we are unable to significantly alter our routine activities – which burglars and other criminals understand – it is likely that we will again not be in our property on the same day, and at the same time, when the first burglary was committed e.g., when we are out at work. With this information/knowledge and a good chance that no further security measures have been taken since the first break-in, the chance of committing a successful repeat burglary is likely. It may be that a few weeks are allowed to elapse in order for you to replace the items stolen, before a second attempt is made. At the very least, we should learn from our past experiences and tighten up security around the point of entry that was used last time; if the burglar can’t access our property through this “familiar” route, they may decide that you have made significant changes, and they are effectively dealing with a “new” property. Near-repeat victimization occurs when a property, near to one that was burgled is targeted. This means that should a burglary occur on your street or close to your home, you should try and find out, how the offense was committed, so that you can tighten up your property’s security e.g., if they entered through a garage attached to the house, and your house has a similar design, you will want to look at how you can make this entry/access point more secure. There are several reasons why near-repeat victimization is a common phenomenon, regarding burglaries. One is that many houses in an area are built to a similar design and layout, therefore a burglar may choose to target similar homes to one they were successful in breaking in, because they have a level/degree of familiarity with it e.g., they can move about more quickly in a property they know the layout of. Another reason is that if they got a good haul from the first property they broke into, they have a reason to suspect/believe that other similar houses will contain the same type of items and possessions. It is not just a familiarity with property types that is attractive to burglars – which is why many target properties that resemble the ones they live and/or have lived in – it is also a familiarity with the area/locale. If a burglar has some knowledge of streets, and potential escape routes, in a neighborhood, gained from their first visit/burglary, they are already more aware of how to get in and out of that locale, than they would be selecting a new one etc. Repeat and near-repeat victimization significantly account for concentrations of crime and the development of hotspots. From a property perspective, the reputation an area gets from being deemed a high-crime neighborhood, can have long-term effects that can be difficult to escape from, such as through falling property values. If we are targeted once, we are likely to be targeted again, and so we should attempt to address the vulnerabilities an offender exploited, so that they don’t get a second opportunity for success. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=530 Mon, 05 Apr 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=529 I don’t believe I’ve ever met somebody who didn’t consider themselves a good driver – regardless of their driving record – and if somebody is accused of being a bad driver, you can pretty much guarantee they’ll have a hostile reaction to the claim made against them. What constitutes a “good driver” differs from person to person and sometimes from place to place e.g., living/driving in Massachusetts it seems like a “good” driver is somebody who will suddenly speed up and attempt to not let you in when they see you trying to get on to the highway etc. Having worked with good/excellent drivers in the security field, I know that I am not in that top tier of drivers; the ones who can make a vehicle do things that seem impossible, and have the timing and impeccable judgment to move through an environment at high speed, confidently knowing that they can safely deal with anything they come across, etc. However, even knowing that I was in a vehicle with an “expert” behind the wheel, I never feel safer than when I’m the one doing the driving; even though rationally I know that the other person is a safer/better driver. This illustrates a common human fallacy i.e., we feel safer when we are the ones perceived to be in control, even if this isn’t the case. In this article I want to examine how this has led to certain well-intentioned but misplaced pieces of personal safety advice, and how control doesn’t always equate to safety. If you ask people to picture themselves being subjected to a street robbery, they will usually picture themselves dealing with somebody who has a knife or a gun. However, statistically most street robberies are “strong arm” affairs (about 64% in Boston, over the past five years) where no weapon is presented; this doesn’t necessarily mean that the assailant doesn’t have a weapon on them, but that none is used as part of the robbery. When I tell this to people who practice martial arts/Krav Maga/Self-Defense etc., I often see a lightbulb go on as they start to think/believe that the odds now aren’t really stacked against them, and maybe this is an incident where they can refuse and have a degree of control i.e., they’d never be stupid enough to try and deal with somebody pointing a gun/knife at them, but this is a situation – with all their years of training – where they could come out ahead. Any ideas of acquiescing to the mugger’s demands start to dissipate, as they imagine holding on to their wallet and dispensing some righteous justice against their aggressor. They believe this is an “even” situation, that they are able to control, and they start to feel “safe” about dealing with muggers. Other potential factors start to get forgotten such as the fact their assailant could be carrying a weapon, that they could have third parties nearby to assist them etc. They forget that the person conducting the robbery is driving/controlling the incident and that they psychologically and emotionally have to catch up to them very quickly. Unfortunately, the focus becomes the absence of a weapon, and the desire to take control of the situation, because inherently we believe control equates to safety. There are probably few industries like that of martial arts and self-defense where untested and untried solutions get presented with the confidence that they have in fact undergone a serious and strenuous scientific process. If something appeals to people’s common sense and rationale, then it passes the credibility test, and is accepted as sound and trusted advice. One question I often get when I engage in corporate training sessions is the wisdom of throwing your wallet/purse away from you when you are targeted in a street robbery. I have written extensively on the logistical reasons why this is a bad idea, but I want to take a moment to look at why this scientifically untested/untried piece of advice is so popular and pervasive, even when all the reasons/arguments as to why you shouldn’t do this are presented and explained. The idea is that when a mugger demands your wallet, you should throw it far away from you, so – like a dog with a ball – they go to retrieve it, presenting you with an opportunity to run/disengage. To quickly reiterate a couple of points as to why this is bad advice: a) you’ll probably be in a relatively confined area when robbed, so there is little room to throw anything far, and b) you’re going against the demands of a mugger, who in just about every instance is going to let you go without using force anyway, so why risk escalating the situation by not doing as they say? However, the reason this advice endures is that it gives the potential victim the ability to take control of the situation, and to emotional logic, control equals safety. As social creatures, humans want to demonstrate to each other that they can control what happens to them. This can be as simple as not letting somebody onto the highway i.e., that driver is in control of their car and the road in front of them etc. and we don’t want to be the individuals who do what other people say, and follow their demands – and so we will throw the wallet, rather than hand it over etc. I know of gun owners, who after getting their license, have never been back out on the range, but feel safe because they have a tool that they believe will allow them to control a break-in/home invasion should they be victimized in such a way; in reality they are more likely to shoot a family member by accident than an intruder, but the sense of control makes them feel safe. It is a hard bias to overcome, despite being aware of the reality e.g., I feel safer driving my car than being on a plane, even though the statistics clearly point to me being safer in the air. We should always be aware that a sense of control does not by nature make us safe.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=529 Mon, 29 Mar 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=528 In criminology there tends to be two types of theory, one which emphasizes people and another which emphasizes places. Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization theory, looks at how places create and develop criminality i.e., people are a product of their environments – both physical and social – and when certain factors come together it can create a subculture - that breeds crime etc. The theory built on others including Park and Burgess’s Concentric Zone Model, that proposed cities would naturally “evolve” to have five, distinct concentric rings, with the more affluent and physically mobile classes, moving out to the edge of the city, where there was more land, and the inner-city rings being populated by those who couldn’t afford to live in the suburbs, with these zones being characterized by poorly maintained/unkempt building etc., with little sense of neighborhood etc. Crime would flourish in these areas partly because young people would create their own communities/subcultures, in the absence of more formal ones that followed certain rules/protocols, such as not playing loud music after dark, public drinking etc. If a neighborhood didn’t/couldn’t police itself, there would be individuals who would take advantage of these freedoms, and engage in anti-social behaviors, which others would adopt as well. Shaw and McKay, weren’t concerned with providing a theory that explained all crimes, but one that could largely explain “street crimes”, such as robbery and theft. In their findings they discovered that crime rates appeared to follow the concentric model of Park and Burgess, with the majority of crimes being committed in the “second circle”, just outside the city center, which was characterized by urban decay, poverty, and a high turnover of residents. However, subsequent research has found that Social Disorganization theory, is less than conclusive, and that many cities don’t adhere to what for a relatively long time was a widely accepted theory. In this article I want to look at some aspects of the theory, along with others and how these relate and explain bad/high crime neighborhoods. One of the problems with the theory is that it is based upon an assumption of stability over time e.g., that a bad neighborhood largely stays a bad neighborhood – that is those neighborhoods in the second concentric circle, stay high crime locales; and that there is an inevitability concerning this. In its original form, the idea of areas rejuvenating, and others deteriorating over time wasn’t a feature of the theory. Some interesting longitudinal studies – including a notable one in Sheffield, UK, in the late 60’s – showed how a certain locale could have a significant “tipping point”, where for a number of reasons it quickly developed a significant crime rate, and reputation. What researchers found was that once this happened, things largely stayed this way. In a comparison of two council estates (public projects), they found that as soon as one was seen to be a bad place to live, it influenced where those in charge of determining where families lived, tended to place older more “established’ families in the estate which had the better reputation. This “bias” of housing certain families in one locale and others in another, helped maintain the reputation of both. When I first moved to London, I had the same experience with realtors, who would initially ignore my budget, and try and direct me to properties in rougher neighborhoods, probably based on the fact that I always had stubble, cared little about how I dressed/looked, and spoke with a Scottish accent. On many occasions – with different agents and agencies – I was steered to properties in locations which didn’t meet my requirements and seemed to be based on a perception of the type of locale the realtor obviously thought I should be living in (even when this would make them a lower commission). Once a neighborhood gets a reputation, it has a hard time shaking it. One aspect that has become more prevalent in criminology since Shaw and McKay’s day, is the importance of studying crime at the micro-level. If you look at the crime rate of a certain large neighborhood or district – where official reporting is done at the macro level – you could be fooled into thinking that all of a certain neighborhood was dangerous or crime-ridden, when in reality it is probably a few hotspots – and individuals - that are responsible for the majority of crime. Many years ago, I lived in Toxteth, Liverpool, a locale that has an extremely bad reputation throughout the UK – largely based on the riots that took place there in the 1980’s. However, the part of Toxteth I lived in was lovely, there were certain streets and areas that I knew it was inadvisable to go to, but in the time I lived there, nothing ever happened to me. If I compare this with a house in Chiswick, London I rented – a neighborhood that gave off the appearance of being the safest place on the planet to live – but where there was a public phonebook outside, which the local drug pushers used to use to set up deals, and the previous tenant was wanted by just about every bailiff in the South of England, I had several encounters with individuals I wouldn’t have expected to come into contact with based on my postcode/zip code. In most neighborhoods with a bad reputation, as well as those with a good reputation, there are places to avoid, and places which are low risk. A street crime such as a robbery needs a small footprint upon which to be committed, and those “footprints” tend to be clustered close together. When we look at neighborhoods with high crime rates, we really need to drill down to get the full story. I have no doubt that certain environments/places can encourage criminality for a number of reasons and create subcultures which promote it, however factors such as high resident turnover, which McKay and Shaw cite as a reason for social disorganization, has never been universally/conclusively shown to be a driver of high crime rates. When we want to understand why bad neighborhoods became viewed as bad, and continue to be seen as bad, we need to start looking at other factors, such as the influence that one or two individuals/families can have in defining how a locale operates and is seen to operate etc. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=528 Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=527 I have by nature always been a grappler. My physical build suits grappling e.g., short limbs, low center of gravity etc., in a way that it doesn’t lend itself to striking. However, this doesn’t mean that I value grappling above striking, or by default prefer grappling solutions to striking ones. It does mean that because I am not a natural puncher/striker, this is part of my game that I’ve had to invest a lot of time in to achieve a level of competency. Whilst I generally preferred to use grappling solutions when I worked on the door - for numerous reasons - being able to punch hard and accurately often made situations easier to handle. In this article, I’d like to share some of the mistakes I made along the way, as I developed my striking/punching game, in the hope that this may be useful to those who have yet had to utilize striking in a real-life confrontation. Looking back, perhaps my biggest mistake when punching was to try and make every punch the power-shot that concluded the fight. This caused me to over-commit to my strikes/punches and expend much more energy than was necessary. I believe this was ultimately down to a lack of confidence in my ability to hit hard as well as being driven by a fear of failure. In training scenarios, we usually punch from a strong position, where we have the time, range and distance to punch hard, however in reality this is rarely a luxury we enjoy, unless we’ve been able to create these things beforehand. This means that we are normally punching and striking from sub-optimal positions, where we’re not able to generate the same amount of power that we’re used to in training. Rather than accept this and use other strikes/punches to get into a position from which I could strike hard, I used to rush things, applying more effort to my punches in the hope that added “energy” would make up the short-fall – it never did. There is nothing more dispiriting than putting everything you’ve got into a punch, and seeing it land with little, to no effect. It was only as I became more confident in my striking ability, that I learned not to rush things, and recognize that power shots/punches need to be set up i.e., not every punch needs to deliver maximum, concussive force. However, in saying all of that, punches do need to count. I see a lot of video clips – especially Krav Maga ones – where people seem to be of the opinion that a multitude of strikes and punches, however ineffective, will overwhelm an aggressor, and that learning how to punch/hit hard isn’t necessary. If you want to have a striking game, you need to learn to hit/punch with power and effect.    My other failure when punching was to overthink what I was doing. By the time I was working on the door, I’d been practicing Judo for about ten years. By that time, throwing was an automatic process that I didn’t really think about. It took me awhile to get to the same place with striking/punching. I never contemplated failure when executing a throw, because I never thought about the other person when throwing. I knew if I executed the throw, with all its component parts, it would work. However, when I used to punch, I’d get caught up thinking about all of the different reasons as to why the punch could fail – and because of this they often did. This was partly down to a bad training habit I’d gotten into when doing pad work with partners. Rather than simply throwing punches when the pads were presented, so that my striking was reactionary, I’d pause slightly to make sure that I was set to throw the “perfect” combination etc. Outside of the training environment, in reality, this pause became a moment when my doubts were given an opportunity to enter in, and I’d question throwing the strike. This is an error I see a lot in pad-work training, especially with individuals who don’t spar. Hitting the pads becomes an endgame in itself – something to perfect – rather than a method of developing skills that can be used in the real-world. The irony of this is that the more we try and perfect our skills on the pads – by thinking about what we are doing – the less decisive we become, and the more likely we are to create opportunities for doubts to creep in. It took me some time and effort to change the way I trained so that my striking/punching became more instinctual and automatic. If you’ve never punched full power without wearing a glove, you may also have doubts as to whether your fist and wrist have the strength and integrity to hit hard without support. I would add to this that if you are used to sparring wearing 12 oz gloves or similar, striking bare-knuckle will be a totally new experience; and one that you may not want to try for the first time in a real-life confrontation. One of the doubts that I consistently had, when I first started throwing punches was whether my hands/fists were conditioned enough to do so. In a glove, the wrist is well supported, so it isn’t necessary to think too much about fist and wrist alignment, however when punching hard, a misalignment can mean that you don’t connect with the right knuckles and that you put a lot of strain on the joint. This is where I would advocate for performing some bag work and sparring – light at first – without wearing a glove, so that you can gain confidence in your ability to throw punches without worrying about damage to the hands and wrists. This was when I first started training on the makiwara (and still do), to ensure that when I punch my strike has physical integrity, and I don’t risk injuring myself. When we are called on to put our skills to the test in a real-life confrontation, we will want to have eradicated any doubts, problems, and issues in the training environment. Unfortunately, many people have an “it will be alright on the night” attitude, believing that they will rise to the occasion when called on to do so. The danger is that there is often a big gulf between training and reality, and we don’t want to discover this in the moment when everything is on the line.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=527 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=526 I have written before about two classifications that I use to help me understand aggressive and violent incidents I may have to deal with. One of the first questions I ask when dealing with violence is, whether the incident is a premeditated or spontaneous one. Premeditated events are those such as muggings/street robberies, where the individual has planned to use violence or the threat of violence to accomplish a goal (such as acquiring money/possessions), with Spontaneous incidents being those where an individual had no initial plan/desire to engage in an aggressive act, but due to something happening in their environment e.g., somebody saying something to them, acting towards them in some way (either deliberately or inadvertently), they have become aggressive and potentially violent. The real differentiation between these two types of violence is that in premeditated situations there are defined goals and expected outcomes, whereas with spontaneous incidents there aren’t e.g., if you’ve spilt a drink over somebody, what does the person expect of you to make it right? This simple classification system, allows me to consider whether verbal de-escalation is an option – such as in a spontaneous situation, where there are no goals, and a non-violent solution/outcome can be sought – or whether I should acquiesce to a premediated demand, such as a request from a mugger for my wallet (what they are expecting to achieve out of the interaction), or use resistance/enforcement against a “would be” sexual assailant (another premeditated incident) etc. Another useful way, that builds on this classification system, is to categorize aggression/violence as being internally or externally motivated. This allows for dispositional factors to be considered e.g., is an individual predisposed to use violence, or are they someone who has become “reluctantly” aggressive due to a perceived injustice they feel needs to be made right etc. Certain predatory individuals, such as rapists and sexual assailants, will try to make the argument that their motivation(s) to offend was due to external factors, rather than because of internal urges and desires. The “external” reasons, often become the foundation for rape myths e.g., a sexual predator only committed their assault because of the provocative clothing that the person they victimized was wearing etc., or that the signals they were being given were misleading etc. By blaming external factors, a sexual predator can downplay and deflect from the fact that their actions/assaults were the product of their own private dark fantasies and were 100% internally motivated. Sometimes the blaming of external factors is a little more subtle, such as trying to make the case that their “abnormal” behavior was solely due to the effects of alcohol and/or drugs i.e., something – external - made them behave/act in the way that they did. One of the reasons why it is important to understand the degree and extent of internal motivations to offend, is that if somebody is internally driven, and has a premeditated goal in mind, verbal de-escalation and conflict resolution are unlikely to be successful. An internally-driven sexual offender might try and claim that revealing clothing – and other external factors – are what prompt and cause them to offend, however we know that this isn’t the case. Many child molesters (as opposed to pedophiles), who are engaged in adult heterosexual relationships, will argue that the reason they started to sexually target children was down to “stress” e.g., they lost their job, had financial troubles etc., however this blaming of external factors falls far short of explaining their actions. Like all sexual predators, their actions are down to internal factors and motivation(s), such as the need to enjoy and exhibit power and control and dispense internal angers and frustrations. An external stressor such as losing a job, may precipitate this type of sexual offending, however it is clearly not what motivates it – that again is down to dark and exploratory fantasies.   True external motivators for aggression and violence, are usually “unexpected” occurrences that happen to individuals, such as somebody waiting for a parking space, only to have someone else come along and take it before they can begin to move into it, or if somebody goes out for the night only to have someone spill a drink over them in a bar etc. These are unexpected “external” events, over which the individual has no control, and if they hadn’t occurred, they wouldn’t have become aggressive and potentially violent. However, different people have different types and levels of response; some individuals may become mildly annoyed at losing a parking space they believe they were entitled to, whereas others may explode in a fit of rage, and start attacking and vandalizing the other person’s car etc. Some people are internally motivated/wired to use aggression and violence as a tool for dealing with spontaneous - external - events and this should always be a consideration, when we try and assess if verbal de-escalation would be an effective strategy. Some people lack emotional self-regulation, whilst others lack the ability to successfully resolve disputes verbally or have found that using violence – or the threat of violence – in the past has got them what they wanted; so why try another strategy etc. By understanding the “degree” to which an external factor causes somebody to become aggressive, and how much internal motivations play a part, we can start to assess where verbal de-escalation may be a successful strategy to employ and where it is not. An external event, such as losing a parking space, may simply be the straw that broke the camel’s back, unleashing a flood of internally motivated anger. By adding other categorizations and classifications of aggressive and violent behavior(s), it is possible to build a more multi-dimensional picture of aggression/violence. One way to graphically/visually do this is to create a graph, with two axis that creates four quadrants. The x-Axis (the horizontal one) has “No Goals” at the leftmost end, and “Goals” at the right, with the y-Axis (the vertical one), showing “External Factors” at the bottom, and “Internal Factors” at the top. Incidents which are highly internally motivated, and have clear and specific goals, such as sexual assaults, sit in the top right corner. Such events are unlikely to be verbally de-escalated. However, incidents which sit in the utmost bottom left corner, which are largely externally motivated, and have no goals/expected outcomes, generally respond well to verbal de-escalation techniques. By plotting different types of potential violent encounters in this way, we can start to understand the different de-escalation methods and approaches that might be successful. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=526 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=525 I have written before about the fallacy of the “Criminal Mind” i.e., that offender’s brains/minds, are somehow wired differently to “normal” people etc. however, in this article I want to look at how a person’s experience with the Criminal Justice System (CJS), and in particular the American Penal System may change and effect how a person thinks and behaves etc., and how this may effect future offending etc. There are indeed offenders who treat prison/jail as a “business center” for crime, offering networking opportunities, and the chance to better educate oneself about how to offend more efficiently/effectively – just as there are offenders who want to keep themselves to themselves and do their time etc. – however there are common experiences that shape both groups of prisoners, and that also influence future offending etc. In this short article, I want to look at how certain interactions with the CJS may influence and change patterns of offending, and how we need to account for these in the way that we respond to crime and violence; not that we make distinctions between those who have convictions and those who don’t, but rather that we assume every offender we come into contact with operates in a criminally educated/influenced fashion. One of the character traits that often gets cited in research concerning juvenile delinquency is “impulsivity” i.e., those that tend to offend are impulsive, and act without thinking, compared to those that don’t etc. Some criminologists have unsuccessfully tried to make a connection between behaviors, and genes, using character traits – which are genetically influenced – as the conduit, arguing for the idea that there is a “biological” criminal brain; there are though individuals who are highly impulsive but don’t commit crimes, which means that there is no direct causal link etc. However, whilst impulsivity may lead somebody to commit a crime, either through poor judgment, or the desire to “thrill seek” etc., such impulsivity is often punished in penal institutions, with inmates quickly learning that acting in an emotionally spontaneous fashion, without forethought and rationality can quickly put them at risk. In a social order that doesn’t offer much governance – unless they belong to a gang – reacting to an incident rather than carefully responding to it, can set off a chain of events, which quickly sees an individual lose control of a situation e.g., an insult thrown out at an unknown inmate, could see a person in an all-out war against a gang. This often results in prisoners learning to behave in a hyperrational way, learning to be patient and bide their time etc., planning on the best way to pursue their goals, rather than simply flying off the handle. There are of course individuals who never learn this lesson, however many learn to curb such impulsivity and instead become patient planners, due to their time inside. This also manifests itself post-release, meaning that the hot-blooded, impulsive youth who may have entered the institution, may exit it as someone who has developed the patience and restraint to wait for the right moment. It is surprising how many offenders who were caught committing serious crimes, were caught because of a minor infraction e.g., someone who was committing an abduction with the intent to murder, was caught after they were pulled over on a routine traffic stop due to an out-of-date vehicle registration, or were parking in a handicapped spot etc. These “errors”, which characterize first-time offending (that is punished), are rarely repeated. Offenders learn. I remember reading the account of one serial rapist who used to drive to various locations to look for victims, but after being stopped as he drove away from a crime scene, realized that it would be better for him to park his car outside of the neighborhood(s) where he was offending, as it was easier to get past a police perimeter on foot, than in a car. Whilst many offenders fail to learn from law enforcement’s protocols and procedures, many do and change the ways in which they offend, accordingly. Most muggers who engage in street robberies soon realize that they don’t need to use a weapon to gain compliance, and that doing so is likely to increase the severity of the charges brought against them if caught – if experience doesn’t teach them this, then it is likely that other criminals will, either on the “street” or when incarcerated etc. It is these things which form and develop the “Criminal Mind”, rather than some underlying genetic/biological causes. Incarceration also provides predatory offenders an understanding of the vulnerabilities that other offenders face, and how these can be exploited. A growing trend in the U.S. prison system is the grooming of women for prostitution whilst they are incarcerated. Due to the public being able to access information regarding arrest, and incarceration data (including photos/mugshots), pimps can select, and target individuals based on their supposed suitability e.g., if an offender is serving a relatively short sentence for drug-related offenses (especially if this is a repeat offense), then this vulnerability is something that can be exploited. The pimp may then start to contact the individual in prison, depositing money into their personal prison account, writing letters, and even visiting them etc. By understanding how a little money and attention can become a “lifeline” to those serving time – due to their own experiences inside - they are able to “loan shark” those they target, building up a debt that their victim, will feel obliged to pay back (and will be put under pressure to do so). It will be this individual who picks them up on release, and will normally provide them with free drugs, alcohol, and a place to stay. After a few days of partying and enjoying their freedom, they will become a sex worker. For some women they understand how this works, as it has happened to them before, and with a lack of choices and resources when let out, believe that such a lifestyle is inevitable; for others it is a rude awakening. Somebody who has experienced incarceration, understands how to exploit those who are experiencing the same. If there is such a thing as the “Criminal Mind”, then it is something that is formed and developed due to experience(s), which comes from leading a criminal lifestyle e.g., experiences committing crimes, spending time with other criminals, and interacting with law-enforcement and the Criminal Justice System etc. It is easy to think and label offenders as being stupid, especially when we hear about those who make “rookie” mistakes. However most learn from these, and if they offend again, they are likely to do so in a more considered fashion, unless their motivation is simply to get their next fix etc. What may appear to us as a simple offense may in fact have more moving parts than we are aware of, and so looking at an incident simply as it appears to us may be detrimental to our safety. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=525 Mon, 01 Mar 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=524 When striking/punching with power we should be looking to utilize and employ our entire body. This doesn’t mean simply throwing ourselves forward in an aggressive mess, as we look to throw ourselves and our weight at an aggressor, in the hope that one of our strikes lands with enough power to end the fight, but rather we should look to chain together and synchronize multiple body movements to create a set/combination of efficient and effective strikes/punches. There is sometimes the belief in certain Krav Maga circles that aggression trumps form, and that it is better to throw as many shots as you can to simply overwhelm your attacker. Whilst this “show of force” may intimidate some people, for others it will not i.e., if an assailant recognizes that you are throwing weak strikes and punches, they will soon realize that they have nothing to worry about – and rightly so. In last week’s article I wrote about ways to improve your chances of landing the jab, in this week’s, I want to look at how to add power to this punch so that it can deliver concussive force/power. In combat sports such as boxing, the jab can be used as an extremely versatile punch e.g., it can be used to find range, to distract, and to keep an opponent at bay etc. In a prolonged fight with rules, and a predefined way in which the fight can be won, taking your time is an option, whereas in a real-life confrontation it is not; the longer a fight goes on, the greater the chance of multiple assailants joining the fray, and/or a weapon getting pulled, etc. In real-life confrontations, we should be looking to disengage from them as soon as we can, so as to avoid the risk of injury, and to maintain our legal claim of acting in “self-defense” and not using excessive force – the longer we stay engaged, especially if we had opportunities to exit the fight/confrontation, the less believable our claim of defending ourselves becomes. Whilst we may use our jab to set up punches that can deliver more power, if we can make our first strike a powerful one, then we can send a clear message to the person we are dealing with, that if they want to continue with the fight, they are going to experience pain, and get hurt; this can be a wake-up call to many, encouraging them to exit the fight. The jab is comprised of two foot movements: a step forward with the lead foot, that is driven by a “push off” from the rear foot. It is this latter part that is often forgotten. In fact, the role of the legs in developing power is often overlooked when punching, as people tend to focus on the arms and shoulders, and then on the torso turning, whilst neglecting to utilize the potential driving force that the legs can offer in assisting the strike. If we neglect to employ the legs when punching, then we are only using half of our body – and not the strongest half. The concentration on the arms, tends to occur, when inexperienced individuals “rush” their punches, trying to throw as many as they can in the shortest possible timeframe. As well as resulting in ineffectual strikes/punches, it often means that the body gets left behind, as the individual over-extends themselves, trying to reach the target as quickly as they can – this presents a problem with any subsequent movement, as the feet are now no longer under the body, which means this issue has to be rectified/addressed before any further movement occurs; possibly not an issue if you are working against a static target such as a heavy bag, striking shield etc., but a serious problem if you are dealing with a dynamic assailant who moves in response to your movements. The jab should be initiated by the back foot pushing off of the ground, as the front foot in response to this movement steps forward. As this occurs, the front arm should extend forward, reaching full extension as the front foot hits the ground, transferring the body weight forward. Personally, I tighten my fist as this happens, and as it makes impact with the target, however I have worked with individuals who advocate tightening it much sooner, because they factor in the possibility of the person moving forward and/or covering etc. and compromising their timing. It’s a sound argument that I accept, however I have never encountered this issue, and so prefer to keep my arm and shoulder relaxed before impact, as the arm can move faster when it’s not tense; however, like many things when it comes to fighting, I can accept and validate another person’s reasoning and experience, without feeling the need to force my own, personal opinion on them. As the arm reaches extension, and the weight has travelled forward, the hips should sink somewhat, as the foot is placed down. If you are tying your breathing to individual strikes/punches – rather than across a combination – this sinking would accompany your exhalation. To employ the torso and back muscles into the strike, the drive forward of the arm, should be in part powered by the pull back of the opposite shoulder. This way the legs, hips, back and arms are utilized in the strike. It is important to note that although the torso is turning the head should not i.e., your face should remain facing your aggressor. It is easy to forget and/or ignore the role of the legs when punching - it is not just the jab that uses them to generate power, all punches do – as we put undue emphasis on the “delivery mechanism” of the power i.e., the arms, forgetting to tap into the potential power source of the legs. This is why in training it is often useful to breakdown movements, and practice punching without the arms, so that we can focus entirely on the role that the legs and body play in generating punching power.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=524 Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=523 One of the most important punches/strikes you have in your toolkit is the Jab, or your lead hand strike, which you may of course use as an open-handed strike, rather than a punch. The reason it is so important to be able to land this strike is that in all likelihood it will be the first strike you throw in a face-to-face confrontation, due to it – in most cases – being the nearest “weapon” you have to the “closest” target e.g., the face/eyes or throat etc. Obviously, there may be times where this isn’t the case, however if I’ve identified a person’s harmful intent towards me, I’ll have brought my hands up into some form of position where they can be used defensively and offensively (for pre-emptive striking). The first strike/punch that you throw, is in many cases the only conscious decision you will make when striking and once done you will largely be fighting on automatic pilot, relying on your training to kick in – if you have to “think” about each punch/strike you make, the natural speed of a real-life confrontation will quickly leave you behind. In this article I want to look at some of the ways you can increase your chances of getting your lead hand strike/punch/Jab to land, which will then allow you to follow up with other punches and strikes to overwhelm your aggressor. Feinting is one way you can “distract” an aggressor, to increase the chances of your strike/punch landing. Unfortunately, many people throw feints as part of a pre-set combination, and the feint actually works as an “alert” that a punch is on its way, rather than as a distraction e.g., people will throw a non-committal half jab out, as a feint, followed by the “real” jab, that comes after it on the same level, etc. If the feint is merely an imitation of the actual punch coming in, you may cause an aggressor to react to it, but they will be reacting/responding in a manner that may be useful for dealing with the actual/real strike. A feint has two parts to it: you have to sell it to your aggressor, and you have to have confirmation that your aggressor has bought it. If you don’t wait to see if your assailant has bought your feint, you could be setting out on a course of action that is doomed to fail e.g., if you throw out a half-jab, and the person you are dealing with recognizes the range you are at, they may move back, so that you have to over-extend to get your “real” punch to land; you are now playing their game, rather than your own. The easiest way to tell if someone has bought your feint, is to have a response that you are expecting them to make, such as if you feint a low punch, you see your assailant’s hands drop to block it (which would also make the face an easier target to hit), or if you quickly raise your front foot – as if to kick – you see your aggressor look down etc. A very skilled fighter may know how to recognize a feint and how to appear as if they’ve bought it, but over-thinking in this way is likely to mean that you will never throw a punch, and so as with everything you have to accept that your “plans” should be fluid, rather than set. Obviously, feints can be used within a combination, but the purpose of this article is to look at how to improve the chances of your first punch/strike landing. Head movement can also be used as a distraction. If your face is “framed” in your guard, an assailant doesn’t have to think about where to punch or strike, however if your face is moving behind your arms/hands, you are presenting them with a problem that they need to solve, which will slow them down. By creating this problem, your assailant’s focus will be taken away from their own defense, as they become preoccupied with their offensive problem. Any head movement should be small, but at the same time it should be significant enough to draw attention to it. Head movement preceding a strike/punch should be short e.g., a couple of movements, and then the punch etc. An easy way to start getting into the habit of incorporating head movement, is to first move the head/face to the side (not turning it) you are going to punch with – so if you’re in an orthodox stance, and you are going to throw your left Jab, this would be to your left – and then bring it back to the opposite side, and as you bring your face/head back to center, to throw the left Jab out. The trick is to get your assailant to focus on the moving target of your head, and whilst they are following its movement (back to center), to make the strike/punch. Human beings can’t multi-task, so to draw attention to something else, whether it is head movement or a feint is a good way to set up a strike/punch, in the opening stages of – and during – a physical conflict/confrontation. The first punch you throw, whether it’s pre-emptive, or when you’ve created enough space/time to make your attack, is an extremely important one. If it doesn’t land or exert enough pain and disruption to your assailant, then it is unlikely that any subsequent strike/punch you throw after it is going to be effective. Not only does this set you back, but it also sends a message to the person you are dealing with that you are of little danger to them, increasing their confidence and decisiveness – which may be the difference between their success and failure. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=523 Mon, 15 Feb 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=522 Victimology is the study of victimization. It looks at why some individuals are targeted and not others e.g., their relationship with the perpetrator of the crime etc., and what the emotional and psychological effects of being victimized may be. In many ways, victims of crime have become largely “invisible” within the Criminal Justice System, as lawyers – rather than victims – argue their case for them, with the victim largely adopting the role of a “witness” who testifies on their own behalf, etc. In recent years, victims have gained somewhat more of a voice, as in certain cases they are allowed to make victim impact statements, as a means of influencing, not the outcome of a case but the sentencing, once a defendant has been found guilty of the charges i.e., the severity/degree of punishment etc. The purpose of this article is to look at four different theories of victimization, and how these can help us better understand how violent crimes occur, along with some of the common prejudices that certain people have concerning victims and victimization. Perhaps one of the first really influential studies on victimization was that carried out by Marvin Wolfgang in 1958. In his work, “Patterns in Criminal Homicide”, he analyzed Philadelphia police records, concerning close to 600 murders, and found that many resulted from trivial disputes and conflicts, which the victim originally initiated – such as disputes over a few dollars lost in a card game etc. Because of this he coined the term “Victim Precipitation”, to describe this phenomenon. This research was picked up on by the legal community, who now had some “research” basis to show/demonstrate that a victim might not be as innocent as they claimed. This research also backed up some of Mendelsohn’s (1956) victim typologies, which included victims who were “more guilty” than their perpetrators etc. One of the unfortunate consequences of the legal profession taking research that related to a very specific type of offense, and generalizing it to cover others, was that it came to be used in rape and sexual assault cases as a means to defend and diminish an offender’s perceived responsibility e.g., the clothes a victim was wearing at the time started to be seen as significant, and/or a victim’s sexual history became a tool by which a victim could be judged to have precipitated – led the defendant on – their own assault etc. This caused many feminist Criminologists/Victimologists to start using the term “Survivor” rather than “Victim” to refer to women who’d been sexually assaulted/raped. Another theory that attempts to explain why some people are victimized and others aren’t, is the “Lifestyle Theory”. This suggests that if you live a “risky” lifestyle, such as staying out late at night, going to bars and clubs which might have a history and/or reputation for violence and crime, there is a higher chance/likelihood that you will become a victim of crime. This theory aims to distinguish between contribution and culpability. Victim Precipitation suggests that the victim not only contributes to their victimization – such as starting an argument, over a dollar bet they lost – but that they are also culpable/to blame for the potential consequences of doing so. “Lifestyle Theory”, removes the culpability aspect, whilst recognizing how somebody’s actions and behaviors may contribute, or facilitate, their victimization e.g., if your lifestyle isn’t one where safety is considered, you may leave a window open, on a hot day, when you go out etc., if somebody climbs in and steals your laptop, you’re not to blame for that, but by leaving your window open you contributed to/facilitated the crime i.e., if you had closed and locked the window the would-be burglar may have not taken the opportunity etc. When looking at lifestyle theories it is important to place the culpability fully on the burglar, and not try to argue that such a temptation was impossible for them to resist, and because of this the homeowner/victim shares some of the blame etc. Deviant Place Theory (Siegel, 2006) makes the assertation that if you hang around in bad places, bad things are going to happen to you. The focus here is on the place/location rather than the lifestyle, as residents who live in a bad neighborhood, may have the most risk-adverse lifestyle but still be victimized – simply because of where they live/spend their time. The theory is almost fatalistic in suggesting that if you have to be in such places because that’s where you work, or where the bus/transport interchange is, or because that’s where an elderly relative lives who you visit etc., there is little you can do to avoid being victimized i.e., you are in that high-crime place, so you ae likely to be a victim of crime. The fourth theory, Routine Activities Theory (RAT), acknowledges the importance of place, in recognizing that the location where the “motivated offender”, and the “suitable victim” interact in a criminal act is the one thing that both have in common. However, that place may not be a “bad” place, it could simply be where both happen to be at a particular time e.g., a person who commits robberies happens to have ducked into a convenience store – with no history of crime – at the same time as an office worker who stopped in to get some milk etc., one follows the other out into the parking lot and commits a mugging. Both were engaged in routine activities, and their paths just happened to cross. The theory for its simplicity, is able to ask a lot of questions, such as why do both parties use the same convenience store? Is it close to where two distinct neighborhoods meet geographically, or does the street robber visit a friend close by? There are also questions as to what constitutes a “suitable victim” that is attractive to a “Motivated Offender” etc. Sometimes this may be clear, such as a sexual predator who targets 15-year-old girls i.e., a 15-year-old girl who is accessible, becomes a suitable victim in the presence of such a criminal. In many ways no one theory will get it 100%, without being so basic (or having so many exceptions and caveats) as to not make any contribution to our understanding, however by recognizing the basic ideas and concepts that a theory puts forward, and allowing for the fact that it may contribute rather than fully explain how crimes occur, we should be able to take something from these four theories to expand our knowledge.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=522 Mon, 08 Feb 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=521 Often when we look at, and study violence, we look at the internal mechanisms that people have – or lack – that cause them to become, and/or make them prone to being aggressive e.g., we look at low levels of self-control, the inability to correctly calculate risk, impulsiveness, and the need for excitement etc. and whilst these things may be contributing factors, they don’t explain the whole story, and may at times confound us e.g., why do individuals who appear to be “stable”, educated and risk averse, suddenly decide to engage in an “out of character” single act crime, such as shoplifting (here I’m talking about those individuals who engage in atypical theft behaviors, rather than kleptomania). If we are to simply try and understand crime and violence, based on the internal character of the individual, and exclude external factors that influence, encourage and in some cases trigger crimes and acts of violence, we aren’t going to be seeing the whole picture. This is where we need to look at the ecological factors that affect aggression and violence, and there are many. There are obviously individuals who go out looking to be involved in violent altercations, such as gangs of teenagers engaged in “recreational violence” who are looking for victims as sport, however for most people – including those predisposed to using violence – it is something in and/or about the environment that causes them to become angry and aggressive. Dollard et al., (1939), proposed a frustration-aggression-displacement theory to explain this. Their theory suggests that aggression arises when a person’s goal(s) are blocked or frustrated. Although their original theory stated that aggression was the natural consequence of frustration, the theory was revised later to recognize that not everybody responds to frustration by becoming angry/aggressive, however all acts of aggression require some degree of frustration to them e.g., not everybody responds to being cut off in traffic with anger, however those who do, do so because their “goal” of getting to a destination was blocked – albeit temporarily – by the other driver, and so by becoming frustrated at the incident (possibly partly due to their helplessness in the situation) they react in an angry and aggressive manner. However, a person may not behave consistently in this way e.g., there may be times when a person reacts aggressively to being cut off, and other times when in a state of Zen calm, they sagely accept what has happened to them, and prefer not to see it as an injustice etc. This is probably true for most people; we don’t want to be the individuals whose egos are susceptible to such trivial acts, such as being cut off in traffic, but then there are times when we seem not to be able to stop ourselves from over-reacting in this way. This would suggest that other factors might be at play. Looking at this from an “external” rather than “internal” perspective, it could be that our car’s air-conditioning isn’t working and it’s an extremely hot day (we know that when people feel physically uncomfortable, they ae more likely to act aggressively)  and/or our kids are in the back seat arguing loudly about some trivial issue – and if we combine these factors together, with the fact that we might be late to an appointment that it took us several months to get etc. we can start to see why being cut off, becomes the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Our normal internal Zen monologue, which gives the calm and rational narration and explanation to incidents involving traffic infractions – such as being cut-off - gets over-ridden by a multitude of external events, which frustrates our seemingly simple goal of getting to a destination on time. Life can be stressful, and otherwise calm and rational people, can have bad days due to “external” factors in their life, and obviously there are those who have a predisposition towards acting aggressively when frustrated, whether it’s not being able to open a jar of something, or being refused entry to a pub/club, however it is the way in which they and the environment interacts with them that results in anger and aggression. When I used to work security in bars and clubs one of the biggest causes of aggression – that often led to violence - was the length of time people had to wait at the bar to be served (and this was in the UK where people were usually surprisingly good about queueing). It seemed that people had in their heads a length of time that was “reasonable” to wait to be served, however if the clock ran over on this, they became frustrated that they couldn’t accomplish what was a pretty simple goal of getting a round of drinks. If somebody then looked like they would get served ahead of them, even though they hadn’t been waiting as long, trouble would start to brew. In many ways, any anger should have been directed at the establishment i.e., the bar/club hadn’t enough staff to cope with demand, hadn’t implemented a fairer queuing system etc., however the “scapegoat” would be the person who looked like they would be served ahead of them, even if they hadn’t done anything too deliberate or overt – such as pushing in front – to cause this. For some people, at some times, frustration and aggression (especially where alcohol is concerned), needs to be directed somewhere, and that doesn’t need to be at the actual issue or problem. The frustration is at the situation, not any single person, but frustration and anger cannot be dispensed against something so complex and so must be directed towards an individual.   By considering how the environment, including other people in it, can have an effect upon anger and aggression, we can start to understand why a normally calm/rational individual gets caught up in rioting at a football match e.g., the anonymity of the group, the infectious excitement of mayhem and destruction etc. all go to influence the behavior(s) of the individual. There are of course “internal” reasons for acting aggressively and violently – we all know “angry” people – however to get a complete picture of violence, we also need to consider the ecological factors at play. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=521 Mon, 01 Feb 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=520 From a personal safety perspective, it is usually most beneficial to look at incidents of crime and violence at the micro-level i.e., what components come together to make an offense, such as the particular location where the incident occurred, the consideration in the moment that affected the perpetrator’s decision-making etc. However, there are times when it is worth taking a higher-level view and considering how the incident relates to its ecology. When we think about ecology, we normally think about it from a biological perspective, looking at how individual organisms relate and interact with each other in the environment(s) where they exist. Looking at crime and violence from an ecological point-of-view is really no different e.g., we look at how different criminals network/interact with each other, how they interrelate with the non-offending community, and how the physical/built environment guides and directs their activities etc. A particular street corner – or segment – may be a popular choice for street robberies due to a number of specific features e.g., it might be well-trafficked, but not crowded, and/or it may be lacking in natural surveillance, and have a good number of potential escape routes, that run deep into the type of territory, that a non-local would be unfamiliar with etc. However, there are probably many such spots within a large city that share these characteristics and yet don’t develop into crime hotspots, so there have to be other factors which contribute or create crime(s) at this particular location. By looking at crime ecologically we can start to understand what some of these may be. It may be that this location is close to another location/spot which is conducive to drug dealing – this may be a spot close to a highway exit, which allows people from outside the neighborhood to easily access a dealer, without having to navigate an unfamiliar (and potentially dangerous) district. In a run-down neighborhood where there is little money, middle class users with disposable income may be a dealer’s most lucrative clientele, from whom they can demand a higher price. If the individual who commits street robberies does so to support a drug habit, they will want to be relatively close to a dealer, so they don’t have to travel too far when they have gained enough money for their next fix etc. We can see that several different things combine here to create a street robbery: the geography of the street corner/segment (the amount of foot traffic, lack of natural surveillance etc.), the proximity of the street corner/segment to an available drug “market”, and the location of the “market” in relation to easy access routes for non-local (higher paying) clients etc. We can look at shoplifting or burglary in a similar way. Burglars don’t like to hang on to their goods for long, and look to get rid of them through fences and/or secondhand stores where the owners care little about the history and background of the goods they are buying. In looking at places to break into and steal from one of the factors that will influence such decisions is the proximity to the location where the stolen items can be disposed of; and if the motivation behind the break-in is to support a drug habit, then how close this place is to where they obtain their supply is going to be part of the overall consideration as to the location(s) of the properties they target. This is one of the reasons why a burglar may choose to concentrate their offending in a relatively small area, that is close both to the base they set out from (usually their home), the site where they dispose of their goods, and the place where they acquire their drugs etc. With shoplifting the “disposal site” might be a pub where they sell their goods and/or where they take “orders” for people who want specific items at an agreed upon price. Again, the speed at which these goods can be exchanged for money is important (both to get rid of the “evidence” and to acquire a more liquid asset), which can usually be translated as the shortest possible distance(s) travelled. It may be that the street robber, burglar and shoplifter share the same drug-dealer, and so this commonality influences all three in how they select the locations where they operate, increasing the interconnectedness of the criminal ecosystem.  It is also worth noting that offenders operating in the same field will also have tacit if not concrete relationships between e.g., sex-workers who work outdoors will have their “patch”, an area where they work and engage with clients, that is exclusive to them and there will be an “understood” distance that another sex-worker will have to observe in choosing where they operate. The same is true for street robbers and aggressive panhandlers who may have street segments, corners, and intersections that they see as offending areas which are exclusive to them. In all of these cases, there may be a level of aggressive competition with individuals vying for the best spots, however energy directed towards conflict is often time-consuming, and is effort and expenditure that could be better directed towards offending, so for the most part these types of relationships sort themselves out in a non-competitive manner through mutual agreements etc. Whilst for the most part crime and violence is understood at the micro-level, and on a per-incident basis, there are times when it is worth looking at how different criminals and criminal activities relate to each other from an ecological perspective. This is especially true when some of those relationships become more direct, formalized and organized, such as when gangs proliferate in neighborhoods and areas, and the only way to understand violence in these contexts is through seeing it as being connected and related to other criminal activities e.g., it might become something which is used symbolically to communicate the “ownership” of territory to dissuade others from trying to operate in a certain location. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=520 Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=519 In this article I want to take a look at how/why extreme beliefs (extremism) can lead to violence. Before examining the phenomenon of extremism, which can be political, religious etc. it is worth setting out and differentiating some of the things that often get confused with, or become synonymous with extremism, that end up distracting us from truly defining what extremism is; and if we can’t define it, we can’t properly identify and recognize it, which means that we’ll be unable to deal with it. Berger’s statement that “Terrorism is a tactic, whereas extremism is a belief system”, is a great place to start in understanding what extremism is and isn’t. There are many people who might have extreme views on a subject/issue but who wouldn’t condone terrorism and/or the use of violence to either enforce or express their viewpoint, however this often gets confused e.g., there are people who even today believe that the earth is flat, but don’t think that the way to prove/get people to accept this is to take hostages, blow up public buildings etc. To use violence in this drastic way, you must hold extreme views, but this doesn’t mean everybody with extreme views believes violence is a necessary or useful vehicle for expressing them. Another important facet of extremism, is that those whom we might identify as extremist, rarely see themselves this way. From their perspective they aren’t on a spectrum of beliefs they are simply in a position of understanding/knowing the “truth”. As far as they are concerned, there isn’t a spectrum, there are simply two positions: right and wrong. It is this that creates the singular most defining aspect of extremism. The creation of “in” and “out” groups. It’s a long time since I - was made to – read Milton’s Paradise Lost, but I remember one of the philosophical arguments that was made in it: that “Good” could exist without “Evil”, but “Evil” couldn’t exist without “Good” i.e., Evil can’t exist as an entity on its own, as it needs to define itself by something that it isn’t. Extremism is much the same: it is a reaction/response to something i.e., another set of beliefs. It has to have something to fight against and oppose, whether that’s another religious group, another political perspective etc. In most cases, it is this group, perspective and/or set of opinions and ideas, which is somehow responsible for the persecution and oppression, of the group that the extremist identifies with, and whilst an extremist might claim that their cause, such as the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate – as with the Islamic State - is something that stands alone as a cause, it sets out a vision, which is at odds with most of the Muslim world (both Sunni and especially Shia), and positions itself as a distinct group in opposition to the majority of Islam e.g., it has been responsible for the death of more Muslims than Non-Muslims. If you look at the way most extremists and extremist groups position themselves, it is largely through attacks on the groups that they believe are “wrong”, and/or that are persecuting them, with their own “vision”, only making up a small percentage of their overall content. It is the consistent targeting of the “out” group, whether that is the mainstream, or a selection of other smaller groups, that is one of the defining features of extremism. With the idea/creation of “in” (those who are right), and “out” (those who are wrong) groups, comes the need for the groups to separate, and this leads to a degree/level of misinformation, which can in turn lead to violence. If you decide to separate yourself from those of a certain religion, or political opinion/persuasion, you will soon start to lose a firsthand experience of that group’s viewpoints and beliefs etc., becoming more dependent on information gathered and circulated by your own group – and if members of that group, like yourself, represent the “truth” you are likely to treat a meme, with a statistic, photo, or quote on it, as having passed journalistic muster e.g., such as a photo/meme of Belgian Miners, being presented as “Irish Slaves” etc. If the majority of your information is provided by your own group, the opportunity for misinformation increases, as does the potential for conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories abound in extremist groups because they can fully and completely explain something in an unequivocal fashion. Where a “real story” is going to have grey areas, and unknowns – because rarely are we privy to all the facts – a conspiracy theory can fill in any gaps that may exist by imagining a fictional narrative that fills them. This allows an extremist to have all the answers, and stops them from having to say, “I don’t know”, or “maybe”. If there is something that the group doesn’t want to hear, or doesn’t align, with their reality fully, a half-truth and/or an exaggeration (most lies have some “factual” element that they are constructed from) can be created and developed to explain things away and reinforce the group narrative. This normally involves aiming it, and directing it towards the “out” group, and suggests some injustice that they have committed against the “in” group. With enough momentum, that comes from retelling/re-circulating them within the group (and a lack of “actual” information permeating, due to having separated themselves from those who don’t share their opinions/views), there is potential for members of the group to engage in extreme acts of violence, either to cause/create change or express outrage; or possibly a mixture of the two. This is especially true in times of change/uncertainty.       We all gravitate to those who share similar beliefs to us, however extremism, is unique in that it can often act as an umbrella, that cover many single issues e.g., it is not uncommon for different terrorist groups, with different goals, to work together, because they share a “common” enemy etc. Extremist political movements can provide a larger voice to single issue movements, which results in groups that otherwise wouldn’t be aligned with each other standing shoulder to shoulder, because they all share a common “out” group/enemy. It is not common beliefs that unite them but a shared hatred/opposition to another group, and it is this which transitions extreme views and beliefs, into extremism; which in turn can lead to violence against that group. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=519 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=518 I’m a big believer in ending any violent incident quickly – that can be disengaging at the earliest opportunity; situations don’t always have to end with an unconscious aggressor, or one so injured/beat up that they can’t physically continue, etc. This also doesn’t mean, that I believe in “finishing” people when there is an opportunity to safely disengage; there is an extremely limited number of occasions when it is legally justifiable to stomp on somebody’s head, after they’ve been thrown/fallen to the ground, etc. If they’re not an imminent threat, and you have an opportunity to go, you should take it, “finishing” it by kicking them whilst they are in this position, is no longer about survival, but about ego and punishment – and if you come at self-defense from this perspective, you’re probably forfeiting any claim of self-defense that you try to make. In saying this, prolonged fights hold many dangers, and if you lack commitment in either your engagement or disengagement, you open yourself up to them. If you aren’t prepared to finish the fight on your terms, it will be finished on your aggressor’s, and you and they probably don’t know what those terms are. If your terms are to keep fighting until you can safely disengage, you know the point at which you’ll end the fight i.e., when you can safely disengage. However, you don’t know if the person you are dealing with has a defined outcome in mind that will alert them to when it is time to stop fighting e.g., they may continue to stomp on your head as you lay there unconscious, until they run out of energy – and I’ve seen people continue to punish and harm/injure unconscious people because they don’t know how to end the fight. Unlike most animals/creatures, we aren’t programmed to recognize signs of when a confrontation is over. Most species, have actions/behaviors that signal when a fight/conflict should end e.g., male chimpanzees will hold out their hand, or adopt a female’s sexual position to signal submission, wolves will lie on their backs and show their throats to signal their vulnerability, other animals may urinate and behave in other ways that are reminiscent of very young animals etc. Humans lack such ritualistic signals. During this phase in our evolution when these “scripts” were being “hard-wired”, we were in our pre-tool building/using phase, and lacked the natural weapons, such as a strong jaw, and/or powerful limbs that could cause serious physical damage to each other e.g., we weren’t wearing footwear with a hard sole/heel, that could inflict serious damage on another person’s head. It is safer for all parties, if you finish the fight on your terms i.e., less potential injuries all round. The longer a fight goes on, the more likely third parties will get involved and/or a weapon will get pulled and used. One of the worst stabbings I saw, was carried out by a young university student, who must have pumped his blade into his aggressor’s abdomen, 10-20 times in as many seconds; miraculously the guy survived. The fight had broken out in the bathroom of a club I was working in, and had been going on for several minutes, as they guy who was eventually stabbed had wanted to teach the student a lesson – that they should only come to the club when it was student’s night, and not when it was one of the evenings when the locals came to the club; the City was one where the presence of the University, and the university’s students (of which I was one) was largely resented. It had taken the student several minutes of either deciding to use his knife, or finding he had an opportunity to do so, coupled with the realization that his aggressor wasn’t going to just stop the beating. Prolonging the fight, gives the other party the time/opportunity to use a weapon, and also the justification to do so. The same is true of multiple assailants. I have also seen bystanders join fights, when they believe that the other parties are exhausted and in no fit state to really fight back, during prolonged encounters, especially when somebody ends up on the ground and there is little/no consequence for them doing so. If you can finish a fight quickly and disengage you won’t find yourself in such scenarios. The longer a fight goes on the more likely you are to find yourself on the ground, because you’ve lost your footing, having slipped/tripped, or ended up in a grappling situation that went to ground. Whilst I’m a big fan of ground-fighting in a rules-based context, hitting the concrete in a real-life encounter is not somewhere you want to find yourself – as it usually involves you having to deal with aggressor(s) who have the advantage of remaining standing; and standing is an advantage as from this position you can choose when you disengage without having to first get to your feet etc. I’m not someone who says you should never go to the ground, however remaining on your feet gives you more options, and makes you less vulnerable than when you are on the ground e.g. I’d rather be standing than having somebody repeatedly slamming a chair, or other object, down on me. We should all be able to work and operate on the ground, but at the same time recognize it’s not a great place to be, especially when it involves weapons and multiple attackers etc. Train a good punch/strike that can deliver enough force, to cause enough pain, that you create a reaction/response in your aggressor that allows you to disengage and end the fight there. I understand that this presents a simplistic approach to dealing with violence, but sometimes it is worth aiming high, and simply. Don’t rely solely on this but have it as a good starting point. My 2-minute self-defense lesson is normally to teach somebody to get an initial hand in the face to disrupt an attacker, to allow you to set up a power strike that causes them to “emotionally crumble” and then run. Nothing good comes from being involved in a fight that lasts much longer. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=518 Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=517 I remember the first time I felt truly alone working the door; when I realized I was figuratively and literally, at the end of the line. When I first started working bar and club security, I was normally working relatively large venues, which required a good number of doormen; and fortunately for my education a lot of those individuals had many years of experience, which they were happy to share with us junior/newer members of the team. This always reassured me because I knew if I got too far out of my depth, I could rely on someone bailing me out – I’d just have to slow things down and manage the situation until someone with more experience would be there to assist me. That was the level of responsibility I was given in the early days. However, as I became more experienced, and had demonstrated that I could handle more complex and stressful situations my responsibilities increased, and – quite rightfully - more was demanded of me. I was also being recommended by more senior doormen, to work other venues etc. That was how bar/pub security worked at the time; a network of individuals who supported and vouched for each other. If someone couldn’t work a shift, phone calls would be made until someone who was available would be found, and this person might not be someone who regularly worked that pub or club - if you weren’t working and/or didn’t get a call to do a shift on New Year’s Eve, you could take it that your professional standing wasn’t up to much. I was once asked by someone I knew, if I’d be willing to do a shift, assisting a friend of theirs – who’d been working the door of a fairly large pub on their own – on a Friday Night, leading up to Christmas. It wasn’t expected that there’d be much trouble (as the doorman had a good reputation) but the owner/landlord of the pub, was concerned about increased numbers and wanted some extra insurance. In fact, he wanted two extra bodies working the door that night, which ended up being me and someone else who’d only been on the job a few weeks. The start of the evening wasn’t the easiest, but manageable, and I didn’t get the feeling things were going to take a turn for the worse – after working these types of gig for a few years, you get pretty good at judging the collective mood of crowds and groups, and when things are about to go south. Many pubs have certain regulars, who are good customers, but have “days” when they become a handful and need to be asked to leave. For some, they’d go through the motions and theatrics of objecting, but would understand that they’d crossed a line, and to avoid being barred for a longer period of time, would peacefully accompany you off the premises – sometimes with an apology and a handshake at the door, when they left. However, there were others who had settled into an evening of drinking, and had decided that they weren’t going anywhere, and were free to act and behave how they wanted. When you’re working as part of a small team, you hope that trouble comes in a synchronous fashion, where you can bring weight of numbers to each incident, rather than different events occurring at the same time – then you may have to make difficult choices as to where, how, and when you allocate resources. At around 10:30 pm, about half an hour before last orders, which at the time was 11 pm, we had two events occur simultaneously. The regular doorman and I were just outside the entrance dealing with a small group of aggressive twenty-somethings who wanted to get in before last orders i.e., the last chance to get a drink at a pub/bar that night (there weren’t any local clubs in the area that had extended drinking hours). Chances were that this group had been kicked out of another pub and were looking for somewhere to finish up their night – at this time of year, most people knew that they’d be lucky to get into a pub this late in the game, as it would be at full/near-full capacity, so chances are they weren’t trying to find somewhere new to drink by choice etc. As we were dealing with this group who were getting more and more frustrated, at realizing they weren’t going to convince us that they should come in, whilst at the same time recognizing that they were on the clock, to find somewhere to drink, one of the bar staff informed us that the other doorman, had been seriously injured, by somebody swinging/smashing a heavy glass ashtray into his eye. He’d done this from his seat at the bar, after he’d been asked to leave because he’d groped a teenage girl who was collecting glasses from tables. The head doorman told me to go and deal with it, whilst he made sure nobody from the group – which was starting to realize that their best bet to get another drink was to find another pub – tried to force their way inside. I accompanied the bar-tender back in, and she pointed out the man who had laid out the other doorman, and who was now starting to get physically aggressive with those around him. I knew that because an ambulance had been called, the police would be turning up at some point, but that could take some time; especially around Christmas time, when all emergency services would be stretched thin. This was one of the situations, where I was on my own, and backup was going to be a relatively long time in coming. There can be a loneliness that creeps in with this realization – if you let it – that can be utterly debilitating. I remember watching the 1997 boxing match between Lennox Lewis and Oliver McCall, when in the third round McCall had a breakdown in the ring, dropped his guard and started to cry, refusing to defend himself and/or throw a punch (the referee had to stop the fight in the third); some of the people I was watching the fight with couldn’t understand what was happening and why an experienced, trained fighter would have such a reaction. Sometimes the sheer loneliness, of being out there on your own can be overwhelming, and if you let this sink in, you’re finished – McCall refused to come out in the fourth round and forfeited the match. This feeling of overwhelming isolation is different to the “peripheral doubts”, which cause you to question the consequences of your actions e.g., “What if my punch lacks power?”, “Is what I’m about to do legal?”, “What if my punch misses?” etc. It becomes more about the “Why” e.g., “Why am I actually here doing this?”, “Why have I been put in this position?”, “Why me?” etc. Although there isn’t the time to answer these “philosophical” questions, if we open the door, they quickly come flooding in, and drown us. I paused for a moment, and then forced myself to act – almost always the best remedy, when you feel yourself hesitating. There’s something – not a lot – to the old adage, the bigger they are the harder they fall, however when big people are drunk, and especially when they’re top-heavy they have trouble recovering their weight. As I approached, hands out in a placating manner, whilst smiling, he took a massive swing at me (so drunk it passed me a good foot/30 centimeter away). As he tried to regain balance, he overcompensated and reached behind to catch himself on two tables, which he did. With his hands occupied supporting himself, I had the opportunity to kick/sweep his feet away from under him. It wasn’t a large fall, but it was a heavy one (a night of drinking adds to the tiredness and fatigue, of such large hits to the body that the ground gives), and it bought me some time; two of the bar staff were now happy to assist me in getting a more compliant patron to the door.   Getting used to “loneliness” in your training is an essential survival skill – to prevent you from becoming overwhelmed by this if it hits you in a real-life confrontation. An important component of your training, which can help you achieve this is solo training, and the discipline it requires. When you make a decision to train on your own, outside of regular classes, you are making a pact with yourself, that you are the one solely responsible for your survival; that it ultimately rests with you and no one else. These sessions do not have to be long, but they are the most honest training sessions that you’ll take part in, because they only have one purpose, and that is to improve your fighting skills. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=517 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=516 One of the things I have heard people/politicians say over and over again during the COVID-19 pandemic, is that they’re following “the Science”. “The Science” is sometimes a YouTube clip or possibly a meme, but rarely is it a carefully researched article, with quoted sources that has been peer-reviewed i.e., there seems to be a lot of confusion, about what science is, and we seem to be at a time when a backyard experiment featuring somebody’s brother-in-law, standing on a ladder, with a piece of wet string attached to a 9-volt battery, angling a Hungry Man pie dish at the Sun counts as science etc. The self-defense/self-protection industry is often guilty of this pseudo-science approach e.g., the statistic/myth that 90% of street-fights go to the ground, comes from Rorion Gracie’s reworking of an LAPD study that looked at how many arrests ended up on the ground; an apples and oranges comparison that holds little to no relevance for the average citizen. We are also – as an industry – guilty for perpetuating other myths and stereotypes. Many martial arts kids’ programs over-emphasize “Stranger Danger” as part of their safety piece, without addressing the issue that children are most at risk of harm from those that they already know. Teaching children - and adults - that keeping secrets with adults is wrong, would take a powerful tool away from pedophiles. However, there are many parents who kick back at such things because they feel they should be exempted from such “rules”, which seriously weakens them as a tool. Accepting the facts/research and basing programs on them can be hard. Often people have a hard job accepting that the statistics apply to their situation, and feel that whilst something may be true for others it’s not applicable to them e.g., other children may be most at risk from people they know, but that’s not true for their child etc. Science, and scientific processes, are there to prevent these confirmation biases i.e., interpreting ANY evidence, regardless of source, that confirms an existing belief or theory. When we first went into lockdown for COVID-19 in March/April 2020, gyms and martial arts studios, were some of the last places in Massachusetts to be allowed to re-open. This was at a time when we knew little about the virus, other than it was safest to be outdoors, rather than in enclosed spaces. Armed with this knowledge, there was some best-guess logic, to have gyms and studios be some of the last places to re-open. We’ve since found that in Massachusetts, gyms account for 0.04% of all cases (0.06% in New York), and when “hotspots” for transmissions have been found, they’ve not been gyms, but social gatherings in homes, along with certain restaurants and places of worship. This is not to say that gyms are by default safe, but with all the precautions that have been put in place, they are some of the safest places to be in. Yet, the Mayor of Boston, because of a rise in the number of cases in the city, chose to shut them for 3 weeks; not based on science, but on a feeling that somehow, they must be responsible etc. In an outstanding piece of logic, which demonstrates how strong confirmation biases work, and how they fight any logic; if the number of cases continue to rise – even though the gyms are shut, and therefore can’t be responsible for this – their closure will be extended. Science, and scientific process, exists to stop us falling for such fallacies, but they need us to put personal opinion aside. When I conducted my Criminology thesis research, after doing a systematic review of previous research, I started by asking a scientific question, which was: Do offenders who commit residential burglaries, travel further distances, and engage in greater travel times, than those who engage in street robberies? This led me to make the following hypothesis: Ha1 Residential burglaries are more likely to be committed further away from an offender’s home (base), than street robberies, and the alternative hypothesis: H01 Residential burglaries are not more likely to be committed further away from an offender’s home (base), than street robberies. My “gut feel” was that burglars put more research and effort into their crimes. I couldn’t prove this though. The data – arrest data, with offense location, and offender home address – just didn’t support my hypothesis. Some interesting other findings came out of my study, in terms of certain hotspots that were related to road access/networks etc., but the answer to my original question proved inconclusive – the science told me something contrary to my original thoughts and biases, and this is the purpose of applying a scientific process to what we do. Just because we “feel” something is right, and want to believe that it is right, it doesn’t mean it is right. I still get kick-back about people phoning a friend when they sense danger, because they believe that if somebody knows where they are, then they won’t get attacked and/or that would-be assailants and predators will respect the social convention of not interrupting somebody when they are on the phone. It doesn’t matter how many instances of people being attacked whilst on the phone you share with them, their belief is that for them it would be different. There are many instructors who are very quick to judge others who do things differently to them, and will come out with the tired old line of, “good way to get you killed” etc. without having examined what they have been taught, and teach, with a critical and scientific eye, and have not studied the context(s) and conditions where their particular solutions may fail – and all solutions have a context within which they become sub-optimal – if somebody doesn’t believe this, and/or doesn’t understand this then they are simply drinking the Kool Aid. We are – if we try – all able to take a scientific approach to what we teach, it just means we might have to accept some truths we don’t like along the way.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=516 Mon, 28 Dec 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=515 I have written in previous articles about how crime and violence (in Boston) changed during the strictest part of the COVID-19 lockdown (March-June 2020), based on police incident reports. However, with the first deliveries of the vaccine to the Boston Medical Community, it may be time to start looking at and imagining what the criminal landscape may start to look like as things return to “normal”. I would like to caveat what I write by stating that this isn’t a prediction, but more of a conservative and evidential speculation that doesn’t include a post-apocalyptic city with burning buildings and zombies walking the streets etc. Perhaps one of the most long-lasting consequential effects of the lockdown was the number of small businesses that went out of business (and are continuing to do so). Most small businesses survive month-to-month, paying next month’s rent, with this month’s takings etc., so to be shut down even for a month can be catastrophic – having talked to many small business owners in the city I have yet to have heard of one landlord offering any rent assistance, and the majority of the government/state assistance went to larger enterprises that employed more people etc. It is not the point of this article to argue the rights and wrongs of this situation, but to explain why the overall number of open small businesses (in Massachusetts) has decreased by 37% this year, with certain sectors being hit harder than others e.g., restaurants and similar establishments have decreased by 54.6%. Businesses paying high city rents have been disproportionately affected. The significance of this has not yet fully hit many people. If you are somebody who has adjusted your lifestyle so that you no longer go out to bars and restaurants or shopping on the “high street” etc., hearing about various establishments closing has yet to affect your current lifestyle, and the scale of such closures is not something you’ve directly experienced (and I include myself in this). When things get back to whatever “normal” looks like, the city landscape is going to look significantly different to what it once did. Bars, shops, and restaurants etc. play a very important role in social control and crime prevention, with individuals and establishments acting as “place managers” which exert guardianship over certain locations and environments. In Routine Activities Theory, which states that for a crime/offense to be committed, there must be a motivated offender, a suitable victim, and the absence of a capable guardian; businesses can – and do – act as those capable guardians preventing crime(s) from being committed. An owner of a bar/restaurant has a financial interest in making sure that their customers have a pleasant experience and are not the victims of crime. To this end, they will make sure that at night their premises are well-lit, and they will often inform, liaise, and coordinate with local law-enforcement telling them when there is trouble, or they are suspicious of something going on in and/or around their premises etc. I am not trying to create the picture of an idyllic community, where everybody gets on, but to explain an informal role that small businesses often perform in the environments where they are located. A number of businesses located closely together may also attract a significant number of people at particular times of day/night that deter predatory criminals. However, when those businesses close, and get thinned out on a street, their role of guardianship decreases significantly, and a lone business with a reduced foot traffic, may start to attract offenders, instead. There is a security synergy that businesses create when there are a certain number of them in an area, and when the number is reduced at a certain point, this gets lost. The major high streets, with large stores, in extremely well trafficked areas, are unlikely to experience this, but certain other parts of the city in all likelihood will. A closed business usually means an empty building, and empty buildings have an effect upon an area’s crime rate – not just because empty properties attract certain types of crime, such as prostitution and drug dealing. A swath of empty buildings can be a signal of a neighborhood’s deterioration and be a signal to criminals, especially drug dealers, that this is a good area to move in to, as there is a lack of social control in the area. An empty building allows a drug dealer and/or gang member a location to stand around without the risk of a business or homeowner raising a complaint. It may also be that as a neighborhood starts to depopulate, there are fewer reasons for law-enforcement to patrol it as regularly – it’s not that these areas become no-go areas for the police, but that there are other more populated areas to divert policing resources to. Neighborhood instability can also be increased if empty commercial/residential buildings in an area, result in the rentable value of other buildings in the vicinity dropping as well. If this situation maintains, it can change the nature of a neighborhood significantly, bringing in more transient businesses and individuals; and as the neighborhood changes, force historically long-serving and stable residents to move out. Such things are more likely to happen if a neighborhood borders one which has already experienced such a transition etc. None of these things are inevitable, and there is nothing to suggest that certain Boston neighborhoods have been impacted in a way that would create the conditions for these things to occur, however there has been enough research and empirical findings to suggest that when the “right” mix of property usage changes, and buildings start to lie empty, crime has a habit of finding its way in.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=515 Mon, 21 Dec 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=514 Although we may be highly sophisticated animals, with an incredibly unique and sophisticated (but not necessarily complex) brain, we are nonetheless still animals, and some of our behavioral patterns are extremely similar to those of other species – mainly because we have inherently adopted certain strategies from particular evolutionary specialists who have discovered the most efficient and effective ways to survive. This makes sense, as our brains did not primarily evolve to think, which is what we as a “higher species” might like to believe and tell ourselves, but to simply manage our resources in the most cost-effective manner possible e.g., when we were hunter-gatherers; was it worth the cost of travelling a greater distance to potentially gain access to a larger number of animals (and a greater source/quantity of protein)? In this article I want to look at certain human offending patterns, which have their base in more primitive survival/hunting strategies, such as those applied by foraging animals, and those that hunt for live prey etc. (as well as differences) so that we can gain a better understanding of how predatory individuals act and behave. A central feature of all criminal foraging theories is that of a base i.e., the place/location that the offender operates from, and then returns back to etc. Often when engaging in geographical profiling the base is assumed – at least initially - to be the home, though it may be discovered later that it was a friend’s home, or a bar/pub that the criminal operated from. Using this assumption, Dr Stuart Kind was able to successfully locate serial killer, Peter Sutcliffe’s (the Yorkshire Ripper)’s house, to within a 1400-yard radius. He worked from the premise that offenses committed early in the morning, would be closest to the killer’s home, as he set out from there in the morning, as would those committed in the evening/late at night, as he returned back home, in order to sleep (it is the fact that sleep is so central to the temporal pattern of animal behavior that the home is often looked on as the most central and significant base). To increase the accuracy of his prediction, he gave extra weight to early offenses, postulating – correctly – that the early offenses in the killer’s campaign were most likely to have been committed close to the offender’s home, as the killer would be most familiar with this activity and awareness space, and offend here before they were confident enough to commit their crime(s)/forage in less familiar areas etc. Sometimes, an offender may have multiple bases, that perform different functions. It may be that a serial shoplifter, sets out from their home in the morning to commit a series of offenses, and then rather than return straight back home, first goes to a pub (close to where they offend) where they know they can openly sell their stolen goods. Often in such cases the routes between these nodes (the offender’s home, the shops where they commit their offenses, and the pub/bar where they offload their goods), become as important as the “bases” themselves. Another concept that is key in crime foraging theory is the Journey-to-Crime (JTC), and the idea of distance-decay. To understand these things better, we need to recognize that most offenders spend the largest amount of their time not offending, and instead engaging in routine activities, such as shopping for food, going to bars/restaurants, going to school/work etc. Whilst a predatory individual may be constantly switched on, ready to exploit an opportunity, they aren’t always actively and purposefully on “the hunt”. For many financial predators there are particular things that prompt them and motivate them to go looking for victims e.g., the rent on their apartment is due, or there is a social event such as a party that they need money for etc. These are the times that they will make the decision, to go to a particular location they know, to look for potential victims to rob etc. The majority of people’s routine activities occur relatively close to a significant base, such as a workplace or home. That is, when you do your grocery shopping it is likely to be at a supermarket close to your house or your place of work, or perhaps on a major routeway between these locations/bases. This means that for an offender who is not actively looking for potential victims, but suddenly comes across an opportunity too good to miss, that will likely occur near one of their bases. However, if they are actively/purposefully looking for the largest supply of potential victims they may be prepared to travel further – just like a foraging animal that has become aware of an area of bushes and plants that are good to eat – and “commute” to such victim-rich locations. Examples of this type of foraging behavior can be seen when individuals and gangs commute into a city center (or a shopping mall) for the sole reason of offending. The mobility of offenders is also a factor in foraging behavior(s) e.g., an offender with access to a car, has the ability to travel greater distances, than one without – in some instances a car may be stolen for the purposes of committing a series of crimes. There may also be some locations, which are only accessible by car. In my own research into distance decay, I found that all the known offenders for street robberies in a shopping mall/complex in Waltham, Massachusetts, lived outside of the city and commuted there to commit their offenses. This appeared to be down to the fact that there was no “easy” pedestrian route to the complex i.e., you would have to walk along a road for several miles, with no sidewalk, and under a narrow bridge, to get there. However, the complex was situated just off of Interstate 95, which crossed with Interstate 90, just a few miles away, making the mall extremely accessible by car (something the planners had obviously taken into consideration). This made the location extremely attractive for mobile offenders who could drive in from neighboring cities to commit their crimes, but not so attractive for local non-mobile offenders, who tended to concentrate their activities in the city center, and in the neighborhoods where they lived. This also has implications for profiling as it is likely that it is older, rather than young, offenders who have access to cars, and may be more mobile – having lived a bit longer may also make them more aware of other locations and areas that meet their offending criteria. The better we can understand how predatory individuals “forage” and choose their locations, the better able we are to predict where offenses are likely to occur – even if we are in an “unknown” area. By understanding how predatory individuals interact with the environment, we can quickly identify what makes – and what doesn’t make - a “hotspot” for criminal activity. This can then be used to assist us in making dynamic risk-assessments of situations we may find ourselves in.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=514 Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=513 One of the most important survival skills is decisiveness. I remember on a CP (Close Protection) course I was once on, being told by a travel security specialist, that in the event of an airplane crash, as soon as the plane comes to rest, you should grab your principal – the person you are looking after - and start moving (it’s one of the reasons, I always keep my shoes on when flying, even when I’m not working – and my footwear is practical for the purpose of evacuating quickly e.g. I don’t wear flip-flops or sandals). The people who wait for instruction by the flight staff, tend to be the ones who don’t make it. The 9/11 commission also noted a similar result, for those who stayed at their desks awaiting instruction, when the planes hit the Twin Towers. In a fast-moving, dangerous situation, responding decisively at the earliest opportunity, can mean the difference between life and death. A lot of people put their faith in their “fight or flight” response kicking in, however this isn’t always as consistent or reliable as we think, and recent advances in Neuroscience, suggest that it may not be the innate, inherent and culturally universal response to threats and dangers that we once thought. Rather, it may be that we will require some more major form of cognitive processing of an incident/confrontation, in order to be able to react and respond quickly. In this article I want to look at some of the things that inhibit us from acting – some of these I have written about before in detail; but here I want to “collect” the major inhibitors, in one place. Denial and Discounting. One of the first things I learnt when being introduced to “Risk” as a concept, was not to categorize incidents as being “Low Risk” i.e. if risk exists, it exists and should be acknowledged or thought of as “Unknown Risk”, if a threat couldn’t be clearly identified. A vulnerability – such as leaving a window in your house open – is still a vulnerability, even if there isn’t a threat present (such as a burglar) to exploit it etc. Leaving your window open, shouldn’t be seen as a “low risk” action/behavior, just because you live in a low crime-rate neighborhood. Whilst living in such an area where there are few burglaries, may not put you at “High Risk”, the level of risk, remains “Unknown”. Discounting risk can mean that we fail to get round to completing simple tasks, such as making sure that our doors and windows are secure etc. Decisiveness isn’t always about how we respond in the moment to a threat, but taking a decision to act – ideally immediately - when we identify a vulnerability. Sometimes people ask me about home security, and when I ask them some time later if they’ve addressed the issues I’ve mentioned/pointed out, I’ll sometimes get the response that they haven’t yet got round to dealing with it, and/or now that they’ve thought about it they no longer think it’s an issue; which really means nothing has happened in the meantime, so there is no urgency to addressing it. If we are serious about our security, then even when there isn’t an immediate threat present, we should still act decisively towards dealing with our vulnerabilities. We also have a habit of denying or discounting threats that are present in the moment, often because it is inconvenient for us to deal with them. I remember, many years ago, having to apply first aid to a man who had been stabbed, just after leaving a club I was working at. As we waited for the paramedics, and police, to arrive, he told me that he’d thought twice about coming in to the club, as he’d seen the guy (who’d stabbed him) who he had a history of trouble with, ahead of him in the queue to get in. I asked him why he hadn’t gone to one of the other clubs in the town, when he’d seen him, and he said that this was his initial response/reaction, but that he talked himself out of it. He convinced himself that the club was big enough that they wouldn’t run into each other, and that both of them would simply be looking to have a good time, and they hadn’t had any confrontations recently, etc. Although this wasn’t a fatal stabbing, it could have been, even if not intended that way. There are times when we are in the presence of a known danger that we need to acknowledge it and put as much distance as we can between us and them, even if it is inconvenient to do so. Being decisive in that moment and leaving would have saved that guy a lot of pain/discomfort, and wouldn’t have seen him ending his night in the emergency room. One of the additional things that prevented this individual from giving up his space in the queue was that he was with a friend, and he felt embarrassed and socially awkward to suggest that they go somewhere else. Feeling socially awkward is one of the most significant inhibitors to decisiveness. People don’t want to be seen to be responding to danger e.g. they don’t want to tell a person who is crowding them to stay back, they don’t want to turn and ask somebody who seems to be following them if this is the case, they don’t want to acknowledge to their friend(s) that they feel scared and would rather go somewhere else, etc. Many people would rather take the chance and hope that the threat disappears and loses interest in them, than take an action – such as stepping back, raising the hands up in a placating manner, whilst making some non-aggressive communication, etc. – which would acknowledge to them, and to others that they think they are at risk. In my time working in this industry I have seen countless strategies touted that appeal to our desire to appear anonymous, rather than simply deal with the threat e.g. if you think you’re being followed, pretend to be on your phone, if somebody is talking aggressively, start talking to somebody near you about the weather etc. These options appeal to people – even though they have been proven not to work – because they don’t require us to engage in the socially awkward act of engaging with whoever is threatening us. Decisiveness begins with acknowledgment, which means we can’t allow denial or discounting to inhibit us. Neither can we force ourselves into adopting ineffective strategies because we don’t want to draw attention to ourselves or feel socially uncomfortable enforcing a boundary. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=513 Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=512 In this week’s article, I want to look at a spate of assaults, which are currently happening in Waltham, Massachusetts. Over the past two weeks there have been a number of assaults – somewhere around ten/eleven, based on media reports - where an assailant(s) has seemingly assaulted random men without warning, sometimes using a weapon, and sometimes not. In several of these cases, the attacks have come from behind, and when they have occurred from the front or side, there was no preceding verbal exchange. In this article I want to look at how we can make some sense of the possible motivation and nature of these attacks, from the scant information we have. One of the first questions to ask, is whether these assaults are being carried out by the same person, or by different individuals. One of the tools that we have to engage in to do this is, “crime linkage”, where we look at the similarities of the assaults, and see if there are any commonalities. There are two basic commonalities that we can potentially observe: “modus operandi” and “signatures”. A person’s modus operandi i.e. how they commit their crimes/assaults, isn’t always a stable factor e.g. if we assume, that in the Waltham attacks, they are being carried out by the same perpetrator, we can see that the attacks have changed in a number of ways; for instance, the first attack involved a knife, subsequent attacks have been carried out unarmed, and later attacks have involved some form of impact weapon, etc. Again, if we assume the attacks are carried out by the same individual, there may be “rational” reasons for the modus operandi changing. In the first attack, where a knife was used, the victim ended up getting slashed across their lip, which would have resulted in a lot of blood being spilt. If the perpetrator ended up getting covered in blood, they may have decided that this was something they didn’t want to experience again, maybe because they realized how much damage a knife can do – and they weren’t looking for their attack to be fatal, or they might have realized that after exiting the crime scene, they would now be easily identifiable as the attacker due to their blood-stained clothing etc. This may have forced them to change the way they make their assaults e.g. using fists, or blunt trauma weapons to generate concussive force. Different modus operandi can also indicate, that it is different individuals committing these assaults, which is why it is important when engaged in crime linkage to try and identify a “signature”. A “signature” is something that is distinct to an offender, and that is common across crime scenes (possibly despite different modus operandi). It could be something obvious, such as after committing the assault, and rendering the victim unconscious, the offender always removes the victim’s shoes, or always leaves them in a certain position etc. The signature is viewed as something which is more stable in crime linkage than the modus operandi. In most cases those who are investigating the offenses will not want the signature to become public knowledge, as if there is a copycat offender(s), who is aware of the signature, they may then incorporate it into their offending behavior, making it difficult to separate one set of crimes from another. It can also take time for a serial offender to develop a consistent signature, as their initial crimes may be more chaotic and disorganized, and it is only as they become more comfortable with their offenses – as they realize their victims rarely fight back etc. – that they feel they have more time at the crime scene than they initially thought at the start of their offending campaign. Without a motive, there isn’t an offense. It appears that in none of the assaults, were items/resources taken i.e. the assaults were not financially motivated. Also, in none of the attacks, was there any “overkill”. That is, after the victim was rendered unconscious, unable to fight back, the attacker(s) left. This suggests that anger is not the primary motivation behind these assaults. If this was the case, the attacker(s) would likely continue to beat, and attack the victim, until their anger/rage was dissipated, rather than simply leave. The absence of these two motives, suggest that the violence is “recreational” in nature, and motivated by the need to be seen, or recognized by others in some way – whether they are present at the time of the assault, or are told about it later. The nature of the assaults, demonstrates that the assailant(s) is concerned about being identified – the attacks have happened largely from the rear/side, and on the few occasions where they have occurred from the front, the attacker has had their hood pulled up. The speed at which the attacks are carried out, with the offender leaving the scene as soon as the victim is rendered incapable of defending themselves, suggests that they are extremely concerned about being observed and caught. All violence accomplishes something, and attacks of this nature, are carried out so an individual can either assert or assure themselves of their identity, and this is usually done to a larger audience, rather than the individual. This might suggest that it is a pair of individuals performing for each other at the scene or recalling the events afterwards to another or a group. The fact that there is a strong emphasis on anonymity may suggest that the individual committing these assaults, and the larger group to which they belong are well known in the areas where they commit these attacks. The assaults have all happened between 4:30 pm and 11:30 pm, this again reinforces the idea that the violence is recreational and designed to fill time e.g. the individual(s) responsible is not waking up in the middle of the night with the urge/desire to attack somebody – if this was the case it is likely that anger would be a more present motivator, and the attacks would be more prolonged; this would be one of the reasons that the assaults would likely happen at these times, when there were fewer people around and the offender would have more time to spend assaulting their victim. The fact that these assaults occurred at times when the assailant had a good chance of being disturbed, or observed, suggests that this is an activity they are engaging in as a leisure pursuit e.g. it may be that they meet with a few friends, engage in public drinking together, and then possibly dare each other to go off and find a victim etc. This type of recreational violence is a young person’s game, and for the attacks to be so frequent, suggests an energy that comes from a pair or group, rather than one that is maintained by an individual. It is also worth noting that the first five attacks happened in a relatively small geographic area. It is often the case that offenders start their offending relatively close to where they live, in areas that they know well e.g. so if they are spotted they know the best escape routes and ways to evade law-enforcement etc. After awhile they will move on to other areas, as the risk of getting caught – by increased police patrols, or by locals recognizing them – increases. However, at some point, they will return to these areas, as they become more comfortable with their offenses, and want to put less effort into them (by not travelling so far afield). There is obviously much, much more that could go into developing a profile of an offender(s), and understanding their motivation(s) e.g. I have not touched upon the victimology of those who they have targeted – ethnic, racial, demographic similarities etc. and have only briefly covered the geographic profiles of the offenses etc. however, hopefully it can be seen, that from a few pieces of information, we can start to build up a fairly full picture concerning these types of offenses.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=512 Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=511 We all have areas of our fight/self-defense game that are better than others e.g. some people are better strikers than grapplers etc. However, it is all too easy to take comfort in our strengths and fail to address our weaknesses. This doesn’t mean that you have to give up your striking game to become a grappler, however it does mean that you have to take a step out of your comfort zone, and practice developing skills which will be unfamiliar to you. The importance of this was brought home to me many years ago when I’d been practicing BJJ for several years. In talking to one of the coaches at the academy I trained, I told them that I was never comfortable when on top, and preferred playing a bottom game e.g. pulling guard or half-guard, rather than being in mount or side-mount (I think I was enjoying the “luxury” of being able to work from these positions, as in Judo – my grappling background - the top game is the only one that you can realistically win from when on the ground). I was immediately told that this was the wrong way to look at things, and that I should work to get really efficient and effective at my top game, because if I only ever found myself in such positions infrequently, I would have to be quick to notice and exploit any opportunity that was provided me; A good top-player who was comfortable in these positions, would have the luxury of spending time consolidating their position and searching submissions out, whereas I would have to get good at immediately identifying and going for a submission, because being uncomfortable there meant that I would soon lose such a position. This attitude stressed upon me the need to be a “comprehensive” fighter, who could work from every position, as opposed to a “specialist” who was forced to work from one or two, or have to get to these before being able to do anything. In real-life confrontations, you have little room to be surprised. You stay surprised for too long, and the other person has a puppet they can use how they want. This is why the person who throws the first punch/strike in a confrontation usually enjoys the most success i.e. the other person never recovers from the shock and awe of being punched – usually due more to a sense of disbelief, than any physical consequences. The person being hit is on unfamiliar territory. In many cases they probably believed the conflict wasn’t yet at this stage, and it was still in the trash-talking/posturing phase. When you find yourself in the unknown and unfamiliar you need to act fast to recover, as it may not be the first punch that puts your lights out but the second or third. The problem with a lot of Reality Based Self-Defense training is that it rarely puts people in such situations, due to the instructor’s need to give the student a “win”; and this is necessary and important, but it can’t be at the expense of reality. One way to train how to recover from the aftershock of the first strike punch, in a safe manner, would be to make the student dizzy first (rather than hitting/punching them to get the “real” effect), and then forcing them to deal with continuous attacks – delivered in a controlled fashion. This isn’t the type of position that anyone “wants” to find themselves in, but a student needs to know what they can do, are able to do, and should expect from themselves when found here. In fact, they need to get really good at being able to deal with such situations, because they are ones they’ll rarely experience during training. The same goes for knife attacks. There are a lot of instructors who appear competent at dealing with such attacks, when they are given the room and distance to operate e.g. the attack starts from distance/range, the environment is uncluttered etc. In some cases, it helps when the student with the knife knows what their instructor is liable to do, and so is anticipating the kick or strike they are likely to deliver. However, in many cases you will feel, rather than see the knife, first. This is why developing good self-protection skills is essential for making physical self-defense techniques work e.g. you spot someone who has harmful intent towards you early enough on to get away, or at the very least better prepare yourself to deal with them (this “preparation” is essential for most techniques to work). Many people neglect this part of the training, because they feel/believe it is better to know what happens when avoidance isn’t available and things do kick-off, not realizing that when things do get physical they’ve probably already been stabbed a couple of times. Training from such positions, may appear fatalistic, and negative, however if we find ourselves in an unfamiliar position, we need to be able to react instantly in order to be effective in preventing things from getting worse; we need to be able to respond from every position, not just the ones we are comfortable in. I have worked with and seen experienced doormen who have been stabbed and failed to realize what had happened to them, and so responded according to their “game plan” rather than the situation they were in e.g. try and chase somebody down when there’s claret running out of your body, and blood loss will soon see you crash to your knees. Real-life violence isn’t a chess board where you get to see all the pieces, and play your game/strategy, you’re lucky if you have a few seconds to understand what’s going on and make some preparations. This was one of the big differences I saw between the violence that doormen typically face – which is somewhat protracted, with longer dialogue – compared to that of the disputes between drunken punters that soon became physical. You may believe that you have a game-plane that would see you do this, then that, then this etc. and that is great if you can always work within your comfort and familiarity zone, however you are going to have to be ten times quicker and more effective when caught in unfamiliar territory; and that’s why you may want to start dedicating a larger portion of your training time to this.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=511 Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=510 The role that “respect” plays in violence is often underestimated, whether that is in premeditated acts, where an individual plans to use violence – or the threat of violence – or in spontaneous acts, where an individual is reacting to something that has happened (or they believe has happened) to them. Certain acts, such as muggings, may appear to be purely transactional, where a predatory individual simply wants to acquire resources such as a purse or wallet, however the truth is that there are several underlying motives which are at play during the committal of a street robbery etc., that if not considered (as with other types of violence), can lead us to make erroneous decisions about how we should respond. In this article, I want to look at some of the different ways that people understand the concept of respect. During my time in the security industry, I have at times been asked to be a guest on various panels, along with other security professionals. I’ve always enjoyed these, as it gives me an opportunity to hear the thoughts, ideas, strategies etc. from those who work in different areas of the industry. Sometimes, non-professionals were also included on these panels, such as university students, if the discussion was on campus safety for example. This can sometimes create a strange dynamic, wherein the non-professional(s) may see themselves as having to compete for recognition and respect. Because they don’t have facts, figures, and accepted knowledge to bring to the discussion – and this is not why they are on the panel – they sometimes feel under pressure to prove that their personal experiences are more relevant to the discussion, and this then leads them to engage in a “competition” for respect. For some people, respect is a limited commodity that needs to be fought over; especially when somebody sees their role in a situation as being somewhat ambiguous. I have respect for different people for different reasons e.g. I have certain authors of fiction that I like, I have academics that I like, industry professionals who I admire and respect etc., and if all of these individuals were put in a room together, they wouldn’t have to “share” or divide up my respect; each one would have 100% of it. My respect for one does not go down because another is present i.e. the amount of respect I have is not limited. For some people, however, this is not how respect works. Elijah Andersen in the “Code of the Street”, puts forward the idea, that in depressed and deprived communities, respect is a commodity that is strived and fought over; that young men without many opportunities to improve their situation, fight for one commodity that is available to them, which is respect. If one person has respect, then that means there is less to go around. In some cases, if an individual sees respect shown to another, then they equate that with being disrespected themselves; something that in turn can lead to extreme violence. Elliot Rodger who was responsible for the Isla Vista shootings in 2014, where he killed six people and injured fourteen more, published a YouTube video before he went on his killing spree entitled, “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution Video”, where in it he explained his motivations. His motive(s) for engaging in the shooting rampage were borne out an envy of sexually active men, and the need to punish women for rejecting him in favor of them. As he saw it, there was only so much “respect” to go around, and other men were taking it from him. The group who needed to be punished for this were women, who by showing “respect” to other men had disrespected him. When people believe that there is only so much respect in the room to be had, and other people are shown it, this is either interpreted as “disrespect”, or something owed to them that has just been taken away. There is a psychological phenomena that suggest we will put three times more effort into getting back something we have lost, than gaining it new e.g. a person who has been disrespected, or who has lost the opportunity for gaining respect, will work three times harder to get back to where they perceived they were, than in attempting to gain respect in the first place. The less respect a person has been shown in their life, the more likely they are to see respect as a limited commodity that needs to be fought and competed over. This can come as a surprise to many of us who do enjoy respect, whether that’s at work, in our personal relationships with others etc., where we recognize that earning respect from one person, doesn’t mean that this same person can’t also respect somebody else, equally or more. When we understand that some people see “respect” as a zero-sum game, where if one person has it another can’t, then we can begin to understand why people might act overly aggressive with us. The street robber who targets a victim who’s wearing an expensive watch and jewelry, does so as much to take respect away, as to profit financially. Most muggers are after cash not goods, and few have the ability or want to take the risks that involve fencing goods. By exerting/demonstrating power and control by committing a street robbery, the mugger gains a degree/level of self-respect – and in certain cases, if they can be seen by others in their communities wearing that watch/jewelry they may gain some of their respect. When I did youth work in the UK, with teenagers who carried knives, the number one reason they would cite for using their blade against another was that of being disrespected. Often, they couldn’t articulate what this actually meant or looked like, but an underlying theme was an envy/jealousy of somebody who enjoyed the respect of others, and the need to show/demonstrate that they weren’t all they were cracked up to be. It was if by demonstrating this person’s vulnerability by stabbing/cutting them, the respect that they had enjoyed was transferred to the attacker. This may seem a strange concept for many of us to comprehend, however when we can see that others view respect in terms of a limited commodity, these things become more understandable. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=510 Mon, 16 Nov 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=509 When I work the heavy bag, I like to go in with a plan; a combination of punches, strikes and kicks that I want to train – and this combination must be a realistic one e.g. something that I could use when sparring etc. I try to have my combination tell a “story”, such as: I throw a Jab, move out offline, at an angle (to avoid a counter jab), move back in with a jab/cross, which doesn’t get through my opponent’s guard, so I then follow up with a hook punch to get round the guard etc. This approach makes my bag work interactive, and functional, rather than simply an exercise in hitting the bag. This approach also means that I need to understand the purpose and role of my different punches and strikes, and how different punches relate to each other. There is sometimes a tendency to think that simply throwing as many strikes as you can in a period of time will overwhelm every aggressor, however this type of thinking doesn’t factor in the response(s) of an opponent, who may be able to cover, ride, slip and block the strikes making a “barrage” of punches relatively ineffective. Punches and strikes are tools which can be used for different purposes - and to overcome particular problems - and it is by understanding their usage that we increase our chances of surviving a violent encounter. In this article I want to take a brief look at some of the different ways, that hook punches can be used to solve different problems. In a real-life violent encounter, I am generally looking to use my hardest/strongest body parts to deliver my power strikes. By and large that translates to my elbows, knees, and head. In close-range striking to the head, my elbows are in most cases my first-choice weapon, over my fists (obviously this is not going to be the case in every encounter, as each one is different/distinct and may follow a different path etc.). However, if a person has a tight guard, and is covering well, even landing vertical strikes, such as throwing elbows, up and down, vertically between my opponent’s arms can be difficult, and be found ineffective – only if the head is unprotected am I likely to throw my elbows in a horizontal plane, when directly facing an assailant. To solve the problem of a strong guard, that is in front of my assailant’s face and is protecting it well, I need to come around the guard, and this is where my hook punches have an important role to play – as these can be delivered from the side, rather than the front. One of the things that needs to be understood about the difference between real-life confrontations, and sparring matches (which are important and valuable training methods), is that punching bare-knuckle is somewhat different to punching with a glove; especially a 12 or 16 ounce boxing glove. When punching bare-knuckle you need to be somewhat more accurate, to ensure that you are connecting with the intended knuckles, and not simply any part of the hand or glove. Also, if somebody is covering well (and this is something to note for defense), the gaps or holes in the defense may be pretty small, requiring you to get the angle exactly right in order to place your punches – if people have only learnt to cover whilst wearing a relatively large boxing glove, they may find that unless they adapt and tighten it up, they will present large holes in their defense, which can be exploited. So, whilst hook punches are useful, against somebody who knows how to cover and has a good guard, they need to be accurate, in order to be effective; and this accuracy needs to be trained and practiced. Hooks to the body can also be highly effective and can be used to accomplish several things. If you are able to throw  powerful hooks into the body, even a conditioned fighter will eventually be forced to block/cover, which means dropping the hands from the head; repeated body shots are also extremely effective at tiring a person out – especially if they’ve consumed an adequate amount of beer. With the hands dropped to protect the body, the head/face becomes an accessible target. Another thing that hooks to the body can achieve is forcing a person to sink/root their weight. When people bring their guard down to protect the body, they tend to accompany the drop in their hands/arms, with a drop in weight. This loading of the legs helps create/establish a solid structure and frame for absorbing the punch/blow, however it also makes the legs vulnerable to attack. For a good strike to be effective, your assailant needs to also be in a vulnerable position. As a general rule, for throws to be effective your assailant’s body needs to be in movement, and for strikes to be effective your assailant needs to be rooted; this forces the body to fully absorb the strike, and prevents any of the force being translated into movement. With the person’s weight now loaded on the legs, attacks such as low-roundhouse kicks to the thighs start to become useful and effective tools. It is by understanding what different strikes/punches can achieve, that we understand when they should – and when they should not – be used. When we train attacking combinations, we should also factor in the responses and reactions of the potential assailant(s) we will be dealing with. We shouldn’t expect them to stand still in front of us, or always back away etc., but have answers to the strikes and punches we are attacking them with. Whilst aggression is an important component/attribute to have, alone it is not able to solve all of the problems an assailant will present us with. To this end we need to develop a type of “ringcraft” for the street, where we are able to utilize different tools to solve different problems and adapt what we do according to the situation we are facing. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=509 Mon, 09 Nov 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=508 How you are seen by others, and the role(s), you play in their life can influence and affect your survival. Hopefully, most people who we interact with us see us as individuals – as persons – however there are those who may view us as vehicles to achieve self-satisfying goals, or expendable objects, that can be used to satisfy certain urges. This idea of victims, as persons, vehicles or objects was first put forward by Canter and Ioannou (1994) in their study of stalking victims, however the model was later extended to include serial rape and murder. However, it can also be used in a practical sense, to help redirect a predator’s intent, in order to ensure or increase an individual’s survival chances. Before looking at the way the model can be used practically, it is worth understanding the context and the methodology that led to its development. Canter and Ioannou, recognized that one of the inherent difficulties in trying to classify stalkers into different typologies, was that most are reluctant to participate in the necessary interviews that would help explain why they acted and behaved in a certain way. So instead, they looked at the different observable actions that a variety of stalkers engaged in, such as how they interacted and communicated with their victims etc. Rather than try and work out what the motivation behind these actions were, such as what the stalker was hoping to achieve, and whether their behaviors were delusional, obsessional or not, Canter and Ioannou, simply measured what they did, such as sending emails, text messages and gifts etc. and how these things related to other actions and behaviors, such as physical threats, vandalism and destruction of property, along with other offenses etc. These actions were then mapped and categorized into themes, regarding how the offender appeared to view their victim e.g. an offender/stalker who tried to coerce a victim’s friends into providing them with personal information about their target, viewed them as a “person”, whereas an individual who sends the victims “symbolic” gifts is using them as a vehicle to manage their own sexual desires, frustrations and anger etc. The stalker who tries to control their victim by intimidation – such as waiting or driving past their home – is viewing them as an object/possession that belongs to them etc. The propensity for the use of violence against the victim/target increases significantly when the stalker starts to treat them as an object. Though it wasn’t the purpose of this study, a stalking victim could start out being viewed as a person, such as an ex-partner who the stalker is trying to get back with. However, as the gifts and constant communication fail to yield the results to this end, their view of the victim changes, and they now see them as a vehicle for satisfying some sexual need; and so they start sending pornographic material/content to their victim. Later on, as they become more frustrated and angrier at the way in which their victim is behaving and responding, their attitude towards them changes, and they now view them as an object that needs to be controlled and punished etc. It’s not inevitable that all stalkers follow this path, many will give up after a period of time, however it is worth noting that a stalker’s relationship with their victim can change, as they no longer see them as a person but come to see them as an object. With each shift in perspective, the likelihood for violence increases.      You may have been in a situation, that during or afterwards, you realized that you may have been dealing with a dangerous individual who harbored harmful intent towards you, but ultimately nothing happened. This could be down to something you did, or some change that took place in your environment, that you were either aware/unaware of, such as another person taking an interest in what was going on etc. However, the change could also have been down to the individual’s urges and desires e.g. they lost interest in acting violently/harming you. This could be for a number of reasons, including the moment where everything came together for them, emotionally, psychologically, and physically, passing. However, the moment may also have passed because of something that you said or did, which changed your potential aggressor’s attitude towards you. This may have been done deliberately or inadvertently however it was probably something that changed you from being seen as an object or a vehicle to that of a person. Not even necessarily a person with whom they could empathize, but somebody who no longer met their initial specifications as a victim. In sexually-based assaults, an assailant needs to cultivate and manage their fantasies, urges and emotions. If a potential target/victim manages to interrupt this process by presenting a different view of themselves or no longer appearing as the “perfect victim”, it may be that the aggressor is no longer motivated to carry out the assault. Knowing that an individual engaged in a stalking campaign is more likely to behave violently towards a victim they see as an object than one they see as a person, this idea/concept of presenting yourself as a person to a would-be aggressor/attacker can be used as an active survival strategy, in other sexually and violently motivated offenses. This idea of humanizing yourself, and presenting yourself as something more than an object or a vehicle has been shown to be a successful strategy in hostage/crisis scenarios, along with abductions, kidnappings, and home invasions etc. In fact, it is often when individuals are no longer seen as persons but pawns in a game, or objects to use, that deadly violence occurs. Understanding how we are seen/viewed by those who mean us harm, and how changes in this can signal a change in intent, can help us reposition ourselves to be viewed as individuals, rather than as vehicles or objects. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=508 Mon, 02 Nov 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=507 When I was a growing up there was a joke about a guy in a brand-new Mercedes visiting a rundown neighborhood in Glasgow. He parks the car, next to a dilapidated tenement building, and as he gets out a small child comes up to him and for five quid offers to look after his car; to make sure nobody tries to break into it, or steal it etc. The owner refuses, and smugly points to the back seat where a 90-pound Rottweiler is sitting. As he turns to walk away, the kid shouts after him, “Is he any good at putting out fires?” Not a great joke - possibly not even a good one - but it illustrates a significant point about safety and security. We think we’ve taken all the necessary precautions, however we don’t always fully understand the nature of the threats and dangers that we face. In fact, a safety measure that we take against one threat may make us a more attractive target to another e.g. several years ago in Boston, two women were targeted for a violent street robbery whilst walking home late at night; they expressed surprise at being attacked because they believed that not walking alone, meant they were safe – it is generally safer to be with somebody else, and the presence of another is certainly a deterrent to a sexual predator looking for a lone, isolated, single victim, but for a pair of muggers, the presence of two people is likely to mean double the reward/payday. In this article, I want to take a look at some of the beliefs people have and the positions and precautions they take, thinking that because of these, they are safe. “I’m always scanning”. In one out of every, pick a number, of conversations regarding situational awareness (SA), somebody will mention people in big/heavy coats on a hot day, as an example of something/somebody that is out of place. The inference being that anyone doing so is probably concealing an assault rifle beneath it, rather than being a homeless person who is needing to keep their possessions with them, etc. What becomes apparent is that rather than them seeing something and noting that it is out of place, they are working to a short list of things that they should be looking out for – which when pressed is often a list that doesn’t contain many – if any – more items, than people wearing big/heavy coats when it’s warm and the sun is shining. Noticing what/who is out of place, isn’t about ticking off things on a list, it’s about recognizing and understanding what baseline behaviors and actions in an environment should be, and recognizing when somebody or something is out of place e.g. the speed, purpose and direction people are moving in, where and who they are looking at etc. However, many people believe if they are constantly scanning their environments, they are situationally aware, and thus safe. Having a 360-degree understanding of your environment, if you are able to identify when something is out of place, will definitely improve your ability to spot danger before it targets or reaches you, but simply scanning and constantly looking around will do little for your safety unless you have such identification skills. “It’s a safe neighborhood, it’s daylight and there’s lots of people around”. Many people don’t understand the speed at which the execution of a crime takes place. People who often claim to be “normally” very aware, when targeted, will often remark that they only turned their back for a second, or were gone for less than a minute etc. The criminal opportunity is created long before the execution of the crime itself takes place e.g. the decision to leave the car unlocked as you quickly went into a shop wasn’t the first thing that alerted the offender to a potential opportunity; they would have seen the hurried way you pulled up, the focus, intent, commitment that you had to the task in hand etc. and then they would have waited to see and hear the normal things that accompany a car being locked, such as the horn beeping and the headlights flashing – the absence of which would be the trigger for the execution of the offense, such as stealing your laptop off the passenger seat. Criminals go where the opportunities are, and in locations where they blend in. There are definitely safer neighborhoods and areas, but none that are 100% safe. Offenders often play a statistics game. A common one in large hotels next to casinos is to walk the corridors bumping into room doors, hoping to find one that wasn’t shut properly – this often occurs due to distracted gamblers being in a rush to get to the floors – so that they can gain access to a room, and maybe somebody’s winnings etc. In a shopping mall parking lot, how many cars may not have been locked properly, due to people being in a rush, doors just not closing properly etc.? Almost everywhere presents an opportunity for crime, and daylight, crowds and a safe reputation are no guarantee that you won’t be targeted. “I have a weapon”. There are some people when you ask them about their personal safety precautions will quickly state, “I have a weapon” (for the purposes of this article it could be pepper spray, a knife, and/or a firearm of any description i.e. short or long barrel). Weapons are not solutions to violence, they can be a useful tool in certain situations e.g. there are few people who wouldn’t want a shotgun if they and their family were holed up in a safe room, with a meth-crazed psycho trying to smash the door down with an axe with the aim of exterminating them all etc. However, there are many situations where the presence of a weapon may quickly escalate a situation that could have otherwise been resolved peacefully and without the use of violence. In all my time working in security, whenever I’ve seen a knife get pulled, I’ve never seen the person who pulled it back down and put it away. Whilst the self-defense industry often stresses the need for tactical training of weapons – and that is important, as there’s a huge difference between shooting a firearm on a range, and deploying/using it in a real-life confrontation under stress and duress – there doesn’t seem to be the same emphasis on training when not to use it, and when to try different approaches and solutions to dealing with a potential confrontation. Having a weapon doesn’t inherently make you safe, and could cause you to find yourself out of control, in a situation you thought you could control with your weapon e.g. if you drew it (whatever it is), hoping that the person would be intimidated and back down and then they don’t, where do you take it from there? If you pull a weapon, you should be prepared to use it, and in the situation you’re in, are you ready to do that? As stated, weapons can be useful tools, but they are not solutions in themselves and having one does not by default make you safe. Constant realistic tactical training is required to be able to safely and proficiently use your weapon of choice, and a good dose of visualization and scenario training is required so you know when it’s not appropriate to use it. Most of us have a degree of laziness, concerning our safety. Many times, when we take precautions nothing happens, and usually when we don’t, nothing happens either i.e. for a crime to occur there must be a motivated offender present, and this is often not the case. So, when we are presented with simple things we can do to that may make us somewhat safer, we equate this with being 100% safe. We like to believe that we are aware, that we know what safe and dangerous places look like, and if things really do kick-off, we have it covered etc. when really this is only true for certain specific events and types of incident. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=507 Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=506 When we talk about “self-defense”, we aren’t referring to a system/style or even an approach, but to the legal use of violence; in fact, to make a claim of self-defense you are admitting to using physical force against another person(s). However, you are making the argument that you were justified in doing so. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand when they are legally justified to use violence and when they aren’t, and often believe erroneously that what is morally right must be legally right and/or that conjecture and possibility – the other person could have been carrying a knife – allows them to use force beyond what is legally permitted, etc. with the line, “better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six”, as the argument to justify this position. In this article, I want to look at three legal concepts that pertain to self-defense, and which should be taken into consideration when we think about solutions to different situations. These are: Assault, Battery and Separation. This article will also look at how your “role” in a physical confrontation might change, so that you end up losing the right to make a claim of self-defense for the complete duration of the conflict. Although the exact definition of assault may vary by jurisdiction, generally two conditions must be met for assault to occur. These are: 1. you must fear for your safety/believe you are in imminent physical danger, and 2. your aggressor (potential assailant) must be in a position where they can make physical contact with you. If these two conditions have been met – it is another thing to demonstrate/prove them – then an “assault” has occurred and you are entitled to act in self-defense to protect yourself e.g. you could make a pre-emptive attack/assault. In my time working bar/club/pub security, I have seen on many occasions people commit assaults without realizing what they are doing e.g. there’s an argument/dispute over who was next in line to be served at the bar, and one party steps up to the other and makes some form of statement that if they don’t get behind them they’ll be sorry; they’ve actively moved to a position where they could make contact with the other person, and articulated some form of threat, that gives them a reason to fear for their safety/expect imminent harm to occur. What the individual doing all of this is probably thinking is that if they “posture” to the other person, they’ll back down, and don’t realize that if the other individual decided to take a swing at them, they may well have the makings of a claim of self-defense – to do so they’d also have to demonstrate amongst other things, that they didn’t have an opportunity to disengage and walk away, etc. What some people see as a simple show of force could in fact be legally defined as an assault. It is worth noting that there is a big difference between claiming that you were assaulted and demonstrating it, which you may be required to do if things go legal. When I worked on the door, one of the first things I would do – where possible – was to take an active step back when somebody would become aggressive towards me. This wasn’t always possible as depending on the security role you were performing you might need to “protect” the “door”, to prevent people from getting in, which could see you moving forward towards an aggressor(s). However, where possible, I’d take a step back. This would give me a better view of the person I was dealing with, and let me see their hands, as well as getting myself ready to deal with them physically (my first strategy usually being to resolve the conflict verbally). It also meant that if the person stepped towards me, I could easily demonstrate that they a. gave me reason to fear for my safety, and b. were putting themselves in a position where they could make contact with me. I would also put my arms/hands out in a placating manner, rather than adopting a “fighting stance” so they would be unable to claim that I’d given them a reason to fear for their safety etc. I can’t remember working in an establishment that didn’t have CCTV, and even without audio, stepping back and raising the hands up in this manner, gave a strong/powerful visual to reinforce a claim of self-defense. Battery can be viewed/described as, unwanted/non-consensual touching, that results in harmful and/or offensive contact. Assault can be viewed as the preceding acts that are needed to be in place for an act of battery to be committed. If somebody aggressively pokes you in the chest, even if it doesn’t leave a mark or hurt, and the contact is unwanted and offensive, then battery has occurred. It doesn’t matter if the other person didn’t intend to use any greater force than this e.g., they had no intention of punching you etc.; that simple act of them making contact constitutes “battery”. When it comes to defining an act of assault and battery, the degree of contact isn’t important, it’s the fact that any contact at all is made. Once again it is important to remember that it is one thing to be able to claim something and another to demonstrate it.      You have probably watched/seen YouTube clips/videos where a gun disarm is performed, and the person making the disarm steps back, taps and racks the firearm, and instructs their aggressor to get down on the floor etc. Although this all may seem as one continuous event/incident it isn’t necessarily so from a legal perspective, as you have gone from being the person having a gun pointed at you, to a position where you are now pointing a gun at the other person. At this point, a separation has occurred and you are no longer in imminent danger and/or have reason to fear for your life. If you were to pull the trigger at this moment it would be very hard for you to make a claim of self-defense – unless you could prove prior knowledge that they had another firearm on them, and were attempting to reach it etc. The same would be true if you threw somebody to the ground, you remained standing, and then you preceded to kick and punch them, or try to follow up with an armbar, choke or similar. The moment that you are standing – and have an opportunity to disengage – and choose to continue the fight, when you weren’t in imminent danger, your role has changed; your use of violence up and to this point may have been justified, and your claim of self-defense believed, but now you have lost that right and claim – and it may well be that your “original” aggressor can now make a claim of self-defense against you. Obviously, these are simplified scenarios that are designed to illustrate some key legal concepts, and in real life, things may be more nuanced, however in some jurisdictions if you are involved in a physical confrontation all parties are required to defend their actions in a court of law, regardless of how the incident occurred or what their part in it was. At this point it will be your attorney that frames the argument of “self-defense”, however if you have acted in a way that is legally defensible and justifiable you will have given yourself the best chance of being proved not guilty.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=506 Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=505 Most of us, at one time or another, have probably used the term Narcissist to label somebody who is somewhat egotistical and arrogant etc. however from a clinical perspective there are several more characteristics that have to be present for someone to be correctly diagnosed as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The DSM-5 describes nine character traits associated with the disorder (a person having to exhibit five of them, in order for a diagnoses to be made), these are: a grandiose sense of self-importance, a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success/power, a belief that he/she is “special” and unique, a requirement for successive admiration, a sense of entitlement that leads to automatic compliance, an exploitative attitude to others (taking advantage of others for personal gain), a lack of empathy, envy towards others (and believes others are envious of them), and displays arrogant/haughty behaviors and attitudes. Whilst an egotistical person may have a grandiose sense of self-importance and fantasize about unlimited success, this doesn’t by default mean that they lack empathy, or are exploitative towards others etc. In this article I want to look at something known as “Narcissistic Rage”, as this can be common in other personality disorders, such as Paranoid Personality Disorder (Narcissism can be comorbid/exist with other disorders) , and also will hopefully help us to understand, why those individuals who don’t have an identifiable and definable disorder, may sometimes emotionally erupt in a manner that seems disproportionate to the situation they are in. Before we look at this, we have to get a feeling/understanding for how the Narcissist sees the world. We all have a view of who we are, and a belief – to some extent – of how the rest of the world sees us. For many of us this is somewhat flexible, and we may not really care much about what the rest of the world thinks about us; as we get older most people tend to care less about the opinions of others e.g. in our teens and early twenties our “image” is of paramount importance, but as we age this becomes less and less important. For most of us the idea of who we are is realistic e.g. we recognize that we are not the best at everything, and possibly not even the best in our chosen field of employment etc. and we are happy with that. Our identity is built upon many facets of our life, and we are confident about who we are. This doesn’t mean we don’t lack ambition, or don’t believe that we have something to contribute to society and others etc. but rather that we understand and recognize the scope of the influence we have, and we work within that. The Narcissist doesn’t want to look inwards and recognize their limitations, but instead creates a persona, that mirrors who they want to be and how they want to be seen, and this becomes their personality. Narcissism and Psychopathy are often classed as “immature” disorders, as on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, they can never reach the level of “Self-Actualization”, because this requires introspection and self-examination. The Narcissist wants to avoid this altogether, as to look at who they actually are would mean that they would have to recognize that they aren’t “special”, which would result in a psychic breakdown, and a shattering of the mirror of how they want to be seen. The Narcissist is not in love with themselves as many think they are but are in love with the image they have created for themselves (or the reflection of themselves as with the original Narcissus). Instead of looking inwards and at who they are, their efforts go to maintaining the image they want to present to others – and it is important to note that this is for their own benefit, not that of others. However, it is hard not to engage in introspection from time to time, especially if your accomplishments don’t seem to marry up with who you think you are, or what you believe you should have achieved e.g. if you believe you are the greatest painter in the world, and nobody’s buying your paintings, at some point you might begin to question the persona you have created for yourself etc. It is always important to remember that this image that has been created is for the Narcissist’s benefit alone; it is a form of self-delusion/fantasy that allows the individual something else to look at rather than who they really are. There may also be times when another person directly or indirectly questions the Narcissist’s projection of this image e.g. by asking them how many paintings they have sold recently etc. This genuine question may be seen by the Narcissist as an attack on the personality/persona they have created for themselves and so they will have to defend it/themselves. The way they do this is through “Narcissistic Rage”, an extreme emotional response, that seems out of proportion and/or out of place to whatever stimulated it. One characteristic of Narcissistic Rage is that it is directed at an individual, not at any issue. If the rage were in response to a disagreement with somebody, even if the Narcissist had the better arguments and facts, they would discard these, and instead attack the character of the person they were dealing with. The rage is for the benefit of the Narcissist alone. Its role is to protect the image the Narcissist has created, and avoid a complete psychic breakdown, where they would have to look at the “real” them. By “destroying” the other person(s), their image remains intact, in a way that wouldn’t occur if they simply attacked the argument(s). One of the reasons that it is important to understand Narcissism and Narcissistic Rage is that it gives us an insight into bullying. Whilst it would be generally true to say that all Narcissists engage in acts of bullying, it would be wrong to say that all bullies are Narcissists (there are many reasons why people engage in such activities), however bullying often contains components of Narcissistic Rage. Whilst many victims of school bullying are told by their teachers that their bully suffers from low self-esteem etc. to make them feel better about themselves, the truth is that like Narcissists, bullies suffer from a sense of specialness and “grandiosity”, and when they start to question this, they engage in acts of aggression in an attempt to restore their image of themselves. This is sometimes referred to as having high but unstable self-esteem. Often, the aggression is directed at the child/teen who they believe/feel has seen through the façade. When we understand that a lot of incidents of social violence center around the idea of “respect”, and what is demanding of respect is that of an image/persona the person has created for themselves, then we can see how Narcissistic Rage exists not as a “stand alone” feature, but as a type of rage relating to respect (for the created delusional self-image) that exists at the end of a spectrum. We should also recognize how our own self-image may be subject to disrespect and recognize that this may not be directed at the real us, but the us we want to believe that we are. There are those that study martial arts and self-defense, and systems like Krav Maga because it helps to create and maintain an image of power, dominance, invincibility etc. However, this may be a projection of who we want to be rather than who we are, and we need to consider what our response(s) may be when this is questioned.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=505 Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=504 In this article I want to look at why we find it so hard to give something up and/or back down. Most of the fights I’ve seen in my time working door/bar security were escalations of petty disputes, that could have easily been resolved in the early stages of the argument or misunderstanding. However, at some point both parties reached a point where they had bought into the conflict and couldn’t let it go. At that point it was usually inevitable that things would turn physical. What was interesting about this, is that neither party recognized this point, and would usually keep arguing, talking and shouting etc. beyond it, when really somebody should have taken the initiative and acted preemptively to end the physical conflict before it began; at this point the legal conditions for assault, and sometimes battery (unwanted touching) had been met. The purpose of this article is to help us understand the extraordinary lengths we’ll go to when we commit to something – so we can avoid going down this route – and help us to recognize when somebody else is so committed to the “conflict” that they will never back down. People will often put goods up for auction, rather than sell them at a fixed price, because they believe that people will get caught up in the bidding process, and pay more for a product than they might normally – especially if they can up their bid in small increments, such as a dollar, or even fifty cents. Auction/bidding sites like Ebay, rely on this process to increase their revenues (these sites have also made it extremely easy for criminals to dispose of stolen goods quickly, and with little traceability, so if there’s a highly valued product at a ridiculously low price, it’s worth questioning why the seller needs it off their hands so quickly). One experiment designed to illustrate this, and how people can buy into something, and find that they are quickly out of their depth, involves bidding on a twenty dollar note. The rules of the auction are pretty simple: the highest bidder gets the twenty-dollar note, however the next nearest bidder has to pay the seller of the bill, whatever their bid was e.g. somebody might bid $18, which is the winning bid and so they get the twenty dollars, whilst the next highest bid of $17 sees that bidder hand over seventeen dollars to the owner of the twenty dollar bill. Two types of behavior tend to be noted here. Firstly, the risk-averse in the experiment quickly see how they could lose money as they continue to bid higher amounts and so bail out pretty early, however there are normally two or three people in a group who get caught up in the process. What usually happens next is a realization, that in order not to lose nineteen dollars, to a twenty dollar bid, it is necessary to make a bid of twenty one dollars, for the twenty dollar note, which is normally met with a counter bid of twenty two dollars, etc. It’s no longer about winning the twenty dollars, it’s about not coming second place, so that you don’t have to hand over any money – it’s all about not losing. The experiment has seen people bid each other up into the tens of thousands; the more you have to lose, the more you keep bidding. This process demonstrates how small and petty disputes can escalate to the point where deadly force is used, especially when the commodity being bid on is undefinable and unquantifiable, like “respect”. In any dispute, you have to decide what you are prepared to lose, and when that is. The safest course of action is to bail out of the process early, before you have the realization that you may be paying $21 or more for something that is only worth twenty dollars etc. At that point there is no winning, it is simply your ego running the show for you, and that means the situation can go anywhere. We should also recognize that we have certain biases that may prevent us from recognizing when somebody is trying to resolve or get out a dispute i.e. they want to stop “bidding”, whilst we’re so caught up in the process we don’t recognize this. One of the biases that often prevents us from seeing the value of a solution that somebody puts forward is something called “Reactive Devaluation”. This is when you automatically/emotionally refuse somebody else’s resolution to a dispute/conflict because it came from the other party i.e. if you had come up with it yourself you would have deemed it fair, equitable and suitable however you devalue it as a reaction to it coming from the other person. In a heated dispute, rational resolutions can be passed over because we are so caught up in the competition of posturing to exert dominance over the other person. If we fail to recognize a solution that meets some – maybe not all – of our grievances, it is unlikely that we will be presented with a better offer, as a refusal will harden the other person’s opinion of us as being unreasonable, and anything we put forward is likely to be subject to the other party’s reactive devaluation. Understanding how we naturally respond and behave in conflict situations, means we can be aware of the traps that we might unwittingly fall into, and recognize when we are heading for those points when we will discover that we’ve invested too much, and will not be able to extricate ourselves from the dispute. At the same time we should quickly recognize when we are dealing with somebody who is so caught up in the process of conflict, that they quickly reject a resolution presented to them, because they have already passed the twenty dollar bill mark, and are prepared to go on regardless of the personal costs to themselves, which could be significant e.g. risk of injury, legal costs, criminal charges, etc.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=504 Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=503 The low roundhouse kick is one of the few kicks that is fast enough to initiate an attack without first relying on an attacker’s movement e.g. if you were to initiate an attack with a thrusting kick, such as a front kick, against an aggressor who is in a “neutral” position, the chances are that they would see the kick coming and back away; whereas if you were able to cause them to be moving forward, as you threw the kick then you would improve your chances of landing it significantly. Part of the reason why thrusting/stomping kicks are relatively slow, is down to the need to “chamber” the kick before execution. However, with the low roundhouse, the chambering is conducted as the leg is swung in, making it a much faster kick to execute. Although, it is a kick that benefits from accuracy – and there are several muscles on the leg that are extremely susceptible to it – because the leg as a whole offers such a large target, and the shin is a relatively big striking surface, any contact you make is likely to yield something (one of the reasons it can be used well as a pre-emptive or semi-pre-emptive attack e.g. you can launch it straight out, or push somebody back so that when they step forward they offer their front leg as a weight-loaded target). In this article, I want to troubleshoot, some of the key issues I see that hold people back from generating power into the kick. Firstly, it is worth noting that different systems have slightly different ways of throwing the roundhouse kick and all are effective at accomplishing what they are trying to do e.g. sometimes the kick is “hidden” or “disguised” at the expense of power, etc., which doesn’t make it wrong, just different, so I am going to try and focus on the commonalities, rather than get bogged down in the debate of which style has the best kick. Perhaps the biggest loss of power – when maximum power generation is intended - comes from extending the leg too early i.e. the leg is straight, or near straight when it connects with the target. When this happens, the drive-through of the shin into the target, as the leg extends, gets lost somewhat. The goal should be to have the leg still bent as it connects, and one way to check that this is happening is to ensure that the knee has gone past the target, when the shin connects. If you look at where the knee is pointing to that will give you an indication as to the amount of drive you can achieve, as that is the distance between connection and extension. If you are aiming for the upper leg/thigh, your goal should be to compress muscle against bone, so as to “stiffen” the leg, so that your assailant is unable to use it. If you are practicing on a kick shield, or heavy bag, you should feel your shin sink into the bag/shield rather than bounce off it. A partner holding a kicking shield, should feel the pressure of the kick as this happens. You should also make sure that you are not relying on the target, whether it is a bag, shield or somebody’s leg for balance, just as you wouldn’t if you were throwing in hard body shots with your punches. The danger of this is that if your assailant’s leg collapses due to the power of the kick, you will also collapse with it. Maintaining balance and stability when striking, whether kicking or punching is key. There is also sometimes a reluctance to properly turn and pivot on the supporting foot. This pivot allows for your upper body to act as a counterweight, as the leg swings in and drives through. If you think about the Trebuchet Siege Engine, you can get a better idea of how this works. The Trebuchet consisted of a long arm, with a sling that contained rocks and anything else that was intended to be thrown into the defending fortification (this sometimes included dead and diseased animals as an early form of biological warfare). The arm pivoted on a high frame, that had a counterweight at its other end. This would be cranked up, and then dropped. The weight would rapidly pull the arm down, lifting and hurling the contents of the sling up and forwards. If we lay the Trebuchet on its side, we can see how its actions are replicated by the execution of the low roundhouse. We should think about our upper torso as being the counterweight, our supporting foot the pivot point of the arm, the upper leg the arm itself, and the lower leg/shin the sling. As you turn and pivot, the upper body (the back muscles), is going to pull the upper leg round. The lower leg, like the sling, is going to be whipped forward (I try and utilize the centrifugal force generated by the spinning/turning action, to assist in the extension of the leg i.e. I keep everything loose below the knee, until it hits). By using the upper torso, and the pull of the back muscles I can utilize a counter-weight effect to get power into my kicks. To get the full benefit, the shoulder of the kicking leg must come with it, and not be left behind – one way to do this is to make sure that you are pulling with the opposite shoulder in the same way as you would when throwing a straight punch, like a cross. In real-life encounters kicks which can be effective are often hampered in their execution, due to the close range/proximity that characterizes such encounters. One of the benefits of the low roundhouse is that it can easily be thrown, effectively, and with full power within punching range. Like any kick the cost/benefit of throwing it needs to be understood e.g. you are on one leg when throwing it, so whilst you may be balanced, you are not stable etc. You should also understand what your follow up(s) to it should be, because this is not training scenario, where you will kick, retract the leg, come back to stance and then throw it again, and so you must train to place the foot into different positions after making the kick so that you don’t restrict your attacking options.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=503 Mon, 28 Sep 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=502 Most of us have been in arguments/disputes and dealt with aggressive and angry people, and probably most of the time nothing happened e.g. one or both parties walked away. This may not have been the result of good de-escalation and conflict resolution, but was instead down to the fact that neither party was that motivated to escalate the conflict into a physical confrontation. In fire safety, there is the idea of “commitment” that is used to explain why people don’t evacuate buildings when the fire alarm goes off e.g. if a person is in the middle of a meal at a restaurant, as opposed to having just arrived, they are less likely to leave/evacuate the building, as they are more committed in what they are doing. Likewise, in most spontaneous acts of aggression, individuals are more committed to what they were doing before the dispute than to the dispute itself. This is why settings where people have less commitment to what they are doing tend to be more volatile; having a drink at a bar requires less commitment than having a meal at a restaurant or watching a film at a cinema. The alcohol consumed plays it part, but so does the lack of “commitment” required to drinking e.g. a glass can easily be put down and picked up again etc. The question that many people have is if the dispute doesn’t get resolved, what happens next? Where do things go from here? In business negotiations there is the idea of a BATNA, the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. That is, if both parties can’t resolve a dispute or a deal, what happens next. It could be that you are trying to sell your car and having gone to the dealership you know that they will give you $5000 for it, however you think it’s probably worth $6500, and that you could get something closer to that if you sold it privately. So, you set the price for it on Craigslist for $7000. This is referred to as your “Stretch Goal”, and it has to be realistic and credible e.g. if you asked for $12000 in your advert, nobody would take you seriously. You know when you negotiate with a potential buyer that you’re not going to go lower than $5000 because you can walk away from the negotiation and take the dealer up on their offer; that’s your BATNA. The problem is, we often think conflicts and disputes that result in aggression and high emotion follow a similar rational process, where both parties are weighing up the consequences of escalating the incident until it gets physical. Unfortunately, in many conflicts a large part of what is being “negotiated” is respect, which is intangible and means different things to different people. If you spill somebody’s drink over them – especially if they are amongst friends – the dispute/conflict comes down far more to a sense of being disrespected, than the drink itself. However, many people believe that the drink, is what the negotiation is about; and could perhaps be solved by offering some money for dry-cleaning, reducing the conflict to a monetary one, where the other person’s BATNA is zero dollars; and they should be grateful that they’re dealing with a reasonable person who is at least prepared to give them some form of compensation. However, when no “deal” is reached, what happens next? Do both parties simply walk away? That depends how invested they are in the conflict, and what their other “commitments” are. When companies can’t resolve a dispute, the BATNA for both organizations may be mediation (get a third party to help both parties resolve the conflict) or arbitration; have a third-party act as a judge and decide what the resolution to the conflict should be. In an unorganized conflict where there is really nobody to perform such roles, several things can happen. For the injured/wronged party who needs some form of resolution to keep their self-respect intact, their BATNA is probably the use of physical force against the other party. With nothing put on the table, other than the “reasonable” and self-congratulatory offer to buy them another drink, they are left with few face-saving alternatives other than acting violently – and that’s usually what happens next, much to the amazement of the other party, who usually feels they’ve gone above and beyond what they could have done, and because their BATNA is to walk away, they normally end up believing that this is the same for the other party. From my experience what normally happens is that the party who believes they are wronged pauses for a moment – as they make their decision - and then swings a punch. Most people, even if not capable fighters, will believe that they no longer have any alternatives but to fight e.g. they must walk away from the “negotiating table” with something, even if that is only their self-respect, for trying to do something. What happens next is a mess. However prepared you think you are to deal with a punch, it will always come as a bit of a surprise – even if you are expecting it, and waiting for it; this is why your BATNA in this situation should really be to act preemptively, making sure you have put in place the legal requirements to do so i.e. that you can clearly articulate and demonstrate that your assailant was guilty of assault (I have written about how to do this in previous blogs). Whether you act preemptively, or end up responding to the other party’s attack, it will soon turn into a messy affair; you will run out of space to move more quickly than you expect, things will be moving faster than you thought they would, and your punches and strikes won’t be as effective as you thought they should have been. Every class you skipped will haunt you, as you struggle to think what you should do next, as nothing you’ve been taught seems to be working as well as you thought it would, or possibly have been told it would. How it ends is dependent on so many things, with your training being only one component. If you think that’s overly pessimistic, then I’m guessing you’ve never experienced what happens next, and that’s why our training needs to contain it. As well as practicing techniques, stress testing, developing skills, sparring, etc, we need to train potentially violent encounters end-to-end, so that we know what happens next, at each step and juncture. Fights rarely just start, without some form of face-to-face encounter which includes dialogue; it is out of this that most violence occurs, and if we can walk through scenarios looking at the different paths they can run down, we don’t have to wonder what happens next, because we’ve already experienced it in our training. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=502 Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=501 Often people will look at risk as existing on a spectrum, of low to high e.g. sitting in your living room watching TV is a low risk situation/environment, whilst going for a walk in a bad neighborhood late at night is a high risk activity, etc. There is some logic to this, however the danger of categorizing people and situations as being “low” risk, is that we can let predatory individuals fly under our radar and/or we fail to take seriously potential threats that may be in our environment. If I’m walking through a dodgy neighborhood, late at night – and there may be unavoidable, legitimate reasons for this e.g. I have lived in dodgy neighborhoods; I’ve picked up towed vehicles from lots that were in bad neighborhoods, etc. – and somebody who has been leaning against a wall watching me, gets up and crosses the road towards me, I would see the situation as being a “high risk” one. However, if they didn’t get up and cross the road, I wouldn’t classify my situation as being “low risk”. The only way I can categorize my situation, is as one that contains “unknown risks”. I don’t have enough information to know the level of risk, concerning the person who is observing me. I know risk exists, but that risk is unknown, rather than low. In this article I want to look at how we often dismiss or discount things because we don’t see them as being as important as they should be; because we tend to see things on a spectrum of importance, the things that we put on the left of it tend to get overlooked and forgotten. How much do we really know about people? This is not a question that is intended to make you paranoid, or to start suspecting everybody you know of having committed or wanting to commit heinous crimes, etc. What we know of people, is what they present to us. Many people are unaware that Ted Bundy worked voluntarily on a suicide prevention hotline; and apparently, he was very skilled at talking people out of committing suicide. Who knows what his actual motive and motivations for doing so were e.g. was it to have control over somebody’s life and death for a period of time, was it an academic interest he’d developed when studying for his Psychology Degree, or was he was genuinely interested in helping people who’d reached this point in their lives? We’ll never know. However, the man who killed at least 30 women in the 1970’s, appeared to all as a conscious, hard-working and caring individual. Co-workers were shocked at, and many initially disbelieved, the accusations against Bundy. Now, I’m not saying that your co-workers are serial killers. Such individuals are so statistically rare that your chances of coming across/interacting with one are slim to zero; and you don’t need to put any specific security precautions and protocols in place to protect yourself from them i.e. your general safety measures are sufficient to keep you safe. The point is, we aren’t aware of the dark fantasies of others. I am sure that Brock Turner’s father couldn’t equate his son’s sexual assault of an unconscious student, with the person who he used to have breakfast with; his actions must have been an uncharacteristic “mistake” rather than the expression of a dark fantasy. For many people, both Bundy and Turner would have been categorized as being “low risk” individuals. Although there was nothing to identify them in their daily lives as being “high risk” predators, it would have been safer to interact with them as having an “unknown risk”. Our standard definition of “Stranger” is a little too loose to be useful from a self-protection/safety standpoint. We tend to view strangers as people we don’t know, however people can be familiar to us in one aspect of our lives, yet strangers to us in others. People who worked with Ted Bundy, took classes with Brock Turner, etc., knew how those individuals behaved and acted in particular settings, but they didn’t know how either would respond in others. A co-worker might have thought it would be safe to take a ride with Ted Bundy, or a classmate to have Brock Turner walk them home after a party, however these were situations and contexts they’d never experienced these individuals in before. Neither person would immediately have been thought of as being strangers to the people who “knew” them. If Ted Bundy had ever offered a co-worker a ride in his car, I’m pretty sure they would have seen it as a “low risk” event/affair, when really the situation should have been seen as containing “unknown risks”. Predatory Catholic priests traded on their respect and trust in one context to be translated to another i.e. being left alone with children/teenagers. They weren’t seen as strangers, and I’m sure parents viewed situations when their kids were alone with them as being “low risk” situations. The term “stranger” needs to be contextualized, and be a role that somebody can have ascribed to them in different situations i.e. it’s somebody who you haven’t experienced in a specific situation before e.g. an individual may not be a stranger in a work setting, but if you’ve never been alone with them in a bar (they’ve asked you on a date), then in that setting they are i.e. that is a situation that contains unknown risks. This is the problem with using spectrums to calculate risk, especially where people are concerned. You’d probably be perfectly safe with Ted Bundy in a public gathering or event, but you’d certainly not want to let yourself be isolated with him – such as going for a drive – however nice you thought he was through your interactions with him at work, or because he seemed to have a heart for worthwhile causes, etc. Thinking that being alone with him would be a low risk affair, is to fail to recognize that high and low risk don’t actually exist, and there are only high risk incidents where the threats are evident, and situations where the risk(s) are unknown. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=501 Mon, 14 Sep 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=500 Say’s Law states that supply creates its own demand i.e. when products and services are put out into the marketplace, demand will naturally and automatically be created for these things e.g. most mobile phone users don’t “demand” that their iPhone camera needs a higher resolution or are even aware of what may be possible, and instead wait for Apple to supply them with a new phone that is rich in these features. A consequence of this Law/Theory is that to increase economic growth, production – not demand - needs to increase. The underground/illegal economy works in the complete reverse; it is an increase in the demand for stolen goods, that increases the rate of theft and other property crimes, and leads to an increase/growth in the crime rate; and the growth in the black market. This is one of the reasons why we see an increase in property crimes during recessions. People who would not usually buy stolen goods, or goods whose origins they may be suspicious of, start to do so, due to economic hardships; this is especially true around the Christmas holiday season where there may be a social pressure to buy presents, etc. Having done some work in store security, the weeks leading up to Christmas sees a notable uptake in shoplifting. In this article, I want to take a look at property crimes at a higher level, looking at how stolen goods markets operate, and how different players fit into them, and the different roles they play. Somebody engaged in property theft, such as a burglar, is generally involved in a three step process: firstly, they must steal/acquire property, secondly they must turn what they’ve stolen into cash (unless they were specifically stealing it for their own use/consumption), and then use that cash to pay for the products and services they require, which may be for drugs or to engage in other illegal activities; as well as to meet personal needs, such as paying rent, buying food etc. This third phase, although a seemingly obvious one, is actually important to understand, because it is often this that provides the motivation to commit a crime, or series of crimes, etc. Most of the time, criminals aren’t offending, and whilst an easy opportunity is unlikely to be passed up, it is at times when they need money that they start actively looking to offend e.g. it’s a few days until the rent is due, and they don’t have the money to pay their landlord etc. So, it is usually events such as these that start the process of offending. However, to turn the stolen goods into cash, they need to have a buyer(s). This could be a known fence, who they have worked with before, a secondhand shop owner who doesn’t ask too many questions (because they know their customers don’t either), or they have their own “market” that they can sell to - it was not uncommon in certain pubs I used to work at in the North of England, for known individuals to come in and quite openly sell stolen goods acquired through shoplifting; some of which had been stolen to order. Research has shown that those who steal goods rarely hold them for more than a few hours, wanting to be rid of any evidence that could convict them, and in need of the cash, which motivated them to offend in the first place. There are many people who will consider themselves above buying stolen goods, and yet are happy to use pirated software, and use illegal download sites for music without batting an eyelid or considering that what they are doing is illegal. I remember many years ago attending a business convention where there were representatives from Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and other large software companies, who were trying to convince those who did business in the Far East not to use illegal copies of their software etc., but to pay the market rate instead. One business owner made the point that at the cost of licensing that these software companies charged, they didn’t have a legitimate market in these countries because most of the small/medium sized companies couldn’t afford to pay for them; and if they changed their licensing models to reflect this, then perhaps companies would start paying i.e. nobody wanted to be on the wrong side of the law. There tends to be a similar case, with those who buy stolen goods e.g. a person would like to have a 48-inch, state of the art, flat-screen TV, but not at the price Walmart and the other big box stores are charging. If Walmart dropped their price by 60%, then it would be preferable to buy legitimately. People also tend to have a funny disconnect in how they view those who commit the property crime, and those who trade in stolen goods. Whilst residential burglars are looked down upon and generally despised, those who fence/buy-and-sell their goods are often looked on as cunning entrepreneurs in the communities where they operate; as generous individuals who are serving the public by offering them goods at a price they can afford.   One of the great ironies regarding the buying of stolen goods, is that it creates a form of self-victimization e.g. a local shop may have to adjust its prices to accommodate a certain level of theft/shoplifting, meaning that the community as a whole absorbs the costs. Markets for stolen goods, tend to be close to where the goods are stolen from, so members of a local community are likely buying goods that have been stolen from a fellow community member – and if demand for such goods is high, it might be their house which is broken into next. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=500 Mon, 07 Sep 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=499 One of the things that first drew me to Krav Maga was its emphasis on aggression. I’ve always believed that fighting/self-defense was a mix of three things: simple techniques, physical fitness and an aggressive mindset – the last one being the most important of the three. I also liked the fact that Krav Maga training had a “Cosher Kravi”/Combat Fitness element to it, though in some styles and systems this is often over-emphasized, and/or gets confused with self-defense/fighting e.g. 100 punches on a tombstone pad, followed by 50 Burpees etc. is a great fitness workout – and obviously has its benefits, such as getting you to work/operate when exhausted - but it’s not actually training you to improve your technical fighting abilities, as you’re not concentrating on punching/striking form and accuracy etc. when you do these drills. Aggression, although extremely important and worthy of its own training time, is not a substitute for striking power, accuracy and speed, it’s something that should be trained in addition to these things. Simply putting more “effort” into a punch, doesn’t make it a better punch, and this can get overlooked, especially when putting more effort into a strike can make it “feel” like it’s a better strike. Just because you feel that a punch has power, doesn’t mean that it does, it’s the result of the strike that tells you how effective it was. In this article I want to look at two elements of punching/striking that are deserving of their own individualized training time: accuracy and power. If your strikes aren’t accurate, then it doesn’t matter how fast or powerful they are. If you can’t land a punch/strike, it was a waste of time and effort throwing it. This is an obvious statement but it’s worth taking a moment to recognize its significance, and how we may have created a “gap” in our training methods. A kick/striking shield is a huge target, and one that is almost impossible to miss. I say almost impossible, because I’ve seen people whose accuracy is so bad, that there are times when their strikes don’t properly connect e.g. a knee hits the bottom of the pad, rather than the front of it, etc. One of the effects of adrenaline is that your field of vision shrinks, making targets appear smaller than they are e.g. an assailant’s head will shrink to the size of a tennis ball. If you haven’t practiced accuracy in striking because most of your pad-work involves relatively large striking surfaces, then you may find that when you’re involved in a real-life confrontation, where you are having to strike a small, moving object, such as the head that you lack the skills and abilities to do so. Your aggression and fitness aren’t a substitute for this. To deliver concussive force, you need to be able to connect with your strikes, and training this is a worthwhile pursuit. Working with hook and jab mitts (especially micro-mitts) and double-end bags etc. will help develop these skills. We should not be so arrogant as to not look at how other systems train these skills, and replicate those methods. Aggression is not a substitute for power generation, especially if you are dealing with somebody who has been punched before. For most people, the greatest effect of being punched is the shock of it. Most people emotionally crumble when punched, rather than being physically incapacitated; the one-punch knockouts that grace social media are not representative of striking in general. There is also a reduced marginal effect in this regard: if somebody starts to realize that your striking lacks power, although being initially shocked, this will start to wear off as further strikes are experienced. If your strategy is to try and wear somebody down by throwing multiple strikes that lack power, be aware that there are people you are going to meet who won’t be affected by this strategy. There is a place for clustering less powerful strikes closer together to overwhelm an assailant, and this may act well as creating a “distraction” that in turn creates an opportunity for you to then disengage, however if you find yourself in a more prolonged encounter, you are going to want to deliver strikes/punches that have power. This means being able to transfer weight effectively. If you look at a strike such as a “jab”, the punch connects as the foot which steps forward, strikes the ground. That means all the weight being transferred forward, goes into the strike/punch. If the punch connects before this moment, a good percentage of the potential power has been lost i.e. there hasn’t been a full shift of weight. This idea of maximizing power through shifting weight often gets lost when people become overly aggressive – they are so intent at making the punch, that they lose the discipline (or never understood it), of moving the arm and the body together. There can also be an over-focus on delivering power forward, with power generation not being trained in different directions, such as laterally and/or backwards. Some people have the idea that moving backwards is “retreating” and isn’t something that you want to do, however there are times that you might jam up with an assailant, and need to create the space to deliver power punches/strikes – something you may not be able to do if you are right up against your assailant; there are obviously other strikes you can perform at this range, but if somebody is covering/protecting themselves well, these may not always be as effective as you would like. Because you are moving back, it can be hard to get bodyweight into your punch i.e. your weight is moving in the opposite direction. One way to add your body into the strike, is to drop your weight as you step back, and change the level of your punch from the head to the stomach (body shots are also a good option, if you lack accuracy as you are dealing with a larger target than the head). The simplest way to do this, is to lift your rear leg, and step backwards and down as you make your punch – again the foot should land, as your arm extends towards/impacts the target. To generate power laterally, for hooks and slicing elbows etc. your stance needs to have width, as you will want to be able to transfer weight from one foot to the other, as you make your strike; many people’s stance is too narrow to accomplish this, which is why they lack power in these strikes/punches. Again, we should look to utilize the tools that other systems use to generate these skills, such as the heavy bag and/or kick shield. As important as aggression training is, it should not be confused with skills development. Skills development needs to occur in a much more “clinical” environment, when you’re not exhausted and able to focus and concentrate on the components that make up accuracy and power. We should also use the right tools for the job e.g. a kick/strike shield is great for developing power, but not a great tool for training accuracy etc. In a real-life confrontation we want to be able to utilize everything, recognizing that it is our training which at the very least levels the playing field somewhat. If we are relying solely on aggression, and our assailant can match us with that, then we have no advantage over them. If we can bring superior skills and abilities as well, that’s when we might start to have an edge. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=499 Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=498 Richard Felson, who has done some of the most comprehensive research into violence, uses the “potato chip” principle, to explain decision-making as it relates to crime and violent offending. The idea is that no one can eat just one potato chip; once you’ve started eating one, you are going to continue to a certain point, and at some point you may lose control, and continue eating even when you know you should stop i.e. you make a decision to continue, even when you know you shouldn’t – it’s bad. From a crime/violence prevention perspective, the trick is to stop somebody from eating that first chip, because after that it becomes harder to stop, etc. I used to see this a lot when I worked bar/door security where an accident, such as bumping into somebody, became a disagreement, then a minor dispute, until it erupted into a full-blown physical altercation. A situation that could have been easily avoided, if one of the parties had taken the decision not to eat the first chip. In this article, I want to share an incident from my youth, where I nearly got caught for my involvement in a break-in/burglary, due to the process of one bad decision after another/not being able to stop eating the chips, once I’d started. It can be hard to identify the tipping-point decision, that sets you off on a certain route, and a moment of hesitation/reflection can often make the difference between exiting a situation and finding yourself in far too deep. I wasn’t a bad kid, but I lived in a district/area where there were a good number of “bad” kids, and it was the type of community where we all pretty much knew each other; making it hard to avoid some of the more troublesome/dangerous characters. There were several pubs that turned a blind eye to underage drinking and having been able to grow a full beard since I was fourteen, I didn’t have much trouble blending in with older drinkers. One Friday night, myself and a friend were having a quiet drink (the trick to not being called out when you’re underage), when one of the older – and more reckless - members of our district, came and joined us. He normally ran with an older set, but this night he was on his own. Neither myself nor my friend, had ever had much to do with him, but he turned out to be entertaining, and when last orders were called (this was in the era when the pubs shut at 11 pm), he invited us back to his house to continue drinking – the first potato chip. Around 1 AM, after playing cards whilst listening to Frank Sinatra, we ran out of booze. I remember a guy I used to work with, who had at one stage in his life run an illegal/unlicensed bar, telling me that seemingly respectable people who wanted to keep drinking but had run out of money to do so, would do anything, and I mean anything, to get a drink (he had a lot of crazy stories to backup this claim) i.e. any rationale that was previously there went with the need for another drink. My immature 16-year old brain was caught in the same position, and I was ready to accept any idea, that meant continuing drinking, as a good one. So, when our host suggested that we could easily break into the house next door and acquire his neighbor’s wine and whisky collection, this seemed the most logical thing to do. If anyone tells you they can pick locks, and this is the most efficient and effective way to break-in to a property, they have little to no experience of getting into places they should not. There are far simpler, more direct, and easier ways to get past a door than picking the lock – and this is something to note concerning building security. Many doors are installed incorrectly from a security perspective, with gaps that shouldn’t be there, etc., and/or spaces that get created over time as the weight of the door starts to pull on its hinges. Anyone who is skilled at breaking and entering (without simply breaking the door down) will look for these vulnerabilities to exploit first, as they are far quicker than picking the lock; lock picking may be a great party-piece but it’s certainly not a go-to strategy. However, at 16-years old, I didn’t know any of this, and when somebody with a reputation as a criminal, tells you they can easily pick a lock you start to think you are in the company of Raffles – especially when you’ve had a few to drink. The three of us – because we wanted to be able to carry as many bottles as we could – made our way out of the house, and under the cover of a garden hedge (or what we thought would give us cover), made our way to the back door of the neighbor’s house, where a series of unsuccessful attempts to pick the lock were made. After about 5 minutes, I saw the blue lights (no sirens) of a police cruiser pull up, and at that point we ran. We were close enough that I heard the car doors open and slam, by the time we were moving, and we had at least two officers give chase, as I could hear them shouting to each other. I was at the back, blindly following my friend who was following our host – the only one who knew where he was going. I remember realizing that we were going to get caught. It’s sometimes easier to chase somebody than to be chased, as you only have to follow them. This is especially true if they aren’t sure of the area, and need to make decisions, etc. - and that was certainly the position we were in, as we started to bunch up, running into each other. We suddenly turned down the side of a house, that had trees planted close to it, so that the branches created a curtain that had to be pushed aside. That’s when the police gave up the chase. To this day, I’m not sure why and wonder if there was a moment of apprehension about following three people, one of whom was quite well built, into an area where they could have potentially been ambushed. We kept running and made our way across another neighbor’s back yard, before falling through our host’s backdoor which he’d left open, and then quickly closing/locking it. At almost the same time flashlights started to light up the back yard of his house, and those of both neighbors. We all stayed low, crouched behind furniture, as flashlights appeared at the windows. Some time shortly afterwards, we heard the police going door to door, asking people if they’d seen/heard anything etc., and then they came to our host’s door asking him the same; to this day I’m sure they knew that he was involved, and that there were other people in the house – which he denied – but realized this wasn’t an incident worth pursuing. I remember in the early morning, as my friend and I walked back to our respective homes, talking about the potential consequences if we’d been caught e.g. we’d probably have been expelled from school, and part of our plan had already been to get out and escape from the path of crime that many of our friends were already on. One bad decision/one potato chip led to another, and fortunately for us there were no consequences. There are plenty of opportunities in life to say and do the wrong thing e.g. the smart remark we feel the need to make to someone who has somehow got in our way, etc., however, in many cases we don’t know the road that this may take us on. A “potato chip” may look tasty, and we tell ourselves just one, but bad decisions tend to follow on bad decisions.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=498 Mon, 24 Aug 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=497 At the macro level, security (to be secure), comprises of two facets: the absence of threats, and the absence of fear i.e. to be truly secure, there must objectively be no apparent dangers that we will have to face in our daily lives, and subjectively, we must be able to go about our business, and live our lives without feeling/believing that we are in danger – the UN in 1994 developed a fairly comprehensive definition of “Security” that included the rights and freedom for individuals to develop their full potential etc. From a risk management/mitigation perspective at the personal – not macro – level it is acknowledged that we have few opportunities to reduce or eliminate threats e.g. as an individual you lack the capability to effect the number of muggers and burglars in your locale etc. You do however have the opportunity to reduce your vulnerabilities, that such “threats” could deliberately or inadvertently take advantage of, such as being distracted whilst on your phone, or closing an open window, etc. However, part of the security equation, is the absence of fear, and that is what I want to address in this article, by looking at certain fallacies that many people have concerning crime and violence. It is very easy to get distracted by dramatic crimes, especially where violence is concerned. The media often engages in what is known as the “horror-distortion sequence”. This is where a graphic and horrific story is picked up on, and then run with the goal of “entertaining” the public/their audience. This “myth” is then built on, until a new baseline has been created, and we accept that the extreme is the new normal. It is not just the media that is responsible for starting theses moral panics, academic and professional communities are also responsible for having engaged in them. In the 1980’s the phenomena of False Memory Syndrome (FMS), resulted in many adults becoming convinced that they had been sexually abused as children; and in several cases bringing criminal and civil charges against their parents. This led many people to believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) was far more common and prevalent than it was, and to also question whether they had been abused as children and had simply repressed those traumatic memories. FMS occurs when an individual objectively believes/becomes convinced that they have experienced something in the past, usually due to some form of “suggestion” in a therapy session (or through the “guidance” of psychologically unsound self-help books), but the incident/event never occurred. Memories are extremely malleable, however sure we are of them – in fact, conviction, cannot be used as a mark of accuracy, as has been shown from many inaccurate accounts by convinced witnesses, who were absolutely certain of what they saw and heard. A showdown in a 1990 court case between expert witnesses, Dr Elonore Terr, and Dr Elizabeth Loftus, that resulted in the conviction of George Franklin for first-degree murder, based solely on a suppressed/repressed memory of his daughter, brought this discussion/debate to the foreground. Fortunately, it’s now better understood, and accepted, that we can create memories that we believe in, and that memory alone is rarely reliable in establishing accuracy. However, an acceptance of pseud-science, and the media’s “horror-distortion sequence”, led many to believe they had been victimized, and that child sexual abuse was more common/rampant than it is/was.     Although we can have unrealistic expectations, concerning the types of victimization that may happen to us – most criminal acts are mundane and ordinary, such as property thefts etc. – we may also have unrealistic expectations about our objective security, and the role and effectiveness of law and order in preventing and reducing crime - another common fallacy that many people hold to. It is worth noting that in almost all cases a crime is committed first and then, sometimes, the criminal justice system becomes aware of it, and in some cases is able to act. Many people believe that an overall increase in patrolling by police is effective in reducing offending, however consistent among most major studies, is that when the police do significantly increase their presence in a jurisdiction, neither offenders nor civilians notice that this has happened. This is because when you consider the scale of policing even a small city, it is impossible, even by doubling the number of officers, to “double” the police presence, because of the size of the area that needs to be covered – you may theoretically get a reduced response time, as statistically there is more likelihood of an officer being close to you, but in actually making the public and criminals aware of an upped police presence, this can only be achieved by concentrating manpower at certain known hotspots, and specific locations/routes etc. Rarely, are crimes prevented by the presence of an officer, as criminals know that a law enforcement officer, will at some point have to move on as part of the job. I understand that many cities are understaffed and resourced, however increasing the number of officers on patrol has been shown to have a little effect on deterrence, other than when patrols have been focused in distinct areas. The crimes we are likely to face and have to deal with are more likely to be the mundane than the dramatic e.g. a bag snatch, our phone pickpocketed or grabbed, etc., and most muggings and street robberies are unlikely to involve a displayed weapon. Even most home invasions are not that, but mistaken individuals breaking into what they think is their own property, etc. Whilst we shouldn’t discount these threats and dangers, the same precautions that will protect our home from burglary are likely to do the same for other types of crime as well. We should have realistic expectations of the situations we are most likely to be involved in, and plan/prepare accordingly. We should also recognize that in most cases the police are responding after an event rather than during, and that it is up to us to initially deal with most criminal encounters and situations. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=497 Mon, 17 Aug 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=496 A fight is a dirty business. Real-life confrontations are messy, and are rarely solved in one go e.g. you perform a particular technique, it works, and you’re safe, etc. In reality, you fight, bit by bit, to gain an advantage, you build upon it, and gradually you start to improve on your situation. If someone ever tells you, that you just do this or that, and then suddenly you’re in command and control of everything, be very suspicious about that person’s actual experience. In most instances “tools” rather than “techniques” are what you use to protect and extricate yourself from violence, and it is these things which need to be trained and practiced, along with developing the creativity, and recognizing the opportunities to use them. In this article, I want to look at some simple tools that have a high pay-off, when coupled with aggression and a survival mindset (the things which really get them to work). Although these tools may not require much skill for them to have an effect, I believe they become most useful when combined with powerful strikes that can be used to deliver concussive force, etc. I can’t recall ever having someone not pull their head back from a thumb in the eye. In my time working security in pubs and clubs, I used to use this to break balance, and set up my O-Soto-Gari i.e. my Major Outer Reap. I used to grab the side of the head, and then drive my thumb into an assailant’s eye, to move them in order to load weight onto the leg, I would then reap. In listening to some people talk about fighting and self-defense on social media, it’s as if nobody knew how to fight before MMA and Krav Maga were discovered; and I say that as a fan of the former and an instructor of the latter. Most violent altercations close distance very quickly, and however good your control of range/distance is, in many settings the environment will restrict/reduce your ability to do so e.g. imagine you are attacked in a subway car, on a bus, or a crowded space, etc. This often means you end up clinched/tied up with your assailant at ranges where it is difficult to deliver powerful strikes. By pushing a thumb forcibly into somebody’s eye, and pushing their head backwards, you may create for yourself the room and space to start delivering elbow strikes and headbutts, etc. I was once asked at a seminar how hard you push a thumb into the eye. The basic answer is keep pushing and pushing until you get a response, and then keep pushing i.e. it is your attacker’s responsibility to pull themselves away from the pressure, not yours to reduce it. Elbows can be used, not just to deliver concussive force, but to drive, scrape and cut. I have used elbows to drive/push people away e.g. if you are in some form of front bear hug, where an assailant is burying their face so you can’t reach the eyes etc. getting your elbow up into the side of a person’s head, and using your other arm to push it, is a good way to slide, scrape and poke your elbow into somebody’s face, in order to force them to pull away or readjust their grip/position. It’s not a solution in and of itself, but it’s a tool that can be used as part of a solution. After making a concussive strike with the elbow, don’t just retract it, but instead slide it down, using it to cut/rip the relatively thin skin of the attacker’s face. If you can cut the lips open, they will bleed and bleed and bleed, and people are rarely comforted by the sight of their own blood. In the heat of the moment, it is unlikely that they will take a comprehensive inventory of their own injuries and are more likely to assume things are more serious than they are i.e. a cut lip. Heads are  also useful as tools to grind into an attacker’s face, such as against their nose, or around their eye sockets; and although they don’t have the same cutting effects as elbows, if you are looking to create space, using your forehead to drive into the sensitive areas of the face is a good and simple way of achieving this goal. Fingers and thumbs are a great way to reposition somebody’s head to improve the effects of your striking. Lifting up the head by using the thumb under the nose – with your fingers driving into the eyes, is a good way to put an attacker in a vulnerable position, for your punches and elbows etc. These are things that we often forget because they aren’t allowed in sparring, or are against the rules in most combat sports, etc. and there are good reasons that they are banned i.e. they have the potential to cause serious damage, and that they don’t require much skill to be effective. When watching a combat sport, we generally want the most skilled and talented fighter to win, not the one who’s simply ripping and gouging at the other one’s face with extreme aggression; possibly whilst biting their ear off. I’m not somebody who believes that aggression is a substitute for skills, or that a thumb strike is more effective than a punch etc. I am a big believer in developing fighting skills, which includes being able to generate concussive force through punching and striking, however in our journey to develop these things, we should not forget how other “simpler” things can be used in conjunction with these more “sophisticated” tools to create complete solutions.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=496 Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=495 There are two general ways to look at crime, including acts of violence: we can study, investigate and look at those things which make an offender a criminal, or we can look at the situational components that contribute to incidents of crime. Most habitual offenders, like most people in general, spend most of their time engaged in non-offending activities, and so for preventing crime, it may be more profitable to look at what things need to occur in order for an offense to take place, rather than analyze the psychological and social history, etc., of the offender; an interesting pursuit, but one that might fail to reveal any actionable measures that could be used to reduce our risk of victimization. In this article I want to look not at why people commit crimes in general, but what makes an individual commit a crime in a particular moment, whether that’s an act of violence, a property theft or an act of vandalism, etc. If we can understand the decision-making process that individuals engage in before committing an offense, it may be possible for us to put in place measures that would lead them to behave/act in a different way i.e. choose an alternative to offending in that moment; which does not mean that they won’t commit future offenses, etc. There is much discussion about the degree to which crime is a rational act e.g. how much of the decision to commit an offense is driven by emotion, such as the thrill-seeking aspect that many juveniles who engage in auto thefts mention as a large part of their motivation, and how much is clinically rationale, where an armed robber might carefully select certain drugstores, and pass over others, based on a well-considered risk assessment, etc. To commit an offense, a decision has to be made to do so, and so even where emotion plays a significant part, there has to be a degree of rationality. It is important to note that when talking about crime as a rational choice, this does not mean that an offender will be in possession of all the facts that should affect their decision making e.g. many economic models that look to explain how the free market work, operate from the basis that a consumer is in possession of all the prices for a particular good, and will choose the lowest price, etc. In considering the choices those committing offenses make, it is more productive to talk about “bounded rationality” where an offender is in possession of some of the pertinent facts concerning the offense they are about to commit, but not all of them. Sometimes, people believe they are in possession of certain facts, when they are clearly misguided e.g. many people believe that the legal definition of an “assault” requires contact to be made, not understanding that the contact part is defined as “battery” etc. I also see many instructors instruct their students to head stomp after taking a person to the ground, because they “may” have a weapon, not understanding that physically a “separation” has occurred, and that conjecture is not a good legal defense. Bounded rationality accepts that actors in a crime, may be making their rational choices using inaccurate and incomplete information – and that emotion can and does play a part in decision making, but moreso in expressive, rather than instrumental crimes. There are three general things which are considered by offenders in their decision-making process, these are: risk, reward, and ease. For most of us, if we were going to commit a crime, such as break into a house and commit a burglary, it would be because we needed money to pay for a child’s surgery, etc. That is, we can justify our decision morally to ourselves. We might then start to search for a particular property and weigh up the potential monetary rewards of breaking into it, against the risk of being caught, etc. We might then scout several similar properties that offer the same risk/reward ratio, and look at which one of these would be the easiest to break into, etc. We might choose properties that are like the one we live in, so we’d have a greater familiarity with the layout, and choose an area we are familiar with, so that escaping afterwards would be easier. For many habitual offenders, risk and reward are secondary considerations to ease/effort and this is an important factor to consider in crime prevention and reduction. Many people still leave windows open in the Summer, because they believe that it would be too risky for somebody to climb in without being seen, etc. However, when we consider that ease and lack of effort trump such risks, it is quickly understood why an offender would eagerly take advantage of this available opportunity. We have to understand that our decision-making process, where our greatest concern is getting caught, isn’t held or replicated by those who regularly offend. Understanding that it is the reduction of easy opportunities that is the most influential factor in reducing crime, means that it is our consistent safety habits and protocol – such as shutting windows and keeping doors looked – which will keep us safe. Unfortunately, many people over time will start to make exceptions e.g. they will forget to shut a window, and nothing happens, because at that time there were no motivated offenders in their locale. Not shutting windows then starts to become a thing, and whilst there is a lack of individuals looking to commit a crime, there are no consequences. Then one day, a break-in occurs, and the homeowner appears baffled as to why this happened, as they’ve always left that window open, etc. It is the reduction of easy opportunities which is the most important factor in protecting ourselves and our assets. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=495 Mon, 03 Aug 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=494 I was asked a few days ago, how I’ve changed my training over the years as I’ve got older, so I thought I’d share my experiences – as to how I’ve adapted and changed what I’ve done over the years, along with how I’ve tried to manage and mitigate injuries etc. At the time of writing this, I’m 48 years old, and have been practicing martial arts since I was eight years old, starting with Judo. I started lifting weights when I was eighteen and continue to do so. Up until the past couple of years, I used to run regularly i.e. 2-3 times a week. So that’s my basic exercise history. When I was in my twenties, my focus was solely on performance. I was lifting weights with the goal of putting extra pounds on the bar, whilst maintaining my same bodyweight – this had been my mentality as a competitive Judoka (even though a back injury took me out of high level competing when I was 22), where I wanted to get stronger but not heavier; as I didn’t want to move up weight classes. This meant that most of my lifting was to “educate” my muscles to engage more in a lift, rather than to bulk up like a body builder, so most of my lifting was based around the Olympic Lifts, such as cleans and snatches. I used to supplement this with Kettlebell training. This was at a time when, certainly in the UK, there wasn’t much knowledge about Kettlebells, and I had to get mine made by a blacksmith in the North of England (my first pair of 24 Kg bells looked like cannonballs with a thick handle attached to them). I also used to do a lot of what was referred to at the time as “rogue” training, which is basically what Crossfit is now – ironically when Crossfit first started up their intended goal was to move people out of commercial gyms and get/certify people to be able to train themselves at home, in their garage, rather than setup franchises, etc. However, all this explosive training, started to get more difficult as I got older, and reduced the amount of time I could train martial arts effectively, because the recovery from it did not really suit an older body. When people are planning lifting routines, they often forget that the nervous system needs to recover as well, and are baffled because they’re exhausted in their chest/shoulder workout, even though they’ve been training their back and legs over the previous days. As you get older, your nervous system, which is needed to recruit the muscles in order to lift, needs longer to recover, and so when I lift now, I’ve found doing four sets of four, lifting heavy, takes less out of me than say three sets of eight at a much lower weight. Also, by focusing on a few reps in a set, I can concentrate on each lift without my mind drifting, which means my form is better, and there is less chance of injury. In the past 10 years, much of my lifting has moved to Strongman exercises, which are more “natural” and kinder to the body, even though more weight is often being lifted than in conventional lifting, etc. Using a log, or the Viking Press, to do overhead work is much kinder to the shoulders than lifting an Olympic bar and plates (something I haven’t done in probably 5 years). Using the full body to lift, rather than trying to isolate a particular muscle group, is using and working the body as it was intended to be worked. Since lifting stones, rather than bars, I’ve had zero back injuries. I also don’t deadlift with the Olympic Bar anymore, but use the Trap Bar instead. This is something I wish I’d always done. Unless you are looking to compete, where lifting with the straight bar is part of the competition, if there’s a Trap Bar available I’d recommend using it every time – to not be leaning over a bar, but have the weight be distributed under you is so much healthier/safer for your back. I’ve never enjoyed stretching. I’ve always seen it as time that could be spent lifting, running etc. however developmental stretching is one of those things I’ve started to engage with more. As you get older, the collagen fibers start to tighten up and this can restrict your mobility, so developmental stretching becomes important. This isn’t the token 30-seconds of hamstring stretches, where you bend at the waist and touch the floor – which isn’t a stretch at all, but an eccentric contraction of the hamstrings, that feels like a stretch but isn’t (to stretch a muscle it has to have no weight on it) – but dedicated time where you hold the stretch, and relax into it. Since regularly doing hamstring work, I’ve had much less lower back pain; something that I’ve suffered from since I was eighteen and pronated my first disc. At the moment, I have severe bicep tendonitis in my left arm, and I know that part of the reason I have it is from not stretching after lifting – a muscle can only start to recover, when it returns to its natural length, and there’s been many occasions where I haven’t given enough recovery time to parts of my body, before hitting them again. Perhaps the biggest shift in my training is less about how than when. I used to have a very aggressive training regime, where I trained almost every day; regardless of how I felt. I don’t do that anymore. When my body feels good, I train, when it doesn’t, I don’t. I have found that this mentality requires more discipline than sticking to a fixed/structured regime, as when your body allows you a training opportunity you have to take it, because you never know when it won’t. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=494 Mon, 27 Jul 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=493 Detecting deception can be difficult since there are several different strategies a person can employ to hide the truth and/or sell an alternative account of events, etc. Whilst they can overtly/directly falsify details, they can also exaggerate facts, omit and conceal information, and mislead and misdirect, which may also involve deliberately failing to correct a person’s misunderstanding concerning them and/or an incident. In many cases, several – and sometimes all – of these strategies will be combined to tell an untruthful story/account. This makes detecting deception problematic since there cannot be a simple and singular test for determining the truth when multiple strategies may be at play. Coupled with this is our general inability to determine fact from fiction when we actively try to do so; studies show that when we directly try to identify deceit, we are no better at doing so than chance. However, if we are tasked with indirectly detecting deception, we do a lot better e.g. if we try to ascertain whether somebody is thinking longer than usual about what they are saying, or are thinking too hard when answering a question, etc. – our rates actually rise to about 75%. It seems that we are not so good at determining the truth, as we are at recognizing the “indirect” actions and behaviors connected with lie telling. In this article, I want to look at how recognizing the use of pronouns and determining whether somebody is using an active/passive voice can help guide us in determining whether somebody might be lying or not. It is worth noting that these things may indicate deception, but they cannot categorically determine it – only concrete evidence, or an admittal/confession can do this. Pronouns are generally used to replace proper nouns, and make our sentences, whether spoken or read, easier to follow e.g. rather than say, “…and then Paul drew a knife, and after that Paul ran around looking for people to stab.”, we might change it to, “…and then Paul drew a knife, and then he ran around looking for people to stab.” i.e. we replace the second use of “Paul” to “he”. However, from a psycholinguistic perspective, pronouns can be used to distance somebody from their actions and/or allow them to make statements that they do not have to own. Some lies may seem innocuous or aimed at charming somebody in order to make them more receptive to a request. Many predatory individuals use charm as a device, to get their potential/intended victims to like being with them; who does not like to be around people who have nice things to say about you? However, having an indication as to whether that charm is purely superficial or whether there may be some genuineness and authenticity behind it, may help us identify someone who is using charm in a purely transactional way. If somebody says, “I really like what you have done with your hair”, they are speaking in the first person and are owning their statement, however if somebody says, “your hair looks nice”, they are speaking in the second person, and making an observation that they don’t actually own i.e. they are making a statement without inserting their relationship to it, which makes it a much more superficial compliment. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it indicates harmful intent, but that it is more likely to be said as oil to grease the wheels of conversation in order to accomplish some short/long-term goal as opposed to a sincere statement that is able to stand on its own. Pronouns, can also indicate how an individual relates to others e.g. there is a big difference between, “we were shouting at each other”, and, “He was shouting at me, and I was shouting back at him” etc. Using the term “we” suggests that both parties are involved in the act of shouting together, whereas using the pronouns “He” and “I” suggests, that each party was participating as individuals and that there is an absence of a relationship – at least in the moment – between them. Changes in pronoun use can also indicate changes in intimacy and relationship, such as at the start of a statement a person uses the term “we”, to explain the events of the night concerning their partner, but then at a point starts to refer to them as “he”, and they as “I”, when it would have been more natural – and consistent – to use the term “we”. This suggests that at some point during the evening/night there was a degree of distancing and disagreement between them over something. Distancing can also be seen when people start to move from speaking with an active voice to a passive one. Imagine the police are interviewing somebody about the whereabouts of a missing person, because they were the last one to be seen with them at a bar or club. If during the interrogation they make a statement such as, “I was talking to her in the bar, and then she left around closing time”, the person is likely being extremely candid and honest about their relationship with the individual, because they lead with, “I was talking to her” (which also denotes some distance between them as if they were in a more intimate relationship, saying something like, “we were talking together” might be expected). If, however, the individual says, “She left the bar around closing time, after I’d been talking to her”, their reordering of the events, suggests that they are trying to distance themselves to some degree, by emphasizing her leaving rather than the conversation, etc. This might be a more subtle way of destressing the importance of the conversation, rather than omitting it altogether by just saying, “She left the bar around closing time.” These may seem subtle cues in detecting deception, but they can be important indicators. A lot of our speech bypasses any cognitive processes and can reveal a lot about what we are trying to accomplish in a conversation. When engaged in lying, most of our cognitive processes are involved in creating and managing facts, and so we pay little attention to the way we say things – and it is this which can help us discern whether somebody is being deceitful. While these patterns can indicate deceit, it should be remembered that we can only categorically know somebody is telling a lie, if we have knowledge of the real facts and/or they confess to us that this is the case.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=493 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=492 In this week’s article, I want to walk through some Bodycam footage of an incident in Wales (UK), wherein a man threatening self-harm – and eventually the officers that were trying to deal with the incident – was successfully subdued and apprehended. The officer involved in the crisis negotiation did a phenomenal job, in an extremely stressful, and potentially high consequence, situation and demonstrates policing at its best. Policing is both a science and an art, and its science is often downplayed. Hopefully, this analysis of the incident will demonstrate some of the “science” used in crisis negotiation. The footage can be accessed by clicking here The footage starts off with an order that is presented almost as a request and as a favor i.e. “I want you to put the knives down for me”, as opposed to a direct order e.g. “Put the knives down”. The use of “I want”, not even “I need” (which is used later in the process), is the start of establishing a relationship and building rapport with the individual being dealt with, and is one of the first steps in any crisis negotiation attempt. This is not applicable in every situation, but when there’s not an “immediate” danger (and that is different to imminent), and there’s time to talk, it’s an important stage in the de-escalation and conflict resolution process: you de-escalate and take the emotion out of the situation, and then you attempt to resolve the conflict – you cannot resolve a conflict with a highly emotional and volatile individual. The officer acknowledges the body camera when questioned and explains that he is not able to negotiate on whether the incident is filmed or not – not telling the truth such as making out that the camera wasn’t on, as well as creating legal issues (the individual is now being filmed covertly, and without their knowledge), is something that could damage any trust that’s been built, if it was found out later that he’d been lied to. This also represents a good “soft” opportunity for him to draw a line and establish the expectation, on the part of the individual being dealt with, that there are boundaries to the negotiation process. It is often a good idea to set this expectation early on, so that person being dealt with knows that negotiations shouldn’t be interpreted as them getting their own way i.e. it’s a negotiation; there may be things that the officer can agree to do, but there are also going to things that they can’t. Getting somebody to realize this early on, means that they are not going to be surprised later, when their demand of a fast car to a private airfield, etc. is denied. As the man refuses to put the knives down, the request/favor is articulated as an order i.e. “put the knives down for me”, the “I want” is dropped – this is no longer a “request”, but the officer is still maintaining the relationship i.e. he keeps the “for me” in with his demand. He then states, “I don’t want you to harm yourself or anyone else”. This is a demonstration of concern for the person he is dealing with, and contains an inherent “promise” that if the individual complies now he won’t be hurt later; which may be one of his concerns about acquiescing to the officer’s orders/requests. Stating that he does not want “anyone” harmed is a good attempt, to externalize the individual’s view of the world. People who are looking to cause themselves harm, commit suicide etc. do something referred to as “tunneling” where their view of the world shrinks, until the only way they see/understand anything is through their internal and very narrow field of vision. This is also an appeal i.e. “I” do not want anyone harmed, and I do not believe “You” do, etc. The officer for the first time is also acknowledging the consequences of an action; before the person was just holding the knives, now the officer is moving him into the role of an actor who can perform a harmful action. “I want” is now replace with “I need” – a step up in language, based on the individual being identified as someone who is indicating their potential desire and ability to perform a dangerous action. The next question is perhaps one of the most powerful ones that can be asked in the de-escalation process i.e. “Is there anything I can reasonably say or do, that is going to help me and you to put those knives down?” When somebody is emotionally stressed, they understand conflict as either being a matter of posturing and submission, or one of fight or flight. Telling somebody what to do is usually interpreted as posturing/fighting talk. By asking a question like this, it forces the individual to engage with their “reasoning brain”, and use non/less emotional thought processes, to consider alternatives to acting violently. Using the term “reasonably”, gives the officer the right to refuse, and again sets the boundaries around the negotiation e.g. he is not going to agree to everything. It also requires the individual being dealt with to think a little harder than they might have to normally when thinking about and considering alternatives, as they need to now be filtered by the condition of “reasonableness”. The more you can get a person to think when they are emotional, the less emotional they become. When asked to take the Bodycam off it is explained again that this isn’t an option, and the boundary is demonstrated to be a firm one – a capitulation to an often repeated request will usually be seen as a weakness that can be exploited. The officer in the next stage of his rapport-building, asks “what’s your name?”, identifies himself and then reiterates the previous question using his name i.e. “Paul, is there anything I can reasonably say or do, that is going to help me and you to put those knives down?” He then informs him of the possible consequences of his actions, “if you continue to hold those knives the way you are, we may be forced to use tasers”. Using the same question, prevents the conversation going round in circles. Stating that they “may be forced to use tasers” is framed so that his actions which will determine if this option is considered, i.e. it can be avoided. An important note here, is that the officer wants to make sure this has been understood i.e. “do you understand that?” It is important in any crisis negotiation process to ensure that the person you are dealing with is keeping up with the process; this can be done by summing things up and asking questions, etc. As things escalate, when the individual being dealt with (Paul) comes towards the door, a new officer takes over – this strategy of switching negotiator can be useful if it seems like one person isn’t getting through. The officer continues using familiarity, in referring to him as “Mate”. He also uses a useful tactic in crisis negotiation, when he says “whoa, whoa…”. Asking the person to slow things down, rather than commanding them to “stop” etc. is a useful de-escalation tactic. It’s one that I used to teach tele-collections agents to use when they were on the phone with angry customers/debtors e.g. “Can you slow down what you’re saying as I’m having difficulty understanding you?” This was a much better method at de-escalating emotional and volatile calls than telling (i.e. posturing) somebody to “calm down” or to “stop shouting” – both commands that involve posturing to the individual even if this isn’t intended. As people slow down their thinking and talking, they naturally become less emotional and volatile. Getting people to think hard and slowly about what they are doing, along with potential alternatives and possible consequences is a key part of de-escalation and conflict resolution. When necessary and the danger is imminent the officer uses commands i.e. “Step away from the door!” and then a summation of the situation, “Mate, all we need to do is put the knives down”. The use of the term “we” instead of “you”, shows that everybody is working together and is invested in dealing with the incident. It’s not an “Us” and “You” situation, which could isolate the individual being dealt with, but one where everybody involved, is working together to achieve a successful outcome. Using the word “Just”, in “Just, put the knives down, mate”, also presents the situation as a very simple one, and downplays the potential repercussions that the individual may face, giving them an easy and simple way out. An important part of any crisis negotiation, is recognizing when de-escalation and conflict resolution, have run their course and things need to get physical. That point is realized when Paul starts to come towards the door brandishing the knives at the officers. He is now not only an actor who has the potential to cause harm, but he is acting out that role. The time for talking and negotiation is over, and action is required – working as a team, they open the door and when Paul bursts through with the knives, deploy the taser, followed by physical restraint. The point of this article is not to discuss whether a taser is effective or not, or whether different physical tactics could have been employed, etc., however, I think the use of the door in slowing down the attack, showed a good use of the physical environment, and the use of force was minimal. Another point to note, is that after the aggressor/attacker has been restrained, the officer continues using the same tone, etc. and does his best to reassure an obviously troubled man that everything is alright.   The whole incident was over in a few minutes, and whilst a few erratic stabs hit one of the officer’s stab vest, they were confident enough to trust that it would do its job whilst they concentrated on taking the movement away from the attacker’s arms – if the knife can’t move, it can’t cut. It would be wrong to think that every situation involving a potential assailant armed with a knife could be handled this way, however in this incident the officer in charge had a good reading of the situation, went through an excellent process of crisis negotiation, and understood fully when force would have to be used, and what level was necessary. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=492 Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=491 There are few martial arts instructors who have not read Sun Tzu’s Art of War and looked at how the tactics he described for military success, can be translated for self-defense. If you’re an instructor or a student who hasn’t read it, I’d advise you to even if you’re unable to see the applications of the lessons when applied to one-on-one combat; it’s simply a good read, and one of the most densely quotable books I have ever read i.e. it’s worth reading because it forces you to think. In this article, I want to take some of the quotes/lessons I have found most applicable to self-defense, and modern day violence, and see how these can help us better understand our solutions, and how we should act when dealing with aggression, etc. You know that Sun Tzu understands violence, because he says, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”, and, “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” Sun Tzu was a believer in diplomacy: that fighting was the very last resort, and always came at a cost – he recognized that there were times it was necessary, however it should never be the go-to strategy. The book is not about diplomacy, in that it does not suggest methods to resolve conflicts peacefully, because it is a book about war. If your goal as a student (and instructors are always students first) is to learn self-defense as opposed to just “fighting”, you need to learn how to disengage as well as de-escalate. Self-defense is a legal concept, and a claim/defense that you make i.e. that you had to use violence to protect yourself. The first “test” of that claim is whether you could have walked away from the conflict, and the fact that you shouldn’t have had to because you weren’t doing anything wrong, etc. doesn’t satisfy that. Not being in a battle, because you knew how/when to walk away, or resolve it diplomatically through de-escalation and conflict resolution methods, should be a significant part of your training and attitude. It’s not something that should be paid lip service to, or rushed over i.e. “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” – put ego aside and enjoy the victory of not having to fight. Continuing on with this, Sun Tzu states, “He who wishes to fight must first count the cost.” There are many potential costs when engaging in a physical confrontation. There is of course the potential physical cost of getting injured e.g. what if your assailant pulls a knife in the middle of the fight and/or has friends/third parties in the environment who can come to their assistance? Have these costs been accounted for in your decision making? Have you considered the fact that you may get arrested, and now have a record, even if you were legally justified to use physical force; the courts, not the police will ultimately decide, and if there is some confusion as to who the aggressor actually was, all those involved may get arrested. If at some point you find yourself looking for a new job, and your prospective employer googles your name, will they find that public arrest record? Even if at trial you weren’t found guilty, a potential employer with a good pool of candidates may play it safe, and choose not to select you for interview, etc. What may seem worth it in the moment, may not be soon after the incident, when you realize that you have a long road ahead of you, possibly legally, medically, and career-wise, etc. One of my favorite quotes is, “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” It also highlights one of the issues around having a default tactic of brining an opponent to the ground, to control them i.e. you deny them and yourself an outlet, through which either of you can escape. This is not to say you shouldn’t know how to fight and survive on the ground, which includes knowing how to control aggressors, choke assailants out and apply joint locks, etc., as well as knowing how to get back up to standing - which is the common reality-based self-defense attitude towards ground fighting i.e. the only purpose is to know how to get back on to your feet. I believe all these things should be taught as part of a comprehensive self-defense program. However, if your default strategy is to take somebody to ground, you are forcing the person to fight, as you will not be able to provide them with a disengagement opportunity. If we look at it from a legal perspective, you took the fight to the ground, and prevented your assailant from being able to disengage - if they then argue that they were trying to get away, but because you had pulled guard, wrapping your legs around them, you prevented them from doing this, you may now be viewed as the aggressor, and your actions may not be considered as fulfilling the requirements of self-defense. From a practical point of view, if you give somebody no choice but to fight, that’s what they’re going to do – the Normandy Landings during WWII were based on the premise, that with their backs to the sea and under fire, the soldiers would have no choice but to fight their way forward and nullify the threat. Taking away all of a person’s options only leaves them with one, which brings us full circle to, “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” i.e. don’t force an assailant to battle. A consistent message in The Art of War is that of balance e.g. “He who relies solely on warlike measures shall be exterminated; he who relies solely on peaceful measures shall perish.” Just as you should be able to deal with a situation physically doesn’t mean you should, and if you always rely on disengagement and de-escalation, without considering the use of force at some point, you will fail. Understanding when threats are real and when they’re not is an essential self-defense skill, along with selecting the right method for dealing with it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=491 Mon, 06 Jul 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=490 If you want to get good, it’s down to you, and the effort you put into your own training; and this means that the majority of your practice time, occurs outside of the dojo or studio. This doesn’t mean that you have to put in hours and hours of practice outside of regular class, but that regular, consistent solo training, is where you will progress and develop; it will be in class, training with others where you will realize and recognize that development. If you were to go back to school, you’d acknowledge that in a lecture you might be given a direction as to what you should be studying, and where you should be looking for information etc. however you’d recognize that it would be the time spent in the library, researching and reading on your own, which would actually be the biggest contribution to your education; having that work and effort validated and directed/redirected by somebody who is qualified to do so is important, but it is the time that you put in which is essential to your development and progress. Self-defense and the martial arts is no different, however for some reason it is often assumed that learning techniques provides a “shortcut” for dealing with violence, and once you have this “knowledge” you are fully equipped to deal with an assailant who is experienced and committed to causing you harm etc. In this article I want to look at how a small amount of time spent solo training can exponentially pay off in terms of developing fighting/survival skills and abilities. How you see yourself is important. When I viewed myself as a “professional athlete”, even though I was working a full-time job to put food on the table etc. I trained differently to when I considered myself an amateur – even though the monetary rewards were basically the same. I am not talking about some 1980’s pseudo sales talk, or a fake-it-till-you-make-it idea. You are not trying to fool yourself into something that you are not, but developing an aspiration of who you want to be, and seeing yourself as that person, and then disciplining yourself to be them; and that discipline doesn’t have to take a lot of effort. If you attend Krav Maga/Self-Defense classes, you do so not just for purely practical reasons i.e. what to do if somebody attacks you etc. but for a myriad of other reasons linked to your identity and self-perception etc. Even if you do Krav Maga primarily for the fitness workout, there are reasons you chose to practice Krav Maga, rather than attend a spin class or a bootcamp etc. People are often embarrassed about these reasons, as they often mean acknowledging fear and/or what they see as a deficit in their personality. Whatever the reasons for you starting training were/are, building in solo training/practice into your lifestyle and daily routine, will help you become the person that you intend to be. Practicing, for a few moments, at intervals during your day will help you identify with how you want to see yourself e.g. a warrior, is not a thing you do twice a week, it’s a thing that you are. You will not always have people to train and practice with, and working on your own, should be part of who you are. When performing solo training, don’t have unrealistic expectations of yourself. The smart phone has reduced our ability to concentrate, but rather than try and fight against this, we should acknowledge it, and initially work within our limitations. That may seem defeatist, but when starting out we should always be realistic e.g. if you haven’t run in a long time, developing a plan that sees you run 6-miles a day, only taking a rest one day in ten, is going to quickly see you fail. My suggestion for solo training is: little and often. Every couple of hours, do 30-seconds to a minute. Don’t initially allocate time for training on your own, as you will struggle to fill it, but do your solo-training in between other things. When I lived in the UK, I unknowingly broke the European Bench Press record for my age and weight. I wasn’t deliberately trying to, I just wanted to increase the weight I was lifting. In my house, I had a room that I set up as a gym. I had a bar that always had weight on it, set up over a bench. Every time I passed the door to the room, I used to bench press the bar, adding weight in small increments, once I was comfortable with the weight that was on it. I did this for years. Every now and again, I would get to a sticking point and have to do some other exercises to help me get over the impasse, but 95% of my routine was doing one repetition of the lift, multiple times in a day. It was only after a conversation with a powerlifter in a gym who saw me bench press that I found out that the weight I was lifting was significant. If you were to perform a few seconds of shadow sparring, or some movement drills every time you got out of a chair, you’d get a lot of training in, without interrupting any of your daily activities; and you’d start to become the person you intended to be when you first started training (that person is always worth revisiting, and it’s never too late to do so).    Solo training can at first be a daunting, self-conscious effort, especially when your body isn’t doing what it should – and often people don’t do it because they are afraid of this “honesty”. However, having the discipline to stick to, and work at a drill, until you get it, is a rewarding experience; and one you can do without spectators. Don’t expect it all to fall magically into place. Throwing good punches and strikes into midair, whilst moving, can at first feel awkward, however as you learn to loosen up and move in a relaxed/natural fashion, you’ll gradually feel your body doing as it should. Humans were designed to work physically, and feeling our body move in a coordinated fashion is a rewarding experience, and perhaps the biggest reward is seeing the progress you make when you are training in regular classes.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=490 Mon, 29 Jun 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=489 Wherever possible, I try to be scientific in my approach to self-defense and personal safety. I try to take an evidence and research-based approach to the study of violence, rather than other people’s well-intentioned good ideas about what they think violence looks like. When I am talking with fellow professionals who are expressing ideas based on their experience(s), I try to consider, the context in which they were working, and how translatable that is to others, etc. Experience – including my own – by its own definition is limited to the individual, and so may not always be applicable to others in the same or different situations, etc. To cut a very, very long story short, I spend a lot of my time studying crime and violence, taking an event-based approach to looking at how it is possible to prevent, identify and avoid violent crimes, before they have to be dealt with physically. However, often when I present the methods and processes that predatory individuals consistently use, I will get the response, “That would never happen to me.” It soon becomes clear, when the conversation goes a bit deeper, that the more confidently this is stated – note the use of the word “never” - the less the individual has thought about issues of personal safety. This is an emotional reaction, not a cognitive response i.e. there’s a lot of things that I don’t think will happen to me, but I understand that they could, and need to consider the possibility rather than immediately dismissing them. The problem is that once a person says, “that would never happen to me”, they have drawn a line in the sand, that prevents them from considering the possibility that it could. I have witnessed people coming up with and convincing themselves of fantastical situations, that requires the most complex mental gymnastics to defend, to reassure themselves that they are right, in their understanding of violence. In this article I want to look at what is actually being said when someone states, “that would never happen to me”. Although it is not intended this way, “that would never happen to me” is a form of victim blaming. If I give somebody an account of a sexual assault, and explain that the events that played out were/are common to many rapes and sexual assaults, and the person’s response is, “that would never happen to me”, then the question has to be asked: why was it that it happened to these individuals? Were they less intelligent, just naïve, and clueless, and/or individuals who were bad judges of character? What is the difference(s), that allowed a sexual assault to happen to them, but that would prevent it from ever happening to the person who asserts that they would never be victimized this way? When I first started doing post-graduate research with prison populations, the professor heading up the research advised me that however clever and astute I was, not to believe that I was above being played and taken advantage of. It was a good lesson to learn in my early twenties: you’re not as clever as you think you are, and there are people who are much more experienced at playing certain games than you are. We all have blind spots and we all have weaknesses, which predatory individuals are quick to observe and then test; with many prepared to play a long game if necessary, such as your partner’s best friend waiting until they leave town on business to turn up on your doorstep unannounced asking to borrow something that requires them coming in to your home. If you believe that would never happen to you, what is your plan if it does? How are you going to deal with that situation? Let them in, and hope nothing happens, after all they know you can identify them so they would not do anything, right? If you think this isn’t how sexual assaults occur, that they always involve strangers, inebriated victims, etc., listen to the collective voices of survivors of rape who have been brave enough to share their stories, so that others might benefit from them. Understand, that although not intended, the response of “that would never happen to me” is one of judgment. The more something hasn’t happened, the less likely we are to think it will. Experience is a good educator. However, it can also lead us astray. At the moment everybody I know, including myself, is sick of being in lockdown due to COVID-19. Most of the people I know, either don’t know anybody who has caught the virus, or if they do know someone who has had it, the symptoms were mild. Personal experience would tell us that people like us (whatever that means) don’t really have to worry about the virus, and that we can start to relax things; and in all likelihood as we start to relax things, and still see no consequences, we will start to quickly speed up the relaxing of precautions we’ve been taking, such as no longer practicing social distancing in certain situations/contexts, not wearing masks in certain contexts, etc. That is how personal experience works. However, this thought process is not scientific, it is based on personal experience and innate human optimism, which is overall an effective survival strategy but falls down drastically in specific situations e.g. running away from danger is generally a good rule of thumb, but not if it leads you into traffic. The longer we go without seeing or experiencing violence firsthand the safer we believe we are, and the more likely we are to drop or reduce certain precautions we used to take, and deny and discount actions and behaviors that may one have caught our eye. We must recognize the limits of our experiences and look beyond them so that we are better prepared to deal with any potential threats and dangers we may face, whether from a virus, or another individual. I have written about risk and likelihood before, and about the ways in which they are distinct and connected and in all instances the word “never” is ever applicable. We should be careful not to exclude potential threats from our risk register because we believe from our own experience they don’t exist or simply aren’t applicable to us, because the same threat can be repackaged in a number of ways, that will mean that they’re not on our radar. If we don’t question the coincidence in timing of our partner’s best friend turning up at our door unannounced when they are out of town, then we’re missing the first step in a process that could have a dire consequence. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=489 Mon, 22 Jun 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=488 Movement in a fight accomplishes one of three things: it moves you away from danger, it puts you in a position from which you can attack, or it is part of an attack. If your movement isn’t accomplishing one of these things, then it’s likely that it’s unnecessary and unwarranted. A real-life confrontation differs from a ring or cage fight, in that you don’t have the time to feel out the person you are dealing with, and you’ll expect the same to be true of them, therefore any movement must be both economical and effective; time is not on your side. Understanding this can sometimes fool us into thinking that the only direction we should be moving is forward i.e. towards the target, in order to engage with the aggressor, however this may not always be the best thing to do. There are times when moving back, will allow us to create more room, and moving to the side, will make us more unpredictable, as we change the angle of attack, etc. In short, we need to practice moving in all directions, rather than just focusing on moving forward with every attack. This will certainly give us the advantage when we are dealing with an aggressor who is only able to move in one direction i.e. forward. Stepping offline, can be an extremely effective tactic, when dealing with an aggressor who is adrenalized and experiencing tunnel vision i.e. you can literally disappear from their field of view, by moving off to the side. Most people when they become adrenalized aren’t used to, or won’t notice, some of the effects this causes; they don’t register that their vision narrows. This is something that we need to be aware of for ourselves (scanning is a good way of managing and mitigating this effect) and understand how we can use it to our advantage when dealing with others. One of the most effective preemptive strikes I was shown, involved stepping offline as you moved forward and delivering an elbow strike to the Xyphoid process – a small piece of cartilage that sits in front of the diaphragm (the bellows that work the lungs). A solid strike here interrupts the process of inhalation, leaving the person severely winded. The pain will also be unexpected, because as you step off to the side, you will disappear from your aggressor’s sight. As with all pre-emptive strikes, you will want to put yourself on a good legal footing so that you can make a claim of “self-defense”; one way to do this is to step back, so that your aggressor is forced to move towards you, if they want to put themselves in a position where they can commit battery i.e. touch you. If you can time your strike so that as your aggressor moves towards you, you meet them with the strike, the impact will have more power. You will obviously want to be to the side of them when this occurs. For a great example of “disappearing from sight” against a focused, forward-moving attacker, the boxer Billy Joe Saunders, provides a masterclass in it, during his fight with David Lemieux. Being able to move laterally, means that you can get off your attacker’s “train tracks”, and put them on yours i.e. if you can move to the side of your aggressor, but still be facing them with all your weapons (hand, feet etc.) then you are in a position to attack them whilst not having to face their weapons/be on their tracks. The other advantage this gives you, is that your striking becomes more unpredictable, as your assailant must now deal with strikes that are coming from angles, rather than from the front. As you move to these positions, you should be covering your movement with striking, in order to occupy your assailant, rather than allowing for them to react and respond to your movement, by repositioning themselves. Lateral movement, that causes an attacker to move and shift weight, can also increase the effect of your striking. If you can get an assailant to be rooted, when you strike them, more force will be absorbed, rather than translated into movement. Moving backwards can also achieve this effect, as if/when your attacker steps forward they will be shifting their weight, onto their forward leg, meaning any strike landing on it will be fully absorbed. If you only focus on moving forwards and towards your attacker, you will be denying yourself many of these opportunities. It isn’t enough to be able to simply throw good strikes that are technically perfect, you must be able to position your assailant so that they absorb them. Moving backwards and utilizing your control of range is also a good way to force somebody to over-extend, which compromises their balance and stability. If somebody has to reach to hit/punch you, because your movement is forcing them to do so i.e. you’re keeping yourself just out of reach, it is likely that the person you are dealing with will over-commit, sometimes in frustration, in order to land a strike. This is something that can be exploited, as it will take longer for them to reset to a stable position, and the subsequent shift in weight will be significant – this is one of those times when people make themselves vulnerable to having their legs reaped and taken out from under them, as their weight is transferred backwards. Equally, if they are taking larger steps to try and get to you, sweeping the forward foot becomes easier, and more effective, when you take the supporting leg/foot away as they make a big transference of weight. In any confrontation you want to be driving it, having your assailant respond to what you are doing, and not the other way round. If you can control the movement of the fight, then you control the fight. There is a place for aggressive, forward movement, but make sure that your assailant isn’t moving back or sideways in order to put you in a vulnerable position, as you charge past them, etc. Movement, in all directions needs to be practiced so you are able to utilize a whole range of techniques and tactics, rather than becoming a one-trick pony who can only move forwards. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=488 Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=487 With much of the world in lockdown due to COVID-19, I thought it interesting to see how the stay-at-home advisory may have affected different types of crime, by comparing the incidents of various offenses in May, with those of previous years, for the city of Boston, where my school/studio is located. When looking at any crime statistics it is worth reminding ourselves of certain things we need to be aware of. Firstly, correlation does not necessarily imply causation e.g. just because offenses went up or down in 2020 compared with 2019, doesn’t mean that this was the direct result of being in lockdown; factors such as weather can play a part in affecting offending e.g. if it’s extremely hot or cold, people may choose to stay indoors where they have AC or heating, reducing the number of potential targets for offenders to select from, etc. Another important point to remember, is that the recording of incidents and the way they are categorized, is not primarily for analysis, but for the Criminal Justice System’s legal purposes – this can affect the way an incident is recorded e.g. a “verbal dispute” could in certain circumstances be classed as “assault”, but it may not be recorded as such. If there is a policy change that sees a degree of re-classification as to how an incident should be interpreted and recorded, such as when decriminalization of certain offenses occur, then this can make it look as though the number of incidents have dropped, when really it’s the level of investigation and recording that has. A final thing to bear in mind when considering incidents in light of COVID-19, is that the police themselves have changed some of the ways in which they operate to ensure the safety of their officers, whilst still being able to maintain law and order/public safety. Offense Type 2020     2019     2018     2017     2016    Verbal Dispute 756 374 402 375 374 Assault (Including Battery) 605 686 806 650 653 Residential Burglary 49 75 106 127 172 Commercial Burglary 58 26 40 41 35 Shoplifting 72 206 226 197 210 Credit Card/ATM Fraud 39 68 72 83 79 Fraud (Impersonation/False Pretenses)     193 163 186 126 168 Street Robberies 50 72 83 78 105 Auto-Theft 99 93 120 112 157           One of the biggest increases, in types of incident, is the rise in the number of verbal disputes; up from 374 incidents in May of 2019 to 756 incidents for May of this year i.e. the number has basically doubled. Verbal disputes occur over civil rather than criminal matters, such as when neighbors argue over where the line is that divides their property, etc. The police are often called to settle these disputes, as one or both parties want a third party who they believe has authority, to sort the situation out for them. It could be an argument, between neighbors about a barking dog that won’t stop, however unless the animal is in distress or can be shown to have been cruelly treated i.e. a crime has been committed, as annoying as it may be, it’s unlikely that the officer has much power in the situation to do anything about it, unless they’re able to frame the incident to constitute a breach of the peace, etc. Unfortunately, the police are often looked on as having power in domains that they don’t, and this can result in people unfairly viewing them as ineffective, simply because the difference between a civil and a criminal matter isn’t fully understood by those involved in the dispute. With people having to stay at home it’s much more likely that they will be much more aware of their neighbor’s habits than they were before, and may possibly judge some of the things they do, such as listening to music they deem to loud as an infringement on their rights etc., and call the police believing it to be a criminal act that has been committed – if it’s an out of control party with loud music that’s one thing, if it’s just somebody with the TV turned up, there’s not a lot that can be done, other than an officer making a request for the person to turn it down, etc. The neighbor may now be annoyed at having been reported to the police, and author another verbal dispute, as they report the person, they suspect called the police, for committing some other believed offense. Shoplifting fell dramatically in May 2020, from 206 incidents the previous year to 72 incidents. With shops and supermarkets having to restrict the number of people who are in their premises at any one time, hiding in the crowd is not a viable strategy. The lack of people in an aisle is going to make any theft much more observable, and with the staff to customer ratio having dropped, there are now more eyes on those committing such offenses. The number of incidents over the previous four years, seems to suggest that the rate of shoplifting is pretty much unchanged, and consistent year-on-year. With people now having to wait in line to be allowed in, rather than simply walking in, potential offenders are observable for a much longer period of time, so anyone who has previously been caught at a store for shoplifting has a much better chance of being identified. Having worked in security in this area, and knowing many others who did/do, most of the persistent offenders responsible for a large proportion of these offenses are well known to those who work in these stores. Many relied on getting in and out before they were spotted. This isn’t so much of an option at the moment. It’s not surprising that residential burglaries are down, and commercial burglaries are up, with many businesses being shut, and lacking guardianship, whereas more people are at home; occupancy being the number one factor in preventing residential burglaries. I had guessed that auto theft for similar reasons might be down, what with there being fewer places to go to, and cars spending most of the time parked on or close to the owner’s home, however this was not the case, and year-on-year, compared to 2019, rose from 93 incidents to 99. Not a significant increase, but one that might tell us more about the nature of auto theft. It could be that auto theft is a largely consistent phenomenon due to the consistency of opportunities that it provides. In fact, a car that is spending a larger part of its time parked in one location, gives an offender a longer time to observe it in the environment, rather than when somebody is using it to drive to work and back again, etc. Whilst street robberies went down, probably due to larger numbers of people staying inside, this provided a lack of natural surveillance on cars that are/were parked on the street, making the committal of auto theft that much easier. This lack of people on the street, and pubs and bars being closed also explains the reduction in the number of assaults. Fraud involving impersonation and false pretenses also went up (I have excluded welfare fraud from these statistics), whilst ATM/Credit Card fraud went down (due in a large part to so many customer-facing businesses being shut). What is not known is if offenders who normally engaged in this type of criminal activity, switched to other types of fraud, such as using false pretenses and impersonation. Criminals to a large part stay in their preferred lane, and don’t always demonstrate a great deal of versatility e.g. somebody who commits street robberies may when an opportunity presents itself commit a burglary or an auto theft, however if they lack the expertise to break-in to properties or don’t know how to hotwire a car, these are going to be occasional offenses for them. However, if the opportunities to commit one type of crime dries up, it is likely they will be nudged into committing other, similar types. These are just a few thoughts, using incidents of crime, to get some measure of how the criminal landscape might have changed somewhat during the COVID-19 lockdown. As we gradually come out of it, it will be interesting to see what changes in our routines and habits will continue to affect crime rates e.g. as more people have started working from home and are likely to continue to do so, will we see a consistent and permanent fall in the number of residential burglaries? Just as law-abiding citizens will be adapting to this new landscape, so will the criminals. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=487 Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=486 If you are involved in a violent altercation where you must make the claim of self-defense, there is a very good chance that this claim will be tested in court. Claiming self-defense, means that you are admitting that you used violence, but were justified in doing so for your own protection, etc. One of the pieces of evidence in such a case is that of witness statements, and these can be extremely unreliable. For this reason, in England and Wales a criminal case can’t be brought against another person if it relies solely on eyewitness testimony; there has to be other corroborating evidence. The Innocence Project, in the US, that looks to exonerate wrongfully convicted innocents using DNA testing, has found that 71% of those who were found guilty of crimes they didn’t commit, had been convicted due to mistaken eyewitness testimony. Even though a victim and/or witness may appear credible, believable, and confident in their recollection of events, people and places, it doesn’t mean that their memories are accurate and reliable – in fact, it is more likely that an individual will be convinced that a memory is accurate, the more easily they can recall it i.e. the greater the cognitive fluency of the memory. However, this doesn’t mean that it is true; one study saw participants with Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM) incorrectly recall seeing footage of United Flight 93, on September 11, 2001, hurtling into a field in Pennsylvania, despite no such footage of this incident existing i.e. those with exceptional memory skills can create and recall things that never occurred. In this article, I want to look at how our memories of violent encounters, and those of people who may have witnessed them, can be flawed, and how this could affect a claim of self-defense; along with measures we can take to mitigate this.     One of the issues with many misremembered events, is that they contain elements of truth that may appear to corroborate things that didn’t occur e.g. a witness may remember the clothes you were wearing during a violent confrontation, but not remember it was the other person who was shouting at you, and not the other way around, etc. This can make their incorrectly recalled memory seem credible because it contains facts that you have to agree with and can’t dispute. Memories are also subject to change, based on the memories of others, and if an incident is discussed over a period of time, then there is a strong possibility that a person’s memory of an event may be altered, to conform to the memories of those with whom they are sharing their recollections i.e. if a group of people who just witnessed a fight you were involved in, start sharing their accounts, contagion can occur, and a “new” memory, based on shared accounts, can be created. A study by Paterson and Kemp (2006), revealed that 86% of witnesses, had talked with other witnesses, about their memories and recollections of events, before talking to the police. This can lead to issues, with witnesses being unable to discern the source of their information and where their memories of events originate from. Over time and with natural memory decay, the source of a memory can easily be forgotten. Being exposed to inconsistent information after the event, can severely affect a witness’s memory of what they actually witnessed, causing them to introduce information/evidence that they didn’t in fact witness; and discount, or actively forget things that they did see, or even experience. In fact, studies have shown that co-witness discussions following a crime produces a greater amount of misinformation than any other source, including leading questions by investigators and media reports. This Social Contagion is believed to occur, due to two main reasons: normative influence and informational influence. Normative influence, involves the cost-benefit analysis, of disagreeing with another person/witness e.g. we may fail to offer a correction, when we recognize a piece of misinformation, because the other person’s recollection of an event seems largely, if not wholly, accurate, and to disagree with them might cause offense. However, our silence and failure to correct, may be seen as our tacit approval of their account, and so their memory and version of events (including the inaccuracies) appear as if they have been confirmed by us. Normative influence, may also see witnesses, who talk with other witnesses, leave out details that they are unsure about, due to a fear of embarrassment. Over time, these details may become lost to the witness, because they continually exclude them from their narrative. Informational Influence, occurs when a witness, discussing an event/incident with another witness, compares the accuracy of their account, with that of the other person’s. If another person seems more confident in their recollection of a memory, or provides information that suggests they may have been better placed, to accurately witness an event or incident, it is likely that they will believe that person’s memory, rather than their own. Over time as an act of violence is discussed, dissected by those who witnessed it, there is a good chance that Social Contagion, will see memories converge and conform, until a single narrative has been created, and the original memory reconstructed. This is one of the reasons why it is important to plan on how you will act in the pre-conflict phase of an altercation, as you want to be able to present a simple narrative, that is obvious and easy for witnesses to remember, recall and articulate (these are three distinct stages in how memories are stored and recalled – every time you recall a memory, there is the opportunity to re-write it). This will involve drawing attention to yourself, which may be socially embarrassing, however it is important to “gather your witnesses” – an instruction I was given by a doorman, the first night I started working (CCTV wasn’t so present and available then, so you were extremely reliant on witnesses to corroborate your version of events if law-enforcement became involved). Stepping back, away from your assailant, with your arms out in front of you and telling the person to “Stay back!” is one way to create a clear picture of who the aggressor in the incident is – if they then move towards you, putting themselves in a position where they can make contact with you i.e. battery, they have now committed an assault – and you have the right to defend yourself. If your hands/arms are close to your body and not clearly visible, events may be remembered differently e.g. somebody may believe you were concealing a weapon, etc. somebody simply suggesting that you had something in your hand becomes an established fact, rather than simply conjecture. The clearer, the bigger, the simpler the picture you create, the more likely it will be remembered correctly. Our brains abhor ambiguities and will create facts to fill them; we don’t want to create this opportunity for witnesses whose evidence we may later rely on. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=486 Mon, 01 Jun 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=485 This article is about having an open mind, regarding styles, systems, techniques, training methods, etc. Self-defense training is often paradoxical and self-contradictory, and if this inherent characteristic of the martial arts isn’t understood, then we can find ourselves taking wrong turns, and facing dead ends as regards our training. The problem with arts, systems, and styles, is that they start to become institutions (and in certain cases “cults”), that naturally lead us away from reality. The more systemized and formalized an approach becomes, the more prescriptive it becomes, telling us how we should act and behave – and what techniques we should perform – when dealing with aggressive and violent situations; this is true of all systems regardless of their claims of basing techniques and solutions off natural responses e.g. there aren’t really any inherent/natural responses to having a knife put to your throat, or a gun pointed at your head, other than those general reactions that occur when we are threatened. Prescribing, that we should always respond in one distinct way, means that we are adhering to the institution, not necessarily the context, which is represents the “reality” of the situation. To expect everybody to behave in the same way, in order to adhere to the rules and conventions of the system/institution, is to ignore and take the individual out of the equation, when they - not the system -are the central and most important component. To believe that only one system or institution has it completely “right” requires a great leap of faith. Some people will take/make this leap due to ignorance and fear e.g. they don’t have the experience and/or tools to make a realistic evaluation, and so need to invest their belief system into the institution, completely and without reservation i.e. they let it make the decisions for them because they don’t trust their own abilities to question and evaluate correctly. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in Krav Maga, and its approach to self-defense, but part of that belief is in the openness it theoretically purports, and its (again often largely theoretical) promotion of the need for adaptation and constant testing and development i.e. that the Krav Maga “approach” avoids institutionalization, and keeps the individual central. Other individuals are happy to take this leap without question, because it is simpler and easier to hand over the responsibility for your protection to somebody else, without really questioning the validity of what the institution is promoting e.g. if in every situation you’re taught to always do “X”, it can be easier to accept that, than consider the contexts where “X” might not be appropriate or even possible. The issue becomes that when you train, and train, and train “X” - because repetition is necessary to be able to successfully perform the technique - you will have disciplined yourself to only be able to act and behave in the way that the institution has trained you to. Without acknowledging that each situation you face is different, even if the physical threat or attack is the same, you will only be able to respond in one way because you will not have been taught to evaluate and adapt, but only to follow a set of instructions. It is impossible in training to completely avoid institutionalization; a “system” needs to give an individual guidance and direction, else everybody would be lost trying to figure things out for themselves. However, part of that guidance and direction is equipping the student of that system with the ability to question the institution itself; without that ability and encouragement, the institution is in danger of operating as a cult, where questions are suppressed and every member needs to be subservient to those running/operating it. Self-defense training should be about personal development, not a strict adherence to a doctrine; as a competitive Judoka, I used the same throws as other competitors but how I set them up, put them together in combinations, etc. was largely my affair, I wasn’t following any scripts, because each bout involved very different competitors. There was both rigidity in the syllabus, and fluidity in the execution of it – the syllabus didn’t limit me to one technique/throw that I had to apply in each fight, regardless of the situation, and regardless of the competitor I was facing. I would make the case that real-world situations are even more varied, and require more than just one technique e.g. in competition there were weight classes, and clear objectives, etc. In my opinion no one person (including myself) has it completely right as far as dealing with violence; it’s impossible for that to be the case. This means that I must question the approaches and understanding of my instructors and allow my students to question me; equipping them with the tools to do so. This is why I believe it is critical for any “new” system, such as Krav Maga, to look at where it came from, to consider the questions it asked itself of those systems that came before it, and why it came up with the answers it did. In turn, we should be questioning those answers to see if they are still relevant and applicable to our individual realities, or are we just becoming disciplined to believe in an institution and behave as that institution wants us to? I am not suggesting that heads of systems have some nefarious purpose in creating automatons that do their bidding, but rather all practitioners, regardless of style or system, need to be open in reviewing the approaches of each other, with the possibility of adapting and changing rather than simply conforming, without question, to the teachings of the institution.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=485 Mon, 25 May 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=484 In Reality-Based Self-Defense, techniques are often presented as the great equalizers. After a professional MMA fighter, professed difficulties in dealing with a burglar he got into a fight with in his home, in the early hours of the morning, there were many who were quick to comment, “if only he’d known Krav Maga”; that somehow what a professional, fulltime fighter/athlete was lacking were the right techniques, and that this alone would have made the difference. This is an extremely dangerous fallacy, which unfortunately is extremely common in many martial arts and self-defense circles. If you believe that you would have fared better, because you train two, one hour sessions a week, practicing the “right” techniques, your understanding of what it takes to deal with real life violence is flawed. When I first started working door and bar security, I was training roughly 6 hours a day, lifting, running, sparring, etc., and still, a physical encounter would rarely be easy; unless the punter was so drunk, he could barely stand. It is not uncommon to read on social media that traditional martial arts such as Judo and Karate do not work in reality, etc. These were the systems, that we trained in back then, and they worked for us – it really doesn’t matter what system you train in e.g. a good punch is a good punch, whether you’re a boxer, a karateka, or a Krav Maga practitioner. In judging effectiveness, it is often more appropriate to look at how things are trained, rather than believing it is solely a matter of having practiced the right techniques. Below are five training components I believe are necessary to deal with real world violence, and unfortunately looking at the way Krav Maga is often presented and trained, the MMA guys have more of these covered. I’ve written about these things individually before, but I thought it may be worth bringing them together in one place/article.   Skill Building: Skills rather than techniques make you successful in real-life confrontations. Rather than accumulating techniques, your time is best spent developing fighting skills. Being able to move effectively, stay on your feet, deliver power through your striking, etc., is far more important than knowing “how” to deal with a rear strangle, a guillotine choke, etc. Without these basic skills, you will either find yourself in situations you could have possibly avoided (such as being in a guillotine choke, or rear strangulation, etc.), or won’t have the ability to solve the problem that you’re facing. As a competitive Judoka, who has had to deal with rear strangles, in a “sport” context - not a real-life situation - people will really sink them in; when there are medals at stake I would make the argument that people will be as determined and fight as hard as they would in real life. It’s not knowing the “correct” technique that deals with this issue, it’s having a set of fighting skills that allow you to do so; an effective technique helps, but it’s not the solution. Taking a Multi-Phased Approach to training: Just because you can escape from a rear strangle or guillotine effectively – because you have the skillset to do so, and a technique that is effective – doesn’t mean that the fight is over. In most cases, you’re back to a point where you’re equal/even to your attacker; and they’ll start attacking again. Getting caught in a Guillotine or Rear Strangle, that you have to get out of, means that something has gone wrong with your “game plan”, escaping really gets you back to zero, and you need to start again from there. Attacker’s don’t stop their attacks, because you’ve dealt with one of them; they keep attacking. Fights are multi-phased and multi-dimensional. That is, they can start at range with striking, move to grappling, go to the ground, get up from the ground, and go back to striking. The idea of escaping and disengaging is great, but it’s not always possible and often a fight ends up as a back-and-forth, and hopefully you improve your situation bit by bit, rather than perform a technique that always works, and is followed up with a series of strikes that allow you to “end” the fight. Dynamic Training & Realistic Range: When somebody tries to stab you with a knife, they’re not usually static, but moving with the weapon, as they repeat their attacks. As you move to deal with them, they move to deal with you, etc. This is the nature of a fight. In a large number of such attacks, the other arm is used to grab, push, pull and/or drive, which means that such attacks are going to be initiated within the length of am arm. However, often defenses against such attacks, are practiced at ranges and distances where a marching band could have been placed between the attacker and target; often to allow a “technique” to work optimally. There is nothing wrong starting training techniques at these ranges to allow a student a level of success, but the goal should be to shrink these distances down over time. There is also nothing wrong with practicing defenses statically, but at some point you need to be practicing dynamically e.g. having an attacker with a knife, driving you backwards with their forearm across your throat, etc. Scenario/Context Based: Reality-based training should reflect reality e.g. when was the last time you saw a fight initiated with a two-handed choke? Such attacks tend to occur in extremely specific contexts, they are not experienced universally. This should be explained. Not doing so gives individuals the wrong idea of what violence looks like and doesn’t prepare them for reality. If you simply train a technique like a rear-strangle defense without a context, an individual may be under the impression that it is common for assailants to simply come up behind them and start to strangle them – and if this isn’t trained dynamically where balance is taken, and students are forcefully dragged back, then people may start to believe that such attacks occur statically. In looking at context, an important question concerning an attack is “why” i.e. why would somebody apply a rear-strangle on somebody else? If the answers start to resemble something from one of the Jason Bourne movies, it may be time to reevaluate what you emphasize, and restructure your syllabus. Stress & Exhaustion: Fighting (Self-Defense is simply the legal justification to fight), is exhausting and stressful – competitive fighting is the same in this regard, though the stressors are different. Krav Maga gets this, and certainly the Israelis do; the UZI SMG was designed around the premise that an exhausted soldier could reload it whilst moving - an understanding that combat is dynamic, consists of multiple phases and is exhausting/stressful. The higher your skill levels and fitness, the less that this factor will affect you. However, fitness isn’t a substitute for skills, and skills aren’t a substitute for fitness, and whilst an aggressive mindset is key to being successful in a fight, if you’re dealing with somebody who is equally aggressive (and in my experience many people will match you on this), it’s usually your skills and fitness that make the difference. However, if you don’t train these in an exhausted and stressed state, you won’t have a reference point to work from when it comes time to do it for real. Creating safe training programs that meet these requirements can be challenging e.g. exhausted people often lack control, and extreme stress can be psychologically harmful – I heard of one Krav Maga school subjecting students to water-boarding, which is wholly irresponsible, and misses the point of self-defense training completely i.e. what is the context? However, training for reality, must reflect reality in order for it to be effective, and all of the components necessary to be successful need to be trained.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=484 Mon, 18 May 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=483 Although Forensic Linguistics, has been around for a relatively long time e.g. the trial of Derek Bentley in 1953, centered around the meaning of the statement, “let him have it”, and whether it was meant as an instruction to an armed accomplice to hand over his weapon to the law enforcement officers present, or whether it was in fact meant as an idiom (a phrase that doesn’t have any direct meaning derived from the words themselves), with the intent being for the accomplice to start shooting, etc. It was not until 2008, that the UK legal/forensic system properly formally recognized the role of forensic linguistic evidence, after fake text messages were identified to have been sent from Jenny Nichols’ phone after she’d been murdered i.e. author attribution could not be tied to her, based on the structure, format and word use of previous messages, and it was in fact her killer who had been sending the messages; he started doing this after he was first identified as a possible suspect. Unfortunately, we are not great at detecting deception in speech in real time; computers are actually much better at it than we are, because they can pick up on irregularities, etc. that our brains naturally don’t process as part of the way we join up and understand speech i.e. there are certain things that we naturally filter out. However, in saying this, if we understand some of the things that people do to cover up or distract us from the truth, then we may have a better chance of identifying them when we have a suspicion that somebody might be trying to deceive us. It is much easier to detect deception in the written word, or even somebody’s underlying emotional intent that is different and not necessarily obvious from what they have written, and there is some great software out there that does this, such as the Dictionary of Affect and Language (DAL); if you ever want to find out what somebody is really thinking, feeling and saying in a letter or email you’ve received, this tool will give you some interesting pointers. However, in the spoken word there are also clues if we can pick up on them. Our brains are exceptionally good at filtering out what are known as “disfluencies”, these are the ‘ums’, ‘uhs’ and ‘mmms’ that are often peppered throughout our speech. This happens because they are not important for interpreting the meaning or the pragmatics of what somebody is saying. In normal speech, we subconsciously ignore them because they would interrupt the rhythm of speech and make it harder for us to understand the structure of a phrase or sentence. Imagine reading a sentence with several disfluencies in them; it would be laborious as you went through the sentence, picking out and separating the meaningful words from the rest. However, a disproportionate number of disfluencies in somebody’s speech, can be an indication that they are over-thinking what they are saying, and the disfluencies are disguising their hesitation, as they construct their story or narrative. “Normal” language is created and processed largely subconsciously i.e. we might not be aware of exactly what we are saying, until we hear ourselves saying it. In a conversation, as we listen to what somebody is saying, we may have in our head an idea of the content that we want to respond with, but the word choice, etc., occurs more as we are expressing that idea, as opposed to a carefully constructed, pre-thought out statement. This is why when we sometimes say something, and reflect on it as we are saying it, or just after, that we have to tell our listener(s), “that came out wrong”, “that wasn’t what I meant”, etc. When somebody is trying to deceive us, they want to make sure that everything comes out right, and nothing could be misinterpreted. To do this, a person might practice and rehearse what they are going to say, like a polished salesman who will try to remove all disfluencies (our brain will often recognize such speech as being abnormal – but not tell us why), or if they are creating the lie on the spot, find themselves increasing the number of disfluencies as they create their lie. However, not everybody’s baseline for disfluencies are the same e.g. an introverted person who is normally quiet during conversations, and is not so “practiced” at speaking, may by default have a higher number of disfluencies in their “natural” speech than a more extroverted individual, who has a greater experience of speaking and participating in conversations. If somebody is being put under pressure in an interview or interrogation, a higher level of anxiety, might introduce more disfluencies. The degree to which disfluencies exist in the speech of those with certain personality disorders may play a part not in deception per se, but in trying to understand and process the emotional content of words. Those individuals with Psychopathy tend to have a higher number of disfluencies in their speech. One reason for this is due to the way they process emotions. Johns and Quay (1962) describes that when psychopaths process emotions they “know the words, but not the music.” i.e. they can cognitively understand what another person is feeling, but they don’t have an emotional response to it. This means that when they are trying to have a conversation which contains emotional content, they must process all of this consciously, whereas most of us will process the emotional part i.e. the music, subconsciously. This results in a higher number of disfluencies in their speech; the deception here being the fabrication of emotion(s), rather than meaning.       Whilst identifying disfluencies in speech may at first appear a useful tool in identifying deception, the context, and the individual are also important components. Without considering these, we may find ourselves making snap judgements that prove to be incorrect. Identifying increased disfluencies in the speech of psychopaths may help us identify them more easily, especially when we are often disarmed by their charm, etc. We are also at a time with social media where disfluencies can be identified in the written word. We may not be aware of it, but certain platforms record our deletes and edits of the posts we write, as a way of identifying disfluencies. Their goal? To get at the truth behind what we are saying.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=483 Mon, 11 May 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=482 None of us are immune to being charmed. There are skilled individuals and social players who know how to connect with us in a way that we end up liking them; even when we understand that they don’t have our best interests at heart and are even morally reprehensible. It is possible for us to compartmentalize a person’s character traits – along with their behaviors – so that we are able to down-play and ignore the bad things that they do to us and others, in order to be able to accept them in other roles; including friends and even intimate partners. This may in fact be innately programmed into our genetics. In our early days as “humans” our survival and success became not so dependent on our individual strengths and weaknesses, but on those of the social group to which we belonged. This would mean that we might have to work together with individuals we did not particularly like, in order to achieve our goals. If group members showed open hostility towards each other due to personal differences concerning likeability, etc., it would likely impact on the success of the group. Other animal species, such as dogs and wolves, developed rituals to deal with conflict, whilst humans learnt to suppress feelings and emotions, and compartmentalize negative and positive thoughts in order to achieve social cohesion. To illustrate the extent to which we do this, and others exploit it, I want to look at and to a certain extent analyze Judge Edward Cowart’s latter remarks post-sentencing Ted Bundy to death.      “The court finds that both of these killings were indeed heinous, atrocious and cruel. And that they were extremely wicked, shockingly evil, vile and the product of a design to inflict a high degree of pain and utter indifference to human life. This court, independent of, but in agreement with the advisory sentence rendered by the jury does hereby impose the death penalty upon the defendant Theodore Robert Bundy. It is further ordered that on such scheduled date that you'll be put to death by a current of electricity, sufficient to cause your immediate death, and such current of electricity shall continue to pass through your body until you are dead. Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself. It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity, I think, as I've experienced in this courtroom. You're a bright young man. You'd have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Take care of yourself.” To give some context to the statement, Bundy was being tried for the killing of two women and had decided to represent himself – demonstrating the grandiosity i.e. nobody can do it better than me, which is a characteristic of psychopathy. He had a law degree, but had never practiced criminal law, and had not passed the bar; having taken law at undergraduate level and without having taken it further, Bundy was relying solely on wit and intelligence, rather than a deep understanding of the intricacies and arguments that would be necessary in a double homicide trial. He later confessed to 28 more killings (though this is probably a gross underestimation, and it is likely that he started killing during his teens, rather than something he started to do in his late twenties), but at his trial there were only two that had enough evidence to warrant a prosecution. Although acknowledging the brutality of the killing, Cowart’s expression of remorse is not for the victims’ loss of life, but for Bundy’s i.e. “It is an utter tragedy for this court to see such a total waste of humanity”. This is quite a remarkable statement, especially to be made in a professional setting, where it will go on the record. It would be one thing to express such a thought/feeling to somebody else in private, but quite another to make it public in the way that Cowart did – in terms of a legacy, this is probably what he is best remembered for. Despite what he had done, which Cowart acknowledged, Bundy had won the judge over with his charm, to such a degree that one has the feeling that if the law allowed Cowart a way out from sentencing Bundy to death, he would have taken it, and perhaps exonerated him all together. Cowart regrets the fact that Bundy was not and would not be able to practice law, “in front of me”. He was able to separate Bundy as the killer from the lawyer, viewing them as separate and distinct individuals i.e. the “bright young man”, from the individual who had, “utter indifference to human life”. This is not a failing on Cowart’s part but an acknowledgment of Bundy’s skill as a social contortionist, able to convince another person of the individual they want them to see. The evidence against Bundy was compelling, and he knew that his defense rested largely on him presenting himself in a way that would make it difficult for anyone to condemn him. In this regard, he may have made the right decision to represent himself, as an experienced defense team would have focused on undermining the evidence and/or finding a way to make it inadmissible, rather than focusing on the individual and their ability to charm and appeal to the sympathies of the Judge and Jury. Cowart’s statement is almost akin to an apology, and a request to Bundy, not to blame him for the verdict/decision. It may seem strange that Cowart would want to seek the approval and recognition of Bundy and go on the record for it, especially when he knew that Bundy’s appeals against the death penalty would be denied (and he would be dead in a few years), however Bundy knew how to get somebody to want to like and recognize him in a certain role – this was how he’d been so successful in luring and disarming his victims. Over the course of the trial, he convinced the Judge to think of him not as the killer, but as the budding law student with an innate intelligence that would have made him an entertaining and convincing prosecutor/defender, that the judge might have seen as some protégé. Ted Bundy is an extreme example, however there are many people who play the games he did in the way that he presented himself e.g. a dedicated and respected teacher may molest teenage boys, a successful businessman who provides for his family and appears to be the devoted father, may abuse his partner, etc. In each case, we may choose to see the individual in one of these roles, rather than both. It may be easier for us to deny or discount a family friend who has an unnatural interest in our children, and rather recognize and identify him in other capacities, such as his being married, professional and middle class i.e. he doesn’t seem to conform to the stereotype of somebody who would want to cause harm to us or our family, etc. If Ted Bundy could convince an experienced Judge to see him in a certain light, feel sympathy for him, and wish him well while knowing all that he’d done, we should understand and recognize that none of use are immune to the charm(s) that somebody can display. It is one thing to recognize and even admire, it is another to be taken in.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=482 Mon, 04 May 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=481 Resiliency is a key fighting attribute. To be able to quickly recover from the shock and surprise of an initial assault and bounce back to your trained personality and mindset is an important and essential skill to have, in order to survive a confrontation. However, resiliency isn’t something that we just want to have in one area of our life – such as being able to deal with violence – it’s something we want to have in all areas, whether it’s loss of employment, the breakdown of a social relationship, or even something like surviving an extended lockdown period; and not everybody is coping and managing the stresses of quarantine well – humans are not well fitted to deal with both isolation and enforced close proximity; both can lead to an increase in aggression and violence. Konrad Lorenz writes about a condition he refers to as “Polar Disease” or “Expedition Choler” which refers to the damming up of natural aggression, that results in outburst of low-level aggression over minor things e.g. before lockdown you might not have noticed that certain family members do things that are really, really annoying, such as the way they sneeze or clear their throat, etc. – things that before you were subjected to on a frequent basis, but had other areas of your life that you could direct your aggression at, now become major and serious triggers for you; Cabin Fever has a very scientific basis to it. In this article, I want to look at resiliency during lockdown, looking at how individuals in survival situations manage their isolation and monotony, along with prisoners serving long-term sentences. I’m certainly not suggesting that this current lockdown is representative of either, however these types of situation can help teach us and guide us to be more resilient. Plan and follow a routine. We underestimate the importance of planning to our mental health. My mother has Alzheimer’s Disease; in many cases sufferers will lose memory for faces, events and incidents, etc. but still be able to remember how to perform tasks (this is a different area of memory), such as how to use cutlery, etc. My mother’s form is severe and there are many tasks she simply can’t do anymore, as she can’t access those memories. When she was first diagnosed, I started researching academic papers and literature, etc. - not because I believed I could/would find a cure – that would be extremely arrogant and naïve – but because I wanted to understand the disease; this was partly for selfish reasons, because if there were any genetic predispositions, I wanted to understand what I could do to avoid the disease (in only 1% of cases do genetic mutations mean that the disease is inevitable). Every study I read, concerning prevention, talked about sufferers of the disease, having given up on planning in the years before the disease took over; these were individuals who were still mentally and physically active but had given over the planning aspect of their lives to others. I remember my mother saying when she retired from being a school principal, that she no longer had to plan, and that this was an area of her life that she was glad to lose. In 1981, Steve Callahan’s yacht was overturned and sank – he believes a whale hit it – and he began a survival episode that saw him spend 76 days adrift in a life raft. He credits his maintenance of sanity, in part to the routines he set up and the plans that he made e.g. he planned for when he would empty the solar stills, when he would catch fish, when he needed to make repairs to the raft, and even when he exercised, etc. It is very easy to fall into the trap of not planning, especially when nothing appears urgent or pressing, however planning is as much about organizing and exercising the mind as it is about accomplishing tasks (that could possibly “wait” or be put off). I can personally think of few more frightening things than entering a prison, knowing that you’re looking to serve 10-15 years. Although every crime survey I’ve ever read has always had the public demanding tougher, harsher, and longer sentences for criminals, I think few who respond have really considered the impact on the individual of long-term incarceration as a form of punishment. I’m not saying that there isn’t a role in the criminal justice system for these types of sentence, but rather that people rarely put themselves in the shoes of those doing time. The first penal research I ever read, as an undergraduate, was about long-term imprisonment. It was an early 1970’s study of prisoners, serving sentences of at least 10 years, in a high security prison in Durham, by Stanley Cohen and Laurie Taylor, that resulted in a book called “Psychological Survival”. The study resulted organically from sociology classes that Cohen and Taylor were delivering to inmates once a week – this was the first time that educational services to long-term prisoners were delivered in the UK. Whilst there had been several large-scale studies conducted regarding prisoners serving short and medium sentences, there were none looking at this specific, smaller population. A large part of this group’s time was spent acquiring knowledge through reading and writing, as they felt it important that their time inside wasn’t wasted. Many refrained from “working” even though this brought financial reward, as the work was simply “busy work” and wasn’t stimulating (part of this was also not wanting to become part of the system). It was also interesting to note in the study, that few speculated on the amount of time they would serve, and when questioned would always exaggerate it, so that they didn’t have to get into a debate and discussion which would make them realize they might spend more time inside than their original sentence demanded. Whilst we may speculate on when lockdown will end i.e. will it be when our politicians, governors stated it would at the beginning of this period or will it be extended, etc., it may be better for our mental health to not engage in such thought processes and debates; as a small business owner who is shutdown at the moment, I find this extremely difficult, however trying to predict an actual date when things may start to relax is stressful, and I find it better to just keep working – there are always ways to work, such as writing, designing courses, providing online content, etc., and it is my goal to keep doing this. I plan, I have routines, including when I exercise, when I take walks, when I do schoolwork, etc. I’m certainly not saying I’ve cracked it, and there are times I have to remember what day it is, and I’m starting to have the strange dreams that are part of reduced or social isolation (if you’re having them too, it’s normal), but I look at those who have to manage time in much harder situations, and know it can be done, whilst staying sane.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=481 Mon, 27 Apr 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=480 During this period of lockdown there has been much speculation in the media as to whether we will enter a period of civil unrest. There have already been protests concerning social distancing, and the need to re-open the economy, and some have interpreted these as signals of future mass civil disobedience, and possibly social unrest, etc. As unemployment checks and relief payments fail to come through, and with many foodstuffs running out, it is easy to see some of the reasons why society might breakdown and how we might enter a period of civil unrest, etc. Past natural disasters have seen spikes in criminality, such as during Hurricane Rita in 2005, where some took advantage of Houston’s mandatory evacuation order to commit burglaries and auto-theft, as home and property owners left the city, however civil unrest involves crowds and groups of people rather than individuals, committing crimes, and this makes it a very different beast to both understand and predict. Unfortunately, there is still much misunderstanding as to how crowds and “mobs” function, at all levels of society, and it is easy for us to conclude that with every upset to society and potential disaster we are on the brink of civil unrest and anarchy, with mobs roaming and ruling the streets, etc. It is only very recently that we’ve started to properly understand the psychology of crowds and riots, with certain outdated ideas and theories continuing to be perpetuated and remaining extremely pervasive. In response to the 2011 riots in England, the Justice Minister, Kenneth Clarke, blamed a “Feral Underclass” as being responsible for them, and headlines such as “Guerilla Warfare Erupts as No One Knows Where The Mob Will Strike Next” (Daily Telegraph, 2011) were common, not only in the Tabloid Press but in the Broadsheets as well. The Prime Minster at the time stated that in dealing with the riots, in terms of options, “nothing should be off the table”. These are all responses that share a lot in common with those that were made during and after the 1848, riots and revolutions in Europe, where “Classical Crowd” theory was developed, and still holds sway today, influencing both public policy and police responses to crowd disturbances and rioting. The first thing to note about the study of crowds, mobs and riots both today and in the 19th Century, is that they are extremely hard to study from a scientific perspective i.e. you can’t recreate them in a laboratory setting and it’s impossible to interview every member after an event (and of course recollections of said event, can’t always be relied on to be both accurate and truthful) etc. The theories of Taine and LeBon – two privileged, aristocratic French anti-Semites, speculating about the causes of rioting in 19th Century France – which underly our classical understanding of mobs and riots, were developed without any interaction or interviews with those involved in the protests and riots. Both believed in a hierarchical view of society, with the aristocracy at the top and the working class at the bottom; both believed this was a reflection of evolution, not simply tradition. Their view was that this lower class, was actually a sub-class, of base people who if left unchecked would engage in barbaric practices on a daily basis i.e. a “Feral Underclass” – rioting by a mob was simply a collective expression of this that needed to be responded to with absolute force (“Nothing should be off the table”). LeBon’s theory was received especially well, by a scared and frightened upper class (“No One Knows Where the Mob will Strike Next”), who wanted a scientific response to mobs and rioting. LeBon put forward three mechanisms that are at play during crowd violence: Firstly, that when somebody joins a crowd/mob they lose all individual identity, Secondly that the crowd becomes unable to criticize or reason ideas, which allows for contagion of bad ideas, and thirdly that whilst in a crowd the members are in a “Hypnotic State”, unable to act as individuals. Unlike Taine, LeBon believed that such crowds could be influenced in more positive directions, something that inspired both Hitler and Mussolini’s mass rallies. The common belief that both Taine and LeBon shared was that the individual loses their identity to the group, and that both the members of the group, and the group itself loses all rationality and reason i.e. it becomes a completely out of control entity, that simply destroys everything in its path, etc., with the only effective response to be an absolute show of force by the authorities – both Taine and LeBon were outraged, privileged onlookers, whose position was potentially threatened and needed to be protected by a strong show of force. Neither Taine or LeBon, believed the context of the disorder was important or even relative - mobs were mobs - and the reasons/grievances behind their actions weren’t relevant in understanding their behavior(s); understanding is not the same as justifying. Recent research has shown that context is everything in understanding crowd control e.g. local police forces dealing with issues that affect the local communities they police, at the local level, are much better at preventing violence, than non-local police forces that are brought in to swell numbers (who don’t necessarily understand the context of the grievance) etc. Also, in studying riots, it can be seen that individuals do retain a sense of self, and can behave independently of “the group” e.g. during the Toxteth Riots of 1981 in Liverpool, rioters evacuated an old people’s home that caught on fire, and were also selective in the buildings that they targeted for looting and arson i.e. the mob is not mindless. The supposed anonymity of the crowd doesn’t prevent the normal functioning of the self. For such civil unrest to occur, two conditions need to be met. There must be a suppressed population with a common unifying grievance, and an inability of the authorities to maintain law and order. Importantly, there must also be a “Flashpoint”, a triggering event, that causes people to engage in civil unrest; and when they do it’s not a feral underclass, acting mindlessly, but a group coming together around a shared and common grievance. A commonality during many periods of civil unrest is rumors and the inadvertent sharing of misinformation e.g. there may be rumors that curfews are going to be set, that the army will be called in, and/or that the police will be using live rounds or water cannons, etc. This is sometimes not helped by politicians and law-enforcement officials making statements that “nothing should be off the table”, as such comments can add to the speculation and rumor mill, that is often present during such acts of civil unrest. Whilst epidemics have resulted in localized acts of civil unrest e.g. during the 2015 Ebola crisis eight aid workers and journalists were killed by villagers believing them to be responsible for the spread of the disease; in 2015 villagers in Zhejiang province stormed and ransacked government offices in response to policies regarding the SARS outbreak, etc., this is not common – largely due to the fact that “everybody” rather than a specific group is affected by such epidemics. If it becomes apparent that a particular group, is suffering more than another, and a flashpoint event occurs, then civil unrest during the Covid-19 epidemic may occur; however at the moment despite policing numbers being effected by the virus (1/6th the NYPD are out due to the virus), there are still enough officers on the ground to maintain law and order. To properly understand why civil unrest occurs, we must first appreciate that many of the theories which are currently used are out of date, and unscientific – LeBon’s theories gained ground largely because he created a lexicon of technical jargon, with terms such as “Group Think”, however none of his thoughts or ideas were subjected to any scientific process. Knowing that people don’t give up their identities when joining a group, but instead unify around commonalities tell us that civil unrest is based on some degree of consciousness and rationality; something which is useful in preventing incidents as well as managing them. Ultimately context is everything, and certain conditions need to be met, for civil unrest to occur and if these ae absent than it is unlikely that there will be a breakdown in law and order.                 https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=480 Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=479 Violence can be categorized as either being spontaneous or premeditated i.e. preplanned. The criminal justice system also treats these two types of violence differently, with premeditated acts, being judged far more harshly than spontaneous ones e.g. somebody who plans to commit a murder, is more likely to get a longer sentence, than somebody who takes a life in the heat of the moment, even if their act was deliberate, etc. It is worth noting, that if you always train to “finish” your assailant, by kicking them in the head whilst they are on the floor (which is only going to be legally justifiable in the most extreme of situations e.g. you were in a fight for your life), it could be argued that should you do this in real-life, your act may be considered a premeditated one; as over time you considered, and then planned/prepared yourself to do this (be aware that what you say and what you post on social media may at some point be viewed as evidence against you). In premediated acts, there are three phases (and in some cases two others) that precede the execution of an act of violence. These can happen over a period of time, in which case they may be extremely distinct, or in the moment where they quickly merge together, with each distinct phase being difficult to identify and separate. Everything starts with a fantasy. The Sexual Predator, Brock Turner, may have claimed that his assault on an unconscious student, was a moment of madness – and a naive and/or prejudiced judge may have believed him – however most of us, finding ourselves in a similar situation, wouldn’t have responded in the way he did. Even, if at certain times, we may have had dark thoughts and ideas, about acts of violence, most times these will be fleeting, and we may even find ourselves embarrassed that we had such thoughts, however for some these thoughts become something that over-powers their rational thinking processes and start to become an all-consuming fantasy. If Brock Turner, didn’t act before, it may well be because he never had the opportunity to do so, or because his fantasy was not yet developed enough i.e., he was still exploring ideas in his mind, etc. I would argue that it is rare for extreme acts of violence, that appear to be committed in the moment, to have not been preceded by some form of prior thought process; even if the individual wasn’t fully aware and unable to fully imagine what the consequences of their actions would be. I’ve worked with many young people in the UK who made the claim that they only carried a knife for self-defense, and whilst this may have been the initial motivation, when you started to talk about how they would use the weapon, an air of excitement would develop, and you’d see the feeling of power that holding/using the blade would give them. Fantasies aren’t simply thoughts; they have an emotional content to them. They create physiological changes when we think about them and create emotional pleasure. They can be born out of many different things, such as frustration, a sense of injustice, a need to punish others, a desire for power and excitement, etc., and when we entertain them, they make us feel good. Often, they remain simply as fantasies concerning violence but sometimes people will act on them. For this, they need to enter the planning phase. Rarely, in a fight, will you just stomp somebody’s head when they are on the ground; unless it’s an act of utter desperation, as you feel control of the fight slipping away from you, and you’ve just got to do something, anything, etc. Most of the time, it will be planned i.e. you will think about doing it, prepare to do it, and then do it, etc. Obviously, this thought process can occur in a moment, but you are considering your action – probably without weighing up all of the possible consequences, as everything will be moving so fast; this is why you consider the tactics you envisage using in a confrontation, long before you ever get there. For some, the planning and the preparation phases are much longer, and along with the fantasy actually become the point of the act of planned violence. Most active shooter/killer incidents are over in less than 10 minutes i.e. the execution phase is over very quickly. There is little time for the killer to enjoy what they are doing. Where such killers take their pleasure is in the fantasy, planning and preparation phases, where they start to think about the locations they may choose, the date on which they will conduct their rampage, and as they go about preparing for their spree by buying weapons and ammunition. This is where they imagine the power they will have over their victims, the fear they will induce and the feelings of revenge and justice they will enjoy. This is often why these killings are planned and prepared for, over a relatively long period of time. This is where the emotional reward is experienced. Many mass shootings, which are usually short-lived, end in suicide, likely making the execution phase a bitter-sweet experience. It is also likely that the actual execution of the plan will not live up to the fantasy. In some cases, it may, but in most cases the plan is not going to play out as perfectly as it was imagined. Many serial sexual assailants report that one of the reasons they kept increasing the level of violence, etc., in their assaults, was because the actual event never lived up to the excitement that the fantasy promised; and so they kept increasing the humiliation, degradation and violence they meted out upon those they targeted in the hope that at some point, the reward of the act would be the same as the fantasy. In some cases of premeditated violence there is a trigger, that brings the fantasy, planning and preparation phases together. This is often the case in workplace shootings, where a firing, or a disciplinary hearing is the event, which “triggers” the incident of violence. This is one of the ways in which workplace shootings are very different events to school/university shootings, even though active shooter incidents are treated as if they are all the same. In such incidents there may also be an “approach” phase, where the individual(s) starts to set things up, such as bringing their firearms and weapons into the building before they open fire on those they have targeted. Although we tend to think of such incidents as being completely indiscriminate regarding who is identified as a potential victim, oftentimes, certain individuals or groups are either directly let go, or passed over e.g. Michael McDermott, during the Edgewater Technology shooting in Wakefield, Massachusetts, really only targeted the Payroll and Human Resources Department, who he had a grudge with, and directly ignored and passed over individuals from other departments. The difference between a premeditated and a spontaneous act of violence, is that spontaneous acts occur in the moment, and are based upon an act/perceived injustice committed by another person/party i.e. the individual in question wasn’t planning or looking for a reason to act violently. In a premeditated act, an individual either plans or orchestrates an incident or takes advantage of one. In either case, this will have been preceded by fantasy, planning and preparation phases.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=479 Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=478 Krav Maga and certain other systems, aim to work with the body’s natural responses to attacks, rather than prescribing a set of “artificial” and trained movements as a response. In my opinion, recognizing how the body will respond under stress, accepting the limitations of what is possible in the moment you are attacked makes a lot of sense, and is a great starting point and foundation for any self-defense approach/method. Unfortunately, this way of working sometimes breeds an air of over-confidence in what we are actually capable of i.e. there is a belief that our “automatic” response to certain movement will always be “automatic”, and unfortunately this isn’t the case. There are conditions where the movement of a swinging punch, or slashing knife will trigger our startle/flinch reflex to bring up our hands in a protective manner, to protect our head, there are times that it won’t. Unfortunately, our natural responses are subject to certain conditions and contexts, and if these don’t exist, neither will our automatic responses. In this article, I want to look at how our startle reflex is activated, along with why there are times that it isn’t. By understanding these things, we can hopefully put measures in place, both in our training, and in our real-world application of that training, which will increase our survival chances. Vision is not a unified sense but is something that is divided and mapped onto various brain surfaces, via a set of segregated visual functions. When I was studying for my first Masters in Psychology, almost thirty years ago, there was a fairly established belief, that there were two routes/pathways along which visual information and stimulus was processed: one which sent more complex information to our prefrontal cortex for conscious processing e.g. such as calculating how we should move in space, in order to be able to catch a ball, and another which triggered our more primitive and reptilian system(s), such as pulling away, and raising our hands when a movement – such as a punch – was identified as it came towards us. Whether, such a clear-cut distinction remains, is up for grabs, and the jury is still out. However, if there does exist a second route to visual processing, that triggers innate “animal”-like responses/reactions, it is extremely basic, and in all likelihood limited to specific contexts, such as flinching at certain movements when in certain conditions. This means we need to be careful in believing that we will always react in an identical and universal fashion in all situations. In some, we may need to set and manage the conditions to give it the best chance of doing so.        The flinch/startle reflex doesn’t always get triggered, and this is worth noting for those who think and believe that it’s something that you can rely on, as a defense, when you are completely unprepared, ambushed, taken completely by surprise, etc. If you are engaged in a conversation with someone, and you are completely at ease because they’ve lulled you into a false sense of security, etc., processing the information they are conveying to you, and then suddenly they punch you in the face, it will take time for your cognitive processing to switch over to your “instinctive” response; meaning that your flinch/startle reflex may not be stimulated. This is also true, if you go into a state of denial or discounting where you try to convince yourself that the situation your facing contains no threat or danger. Even in a heightened emotional state, if you are consciously engaged in a process of “self-talk”, where you are telling yourself, that you’re over-reacting, imagining the threat, etc., whilst you are doing this, you may be suppressing some of your instinctive and instinctual responses if attacked. For our reflexes to work for us, we must give them the appropriate bandwidth for them to act as intended. There is also a myriad of startle/flinch reflexes e.g. if somebody suddenly throws a punch, you may bring your hands up protectively, and/or turn away from the movement, however if you walk around the corner of a building into somebody holding a gun or a knife, you’re more likely to pull back, and freeze, etc. We also don’t all react to the same movement, in the same way, all the time; if we have a certain level of awareness that we are in danger, we may find ourselves moving towards a punch in order to suppress the movement. We should also be aware that people we are punching and striking may do the same – if we always train that people move back when we strike/punch, we may find ourselves surprised and our tactics ineffective when the opposite occurs.  The startle/flinch reflex may also be subject to Prepulse Inhibition (PPI). This is where a weaker stimulus, that precedes a stronger one, inhibits the reflex. If someone, standing in front of you, was to suddenly throw a punch towards your face – a large movement – there’s a good chance, everything else being equal that your startle reflex will be stimulated, however if they were to precede this by pointing in your face – a smaller, “weaker” movement – Prepulse Inhibition may occur, and your flinch reflex wouldn’t be activated. This inhibition is affected by the strength of the pre-stimulus, and the length of time between the two movements i.e. the separation is somewhere between 100 and 1000 ms. This has implications for both attacking and defensive actions i.e. we can use it to our advantage, whilst making sure that we don’t fall victim to it. Most social and spontaneous violence starts face-to-face and involves some form of dialogue; this is also true of many premeditated situations where a predatory individual may first engage us in conversation to both gain access to us and put us off our guard. In many of these social situations, putting the hands out in front in a “traditional” de-escalation stance or fence, and instructing somebody to “Get Back!” isn’t an appropriate response and may in fact escalate things. In such situations it may be better to “talk” with your hands, which gives you an excuse to put your arms out in front of you, protecting and managing the space between you and your potential aggressor, in a much more low key way. With the hands moving in this way, if you need to make a pre-emptive strike, you may benefit from your assailant’s Prepulse Inhibition. The hands should move in a circular fashion, as our eyes linger longer on such movements as we follow the direction of the curve, even after the hand has stopped moving; this is why magicians moves their hands and arms in circular motions. If we find that somebody is doing the same to us, or is pointing, gesticulating and generally waving their hands in our face, etc., it might be wise to take this as a pre-violence cue, and either disengage completely or make a pre-emptive attack (as a covering distraction), before disengaging.   It is not my intention to devalue the importance of using the flinch/startle reflex for defending against punches and strikes – I teach this approach, so I believe it has benefits – rather it is to make clear the limitations that “automatic” responses and reactions have, and that it is up to us to manage our awareness levels so that we give them the best chance of working i.e. we can’t always simply expect them to work for us, without any input of our own; it is up to us to set the conditions to ensure that they will work for us when they are needed. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=478 Mon, 06 Apr 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=477 Violence can be broken down into two subgroups: premeditated acts, where a motivated individual uses aggression, and potentially violence, to achieve a goal, and spontaneous acts where an unmotivated individual becomes motivated to use aggression and violence due to some event that occurs in their environment. Premeditated acts, include instrumental acts of aggression, such as offenders who engage in street robberies using the threat of violence to force a target to acquiesce to their demands, along with assertive and reassurance violence that is used by sexual predators, in their crimes. Spontaneous acts of violence can involve mis-readings of intent e.g. “are you looking at my girlfriend/boyfriend?”, or be caused by “automatic” reactions and responses to things such as being knocked/bumped into, etc. In this article, I want to look at why some people become aggressive and potentially violent, when genuinely non-threatening and non-challenging things happen to them, and why others are able to recognize the lack of harmful intent behind an action/behavior and are able to shrug and/or laugh it off. By understanding the different “routes” by which people acquire information, we can better understand the causes of aggression and violence in spontaneous situations. We acquire and process information about our environment, using three different methods/routes; and in certain situations, one may take precedence over another, effectively hi-jacking the way we make assessments about what is happening to us. These three routes can basically be looked on as being: cognitive, affective and arousal. When an event, such as somebody accidentally spilling a drink over us occurs, we will try to cognitively process what has happened to us, in order to determine how we should respond (this is in the appraisal phase). According to our behavioral scripts, that we have developed over time, we may see what has happened to us as a direct or indirect challenge to our identity and status. A direct challenge would be one where we believe the individual spilt the drink deliberately in order to judge our response, and determine whether they are above us in the pecking order or not, where an indirect challenge would be one, where we understand the spilling of the drink was an accident, however we’re concerned how others may judge our status in the pecking order by the way we respond, or don’t respond, etc. For most of us, we may be annoyed at what has happened, with our scripts telling us that “accidents happen”, and that no challenge or threat is present; for others, their scripts may tell them otherwise and that they need to respond physically in order to maintain both their internal and external reputation. These are the individuals who are predisposed to use violence as a solution to socially awkward and difficult situations. Our cognitive understanding of an incident can also influence our affective and arousal states (they work interdependently) e.g. thinking about an injustice, such as having a drink spilt over us, can increase our state of arousal, making us more angry, which in turn affects the way we think about the incident, etc. Arousal can also be affected independently e.g. it is well documented that both heat and alcohol can increase our state of arousal, etc. Anyone who has worked door and bar security in the UK knows that the first hot/sunny Saturday, after winter, is a nightmare. As soon as the pubs open, people will go to the beer garden – to enjoy the fact that they can be outdoors – and start drinking. This will go on over the course of the day, with many people getting sunburnt; and then drunk and over-heated, they’ll stumble into the city in the evening to continue their revelries, primed to take offense at any perceived slight or injustice due to their heightened state of physical arousal. Pain will also heighten a person’s state of arousal, so stepping on somebody’s foot and/or knocking into them, will similarly have an affect; couple this with the fact that a person is sunburnt and drunk, and the pieces are all there for a violent outburst. Input variables such as personal insults will create hostile moods and alter our affective state/path. Sometimes we don’t realize that what we are saying may be deemed as insulting e.g. telling somebody to get over it because it was just an accident, will be deemed as dismissive, as will your frustration at the way the situation is going, that probably caused you to make the remark. Cognitive, arousal and affective pathways will all influence how an individual both initially appraises the situation, along with their reappraisal of it. It is during the reappraisal phase of the interaction, that an aggressor considers their alternatives, their ability to act violently, and the consequences of their potential actions. Although this may seem a purely cognitive process, in a heightened state of affect and arousal, more basic and primal scripts are likely to be running. Other species are very good at immediately recognizing arousal in their members, humans are not. In fact, we’re very bad at it, and will often interpret another’s aroused state incorrectly, not recognizing that we need to do something to lower and reduce it. There is a real danger of going into a situation believing that the person you are dealing with is in the same state of arousal and affect as yourself. If you don’t recognize an aggressor’s initial state of arousal for what it is, you will not have a baseline from which to judge whether your subsequent actions and behaviors are lowering or heightening it, meaning that you won’t recognize whether you should continue with your de-escalation process or move on to some other strategy, such as acting pre-emptively.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=477 Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=476 About a week ago we took the decision to suspend our free women’s self-defense program for a few weeks, to try to help slow down the spread of COVID-19. I apologize for writing another article in relation to the pandemic, however I’d urge you to stay with me and read a bit further, as this is about specific populations, where locking down and staying in place – especially for an extended period of time - increases the risk of violence. Suspending classes was a very hard decision for us to make (even though from a public health perspective it made sense) as one of the modules in our program looks at intimate partner violence/domestic abuse. Whilst, initiatives to keep people at home, are obviously beneficial in slowing down the spread of the virus, they also increase the risk of violence to women and children who are in abusive relationships. In this article, I’d like to draw some attention to the phenomenon of intimate partner violence, so that we might better understand the situation of others who will be genuinely worrying for their safety, if a full quarantine is mandated/enforced. Unfortunately, I don’t have any solutions, and my intention is not to guilt-trip people into feeling bad, but rather to highlight the very real fears and difficulties that certain individuals may be facing at this time, with the hope that as/when we come out of this we don’t forget a very real problem that exists within our society – just as we shouldn’t forget the issues around child hunger, that the closing of schools has made us all very much aware of. Cohen and Felson (1979), put forward the idea that crimes occur when there is a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. To put it in simple and practical terms, this echoes much of the personal safety advice our parents gave us when we were teenagers i.e. don’t hang around dangerous places with bad people, etc. Many feminist Victimologists at the time, understandably and rightly, took exception with this seemingly “universal” statement regarding crime, pointing out that there is an underlying victim blaming/responsibility foundation to the theory e.g. why did somebody put themselves in a place, where there was an absence of capable guardians, and how was it that they had reason to interact with a motivated offender, etc. They also pointed out, that one of the least safe locations for women was in the home, with the “motivated offender” and “capable guardian” being one and the same person i.e. their partner. This is one of the reasons, why in my time working in self-protection I have tried to take a situational approach to violence, looking at the relevant importance of the location where an attack took place, in comparison to the relationship that the target of the violent action had with their assailant/attacker e.g. if the assault was committed by a stranger the location is usually the driving component in an incident, whereas if the aggressive and violent behavior experienced was committed by somebody the target knew, then it is more likely to be the type and nature of the relationship, rather than the location that is the driving force behind the offense, etc. This is not to say that Cohen and Felson’s Routine Activity Theory isn’t a valid tool for understanding crime, but rather to highlight the difficulties in having a universal theory that is applicable for all crimes. For most of us, the home is a safe location with public places representing those locations where we are most at risk; for victims of intimate partner violence, the opposite is true – making lockdown policies inherently dangerous for women in abusive relationships. Two common questions that people often have about women in abusive relationships, whether physical or non-physical, are: “How did she let this happen to her?”, and, “Why doesn’t she just leave?”. Abusive individuals rarely show their full hands in the early days of a relationship, and some of the warning signs that are there, can easily be explained away e.g. somebody’s actions which can be interpreted as controlling, can also be seen as caring; it may seem flattering to be with someone who is always checking where you are, if you’re alright, and if there’s anything that you need, etc. Often in the initial stages of a relationship, abusive individuals are charming, focused and interested in everything about the person they are with. This “interest” may in fact be about gathering information and intelligence, that can be used to further control the person they have identified they want to be with. It is very easy to contextualize predatory actions and behaviors, in a way that although irksome, is in fact flattering and rewarding. We may like to think that we are immune to these type of behaviors, but we all have weak spots that can be exploited, and if we’re unlucky enough to run into somebody who picks up on these things, then it is likely we will be taken advantage of, in some way, shape or form. Most abusers suffer from a rigidity in their thinking, concerning relationships and other aspects of their lives. They may genuinely believe that a partner should satisfy all the other partner’s needs e.g. you don’t need friends, family or other social contacts, because they can give you everything that these people used to, etc. As a result, you end up spending all your time with them, rather than anybody else, as you don’t want to offend or hurt their feelings. Sometimes isolation is a deliberate and conscious strategy to exert further control over their partner, other times it is the indirect result of the abuser’s rigid thinking. As the abusive partner starts to question their partner’s commitment to them, they may start using psychological and emotional abuse to get them to question their value and self-worth. This may take the form statements whose meaning can be hard to interpret e.g. “You’re really fortunate to have found someone like me, who doesn’t mind that you’re overweight”, etc. As they become stressed by both internal relationship factors, and external ones, such as losing their job, not being promoted fast enough, feeling socially slighted by their friends, or being cooped up in their home for 2-3 weeks, things might take a physical turn. Physical abuse may start with no contact, and involve intimidatory posturing, throwing objects near to their partner, rather than at them, barring them from leaving or entering a room, snatching objects out of their hand(s), etc. Often after these outbursts they are extremely apologetic, and remorseful, and a honeymoon period starts, where they are the most caring and attentive person. If somebody has invested time in a relationship, and can see the good side of their partner, whilst recognizing and understanding the pressures they are under, etc., they are likely to excuse and forgive these behaviors rather than leave the relationship. It is one thing to understand what is happening as an independent individual watching in from the outside, it is another to be cold, clinical, and emotionally detached when it’s happening to you, especially if there are children involved, and you have little financial independence. Then there will come the time, as stress builds and erupts, when the partner becomes physically violent and punches are thrown – and the cycle of abuse restarts: apologies/remorse, honeymoon period, stress-building phase, eruption, etc. Once the loop becomes a familiar cycle, the abused party starts to adapt and learn to cope; this is what is needed to initially survive. At this stage, the abusive partner is very likely to start cutting off every possible means of escape i.e. there are a lot of reasons that individuals are unable to leave; and this goes for women who occupy positions of power in businesses, organizations and corporations, etc., as well - Intimate Partner Violence is not restricted to certain income groups and demographics. This is a very simplified overview/example of an extremely complex problem. The times we are in currently are uncertain and unsettling, which will contribute to everybody’d stress levels, however fortunately for most people this won’t contribute/trigger their partner to engage in physically violent outbursts against them. For some, a period of forced quarantine may result in a bit of cabin fever, however for others this may be a much riskier time.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=476 Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=475 The question of, “How could COVID-19 affect crime rates?” probably isn’t one that many people are thinking about at this time, which is understandable, however it is worth understanding how disease, pandemics and our responses at all levels have the potential to increase criminal activity both in the short and long-term. This brief article looks at some of the relationships between disease and crime. Some law-enforcement agencies around the U.S. are attempting to minimize their members’ exposure to the virus, which makes absolute sense. If an officer is infected by a member of the public on a routine traffic stop, and then returns to the station, there’s a good chance that they will quickly infect others, and before too long there won’t be enough officers available to cover future shifts, etc. This may mean that law-enforcement won’t be turning up in person if it’s a call where a crime has already been committed i.e. it’s not in progress, or it’s not of a particularly serious nature e.g. it’s a low-level property theft which is unlikely to be investigated further, or an act of vandalism, where the damage has already been done, etc. In the current climate, restricting unnecessary human interaction, is largely common sense. This doesn’t mean that the police, operating under these guidelines, will be turning a blind eye to a car that’s mounted the sidewalk, and is hurtling at 90 mph towards a Salvation Army band, etc. where it’s obvious that people are in danger, however they may be unlikely to make a stop for a minor traffic infraction. Unfortunately, the criminal community will soon become aware of this policy change and may decide that the chances of getting apprehended for minor offenses such as shoplifting and pickpocketing are greatly reduced, even if this is not actually the case e.g. many offenders will add two and two together and come up with five; police not physically responding to a call about an already committed crime doesn’t necessarily mean that the chances of getting caught go down, etc. Information that offenders pass between themselves is often subject to misinterpretation, and so any policy change/shift that can be interpreted as law-enforcement overlooking certain offenses will be jumped on by the optimistic criminal as producing more offending opportunities. We have already seen several hate-crimes committed against Asian Americans, who are somehow being blamed for either the initiation and spread of the virus, or as being genetically disposed to carrying it, etc. Hate crimes are just that: acts based on hate and not on facts/science. Whilst it may seem that these types of crime only affect specific populations, this is not the case, and they can have a serious effect on raising overall crime-rates, that end up affecting everybody. Although not conclusive, it is widely acknowledged that strong social networks and social cohesion prevent and reduce crime i.e. when offenders believe that a community has strong social ties, that everybody is looking out for each other, this causes a reduction in crime rates. When incidents such as hate crimes occur in a community, this may signal to potential offenders that there is a lack of social cohesion and collective efficacy, which ends up encouraging other criminal activities. If bad people, see bad people committing crime and getting away with it, it encourages them to act. Also, those who commit hate crimes operate as if they have been given a green-light to commit other offenses e.g. somebody who attacks another person based on their ethnicity, etc., and either gets away with it and/or receives some type of positive feedback on social media, etc., is likely to believe that other criminal actions they may engage in will also be condoned. There are several ways that risk can be analyzed e.g. you can use narrative approaches, where you imagine and create possible stories and narratives at both the micro, meso and macro levels e.g. at the macro-level you may imagine the impact of switching vaccine research and production to focus on the present epidemic and/or how people may respond to a travel ban, whilst at the micro-level you may imagine how people may react, when they no longer have access to food, due to shops closing and/or losing work because of the epidemic, etc. All of this can then be plotted on a timeline. You could then take these decision points and map them as critical variables and use a computational approach to calculate the likelihood and scale of these events occurring. You might build into these models government/policy makers’ actions and responses, such as what the effect will be of banning public gatherings over a certain size, or what the effect will be if there aren’t enough resources to treat infected individuals; could this lead to civil unrest, and rioting if people looking for treatment have to be turned away, and will there be enough healthy law-enforcement personnel to maintain law and order? Although this type of risk analysis usually occurs at the national level, by conducting our own narrative analysis we can often predict the types of policies and directives that are going to be put into place e.g. it was fairly obvious that at some point large public gatherings would be restricted, and then at some other point the size of such gatherings would be further reduced. By making such a narrative risk analysis in the very early stages of a crisis, it may be possible to stay somewhat ahead of the curve, such as by buying flu and cold medication, and stocking up on essentials over time, rather suddenly going into panic mode, that sees you standing in a crowded check out line, raising your chances of getting infected. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will be felt throughout our society, and will undoubtedly influence crime rates to some degree, even if this is not directly e.g. if the economy starts to slow down or move into recession due to the effects of lockdowns, etc., crime rates are likely to go up – this is partly the result of consumers looking for cheaper commercial goods creating a market for items that have been stolen. Whilst normally an individual may not wish to run the risk of buying/handling stolen goods, when money is tight, the risk may seem worth it. Whilst it is likely that the next few weeks will give us a better idea of the degree and scale of the spread of the virus in our locales, it may be worth us all running through various risk narratives, concerning public policies and directives, so that we are better prepared and less likely to engage in activities motivated by panic.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=475 Mon, 16 Mar 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=474 With every endeavor It’s good to have an idea of what you’re trying to accomplish, and whether you possess the means to accomplish it. Dealing with violence is no different. However, in the moment it can be difficult to identifying exactly what that goal is. When I competed in Judo it was very clear, either throw, pin or submit your opponent; other combat sports have similar, defined outcomes that you are trying to achieve. Real life violence is often more complex, due to the number of different moving parts and unknowns that are inherent in any situation e.g. do you have young kids with you? Are you in your house, on an escalator, or in a subway car? How many people might you have to deal with? And this list goes on. Therefore, it is good to have some basic heuristics/rules of thumb, that can help guide your decision making, in order to prevent over-thinking, and freezing yourself into inaction. It’s natural that we want a violent incident to be over as quickly as possible, and for whatever “technique(s)” we employ to conclusively deal with the situation, and allow us to be on our way and unharmed, in a matter of seconds. Unfortunately, this is not realistic as techniques aren’t solutions; they’re simply a set of tools and an illustrated map (not even a blueprint), that can help guide our responses. Training techniques without putting them in a context, and a dynamic, ever-changing scenario can make us think of them as something more powerful than they are. Techniques can help us create solutions to violence, but they’re not a solution in and of themselves. In most real-life situations, violence is solved incrementally, bit by bit, not all in one go. Our first objective must be simple and achievable, and that is to stop the attacker doing what they want to do e.g. if they want to sexually assault us which will involve removing our clothing, we must stop them from doing this, etc. Often, the task that an aggressor is involved in is more complex than the task of stopping them. I don’t know much about repairing a car engine, but it would take me only a few moments with a hammer and wire cutters to prevent the car from being drivable. Often, we over-complicate our tasks in self-defense scenarios and fail to recognize, that our assailant’s tasks may be the more complicated. It is far easier to charge, and rugby tackle an active shooter who is changing a magazine/clearing a jam, than it is for them to engage in this action, especially when they are put under pressure (something that has been seen time and time again e.g. New Zealand Mosque Shooting March 2019, Thalys Paris Train Attack August 2015, Thurston High School Shooting 1998, etc.). Thinking too far ahead is often what causes people to freeze and/or question their ability to handle a situation, whereas working incrementally, and looking to prevent an attacker from doing what they want to, in that moment and at each individual stage of the altercation breaks the fight down into more manageable chunks. It’s a tactic, not a strategy. My overall strategy is one of engagement to create disengagement opportunities. I don’t want to be in a fight, and in many cases when things get physical, I don’t have to be – that is, if my goal is to disengage from it. If when an aggressor intent on causing me harm steps in, to close distance, and I can get a hand in to their face to disrupt their attack, and then run, I don’t have to fight. If I want to punish them, teach them a lesson, prove my “manhood” and satisfy my fragile ego, then I’m going to have to stay and fight; otherwise I probably don’t have to. If somebody wants me to step into a shipping container with them and have the door locked until a clear “winner” emerges, I’m going to pass on that one. In most situations, we usually have a disengagement opportunity at some point in the conflict, and if we don’t take it, the question has to be why? If you can get away safely, during some stage in the fight and you choose not to, you’re no longer fighting for survival, which may have serious consequences for any plea of self-defense you make i.e. if you claim that you were only using physical force to defend yourself, but when you had a chance to avoid being in that fight you didn’t take it, and continued to “attack” your assailant, you will be on dodgy legal territory, and you may in that moment be deemed not to be acting in self-defense, and in fact guilty of using excessive and unnecessary force, etc. At the “start” of the fight you may not have been able to avoid it, but that may change as the fight progresses. I get the old adage of “better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six”, however most acts of social violence aren’t a matter of life and death, and continuing to fight a criminal and/or civil suit after the physical incident probably means that overall you come out as the “loser”. Disengagement can get clouded due to the locations where assaults may take place e.g. if you are attacked in your home – and you’re on your own – it’s easier to leave than force your assailant to (you’ve stopped them doing what they want to do to you by disengaging). The next step is to find a way to get them out of your house e.g. call law enforcement. Territoriality can cause us to miss such disengagement opportunities, and we should be aware of this. Too many people make the attacker’s job an easy one, and it’s sometimes only necessary to make their task more complex that either allows us to prevent the assault, or make our job of countering it that much simpler e.g. let them have the job of assembling an internal combustion engine, whilst we take on board the task of preventing it from working. I acknowledge that this is a simplistic analogy, however it can reduce the task of managing and dealing with violence into something that becomes achievable for many who feel it is not. Working one step at a time, to stop the assailant doing what they want to us, can be an easier goal to set and work towards than trying to render a 300lb monster unconscious; and if our ultimate goal is to disengage and get out of there, then this is all we need concern ourselves with doing.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=474 Mon, 09 Mar 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=473 During my time working bar and club security, I have seen countless fights that involved two individuals who clearly didn’t want to fight. You could see the reluctance of both parties as they unconvincingly postured to each other, hoping that the other would back down – I rack my brains to think of one incident when somebody did. In this article, I want to look at some of the reasons why we don’t back down in verbal altercations that are clearly going to result in a physical confrontation; and it’s not simply a matter of ego (and in a bar/pub setting; alcohol). The types of incidents/interactions I want to consider are spontaneously violent situations – often referred to as “social” violence – where somebody’s actions and behaviors, whether real or perceived, has triggered another person(s) to become aggressive/potentially violent towards them e.g. they spilt a drink over them, they accidentally bumped into them, they were talking to their partner in a seemingly flirtatious manner, etc. Situations, where there is the opportunity for a non-physical, non-violent outcome. Wolves and other social animals rarely fight, they manage disputes and conflicts through displays of posture and submission. Fighting rarely comes without some form of cost/injury, and for pack animals who hunt together, having injured members could be disastrous for the group’s survival, so actual fighting must be avoided at all costs. Wolves, when there is a conflict, will growl, bare their teeth and posture to each other, with one eventually rolling on its back, showing its throat in an act of submission. Conflict over. Humans, although social creatures, lack such structured mechanisms for dealing with conflict. Konrad Lorenz (1974), speculates that the reason for this, is that in our evolutionary history, when such behavioral systems that dealt with conflict were starting to be laid down, we were not sophisticated tool makers, and so unlike wolves we lacked the physical means to cause each other serious harm e.g. a wolf is easily capable of killing another wolf, by ripping its throat out, so it makes sense that a method of conflict resolution develops to avoid the potential of this happening. Humans on the other hand, without a tool such as a knife, stick or gun, etc., aren’t as physically dangerous to each other, and so didn’t develop a system for avoiding physical conflicts i.e. we don’t have a natural mechanism for backing down. This can be clearly seen in the posturing displays that often occur before the “real” fight, where there’s a lot of pushing, shouting, taking tops off, etc., where the frustration can be seen in the participants, that none of these actions are causing the other to back off. If we are to be successful in de-escalating conflicts, we need to be aware that there is not a natural “submissive” response that we can work to or with. In many verbal disputes and arguments, neither party believes it will ever get physically violent i.e. that neither one will actually cross that line and throw the first punch. Each one, believes that their posturing will cause the other person to back down, however without an inherent/developed submissive response, this is highly unlikely, and at some point, frustrated by the fact that the other party is backing off, someone will throw a punch and the fight “proper” will be on; even though from a legal perspective it started the moment one person gave the other a reason to fear for their safety, and put themselves in a position where they could cause them physical harm i.e. assaulted them. Many people can’t conceive that in an aggressive verbal confrontation somebody would punch them, however without offering some alternative to engaging in violence, it is very likely that this will be the outcome i.e. the other person sees no other way out, etc. This form of denial is an inherent human coping mechanism, that allows us not to have to deal with the stress and negative/uncomfortable emotion(s) that are present in such conflicts. In many cases, we’ll write alternative narratives and outcomes, that mean we don’t have to accept the reality of what we’re facing e.g. we might tell ourselves that somebody will soon intervene and break up the confrontation for us (we just need to stall for time by continuing to engage in the pushing/shoving contest), or that the other person isn’t really serious and is just playing around with us, etc. When somebody starts to act aggressively towards you, if you’re unable to help them find a different direction to head in, there’s a good chance things will become physically violent.  De-escalating a situation involves a lot more than simply speaking softly and saying you’re sorry. In certain situations, apologizing will convince and reinforce to your aggressor that they are in the right, and justified to act violently towards you. To avoid a verbal altercation turning physical, we must recognize that people aren’t equipped with the necessary wiring to back down and may not be able to recognize when we are the ones “backing down”. Most of us can probably remember a time, when we presented a solution during a dispute that gave the individual we were arguing with what they wanted, but they were so emotional that they weren’t able to recognize it. Humans are great at posturing, demanding and forcing their case, but lack the wiring to always recognize the alternative ways of resolving the conflict, that are presented to them, and this is why de-escalation must be an interactive process, that sees the other party present the non-violent solution to the situation. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=473 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=472 You may have seen a post on social media, which starts with the line, “WRITTEN BY A COP: Everyone should take 5 minutes to read this…”, that contains a list of some ten safety tips/pieces of advice, which apparently have the potential to, “save your life”. This list (and others like it) have been doing the rounds for several years, and every now and again will appear in my news feed, often with comments thanking whoever shared it for doing so. Unfortunately, the points made, paint a misleading picture of what violence looks like, and presents some pretty disastrous solutions for dealing with violent and potentially violent incidents. In this article I want to go through some of the “tips” and evaluate the usefulness of what is being stated. I also want to discuss the general tone of the post, and the way the information is presented, as this can help us identify whether information is coming from a trusted source or not. The first warning sign is that no author or sources are cited i.e. there is no one to question about the validity of the claims made. The information is quoted as, “WRITTEN BY A COP” as if this is proof that we should listen and take note of what is being said – this is written in capitals as if to emphasize the validity of being said – however there is no name given to the officer who purportedly wrote the list of tips – no actual source cited. The author also states that some of the advice given, came from sources like a “tourist guide”, or a “friend” etc., so although we’re supposed to believe the advice because it comes from a law enforcement officer, some of it is acknowledged as hearsay and gossip. If there is no way to validate what is being said either by being able to question and ask the person giving the advice, or by checking the source of it – for example, did it come from published research – we should be skeptical as to its legitimacy and accuracy. We live in a “gig economy”, where websites will pay freelancers a small fee to create content for them. They don’t search for experts; they will simply offer the task for somebody to collate a list of self-defense tips, and once done task them with finding the 10 best lasagna recipes, etc. The consequences of following a bad lasagna recipe cannot be compared to the consequences of following bad/dangerous personal safety advice. If somebody is prepared to give advice, they should be prepared to put their name to it, so their credentials can be evaluated. The second, and perhaps most major warning sign, is the use of absolute statements (again written in capitals as if these statements are unquestionable), such as “ALWAYS” and “NEVER”. Solutions to violence are situational, and one solution in one incident, may not work in another seemingly similar one; the situation determines the solution, not the other way around. One piece of advice that is given is, “6. ALWAYS take the elevator instead of the stairs.” Always? I wrote about this in October of 2019, and there are many considerations, that should influence your choice of which to use e.g. the elevator at the Four Seasons in Manhattan, is very different to one that is constantly carrying gang members in a parking lot on the South Side of Chicago. The threats are also different: you may not be mugged in the elevator at the Four Seasons, but if you’re a woman, you may have to fight off the sexual advances of a drunk business man going back to is room after a “working lunch” etc. Violence is contextual, which is why there aren’t “ALWAYS” and “NEVERS”, there’s just “IT DEPENDS”. Be extremely skeptical of anyone or any advice that doesn’t acknowledge the contextual nature of violent situations and prescribes rigid and inflexible strategies that you should “ALWAYS” follow. Number two on the list is the oft-repeated piece of advice that when dealing with a mugger/street robber, you shouldn’t hand your wallet over to them – per their demand – but to throw it away from you. The idea being that they will leave you and go to pick the wallet up, creating an opportunity for you to run. It’s a nice idea, but really that’s all it is. Firstly, it presupposes that you have the room and space to throw it on the floor, and an easy disengagement opportunity; if you’re mugged whilst at the ATM in a small to medium-sized bank lobby, this won’t be the case. It also doesn’t consider all the motives behind muggings. Whilst acquiring your resources might be the primary motive, there are reasons why certain offenders choose to commit street robberies over other property crimes, such as thefts and burglaries, etc. Muggers, are looking to interact with those they target, to enjoy a degree of power and control over them and to dispense some of their anger. These are individuals who feel entitled to take another person’s possessions, and have no/little remorse as to how their actions effect others. Once you’ve thrown the wallet, the mugger no longer needs you – you’ve given them access to it – and you’ve also taken away their sense of power and control, by not following their demand to hand it over. In an already volatile incident, you’ve just upped the ante by refusing to follow their orders; this is the time when you are most likely to be punched, stabbed, or shot, etc. Better to just hand it over and let them leave, which is the script that most muggers follow. Some of the advice is simply outdated e.g. “If you are ever thrown into the trunk of a car, kick out the back taillights and stick your arm out the hole and start waving like crazy…The driver won't see you, but everybody else will.” Since 2002, all cars in the U.S. have been required to be fitted with an emergency truck release. This is a luminous handle, which will allow you to open the trunk – if you’re concerned about your abductor seeing this, you can do it partially – and signal to other drivers that you need help. One of my big questions concerning this list is why this is included in a top 10 safety list of do’s and don’ts i.e. being abducted and thrown into the trunk of a car may be a common movie scenario, but in reality it’s a rare and uncommon type of event – there would be much better and more appropriate advice to give if the author’s goal was actually to help people protect themselves from the types of assault they are most likely to face – before dealing with a situation from within a trunk of a car, it would be appropriate to offer ways of avoiding ending up there – beginning with understanding how to predict/identify someone’s intent, and if that fails, how to position yourself and when to fight, etc. The advice that is given if you are in a car, and somebody has a gun to your head, is to ram your car into a wall, so the airbag goes off, saving you (giving you the opportunity to get out and run), whilst the crash renders your abductor unconscious. I feel this scenario has been pulled from a dozen movie scripts. If you crash your car at the necessary speed to both trigger the airbag, and render your abductor unconscious, you are probably not getting out of the vehicle in the same mental and physical state as you got in, if you can get out at all, i.e. you’ve been in a car crash. Also, if your abductor has his finger on the trigger, when you accelerate/crash, it’s very likely that the weapon will go off. Nice solution for the movies, where a script is being followed, but not so good for real life. Apparently, according to the author of this list, serial killers use tape recordings (who remembers what a tape recorder is, and who still has one?) of babies crying, that they play on people’s porches to get them to open the door, and offenders will run your outside taps, at night, to get you to come outside, so that they can then attack you – what their purpose/motive is for getting you outside is never mentioned. The author’s obsession with serial killers dominates the list, however serial killers are extremely rare, and their modus operandi, differs significantly between them, which is why it is better to follow general safety precautions, rather than focus on specific signatures, that may have been used in the past. When we take into account that predatory individuals tend to be skilled social players, elaborate setups just aren’t necessary to gain access to us. What is lacking in this list, are any actionable points that can be used on a day-to-day basis, such as teaching individuals how to recognize when somebody has identified them as a target, or informing them of the types of locations that different types of criminals operate in, etc. The advice given – even when correct – is too specific to be useful, and that makes its authenticity questionable, despite the claim of “WRITTEN BY A COP”. There are a lot of articles out there giving good advice, with authors being available to justify what they say. That isn’t the case here, and so alarm bells should start ringing.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=472 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=471 There’s a huge difference between being sold a car and buying one – that’s not to say that those who work in car dealerships are inherently crooked or dishonest - but rather that there are those individuals who are very good at convincing people that the car they don’t really need, is the one that they desperately want; and/or upselling them on features and upgrades that may be nice but don’t really add much to the driving experience. It’s possible to walk away with a genuinely great “deal” and still have it not be the deal you were actually looking for. There are some people who seem to have a natural gift for getting us to want what they’re offering and fortunately most times the real cost(s) are relatively small and inconsequential e.g. the state-of-the art Bose stereo may not really be worth the extra $5 per month on your car payment, when you only listen to Fresh Air with Terry Gross, etc. However, there are times when “getting played” is a serious matter, as when helping a person in need who is the bait for a larger crime such as an abduction or home invasion, or agreeing to get into a stranger’s car after the first date, etc. It can sometimes be difficult to separate a genuine story, from a fake one (especially if our natural disposition is to help others in need) however if we understand how and why we can be easily persuaded – even against our better judgement – we will be one step nearer to recognizing a con that may compromise our safety. However, before we look at the “art of persuasion” we must first acknowledge to ourselves that however good we believe we are at identifying a scheme, and however immune we believe we are to being flattered and charmed, every one of us can be played and conned if the circumstances are right. We all have weak spots and vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and the skilled player knows how to discover, recognize, and use these. Almost a hundred years ago Charles Ponzi, came up with a scheme (which bears his name), which is still being run to this day. If you thought this type of con died when Bernie Madoff was caught/exposed, be aware that in the U.S. it is estimated that more money is lost through Ponzi Schemes, than through shoplifting. We just aren’t aware of it, because the usually rich victims don’t draw attention to it (I once did some work for an investment bank that lost millions annually due to fraud, and although they wanted to limit this, they were more afraid of this fact becoming public knowledge than the actual financial losses). Ponzi schemes are pretty simple: you promise some investors a good return on their money, and keep getting new investors to pay in, so you can keep paying out, whilst taking your cut – all works fine until you can’t find any new investors to keep funding the scheme. For the whole thing to work, the individual(s) running the scheme need to gain the investor’s trust – something necessary in any con. Words are important, and when we understand the types of words that are used to gain our trust, we have a better chance of identifying when we are being played. The Hebrew book of proverbs contains the line, “the liar extends his own testimony” i.e. when somebody is lying, they talk and say far more than should be necessary. The notes that Ponzi issued to his investors were dense with words like “Guarantee”, “Obligation”, “Promise”, “Gold-Backed”, etc. They are the words that an investor wants to hear – and there were too many of them. The confidence that the scheme is legitimate comes from the wording, not the message. This is also often seen with people who fake suicide notes, to cover up a homicide. Genuine suicide notes usually have a mix of emotions in them e.g. there are often as many expressions of anger as there are of despair and depression, etc. however somebody faking a note, usually doesn’t recognize this, and so fills the note densely with expressions of sadness and desperation i.e. they use over-use certain words, and do so densely, without actually communicating a message. People trying to gain our trust because they are untrustworthy and have nefarious purposes towards us, are usually far too “obvious” and take far too long to say what actually needs to be said. However, if the promised rewards are great enough, we’ll often choose to believe them.      A good con will get us wanting to align our goals with those of the person conning us i.e. the experienced con person will get us to want what they want. One serial rapist, I was involved in researching, understood this perfectly. He understood that when somebody goes on a date, their goal is to try and get another date e.g. they want/hope that they’ll meet somebody who they want to see again, and who wants to see them again. After all, that is the point of dating. As the evening was drawing to a close, he’d suggest that rather than ending the date at whatever location both parties had arranged to meet, that they go to another bar he knew (this was a more involved ploy that required getting the other person to get into his car with him). What he was doing was offering another “date” early i.e. no more waiting for somebody to call, text and/or email you the next day, you’ve already got your “next” date, etc. When somebody appears to be pre-empting what we want it’s good to have a few questions about whether this all seems too good to be true. It’s easy to convince ourselves that because we appear to want the same thing, this puts us on the same team, etc., and if agreeing brings us closer to the “reward” we are expecting we should certainly subscribe to what’s being suggested because after all we may never get this opportunity again… and so we fall for the con i.e. if the “offer” is only good for today, it’s probably not one we should be taking. If somebody really, genuinely wants to see you again, they really, genuinely want to see you again - if there is a sense of urgency and even finality about this, it’s good to hesitate and ask yourself a few questions concerning the safety of your actions. We’re very good at convincing ourselves of the narrative we’ve created, especially if we’ve invested in it. I’ve seen martial artists double-down on the illegitimate claims of their instructors, when the claims and assertions they’ve made have been proved to be false, etc. A little bit of a reward goes a long way to buying loyalty and belief. Ponzi schemes pay out in the short-term, which is one of the reasons why they appear legitimate; and why people keep investing. Even when somebody hears the rumors that what they’re investing in may be suspect, many people will keep paying in, as a means and justification, to convince themselves that the scheme is legitimate. The moment you stop paying in is the moment you have to admit to yourself that you made a mistake – and that can be a hard thing to do, especially if you’ve invested heavily in it. Nobody wants to see themselves as a victim. Many people in abusive relationships, buy into them for the same reason, making excuses for their partner’s behavior and treatment towards them, because admitting that what they are experiencing is abuse, would mean viewing themselves in a very different light. If we initially buy into a con, the only way out is to recognize and admit what’s happened, and that can be hard, especially if we’ve invested a lot of ourselves in it. A con can happen in seconds, and we can easily invest heavily in it, whether it’s a few lines of a story, or a more elaborate and complex scheme. Overly-dense language that seems to promise a lot is something to be aware of – if we need to be convinced of something then our alarm bells should be ringing. Taking a chance on something is just that, and where our safety might be compromised it’s better to play things safe, even if we miss that opportunity of a lifetime. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=471 Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=470 The term “groupthink”, is a term taken by Irving Janis (1972) from George Orwell’s “1984”, that refers to a psychological phenomenon, whereby individuals start to think in the same way for reasons of conformity and harmony, rather than because they have individually come to the consensus decision. When this happens, alternative solutions to problems and issues aren’t considered, because the “ingroup” has already decided what the “correct” solution is and have convinced themselves that everything else is wrong. For much of my early life in the martial arts, the “groupthink” attitude was that striking arts were superior to grappling arts; it wasn’t that grapplers didn’t recognize the importance of striking, but the predominant view of the striking arts was that grapplers could be kept at range through striking, etc. That was the “groupthink” when I was growing up - and then Royce Gracie – a Ju-Jitsu practitioner – won the first UFC in 1993, not just by grappling, but by grappling on the ground. This was followed by a period in the sport where wrestlers/grapplers dominated. Unfortunately, the way that our brains manage information, makes us prone to “groupthink”, and as martial arts/self-defense practitioners we need to be aware of this, as it can narrow our thinking, and make us prone to believing that what we have been taught is the only and/or “correct” solution and everybody else has got it wrong. There are no rules, or immutable principles, when it comes to fighting, only heuristics. There are ideas that can guide our actions, but if we apply them rigidly, things can fall apart. One of the first principles of Krav Maga I learnt was: if it’s a life-threatening attack (such as a choke or strangulation), attack the attack, if it’s a non-life-threatening attack (such as a wrist or lapel grab), attack the attacker. This is a fantastic guiding concept/idea, but it isn’t necessarily the best strategy in every situation e.g. in some instances – such as when dealing with an aggressive group - if you’re grabbed, it may be better to free yourself and disengage, rather than attack your attacker, and in others if an assailant has you by the lapels and is throwing you around, it may not be possible to strike them, and you will need to free yourself first, etc. Having, and adhering, to absolutes, forces you to respond in a fixed way, and may prevent you from utilizing a solution that is applicable and relevant in that moment. In the early days of the UFC, many strikers ignored the fact that even if they weren’t going to utilize grappling solutions, they needed to understand grappling in order to ensure that their striking options would work. There must come a point in our training where we look outside of what we’ve been taught, and question our approach, not to convince ourselves that what we’ve been taught is correct, but to critically evaluate our solutions and see if they marry up with reality, even if this means that we may not conform to our group’s and/or instructor’s position. In a real-life encounter, you aren’t there to demonstrate and promote the applicability of your system or style, you’re there to use what you’ve been taught to survive the situation i.e. if you think that you will be cleanly replicating the techniques you’ve been taught in a familiar a-b-c pattern, you have an unrealistic expectation of what violence looks like. We are prone to “groupthink” due to the way that our brain categorizes information i.e. we sort information into silos and aren’t very good at managing data/information that doesn’t neatly fit into categories. This is one of the reasons why we don’t like it when we ask a question, such as what we should do in this or that situation and our instructors says “it depends” i.e. we want a clear-cut answer that we can put in the appropriate box. Solutions to violence can’t be applied in a paint-by-numbers fashion, whereby every time we are attacked in a certain way, we respond in an identical fashion – there are just too many variables in real-life confrontations to operate this way e.g. multiple attackers, the environment we are in, people and dependents who are with us, etc. If we consider a typical street robbery, statistically it will involve multiple assailants – what will they be doing as you attempt to disarm a weapon? Situations determine solutions, not the “techniques” you have learnt; even though our brains want to manage the solutions we have learnt otherwise. The terminology and phraseology that is often used in self-defense can exacerbate this, such as using terms like “always” and “never”, etc. In defining religious “cults” there are seven signs/criteria that are commonly used, and some are useful to judge whether we are thinking independently or whether we are blindly adhering to an instructor’s or association’s message. Firstly, is critical thinking opposed i.e. if you question a technique or solution presented to you, how does your instructor/association deal with it? Is it dismissed without consideration? Does your instructor appear annoyed or respond aggressively? Secondly, how does your instructor respond to individuals who leave your school to train elsewhere, possibly in another style or system? The martial arts for me has always been about finding your individual way, and I recognize that what and how I teach isn’t what everybody is looking for, or necessarily needs. In religious terms, cults emphasize special/secret doctrines outside of scripture, in martial arts/self-defense terms, schools and associations that promote the idea that their system or style, has secret techniques, should be seriously questioned. For some reason these are usually “killing techniques” reserved for the true disciples – in the thousands of years of man’s existence, if somebody is claiming that they have discovered a new and unknown way to kill a person, you’re talking to a snake oil salesman. The fourth criteria in religious cults is inappropriate loyalty to its leaders; something in my forty years in the martial arts that has been all too common e.g. the head instructor and their ideas are beyond question. There is a huge difference between having respect for somebody’s experience, etc., and being encouraged to idolize them. The last three criteria are specific to religious organizations, however the first four are applicable to any group, and if you feel/believe that you are being encouraged and directed to think in these ways, it may be time to start questioning things. Humans like to be part of groups, however when we join one, we need to recognize that we will by default start to think and believe the group message and question that of those outside the group. This isn’t by any sinister design, it’s how we are programmed to behave. However, we should be aware of this and recognize that to critically think we must actively work against it. One way is to expand the groups we are part of and interact in a healthy manner with individuals who are part of other groups, rather than double down and reinforce our own belief systems with that of the group.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=470 Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=469 Women’s self-defense isn’t glamorous, isn’t sexy, and it’s certainly not stylish – no real-life violent confrontation or fight ever is. However, if you look at how the martial arts/health and fitness industries present the topic, you might be fooled into thinking that a size 2, 110-pound women, dressed in spandex, without breaking into a sweat - and with every hair in place - can be taught to throw a devastating, knockout punch (against a stereotypical looking criminal) in a 60-minute seminar. Presenting the subject in this way, is both unrealistic and does a complete disservice to the subject area; as well as being patronizing towards women. It seems that the self-defense industry’s message to women is, that it’s not enough to simply survive an assault, but that you should also look good as you’re doing it. In fact, if you look at the stock photos and the imagery used in promoting many classes and seminars, the latter part of the message seems to be the more important. Violence is a mess (for both men and women) and deep down, everybody knows this. To present women’s self-defense in this overly simplified, sterile, sanitized and sensational manner, is both misleading and unconvincing, to all parties involved; and I believe this type of message puts off more women from attending classes and programs, than attracts them – as well as perpetuating a lot of myths and untruths concerning violence towards women. In this article, I want to look at some of the mixed messages that often seem to get communicated concerning women’s self-defense, and some of the areas that many programs neglect. It’s not just men who attack women, women also attack women, however this is rarely if ever discussed. There are some who may try to make the argument, that these types of incidents are both uncommon and usually inconsequential, however from my time working bar, pub, and club security I would beg to differ. I have seen women try to drive stiletto heels into a downed female adversary’s eyes, I have seen women smashing their victim/target’s face off of tables, shelves and bars, using their hair to control them, etc., and in many cases the crowds watching have actively tried to prevent myself and other security personnel from intervening, because everybody likes watching a “catfight” – if a woman ever gets into a fight with another woman, and there isn’t security present, don’t expect anybody watching to be in any hurry to break it up. Learning how to de-escalate a situation involving a jealous girlfriend who has misinterpreted your conversation and intentions towards her boyfriend is something that should be taught in all women’s self-defense programs, as such situations can rapidly head south; especially where alcohol is involved. I have seen women’s bathroom queues in clubs turn into near riots, when they’ve extended beyond a certain length, and people have tried to jump the line, etc. There are many, many types of situations where women’s self-defense involves a female aggressor, and to neglect these types of scenarios, is to not deal with the topic in a realistic and comprehensive manner. Many physically violent encounters develop out of socially awkward situations, however a lot of women’s self-defense is presented as ambush or blitz-style attacks, where there are no preceding phases or stages e.g. an attacker simply jumps out from a hiding place, or comes up from behind without any warning, etc., and whilst these types of assault do occur, they are in the minority, and shouldn’t be presented as if they’re the norm. Knowing how to recognize someone’s intent and being able to extricate yourself safely from a potentially dangerous conversation without straight away shouting “back off” and visually/audibly enforcing a boundary is a key skill that needs to be taught. I am all for female empowerment training, however there are times when such actions and behaviors will escalate a situation unnecessarily, and this should be recognized and taught. There are many “grades” to setting and enforcing boundaries without having to demonstrate to everyone around you that this is what you are doing. Violence is largely social, and so teaching people how to understand and manage social encounters needs to be a part of women’s self-defense training, rather than simply teaching women what to do when somebody grabs them from behind, etc. Often, women’s self-defense scenarios are presented as always being at the most extreme end of the confrontational spectrum, which makes them unrelatable to most women i.e. those are things that happen to other people, etc. There are few women who haven’t had to deal with pushy and obnoxious men, or inappropriate physical contact, and teaching strategies for dealing with these situations, rather than just extreme physical attacks, should be part of any program. Setting realistic expectations is extremely important when teaching a program or class that operates with limited time. However, this shouldn’t mean that we use something such as groin-strikes as a universal solution which is applicable in every situation, especially if these are delivered with kicks and knees, etc. Attacks from the rear, which involve pulling actions are extremely difficult to deal with, especially when they involve movement, so choosing how much time to dedicate to these in a short class, needs to be a consideration e.g. if most attacks are going to happen face-to-face, is it better to spend time dealing with the types of attack that may come from these more common situations, and that are more likely to be achievable, than ones where a person is completely surprised. If somebody is only going to do a short course or come to a few classes, choosing what to and what not to teach is important i.e. you can’t teach everything in a few hours. Women’s self-defense is something that deserves to be taken seriously, and shouldn’t simply be an addendum to an existing martial arts program e.g. an occasional class or course that gets put on with little thought, because that’s what martial arts schools feel they need to offer, or believe is a good way to boost income every now and again. The tired, stereotypical, stock image advertising needs to stop; looking good whilst surviving an assault sends the wrong message and has the potential to alienate many women. Women’s self-defense and personal safety deserves to be treated both seriously and respectfully, because done correctly it can be highly effective in helping women predict, prevent, identify and avoid violence as well as increase their survival chances if physically assaulted.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=469 Mon, 03 Feb 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=468 One of the first pieces of advice I remember receiving when I started working bar and club security was that you only think about the first punch/strike you throw – after that, you’re not really thinking, you’re just doing i.e. the only decision you make in a fight, is to fight. I don’t fully agree with this, but it comes close to recognizing that most of what you do in a fight isn’t about conscious processing or reasoning; there isn’t the time to engage in such thinking patterns, as everything will be moving far too fast. My elevator pitch, self-defense lesson, is get a hand in your assailant’s face (conscious choice/decision) and start striking (unconscious process) until you recognize a disengagement opportunity (unconscious/conscious choice/decision). It’s not a particularly sophisticated strategy, but it’s a good starting plan. Unfortunately, our conscious processing often gets in the way of our ability to fight effectively, because it causes us to be hesitant and indecisive – two behaviors that usually result in disaster. In this article, I want to look at how our attitude and thinking in the training environment can either help or hinder us, and how we can simplify our thought processes so that they don’t get in the way of our ability to be effective when engaged in a conflict. When gun disarming, if you don’t get out of the line of fire – whether that’s accomplished by you moving, you moving the weapon and/or a combination of the two – and your attacker pulls the trigger, you’re getting shot. Broken down in this way, it’s a pretty simple scenario, with an obvious consequence, however if you’re training with a Blue Gun or a non-firing replica, the consequence isn’t felt i.e. you don’t get out of the line of fire, you don’t get shot, etc. There are easy ways to create a “safe” but “felt” consequence such as using simunition, paintball or airsoft weapons, etc., to check that students are indeed getting out of the line of fire, but once they return to training with non-firing replicas, this consequence is once again lost; and it becomes easy to forget the purpose of training – that is the training “goals” can become muddled and confused. In a weapon disarm, the goal is to end up with the weapon in your hand(s) and not in your assailant’s and/or training partner’s. However, there is a lot that can and does happen between the start of the process and the end; including the assailant’s response and reaction, whether trained or natural e.g. their grab/snatch reflex is triggered and they automatically pull the weapon away as they feel it being controlled, etc. If your goal when training is simply to get the (non-firing) training gun, out of your partner’s hands as quickly as possible, then this can be accomplished without getting out of the line of fire – when this happens, any body defense that should be present either becomes ignored or neglected; all the work is done with the hands. The goal has been changed from learning a technique and solution that would be effective in a real-world scenario, to one of “how can I take this plastic weapon off my partner as quickly as possible in this training environment”. Every time we train a technique – whatever it is – we must remind ourselves of the consequences if this was a real-life situation. In a real-life situation, we must do the opposite, and forget about the consequences. In a real-life scenario, if we get caught up thinking about the consequences of our actions, we will find ourselves freezing, hesitating and being indecisive. If you were to have somebody point a gun at your head – and you understood that if you didn’t attempt to disarm them they would shoot you - it would be natural to think about all the things that could go wrong i.e. in this moment your life is in question and there are obvious consequences for you, your family, and your loved ones if you were unsuccessful in getting out of the line of fire. However, none of these consequences are relevant to the execution of the technique/solution. The mechanics of the disarm are exactly the same as that which you have practiced with a plastic weapon in a training environment, if, and it’s a big “if”, you have practiced them in that environment with the consequences in mind e.g. taking into account what can happen if you don’t get out of the line of fire. It is the considering, and taking into account, the consequences in the training environment, which makes the training effective. If we do this, we know we have something that is able to work in the real world, allowing us to execute a solution in a real-life scenario as if we were doing so in a training environment, etc. Obviously, this is a gross simplification of what violence actually looks like, however I’ve done this in an attempt to demonstrate when and where we should be thinking of the “consequences” of what we are doing. Not thinking about the potential consequences of our actions in a real-life setting isn’t an easy thing to do. I’m reminded of this in Soccer/Football every time a world cup game goes to a penalty shoot-out. A player may have practiced taking penalties over and over again, with an almost 100% success rate, however if their goal is needed to keep their team/country in the championship, although the task remains the same as what they practiced so successfully in training, there is the danger of buckling under the pressure of the consequences of failing. If they can remove that pressure and make the task simply about putting the ball in the back of the net, and nothing more than that, then their chances of success will rise dramatically. Where we should be thinking about the consequences of failing at violence is in the training environment, and we should train, as if we are under the pressure of a real-life situation e.g. when gun-disarming, getting out of the line of fire isn’t optional, so that if/when we are confronted with a similar real-life situation, all we have to do, is replicate what we did in training.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=468 Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=467 Violence is contextual. I find myself saying this repeatedly. Because of this, our training needs to be contextual. On a frequent/regular basis, I’m contacted by individuals who want military or law-enforcement training, but are not involved in military or law-enforcement work. Why? If you are not performing the duties, and/or have the responsibilities, that law-enforcement and military have, why do you require this type of training? As a civilian you shouldn’t need to be taught how to apprehend and cuff and restrain somebody, you should be primarily looking to disengage, and exit the situation. If you’re not military personnel, why do you need to practice bayonet charges? Also, in most situations, when you are working in a professional capacity, you’re part of a team – or have a team/support system who are ready to back you up and come to your assistance. This is probably not going to be the case when you are walking home from the pub late at night on your own. You’re probably also not going to be wearing a duty-belt, which has on it pieces of essential equipment such as a radio which you can use to call for back-up, etc. Military and Law-Enforcement members need specialist training because they deal with unique and special scenarios that civilians aren’t expected to find themselves in. If you are a civilian, dealing with civilian situations, that’s the type of training you require i.e. you don’t need to be taught how to operate as part of a four-man team storming a room to rescue a hostage, etc., and whilst such scenarios may be extremely high-stakes, it doesn’t make them more or less complicated than dealing with a group of aggressive drunks in a bar – it just makes them different. I remember being on a close-protection course, where one of the members was working in law-enforcement. He couldn’t get out of the habit of not wanting to disengage from potentially violent confrontations, because all of his previous training and experiences had taught him to engage and confront a threat, rather than move away from it. The goals of the two professions are by and large mutually exclusive. If you are upholding the law, you aren’t usually required to back away, and leave the threat in place, you are tasked with dealing with it. In Close Protection, you don’t have a responsibility to the larger society, your job is to protect and ensure the safety of the person you are looking after i.e. the principal. The context of your work is different, and this is extremely important – it may go against every instinct you have as law enforcement to “ignore” and not confront a danger, but if you are charged with protecting one individual, you may be better extracting them from the situation than dealing with a threat. The “pull” of doing what one profession requires versus another, was confirmed to me several years ago, when in a training session, those involved in various branches of law enforcement felt it necessary to secure a weapon in the environment, rather than exit it. When they defined the context, they were right to access and retrieve the weapon, however in the context within which they were working this was not appropriate – or safe. The lesson: the training methods and requirements of one agency may not be directly transferrable to another. It should also be noted that the tactics employed by one agency against a particular threat, aren’t replicable to other agencies, or to civilians, etc. In Northern Ireland, it soon became apparent that the most effective solution to a shooter who targeted a patrol was not to look for cover, and spend time trying to identify the shooter, but was instead to break in to the nearest houses in an attempt to identify and deal with them in a close proximity, rather than to give them the luxury of time, identifying and picking off targets as they attempted to identify – and return fire – in the direction of the shooting. In an active shooter incident in a public-setting where civilians are the target, I wouldn’t be suggesting a similar tactic be employed; usually better to find cover and concealment, rather than engage with the shooter. This tactic – though politically and socially divisive – was relevant in a very specific context, and to deal with a very singular type of threat and danger: a civilian/terrorist shooter targeting military personnel has a very different goal(s) and agenda, to an active killer targeting civilians. You can’t simply take the solutions that are applicable to one context and transfer them to another; something I often see regarding weapon disarming. I know a lot of Krav Maga instructors who received training in long-barrel weapon disarms struggled to make such training applicable to civilian training – the main reason being because it’s rarely directly transferable. However, as Active Shooter training for businesses and educational facilities started to see more of a demand, there were several who thought that this was where such training could be applied i.e. long-barrel weapon disarms could now be translated, referred and made relevant to civilian active shooter scenarios, etc. This ignored several, significant factors. Firstly, in most active shooter/killer scenarios those involved are using short-barrel weapons (don’t get caught up in media presentations where the weapon of choice is an AR-15), and secondly, in almost all active shooter incidents where a long-barrel weapon is involved, the killer has a second weapon – whilst you try to disarm them of their long-barrel weapon/rifle, which may be attached by a sling or harness, they’re reaching for a second weapon, be it a knife or gun, to attack you with. Just because an assailant has a rifle or shotgun, it doesn’t mean that you should be applying a “universal” solution such as a disarm. It’s not that disarming isn’t relevant or doesn’t have its place, but rather it’s contextual – and to choose when it’s an effective solution you need to understand the context. I’ve heard numerous stories of ex-military personnel incorrectly trying to apply military tactics and responses when working as law-enforcement, as well as those with a history in law enforcement trying to replicate what was necessary and effective in one field, in another. Your training needs to be applicable to the context(s) within which you experience certain types of violence. This is not to say that those who have served in one field can’t transfer their skills and knowledge to another e.g. there are many good ex-military/law enforcement personnel have translated their experience, who can take what it is like to burst through a door, as part of a team, and pull out the relevant/constituent parts that are applicable to dealing with a group of aggressive drunks in a bar, etc., however to simply believe that everything learnt, developed and experienced in one field is directly transferrable to another is both naive and dangerous.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=467 Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=466 One of the things that primarily attracted me to Krav Maga, was the system’s use of natural reflexive movements and responses; using our in-built defenses to deal with certain attacks e.g. if the airway is attacked the hands will automatically come up to try and pull the offending arm(s)/hand(s) away and clear it, etc. Whereas many martial arts and self-defense systems try to get the practitioner to conform their movements to an “artificially” created response, Krav Maga works from the basis of what you will do, rather than what you should do. However, just as I have a natural flinch response, that sees me bring my arm up to protect myself when movement across my peripheral vision is detected – something which is used to initiate a 360/Outside defense – whether it’s a ball being thrown in the park or somebody swinging in a wild haymaker, so does my assailant i.e. they have all the same natural instinctive responses that I have. So, if I throw a strike/kick to the groin, they will naturally pull their hips back, and bring their arms/hands down to defend, just as I would. This means I have to find ways to overcome these responses or learn how to use them to my advantage; in doing so I can also learn how an attacker could take advantage of and use my natural responses against me. One strike that is often over-used in Krav Maga is the groin kick. Whilst, it is an easy strike to perform on a pad or kick shield, it is not nearly as successful or useful in real-life, as it relies upon several things being in place to get it to work; the target/groin must be exposed/available and a certain range and distance is required to make the kick – you must also overcome your attacker’s natural reflex of pulling the hips/groin back when the movement is first detected. In many cases, groin kicks are practiced in class, as if the attacker is standing square on, with their legs wide apart, and at a distance where the foot can reach the pad/target – in a dynamic, real-life confrontation this type of scenario is rare (most assaults are close-range affairs that start off nose-to-nose, and are characterized by movement) and the groin is likely to be a moving and more discrete target. However, if it does become available as a target for a kick, you increase your chances of success by not aiming to connect with the foot, but with the shin. By aiming the foot about 8-12 inches behind the groin, you will account for any pull back of the hips; if this occurs the foot will connect, if it doesn’t, the shin will. The other way to use the groin kick is as a feint, to stimulate a response in your assailant that puts them in a disadvantageous position e.g. you could start the movement/kick off, without the intent of following through and striking the groin, in order to bring your assailant’s head forward and down, as they pull their hips back; this now presents you with the head/face as an available target. The same effect can be achieved by forcing an attacker to react to the movement of an initiated punch or strike and following this movement up with another attack, or throwing two strikes close together, forcing an assailant to react to the first, and almost immediately identify and have to deal with the second – in many cases they will get caught in a moment of indecision about which of the two strikes to deal with/prioritize and both strikes will land.      There are also ways to use other non-physical natural phenomenon to increase our chances of success in a situation. When dealing with weapon threats, it is likely that there will be some form of dialogue e.g. a mugger asking for your wallet, and abductor telling you to move, etc. In certain situations, and contexts, it is appropriate to converse with your assailant. What they say and how they say it can provide you with information that will help you discern their intent to use violence, and what you say can create opportunities for you to act, and increase the chances of a physical solution you employ being successful. The brain abhors a vacuum, if it doesn’t have information, it will fill it in with its best guess e.g. a lot of what we see, isn’t actually what is there or what we see, but what our brain “creates” for us based on previous contexts and experiences – a lot of the peripheral background that you see is built and constructed for you, and we have physical blind spots, which our conscious mind fills in so that we see an uninterrupted picture. The brain will do the same thing with sound, and engage in something called phonemic restoration, where it will replace sounds that are out of context with sounds that fit the context e.g. if part of a word should sound a certain way, but doesn’t, our brain will automatically replace the “incorrect” sound, with the “correct” one – our subconscious brain does this before passing the reconstructed word to our conscious. Another process it will engage in is reading ahead. Because we are never truly living in the actual moment, and we are always responding to what we see and what we hear – meaning we are always a few moments behind – our brain employs certain techniques for us to try and get us as close to real time as possible. If somebody starts to ask you a question, your brain, based on past experiences, will be trying to predict what is being said e.g. if after you’ve handed your wallet over to a mugger – and instead of leaving, they stay – start by asking them, “Is there anything…” the subconscious will already be auto-filling the rest of the words e.g. is there anything else I can do/give you/that you want, etc., meaning your assailant will be starting to consciously process the entire sentence/question before you have completed it. If you make your defense/physical movement at the time of saying the third syllable, you will be doing so at the same time as your assailant is starting to process the entire question i.e. your action will occur whilst they are mentally preoccupied, and will be more of a surprise.  By using our assailant’s natural responses against them, we can increase our chances of survival. At the same time we need to recognize how somebody might use these things against us – such as launching an attack mid-sentence when we are preoccupied with processing their dialogue; just because we may know the reason something works, doesn’t mean that others haven’t learnt such tactics from their own experiences, etc. In any physical conflict, we are going to want every advantage we can gain, especially if we are dealing with somebody with a greater exposure and experience of violence than us. Knowing how to work the body’s natural defenses and mental processes against it, is one way to get such an advantage.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=466 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=465 Most child molesters don’t require physical force or even the threat of violence to compel their victims to engage in sexual acts with them. This is not to say that those they target are willing or wish to engage in such acts but rather that compliance is gained through a mix of psychological and emotional pressure – that may be so strong as to convince the child that they are actually the instigator of the relationship. Many predatory pedophiles are skilled social players who can convince both their victims, and their victims’ guardians, that the relationships between all parties are both healthy and natural e.g. they will lead the child to believe that their relationship with them is so special that it must remain secret, and convince the parents/guardians that their interest in their child is due to external factors, such as they believe them to be a gifted in sports, music, or similar etc. Both the victim and the guardians are groomed to believe that there is nothing wrong; and in many cases, even when the child complains about the abuse, the parents/guardians will side with the abuser, because they have been so conditioned to accept the perpetrator’s account of events. If we are to be successful in identifying those who target our children for sexual abuse, we should understand that it is not only our kids who will be targeted and groomed, it is ourselves as well. If we don’t acknowledge this, then we are at risk of creating a massive blind spot in which such predators can operate. We may like to believe we are good judges of character and are able to spot those who are trying to pull the wool over our eyes, however a large number of child molesters, live their lives 24x7 planning how they can commit their crimes undetected, and have many years of experience doing so, and so we should acknowledge straight out of the gate that we are the ones at a disadvantage in trying to predict and identify those who may be attempting to groom both ourselves and our children. The majority of pedophilic predators are looking to gain access to repeat victims, who they can convince over time that they shouldn’t disclose the nature of their relationship. A large part of this involves making the child believe that they are getting something out of the relationship; something that other people wouldn’t understand. At a superficial level, this may involve the giving of gifts, and/or allowing the child to partake in “adult” activities such as smoking and drinking, etc., something that other children aren’t allowed to do and that will make them feel special and unique – the molester may even tell the child that they have chosen them because they recognized that they were different and more mature than other children, etc., however, this must remain secret because, both parties would get into trouble should somebody find out. The child may then be introduced to other “adult activities” such as exposing genitalia to each other, inappropriate touching and fondling, before they are ready to engage in penetrative sex, etc. Each new step is presented as a reward for keeping the “secret”, and as a recognition that the child is special, different and more mature than other children their age, etc. Alcohol and/or drugs may be used to both lower inhibition and physical discomfort whilst demonstrating how adult-like the abuser sees their victim. It should also be recognized that although prepubescent children may not recognize and understand sexual pleasure, they can experience physical pleasure, which can send them very confusing messages when a molester “explains” to them that this physical arousal shows that they like what is happening to them – this in turn can lead to feelings of guilt as the child is led to believe that they are in some way responsible for the abuse i.e. that they actually enjoy it, even though they don’t feel that they do, etc. This confusion is often enough to keep a child from telling somebody about what is happening. Pedophiles and child molesters operate in the world of secrets, and they will often test their potential victims by giving them small secrets to keep; things which would be inconsequential should they be found out or discovered e.g. they might tell a child that they have got some small gift for their parents but this needs to be kept secret, etc. If the child keeps this secret, they might be trusted with larger more significant ones. During this process, the child comes to believe that they are special because they can be trusted, and the potential abuser starts to understand to what extent they can push the child’s boundaries. Whilst they engage in this process, they may present to the parents/guardians a complete disinterest in the child or regularly note how interested the child appears in them; both methods are designed to show that it is the child not them, who is driving and pushing their relationship. There are two ways to combat these parallel processes. One is not to share secrets with your child, and to explain to them that ALL secrets are bad e.g. don’t share a secret with your child such as what their brother/sister is getting for their birthday, etc. This may seem extreme and harsh, however introducing the idea of “good” and “bad” secrets is something that a molester can exploit – and it would be naïve to think that our children will be able to tell the difference where a skilled social predator is involved. The other way to both deter a sexual predator, and target-harden your child is to let them know – and those that they interact with - that they are special and valued; that their thoughts and ideas are valued, and have an appropriate place in the adult world. This may also involve explaining why alcohol is restricted for adult use – because of its impact on the developing brain, etc., thus equipping a child with a response as to why they shouldn’t accept alcohol from an adult – or anyone else. We cannot expect our children to understand or recognize a predator’s grooming process – that is more information than they need to know. However, we can explain to them that an adult shouldn’t want/have to keep secrets with them, and that if somebody does – regardless of who it is – they should share that secret with us. If/when they do, we should not be embarrassed or awkward about confronting that adult, and explaining our position on “secrets”; that doesn’t mean we have to accuse another adult of predatory behavior, but rather to let them know that it’s one of the rules/boundaries we have concerning them. It also lets any potential predators know we have an open relationship with our children. We should also demonstrate to those around us that we are involved parents. This can be as simple as not just dropping our kids off at sports practice – despite how hurried we may be – but making sure that we interact with the adults who will be responsible for them (and do the same when we pick them up). This is the continual and on-going part of the way that we should be protecting our children. The importance of Stranger-Danger training is a valuable piece of the child self-protection jigsaw, but we should not see it as the be-all and end-all of child safety. Understanding that most child predators groom rather than abduct their victims, and that we are involved in that process, means that we should take an interest in those that have an interest in our children; regardless of the relationship that we have with them.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=465 Mon, 06 Jan 2020 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=464 In last week’s article I talked briefly about child sexual abductions. In this week’s article I want to look at child molestation and pedophilia, as there is often some confusion as to why different predatory individuals target children for sexual abuse, and the motivation(s) behind these offenses e.g. there can be a tendency to look at the sexual predation of children being committed by a singular type of predator who acts and operates in a universal manner. What surprises many people is that most sex-crimes against children and teenagers are not committed by pedophiles or hebephiles. Hebephiles are those adults who target pubescent, early adolescent children and teens, as opposed to pedophiles who target prepubescent children – there is some controversy as to whether this separate classification of those adults who are sexually attracted to teenagers, under the age of consent, is an attempt to “normalize” this type of sexual attraction, by separating it from the more general term of pedophilia. Statistically, the majority of child molestations are committed by those who are teleiophiles i.e. those who are “normally” and primarily attracted to adults – the stats would suggest that perhaps only 1 in 5 child molesters have a sexual predisposition for children (or more conservatively between a quarter and a half), with the majority of assaults being committed by incestuous adults who see their children as objects and possessions, and/or those who sexually take advantage of underage teens and children because opportunities and situations present themselves, etc. To those who are victimized by such predatory individuals, the motivation is perhaps unimportant but in order to be able to prevent our children being targeted, understanding that not all child molesters are the same is vitally important e.g. we may regard somebody as safe because they are married and in a seemingly active sexual relationship with their partner, and this may not necessarily be the case. There are those pedophiles who genuinely believe that prepubescent children are able to engage in – and have the ability to consent to – sexual relations with adults. These individuals don’t believe that they are coercing and grooming children into relationships but are instead “awakening” and “encouraging” an innate sexual desire that they have, etc. For such persons, the law and society are out of touch, in not understanding that children should be allowed to be intimate partners with adults. Whereas many pedophiles understand that their urges aren’t natural, and fight against their emotions, these individuals don’t believe that their feelings are wrong, or that they are forcing children to engage in unnatural practices, etc. Such individuals – and their organizations, such as NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) – are often involved in the debate(s) around the legal age of consent, and the attempts to lower it; using arguments that homosexuality was once criminalized in the same way that pedophilia is and yet society now recognizes gay marriage, and/or the fact that in certain indigenous cultures – and historically in others – children are recognized as being acceptable sexual partners, etc. Unfortunately, the discussions around lowering the age of consent are very current, and the voices to do so are loud and persistent; often gaining the ear of influential politicians and activists. Mysopeds are pedophilic predators who molest children with the express desire of hurting – and possibly killing – them. These offenders tend to target children who are strangers to them, though in many cases both the victim and perpetrator have an awareness of each other e.g. the predator lives or possibly works in the neighborhood where the child lives, etc. Despite these individuals being classified as the most high-risk and dangerous of child molesters, they are certainly not the most prevalent, however we have every reason to be aware of their existence as their sadistic urges, often culminate in the killing of their victims. These are the types of offender that most martial arts schools’ “stranger danger” programs are envisaging dealing with - the individual who tries to coax a child out of a playground, etc. A relatively high-degree of planning might go into such abductions, with the offender bringing a change of clothing for the child (but usually not shoes, so these can be a valuable piece of information to pass on to security personnel), and even cutting/shaving the child’s hair during the abduction so that they are less easily identifiable, etc.   The more common types of pedophilic offenders are the: “regressed” and “fixated” offenders. Regressed offenders see the child as a pseudo-adult and has usually been involved primarily in adult sexual relationships. Some type of precipitating and stressful event, such as a job loss or marriage failure results in feelings of inadequacy that are relieved through the abuse of the child. Those that commit these types of assault, usually appear to be well-adjusted individuals, with a healthy history of adult relationships who wouldn’t give us any reason to believe that they had developed a sexual interest in children. The fixated offender’s sexual desires have not developed beyond childhood and adolescence i.e. they have become “fixed” there. There isn’t any notable incident or event that caused this lack of maturation, they have simply aged into adulthood without developing an attraction for adults. In many cases, their offending starts during childhood/adolescence, with them targeting younger children, whilst they themselves are still children or teenagers – this is when they start their education into sexual abuse, and how to remain undetected, etc. A large part of this involves the importance of “shared secrets” between themselves and their victims, and the use of “dares” and “games”. Whilst, it may be uncomfortable for us to think of children and teenagers molesting other children it is an unfortunate reality, and the rules around sexual privacy that we teach our children concerning adults e.g. not allowing them to touch the body-parts that a bathing suit covers, etc., should be extended towards other children/teenagers as well.      In this article I have discussed certain types and classifications of child-molesters and pedophiles, so that it can be understood that they are not a heterogeneous group, with a singular and common motivation; and neither do they all offend in the same way. In next weeks article, I want to look at the grooming processes that such offenders use, and how we can identify and prevent such incidents from happening. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=464 Mon, 30 Dec 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=463 Wearing your seat belt can get you killed. If you find yourself in a burning or submerging vehicle, the seconds spent trying to unbuckle yourself might be the difference between life and death (if you do need to unbuckle in a hurry, don’t waste time searching for the release, put your hand on the belt/webbing across your chest and follow it down, with your hand, until you find the belt clip). However, auto deaths in submerged, and burning vehicles, only account for about 3% of all annual vehicular fatalities. Far more people are killed in collisions and accidents, where seat belts have been proven to save lives. Taking a look at the statistics we can collude that by-and-large, and for most situations it is better to drive wearing a seat belt, rather than not; and if you want to mitigate the risk of getting trapped by a seat belt, you can get a seat belt cutter; with most having a glass breaker attached (the glass in car windows and windscreens is incredibly tough – if you have to smash your way out, strike at the corners of the window where the glass has less flexibility, rather than at the center). When we look at the hard facts and statistics concerning risk, we are taking an actuarial approach to making a risk-assessment. This approach isn’t always perfect e.g. when I have a choice between controlling an assailant’s arm, such as when somebody makes a double-handed lapel grab, in most cases I will choose their right arm, because most people are right-handed; this means if they release a hand to start punching, as I’m trying to gain control of them, they will be striking with their least dominant hand. Will my assumption always be correct? No, because if I’m attacked by a lefty, the statistics work against me – but if I have to make a choice I’ll go in favor of the odds; forget about cues and tells, such as identifying the hand that your attacker was using to hold their drink, etc. – that’s all good stuff for the movies but has little place in a fast-paced, dynamic violent confrontation. In such a situation you’re still better to assume the default; that you’re dealing with somebody who is right-handed. In this article, I want to look at basic actuarial risk-assessments, and why equipping ourselves with the stats behind violence, can make us more effective in the way that we deal with it. Looking at the facts/stats, helps us to avoid moral panics and the creation of folk-devils. Most moral panics have a factual basis, however the danger/risk isn’t as prevalent as it is presented e.g. it is true that there are times when wearing a seat belt is unsafe, there are times when you’ll deal with a left-handed person – nobody can deny these things. Recently, I’ve seen a lot come up in my social media feeds concerning child abductions, and how more emphasis needs to be put on protecting children from strangers, etc. Whilst I agree that children need to be taught about the dangers that strangers pose, more importantly they need to be taught general safety protocols that can be applied to family members, and friends/associates of the family, as statistically these are the two groups that they are most at risk from; and in many cases we validate these individuals to our children e.g. when people we know talk to our children in public, we encourage them to be “polite” and to respond and talk back, etc. sending a message that these are people who can trusted – this can be the “in” that a potential abductor will use, to convince our child to get in their car, come back to their house, etc. Statistically, most child sexual abductions are committed by somebody the child knows, not a stranger, and our personal safety protocols should account for this e.g. our children should check with us before they take a ride with anyone, or go to anybody’s home, and we should be checking who will be at that home, etc. If we are serious about preventing child abductions, we should be asking these questions even if it makes us look overly cautious or creates potentially awkward social situations. If we adopt such practices, we will be dealing with stranger abductions as well. One of the problems with statistics is that we think they apply to everyone else, but not to us e.g. it may be true that generally children are more likely to be abducted by someone they know – especially if it’s for a sexual assault – but for our children, it’s more likely to be a stranger. A research piece looked at this phenomenon by asking people a series of questions in a “mock” survey. One of the questions was “The average life-expectancy of an American is 87 years old. How long do you think you will live for?” Nobody answering put 87 or lower, everybody believed that they would out-live the average i.e. the average applies to everybody else but not to them. One of the first steps in using statistics to help inform our decisions, is in recognizing when they do and don’t apply to us – and this should be a rational rather than an emotional choice e.g. we can’t simply decide that our children are safe with our friends/associates because they seem “good” people, etc. We need better/factual and more substantial reasons than that – and an apparent disinterest in children isn’t enough, as this is often a ploy used in the grooming process. In my time teaching personal safety and self-protection I have found that many people when they find an “exception” – such as an occasion when a victim of street robbery was punched/stabbed/shot after handing over the wallet – will use this to justify why they shouldn’t do something; such as handing over the wallet as a first step. There are some people who just want to go against the science. Most robberies/muggings involve the threat of force, not the actual use of force, to obtain resources and so compliance is by-and-large the best strategy, even if there are potential exceptions to this, when violence is intended; and that’s why you don’t “stand down” after you’ve handed your possessions over. However, building a default approach based on such outliers, isn’t an effective way to go. We need to take note of the statistics and the realities they inform us about, and have this as the starting point for our risk-mitigation strategies.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=463 Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=462 It can be hard to admit we are wrong, especially if we have invested in something or someone for a period of time, and desperately want to believe that we’re not – even if all the evidence points to the contrary. The human mind is all too capable of performing logical gymnastics in order to rewrite a situation or incident so that we can prove ourselves right, which cannot only affect our judgment concerning present decision-making, but also affect our ability to make good decisions in the future; which is why we rarely learn from our “mistakes” i.e. our decision-making processes have been re-written to include errors as opposed to detecting and identifying them. This is one of the reasons why people continue to make bad mistakes, one after another. In this article, I want to look at how the desire to be “right”, can affect our personal safety in the moment, and in the future. One of the questions that many people ask of individuals – whether male or female - who are in emotionally and physically abusive relationships is why they don’t “just leave”. We like to think that if somebody was treating us this way, and physically harming us, we would do the “sensible” and “obvious” thing and just leave. The issue is though that many individuals who are in these relationships don’t view them as dysfunctional or abusive. Nobody wants to see themselves as a victim of abuse, nobody wants to admit to themselves that they made the “wrong” choice in selecting their partner, or that they no longer have control over their life, etc. This is something that is extremely hard for individuals to both recognize and accept. Using a mixture of discounting (e.g. things aren’t really that bad) and denial (e.g. all relationships are like this and have their ups and downs, etc.) it’s possible for us to convince ourselves that an abusive relationship, whether psychologically, emotionally, sexually or otherwise is in fact “normal” – and the longer we do this, the harder it will be for us to recognize that this is far from the case. If we have invested in a bad decision, it is much more likely that we will keep investing in it, instead of recognizing it for what it is. One of the first, and most difficult steps, of leaving an abusive relationship is identifying and accepting that we are in one; and it is unlikely that being simply presented with the “facts” will accomplish this. Predatory individuals understand this; that once invested in something, it is likely that we will keep investing even when we have serious concerns and doubts about what we are doing. This is how many scams and cons work, and whilst we may congratulate ourselves that we would never be so gullible as to fall for such things, we are all hard-wired with the ability to do so. One internet scam that I’ve known people to fall for is akin to a virtual kidnapping. An example of a virtual kidnapping would be where an offender steals your phone whilst you are on holiday in a foreign country, and then contacts your family members – who are now going to find it difficult to get in touch with you – to say that you’ve been kidnapped and that a ransom needs to be paid in order for you to be released quickly, etc. They will stress that the authorities shouldn’t be contacted, and that the payment needs to happen in the next few hours, etc. The extortionist’s concern is that if too much time passes you will end up contacting your family members, or them you, and the scam will quickly be revealed and fall apart. The amount asked for is usually significant, but small enough, that it can be quickly paid. A variation on this that can be played as a longer scam/game, is for those involved to pretend to be an attorney and contact a relative telling them that you are in prison for a road traffic accident and that they need to pay a fine, and then a bit later bail, and then a bit later some legal fees, etc., until eventually you get in contact with your family and the scam falls apart. Once the initial and relatively small investment is made, those being conned are likely to be reluctant to stop paying – especially if the individual amounts are relatively small – the subsequent demands, as like a gambler, if they stop paying they lose everything without the possibility of a win.   As individuals, we want to be right and we want our decisions to be validated – even if those decisions are being validated by the wrong person e.g. the individual conning or abusing us, etc. This is why we may be more likely to listen to and believe what they’re saying, rather than a friend or family member who is telling us that we are wrong. If there are competing arguments being made, it is likely that we will accept the ones that reinforce the idea that we are right; and the more we become invested in this position the less likely we are to accept further, contrary arguments, etc. This process will eventually start to frame our future decision-making, as we adopt it, and start to use it extensively and exclusively so making further and further bad decisions. Recognizing and admitting that we are wrong at the earliest opportunity, is the best and most effective way to counter this. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=462 Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=461 This article comes out of some discussions I’ve had during and after our women’s self-defense class, concerning some of the reasons why women are reluctant to – or don’t – report sexual assaults and rapes. Certain reports and studies, such as victimization surveys, suggest that as little as 5-10% of all rapes are reported; and that reporting isn’t evenly spread e.g. rapes committed by strangers are much more likely to be reported to the police than those where the perpetrator/assailant is known to the victim i.e. the most common types of rape. In this article, I want to look at some of the reasons why such a heinous and destructive crime is so under-reported. This is by no means an exhaustive list of reasons, and there are of course many personal and individual reasons why those who are victimized, choose not to officially report their assaults. As in any criminal case, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution i.e. the defendant doesn’t have to prove that they’re not guilty, the prosecution has to prove that they are; and beyond reasonable doubt. It should also be remembered that a verdict of “not guilty” doesn’t equate to innocence – it’s merely a statement that the prosecution couldn’t prove their case, that the defendant was/is legally guilty, etc. This is quite a tall order, and in many ways the odds are naturally stacked in favor of the defendant, as they don’t have to prove their case, they simply have to undermine and be able to refute that of the prosecution. In certain types of case there may be evidence that can be seen as the proverbial “smoking gun” e.g. if an offender is found with stolen property and/or caught on CCTV, it may be difficult – but not impossible – to explain beyond reasonable doubt how these things occurred. However, in many sexual assaults and rapes, such conclusive evidence rarely exists. Unfortunately, cases often come down to who has the most believable account, concerning the issue of consent e.g. a rapist who has had some form of prior relationship with the individual they sexually assaulted may make the argument that the sex was consensual, and the only reason that a case has been brought against them was due to feelings of regret and guilt, etc. Whilst it may be obvious in some cases that this is not true, it’s another thing to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and to a legal standard, that this might not be the case. I can’t imagine how devastating it would be to stand up in court and share the intimate and personal details of a sexual assault, knowing the truth, to have my assailant present an alternative, that to a jury, may seem more believable. Whilst a victim’s past sexual history can’t be brought up, or presented as evidence, there are many ways a defense attorney can allude to these things, which may be highly embarrassing – even when there is nothing to be ashamed of – when presented in a public setting. The thought of having to endure such a process, with the possibility that a perpetrator is given a not guilty verdict, may be too traumatic for some to go through, and this is completely understandable. Many people who have been victimized by rapists and sexual assailants see themselves as being to blame, guilty or somehow complicit in their assaults. These thoughts and feelings may become more concrete when questions such as, “what were you wearing?” are asked – whether by friends or law-enforcement – as if rape is the product of men who simply cannot resist their sexual urges when presented with a “provocatively” dressed women. When it is understood that most women are raped in their homes or somebody else’s, it is more likely that they are wearing everyday clothing such as jeans, sweatpants and similar than dressed like a movie star, etc., it can be seen that clothing choices aren’t the reason why women are raped. However, many women who have been sexually assaulted reported feeling that something they said or did was responsible for their assault – especially when their assailant was somebody they knew e.g. were they perhaps too flirtatious with their partner’s best friend in the past, and so gave him the wrong idea, and that is why he raped them, etc. Assuming guilt is also one way that people exert control over their experiences, and so such thoughts are quite natural (although incorrect). Trauma occurs when we are subjected to high-stress experiences, which we are unable to control. Our first response is to feel ashamed i.e. that we were unable to stop the rape/sexual assault from happening, etc., however this acknowledgment of being unable to control the events that happen to us is psychologically difficult for us to accept, and so we look for things we did that may have been responsible for our attack, in order for us to have had a degree of control over our experiences; we trade shame for guilt. These things may also contribute to a reluctance in reporting rapes and sexual assaults.   Many individuals who have been raped/sexually assaulted have a fear that they won’t be believed; and unfortunately, this is well founded – especially in campus/university rapes. If you are part of a social circle in college, where your group includes a popular high-stock figure such as the quarterback of the University football team, and a common friend that had a crush on him claims that he raped her, are you going to by default believe her, or are you going to question her motives e.g. is she trying to draw attention to herself, force a situation to make it look like he WAS interested in her, etc.? If you genuinely like the quarterback, are you going to want to believe her, as such an allegation, if not true, is going to be potentially devastating for both his university and playing career. You may also have a fear that you may be judged harshly for being his friend and hanging out with his friends if this is the case – and if you’re female and had a romantic interest in the quarterback, might you feel somewhat jealous that you weren’t the target of his interests (even if they don’t involve your consent). When somebody we know and respect is accused of a crime – however heinous – we may have a lot of personal interests in not believing the allegations e.g. we may convince ourselves that we’re a good judge of character and we’d never be friends with someone who would commit such a crime, and therefore the victim must be lying, etc. The rapist themselves may remind the victim of this as they are leaving them, stating that if they tell anyone they’ll say it was consensual and this was something they always wanted e.g. who wouldn’t want to have sex with the good-looking, fit, athletic, and popular member of the football team? Both men and women are guilty of not believing those who have been raped and sexually assaulted due to selfish/personal reasons, and those who have been victimized fear and know this. I have touched on a few of the complex emotional and psychological reasons as to why so many rapes and sexual assaults aren’t reported. I commend and have the utmost respect for those who do report such crimes to law-enforcement as this is a massive undertaking with so many different costs. I also fully understand and respect those who choose not to as the odds of achieving justice are not stacked in their favor. Hopefully by understanding some of the reasons why reporting such assaults is so difficult, we can be more supportive of those who have been subjected to these assaults, rather than simply question or dismiss their accounts and experiences.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=461 Mon, 09 Dec 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=460 De-escalation and conflict resolution in fast-moving, dynamic and aggressive situations is much art as it is science – or rather I should say it is the art of using and applying science effectively. You must be able to recognize which situations can be de-escalated and which can’t e.g. predatory individuals with specific goals, such as relieving you of your wallet, or abducting you, are very unlikely to be talked down, and there are those individuals whose identity is too wrapped up in any conflict, that they are going to use violence regardless of what you say and do (something which may be exacerbated if they feel they have an “audience” that is watching and judging their every move). What you say is important, as is how you say it, and these are the two things I want to address in this article. I have written a fair bit about the ”content” of the dialogue you use – and don’t use – in such situations, however I haven’t written so much about the demeanor you should adopt, how confident you should appear, and the tone in which you deliver the things you say, etc. Aggressive situations can become violent very, very quickly, so there is usually little to no time to build a “rapport” with your aggressor, and so you have a very short time, and a small window of opportunity, to present a non-violent solution to the conflict/altercation which leaves your aggressor’s respect intact. This means your overall presentation of how you appear to an aggressor is extremely important. Acquiescence to a demand is not the same as subservience or submission e.g. I can actively hand over my wallet to a mugger in order to control the situation, and test/check whether they will now leave, or whether I am required to enact a physical solution. Equally, I can agree to buy another drink for a person if they believe I’ve spilt their drink over them – whether this is the case or not. However, in both cases I don’t want to do so in an overly submissive manner; I must tread a careful path between not looking as if I’m posturing/challenging the person I’m dealing with, whilst at the same time avoiding appearing as if I’m the perfect individual to victimize further. One of the reasons that most hostage and barricade incidents are resolved through negotiation, is that the person involved also knows that there’s a team on the other side ready to go, should the negotiation process start to falter i.e. there are perceived consequences for not resolving the conflict peacefully. If you act overly submissive, pleading with your aggressor not to get physical with you, and being overly respectful with them – “Please Sir, don’t hit me, I don’t want any trouble…” etc. – you are presenting to them a scene where they can do what they want without any consequences or recourse; this may work as a ploy if you are trying to bait them into thinking that they can attack you whilst disarming them of the notion that you will retaliate, in order to act preemptively against them, however this is escalating rather than de-escalating the situation. Perceived consequences don’t need to be physical. Once when working in a club, I was able to get a university student (it was college night at the club) to put down a bottle he’d just smashed and was intending to use as a weapon, by quickly explaining the legal consequences of his action i.e. he’d deliberately fashioned/created a weapon to use in an act of violence, which if he’d used may have got him around 3-years prison time; something to be aware of when using “improvised weapons”. Whilst I don’t want to posture to an aggressor, and rely on perceived consequences alone, to deter an attack, they need to be there as part of any solution. Just as I don’t want to be overly submissive, as this may trigger an attacker’s prey drive, neither do I want to posture, and draw/set boundaries that would only escalate a situation – obviously if somebody is trying to move me to another location, or remains after I hand over the wallet, etc., these are lines that it is unacceptable to cross. However neither of these situations would warrant de-escalation and conflict resolution in the first place. Aggressive incidents usually have a turning point, where the aggressor makes the decision to act violently towards you. This is usually when you and your aggressor, whether deliberately or inadvertently draw lines in the sand; where you both reach a point at which you recognize that the other is not going to present you with an alternative way out of the conflict. It may be that the person you are dealing with demands an apology, and you refuse to give it, because you don’t see yourself as being at fault in the situation. Generally, apologizing should not be your initial response to a situation as it can reinforce an aggressor’s justification to act violently towards you i.e. you have admitted that you are in the wrong, etc., however if that is something that would resolve and end the conflict i.e. it is one of your aggressor’s demands, doing so would be appropriate regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. Such moments when you refuse something as simple as this can be the turning point in a dispute, that could otherwise have been resolved non-physically. Our one “demand” in de-escalation is for the other party to act non-violently, all others should be malleable and flexible. My stance, from which I immediately start the de-escalation process, sees me standing upright (confident posture), with my hands placed outwards (in a submissive fashion), guarding the space between us (presenting perceived consequences). I need these three components presented together both in how I look and what I say, if I am to stand a chance of successfully de-escalating a situation and improving my chances of being able to physically defend myself. Acting overly submissive and subservient is only going to escalate the situation, as is appearing as if you are posturing and challenging your aggressor. Learning and training to walk the path between these two extremes is the route to effective de-escalation and conflict resolution.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=460 Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=459 I can’t remember a time when I’ve had to use violence, that I didn’t come away with some form of depression – there might have been small moments of euphoria, directly after an incident, but this soon gave way to feelings of despair and dejection. I’m not alone in this, and many people I’ve worked with have shared the same sensations. Having to use violence to solve a problem, deal with a person is rarely a rewarding experience, and most people who have to do so in a professional capacity, end up recognizing both the necessity and futility of its use. Ultimately, there is nothing rewarding about surviving a knife attack by a drunken punter in a bar or club you were working at; it doesn’t put you anywhere further in achieving your personal goals – you simply prevented a potential interruption (through injury/death) to the process. Being involved in, and surviving violence, is ultimately quite depressing, when you realize both what you’ve achieved and what you haven’t. I often wonder when I read/hear people make their big talk – usually on social media – about how they’d do this and that to another person, etc., or sensationalize or sanitize violence, what their first-hand experiences actually are. Have they really experienced the thoughts that you go through after having to act violently towards somebody, after really hurting them, even when it was right and necessary to do so, or are they imagining that they will have an internal audience, applauding them for their actions as if they’ve just won an MMA match? There is a satisfaction, and sense of accomplishment that comes from competing and winning in combat sports, that is not replicated when dealing with real-life violence; the emotional context is very, very different. Lonnie Athens describes this phase, in the process of “Violentization” – the way in which violent dangerous criminals are formed/developed – as “Belligerency”; he recognizes it as the second stage, and a reaction/response to the first stage of “Brutalization”. I’d been working door and bar security for around two years, when I first read, “The Creation of Violent Dangerous Criminals” (Athens, 1992), and it was the recognition that individuals don’t initially respond to violence positively, even when it goes their way, that suggested to me that Athens had talked quite deeply, candidly and very openly with the violent offenders that he’d interviewed. To get individuals to express their realization that the use of violence was ultimately depressing, but necessary – which in it itself is depressing – separated out his work from many others that were trying to explain the same thing. I used to hate the fact that people forced me to go hands-on with them, when I was working; that it was impossible to reason with some people after alcohol had inflated their ego, and caused them to become so self-entitled and self-absorbed that they could do what they wanted, and treat people how they like, without any recourse. There is no sense of righteousness and justice, after dealing with such individuals, just the depressing realization that there are a lot of others like them out there, who you’ll have to deal with the following night, etc. That’s why you don’t stop to think about it for too long, and quickly recognize that this doesn’t change the fact that it’s necessary to use violence, and so you harden yourself to its use. After an individual has convinced themselves that violence is both acceptable and necessary, they begin to engage in “Violent Performances”, where they start to experiment with violence; pushing and checking boundaries and beginning to become comfortable with using violence as a means to achieving and establishing their goals. In this phase, they start to overcome some of the negative emotions that come with acting violently and start to enjoy some of the rewards that their actions and behaviors bring. They may find that they get treated as celebrities, and/or enjoy an increase in status, both as a result of admiration, and of fear. Depending on the culture/environment they are in at the time, their stock could increase significantly, if they start to become someone who is feared as a fighter. If they before only used violence when needed, when committing a crime, they may now start to use it because they are in a position where they can, and they enjoy the sense of power and control that this gives them i.e. they become to enjoy subordinating others. In the final stage of “Virulency”, the offender completes their reinvention of themselves and enjoys their “new” self-image as a violent person. Virulency is comprised of two aspects: Violent Notoriety and Social Trepidation. When an individual starts to enjoy “Violent Notoriety”, they may start to see themselves as invincible, and also entitled to act against others as they will i.e. they no longer need an external reason or provocation to act violently, they can do so simply because of their status within their group, etc. There is also a sense of irony to their new-found position, as they become the actors who engage in the brutalization of others, and they will start to experience the social trepidation of others to them, just as they once feared and trod carefully around those who acted violently towards them. Individuals who complete this stage of the process are likely to find themselves on a Merry-Go-Round that they can’t get off; if they demonstrate any sign of weakness, compassion or leniency towards others, there will be somebody ready to take advantage of them. This leads them to commit ever more violent crimes, in order to ensure that they are viewed in a certain way and will not be targeted by others for Brutalization.   One of the reasons I believe it’s important to understand how people get to a certain point where they are happy to use violence is to recognize that we haven’t gone through such a process i.e. we might like to think we’re a badass, but there are people who are bringing a lot more to the table than we are, etc. There are people out there who not only enjoy violence, but need it, and our best bet is to stay out of their way – regardless of the level and degree of our training. If you think you can spot and differentiate these individuals from others, think again – sometimes they may act out and let you know what they’re prepared to do, etc., but most times they don’t need to, because they know what they’re capable of.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=459 Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=458 Because crime is a social construction – society decides what constitutes legal/illegal behavior - it would be incorrect to suggest that genetics and biology are responsible for deviance and criminality; also, genetic influences affect character traits and dispositions, rather than behaviors directly e.g. a character trait, such as being quick to anger, doesn’t necessarily result in the behavior of violent acts, though it may pre-dispose certain people to act/react in this way, etc. It is generally agreed upon that criminality and deviance derives from a combination of biology, and social experiences – with such experiences also affecting biology. The debate and discussion between the two camps of “nature” and “nurture” with regards to criminality, is largely about which one plays the greater influence, rather than on whether one is solely responsible, to the exclusion of the other. It is understood that social experiences can affect both patterns of thinking, and the chemistry/“wiring” of the brain, and so it may be useful to think of such experiences in a holistic way, rather than try to separate the two out. This is the starting point of Lonnie Athens’ theory of “Violentization”; that people go through a series of experiences and processes that eventually lead to them thinking of and using violence in a “new” way – that they become changed. Athens’ interest was not in individuals who behaved/acted violently from time to time, but with those dangerous criminals who use violence without a second thought. I first came across Athens’ work as an Undergraduate around 30 years ago, at a time when I was reading Jimmy Boyle’s “A Sense of Freedom”, for a sociology class I was taking. For those who are not aware, Jimmy Boyle was a Glaswegian Gangster/Hardman/Money-Lender, who was so violent that the Scottish Prison Service was unable to deal with him safely, resorting to using solitary confinement for lengths of time that went far beyond those recommended by Home Office guidelines, etc. Eventually, he was transferred to the Barlinnie Prison Special Unit, which emphasized art and creative writing, etc., as a means of rehabilitation, and this was where Boyle discovered he had a talent for sculpting and art. In a stream of consciousness over the course of a few weeks, he wrote his autobiography on how he’d developed into a violent criminal. In the dedication of the book, Boyle asks the question, that Lonnie Athens attempts to answer: “I entered this world with the innocence of every child; had dreams of being a fireman, train driver, superman, along with the fantasies that are part of childhood. What went wrong?” He adds, “Personal experience has led me to believe that the pattern of my own life in crime is analogous to the vast majority involved in it.” Although, not formulating a theory like Athens, Boyle saw his path to crime and violence, as being a set of social experiences that shaped, changed, and developed who he was, taking himself from a starting point of innocence to one where he was prepared to engage in extreme acts of violence, without any thought or inhibition – Athens would describe this process as consisting of four distinct stages, that combined described the act of “Violentization”. In this article, I will look at the first of these steps – Brutalization – and in the next article the remaining three. One of the unique characteristics of Athens’ work – which involved the interviewing of violent prisoners – was that he allowed the individual participants to interpret their own actions, experiences and social interactions, rather than try and interpret them himself and/or try to categorize and fit them into an existing framework of understanding. It was what was significant to the individual that mattered, rather than what was significant to the researcher/interviewer. In doing this, he noted that all his interviewees were first exposed to violence through a process called brutalization – where they were both subjected to violent acts, either to coerce them into behaving in a particular way, or as an act of retaliation; as a punishment for something they said or did, etc. Brutalization consisted of three components: subjugation, personal horrification and violent coaching. Looking at Jimmy Boyle’s early life, these three factors are clear and present. Subjugation involves the use of violence to force submission. Boyle experienced this in his home, school, and social life. Growing up in 1950’s Glasgow, he was in an era when corporal punishment both at home and school was used in a free and easy way – physical punishment (a form of violence) was seen as the best means of changing behavior. Growing up in the gang culture of the streets he was also exposed to it, as those who led the gangs, and/or were senior members, used violence as a means of establishing and maintaining their own position(s), whilst keeping other members in their place. In such an environment he also witnessed extreme acts of violence (“personal horrification”), against others – being educated to see violence as normal, necessary, and natural. This was also coupled with “Violent Coaching”, where he was encouraged by those who were older than him to use violence; this often took the form of being forced by older gang members to take part in arranged fights with younger members (something I remember from my school days). “Self-Psychology” as pioneered by Heinz Kohut, sees aggression and violence as always being responsive and reactive, as opposed to something which is internal, innate and biologically hard-wired in us. Whether this is truly the case or not, it demonstrates the importance of the stimuli, that provokes and/or encourages us to become violent actors – starting with a period of “Brutalization”. Not everybody who undergoes such experiences turns into a dangerous, violent criminal, and there are other steps that an individual must go through in order to become such a person. Also, as Jimmy Boyle demonstrated there is the opportunity to reform, and have such processes undone, so it would be incorrect to think that after the stages of violentization have been completed, that both internal and social experiences cease to have any affect, both in undoing the process or furthering and cementing it. In next week’s article I will look at the three remaining components and phases of Athens’ theory. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=458 Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=457 No one criminological theory can comprehensively and universally explain all criminal acts. Crime and deviance results from various interactions of psychological and sociological components and factors, and so it would be impossible for one single theory to fully explain why people engage in certain criminal activities e.g. people engage in crime for a variety of different motives, and have certain reasons for choosing to engage in one criminal act rather than another, such as street robberies rather than burglaries; in some cases it may be because they lack the skill and means to break into properties, and in other cases it may be that they want to enjoy the power and control over another person that a mugging affords them. However, crime theories and models are valuable in giving us different perspectives, from which to look at the why’s and how’s of crime and start to understand some of the different and complementary reasons as to the motivations behind certain criminal acts. In the next few articles, I want to look at a few different criminological theories that can better help us understand why people engage in crime – especially violent crimes – and why they choose certain types of offending. In this article I am going to look at Merton’s “Strain Theory”, and his “Typologies of Deviance”, and how an understanding of these can help guide our responses when dealing with certain potentially dangerous individuals and situations. Merton’s strain theory is basically about goals and means. The backbone of the theory ascertains that Western Industrial societies condition their members to expect and want financial success and material reward (the goal), however the opportunities to obtain these things (the means) aren’t always available to everybody, and are not equally distributed e.g. an individual may not have the educational qualifications that would help get them a well-paying job, which would result in the financial rewards that they desired, because they had to drop out of school to look after their siblings, due to their parents becoming addicted to opioids, etc. Merton postulated that this gap between the expectation of material reward, and the means to achieving it causes strain or stress, and that people respond in a number of ways to this – most people conform, and accept society’s values and rules, whilst others question and ignore them, sometimes creating alternative value systems and structures. One response to the strain/stress, of not being able to enjoy the rewards, that society promises, is to turn to crime. There are those people who don’t want to be seen as criminals and want to project the image that they are achieving their economic goals through legitimate means, even when this might not be the case, and so they “Innovate”. I remember hearing the account of a mugger who recalled his first offense. He and his girlfriend were living in a run-down apartment, with their baby who at the time was very ill with diarrhea. They had just run through all the diapers/nappies when their electric meter ran out. Left with a sick screaming baby in the dark, and no money to buy medicine, diapers, and charge the meter, etc., he went to the kitchen, found the largest knife he had and committed a street robbery. He stated that he didn’t want to become a criminal – and/or live a criminal lifestyle - but he couldn’t think of any other means of providing for his family (a societal goal) in that moment. It is not only desperation that causes strain, greed and the desire to be seen as successful, can also cause its own stresses. Both Bernie Madoff (who ran a ponzi scheme) and Nick Leeson (who caused the collapse of Barings Bank), were driven by a need to be acknowledged as individuals who had successfully achieved the rewards society promised, but engaged in financially corrupt and illegal schemes in order to present this image of themselves. They fully accepted and embraced the goals that society set out for them, but because they couldn’t achieve them through legitimate means - which caused stress/strain - engaged in criminal activities to do so. Some people will respond to strain with “Ritualism”. An individual might decide that they don’t want to achieve the goals that society lays out, and so “drop out”, rejecting rather than accepting them. Rather than getting a 9-to-5 job, earning enough to get a deposit on a house, and working extra hours to get a promotion, etc., some people will decide that they would rather search out experiences, and so go travelling round the world, taking casual jobs, to fund their lifestyle. They accept the legitimate “means” of earning a living but have not bought into the goals of society. Whilst they aren’t engaged in criminal activities, there may be some sections of society who label and see them as deviants, because they don’t accept societal norms – and don’t pay into the system in the same way that those who conform do. Other individuals may, rather than drop out, “Retreat” entirely, rejecting both society’s goals and means; a homeless drug addict, has in all likelihood given up on the “American Dream”, and is purely living to support their habit, rather than attempting to materially better their lot – in many cases they won’t care how they do this, and engage in criminal activities if this allows them to do so. The 1940’s saw the establishment of several “Outlaw” Biker Gangs on the U.S. West Coast, including the Hells Angels. Many of these were established by immigrants and veterans of World War II, who weren’t satisfied with either the goals or the means of normal society. These individuals weren’t interested in becoming middle class citizens, living in nice neighborhoods with white picket fences, and keeping an eye on how their 401-K, was performing. Instead they set up and established social structures that had their own goals and rewards – these were often militaristic and more rigid and inflexible than conventional society, with harsher punishments for those members who didn’t conform to them. In effect they created an alternative society in “Rebellion” to conventional society, with its own order, structure and hierarchy – and in effect its own criminal justice system. This “Rebellion” was their response to the stress/strain of the American Dream i.e. ignore it and create an alternative.  Although Merton’s Typologies give us a good starting point for understanding the reasons why people engage in offenses, it doesn’t explain why some people choose to innovate and others choose to rebel, etc. Why does one person become a mugger to supplement their income, and another joins an outlaw motorcycle gang and becomes a one-percenter? There are also individuals who don’t fit neatly or cleanly into these typologies – is somebody who joins the Bloods or the Crips, innovating or rebelling? Are they looking to become a member of an alternative society, wanting to be seen/viewed as a criminal, or are they simply doing so for material gain, with the goal of one day becoming “respectable”? The theory is also very much a product of its time, where material/financial success was seen as everybody’s primary goal, and the inability to achieve this was the main cause of stress/strain in an individual’s life - Robert Agnew later built on this, recognizing that different people had different stressors that may be more influential in their decision making, than purely being frustrated by not achieving material gain. From a practical/security standpoint, the more we can understand the motivations of criminals the better we can tailor our responses to them e.g. if we can recognize that somebody is “innovating” when they engage with us demanding our wallet, as opposed to doing so as an act of rebellion, we can decide whether we should acquiesce or physically act pre-emptively, etc. Is the act of robbery simply that, or is it part of a gang initiation, that will see us cut, shot, hurt in the process? The better we can understand an offender’s path/route to crime, the more effectively we will be able to deal with them. Next week, I will look at Criminologist, Lonnie Athens’, process of “Violentization”.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=457 Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=456 One of the phases or stages that predatory individuals conduct when targeting an individual is that of surveillance. This may take place over days and weeks, in the case of a residential burglary, months or years if it’s a sexual assault of a “friend” or acquaintance, or seconds/minutes if it’s an opportunistic street robbery, etc. In its simplest form surveillance is about information gathering e.g. the burglar wants to know the times of day when the property is vacant, and the mugger needs to confirm that they have selected a suitable victim i.e. one who will be compliant and acquiesce to their demands, etc. I have written before about identifying if someone in a public space is watching you, and/or has taken an interest in you (identifying when someone is target-glancing, scanning etc.), however I haven’t written so much about some of the specific things you can do in such situations; which may deter somebody from continuing through to the attack/conflict phase. Even after the victim selection phase, there are opportunities to “communicate” to a would-be attacker that you are too hard a target for them e.g. a burglar might select a particular property because they have observed delivery trucks turning up night and day delivering high-end luxury consumer goods, but then abort any plans to break-in, after they realize that the property is almost always occupied, and is protected by a couple of dogs [these don’t have to be Dobermans on steroids, who are fed a daily diet of human flesh, etc – pretty much any dog will act as a deterrent]. However rich the rewards are, there are some risks that aren’t worth taking. I remember hearing of a diplomat who had been targeted for a car bombing by a terrorist group, but appeared too vigilant in checking his car every time before he got in it; lifting the hood/bonnet and looking underneath it, etc. It appeared to the group that he was already aware of this potential danger/threat, and so they de-selected him, in favor of somebody who they thought would be an easier/softer target. It turned out that the diplomat’s car had an oil-leak and this is what he was checking for before each journey – not looking like an easy target is often as good a deterrence as not being one; to the observer there may appear little or no difference. Even if we believe we have been observed and selected, it is often not too late to deter a potential assailant by checking that our posture is upright, that we are walking in a fluid manner, and putting our head on a swivel to indicate that we are aware of what’s going on in our environment, etc. and if we were stationary, to start moving in a purposeful manner. If I was working professionally with a client, I might not want the person conducting surveillance, to know that I/the team has identified their interest in the principal i.e. the person I/we is looking after. It may be that they’re not working alone, and that it is necessary to identify the other individuals who are working with them – if they become aware that they’ve been identified, they might change over personnel, and I/we’d have to start the process again; better to let them think that they remain unobserved, so that they can be kept track of. For most of us, in most situations, it is unlikely that we will have to deal with such a team of trained professionals, who are working together to keep us under surveillance. This means that in almost all instances there is little danger in letting a person know that we have registered and are aware of their interest in us. We are not in a game of spy-versus-spy, where we should be observing them in the reflection of shop windows, and monitoring the way they look at us, or are keeping track with our movement, etc. This is not the Bourne Supremacy. If we have picked up that somebody is watching us, we can let them know this, by making eye-contact – and moving away. It may be that this doesn’t deter them, but it does mean they’ll have to change and bring forward the attack/conflict phase; which would have been inevitable anyway – looking at somebody who was already going to assault you, isn’t going to make a situation worse. How and where you move to is important. Part of good preparation and planning is understanding your routes to safety. It may be that you are in an unfamiliar environment, and that the person who has targeted you has a much better appreciation of the locale than you do. When you move away, you should avoid choke points that could slow down your movement/be a good place for an ambush, and funnels which could force you in certain directions; that might not be to your advantage. When moving in an unfamiliar location, try to remember how you got to certain places and points e.g. how did you get from the parking lot, or transit stop to your first destination – a shop or a restaurant, etc. – how you then got from there to the bookstore you stopped in at. By creating these links in the chain, you can follow a route that takes you back to familiar locations, rather than having to simply move away from danger into unfamiliar territory. In general, you should be looking to move to populated and busy locations, where there is good natural surveillance, etc. You should always move to safety, rather than simply run from danger.    By and large, if a predator has lost the advantage of surprise, they will look for another victim; most are not so dedicated as to pursue somebody who is aware and potentially prepared to deal with them – this is what they are trying to ascertain during the surveillance phase. In most instances, they will have invested little time and effort in victim selection, unless they judge that it will yield a high and guaranteed return, and so move on to easier targets once they realize that you’ve identified them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=456 Mon, 04 Nov 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=455 One of the questions that comes up from time to time, is whether it is safer to take the elevator, or use the stairs. Most people, when asking this question are looking for a simple, one-or-the-other answer, that applies to all situations i.e. a rule that can be universally applied. However, this isn’t possible, due to the contextual nature of violence e.g. it might be safer to take the elevator when staying at the Four Seasons Hotel in Manhattan, but safer to take the stairs when using a parking lot in the south side of Chicago, or vice versa, etc. It should also be noted that the types of threats you may face are not universal either; you may be more likely to be targeted for a robbery in the stairwell of the Chicago parking lot, but have the greater probability of having to deal with an entitled, drunken business man pressuring you for sex during your elevator ride at the Manhattan Four Seasons, etc. It is too simplistic to make a general statement as to whether taking the stairs or using the elevator is your safest option. In this article, I want to take an evidential approach, that raises potential issues concerning both modes of transport, so that as an individual you can hopefully make a more accurate risk-assessment when faced with the decision on which to take. A Boston study indicated, based on victimization surveys, that 30% of all robberies in a certain housing project took place on the stairs and in stairwells. However, it is important to note that the design of the housing estate had the entrances to stairwells, recessed and free from natural surveillance i.e. their entrances were so positioned that they couldn’t be seen from the street, or from the windows of houses within the scheme. It is also worth recognizing that in many housing schemes, the elevators are often not operational, forcing people to use the stairs; something that may displace crime from one location to another, and skew whatever statistics are available. In such schemes, rather than attracting crime, stairwells may generate crime; in many housing complexes, stairwells may act as places where people socially congregate to drink, smoke and generally hang-out. A certain group may not be actively looking to engage in criminal activities but, should an opportunity present itself, they may decide to take it – they weren’t attracted to the location for its criminal opportunities, however the foot-traffic that the location enjoys, generates the opportunity for crime. In the same way, homeless people may congregate in a stairwell to avoid snow and bad weather, and if criminally inclined, take advantage of the opportunities that the location may generate. A criminal working in a location needs to be able to claim “legitimacy” i.e. they need to be able to present a legitimate reason for being in that location – if they can’t do this, they run the risk of somebody in the environment reporting their presence to law enforcement. This is one of the reasons why many burglars will commit crimes in same-race neighborhoods, as they believe that they are less likely to stand-out when they are trawling for potential properties to break in to; this is not universal and others have found different methods to claim legitimacy, such as pretending to be delivering packages, etc. With the advent of the “gig” and “delivery” economy, it is much easier for criminals now to blend in. A person waiting outside an elevator, and not getting in, will find it difficult to claim legitimacy; somebody standing in a stairwell pretending to be on the phone, or texting doesn’t have that same problem e.g. it is understandable that someone for safety reasons might stop and interrupt their journey when taking a call, or replying to a text, etc. It may be that the layout of an elevator lobby, affords a criminal a position where they can wait unobserved and/or claim legitimacy, and this should factor into our risk-assessment of whether in a certain instance it is better to take the stairs than the elevator, especially if the stairs enjoy good natural surveillance e.g. they are on the corner of the building, and any activity that goes on in them can be seen from the street, etc.              When criminals commit their offenses, they often do so in spaces that they are familiar with, or aware of e.g. when a mugger or street robber moves to another town or city, and starts operating there, they will tend to pick locations that are similar, to the ones they used to use in their previous locale – if they used to commit their robberies in supermarket parking lots in their old location, they are likely to continue to do the same in their new location. In U.S. prisons, around 30% of violent assaults occur on the stairs or stairwells, often when there is direct staff supervision; in many cases these involve a degree of planning and orchestration with weapons if used, passed to accomplices and then disposed of. etc. Other prisoners may position themselves to obscure a guard’s sightlines, so the assault can be over before any corrections officer(s) is fully aware of what is going on. Whilst it would be too simplistic to suggest that offenders directly replicate these tactics and methods when they are released, it would also be naïve to suggest that what is observed and learnt inside is not translated to some degree when committing offenses on the outside. A prisoner who witnesses – or takes part in - a violent assault on the stairs in prison is going to immediately understand how vulnerable a person is when walking up or down a staircase and recognize how a stairwell can be a good place to wait unobserved; UK studies have shown how CCTV cameras, when placed in stairwells, have the ability to both diffuse and displace crime, suggesting that before installation, these were preferred spots from which to wait and observe potential victims.        Two factors that are considered when choosing crime locations are the presence of: promoters and preventers. A crime preventer, would be something such as CCTV cameras, which might deter a criminal from operating in a location, even if everything else about it was attractive to them e.g. there was a good supply of potential victims, they could easily claim legitimacy for being there, etc. A crime promoter is something that makes an attractive location, even more attractive. One significant promoter is the number of potential escape routes, and an offender’s ability to control these. This is one area where stairs and stairwells, have an advantage over elevators. A criminal doesn’t necessarily have complete control of an elevator’s movement – other people can call it to different floors, at any time. Whilst the elevator traps a potential victim in with an offender, the offender is also trapped to a certain degree, and they have only one exit by which they can leave, which they don’t know will not be blocked by other people, security personnel, or possibly maintenance staff. Whilst stairs may only have two directions in which to exit after committing a crime – up or down – it is fairly easy to work out when and where other people are on the stairs (you can hear the doors opening and closing, as well as footsteps), and plan/alter the escape route accordingly. Unfortunately, there aren’t conclusive crime statistics that indicate when and where stairs are safer and preferable to elevators and vice versa, and so we are left to make our own risk-assessments based on our understanding of the situational components that affect criminal activity. Each situation we face is unique and different, so it would be wrong to state that one is always safer than the other. Whilst safety from criminal activity is one consideration when making our choice of which to take, we should also be aware that there are also other hazards to consider such as tripping and falling when on stairs, as well as which will give us the best fighting chances if we have to physically defend ourselves.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=455 Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=454 The term “Win-Win” to describe outcomes that benefit all parties, is one that most people are aware of; and is used extensively to describe how it is possible for everyone to get a positive resolution from a conflict or dispute. However, the term is often misappropriated, and used somewhat differently to the way it was originally defined. By taking a look at how the term originated, and the outcome/resolution it was meant to describe, we can gain a better understanding of the different types of conflicts that exist, and the most effective ways to manage them. The term “Win-Win” was coined by Morton Deutsch in the late 1940’s during his work on a doctoral thesis that looked at different types of conflicts and how people manage and navigate them. He was a student of Kurt Lewin, who had created and developed the idea of “Field Theory”, where people were seen as either adversaries who present themselves as obstacles to get in the way of our goals, or allies who assist and help us in achieving them e.g. on my way to work today, some drivers assisted me by letting me in, when I needed to change lanes (these were my allies), whilst others blocked me, and presented themselves as obstacles, to prevent me from making a lane shift (these were my adversaries). In Massachusetts, driving is seen as a competitive activity, that often leads to minor conflicts. However, as Deutsch studied the different types of conflict as he researched his thesis, he found that most types of conflict weren’t competitive, and should have seen the various parties cooperate, rather than fight against each other. One of the examples I use to describe this when I’m presenting on conflict management to corporate clients is as follows: Imagine a sales department, that is close to reaching its end of year target. If it does, every salesperson will receive a 20% bonus, and the managers will receive a 40% bonus. However, the two managers running the department differ as to the best way to meet the target. One believes that they should run an advertising campaign, followed up by telemarketers, whilst the other thinks that the most effective way to achieve the goal, is to set up “pop-up” stands at shopping malls, sporting events and other similar places, and have teams of salesmen working the crowds. They have 3 weeks until the end of year, and so time is short to implement either strategy, and as a result tensions between them is extremely high i.e. there’s a lot to win, and a lot to lose. However, they both win or lose together. Both want the same thing i.e. they have the same goal, which is to meet their target(s) and receive their bonuses. Deutsch describes this as a “Pure Conflict”, and these types can result in “Win-Win” outcomes. “Win-Win” doesn’t describe a situation where one person gets what they want, and the other person gets what they want; it is used to describe an outcome where both parties get the same thing, because they both have the same goal. “Win-Win” can really only exist where there is a shared and common goal – and this can give us a lot of clues, as to which types of potentially violent situations can be resolved non-physically, and which ones can’t. Take a situation where you’re in a bar or pub, and somebody knocks into you. As a result, you spill some of your drink over them, and they become aggressive and angry towards you. Both of you will probably feel aggrieved in some way. You may feel that the other person should be looking where they are going, and it’s their own fault that they’ve now had a drink spilt over them – in fact you feel entitled to an apology on their part. However, this other person doesn’t recognize that it was their fault and believes that you are in the wrong. At this point, they don’t even have a goal or an outcome in mind, that would resolve this situation for them; they just feel entitled to act aggressively and violently towards you. If things stay this way the conflict hasn’t even begun to be managed, as one party doesn’t yet know what their desired outcome is (this is something that they may need help in defining, which can be attempted during the de-escalation process). However, it may be that they demand that you buy them another drink – something you’re understandably not happy with, as you feel that you’re the injured party in this incident. How you frame this conflict will determine the outcome. If we assume that neither one of you wants to fight, and that is the goal, then it can be managed as a pure conflict that results in a “Win-Win” outcome. However, if the conflict is framed in a competitive way where there must be a loser and a winner i.e. either one party apologizes, or the other one buys a drink, then the situation may escalate, because neither party wants to “lose”. If you view the conflict competitively then you won’t want to back down, however if you view it as a pure conflict, backing down achieves a common goal of not fighting i.e. a “Win-Win”. I learnt a long time ago that it is often better to be effective than be right. If the two sales managers continue their conflict as the clock ticks down, and neither of their plans is deployed, it is likely that they will both lose – an outcome that exists in competitive conflicts, along with ineffective compromises that don’t achieve anything, etc. If you only ever view conflicts in competitive terms, with winners and losers, and fail to recognize the common goals that may exist in a situation, it is likely that you will always be forced to escalate things to a level you aren’t comfortable with and/or have to back down and “lose”. If you buy the other person a drink to avoid this, and to reach a “Win-Win” outcome where you both aren’t engaged in a physical fight, that isn’t “losing”.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=454 Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=453 The human condition likes to believe that we live in an ordered world, and that our actions and behaviors produce predictable outcomes, however sometimes the way we act and behave results in unintended consequences: these occur because we don’t fully understand how a chain of events will play out, and act “inappropriately” in a situation, or because we apply something that worked successfully in one context in another e.g. on 9/11 after the planes hit the Twin Towers, many people went up towards the roofs, rather than towards the ground, as in 1993 after a fire started on the 62nd floor of the North Tower, 28 people had been airlifted to safety from the roof – going up, rather than down, wasn’t without precedence, and considering the slow rate at which people were evacuating downwards, due to sheer volume, the gamble of going up rather than following the crowd – and getting caught up in the swell of people – had a certain logic to it, though unfortunately some unintended consequences as well. In this article I want to look at why some of the things we may do to ensure our safety, can have some unintended consequences. Many years ago, a man pulled a knife on me, whilst on a train. An asthmatic boy’s mother had asked a man who was sitting opposite her son, in a no-smoking carriage to put out his cigarette. He got aggressive and belligerent, she got aggressive and belligerent, etc., so I intervened, and suggested that he move to the smoking carriage (do they still have these?) which was a couple of carriages down. At this point he really started to have a go at the mother, and she was starting to recognize, albeit too late, that this was someone who couldn’t be reasoned with. He, sensing her fear, had gotten out of his seat and was now leaning over her son and shouting into her face, nose-to-nose. I pulled him away and pushed him a few steps back down the aisle and told him that he needed to back off. There are times when enforcement rather than de-escalation needs to be your go-to. His response was to pull a knife. Fortunately, nobody pulled the Emergency Cord/Brake on the train, and being only a few miles from the next station, we enjoyed a tense stand-off until the Transport Police were able to intervene and drag him away. Was this an Emergency? Yes, but pulling the emergency cord would have been the wrong response, and would probably have led to some unintended consequences e.g. the train would have been brought to a stop, and then possibly moved very slowly towards the station, or simply left on the tracks, until the transport police got there – none of these responses would have helped me or anyone in that carriage. However, I’d have understood why somebody might have felt compelled to pull the emergency cord. Taking the stairs or the elevator in a building open to the public both contain their own risks e.g. people can gather in stairwells in a way they can’t in elevators; in an elevator you’re in an enclosed/confined space, whilst on a set of stairs you may have more space but you are operating on an uneven/non-level surface, etc. Unfortunately, crime statistics rarely record where in a building an offense occurs, and so it’s largely impossible to take an evidence-based approach to determining which is the safer method of transit. However, it is worth noting what happens when you press the emergency button in an elevator, as there will certainly be times when we ride them: like on the train, when you hit it, it will come to a stop. From a mechanical failure perspective, this approach makes sense e.g. if my car starts to billow smoke from the hood the first thing I’m going to do is pull over and stop. However, from a personal safety perspective, stopping and “locking” yourself in a confined space with an aggressor, isn’t a great option. If you’re aware of the next floor your coming to, pressing the button for that floor is preferable, or if caught by surprise, every button you can, etc. You don’t want to stop, you want to be moving to the nearest floor, to exit. Understand, that you may not be able to make a clean and quick exit, but if you can get a foot out, etc. to stop the door from closing again, you will keep the elevator, open and stationary – which will help facilitate your ability to exit. When I first came to the U.S. I wasn’t aware of “trash talking” – where I come from if somebody is verbally abusive towards you, it’s getting physical very quickly; and in most cases it’s in your interest to act first. In both the UK, and US, assault is defined by somebody giving you a reason to fear for your safety (such as verbal abuse) and putting themselves in a position where they could cause you harm. When this happens, you have a right to defend yourself. Many people don’t understand this, and by their trash talking, put themselves in a position where their words may have unintended consequences e.g. somebody responds physically (just because social convention indicates that this isn’t the result doesn’t mean that everybody will respect this convention of “trash talking”). One of our instructors who currently works in law enforcement, told me of an incident where a driver got out of his car, to approach another driver who he felt had committed some injustice against him and had a can of pepper spray unloaded on him; he called 911 thinking the offense had been committed against him, rather than the other way round i.e. his actions had unintended consequences. We need to understand the chain of events that our actions may precipitate, and that these aren’t always in our favor e.g. we may think that an emergency necessitates us pulling the emergency cord, or pressing the emergency button, we may think that we have the “right” to stop our car, get out and approach another individual, and/or scream all our injustices against another individual into their face, however we might want to recognize that these actions and behaviors – even when justified – can have unintended consequences.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=453 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=452 Dealing with a verbally aggressive confrontation is socially awkward; if you don’t experience some feelings of embarrassment, self-consciousness and discomfort, then you’re probably quite experienced in dealing with such situations e.g. you’ve worked in a customer-facing role where you’ve had to deal with difficult individuals and/or you grew up in a neighborhood were aggressive confrontations were part of your daily life, etc. When I first started working door security in bars, pubs and clubs I tended to flip-flop between an apologetic, excuser and discounter of bad behavior, in order to avoid such confrontations, and an authoritarian tyrant who enforced every minor rule and punished the slightest transgression – whether it was inadvertent or deliberate – in order to ensure that I wasn’t taken advantage of. It took me some time to find my feet, and get the balance right, so that I could be effective in doing my job; most things in life involve finding a happy medium. Over the past few weeks, I’ve had several conversations about boundary setting, and the what, how, and when of enforcing them and I’ve found that there’s a degree of confusion about both under- and over- enforcing them e.g. it seems that we often find ourselves swinging between two extremes, where we either over-react, and possibly escalate a situation unnecessarily, or deny/discount a danger or threat that needs to be dealt with. In this article, I want to look at ways in which we can effectively set and enforce boundaries, so that we can protect ourselves against those who mean us harm, whilst avoiding escalating and elevating situations because we feel we need to stand up for ourselves in situations that don’t require it. The first thing to note, concerning boundary setting, is that predatory individuals who mean us harm will take advantage of our politeness, our desire to avoid causing a scene, and/or our reluctance to call them out on their behavior(s). When we consider that many individuals who want to either cause us or our family members harm are people we know, then it is understandable why we might be hesitant to raise questions about the way they behave towards us e.g. we don’t want to appear ungrateful or suspicious of a soccer coach who seems to have taken a special interest in one of our kids, or question the complementary but flirtatious manner which a friend of our partner’s seems to use when interacting with us, etc. It is easier to excuse these things away as being innocent, or even an over-reaction/embarrassment on our part, rather than asking the deeper questions, that may result in more sinister answers – most of us don’t want to acknowledge the danger in the world, and the fact that we and others we know may be subject to it. Predatory individuals know that we set boundaries – or that we think we do - however they also know that most of the time we hope that these will simply be “respected”, as a social convention, and that we have little appetite for enforcing them. I remember reading an account of a near 4-hour rape ordeal, where a woman, who knew she was being followed, stopped and pretended to be on her mobile phone hoping/believing that the person following her would respect the fact that she was in a conversation and wouldn’t interrupt it, i.e. they wouldn’t cross this implicit boundary, etc. I’m certainly not blaming her for being victimized, but it was a mistake to think that somebody who was prepared to commit a gross violation of her person, would respect such a social boundary. When we consider that most child molesters and sexual assailants are friends or acquaintances of their victims and share a common social circle, etc., enforcing boundaries in such settings becomes even more complex e.g. do we really want to think about our partner’s best friend who keeps trying to get us on our own, or an overly-involved teacher as a potential threat to us or our family members, or is it easier to believe we’re just being paranoid?       We have all dealt with people who want to test the validity of our “no”, who try to relentlessly sell us on an idea that we’re not comfortable with. I have lost count of the instances I have witnessed self-entitled and arrogant men try to sell the idea of sex with them to a reluctant woman - one of the joys of working in bar and club security. Whilst I applaud persistence, and brushing off failure in the sporting arena, it is something that in other settings is socially distasteful and unacceptable. If somebody repeatedly expresses disinterest in another person’s actions and behaviors, then that persistence could be defined as stalking and harassment – they are crossing boundaries. Risk is the intersection of threats, vulnerabilities, and assets (in this case ourselves and our family members are the assets). Unfortunately, there are many situations where it is impossible to reduce the threats that we face, so we are left at addressing our vulnerabilities, and this is where setting and enforcing boundaries is so important. It is impossible for every woman who goes out socially to avoid individuals who don’t accept her “no” or her clear signals of “no interest”, and this means that the only way to deal with such individuals is to reduce the vulnerabilities that they try and exploit. If your “no” is something that can easily be turned into a “yes” then a green light is being given to those who want to test whether you can be easily be taken advantage of. It’s not fair that there are those out there who engage in such practices, or fair that anyone has to deal with their sense of entitlement, however until a societal shift occurs where such behaviors are eliminated, boundaries need to be set and, where necessary, enforced. Many people have a fear that if they enforce a boundary, they might escalate a situation. This could happen, and that’s the socially awkward part, that predatory individuals rely on us trying to avoid. However, it is the other person who is escalating the situation, not you. If somebody is treating you in a manner that is unacceptable to you, and as a reaction to you enforcing a boundary they become aggressive/emotional towards you, that is their issue, and it is usually preferable to receive their reaction at this point, rather than later on. When I talk with survivors of rape and sexual assaults, I often hear very simple statements of regret, such as, “I wish I’d just refused to have that drink with him”, “I wish I hadn’t agreed to let him into my house”, etc. This is not to apportion blame in any way to those who have been victimized (that blame lies with their aggressor), but to illustrate that the earlier on in an encounter a boundary is enforced, the more likely it is that violence can be avoided – causing offense to someone is far better than the alternative. It is not fair, that these actions and behaviors, must be engaged in by those that are being targeted, but as stated, reducing the threats we face is rarely an option, and our only alternative is to eliminate our vulnerabilities. Enforcing a “no”, refusing a request, etc., are all socially awkward things to do, and this is why predators put us in situations where it is easier not to do so. Sometimes, we are just dealing with a pushy individual who has found that persistence gets them what they want, sometimes it is a predator who intends us harm. Either way, it is socially unacceptable – our “no” should be respected and if it isn’t we shouldn’t care that standing by it causes offense.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=452 Mon, 07 Oct 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=451 There are certain ideas, principles, and concepts which get a lot of airtime in the reality-based self-defense world, but not a lot of actual analysis regarding how they work – or don’t work – such as the fight or flight response, and the OODA Loop. These terms are used extensively and sometimes out of context, so it warrants taking a moment to look at how and why they were developed, and for what practical purpose e.g. the fight or flight response was initially developed from observing how birds reacted to external dangers, such as other predatory animals; it didn’t look at intra-species dangers where members of the same species threatened one another – how birds fight amongst themselves. This doesn’t mean that the “fight or flight” response is null and void for our purposes, but rather there are contexts, and acts of social violence amongst humans, which may not neatly replicate this original observed behavior in another species. Equally, the OODA Loop, to be taught, used, and applied effectively needs to be understood in the context in which it was developed, so that it can be used appropriately. There is nothing in this article, which is revolutionary, or is breaking new ground, etc., and this is not its intention. Rather, the purpose of it, is for us to take a moment to look at a concept and remind ourselves what it is really attempting to teach and explain. The OODA Loop was developed by Air Force Colonel John Boyd, in an attempt to explain a pilot’s thought processes when they were engaged in combat, and how it was possible to interrupt an enemy combatant’s decision-making in the heat of the moment. He put forward the idea that we make decisions in a loop-like fashion — that is, we observe something, we orientate ourselves regarding it, make a decision on what to do, and then act upon it: Observe, Orientate, Decide and Act (OODA). If any of the steps in this process were interrupted, by having to react and respond to something new, then the process would have to be restarted, as the new stimuli would have to now be factored into the process. Boyd wasn’t trying to come up with and present a new theory, he was trying in layman’s terms to present an overall idea that explains how we generally make decisions – and how by doing something unexpected and/or new, this process could be interrupted. As stated, nothing really revolutionary or disagreeable, however as it is an over-arching, umbrella idea concerning how we decide and act, it is worth looking at a few details, to make sure we don’t apply it incorrectly. For several years, I competed in Judo at a relatively high level. I rarely consciously threw somebody, most of the time it was just something I did; I didn’t go through a thought-process, where I observed, I orientated, decided what to do and then acted. This all just happened for me. This thought process had been built into my throwing. If I’d had to consciously process things, it would have all been too slow. There were times I had to ask my coach what throw I had used, as I wasn’t fully aware of my actions in the moment. This is not because I was some type of super-athlete (I probably wouldn’t be sitting in Starbucks writing this blog if that was the case), but rather that once you’ve trained and practiced something enough you respond instinctually; the opportunity is recognized for you and you simply act. This doesn’t mean that the OODA Loop doesn’t apply here, but rather it’s something that happens subconsciously and is built into your actions. Other Judoka could interrupt it by feinting and making me respond in an “expected” way, by making a weight shift that would trigger me to respond with a certain throw, etc., but that happened subconsciously. Often the OODA Loop is described and explained as a purely conscious thought process, where people are “thinking” about their responses and weighing up their decisions, etc. This is not to say that in slow-moving situations this doesn’t happen, but in fast-moving and dynamic scenarios there is not enough time for this to happen, especially against a trained and experienced assailant. Another thing to note is that not all “new” stimuli are equal. It is not enough to simply introduce anything new to interrupt this thought process, whether it is conscious or subconscious. As I became a more experienced competitor, I learnt to recognize what was a feint and what wasn’t; when a weight shift, a balance change was genuine, and when it was intended to provoke a specific response. Over time not all feints were treated equally – that’s not to say that they never worked, and that I never made mistakes, but rather that I became aware when somebody was trying to “sell” me something. It’s possible for people to block out, and learn to ignore certain stimuli, so that the OODA Loop isn’t interrupted – and an important one of these stimuli is “pain”. Oftentimes in reality-based self-defense conversations, inflicting pain is taught as a universal way of interrupting a person’s OODA Loop, however for certain people, and/or when in certain states, they’ve learnt to factor out this stimulus. This is why we must be adept at delivering different types of pain, and interrupting the loop in different ways, etc. Boyd’s OODA Loop is a great way to explain in simple terms how people make decisions, however it should be recognized that most decisions are made subconsciously and so whatever we are trying to do to interrupt the loop, must occur at this level. If we are thinking about decisions and actions being made at a higher/conscious level, we may find ourselves operating too slowly, as we mirror these processes. By understanding that we will have to beat reaction times, part of the way we apply the OODA Loop in real-life situations is to slow things down, so that a conscious registration of events occur, and decision making is no longer instantaneous.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=451 Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=450 Criminals commit crimes in line with their personalities; and understanding this simple fact informs us as to how we should interact with them – if our paths should ever happen to cross. Although committing a crime involves a certain level of “rational” decision-making, any cost-benefit analysis that is involved will differ from criminal to criminal e.g. a burglar is going to look at the risk of being caught, compared to the potential benefits and rewards they may receive, in a different way to a mugger, etc. Equally, persistent offenders are likely to be motivated differently, and engage in different decision-making processes to those who occasionally commit crimes e.g. there is likely to be a greater addiction to the thrill experienced during the offense. This article looks at why different criminals choose to engage in certain crimes rather than others, and why it is important to understand these differences. For a large part of the 20th Century , Criminal and Forensic Psychologists attempted to define the “Criminal Personality”, believing/assuming that there was one common and universal personality that all criminals shared to some degree e.g. the world-view that burglars shared was the same as those who commit street robberies, and those that engage in white collar crimes such as fraud and embezzlement, etc. Whilst there may be commonalities in ways of thinking, and values held, amongst these different types of criminals — such as a belief that they are entitled to take what they want from others, etc. —the way in which they justify their actions is likely to be very different; the mugger may blame social conditions for forcing them to engage in robbery, whilst the white collar criminal might convince themselves that no one is individually affected or hurt by what they are doing. It would also be wrong to say that criminals universally don’t feel guilt concerning their actions – as many do. The view that the criminal mind is biologically different to the non-criminal mind, has experienced something of a resurgence in recent years, however there is no compelling argument to suggest that all criminals are wired differently to non-criminals, with the occasional shop-lifter likely to have more in common with a law-abiding citizen, than with a serial murderer, etc. By understanding some of the commonalities and distinct differences between criminals, we will be better positioned to understand how we should act and behave when encountering them. To commit a mugging involves interacting with a victim and being prepared to act violently towards them – two things which most burglars want to avoid i.e. interaction and violence. A 2017 study (Edwards et al.) found that that there was a clear distinction in the personality types between offenders who committed street robberies, and those who engaged in property crimes, with those who engaged in muggings exhibiting more impulsive-antisocial traits than burglars e.g. they were much more likely to use violence, even when it was unnecessary to achieve their goals, and were far less remorseful about their actions, etc. Both shared similar levels of egocentricity and dishonesty, however those who committed property crimes were far more likely to be found on the Vulnerable Dark Spectra (VDS), than on the Dark Spectra (DS), with their narcissistic tendencies resulting from a sense of vulnerability, rather than from ideas of grandiosity. Whilst individuals high on either dimension (vulnerable or grandiose) are likely to interact with others in an antagonistic manner, those with vulnerable-narcissistic personality traits were less likely to be vindictive and domineering than their grandiose counterparts and were more likely to be avoidant of potential confrontations. What this tells us is that with muggers we should do everything to reinforce their view of themselves as the person in control, who occupies the position of power in the interaction e.g. if they want our wallet we should comply exactly with their demand to hand it over, rather than refuse them, or throw it on the ground away from us, etc. At the same time, we should be prepared to disengage as soon as we have a safe opportunity. As well as muggers being more impulsive that burglars, they are also less likely to be able delay gratification in the same way. When a burglar commits a break-in and steal goods, it takes time for them to fully experience the rewards of their crime; they must first sell the goods they’ve stolen before they have the money to spend on the things they need. The mugger doesn’t experience this delay – as soon as they’ve committed a robbery, they have cash in their hand. This is one of the reasons they have chosen this career over shoplifting, burglary, or auto-theft, etc. This doesn’t mean that they necessarily wouldn’t commit these crimes if an easy opportunity presented itself, though they may recognize that they don’t have the knowledge or means to turn these crimes into cash, e.g. a mugger who steals a car may not know who to take it to in order to sell it, etc. If a criminal lacks a network in which to dispose of the things they’ve stolen, they may pass up the opportunity to do so — i.e. the risk is too great for the potential reward. Most burglaries involve a level of planning, and the decision to break into a property is usually made ahead of time and away from the property. This doesn’t mean that burglaries don’t contain opportunistic moments e.g. a property may have been selected beforehand as a potential target, however a realization that a car is not on a driveway, and that a window is open, determines that this is the moment in which to commit the crime. Muggings require much less planning and are almost completely dependent on opportunities. Whilst disturbing a burglar in your house may seem a scarier proposition than dealing with a street robbery, the reality is that you are in all likelihood dealing with an individual who doesn’t want this interaction either and given the opportunity to exit the situation, usually will – unless they had a secondary motive for breaking in. However, when dealing with a mugger, we are engaging with somebody who has less inhibitions about using violence and may have chosen this particular criminal career because it gives them an opportunity and excuse to act violently against people. When we understand that the person may also be in a desperate state to get their next fix, we should look to comply with their demands for our resources as quickly as possible, in case they interpret our hesitation as non-compliance.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=450 Mon, 23 Sep 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=449 Most violence happens face-to-face and is preceded by some form of verbal exchange – this is true of both social (spontaneous) and asocial (premeditated) violence. Few attacks are initiated from the rear, which means in most cases we will have a chance to stop the attack before we feel/fully experience it. This doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t be surprised by it, even if we’re expecting it, but it does mean that we have a chance to see it take shape before it happens. Few people are experienced in disguising their movements as they try to set up a punch, and most will telegraph their intent some time before they make their physical assault; often using the conversation/dialogue as a cover whilst they do this. Like a slight of hand magician, they distract you by getting you to concentrate on the verbal dispute, rather than allow you the time to focus on their physical actions and movement as they prepare to set up their strike, etc. If you are ever involved in a conversation which makes you feel uneasy, or find yourself in some form of aggressive verbal confrontation, there are certain things that you should be looking out for, that indicate the person you are dealing with is about to get physical. Some of the easiest cues that indicate when somebody is getting ready to go physical, are verbal ones. As well as looking for physical “tells” when I have to deal with aggressive individuals, I am also listening to what they say, and more importantly, how they say it. Human beings can’t multi-task, and so when somebody is weighing up whether to hit/punch you or not, certain processes start to shut down or get interrupted, and one of these is speech. One hint that somebody has given up on searching for a non-violent/physical alternative, is when their speech patterns become more staccato, and there are longer pauses in the conversation; these gaps are usually where the individual is deciding whether they should launch an attack – throwing the first punch involves making a decision, and like all decisions takes some degree of time and effort. With certain people – and this makes it more obvious that they are getting ready to make a physical assault – their speech will speed up, and become more emotional, perhaps resulting in “repetitive looping” where they keep repeating, over and over again, whatever injustice they believe has befallen them, as they attempt to get themselves emotionally prepared to “start” the fight. An obvious cue that many people fail to pick up on, is when a potentially violent individual shifts weight on to their rear foot. Children are often better at understanding survival situations than adults, because they don’t get caught overthinking things. Whilst many adults stood around on the beaches of Thailand in 2004 watching and marveling at the way the sea was rapidly receding away from the shore, one small girl, grabbed her parents and started to run, pulling them away. In a moment she had realized that all that water had to come back, and it was probably going to do so in a devastating way. If somebody shifts their weight onto their back foot, during a verbal altercation, it is probably because they are looking to shift their weight forward again, to give power to their punch/strike. When I used to work the door, after some form of verbal enforcement had to be made, the person I was dealing with would sometimes step back, and turn, as if they were walking away, using this movement to try to disguise the fact that they were actually setting up a large/powerful punch. I soon learnt to step back and to the opposite side of where they stepped in order to give myself the most time to react/respond if this is what they were preparing to do. Turning the head/face away was also a common action that people would engage in when they were getting ready to throw a punch. This motion often gets confused with “scanning” — where a person looks around them to check for witnesses, CCTV cameras, the presence of security personnel, and to make sure that their planned escape routes are still clear, etc. Whilst people do engage in scanning, I’ve normally seen it conducted by an individual who is planning an assault, as they set up the situation, such as when they have selected a target and are still in the surveillance phase, as opposed to during the actual confrontation itself – at this point they are usually too committed to the confrontation, and are no longer checking their environment but rather engaging with the target/victim they have selected. I’m not saying that people don’t do some or all of these things during a verbal altercation which they use as part of the setup for an attack, but rather that in my personal experience I’ve generally seen it done beforehand. Turning away, during a verbal exchange, almost seems to be a moment of contemplation where the individual takes a moment to decide whether they should launch an attack, and if they should throw the punch in this particular moment. Again, from experience, it’s the type of thing which is usually done a few times, before an aggressor is ready to make their strike; it’s almost if there are several moments of indecision before they finally decide that this is what they have to do. Even when we are expecting somebody to throw a punch during a verbal altercation, we are still likely to be surprised by the initial movement – and we will be reacting to it; unless we have decided to make our own pre-emptive assault. The more prepared we are, the less surprised we will be, and recognizing at the earliest opportunity some of the things an assailant may do as they get ready to make their attack, will help us in this.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=449 Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=448 Few people believe that they are bad judges of character, or that they are prone to making bad decisions and/or errors of judgment – it’s just how we are hard-wired. When we hear of others who behave and act in ways, or make choices, that are detrimental to their safety, we often shake our heads and pat ourselves on the back, knowing that we would have acted differently. If you look at the comments on certain social media posts, you’ll get to read all about how somebody would have handled a threat or danger in a much more effective manner, than the poor soul who ended up getting attacked/assaulted, etc. I don’t know if this “self-belief” has increased in recent years, or if I have just started to notice it more, but I’ve been hearing more and more accounts of well-meaning individuals giving the advice, “if you’re ever in danger or feeling threatened and unsafe, call me.” This article looks at some of the reasons why this advice is both disempowering to those to which it is directed at, and why it is largely ineffective. If you talk to those who work in Law Enforcement, they will tell you that most times when they receive a call concerning a violent incident, they arrive after it’s over – rarely before or during. This isn’t a criticism of police response times, but rather to illustrate that this “machine”, which is designed to, and has the resources to deal with incidents in the shortest possible time, isn’t often able to get there in time to stop something happening. If you call 911, that call isn’t going to get ignored, because the phone was turned off, or the ringer was turned to low, etc., that call will be picked up immediately and help will be dispatched straight away. Most of the time my phone is set to silent, and if I’m doing something that requires concentration, it is put away so that it’s not a distraction. I know there are some people who are on any call or text like white on rice, but none of us can beat the 24x7 response time of a 911 pickup, not to mention the various vehicles at different points around the city that a dispatcher can send to a scene. If these guys can’t get there in time, it’s unlikely that you will. Telling somebody to “call you” if/when they are in trouble/danger, probably means that you are going to be too late to intervene and prevent an incident from occurring. If somebody isn’t in immediate danger, and simply needs a ride or to be picked up, because they are unhappy and uncomfortable – but not in danger – then our response time is probably going to be acceptable and appropriate. I was once teaching a women’s self-defense class when the topic of ridesharing safety came up. Someone was asking the question of what to do if she was in the back of an Uber and realized she was being taken somewhere other than her destination. Before I could respond, her mother (who was also in the class) interjected with “I’ve told you, you should always call me when you’re in that type of situation.” I pointed out that if the Uber driver was abducting the daughter, she would be better calling or texting 911 (a service now available in Massachusetts). Even assuming the mother could get to her daughter in the same time as law enforcement, she lacks the ability to stop a vehicle, and is unlikely to be able to physically deal with what may be a seasoned criminal. If the goal is to let her know so she can take over and call the police on her daughter’s behalf, the daughter would have to give her mother all of the details of the situation, and wait as her mother called/relayed these to the 911 dispatcher – in a dynamic fast moving situation these may be changing as this process is played out. It’s far better for her daughter to be directly connected with the police - something she could do more covertly via text if necessary. People may have a reluctance to make a 911 call – usually because they’re scared that they might be over-reacting etc. – and it is in convincing people to make that call ahead of time, where work may need to be done, rather than taking that responsibility upon yourself on someone else’s behalf.   We might like to credit ourselves with being creative in the moment, and thinking up great solutions, of how somebody can extricate themselves from a potentially dangerous situation, but the truth is we’re by-and-large not good at it; and I include myself in this. I have had people call me in the past to ask how they should handle a situation, and I don’t believe I’ve ever given them the answer they wanted to hear. Most “developing” and potentially dangerous/violent situations are socially awkward, and so any advice that you give which involves the person having to draw attention to and/or stand up for themselves, etc., isn’t likely to be followed. Most people know that these are the types of solution that they should engage in but are calling you for an alternative, hoping that they won’t have to do this i.e. they want you to provide them with a “magic bullet”, which deals with the incident in a face-saving way, which doesn’t make them feel embarrassed and awkward – if you do give them a solution which meets all of these criteria, you are probably giving subpar and potentially dangerous advice. Dealing with potentially violent situations will make us uncomfortable to some degree, and if somebody is looking to you to give them alternative advice, then they have an unrealistic expectation of what violence looks like. The most practical universal advice you can give somebody is to tell them to get to a place of safety, and this can be given ahead of time – you don’t have the time or the information to advise them of any other plan/strategy. If they are calling for you to come over and pick them up, because they are about to leave their house or another location, and will meet you at a prearranged place, that’s another matter, but here they are not calling you for advice but to action a pre-determined plan. If somebody calls you for advice because they believe they are being followed, as they walk home at night, your only advice should really be to tell them to hang-up, get themselves to safety and call/text 911, not spend the time talking to you, etc. This is all advice that can, and should, be given ahead of time. “Call me” is a simplistic piece of personal safety advice, that disempowers people from thinking about their own safety, nstead handsing it over to ourselves – who in that moment are probably not able to offer any new advice or any actual practical assistance. The time to give personal safety advice and talk about tactics and strategies, of what to do when confronted by danger is ahead of time. It may be that you feel you can “handle yourself” and so this ability could somehow be borrowed by your less-savvy friend or loved one, but if you are unsure of what to advise for a particular situation ahead of time, this is something you should look to find out – it won’t magically occur to you when you’re woken up by your teenage daughter at two in the morning, and even if it did, there wouldn’t be the time to educate her as to what she should do, in that moment. These conversations should be had, whether this is with friends, family members or partners, etc., before a danger is imminent. If you have instructed somebody that their solution to violence, or the threat of violence, is to call you, then you have probably instructed that individual to waste time that could be better employed dealing with the situation in a more pro-active way.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=448 Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=447 Personal safety must be something more than a set of rules we should follow. There are two basic reasons for this: first, if those we are trying to protect ourselves against know these rules, then they will develop methods for circumventing them, and second, we aren’t good at following them – and I would go somewhat farther by saying that our brains aren’t designed to follow such rules. There are few people who haven’t walked down a dark alley, let a stranger into their house, etc., or acted against what would be their better judgment; and probably in 99% of cases there was no adverse consequence to these actions and behaviors. This article looks at why we make “bad” decisions in the moment and follows on from last week’s article on why our general attitude to personal safety is a choice. If you were given the choice between a 100% chance to win $900, or a 90% chance of winning $1000 or getting nothing, which one would you take? To put it another way, with the first option it is guaranteed that you will get $900, whilst with the second option there’s a 10% chance you’ll get nothing. Repeated studies have shown that around 80% of people when posed with this question will take the certain outcome and opt for the $900. However, if you were given the option of a 100% chance of losing $900, or a 90% chance of losing $1000 or $0, which would you choose? In this case, most people will choose the second option. This is because when we look to avoid losing something, we tend to accept risk; taking a chance of a greater loss over a certain loss. If you are in a hurry, and you know that if you don’t take the shortcut down the dark alley, you’ll be late getting home (100% certainty), and that if you do there’s a 90% chance that you’ll make it on time, but a 10% chance that something may happen to you, it is likely that you will take that chance – even though the consequences of doing so may be far more serious. In such a case, the rule that we have about not walking down a dark alley, doesn’t even come in to play. If you have a rule that you shouldn’t get into a car with a stranger, but on a first date, after dinner someone you really like offers you a ride home, or to go with them to another bar or club, etc., you may think that if you refuse, they will judge you, think less of you, and possibly not want to see or contact you again, etc., and so you may take the risk of getting into the car with them. When we perceive a potential loss, we take risks i.e. we do stupid things. Also, risk-taking can be exciting, creating more positive experiences, and so it holds its own attraction, that mundane certainty lacks. We are not fully rational in the decisions we make; we don’t evaluate loss and gain equally. Kahneman and Tversky (1979), put forward an idea they referred to as prospect theory, which states that “People make decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome”. How we view the world in terms of gains and losses is important because of the way it affects our decision making. If we view life as a series of opportunities that if we don’t take will be gone, and unlikely to be repeated, we are likely to take risks in order to avert these potential losses. People with low self-esteem, who believe few good things ever happen to them, are not by nature risk-takers, but they are adverse to losing any good thing that has happened, or is happening to them; and this means that they take chances, that could potentially lead them into harm and danger. I was bullied as a kid, and those that bullied me, understood this very well – though it took me a relatively long time to learn. Every now and again they would relent from their bullying and be friendly, including me in their group. As a child who was socially isolated, this temporary friendship was something I didn’t want to lose, and I accepted the risk that they would turn on me; and it was an extremely high risk, because being nice to me had only one goal, which was to put me off my guard, and increase the effect of their bullying. After each of these incidents, I made the rule that I wouldn’t be fooled again, and the rule was never powerful enough to stop me taking the chance, because I didn’t want to lose the possibility of being accepted; it always seemed to be a risk that was worth taking even though I was very aware of the final outcome. Predatory individuals understand how to identify people who are more averse to loss than they are motivated by gain – and they also know how to create and frame situations to emphasize the potential loss. Prospect Theory recognizes something called the Isolation Effect – also known as the Von Restorff Effect, after the psychologist who first defined it. This refers to the fact that we tend to focus and act upon information that stands out and differs from the rest. Predatory individuals are skilled at recognizing how we think about loss, and then framing things in a positive way. Gavin De Becker, refers to a certain tool that predators use as the “Unsolicited Promise”. Imagine you have gone on a first date with somebody, and after dinner they ask you to go with them to a bar they know, in order to continue the evening. Effectively, you have just been given a second date early – to not go with them would be to lose the date. If you’ve had a run of disastrous dates i.e. a string of losses, you are more likely to not want to increase your losses, and so accept the offer. If during the meal, amongst the small talk they’ve paid you a fairly serious complement, you are likely to remember this more than anything else that was said due to the Isolation Effect. If the individual has nefarious intent towards you, this was not by accident – they might not understand the psychology behind it, but they know how to socially disarm people. As you both go to your cars to drive to the bar, your date (the person you first met in person an hour ago) says, “tell you what, it’s not the easiest place to find, why don’t I drive us and I can drop you back here afterwards?” As you start to object, they smile and say, “why don’t you just get in, nothing’s going to happen.” They’ve framed things in such a way that if you refuse, it can only be for one reason – because you do think something’s going to happen, and you’d have just communicated that to them; increasing the chances of them not wanting to contact you again i.e. a loss. All the nice things they said to you, about you, are circling around in your thoughts, due to the Von Restorff Effect, telling and convincing you that this is a nice person – even though you’ve spent less than an hour with them. Also, the rule about not getting into cars with strangers, applies to cars pulling up to you when you’re out walking, not in situations like this. The question is: do you accept the risk and go with them?   We’ve all made bad decisions where there were no consequences, where we didn’t get punished for them. However, it is important to understand why we made these, so that we don’t make them again. A string of bad decisions where nothing bad happens, creates a recency bias e.g. I walk down this dark alley all the time, and nothing has ever happened, etc. Recognizing our thought processes and the way we evaluate risk, will allow us to make better decisions. This is how we stay safe, rather than trusting in rules that we will never actually follow.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=447 Mon, 02 Sep 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=446 Everything is a choice; and choices have consequences. Making a choice that has bad consequences doesn’t imply blame e.g. if you walk down the proverbial dark alley – not that dark alleyways are the premium location choice for assailants - and are assaulted, you’re not to blame for being victimized, but your choice to take this route, certainly helped facilitate the crime i.e. if you weren’t in that location, you wouldn’t have been attacked. Our choices, behaviors and actions have consequences; sometimes our choices are limited by circumstance, and other times they are conscious and well considered. Yesterday, whilst teaching our free women’s OC/Pepper Spray class, I explained how when I become adrenalized but have not yet managed to identify and/or evaluate the threat, I will reach into my pocket and take hold of my spray; making sure that my thumb is on the trigger and that I’m ready to deploy it, etc. One of the responses I received to this was, “let’s be realistic, most women’s coats have the pockets sewn up”. Obviously, there are other places where a spray can be carried such as in a purse or bag, however if the point being made is that there might be times when you are wearing clothes where you don’t have a place to store/carry a defensive spray, or you won’t have a bag with you to put it in, that is a choice, which means you won’t be able to have a spray with you – and by making that choice, you have to accept that were you to be attacked, you would not have a tool on you that could help increase your survival chances, etc. I’m not suggesting that your wardrobe – male or female - should be dictated solely by your personal safety needs, however we should be aware about how certain choices we make, may increase our vulnerability, and look for ways to mitigate and reduce this. When Tolstoy was young, he and two friends, formed the White Polar Bear Club. To join, and new member had to stand in a corner for 30 minutes and not think about a white bear. The point of the exercise was to ensure that the membership never exceeded three persons, as intentional thought suppression isn’t possible i.e. you can’t actively not thing about something, because as soon as you consciously try not to think about something you are. When people tell me that they try not to think about the threats and dangers in the world that they may face, they are in fact thinking about them. What they’re choosing, is not to engage with these thoughts, so that they don’t have to work them through to produce possible solutions, such as cutting the pockets of a coat open so as to have a place where you can keep your pepper spray, or wearing clothes/coats with pockets, or carrying a bag where a defensive spray could be kept, etc. These are choices that people are free to make, but they are choices that can have consequences. I understand that carrying a defensive spray is an acknowledgment that the world we live in contains individuals who want to cause us harm, and that is not a nice thing to think about, however it is realistic to consider the risks and dangers we may face; and not thinking about them is a choice that carries with it potentially harmful consequences. People will sometimes create elaborate and extreme scenarios, so that they can tell themselves that they have thought about their personal safety, but have concluded that there are no solutions available to them i.e. there is no point thinking any further about personal safety because there are some situations where there are so many odds stacked against you that there is little to nothing you can do. This is a choice. I will sometimes be asked questions along the lines of what I would do, if in the middle of the night I woke up to find a group of four men standing over me with AK-47s pointed at my head (pause)…and my feet were tied to the bedposts (pause)…and I was handcuffed (pause)…and INSERT HERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD MAKE ANY POSSIBLE SOLUTION PRESENTED IMPOSSIBLE. If, when you answer, you talk about the likelihood of such a scenario, or of preventable measures you could take to prevent such a gang/group gaining access to you, this is usually rebuffed, and moved over quickly with, “Yeah, but what would you do if it did happen?” Because there isn’t a 100% guaranteed “technique” that deals with this scenario, it is concluded that self-defense doesn’t work. This conclusion is a choice. It’s a choice that means you don’t have to think about your personal safety, that you don’t have to consider how you would deal with a mugging, an aggressive panhandler, an obnoxious drunk in a bar etc. or any number of much more likely scenarios. It’s a choice, and people are obviously free to make such choices, however choices have consequences. When confronted by violence and involved in an aggressive altercation/confrontation, you still have a choice to ignore what is happening, however it’s not a safe/good choice – it may also be a situation that doesn’t necessitate a physical/forceful response; it may be possible to exit or deescalate the incident (however both of these options require you to make a choice). To paraphrase a Haim Zut quote, “If you are attacked once in twenty years, you will wish you had trained for twenty years.” i.e. you will wish you had made a choice to accept and train to deal with violence, long before you find yourself staring it in the face. Pacifism, rejecting responsibility for your safety, and convincing yourself that resisting violence is futile, may all seem reasonable choices when you are out of harms way, and believe that bad things happen to other people, however when you are actually facing someone who has chosen to cause you and/or your loved ones/family members harm, you may find yourself regretting your choices.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=446 Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=445 Although it is possible to condition the body to take punches and other strikes – my time spent training with Dennis Hanover and his instructors/students in Israel demonstrated the effectiveness of such conditioning – being able to effectively target and work the body, is a necessary fighting skill to develop, and such techniques/solutions should have a place in your arsenal. I have seen several boxing matches, where the fight has been ended by body shots e.g. Frank Bruno (1985), Tommy Morrison (1995) Anthony Yarde (2018) etc. and many more where the continuous and extensive use of body shots exhausted a fighter, making them vulnerable to head shots/concussive blows. In this article I want to look at the usefulness of body shots and punches, and how they can be applied successfully in real-life situations. I’m a relatively short guy, I’m 5’6”. This can sometimes, depending on the height of the attacker, make head shots difficult for me. For a couple of years, I lived and worked in St Helens, which is a pretty tough town in the North of England, famous for its Rugby League team. There were a lot of big guys who played the sport at the amateur level, and used to like to drink – which made working the door an interesting and difficult proposition i.e. you would have a team/squad of hard guys who were used to taking hits on the field coming in after a training session to get drunk and let off a bit of steam. This meant you were rarely dealing with one person if things got out of hand, and you’d have a group that vastly outnumbered the security team. However, over the years you learn a few tricks, from the people you’ve worked with, and one that I’d been taught – from another shorter doorman - that I found useful for dealing with taller aggressors, was a hard elbow delivered to the Xyphoid Process – which is a piece of cartilage, that hangs off of the sternum, and to which the diaphragm is attached. The diaphragm is basically the “bellows” which works the lungs and is responsible for our ability to inhale and exhale. A good, hard strike/hit here, dramatically interrupts the breathing process, and immediately takes the wind out of somebody. It’s also a target, which is on a good level, for a shorter person when dealing with people who are much taller. The first time I used it effectively was when I had to refuse an already drunk team from coming in a pub where I was working door. The team were basically pushing into each other in an attempt to get in, and myself along with another two doormen, were trying to keep them out. At one point, I loudly shouted for them to back off, and this caused them to stop moving for a moment, giving me some space to step back. Before the pushing and shoving started again, I stepped off to the left, and steeping/driving all my weight forward, slammed my elbow into the person’s Xyphoid Process who was directly in front of me (they probably weighed around 280 lbs, and were a good 8 to 10 inches taller than me. Not that it was my intention, but everybody was so preoccupied with pushing and shoving, that nobody really saw what had happened. As the guy collapsed, unable to speak, one of his teammates, shouted that he was having a heart attack, which changed the whole mood of the group. By the time he was able to speak, it turned out he was so drunk he hadn’t even registered what had occurred, and thought he’d collapsed from some sort of seizure. That was when/where everybody’s night ended – sometimes you get lucky in these situations – as there was now talk of calling an ambulance, etc., all of which he refused. We were at the stage where the level of aggression was hitting a peak and some sort of enforcement was necessary, but 15 to 20 against a small security team, are never odds that you want to go up against. Since then, this elbow strike has been one of my pre-emptive defaults. Another advantage with body shots – that was explained to me very early on in my time working bar/door security – over head shots, is a legal rather than tactical one. If you’ve had to throw somebody out and during the altercation, you’ve ended up punching them in the face several times, their face may start to bruise and swell up e.g. they can look much more messed up than they actually are. When the police turn up, it may now look that you really worked them over, and there is a credible case against you for using excessive force. You couple this with the fact that you’ve now got bruised knuckles from punching the skull, and everything can end up looking much worse than it is. If the case goes to trial a judge and jury, is going to have a constant reminder of your assailant’s injuries as they stand in the witness box, telling everybody what you did to them. Body shots are more discrete and rarely look as dramatic as a closed eye and a broken nose, etc. The other advantage that body shots have over head shots, is that although they’re not as likely to “finish” the fight, they will tire and exhaust a person very quickly, especially if they’re drunk. Somebody who is tired, out of breath, and feels their body cramping up, etc. is going to be much easier to manage, than somebody who has turned their pain management systems on in the expectation that they will be dealing with head shots. The body is also a much larger target than the head, and offers flatter targets, that can be driven into – the head is smaller, rounded, and movable. This isn’t to say that head shots shouldn’t be used, but that sometimes, it is worth mixing up your targets. If you train with precision, you may also be able to specifically target the liver and the kidneys, which do have the potential to stop somebody in their tracks. It is also worth noting, that the head may not always be available to you; especially if your aggressor is covering up and protecting their face. In such instances, the body becomes much more accessible and may also cause your assailant to drop their hands/arms to protect themselves, which will then make the head/face available to you. For all these reasons and more, it is worth recognizing the usefulness of body shots and practicing their application.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=445 Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=444  “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face”, is one of Mike Tyson’s most famous quotes, however it is not the full quote. The part, “Then, like a rat, they stop in fear and freeze”, often gets left out, however it is really the most telling part, as it brings home most people’s response when getting punched for the first time, and stresses the importance of being the one to make the first strike – even if it is simply a disrupting, rather than a concussive, strike, punch or blow. Anecdotally, I would say that in 8 to 9, out of 10 violent altercations I’ve witnessed (mainly whilst working bar/door security), the individual who threw the first punch came out of the fight in better shape than the other party. In most cases, such fights were over in 5, and at the top end 10 seconds, as the party that was hit emotionally crumbled and took themselves out of the fight – it wasn’t that they were physically incapable of continuing, they just didn’t want to, and so curled up, backed away, and/or crawled away, etc. Although, this has started to change, it used to be that they were generally allowed to do so, with maybe a token kick to send them on their way. The fights that lasted a long time, were usually (but not exclusively) between people who knew each other, where there was some long-running perceived injustice/score that needed to be settled. In this article I want to look at what it’s like to be punched, and why it’s generally advisable to be the one throwing the first punch/strike. I’ve been punched in the face. It’s happened to me in real-life (both as a child and an adult) and it happens regularly when I spar/train – a constant reminder to improve and get better. I can never stress enough the difference between being punched in a controlled training environment and in real-life. Sparring doesn’t fully condition you for the real-life experience. Most punches you take to the face in a real-life encounter are sloppy strikes; sometimes somebody will land a solid punch, but most times this isn’t the case – despite the number of videos of one punch knockouts that do the rounds on social media that would seem to contradict this. It is not the pain of getting punched, that causes people to freeze, it’s the shock, and a realization that nothing could prepare you for this moment. Sparring is consensual and to varying degrees - depending on rules and partner’s – controlled. Real-life violence is non-consensual, with no rules, and no predetermined and agreed-upon outcome that signals that the fight should end. When you get punched for the first time, this realization is startling, and often paralyzing. Whatever social and moral conventions that you believed society was governed by have been thrown out of the window by an individual who – in that moment - has no respect for them and doesn’t believe they apply to them. The world you have just entered is not a familiar one. Even if you have experience of fighting in a ring or a cage, such training may prepare you for the physical experience, (which is a good head-start) however it won’t by default fully prepare you for the psychological and emotional part. The pain part isn’t usually what overwhelms the individual, it’s their new understanding of what the world looks like in that moment and how unprepared they are to deal with it. All the laws, social conventions, and agencies that allow us to stay safe in our everyday life, aren’t present in this moment, and that’s a frightening realization, that most people get caught up in when the first punch lands; people shouldn’t and shouldn’t be allowed to do that, but they are, and nobody is going to stop them. If they’ve broken this convention, what others are they going to break? Are they going to pull a weapon? Are their friends going to join in? And so, the mind gets flooded with these questions and others, as second, third, fourth punches rain in; and once your assailant gets a rhythm going it can be very difficult to interrupt it. This is one of the reasons that it is usually a good idea to be the one doing it to the other person, rather than having it done to you i.e. be the one to punch/strike first. The US legal system allows you the right to strike/punch preemptively. However, you will have to be able to articulate the reasons why you are doing this, if you are claiming self-defense. It is worth remembering that when you make a claim of self-defense, you are at the same time admitting that you acted violently and used physical force; you are simply justifying your use of violence. Some people are still under the notion that the Criminal Justice System operates in the same way as the school system did when we were growing up: that whoever threw the first punch is the guilty party and should be punished. This is not the case. For an assault to occur, your assailant doesn’t even need to touch you (when contact is made, that is “battery”), all they have to do is give you a reason to fear for your safety, and put themselves in a position, where they are at a distance from which they can make contact with you. If these conditions are met, you are entitled to defend yourself, and this includes making the first strike/punch. When working door/bar security, the first thing I used to do when dealing with a verbally aggressive individual, was to step back, and bring my hands up (palms down – so my fingers were protected), in a placating manner. From a professional perspective, one reason for this was to “gather witnesses”, so if anything went legal, I had people who had seen me step away, and put my hands up in a placating manner, etc. From here I would start my de-escalation/conflict resolution processes, however if the person stepped towards me aggressively, I will have demonstrated by my body language and movement – to those around me, who are witnessing and might be filming – that I feared for my safety, and that my aggressor had moved to a position where they could cause me physical harm. Their movement towards me, would usually be the trigger that would cause me to act pre-emptively – by and large my first strike would usually be to just get a hand into the other person’s face to disrupt them, and then whatever would follow would be dependent on the context of the situation e.g. whether I would follow up with strikes, or go for some control or takedown, etc. Fighting is about one person acting violently towards another, and it is important to turn the tables in a real-life encounter, so that it is you attacking the other individual, rather than the other way around. This may seem to go against the very nature of self-defense, however the most effective way of defending yourself is to not allow your aggressor to have an opportunity to make an attack, by pre-emptively overwhelming them. If you have as your goal the idea of only engaging to create a safe disengagement opportunity, it is unlikely that you will be judged to have used excessive force; it’s when you stay longer than you need to, that these types of question get asked, which is why implementing “stun and run” strategies are usually the most effective, from both a personal safety and legal perspective.               https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=444 Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=443 In the past week there have been three significant active shooter/killer incidents in the US: three people were killed and fifteen injured at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California, a few days later twenty people were killed and more than two dozen injured at an El Paso shopping center in Texas (one of the top five worst shootings in US history), and then less than 20 hours later, a shooter left nine dead, and twenty six injured after a shooting spree in Dayton, Ohio. The suspected shooter at the Garlic Festival died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the Dayton, Ohio spree-killer, was shot dead by Law Enforcement Officers – who responded to the incident in less than a minute; enough time for the shooter to kill nine people and seriously injure over two dozen more (active shooters/killers have become far more efficient at killing over time). To be able to predict, prevent and deal with any form of violence, we need to understand it as fully as possible, and this includes active killer incidents – regardless of the weapon used, whether it’s a gun, knife or a vehicle etc. One common thread that runs throughout many active killer incidents is that of suicidal ideation. Although it’s too early to draw too many conclusions regarding the motives of the killers in these recent three incidents, it appears that the El Paso killer (who surrendered to law-enforcement) had written a manifesto, and the statistics show that those shooters who are motivated by political-terrorist goals, are the least likely of all active killers to commit suicide and/or be in control of their suicide. In this article, I want to look at the role suicidal ideation plays in active killer incidents. There is a common misconception that the sole motivation(s) behind suicide is extreme depression, hopelessness and isolation. Whilst this is generally true, intense anger and frustration, may also be present, however we tend to overlook these components. Suppressed and internalized anger can lead to other destructive emotions and can be the cause of depression as a result of feelings of failure and inadequacy i.e. it is the anger, which causes the depression, and hopelessness, which in turn results in self-isolation. A 2007 study by DiGiuseppe and Tafrate, found that adolescents who internalized their anger were more likely to self-harm and attempt to commit suicide than those who externalized it. There are basically three ways we deal with anger: we can manifest it, we can suppress it, and/or we can manage it. Often, we will use a mixture of all three e.g. we might explode in a rage (manifest our anger), attempt to calm ourselves down (manage our anger), and then try to come to terms with whatever injustice we were subjected to; sometimes we’re able to be philosophical about this, and other times we just try to forget it to varying degrees of success i.e. we simply suppress our anger. It may be that our self-directed anger is the result of shame. That is, we are angry at ourselves due to the way others perceive us; and even more angry at ourselves for not being able to change that perception; something that can in turn lead to frustration and depression – the shooter responsible for the 2014 Isla Vista killings, explained in a Youtube video, that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him sexually, etc. If such anger is not dealt with but just left simmering under the surface, it can eat away at our sense of self-esteem and affect the way that we see both ourselves and others. For some people killing both themselves and those they see as responsible in some way for their situation, may be one way that they believe they can rectify and rebalance this sense of injustice and inadequacy. There is a danger in talking about all active killers as being the same or motivated by the same things e.g. people will often talk about school shootings and workplace shootings in the same breath, as if they are ostensibly the same thing – a person with a weapon killing others – without considering how different and separate these types of event are. One obvious difference being that of age, as most workplace killings are committed by middle-aged men, who are experiencing very different types of frustrations to their younger counterparts. Around half of all mass killers in educational settings leave some form of suicide note whether it’s a letter or a video, etc. In workplace incidents, only 11% do so. This is not because such killers aren’t intending to kill themselves, as out of all the different active killer groups, whether terrorists, rampage killers, or school shooters, they are the most likely to do so and the most likely to be successful at doing so. What this likely indicates is that their decision to go on the killing spree is more impulsive, and is more likely to be influenced by a triggering event, such as the failure to get a promotion, or some disciplinary procedure. It is also worth noting that workplace shootings generally have lower casualty rates than rampage and educational mass killings, suggesting a shorter and more targeted killing spree; and perhaps the need of the shooter to end their life more quickly. If we are to reduce or end mass killings, we will need to understand what motivates the killers – including their motivation and desire not to just kill others, but themselves as well, as in many cases in these types of mass killings, the two are inextricably linked. We tend to think that depression leads to inaction, however where extreme anger is the cause this may not be the case, and it may result in something deadly. By understanding and recognizing the language and actions of suicide, and coupling it with the language and actions of active killers e.g. the admiration for other shooters (something the El Paso shooter expressed, concerning the New Zealand Mosque shooter), the fetishizing of weapons, and the vocalization of violent intent, etc., we may have a better idea, when somebody is fantasizing about, planning, and preparing for a mass killing.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=443 Mon, 05 Aug 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=442 We all have blind spots concerning our personal safety, and this often results from compartmentalizing threats, and not recognizing certain vulnerabilities e.g. we put AC locks on our window air-conditioners, so burglars can’t easily push them in to gain access to our properties, but fail to check them – and treat them - for lung-damaging mold, that could constitute a serious health risk, etc. Because we are so focused on certain types of threats, we fail to recognize others. In fact, we may be so pleased with ourselves for thinking to fit an AC lock, and ticking that box, that we no longer think about the safety issues surrounding air conditioners; each year in the US, there are around 7000 fires, attributed to air conditioners malfunctioning – one cause being the build up of lint and dust in the filter, that provides flammable material for an over-heating unit. It’s not that I’m anti air conditioners and air conditioning - I’m big fan, and was one of the few people when I lived in the UK who had air conditioning; I’m rarely ever cool enough, unless it’s winter. The point I’m trying to make is that when we become so focused on dealing with a specific threat such as burglary, we may fail to investigate the potential for other threats, such as mold and fire, and how we can mitigate these risks, by addressing our vulnerabilities – which may be as simple as cleaning the filters, etc. This article looks at how we should consider risk from a 360-degree perspective, rather than just addressing threats head on; something which forces us to literally think outside the box. Risk is contextual e.g. I’ve worked security jobs where the driver’s airbag was disabled, because if it was necessary to ram a car, the last thing you wanted was for it to deploy, obscuring/preventing the driver from controlling and managing the vehicle, etc. In my car, the airbags are enabled, and maintained, because there is a much greater likelihood of me being involved in a road-traffic accident, than having to ram my way through some form of vehicular obstruction, in my local supermarket parking lot. If you believe that such a scenario may be likely, due to the lifestyle you lead and the people you are involved with, you should change your lifestyle, and your friends/acquaintances. We need to recognize the likelihood of the threats and dangers we face, rather than simply convince ourselves that we should prepare ourselves for the most extreme and dangerous scenarios, that we’re likely to never face, at the expense of those we probably will. There may be a danger, that we get so caught up with thinking about specific incidents, that we don’t consider the threats and vulnerabilities that are a result of our lifestyle choices. It does little good for us to mitigate the risk(s) of being involved in a violent altercation, only to eat badly, smoke and not exercise, that sets the conditions, and increase our chances of having a heart attack or a stroke, etc. Personal safety, self-protection and self-defense is ultimately about survival, and to be successful in one area but not in another counts for little. I’m not advocating that self-defense classes, should be turned into fitness classes, etc. but rather that increased fitness, increases our chances of survival in the long run (as well as during actual violent encounters). Certain habits that we have may put us at risk for things we don’t necessarily consider. I don’t know any CPOs (Close Protection Operatives) who smoke. If somebody has a nicotine addiction, trying to fit that into another person’s schedule, could put everyone involved at risk. If an operative needs to take breaks, or has their performance – such as their judgment - affected because they are experiencing symptoms of withdrawl, this may mean that they over-react, under-react or don’t react at all, when a response to something is required. If you have a smoking habit, and for whatever reason, haven’t been able to have a cigarette – maybe you’ve run out, or are in a smoke-free zone, etc. – chances are if you are involved in a verbal confrontation, you are going to more on edge than you normally would be. The same can be true, if your lifestyle is extremely stressful, due either to work and/or home life. These are not things that we necessarily think about when considering risk, however we must understand how such factors may make us more vulnerable i.e. our “agitated” state affects the way we respond to threats.    It is important, when considering risk, that we look at the bigger picture and consider generalities rather than focus on specificities. When we look to protect an asset, such as ourselves or something that we own, we should look at all threats which might try and take advantage or exploit it – not just the obvious ones. When considering physical security, we may look at a way that protects our home from burglary, such as making sure there are signs of occupancy, whilst recognizing that such signals are green lights to those planning a home invasion; thus we must design preventative measures that can deal with both – if both are realistic possibilities.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=442 Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=441 Human beings abhor the unknown, and unpredictability. However much we may crave excitement, we prefer it if we can exert a level of control over our situation(s) e.g. we may enjoy the adrenaline rush of sky diving or bungee jumping, etc. but we do so understanding that a certain level of control and predictability exists regarding these activities. In real-life violent encounters, there are so many variables at play, that it is impossible to know for sure, what is and what will happen; an attacker may be concealing a weapon, they may have friends who can come to their assistance, they may be in a psychotic state where their only intent is to eliminate us, etc. This can start to lead to a certain level of paranoia, where we always assume the worst – that unless we eliminate an attacker, they will continue to hunt us down Jason Bourne-style for the rest of our lives. Once we start thinking this way, certain strategies and tactics are taken away from us e.g. we can’t simply disengage, because we may be shot in the back as we run away; even though there may be no reason to believe an aggressor has a firearm etc. Rather than consider the odds and likelihood of such things happening, the “what if?” mode of thinking means we always have to consider the worst-case scenario, and this usually means that our only strategy is to render an aggressor unconscious; we have to stay and “fight”, where really any engagement we have with an attacker, should be to create an opportunity to disengage and get out of there. Might there be times where we have to stay and be involved in a fight? Of course, and our training should reflect this necessity, but really, we should be looking to avoid conflicts and disengage from them at the earliest opportunity, recognizing that the longer we stay engaged, the greater the possibility that something will go against us e.g. the assailant has a chance to pull a weapon, or have people in the environment come and assist them, etc. That is, the “what ifs?” that we are trying to eliminate by taking the time to finish the fight concussively/conclusively, are more likely to occur. I hear many instructors talking about overwhelming force, that an attacker should be overcome by delivering concussive strikes from all directions, until they are on the ground unconscious, etc. I’m not saying that this isn’t a relevant approach in certain contexts, but it should never be looked on as a universal solution; sometimes it may be more effective to simply stun-and-run i.e. throw a pre-emptive strike to the face, throat or groin in order to create an opportunity to run – and not be crippled by all the “what ifs?” that are extremely unlikely to occur, and “if” they do, deal with them “when” they do. Gary Kasparov, the chess grandmaster, when he beat IBM’s Big Blue, stated that unlike the computer, he was only able to think one or two moves ahead, however this approach overcame a computer (and a team of programmers), that was making millions upon millions of computations i.e. asking a million “what ifs?” Sometimes, it is better to put all your effort into dealing with what you are immediately facing, than worry about everything that you might have to face, yet is extremely unlikely to happen. The “better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six” argument, may sound good when an instructor is demonstrating that you need to keep stomping an assailant when they are on the ground, because you never know if they might have a weapon on them, or not. If you have no good reason to believe that the person has a weapon – such as you saw it at some point in the conflict – that argument has no legal credibility, and you will be deemed to be using excessive – and possibly – lethal force. “Might have” is never a good argument when claiming that you acted in self-defense i.e. you’re admitting that you used physical force against your assailant, but are claiming that you did so in order to defend yourself, etc. If you’re stomping somebody when they are on the ground – and you are standing – trying to argue that although they weren’t a threat to you in that moment, you thought they might be in the future, without any good and credible reason that they would, is going to be a very difficult argument to make and support. One of the “what ifs?” that often doesn’t get asked is, “What if I’m criminally charged for my actions?” and, “What if my assailant decides to bring a civil suit against me?” Two “What ifs?” that are far more likely than “What if my assailant decides to hunt me down after I’ve disengaged/run away?” Disengagement, and running away, must be trained. It’s not enough just to train a technique and then have it in your head that you would run away. A technique in and of itself is not a solution – leaving the environment after performing a technique, starts to create a solution; and these are what we should be training e.g. if you perform a weapon disarm during training and then stay next to your training partner, what is that you are actually practicing? Is this what you would do in a real-life situation? In reality you would disengage, understanding that when you do so a “separation” has occurred e.g. if you disarm somebody of a firearm and then step back several feet away from them, legally this “new” situation, where you have the weapon and your attacker hasn’t, will be viewed as a “separate” incident; if you now have to pull the trigger, you will have to articulate why you felt it was necessary to use lethal force. Sometimes getting a long way away from the incident and an assailant makes things less complicated, both in the moment and in the long run i.e. keeping it simple and not creating a new incident for yourself. Thinking about and preparing for every potential “what if” in the moment, can restrict our options, and put us in a position where legally it might be difficult for us to defend our actions. If a close relative or friend of yours got involved in an altercation, where they had their head repeatedly stomped by an assailant, who defended his/her actions by stating that although your friend/relative was not a threat to them in that moment they didn’t want to risk the chance that they might have been carrying a firearm, you wouldn’t buy it. You would judge it as unnecessary, extreme and paranoid. If we keep our thinking to the context of a violent encounter, we start to have far more options and avenues to explore, including getting out of there at the earliest opportunity. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=441 Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=440 I realized recently, that I hadn’t written anything concerning travel security, in over two years; and in the middle of the holiday/travel season, it seems as good a time as any to talk about it. Travel security, is a huge subject area, in that it covers all your regular day-to-day security concerns, but looks at them from the perspective of being in a foreign/unfamiliar environment e.g. you may be fully aware of the bad streets and neighborhoods in your own locale, but have little knowledge of the risks that exist in the area(s) you will be visiting etc. In this article, I want to look at a few practical steps that can be taken to improve security when travelling. Anyone who has worked in close protection will tell you that advance work will make the actual detail/trip a lot easier, and ensure that everything goes smoothly – and if there are any incidents they can be dealt with quickly and effectively e.g. if you know where all the hospitals are ahead of time, and somebody gets sick you can act immediately, rather than having to spend possibly precious time locating them, and then working out the best/fastest route to reach them – if such an incident happens in rush hour, the most direct route may not be the fastest. Obviously, for most people going on holiday it’s impossible/cost prohibitive to send an advance party to check things out beforehand, however it is possible to do virtual advance work, and an hour or to on your computer can go a long way towards familiarizing yourself with a new and unknown location. When I travel for leisure or business, there are two basic things I like to know beforehand: what my hotel or the destination I’m going to stay at looks like, and the route from the airport (or other transport hub) to that hotel/destination looks like. Neither one of them should be a surprise to me. When I spend time in Central London, I rarely stay at large chain style hotels, opting for smaller privately-run establishments, which are usually much cheaper. Often these hotels are large converted houses that are part of a terrace row, and not always particularly easy to visually identify. Using Google Earth, I can trace my routes virtually, and using google maps street view, get a visual on the place where I’m staying before I travel there. Google Earth also points out key features, such as schools and churches that I would pass along the way from say the airport to the hotel, giving me a better understanding of my new/foreign environment. This can be handy, when I’m taking a taxi or ride sharing service, to make sure that they are heading in the right direction, and a) not trying to bump up the fair, or b) trying to abduct me; something that may not be as relevant when visiting London, as it would be when travelling in/to Mexico, or other locales where this is not such an uncommon practice. Get local currency before you go, and don’t wait to do this at the airport. Cash is still king. Even in modern economies there can be power outages – New York City had a power outage on Sunday that left large parts of the city without power. When this happens, your credit/debit card isn’t worth anything to you e.g. you won’t be able to buy food, dine out etc. It’s even worth getting local currency for countries you are transitioning through e.g. a few years back when I was travelling to Israel, I had a connecting flight that went through Istanbul; so I had a small amount of Turkish Lira, so that if anything happened which kept me there longer than anticipated, and there was a power cut (a combination that was unlikely but possible), I could at least but food and water – call me paranoid but life has made me that way. The reason not to wait till you get to the airport to get currency is that there are times when they will run out; especially of currencies that they don’t hold a lot of – and often these are the countries where cash is a much more dependable commodity than credit cards. In certain locales cigarettes make a good backup to cash, and can be an easy way to make a “bribe” with local officials, than offering them cash. Get an international driver’s license/permit. In the US, these are issued by either the American Automobile Association (AAA), or the American Automobile Touring Alliance (AATA), who typically charge around $15. You will need to carry your country or state issued license as well, however in about 175 countries, this permit is recognized as an official form of ID. This means that you don’t have to carry your passport (it can be left in the hotel safe) or hand it over to local officials as ID: who in some locales may decide to confiscate it for financial gain. On a more practical note, when hiring a car, the hire-firm may require it, and not recognize a state issued license/permit. It is worth noting that its expiry may be set for a year’s duration, or tied to your own license’s expiry date, so that at some point it will need to be renewed. However, for a very small amount of money it’s good to have an internationally recognized form of ID, which is not your passport. What dictates most of our safety concerns and our attitudes towards risk is a recency bias i.e. if bad things haven’t happened to us recently – or at all – we’re likely not to think about or consider risk, and/or potential threats and dangers: bad things don’t happen to us, until they do. When bad things happen in a foreign country or unknown locale, we don’t want to be figuring things out in real time. Doing virtual advance work, making sure we have the financial means to deal with any incidents, and preserving our official documents, are three things we want to have in the bag.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=440 Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=439 Skills are more important than techniques, when it comes to surviving a violent altercation. A skillful person can get a sub-optimal – I don’t like using the term “bad” – technique to work, but an unskilled person cannot get the most efficient and effective technique (if such exists) to work, in a real-life encounter; without a massive amount of luck and incompetence on their attacker’s part. Some people don’t possess the skills to make certain techniques work, but that doesn’t mean they’re bad or inappropriate techniques e.g. there are a lot of great strikers who don’t have the skills to throw, and a lot of great grapplers who don’t have the greatest striking skills – this doesn’t mean throwing is bad, or striking is bad; both are good for those who have the skills to use them. There was a legendary British doormen and Karateka, who used to finish his real-life encounters when working the door, with high-kicks to the head, even though you’ll often hear the tired and cliched mantra of, “high kicks don’t work on the street”; if you don’t have the skills, they don’t. In the world of reality-based self-defense, there is often an over-focus on techniques, without a discussion on skills-development. In this article I want to focus on skills, and how we need to get constant feedback, on their development – and how we sometimes misinterpret that “feedback”. Geoff Thompson, when asked what the philosophy behind his system was, replied by saying that it was about learning how to hit hard. That has always stayed with me. My elevator pitch self-defense lesson is: get a hand in the attacker’s face – to disrupt them – and then throw hard hammer-fists until you can disengage and run. I can teach that in the time it takes for the elevator to reach the 3rd floor, where my studio/dojo is; admittedly it’s a freight elevator that moves slowly. It’s a simple tactic, but it takes a lot of skills to get it to work under stress and duress. First, you must be prepared to strike first, and this means you need to develop threat recognition skills so you can understand when you are in danger. You need to be fully committed to your actions (that commitment is a skill that needs developing), you need to be fully aware of your legal rights as to when you are entitled to act preemptively (that’s not a technique, it’s a skill), and you need to be able to hit hard, etc. What looks and seems easy on paper, is something else when you try it in the real-world. I remember a guy who joined a team that I’d worked several years with on the door. After working with us a few weeks, he asked me to show him how to do a wrist control that he’d seen me use several times. When I demonstrated it, he remarked that it seemed really simple and that he’d use it the next time he was involved in an altercation. A few nights later, he told me that it was a stupid technique, that didn’t work – he’d tried it, and not surprisingly it had failed. He knew the technique but didn’t have the skills to get it to work, and/or the understanding of when and when not to use it. Not a problem with the technique, just a lack of skills. When people train striking and punching, there is a danger that they think they are developing good skills, when really, they are just reinforcing bad ones, as they misinterpret the “feedback” they are getting. When I lift weights, my body gets feedback as to the effort I am putting in and the power I am generating. The tension in my muscles tells me whether it was a hard or an easy lift, etc. When people bend at the waist to touch their toes, in order to stretch their hamstrings, they are not actually stretching: a muscle has to be relaxed, in order for it to be stretched. What they are feeling/experiencing is an eccentric contraction of the muscle, that is supporting the weight of the hanging torso, and misinterpreting the tension in their hamstrings as a stretch. Is being able to touch your toes a demonstration of flexibility? Yes. Is it a good stretching exercise? No. It feels like a great stretch, but really it’s a misinterpretation of what the body is telling you. One of the biggest problems I have with students who are punching and striking with tensed arms when doing pad-work, is convincing them that they are not generating the maximum power that they can. They can “feel” the power they are generating; the tension in their arms lets them “feel” it, and they don’t get the same feedback when they try striking relaxed, so the logic follows that when they’re relaxed they’re not generating as much power. When the pad-holder is asked for their feedback, they’ll say that the relaxed strike/punch is more powerful than the tensed one. The problem is that every time they punch with the tense arm, they get “feedback” as to the perceived power they are generating, whereas the student holding the pads for them only gives feedback sporadically and often not at all. One of the great things about throwing, is that when you get it right, you feel nothing – it is effortless. When a person’s balance is properly taken, you don’t feel a thing, because they become weightless to you. The problem is, how do you develop something that you can’t feel; when the only feedback is your opponent/assailant falling. The effectiveness of a good punch, or a good throw, can only be judged by the response that it causes; a tense arm, or a heavy lift, only tells you that you are doing it wrong. If the pad moves back, or the person goes flying, then you know that you’ve got it right. It’s not about what you feel, it’s about what you make happen. A sharp knife will cut through things effortlessly, whilst a dull blade will make you work for it. Our job is to develop fighting skills, and to do this we must take the right feedback from our training, and not misinterpret what our body is telling us.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=439 Mon, 08 Jul 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=438 Not all anger is the same, and in order for us to stand a chance at de-escalation and conflict resolution, we need to understand what motivates it, and where it comes from; if you spill a drink over one person in a bar, they may become slightly aggressive, but not committed to physical action, whilst another individual may aggressively explode into you, with no other thought than to cause you maximum damage and harm, etc. When we can understand the personality, along with the “thinking errors” that accompany the character of such violent individuals, we can tailor our responses accordingly. If we treat all aggression and anger as the same, or reduce it to the trigger or cause of the dispute (such as believing the issue is the spilt drink, etc.), we are in danger of misreading the situation i.e. if people respond with differing levels of anger after having a drink spilt over them, it’s not the drinking that is the driving force in the incident; it’s the individual’s personality, character, and thought processes – and these may differ from person to person. This article looks to explore some of the different types of anger that we may face in aggressive confrontations and recognize when certain types of resolution may be appropriate, and when not. One well-defined type of anger is Narcissistic Rage. Narcissism is a personality disorder, which is comorbid with many others e.g. if an individual has a personality disorder such as Paranoid Personality Disorder, they are also likely to have certain traits and characteristics that are found in Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissists are self-serving individuals, who will often try to justify their selfish actions, by stating that they are for the greater good, when in fact the individual who ultimately benefits from them is themselves. However, it can be hard for them to continually convince themselves of this argument, and/or reconcile the discrepancies in the way they see themselves, with the way others treat or see them e.g. they may believe that they should be recognized as the expert in a particular field, or the person who is most qualified to occupy a certain position, but find that there are others who fail to acknowledge this, etc. This puts a strain on their identity and idea of self, and at some point, manifests itself in extreme anger and rage. Somebody will trigger this with something they say and do, however this isn’t what the anger is about. It’s not about anything external, but rather an external manifestation of an extreme internal frustration, and like everything connected with narcissism, the rage is entirely selfish and self-serving; it is not a highly emotional expression of righting a perceived wrong, it’s about dealing with internal emotional disparities, as an attempt to reset the balance of how they see themselves with how the world views them. After such aggressive and possibly violent outbursts, the narcissist will congratulate themselves that they have restored order to the world, and everybody sees them as they deserve to be seen. A long time ago, I did some youth work with gang members in the UK; although they were referred to as “gang members”, they were really loose affiliations of teenagers, from different locales who hung around together, and were aggressive towards others who were not from their area – occasionally groups of them would visit other districts, looking for violence. All of them carried knives. I would often ask them about the types of scenarios that would cause them to pull their blade, and the universal number one answer was when they felt disrespected. At the risk of generalizing, those who engage in criminal activities often use language slightly differently, to the law-abiding population, and this is certainly true when it comes to the idea of, and the use of, the words “respect” and “disrespect”. I could never make the argument that I’m a fashion guru – I don’t care too much about clothes. When appropriate and necessary, such as when dealing with corporate clients, I’ll make an effort, but day-to-day, I don’t give much consideration to what I’m wearing; if it’s clean and it fits, I’m good to go. If somebody was to point out that I don’t dress as well as I could, I wouldn’t feel disrespected, I’d agree with them. The person making the remark might mean it as a slight, or as an attempt to provoke a certain response from me, but I don’t feel disrespected because what I wear, the car I drive, etc., isn’t part of my identity. When I talked to the teenagers about respect, they had great difficulty articulating what respect actually was, and often what it boiled down to was that they didn’t have particularly thick-skins, when it came to dealing with interactions – both aggressive and non-aggressive – because they didn’t have a strong sense of individual identity and a stable character. It wasn’t about respect and disrespect, it was about not being able to deal with anything that was perceived as a slight; and for this there was an extremely long list, that demonstrated several “thinking errors”, such as making consistent eye-contact when talking to them – if you didn’t look away every now and again when talking to them, it was being disrespectful. The source of their anger and aggression was having an extremely thin skin, coupled with an inability to deal with what they thought was adversity. A certain level of adversity is something most of us expect to deal with i.e. we’re not just going to be handed things, we’re going to have to work for them, etc. If we expect to get a high-paid job, we’re going to have to put in the hours to gain enough experience to qualify us for the position, and we’re probably going to have to do a certain amount of self-education – we’re not just entitled to it. Certain individuals don’t recognize this, and believe that they don’t deserve to have to do these things i.e. they should be recognized for who they are and receive the appropriate rewards they’re entitled to. This may be as simple as not believing that they should be stuck in traffic, or stuck behind a car which is moving slower than the speed they would like to be driving at, etc. Most of us accept that these things are part of life, but some individuals aren’t able to cope with these minor inconveniences and adversities – in their view this isn’t what their life should look like. If you’ve ever been in a subway carriage that has broken down, and see somebody just lose it, dollars to donuts, it’s not because they are going to be late to an important, potentially life-changing meeting, but rather that they’re unable to cope with adversity and feel that they are entitled to a different experience.      The things which trigger aggressive and violent outbursts are rarely the reasons for them, however it is easy to get caught up in trying to resolve the conflict, by making it about the event. To de-escalate a situation successfully we must be able to see past the incident, and deal with the individual, recognizing that their anger may come from a number of different places, and be motivated by internal rather than external factors.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=438 Mon, 01 Jul 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=437 I’ve always cross trained, and I believe this is essential, not because of what a system may be lacking in, but so that we can better understand our own system, and its approach to self-defense and fighting, even if it only confirms what we already knew/believed. I once did a security review for a company, where there were only a few minor suggestions I had regarding the processes they already had in place. After a presentation, detailing and explaining my findings, conclusions and recommendations, one manager seemed disappointed that I didn’t have more suggestions and proposals for them – my main one having being that their processes that were in place were fine but employees needed to understand the requirement to follow security protocols and not try to circumvent them when they seemed personally inconvenient (a standard finding and recommendation in most of these types of reports). I explained that sometimes the benefit of getting an external viewpoint was to validate what you already know so that you can move on and progress, building on what you already have, knowing that it stands up to scrutiny. This shouldn’t be viewed as a test or challenge e.g. a boxer doesn’t need to start training in Muay Thai, in order to prove that boxers have better hands than Thai boxers, in fact this would be missing the point entirely; the goal would be to see how Muay Thai fighters use their hands in order to get a better understanding of striking in general, so that your understanding of boxing increases. We may all think we know how another art or system operates but until we participate in it, we really can’t say that we do. In the late 1980’s and 1990’s a lot of Judoka, started to cross train in wrestling, both Greco Roman and Freestyle, to start to give us an edge in competition; primarily I was looking to “steal” techniques, movements and entries, that other Judoka might not know how to deal with. Initially, my attitude was one of comparison e.g. I’d look at how Judo’s O-Goshi (Major Hip Throw) was a “better” throw than wrestling hip toss etc. and didn’t really attempt to understand, even without the GI, why wrestlers would want to throw in this way, as it looked uncomfortable and potentially injurious, etc. However, over time, as I started to wrestle more, I began to understand how throwing in this way, gave me some new angles, positions and directions to attack from. Perhaps the biggest change in my Judo, from wrestling, was in the way I execute my Morote-Gari (two-handed reap). Without clothing to grab onto – as in wrestling you don’t wear pants - I found that I couldn’t control my opponent’s legs with my hands, especially when sweat started to enter the game. To counter this, I started to control the knees rather than the legs. When I translated this into Judo, my throw became significantly higher and bigger, because I was lifting from a lower position, and there was the added benefit that it became harder for my opponent to pull me to the ground afterwards. Once I moved outside of my “original” art and saw how other systems dealt with the same or similar problems, I became more of a grappler, rather than just simply a Judoka. If your system is a second-generation system that has incorporated other arts, then it’s a good idea to train in those “original” systems to get a better understanding of your own e.g. do some boxing, put on a GI and do some Judo, etc. My ego prevented me from doing BJJ for quite a long time. I had a fairly good Ne-Waza/ground game from Judo and didn’t want to acknowledge that another GI-based system, might have actually improved upon Kodokan Judo (at the time I saw Kosen Judo from where BBJ derives as an apostate system, that had gone down the wrong path, without actually attempting to understand it or the contexts for which it was designed). Until you do something, you can’t actually understand it, at best all you can have is a theoretical understanding e.g. if you don’t practice Judo in a GI, you don’t actually understand Kuzushi - the way that balance is broken – when utilizing Judo throws; that is not to say a wrestler, or an akidoka, doesn’t understand balance breaking, they just understand it from a different perspective. I thought I “understood” BJJ, because I’d been on the ground in a GI before, but rolling with Judokas is a totally different game – especially when you’re attempting not to be on your back, and where guard isn’t a recognized position, etc. A simple rule change, alters the dynamics considerably, something that isn’t necessarily obvious or apparent when you’re looking in from the outside; when you simply stay in your own system you don’t know what you don’t know. This is not to say that every student needs to practice multiple systems, but an instructor attempting to understand how things works, why they work, where they don’t, etc. – should. This is not acknowledging a failing or a gap in their own art, but a way of improving their own knowledge. I remember talking to Judo players who believed that the only way to improve their Judo was to do more Judo. They looked down on weight training and running, even though this was part of every top athlete’s training. They took almost a religious view, that they’d somehow not be true Judokas if they acknowledged that other non-Judo training methods would improve their Judo. If you practice boxing, your striking will improve, if you practice Judo your grappling and throwing will improve, if you practice Muay Thai or Tae Kwon Do your kicking will improve, etc., and you can do all of these things whilst still being “true” to your own system – this is a very different approach from simply taking a throw from Judo, and saying it is Judo, or a ground work from BJJ and saying it is BJJ. All martial arts have specializations, and to be the best fighter you can it is worth spending some time listening to and training with the specialists.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=437 Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=436 About 15 years ago, I developed a framework for my corporate clients, expressing how certain premeditated acts of violence and crime are committed; I termed it the 5-step predator process (the title being influenced by similar work that was being undertaken by criminologists at the time around the stages of grooming that pedophiles take their targeted victims through) – I wrote briefly about it in this blog around 6 years ago. It’s a simple model that suggests that when looking retrospectively at certain crimes, those that commit them follow a certain sequence, some of which is conscious and some of which is unconscious i.e. they select a location, or recognize the benefits a location provides, they select a victim, carry out some form of surveillance, synchronize their movement to that of the victim, such as by following them, and then engage in either some form of interview or direct attack. In this article, I want to look at some of the ideas underpinning this model/framework, as well as some of its limitations i.e. what it is not able to explain and demonstrate, etc. The first thing to note about the model is that it is situational. Often when a theory or idea is proposed it is taken to be a “general” theory that attempts to explain everything e.g. Felson and Cohen’s (1979) Routine Activity Theory is often presented as a general theory, because it attempted to explain and show how overall crime rates changed in the United States between 1947 and 1979, however what they were really measuring were certain types of crime, that accounted for these changes. Their proposal that for a crime to be committed there must be; a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian, has merit in explaining certain types of street crimes, but as Feminist Victimologists have pointed out, needs a certain degree of adaptation to explain domestic violence, and familial child-abuse, where in simplistic terms the “capable guardian” - who is seen to deter and prevent certain types of crime - is the motivated offender in others. Likewise, the 5-step predator process model attempts only – in a very loose way – to explain criminal processes wherein the perpetrator and the victim have no formal or identifiable relationship. If a criminal has already identified a target - such as the  partner of their friend - for a rape/sexual assault, the selection of location becomes less important to understanding that crime, than the relationship they have with the individual they are planning on victimizing. I often use the abduction and murder of Amy Lord to illustrate this. In 2016, Amy Lord, a mid-twenties South Boston resident was beaten in her flat and abducted, before being taken to a series of ATM’s to withdraw money, and then driven to Hyde Park, before being stabbed to death. On the Saturday afterwards, our free women’s self-defense program was packed with women in their mid-twenties from South Boston who feared that a killer was targeting women in their specific location - a it turned out, they were correct. However, if Amy Lord’s killer had been a past boyfriend, that relationship would have been the driving factor in her murder, and the fact that she lived in South Boston far less relevant. Crime and Violence is situational, and two of the five situational factors that can pivot how a violent act is understood, are “Location” and “Relationship”. The 5-step process I use, is only applicable where there is no existing relationship between the perpetrator and the victim i.e., the victim is chosen/targeted in a location. Another foundation of the model is a mathematical one, that underpins a lot of behavioral sequences in psychology, and comes from the mathematician Andrey Markov; the Markov Chain. Basically, Markov Chains look at sequences, going in one direction: forward, i.e., the current step or stage - and not any of the previous ones - is only relevant to the next one; the cumulative history is not relevant to the next step in the sequence. In the 5-step model, this would translate in the following way: after victim selection, comes the surveillance phase, however the selection of a location isn’t relevant to this step in the chain, as it occurs. This doesn’t mean that certain locations aren’t chosen for the concealment and surveillance opportunities they may provide, but that this is part of the process in choosing a suitable location i.e., the first step in the chain, and this choice isn’t as relevant to the act of surveillance, as to the selection of a potential victim. When looking at such models in a Markovian Chain, this is referred to as lag-one i.e. it is only the last link in the chain that is relevant to the next. This becomes a very important idea and concept when looking at impulsive and opportunistic behavioral sequences, where what is happening in the moment dictates what happens next – a common feature in violent crimes, even when there has been a fair degree of planning. It also reduces a lot of complex rigidity and allows the model to represent fluid and dynamic situations. Another idea of the model is that certain phases of the sequence can run concurrently e.g. surveillance can occur at the same time as a synchronization of movement e.g. a perpetrator can select a victim, and as they follow them, synchronizing their movement, as they carry out their surveillance, etc. Because the process is modeled as a Markovian Chain, it is the synchronization of movement that is affected by the surveillance phase, that occurs after the victim selection step; and you obviously can’t carry out surveillance on a victim, until you’ve selected them, or been in a location where they exist. A perpetrator’s surveillance may be as simple as watching a selected victim to confirm that they were correct in choosing them, and they may combine their synchronization of movement to help influence this. Several years ago, there was a serial rapist operating in the North End of Boston, which is a rabbit warren of narrow, winding streets. One of the women who was victimized reported that she had picked up that she was being followed, and decided to stop and pretend she was on her phone, so that the person behind would a) know that someone knew where she was, and b) respect the social convention that you don’t interrupt somebody’s phone conversation. It may be that the attacker used his movement to gauge his target’s response, as part of the surveillance phase, to judge whether they were likely to fight back or not e.g. would they turn around and verbally confront him or ignore him, hoping that he would pass them by?     There have been attempts to present general theories of crime, but often these become so general that they offer little in way of explanation, and it is often more useful to use several theories and models to explain acts of violence and other crimes. The 5-step predator process model/framework is something I use to give a sense of how violent crimes, committed by strangers, occur, however there will always be certain situations that don’t fit neatly into it, often because relationships between perpetrators and victims aren’t so black and white or clear cut e.g. in certain neighborhoods/locations, victims and aggressors will rub shoulders with each other on a daily basis, but not have a strong relationship with each other, clouding how the two situational factors of location and relationship affect each other. However, as a means of explaining how certain criminal behaviors can be predicted and identified, I have found it to be an extremely useful framework.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=436 Mon, 17 Jun 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=435 I recently read an article which stated that criminals like the dark, as it hides their actions, and gives them an advantage etc. At first glance this seems reasonable, and a lot of violent crimes do take place at night, however much of this is down to availability of suitable victims, and the routine activities that many violent criminals engage in, rather than the dark per se e.g. it’s not so much that criminals like the dark, but rather that their activities are engaged in during those hours because circumstances are favorable etc. In the winter months in Boston, more street robberies are committed in the earlier parts of the evening, than the later part of the night/early morning, when compared to the summer months; it’s colder later at night, and less people are about on the streets etc. It’s not so much that certain crime rates go up because its dark, but because of what happens at night – people engage in leisure activities, such as drinking and socializing and are more likely to be in public spaces (and some crimes such as residential burglary go down, because houses are more likely to be vacant during the day when people are at work, than at night when they’re home). This perception of the dark being responsible for high crime rates is a widespread one, and one which affects many public policies e.g. many cities have adopted major street-lighting and relighting projects in order to reduce the crime rate – to mixed results. The research seems to suggest, but certainly not conclusively, that such projects have been more successful in the UK than in the US. Though in certain UK relighting projects increases in crimes and disorder, especially that committed by juveniles and youth gangs has been experienced, as the improved lighting makes the nighttime more socially accessible to them. Although the jury is out on whether improved street lighting does actually improve safety and reduce vulnerability and victimization, the majority of the research does seem to point to the fact that we feel much safer in well lit areas, with our fear of being the victim of crime being decreased; even if that is not necessarily the reality. This article looks at how lighting affects our perception of danger, and other factors which when combined may be more influential in our determination of risk. There are three environmental factors that influence our level of fear concerning our environment(s), these are: prospect, concealment and escape (this is based on various criminologist development of Appleton’s prospect-refuge theory). Prospect concerns our ability to spot danger at distance and is dependent on our sightlines. If we are in the middle of an open field with no objects obstructing our field of vision, we have good prospect – we can see potential danger approaching a long way off. Our ability to see potential threats goes down when it gets darker, and we aren’t as able to see as far; which is where we value good lighting. We also feel less safe when our environment offers many concealment points, where a motivated offender can hide, or carry out surveillance on us unobserved. What is interesting about this, is that our natural fear is of an aggressor, attacking us by surprise without any warning concerning their physical presence. Such fear seems to be strongly lodged in our DNA, and seems to suggest that we are still very much wired to expect and deal with predators who remain hidden and undetectable until the last moment, like the crocodile who waits, hidden just below the waterline, and ready to pounce on an unobservant Gnu that comes down to the waterhole to drink. However, human-on-human violence rarely involves such physical ambushes and is more likely to involve some form of visible approach with preceding dialogue. Even if we may consciously understand and appreciate this, our emotional self is still more worried and concerned about the rear-strangle and other unseen attacks, than the more likely social interaction that precedes most violent attacks. More than prospect and concealment, it seems that our ability to escape, is a more influential factor regarding our perception of crime and violence. We appear to fear entrapment more than anything – we emotionally prefer the option to run away, much more than the ability to spot danger, and avoid it at the earliest opportunity. So, whilst we might value good street lighting that allows us to identify potential threats, more important to us is the ability to get away. This goes some way to explain our fear when in unfamiliar places, even when everything else suggests that the environment is safe.            Street lighting, and public lighting, is starting to change. Many cities are starting to change their traditional, static streetlighting systems to more dynamic and intelligent ones. Many municipalities are looking to both save money and reduce their carbon footprint (it is estimated that public street lighting accounts for 19% of global energy production, along with around 19 000 metric tons of C02 emissions (Gaston et al., 2014)), and so not light areas when they are unoccupied, or light levels are sufficient, such as when there is a full moon. We now have the technology to do this with motion sensors, and Apps on our phone, which identify our location, and can be used to switch on lights when we are near them etc. This both saves money, and is more environmentally friendly, however its effect on both perceived safety, and actual crime is unknown. In CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design), light is often used as a permanent means of defining and enforcing “boundaries” – it is not yet known whether dynamic lighting can do this, or whether it can do it to a greater or lesser degree i.e. does a motion sensor light create and enforce a stronger sense of boundary than a permanently switched on light etc. From the perspective of safety, research (Haans & Kort, 2012) has shown that we feel safer when our immediate area is lit up, rather than when prospective areas we are potentially moving in to our lighted; suggesting that we are emotionally more concerned with dealing with a threat/danger as it happens, than predicting and preventing it. Surveys and questionnaires have shown that we put a lot of stock in good lighting, and that we believe criminals use the dark to their advantage against us, however there is little evidence to suggest that this is the case. We consistently mark good lighting as one of the most important factors in crime-prevention, though the evidence concerning the effects of lighting on actual crime is inconclusive. It is perhaps natural that as diurnal (daytime) creatures, we mark violent criminals as being naturally nocturnal i.e. an almost different species to us etc. without recognizing that it is our night time activities that attract their attention, rather than something inherent about the dark/night – something that may make us feel – without qualification - that we are naturally safe in the daytime. Whilst lighting may affect our fears concerning crimes and violence, we still exhibit many of the features of prey animals who are more concerned with the exits that an environment provides us, than the ability to identify and predict danger before it occurs. Maybe the most important take-away is that good lighting is far more important to us regarding our feelings and perceptions of safety, than it is to affecting violent criminals actions and behaviors.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=435 Mon, 10 Jun 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=434 We like to think of ourselves as “fair” people e.g. when we make judgements concerning the actions and behaviors of others we do so from a neutral position, considering and weighing up all the factors at play in an unbiased manner. We often believe we are being fair and accurate even when we don’t really have enough information at hand to inform our position - when we lack a context we will imagine/create one, as our brains abhor a vacuum. This can result in us making inaccurate judgments concerning things we have witnessed and even blame people for not acting or behaving in a certain way. We may watch a clip of CCTV footage of an assault and determine that someone should have responded to a situation in such a way, that we would have dealt with it differently in order to secure a successful outcome. However, most of our social judgments are susceptible to attribution errors and biases, and these can cause us to draw wrong conclusions about the things we see, and the interactions we have with others. Whilst we may be extremely confident in our view of the world, and the way we navigate it, it is often worth considering how accurate and unbiased our attributions are, and whether the result(s) may be a flawed perception concerning our personal safety. One way in which our attributions may be flawed, is that we tend to attribute the actions and behaviors of others to something personal and inherent about them, rather than due to situational factors and components that are at play e.g. if someone fails to recognize a threat or danger, then it is due to their lack of awareness, rather than due to the situation itself - such as an assailant making an unprovoked, spontaneous assault for no other reason than in that moment they could. This phenomenon is referred to as the “Fundamental Attribution Error”, which can really be summed up using the phrase, “I would have done it differently”. In our minds, we are not constrained by situational factors, as in our view we would have somehow managed or mitigated them – everything in hindsight is 20/20. However heavily weighted a situation is against someone, our correspondence bias, will make us believe that a person’s failure to act was due to that individual’s personal characteristics, and that even when the odds are completely and overwhelmingly stacked against them, these don’t determine the outcome but instead it is their intrinsic personal failings of the person involved that do so; dispositional rather than situational attribution. This can cause us to over-estimate our own abilities to deal with and handle difficult situations. We might think that we would spot a potential threat because we have good awareness, even though there might be little in a situation that would help you identify the danger. If we were to fail to identify such a threat, our own narrative would be that this was down to situational reasons, not personal ones. Another attribution we are affected by is, Defensive Attribution. This occurs when we are less judgmental about a person’s actions and behavior in a situation, when we perceive them to be like us e.g. if we hear about someone who was attacked when they were drunk and unable to defend themselves, we might initially see them as facilitating, or even being somewhat responsible for, the assault in some way, however if were to later find out that they were of the same ethnicity, socio-economic demographic, age, etc., as us, and that the assault occurred in a location that we frequent, we may soften our judgment, and start to explain the assault as being the result and product of situational factors, rather than due to personal failings on the part of the individual. This is partly the result of not wanting to be perceived in a negative way, or be blamed, if we were to be attacked in a similar situation/fashion. One of the dangers of this, is that we conclude that there is nothing we could do to change the outcome if we were to be put in a similar situation, and that just as this person was unable to defend themselves, neither would we be able to i.e. the situation is outside of our control, and such violence is random and inevitable, and is controlled/dictated wholly by situational factors, which we are unable to change or influence. This can also lead us to develop an idea concerning the inevitability of being the victim of violence i.e. it is people like us who are targeted. The two often go hand-in-hand, with individuals concluding that they are likely to be attacked, and that there is nothing they can do if they are. We also have a bias/attribution that other people’s interactions with us, are by and large related to dispositional factors, rather than situational ones. If we cut someone off in traffic, and they get angry, the part we play in their anger – the situational component – is minor, and even insignificant, and the real reason they became mad with us is that they are a nasty, angry individual. However, in contrast, if we are cut off in traffic and become angry, that’s solely down to the actions and behavior of the other person. This can cause us to underestimate the effects of how we interact with others. We may believe that taking a parking space that someone else was waiting for is a trivial matter, and that they should understand that we probably have a good reason to do so, without realizing that it is likely this action, rather than their “personality” which will cause them to become aggressive and potentially violent towards us. One of the results/conclusions of this attribution could be summed up with the phrase, “we have the right to be aggressive/angry with others whilst others don’t have the right to be angry with us”. For us to be able to predict, identify and avoid violence, as well as having a fair understanding and appreciation of how we can respond and deal with it, when/where it is inevitable, we must understand how our attribution errors and biases effect our appreciation of violent incidents. If we simply look at violent events without understanding the filters through which we view them, we are likely to come away with a skewed picture that represents what we want to think, rather than what has actually occurred. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=434 Mon, 03 Jun 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=433 Many years ago, when I was much younger, I had a stalker. Like most stalkers, it was an ex-intimate partner who couldn’t and didn’t want to accept that the relationship had ended – even though it had been a very brief one that had only lasted a couple of months. The stalking campaign lasted roughly six months, and finally ended when I moved apartments (for other reasons). At the beginning, I didn’t know much about the phenomenon of stalking, and did a lot of things wrong which fueled and perpetuated it, and it was only as I educated myself that I was able to take some of the steps, which enabled me to start taking back control of my life. At the time, my approach to dealing with aggressive behavior – which stalking is, though it may be packaged in a way where this isn’t evident – was to confront and engage i.e. what your default attitude tends to be when you’re younger and stupider. With stalkers, this is almost always the wrong response, and one which leaves you stressed, frustrated, and disempowered. Dealing with a stalker is a relentless business, and can sometimes feel like a full-time job; so I have every sympathy for anyone who is having to or has had to endure a stalking campaign. In this article, I will share some of my experiences and solutions, including those which worked and those which didn’t, in the hope that they will be of use to anyone who is going through a similar experience. Stalkers want a relationship. In my case, the individual in question wanted to continue a relationship that had ended. It may be that initially their actions and behaviors are meant to punish you, or that they believe their constant pressure, arguments, contact, etc., will convince you to restart the relationship you ended, or it may be a mix of these things and other confused emotions. However, in most cases stalking campaigns start out with a goal. The problem is that over time, as the stalking campaign progresses, that goal gets lost, and the person simply gets caught up – and addicted – to the process of having some form of relationship with you i.e. it doesn’t matter how they are in your life, as long as they are in it, and are an all-consuming part; they want you thinking about them all the time. If 70% of your phone calls, texts and emails are from them, then every time the phone rings, you get a text, or open your email, you’re going to think it’s them, even when it’s not. This is how they stay present in your life – they know that you’ve started to associate every piece of communication with them. If there’s a knock on your door, that’s going to be them. Stalkers are resourceful. You change your number, your email, your social media accounts, they’ll find your new ones – they’ll find a pretext for asking friends and family members for your new details, etc. In the end, I kept my old phone and email account (social media wasn’t a thing at the time) and got new ones. My stalker still believed she had access to me but was using a mobile phone number that went straight to voicemail, or my home phone that went straight to an answering machine. I used to check both daily at a set time (which allowed me to control the communication) and then contact people I wanted to stay in contact with, providing them with my new number/contact details. Over time, the calls and emails started to dwindle – stalking campaigns take a lot of time and effort, and if the stalker doesn’t get any response back, there is little to feed and fuel their campaign. I learnt the “No Communication” rule – which is the generally the best way to deal with stalkers – the hard way. Initially, I thought that if I could explain my point of view, and reason and rationalize the situation, then things would end. For me, it was obvious that receiving phone calls and emails every 20 minutes throughout the day was intrusive, annoying and unnecessary, etc., and given the chance I could explain and convince her to stop doing this. At one point I agreed to meet her, at her request, for one last time so we could clear the air and get things straight, etc. I welcomed this opportunity. We met for dinner and by the end it seemed we were on the same page – she’d even apologized. Driving back to my house, I was relieved that the ordeal was over. When I got in, I saw that the answering machine, to my old phone line was flashing. At this stage the only person who called it was her. When I played the message, it was all about how great it was that we were getting back together, that we were giving it another try, and that she accepted my apology for ending the relationship, etc. Whatever I said earlier that evening either wasn’t heard, was unconsciously re-written, or was deliberately misunderstood. Either way, it was a brilliant move to get me to “respond” to her communication, as I had to clarify that this wasn’t the case. At that moment, I was back in a “relationship” with her. It took a further three months of not responding before things started to tail off again. During this period, for about 6 weeks, she used to get on the same Tube train into London as me (I had several regular clients I trained in the city that she knew about), and sit opposite me, looking at me in silence, for the 20 minute journey – it was one of the best educations in learning to handle and become comfortable in socially awkward situations. My personal belief is that this is what really killed off the campaign i.e. not communicating and responding when she was present and appearing to be comfortable when doing so. Not responding is the best, first step when dealing with stalkers. Many people have an initial reaction to call the police. However, unless an actual law has been broken (and most stalkers don’t cross this line), or you can provide evidence of harassment – which varies from state to state – there is little they can do. More importantly, you have responded to their communication/action, with perhaps the ultimate response, and nothing has happened i.e. you have been shown to be impotent. The key to initially coping with a stalking campaign is to start to control the communication e.g. keep your existing phone, email, etc. so they think that they can still communicate with you, but start using a new one – telling people who you want to stay in contact with, not to hand out your new number. Don’t bother to try to reason with your stalker, anybody who engages in a constant harassment campaign, is not operating rationally; and trying to enlist friends or family members to communicate – or even intimidate – on your behalf will still be seen as a “response” and evidence that the “relationship” still exists. If you’re not communicating, you’re not in the relationship.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=433 Mon, 27 May 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=432 Not all points in a violent confrontation, are the same or “equal”; and this effects the options we have. If you can recognize a developing situation early on, you will have a lot of potential options e.g. you could disengage, you could look for an improvised weapon, or make ready your own personal carry weapon, such as your OC/Pepper spray, etc. If you are reacting/responding to a physical attack, these options aren’t going to be as readily available to you, as your focus and concentration will be on dealing with the attack that is underway. The same attack in the midst of a fight will be experienced differently to that at the start; you will be less surprised by a punch thrown during a fight, than a punch that initiates it, etc. However, there is a tendency to simply treat a punch as a punch, a strangle as a strangle, etc., when the way these are experienced can be very different – this doesn’t necessarily mean that we require/need different techniques or solutions to deal with them, as they are the same attack, but rather that we need to train them in the many different contexts in which they can be experienced. However, it may also be that we require a different response; if I can control the range at the beginning of a fight, I can use blocks to deal with punches, as I have the time and distance to make these work, however in the middle of a fight, where/when I have lost this control, and my aggressor is much closer to me, I may be forced to cover and ride their punches and strikes, rather than intercept and block them. If we can understand that the same attack may be experienced differently at different points a violent confrontation, and train to deal with these attacks in different contexts, then we will be better prepared for reality. Dealing with a push at range is very different to dealing with a push when an aggressor is standing nose-to-nose with you; same attack experienced very, very differently. If somebody attempts to push you (and from my own experiences observing violence, this is a remarkably common fight initiator), from distance there is much less pressure to deal with this attack than if it were performed up close; in fact, they might as well have hired a marching band to walk in front of them signaling their intent. In reality a person isn’t going to come towards you with their arms already outstretched, as they will have no power with which to push you. Instead, their hands will already be on your chest, with the elbows bent, ready to drive you back. It is a completely different experience to identify an attack, and respond to it, purely by feel, without any visual cues to help and guide you. The problem is, such attacks are often not trained in this way because it is difficult to perform a complete and definitive solution, and instead all we can do in the moment is limit the effect of the attack; such as not being driven directly back and/or ending up on the ground, etc. This message of limiting the effects of an attack, rather than dealing with it, and in the same moment extricating ourselves completely from the fight can be a difficult one to sell to those who believe and put all the power in the effectiveness of their techniques –we are not always able to perform our techniques (even if we believe they are the best ones) in an optimal way. This doesn’t mean they are bad techniques, just that due to context, they may only be capable of restricting and limiting the effects of an attack, and so we need to be prepared for this; rather than always expecting them to work to a rigid, fixed and expected outcome. There are many ways that you can get guillotined e.g. you can have your head pulled down, you can be pushed or slip, so that your head passes your shoulders and hips, etc. It may be that as you slip out of a clinch, an assailant is able to trap and control your head. The potential contexts, in which this attack can be experienced, are almost limitless, yet often it is only trained in one or two ways – I have even seen several clips of people running/stepping towards training partners with their heads down, so that they can be guillotined in order to practice an escape, etc. This is not just neglecting to practice the attack in a particular context, it is creating an entirely new one, which has no basis in reality. The problem is that we often have a focus on training the solution to an attack, rather than looking at the nature of it i.e. identifying the conditions that need to be met for a guillotine choke to be applied and setting up realistic scenarios that replicate these. If all we are interested in is acquiring the head knowledge concerning how to escape a guillotine choke, then we should start with the choke already being applied; if we want to practice it in such a way that we have a chance of dealing with it in a real-life confrontation, we must experience the application of the choke, as it is being applied. We must go through the process of its application, in the different positions and scenarios in which we are likely to find ourselves being choked in this way. To complicate/confuse matters, there are also many different ways to apply guillotine chokes, and we need to find out if our techniques/solutions work universally or whether we must be prepared to make certain adaptations, etc. Training to defend ourselves shouldn’t take a one-size-fits-all approach, where we train our techniques in one context believing that this prepares ourselves for every scenario and situation we may experience. We need to practice defenses against the same attack at different ranges, and in different phases of the fight, as well as in different positions and contexts, etc. Presenting violence in the same way, every time, is too simplistic and we need to recognize the dynamic nature of physical confrontations that can change how we experience the same attack.             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=432 Mon, 20 May 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=431 Holding on to objects, and to a certain extent hoarding, is inherent in the human condition. To a certain degree and extent, it’s etched into our DNA – as part of our survival instinct(s). We became the apex creature on this planet due to our ability to fashion tools, and these tools ensured our survival. When we first came down from the trees, and onto the plains, losing a flint for making fire, or a bowl to cook in, could have been disastrous for us, and so we started to place a value on items, that was different from other animals e.g. a chimp may be protective of something they have constructed due to pride in their accomplishment, but no species relies on its creations like humans do. So strong is our desire to hold on to the things that we own, that we must be directly instructed to not waste time looking for and collecting our possessions in the event of a fire. A few days ago, in Los Angeles, a woman was dragged under a vehicle and killed, when she wouldn’t give up her bag to purse thieves. We have an instinct to hold on to our possessions, even when they are no longer important for our survival, and this is more than just a matter of pride and ego; it runs deep. It’s one of the reasons that when training mugging scenarios, I have people practice handing over their money/wallet – if you’ve already gone through the motions, you are more likely to do it. It’s an action, that we must practice, to get over our reluctance in doing it. It’s one thing to know that handing over your wallet, letting go of your purse, is the right thing to do from a survival perspective, it’s another thing to get over the emotional inertia that prevents us from doing so. Several years ago, two aggressors attempted to grab my laptop bag from me, and it resulted in a physical altercation – I didn’t follow my own advice to acquiesce. Fortunately, neither aggressor was particularly motivated to follow through with the bag snatch, and I came out of it pretty much unscathed. However, it was the wrong thing to do on my part. If this had been London, rather than Boston, I might have had acid thrown in my face as I resisted, and if either one of them had used a weapon, it could have ended very, very differently. When I examined afterwards why I’d done the wrong thing in fighting for some possessions, I concluded that it was probably for two reasons. One, was that I’d just bought a new laptop that was better able to handle the data processing I do in terms of analyzing crime data, etc., and the second was that on the local, hard-drive was 95% of the finished work, that was my second book. These two things, in that moment, represented – but were in no way equivalent to - the flints, cooking pots, etc., of our ancestors. In response to this, when it came time to replace the laptop, I replaced it with a cheaper, refurbished one, and started storing all my work in the cloud, rather than locally. This changed my “relationship” with my laptop, and it became a tool to access data, rather than a repository to store data i.e. it lost its intrinsic worth to me – I could use any device to access what I really was interested in protecting. I once did some security training with a company that sent their employees abroad to collect data on several different foreign variables, using a formatted notebook. As I talked with them about how it was better to hand over possessions than try to fight for them, they started to tell me how important the information contained in the pages was, and how a whole trip/journey, consisting of several weeks of work, could be lost if they handed over these books i.e. they had a strong reluctance to hand over a bag that contained such work book, regardless of the odds that may have been stacked against them. A solution that we agreed might help them give up their resources was if each night after collecting their data/information, they took photographs of the pages and uploaded them to the cloud, so if they ever were in a situation where they had to hand over their possessions, they would only lose that day’s work. Risk occurs where assets, threats, and vulnerabilities intersect e.g. if we eliminate all vulnerabilities, or all threats, there is no risk – an impossible task, however if we can reduce vulnerabilities, we can also reduce risk. Another way is be reducing or eliminating assets; if I don’t have a car, I can’t have my car stolen. One of the things I first ask people to do when making risk assessments is to produce an asset inventory: what is it that they’re interested in protecting. I’m interested in what has value to them, what has value to others, and how easily – and at what cost - could items/assets be replaced e.g. could the irreplaceable wedding album be digitized, and/or should it be stored in a fireproof safe? Might this also reduce the risk of running back into a burning building to save and salvage it, etc? Spring cleaning is an excellent time to make an appraisal of your assets, determining emotionally and practically, how you might be able to give something up, or alter its form so it’s not available to be exploited by a threat. If you suddenly find that $20 000, you stashed away in a shoe box at the back of your wardrobe, then it may be worth putting it in the bank, where it becomes a file of (insured) ones and zeroes on the bank’s servers, rather than a physical asset, that you now have to consider how to protect. The number one item stolen from students at university are textbooks; some that may be required reading for a course can run to several hundred dollars. Some students either can’t afford to, or are reluctant to spend this type of money and so steal books from fellow students – most of these books are now digitized, and available as EBooks. No longer a physical asset, they don’t require physical protection.  The other benefit of asset inventories, and spring cleaning, is that you now know exactly what you do have, and where. You don’t have to worry about giving something up, due to not knowing what you might be giving up. If you have collected items, things in a bag or purse over a number of years, and have forgotten exactly what is in your bag, you may be reluctant to give it up, because you may be giving up something of value to you e.g. you can’t remember if it still contains a family heirloom, such as an antique watch that you kept meaning to take for repair, etc. If such an item is something you would have a reluctance to hand over, then it perhaps isn’t something that you should be carrying in this fashion. The same is true of cash; don’t carry amounts that you’re not prepared to hand over. If that’s not an option, spread it about your person rather than keeping it all in the one place, such as your bag/wallet. If somebody steals or robs me of my laptop case, I know I can cheaply replace the computer, and I’ll still have access to my data. I know everything else that is in that bag, and have an inventory so I know exactly what I need to replace – I also systematically clean it out, because there is always the possibility that things which don’t need to be carried around with me every day, creep in. A friend of mine recently had all his possessions destroyed due to water damage in his apartment. In talking to him, I found he’d down-sized and digitized everything. If it, or a similar disaster, happened again, he would lose little, and he’d know what he’d have to replace. There is nothing wrong with owning forty pairs of shoes, twelve suits, and having multiple watches, etc. However, if you never wear or use any of these items, they represent under-utilized assets that need to be protected, and rather than having all of the watches stored in the same drawer, it would make more sense to either get rid of them or keep them somewhere else, where they are less vulnerable to burglary, etc. Spring cleaning gives us a good opportunity to start making such decisions, and put an element of planning and preparation around the storage of our valued possessions, so that those things we hold dear don’t come to put us at risk.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=431 Mon, 13 May 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=430 There was a YouTube clip I saw awhile back, where an instructor was saying that blocking was an irrelevant method for dealing with attacks, because it’s a rarely employed tactic in MMA, with most fighters covering and riding punches, rather than blocking them. I teach both methods, and teach the contexts where each is preferable, and effective. However, these are only two of five basic approaches to dealing with strikes and punches, and in this article I want to take a look at these five, how they compare, and the different contexts within which they should/may be employed. The five are: Avoiding Blocking Covering Riding Absorbing Most untrained people will be “head hunters” – they will be looking to throw powerful strikes against the head in order to deliver one or more concussive blows. In many video clips of real-life fights, you will often see before the fight starts, an aggressor step back and/or load weight on to their rear leg, and then initiate their attack by stepping or moving forward, as they swing their arm in a large circular motion towards their victim/target’s head. It’s a large movement that has one intention: to take the other person’s head of their shoulders. It’s not subtle or discrete, but it can often be very effective. One way to avoid the effect of the punch/strike is to move the head away, out of the area that the person is attacking. Biomechanically, there is a relatively small area where punches can be delivered with any real power, and that’s roughly from the mid chest line to the top of the head. If the head is moved out of this area/zone, then even if a punch lands it will lack power. One way to move the head out of this zone/area is to bob and weave. The “bobbing” action sees the head move in a vertical plane, whilst the “weave” sees it move laterally in a horizontal plane – both actions together move the head through a combination of planes, which sees it removed from the space where an aggressor can generate power. It’s important that both movements are performed using the knees, rather than by bending at the waist, as by keeping the torso somewhat upright you can remain in a position where you are able to counter-attack with punches/strikes of your own. One of the biggest issues with bobbing and weaving is that people try to only move the head without the torso, and so they end up just leaning back or off to one side – with no bend or use of the knees. Whilst moving the head out of the way can work when dealing with an assailant who is solely focused on this one target, it is not so effective against an attacker who is able to use their legs, as it is only the head that is moving, not the rest of the body e.g. if they are able to throw in leg kicks and lower body combatives in conjunction with punches and strikes to the head, then by only moving the head, and not the rest of the body, it is likely that these will land. By judging and measuring your relative distance to an attacker from hip-to-hip, rather than from head-to-head, it is possible to keep all of the body out of range. Although range control should become an inherent skill that doesn’t require any conscious application, i.e. you should just “know” when you are out of range, as you acquire this skill it is good to have a manual check that you can employ. If you look at the center of an aggressor’s chest, and with your peripheral vision can see their front/leading foot, and a bit of ground you should be out of range – or if still just in range, at a distance where an attacker will have no driving force behind their punches; they may connect but they will lack any power, to cause damage and/or concussive force. This is the range you will need to be at if your blocks are to be effective. Personally, I don’t see blocking as a defensive action i.e. your control of range should be the primary defense where a block is concerned. If you are closer than this range it is likely you will not have the space and/or time to block, and you will have to either cover, and/or ride and/or absorb the strike. A block should be seen as an “attack” to the incoming strike e.g. if somebody is throwing a large circular strike, and I make an outside block with my forearm to connect with it, I should be looking to ram/drive the blade of my forearm into their arm, to cause pain and trauma. My movement away from the punch/strike should reduce its power, along with my range control, so the purpose of my block is to make an attack on my aggressor’s attack – every time I make contact with them, my goal should be to cause them pain, damage and injury e.g. I am never just “blocking” in a defensive manner. If my blocking can disrupt their balance, movement and timing of subsequent strikes, etc., it is doing its job. Often blocking movements are instinctive, and occur naturally, especially when our natural flinch response has been triggered – a movement causes us to instinctively raise our arm up/out to intercept an incoming attack. However, for all of this to happen, we must be at a range/distance where the movement can be reacted/responded to. If we are inside this range, we may be forced to cover instead – we may also be forced to cover when we are dealing with punches that are too powerful to block.     It should be noted that “covering” is not particularly effective against weapons, and blocking is certainly preferable, however if somebody is slashing in with a knife at close-range, and there is no time to block, I would rather cover my face/head with an arm, and see this body-part cut/slashed as opposed to losing an eye, etc. I have a scar on my lip, and under my nose where my only defense to a knife slash was to lean back and accept that the lower part of my face would be cut rather than losing an eye – this is reality, where perfect solutions are rarely available. I’m sure there are people who will say I should have blocked, I should have done this, I should have done that, etc., but none of them were there, and this was literally the only motion I could make under the circumstances – so covering, riding, and absorbing may be the only options available to you in a fight with a weapon, despite controlling range and blocking being the preferred solution. Covering, generally means getting an arm up, to take the punch/strike on it, rather than having the head/face left as an exposed target. Most of the time we are talking about protecting the face, which is a relatively small area. If you can take punches on your arms rather than the nose, chin or eye sockets, etc., that is a preferred solution. It is also worth adding in that whilst ears do really hurt when punched, being hit/punched on the ears is rarely as debilitating as taking a punch to the nose, or the eyes. Normally, with covering, I’ll try to “ride” the punch as well, so that the arm doesn’t take the full impact of the strike.  Riding involves going with the movement of the punch as it hits the body part/target, or the limb that is covering it. The idea is to follow the movement of the punch, rather than offer a rigid/static target which will absorb the full power of the strike, and allow it to drive through. Although this involves getting hit, sometimes it is the only option available to you, and it is better to go with the motion of the strike rather than try to resist it. Sometimes, rather than riding a strike, you may have to absorb it, as riding the strike would compromise your movement, and ability to counter, etc. Perhaps the best example of this is when dealing with low-roundhouse kicks to the thighs/quads. Whilst one option is to raise the knee and block with the shin, this means that you are coming up on one leg, which will slow down and interrupt your forward motion. Another option would be to simply take the kick on the leg, absorb its power and keep moving forward, towards your attacker. Obviously, such a tactic has its issues, and relies on conditioning the legs to be able to make this option work, however it does have its benefits, and shouldn’t be dismissed. If the abs/stomach can be conditioned to take and absorb punches and strikes, then when failing to block, if a punch gets through (and no blocking system is fail-proof), it’s not going to be the end of the day. To be competent, all-round fighters, we need to develop all of these skills. There is a place for avoidance whether it is through controlling range, or by moving individual targets, such as the head, away from punches and strikes. There is a place for blocking, as there is a place for covering, riding and absorbing. The individual who believes they would just do one of these things in every possible situation is fooling themselves e.g. trying to just use blocking in a multiple attacker situation, where your two arms are having to deal/cope with multiple attacking limbs is not going to be a successful strategy, and you may have to employ several of these tactics/methods. Bobbing and weaving is great, if the only target is the head, but cannot be a universal solution against somebody who is attacking targets on different levels, etc. If we can put all of these methods together and apply them in the necessary contexts, we will be better prepared to deal with all of the various striking/punching situations.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=430 Mon, 06 May 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=429 It’s very easy to talk about muggings and robberies as if they are a universally similar phenomenon across all locales e.g. the way a mugging is conducted in New York, is the same as the way it’s committed in Chicago, etc. However, although there may be many similarities, there may also be distinct and important differences. Sometimes as instructors and/or students of violence, we fall into the trap of creating training scenarios that reflect our ideas about what a mugging/street robbery looks like, rather than what actually occurs. Sometimes this is based on the experiences of those we know who have been mugged and/or media reports of muggings, etc., and so it seems that the training scenarios we use to replicate these incidents reflect “reality”, however the sample sizes we are using may be too small to adequately do so. In this article I want to compare the “typical” anatomy of a robbery/mugging in Los Angeles to one in Boston, to identify similarities and differences, and get a better idea of what a mugging looks like. Both cities make their crime incident reports public, so the data is available to analyze; L.A. has done so for the past ten years, and Boston for the past three. There are a few differences in reporting methods and codes, so I have restricted the location of robberies to public spaces e.g. streets, parks, garages, etc., and have excluded those that take place in schools, private buildings, and commercial spaces, etc. If we look at weapon use in muggings, a large percentage of Boston muggings (64%), involve “strong arm” tactics, where no weapon is used, compared to 54% for L.A., i.e. there is a greater chance of a weapon being used in L.A. than in Boston, however for both cities most muggings don’t involve an active weapon, and compliance is gained through intimidation, the threats of violence, and/or unarmed physical force. In Boston, 19% of “strong arm” muggings use actual physical force, rather than just the threat of violence; whereas in L.A., when strong arm tactics are used less than 4% involve physical contact. The L.A. incident data also includes certain victim characteristics, such as gender and age. When we look at the use of strong arm tactics by gender, we can see that 71% of all robberies that target women employ this tactic, as compared to 47% for those that target men i.e. when a man is mugged - in L.A. - it is much more likely that a weapon will be used. The L.A. data is also much more detailed in the types of weapons used than the Boston data, and goes into quite specific detail e.g. in one robbery a bow and arrow was used as the weapon of choice. If weapon types are categorized e.g. scissors, and machetes are classed as “Bladed Weapons” for example, we can make a comparison with the Boston data. In Boston, firearms were used in 14% of all muggings/robberies whereas in L.A., guns – both long and short barrel – were used in 26%. In 12% of all robberies in Boston, some form of bladed weapon was used, as compared with L.A.’s 11%. What the data shows us is that there isn’t just one common template for a mugging, and for us to train effectively, we must create scenarios that reflect these variations. Although we don’t have victim data available for Boston, there is reason to believe that strong arm tactics are more prevalent in robberies that target women than men, just like in L.A. If we are to truly teach and practice reality-based self-defense, we need to reflect these realities (we can of course exclude training defenses against bows and arrows, as this one incident should be seen as a statistical outlier). It should also be noted that based on the L.A. data, men are much more likely to be the victim of a mugging than women – men make up approximately 70% of all robbery targets and women, only 30%. From my conversations with many women who’ve attended our women’s self-defense program over the years, this appears to be a common misconception - with many believing that most muggings will target women. Without interviewing every mugger and asking them why the prefer male rather than female victims, we are only speculating – and there could be any number of reasons for this. It could be part of a loose, undefined criminal code that some muggers have, believing that men are fair game, and are physically able to “defend” themselves whereas women are not, and therefore it would be wrong to target them, etc. It could also be down to the secondary motivations which are present in violent crimes. The primary motivation and goal of a “street” robbery is to get cash, however there are also secondary motivations at play e.g. there are reasons why some criminals choose to burgle houses, why others pick pockets and why others use physical force – or the threat of it – to acquire and deprive others of their resources. In a robbery, the mugger gets to exert power and control over their target/victim and dispense some of their anger. It may not be so rewarding or satisfying to feel power and control over a woman who they believe is physically unable to match them, versus a man. Another factor that may affect gender choice is victim opportunity and availability – it may simply be that in certain locations, and at certain times, there are more potential male targets/opportunities than female ones e.g. more single males who look cash rich than female ones, etc. Again, this is speculation. It may also be a combination of all these factors – and others - that is responsible for this dramatic gender skew. Boston and L.A. are two very different cities environmentally e.g. L.A. is laid out on a neat grid, whereas Boston’s street layout is less organized. When mapping the locations where street robberies take place (and these account for 86% of locations, with a further 9% being committed in parking lots, and the remaining 5% in various public spaces, such as parks and open areas). In L.A. the hotspots and crime clusters follow major roads and route ways, in a north/south fashion, with 69% of incidents occurring on cross-streets, which offer multiple routes of escape – alleys, underpasses and overpasses which have limited escape routes only account for 4% of all street locations. This demonstrates that muggers primarily work in heavily trafficked areas, with multiple escape routes, rather than in remote locations i.e. they go where there is a rich and constant supply of potential victims. Another interesting difference between the two cities, is that Boston has very definite peaks and troughs, concerning the time of day when muggings occur, and variations between week days, in a way that L.A. does not. In L.A., time of day for weekdays is pretty much consistent across days, with a steady climb of incidents throughout the day starting at 8-9 AM, with a spike at 3 pm, and then another steady rise to 8-9 pm before falling away. However, Boston sees much greater variations between weekdays, with muggings on Tuesdays peaking between 6pm and 7pm, whilst on Tuesdays, it’s between 9 and 10 pm, and on Wednesdays between 10pm and 11 pm. This reflects a city with a much more defined ebb and flow of its citizens. With a larger population, the individual lifestyles and habits of L.A.’s citizens are going to make victim availability more uniform. By taking a look at crime incident reports between different cities, we can see that there isn’t just one template for robberies in public spaces. By looking at victim profiles, such as age, it is possible to see that men aged under 30, are most at risk, and as victims age, their risk declines proportionately – this is probably due to lifestyle changes that see older men less likely to be in the locations, at the times, where such incidents occur. All of this helps us get a better picture and understanding of what real world violence looks like, and how it also differs by locale. If we are to be effective in our training, we need to get an understanding of what violence in our location looks like. As a Krav Maga instructor teaching an Israeli system, that was developed to meet the safety needs of those in Israel, I have to understand how things might need to be adapted for my students in Boston, rather than blindly teach solutions that were intended to deal with different problems. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=429 Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=428 We use scripts a lot in our conversations, and behaviors, because they allow us an expected outcome. When we say “hello” to somebody or ask them how their day was, we can be pretty sure they’ll respond with “hello” and tell us that their day is going well, etc., even if they’re experiencing the worst day of their life. As human beings, we like familiarity and predictability; uncertainty causes us distress, and it’s something we tend to avoid – it’s one of the reasons that when couples argue, about a certain issue or incident, the argument is soon brought back too old, well-trodden disagreements, which both parties are comfortable discussing and debating; they both know the outcome(s) and results of these well-worn scripts. The argument over something “new”, is allowed a release of tensions and frustrations, by using familiar scripts. We have probably all had a feeling of surprise/apprehension when somebody doesn’t follow a familiar script e.g., we ask somebody how they are, and instead of telling us they’re fine, they actually start to answer our question fully. It’s not so much that we are uncomfortable with the content and material of their conversation, but rather that they’re not following the expected script. Criminals and violent individuals also follow scripts, which they expect us to follow. In some types of incident, it is in our self-interest to do so, and in others, it may be more effective to try to interrupt the script and respond in an unexpected way, so as to create an avoidance/disengagement opportunity.  When a mugger demands your wallet/possessions, they are following a script. The outcome of which is that you acquiesce and comply with their demand – that is their expected response, and one which - in most cases - will see them complete the script by leaving. Muggers are so sure of this outcome that in the majority of muggings, they don’t bother to display a weapon or don’t even have one on them. In 64% of reported street robberies in Boston the assailant used “strong arm” tactics to force compliance, rather than threatening their target(s) with a weapon; in 14% of cases a firearm was used, in 12% a knife, and in the remaining, other objects such as screwdrivers, bricks and scissors, etc. Muggers are so sure of the robbery script, that they don’t need to use a weapon to force compliance. It is important to note that just because a weapon wasn’t visible in the above-mentioned crimes, it doesn’t mean one wasn’t present, and wouldn’t be used should a target try to deviate from the script, by refusing to hand over their goods, however the power of the script itself is usually enough for them to achieve their goals. Most people I have spoken to who have been victims of muggings, have said they never considered not handing their wallet/goods over – that they were caught in a moment where they didn’t have the power or inclination to deviate from the script, and the expected response. In mugging scenarios, my advice is almost always to follow the script and hand over what’s being demanded of you; the mugger is leaving with your goods, the variable being if they have to use physical violence to do so. However, if the mugger goes off-script, by not leaving after you’ve acquiesced to their demand, they’re no longer behaving like a mugger, and in all probability, it will now be necessary to enact a physical solution – which may involve confronting/dealing with an assailant who hasn’t drawn their weapon yet, or doesn’t have one. If we can understand how different criminals use scripts, we may have a chance to predict when the use of physical force is necessary, and when it is not. Though we are generally better off complying with a mugger’s demands, there are also those times we may want to interrupt the script. Take a situation where you are walking home late at night, and you suddenly become aware of footsteps behind you i.e. your fear system has given you a shot of adrenaline, changing your emotional state, and because of this you become aware of a threat/danger in your environment. You may at first deny/discount the intentions of the person behind you, telling yourself that you’re being paranoid, and/or that they may just be in a hurry to get past you, etc., or you may decide to test out whether this person has deliberately synchronized their movement to yours because they have an interest in you – possibly harmful – or whether they have just inadvertently fallen into step with you, or are in a rush to overtake you because you’re walking slowly. You may decide to speed up a bit, and find that the person behind you increases their pace, as well. You cross the road, and they do so to. At this point, you have every reason to believe that this person has an interest in you. You may decide that, despite social awkwardness, your best option is to confront them in a non-aggressive manner, by turning to face them (increasing your chances of physically defending yourself) and asking them, “Are you following me?” If this was an individual with a nefarious purpose who has harmful intent towards you, you’ve just interrupted their script. If this script was sexual in nature, you’ve likely interrupted their state of arousal. Rapes and Sexual Assaults are born out of masturbatory fantasy, and if the person behind you was going to assault you in this way, then they would have been running through their fantasy as they followed you, building themselves up emotionally to the point where they were ready to make their attack. By asking them a question, they will be forced to respond in some way, and this will interrupt their fantasy and script. In all likelihood they will say “no”, and search for a new, easier, and less prepared victim, who they can place into their uninterrupted fantasy. I’m not advocating that we turn and question everyone whose footsteps come to our attention, however if we have tested their interest in us, and found it to be evident, we shouldn’t shy away from dealing with the incident. Scripts are powerful things, which help us navigate situations quickly and easily. Sometimes it is to our betterment to follow them, and not put our aggressor(s) in an agitated state; the calmer, more relaxed a mugger is, the less likely they are to panic and decide to use violence. We can also recognize the presence of physical violence when somebody doesn’t follow a script, such as a mugger who doesn’t leave after we comply with their demand(s). Sometimes we may want to interrupt a script by taking away the advantages that it gives and aggressor/assailant. By understanding scripts and criminal processes we will be better prepared to make effective responses in the incidents and events we may find ourselves dealing with.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=428 Mon, 22 Apr 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=427 We all have our own personal reasons for starting to train in the martial arts, self-defense, combatives, or whatever we want to refer to our method of training as. Mine was largely – but not exclusively - because I was bullied as a kid, and wanted a way to level the playing field, with my much larger and more numerous adversaries. I can tell myself that this was a matter of survival, however ego was also at play, as, truth be told, I wanted to teach them a lesson, and be recognized as somebody who couldn’t be targeted as a victim; ego was certainly present because I wanted to be seen and perceived in a certain way, not just to avoid violence, but for my own self-image, and self-esteem. I’m not arguing that any of these reasons were “wrong”, but merely recognizing that it is easy to lose or fail to recognize egotistical motives in our reasons for doing things, and alter/change our narratives to be simplistic, and portray us in a better light e.g. if I said I started training in the martial arts, because I was bullied as a child, people may assume that ego wasn’t at play, and the decision was purely about survival, etc. It is all too easy to justify our actions by rewriting our motives and convincing ourselves that what we are doing is motivated by the highest, purest, and most necessary reasons, when really what is driving us is our ego – and where violence is concerned this can be extremely dangerous. We can make the argument that we shouldn’t hand our wallet over to an armed assailant, because it’s wrong for people to rob others, and this reinforces their behavior, etc., however if we’re honest, the majority of our reasons for not wanting to acquiesce are driven by ego, rather than survival e.g. we don’t want to see ourselves as a victim, we don’t want to be seen by others as not being able to handle the situation, etc. Recently, I’ve heard a number of stories about people chasing after bag/purse snatchers and the like and want to address the issue of “giving chase”, from a personal safety perspective. If people want my resources and are prepared to back it up with violence, I’ll acquiesce; they are more motivated to acquire my stuff than I am to hold on to it. After handing it over, I’m leaving that environment as quickly as possible, rather than chasing or following the mugger deeper into it. Criminals plan their escape routes, even if it is tacitly, and those routes lead in particular directions. If you give chase to a bag/purse snatcher who grabs your things and runs, they know where they are heading, but you don’t, and if they feel/believe you aren’t going to give up the chase, it is likely that they will head for home territory; where they will have the geographic advantage. A good majority of muggings and bag snatches take place near or in close proximity to the perpetrator’s home or in areas that they are familiar with – even those that “commute” to commit their crimes will normally have a good understanding of their environment. If you give chase, you may well be heading into the unknown, and towards areas where the person you are chasing has friends and acquaintances who can come to their assistance. If a friend has their purse/bag snatched, you may be motivated by the injustice of the situation, however there may also be a large degree of ego involved in your decision to give chase, because you don’t want to be seen or perceived as “weak” by this other person – we may in doing so, risk our own survival, for the sake of replaceable goods. If you give chase to somebody and show no signs of giving up, they may feel they have little alternative but to turn and challenge you. This has happened to me. In my younger and stupider days, I once chased a guy into a parking lot, next to a club where I was working. It was purely ego-driven and completely unnecessary, as I was trying to demonstrate to those I was working with that I was a committed member of the team. We’d dealt with a situation and as the individual in question ran off, he pushed one of the other doormen, who fell over. Rather than letting the incident end there, which I should have done, I gave chase, without even thinking about what I’d do if/when I caught up with him; when you act due to ego, there is rarely a plan involved. When I did start to gain ground on him - which was inevitable due to the amount he’d had to drink - he pulled a knife. In that moment everything changed, and a completely avoidable situation had been escalated. I spent the next minute or so being chased around a car, until two of the team who had followed me, turned up and we were able to restrain him. Driven by ego, having gotten caught up in the act of the chase, and without a plan or goal, I’d escalated a situation that was already over, and forced an unnecessary armed confrontation, that could have ended very differently. It may also be that a criminal wants you to chase them, either to lure you away, and move you to an unsafe location (where they have accomplices), or as part of a larger/bigger crime. One of the Law Enforcement Officers who trains at my school, told me of a fairly common strategy for theft in his district. During the summer, many people use the city’s common to sunbathe, possibly bringing a radio, or using their phone to play music on, etc. A common ploy is for one person to grab the phone or other item of value, in order to get the owner to give chase. Once they are far enough away, an accomplice grabs any items of value that have been left, and runs off in the other direction – theoretically both parties meet up later and divide the spoils (though often in such temporary alliances, whoever gets the bigger stash keeps it to themselves). By giving chase, and trying to retain one item, you end up losing everything. Often crimes are opportunistic, but sometimes there is a strategy and a level of planning involved – when you give chase, you are usually the one behind on the curve. If somebody grabs a bag/purse off you – or somebody you are with - and starts running, recognize that they know where they are heading; they are not simply running away from you, they are running towards something, and this may put you in an extremely disadvantaged position. You may hope that they drop what they have taken, however if this is your plan, it is not one that you control and manage, and you may find yourself running towards a physical confrontation. The other thing to note is that the chase may be part of the plan, such as to move you away from other possessions, or a person you are with, that those involved want to gain access to.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=427 Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=426 Over my years of teaching self-defense and personal-safety/self-protection, one of the most common rebuttals I receive when advocating the importance of learning how to protect and defend yourself is, “I already know how to handle myself”, with the sometimes addition of, “it’s all just common sense anyway”. Sometimes, these statements are qualified with validations such as, “I used to live in a bad neighborhood” and/or, “I went to a pretty rough school” etc. The issue is that we sometimes – me included – put too much emphasis on the value of our own experiences of aggression and violence, whether they are valid or not, and fail to realize that experience by its very nature is limited by context i.e. I have experienced violence in certain and specific settings, which may not be representative of all types of violence, for instance most of my firsthand experiences were had working door and bar security; valid, but not universal. Oftentimes, I would guess, those that make statements such as “I know how to handle myself”, have never really been in truly dangerous or threatening situations, but have imagined and created the risk they felt, and then concluded that because nothing happened, they “handled” the situation e.g. someone walked through a rough neighborhood late at night and nobody assaulted them, therefore they know how to look after themselves – without understanding that unless there was a motivated offender present, they were never actually in danger; yes, in a bad neighborhood as opposed to a good one there is a greater chance of running into a motivated offender, but it would be wrong to conclude that it’s inevitable. There are too many people who believe in their abilities, because they “dealt with” incidents that were never going to turn violent e.g. not every seemingly aggressive statement, we might have experienced is a precursor to violence. To have meaningful results, we need an adequate sample size, and a sample size of one, where aggression and violence are concerned, just isn’t enough to draw meaningful conclusions from– especially if we are inadvertently and unknowingly the reasons for it i.e. our actions and behaviors cause the conflict. In understanding and dealing with violence, context is everything, and sometimes we can create a context that doesn’t reflect reality e.g. if we believe wearing a hoodie, having tattoos, and/or keeping your hands in your pocket, signifies that someone is about to attack us with a knife, then everybody we come across who looks and behaves in this way is a potential attacker; and if we’re not attacked or assaulted, then that becomes an armed assailant we dealt with, and another experience that reinforces the idea that we know how to handle ourselves. I have lost count of the war stories I’ve heard where nothing happened, but something could have happened – without the presence of a motivated offender, there actually isn’t any danger, and it’s all too easy to imagine and create motivated offenders. Good Situational Awareness (SA) isn’t synonymous with paranoia. I have lived in some low-income and reputedly bad neighborhoods in my time, and those who I knew who engaged in criminal activities didn’t do so on a 24x7 basis e.g. I have had conversations with known muggers who didn’t try and rob me, not because of who I was or anything I did, but because they weren’t motivated at the time to do so, on another day, at a different time, things could have been different. Just because you thought you should have been attacked but weren’t doesn’t mean that you “handled” the situation – in fact you could do everything “wrong” and still not be assaulted, because there wasn’t a motivation on the part of the other person to cause you harm (at that particular) time. I’ve de-escalated a lot of situations during my professional career, however I don’t know if all or any of them would have turned physically violent; the number/volume would suggest and indicate that some of them would, but I can’t be sure enough to quantify it. However, the goal of de-escalation is to take the emotion out of a situation, in order to resolve a conflict, rather than to simply avoid a violent outcome, and so I have grounds to say that my de-escalation of certain incidents was successful – though I couldn’t say definitively that I avoided X-number of fights. My issue with personal safety being simply common sense is that, for starters it’s not that common e.g. I don’t know one person who hasn’t at some point in their life walked down a dark alley, and secondly it is based on a certain understanding of how the world works, and a specific profile of an aggressive and violent individual e.g. rapists look and behave like this, child-molesters can be identified by this, gang-members act and behave this way, etc. Aggressive predatory individuals are a heterogeneous group, who use violence in many different ways, to achieve many different goals. If you are looking to classify individuals into specific roles so you can easily understand their behaviors, because this is what common sense requires, you are likely to be surprised; violence although conforming to certain patterns and loose frameworks, is far from simplistic. It is also worth noting that predatory individuals who commit premeditated acts of violence, understand “common sense”, and know how to bypass it, and snake around it. Common sense usually involves a rigidity in thinking and expects individuals to conform and act in a certain way, and unfortunately the people we are trying to protect ourselves against understand this.   I can imagine situations where I don’t “know” how to handle myself; I can hazard a guess, based on my experiences, and understanding of violence. I recognize this gives me material to draw from, and an opportunity to create a workable solution, but it would be arrogant for me to say I “know” – this doesn’t mean I lack confidence but rather that I recognize that no two situations are the same, and there’s a need for creativity rather than a strict adherence to a set of rules, that result in a predictable outcome.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=426 Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=425 The last place you want to find out how good or bad you actually are, is in a fight, especially if you find yourself dealing with someone who has skills and abilities and is trained and/or has experience. I have been training in martial arts, combatives, self-defense since I was eight – nearly 40 years ago – and I am not physically the same person I was even 10 years ago; I have injuries I carry, and although I may be lifting similar weights to that which I was lifting in my twenties (strength I have been told is the last to go), I’m not as fast as I once was, and my aerobic capacity is certainly not the same. If I was to face and fight the trained me of twenty years ago, I could argue to myself that my experience would see me through, however, I think the younger/fitter me, would come out on top. The point of me saying all of this is not to be maudlin or celebrate who I once was, etc., but to recognize that dealing with a fit, trained and experienced fighter is a tricky proposition, and one that we should want to avoid – however technically competent we feel we are; biting off more than you can chew in a real-life confrontation can have extremely serious consequences. Whilst this article is primarily looking at ideas around dealing with somebody who is trained, the principles are the same when facing an untrained individual, with the number one rule being avoidance of conflict in the first place – I always assume whoever I’m dealing with is armed, able, and assisted i.e. is skilled, has a weapon, and friends (possibly armed) who can come to their aid; I never assume a fight is a “fair”, one-on-one encounter. In any encounter, context is key. Judokas are great within a Judo context, BJJ practitioners in a BJJ context, Boxers in a Boxing Context, MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) proponents within an MMA context, etc. When dealing with a trained individual, in a real-life confrontation, you don’t want to let them dictate the context of the fight e.g. in most combat sports, participants start at range, with a referee/judge signaling the start of the fight. If you allow a good, experienced MMA competitor similar conditions, by giving them a lot of space and range, and signaling when the fight should begin, you are now fighting in an MMA match - the conditions and context of which they are well familiar with. I have heard many reality-based self-defense practitioners, talk about how the lack of rules in their training would give them the advantage over an MMA practitioner in reality e.g. if eye strikes/gouges and groin shots were allowed then somebody skilled in combatives would overcome an MMA fighter. All I would say to that, is good luck recovering sufficiently, from a Matt Hughes-style double leg takedown on concrete, to be able to start raking the eyes and grabbing the groin, etc. If you give somebody the room and opportunity i.e. the context, to make such an attack, and they are trained, skilled and experienced at doing it, you are likely to find yourself on the losing end. You need to determine the context of the fight, and not let the other person do so e.g. don’t agree to go outside to the parking lot for a one-on-one “fair” fight; if necessary, deal with it then and there, whilst it is non-consensual, and they are committing assault. I have always been a big believer in the usefulness of pre-emptive strikes/assaults; from my time working door and bar security, I would say that the person who hit/struck first came out on top in 8 out of 10 cases. A trained person might recover faster than an untrained person, but they still have to recover, which puts them behind you on the curve. Somebody who has trained, and spars, etc., is accustomed to a fight having an agreed-upon start. Deny them that and go first. Many of us are reluctant to be the one to throw the first punch, or make the first attack, for a number of reasons. Often, we don’t believe we are legally entitled to, however if an individual places themselves in a position where they could reach us, and give us reason to fear for our safety, then they are committing an assault, and we are legally entitled to defend ourselves; using appropriate force. My general rule when dealing with a verbally aggressive individual is to step back, hands up in a placatory manner, and see/check if they step forward and thus commit the assault; using this as a trigger (if I can de-escalate or disengage, all well and good, but there are some individuals who don’t want to be talked down, and where this is the case, a physical solution is required). When you choose the moment the fight begins, the other individual may be denied the opportunity to turn on their pain management systems and get themselves emotionally ready to fight; at the very least they have to catch up, and as Mike Tyson famously said, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. The longer you stay engaged with a trained fighter, the more likely it is that their training will kick in and make a difference. In the initial moments of a real-life encounter, most of the effort – certainly from my experience – is just reacting and attempting to manage the immediate situation (unless I was working pre-emptively); it would take a few moments to maneuver and get into a position from which I could start to do anything that would be conclusive. At this point, most untrained people have run out of ideas, and end up closing distance and clinching, however if you are dealing with a trained individual, this will be where they may start to get “comfortable” in the fight and begin their game-plan. If we are realistic, there are few situations in which we don’t have a disengagement option and have to stay to render somebody unconscious or incapacitate them. I know there are some who will advocate that you should always put somebody out, because they could have a knife, gun or other weapon, however legally you may find yourself on dodgy territory concerning excessive force if the only reason you continued to deliver concussive force after the person was no longer an actual - rather than imagined -threat, was because he might have had a knife, etc. “Might” really isn’t strong enough to legally justify your actions; if you saw a clip on his pocket, or saw him reach behind to get something, etc., then you may have a legitimate reason to believe he has a weapon that you haven’t yet seen. If you “stun and run” i.e. use enough strikes/force to create a disengagement opportunity, you will find yourself in a more defensible space legally, and possibly prevent a trained individual’s training from kicking in. All physical confrontations should be avoided, due to the number of unknowns that can be present in a fight e.g. weapons, third parties, etc., however there may be times when the only option is to get physical. Being decisive, taking the initiative, and determining the context of the confrontation will prevent both a trained and untrained individual from deciding on the way in which the encounter should be “structured”, and staying engaged for the shortest possible time prevents a trained/experienced person from rolling out their game-plan.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=425 Mon, 01 Apr 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=424 Last week’s article looked at antisocial personality disorder (APD) and violence. This week’s article is about another personality that is associated with violence: borderline personality disorder (BPD). In the UK, when the two are comorbid/present together it is likely that a medical-legal diagnosis of dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD), will be made e.g. 78% of criminals undergoing treatment for DSPD in the UK, have APD+BPD, making it the most common type/form of DSPD. Whilst both those with APD, and BPD, have a tendency to become aggressive and violent, their motivations for doing so, and the way they use violence, are somewhat different. Those with APD, tend to use violence in an instrumental fashion, to achieve a particular goal, such as attacking someone in a parking lot to steal their car. Those with BPD tend to use violence proactively, to control somebody in order to meet a personal need e.g. threatening a partner with violence so as to avoid them ending the relationship; or reactively, expressing anger at the way somebody is behaving or acting towards them – there has long been an association with intimate partner violence (IPV) and BPD; which is partly due to the fear of abandonment that is a characteristic of this disorder. If an individual has a proneness to use violence instrumentally, proactively and reactively (in almost every situation), it can be seen why those with APD+BPD, account for such a large percentage of violent crime. One of the differences between BPD and APD, concerns an individual’s stability around their self-identity. Those with APD, largely “know who they are”, and have a generally stable sense of self. This is not the case with those who have BPD, where they are constantly questioning who they are and reinventing themselves when their self-image starts to break down and fall apart e.g. they may ask to be called by a different name, dress differently, decide to embark on a different career, etc. In diagnoses this changeability sometimes get confused with the manic episodes that those with Bipolar go through; they are down, depressed for a period of time, and then upbeat and euphoric, for a period of time, etc. However, the big difference is that for somebody with BPD, these shifts and changes may occur on a daily or even in serious cases, hourly basis. This is in contrast with those who suffer from Bipolar, where episodes of mania last for much longer periods of time. This instability, and inability to manage identity can also cause psychic-breakdowns which manifests itself as “Narcissistic Rage”. If a person with BPD is going through a period where they have an extremely positive view of themselves, and then something happens to cause them to question that, then they will feel a need to defend their view of themselves, and the way they do this is to go on the attack, certainly emotionally and aggressively, and sometimes violently – their use of violence can be both proactive and reactive at the same time. Imagine someone who has created the view of themselves as being at the top of their game, and subsequently they have tied their whole identity to this viewpoint, and then they see somebody else who they believe is doing better than them. This doesn’t and can’t marry up, and to avoid the psychic-breakdown, that they were perhaps wrong about themselves, they go on the attack, lashing out at anybody and anything in a hope to reinforce their idea of who they are. One of the big and constant fears of those with PPD is abandonment, and this is a marked feature of this disorder which separates and differentiates it from APD. Obviously, those involved in intimate partner violence (IPV) or “battering” are a heterogeneous group, however personality disorder, is a dimension that is always worth investigating. As I have written about before, physical abuse is only one type of relationship abuse; there is also psychological, emotional, sexual and financial, and this type of abuse does not always involve physical contact e.g. if one partner prevents another from leaving a room by standing in the doorway, it is physical abuse - and the same is true if they snatch things out of the other’s hand, or throw something close to them, etc. In terms of physical abuse where physical contact is made, BPD, is often a commonality throughout cases. In any risk-assessment of violence, it is important not to become overly focused on the clinical disorder, but to consider dispositional, contextual and historical factors e.g. someone with BPD who has a predisposition to anger, and a history of becoming angry and violent is more likely to engage in aggressive and violent acts, than somebody with BPD who lacks these things, etc. Unfortunately, we often have a desire to find a single, attributable reason for somebody’s aggressive/violent behaviors and actions than recognize that it is the result of several different components interacting together in a certain way. There may be certain things which trigger a violent reaction in one individual with BPD, that don’t affect another, so we should always be careful, to avoid making a clinical disorder such as BPD, solely attributable for violent offending.     When looking at the neurobiology of BPD, it is interesting that it shares many similarities with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In both groups of sufferers, there are similar volume reductions in both the Hippocampus and Amygdala areas of the brain, compared with non-sufferers/control groups, and when accounting for those with both BPD and PTSD, smaller volume sizes were more attributable to borderline personality disorder that PTSD, suggesting that it is something other than trauma, is responsible for BPD i.e. it is due to something internal, rather than external, etc. It is also interesting to note that such volume size reductions only occurred in adults with BPD, suggesting that this is the result of the disorder, not the cause. The main function of the Amygdala is in fear detection, and the Hippocampus is involved in emotional regulation, so any reduction in volume, and functioning is likely to make somebody more susceptible to misidentify threats and danger. Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), is one of the disorders, along with APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder), that is most responsible for violent offending – and when there is a comorbidity with APD, the risk of violence is exponential. When making any risk-assessment of violence, the clinical condition is only one part, and dispositional factors, such as irritability, anger, and mood swings (which may also be part of a disorder), need to be considered as well. Whilst APD often gets the most attention as the disorder associated with violent offending, BPD needs to be seriously considered as well. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=424 Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=423 This is the first of two articles, that will look at two personality disorders which are associated with violent behavior and violent offending: Psychopathy/Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Although the DSM-V, doesn’t talk specifically about psychopathy, it recognizes it as sub-type of Anti-Social Personality Disorder, so whilst the DSM recognizes psychopathy as a type of this disorder the two are not synonymous. Whilst true psychopaths only make up 2-3% of the population – and this appears to be universal throughout both developed and developing countries – they are estimated to account for around 50% of all violent offenses, so there is a benefit to understanding this disorder, and being able to recognize when we are dealing with such individuals. It is worth noting that there is also debate and discussion around the existence of primary and secondary psychopathy with primary psychopaths committing anti-social acts due to an idiopathic lack of fear and empathy, whilst secondary psychopaths do so with a sense of fear and remorse; which is why it is argued that they are not “true” psychopaths i.e. they don’t truly lack empathy, which would be a pertinent negative – a significant missing condition – in any diagnosis of psychopathy. It is not just a difference in empathy that separates the two types; decision-making is also a factor, with primary psychopaths demonstrating a level/degree of calculation before they act – they know exactly what they are doing - whilst secondary psychopaths tend to be more impulsive and act without thinking, which would go some way to explaining why they might feel remorse and regret concerning their anti-social acts and behaviors. As well as a complete lack of empathy, and not caring how their actions might negatively affect others, psychopaths share certain traits with narcissists – in fact those with clinically defined disorders often have co-morbid symptoms with others - in that they are also egocentric (their needs are the only ones that matter, and these can be met at the expense of others), often grandiose and dominant individuals. However, they differ from Narcissists in one significant regard; other people’s opinions of them don’t matter i.e. they don’t care enough about others, to care about their opinions, and how they might be perceived. So, whilst both disorders share egocentricity as a characteristic/symptom, psychopaths use other people instrumentally to achieve a goal, not caring about how they are perceived, while narcissists engage in activities so that they can use others’ opinions of, and reactions to them, to reassure themselves of the personal image that they have created – one which, recognizes them as special, different, and unique individuals, who are more deserving of things than others. The psychopath may believe they are superior to others, but they don’t require anyone else to recognize this. The relationship between the use/understanding of language and psychopathy is an interesting one. Cleckley (1976) stated that psychopaths suffered from a deeply rooted semantic disorder, where the emotional and affective aspects of conversation(s) are unable to be processed: words contain no meaning beyond their dictionary definitions and are translated and understood in a robotic manner/fashion. The emotional context of a conversation or verbal exchange isn’t registered, and everything is processed literally. This allows them to talk and share their thoughts openly and graphically without recognizing that what they’re saying could be deemed as rude and offensive. Just as they’re unable to interpret the emotional meaning behind someone else’s words, they also have difficulty using emotion in their own language. Psychopaths are not alone in this, as those who suffer from Alexithymia, also have a problem with the emotional component of verbal cognition; and the disorder’s prevalence is much higher than psychopathy, with it estimated that around 10% of the population experience this to some degree. People with the disorder have difficulties describing their feelings, a deficit of awareness concerning the emotional state of others, and an insensitivity concerning the things that they say. It is worth understanding that there can be a difference between those who mean to be rude and aggressive, and those who happen to say rude and aggressive things, etc. Both types tend to use fewer “emotional words” in their conversations/interactions – psychopaths, because of their insincerity, and alexithymics, because such words don’t register with them. Those with both disorders are prone to violent outbursts and use physical action to relieve stress, however where psychopaths are often charming and interesting, alexithymics lack creativity and imagination, and so tend to be more boring.     Those with psychopathy don’t understand or respect social norms. If you’ve been waiting for a parking spot, and before you’re able to maneuver your car in, somebody else takes it, you have every right to be angry i.e. there was no way that the other person didn’t see you pulled up with your indicators on, waiting for the other car to pull out. For a psychopath, they require that spot, and if it’s available, they’ll take it, regardless of the accepted social norm that it should be yours because you were there first. Maybe you get out of your car – forgetting that from a personal safety perspective your best response would be to drive on, as you never know who you might be dealing with - and giving them the benefit of the doubt, you explain to them that they’ve taken the spot you were waiting for. They may fail to register your emotional state, and simply clinically process the words you are saying, decide that they are unimportant, and move on; how you are affected by what they did isn’t going to bother them. When they reply to you, they may come off as emotionally shallow, matter-of-fact, and completely indifferent. If you continue to bother them over this incident, they may decide that the easiest and quickest way to end the interaction is to reach into their trunk and hit you with a tire iron. For the psychopath, aggression violence is always an option – and where in your case it may be expressive (to express the injustice of the incident/event), for the psychopath it is merely instrumental, and is used as a way of ending an interaction they have become tired of; and to them the level of violence, and the potential consequences of their actions, aren’t important. It is always worth trying to assess who it is you are dealing with, and not fall foul to the assumption that the other person is somebody like you. In any form of verbal confrontation, we should be continually processing a person’s attitude and responses. If somebody isn’t highly emotional in a situation in which we’d expect them to be, you’re probably either dealing with somebody who is trained, and/or a psychopath. Whilst I always recommend disengagement first, this time there’d be good reason to speed up your departure. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=423 Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=422 Not all knife attacks are or look the same. There is a big difference between an active killer running around a subway station, looking to stab as many people as possible and an individual (or group) engaged in recreational violence, looking to target an individual for their own entertainment purposes. The way an individual who feels threatened and/or disrespected may posture, presenting and showing the knife, before attacking with it, may be different to the way somebody in a state of psychosis uses a knife, etc. Range, distance, relative body positioning (is the attacker coming from the front, side or rear?), use of the non-weapon hand, etc., are all going to alter and change the nature of the attack; including the weapon itself – is it a box-cutter that is more effective at slashing rather than stabbing, and so is more likely to be used at a longer range, involving larger slicing arcs, than a short, fixed-bladed weapon that is better designed for stabbing at close range? Because of all of these variants, there cannot be one, universal solution for dealing with knife attacks – if one, universal solution is presented/trained then it is likely that all knife attacks are being presented in the same way e.g. such as an attacker, always making their attack from the same distance, not using their other hand to grab, push or pull with, etc. If we are to be successful at dealing with knife attacks, we must avoid clinging to absolute truths, such as always punching, always grappling, etc., and understand when/where these approaches and solutions are appropriate. Some systems and approaches favor striking over grappling for dealing with knife attacks, and for certain types of attack, this is appropriate. If an assailant, initiates their attack from outside of striking range, you may have the time and distance, to block, control range, and punch/strike, etc. However, it should also be acknowledged that a knife is a short-range weapon, especially if it is going to be used to stab, and that on many occasions, it won’t be drawn until it is going to be used, meaning that an attacker is likely to be up close and personal, and inside the range where strikes and punches could generate enough power to keep/move the person back, and/or be such a significant distraction to the attacker that their attack will be interrupted, etc. Obviously, you can punch and strike at such a range, and if your assailant doesn’t have a weapon that you need to control, this might be something you can focus on, but at such a close proximity, especially if the environment impedes your movement, your primary attention needs to be on restricting and controlling the advance and retraction of the weapon arm, along with your assailant’s overall body movement. This means you are going to have to have some grappling skills and understanding to bring to the table, because you are now effectively wrestling with somebody who has a weapon – and if you’re unfortunate enough to go to the ground, you will need some ground-fighting skills, etc. This isn’t simply about “knowing” techniques, it’s about having actual grappling skills, as it is unlikely that you will be able to execute techniques precisely as you trained them. One reason for this is that the “starting” position you find yourself in, is unlikely to accurately reflect the moving, messy, ever-changing one(s) you now find yourself in, etc. Skills will always triumph over techniques, and the point of training techniques, is to develop skills, rather than to simply collect them and/or gain the head knowledge of what you “should” do, in the event of an attack. Another reason that grappling skills are necessary, for being able to comprehensively deal with knife attacks, is due to the active nature of the assailant’s non-weapon arm/hand. This in some way shape or form is likely to be used to control, position and move you, in order to make your assailant’s cuts, stabs, and slashes more effective. If this is latched on to you in some way, such as holding onto your lapel in order to pull you onto the blade, you will need to know how to deal with the movement and action of being pulled forward, and also how to effectively deal with the lapel grab. I’ve always been grateful for my Judo training, for giving me the ability to think whilst being moved and unbalanced, and for teaching me how to deal with clothing grabs; both of which are grappling skills. In a situation, wherein you are being unbalanced as part of the attack, relying on striking is likely to be largely ineffective, and your focus will need to be on protecting yourself; if the arm position of your assailant prevents you from being able to control the weapon – they may be driving you backwards with their forearm across your throat, stopping you from reaching their attacking arm – you must look to controlling, and repositioning the person, so they are unable to continue their attack, and/or possibly break yourself away so that you can either disengage or deal with subsequent attacks at greater range/distance, where striking solutions may be effective, etc. It is also worth training your grappling skills for dealing with knife attacks because your natural instinct is likely to be to try and protect yourself whilst trying to get control of the weapon arm – your natural reaction will not be to strike; this is not to say striking isn’t effective, doesn’t have it’s place, or may not, in certain situations be the optimal and preferred solution, but rather to acknowledge that even when we can strike and punch we may not do this, due to our focus on stopping the movement of the blade. There may be lots of things we “should” do in a fight that we won’t do for a myriad of reasons, including fear, lack of confidence in achieving the desired outcome, etc. Our natural desire to gain control of that which threatens our existence, means that we may find ourselves grappling with a knife attacker, even when we didn’t plan this to be one of our solutions – if that is the case, we will want to have the skills to back up this unconscious decision. It is also worth noting that if you do end up controlling the weapon arm, even if it is just with both hands clutching your attacker’s arm with a death-grip, there is little that will make you want to give up that control in order to start striking; so better to have the grappling skills to get a better control and end the fight from there. We need to train a myriad of solutions, and develop an array of different skills, if we are to be able to comprehensively deal with knife attacks. Situations determine solutions not the other way around and we don’t get to manage and control every situation we are in. Grappling solutions to knife attacks, don’t look good on paper, and often striking approaches sound better, however the debate/argument is a pointless one, because violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and reality shows us that we need to be skilled in both, and shouldn’t dismiss one in favor of another.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=422 Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=421 Conflicts often occur due to a person’s misperceptions concerning our intentions e.g. they expect us to behave in a certain way, believe that we perceive them in a certain way, etc. Somebody who has become emotional/aggressive with us, will often end up writing a script that second guesses, how we will respond and react to them. Sometimes this will be based on past experiences e.g. they are so used to people not listening to them, taking them seriously, etc., that they’ll assume that this is how we will respond, and treat them. It is also worth noting that we may make the same mistake and have our own unfair and unrealistic expectations about how we expect others to behave and respond to us, and the language that we use, along with the manner in which we communicate may unnecessarily escalate things rather than de-escalate and calm things down. The content of our communication is often more important than our delivery of it, and certain words/statements that we use may act as the proverbial red rag to a bull. However softly and calmly you talk to an aggressive individual, if you use the wrong words, you will be heightening rather than lessening tensions. When dealing with angry emotional individuals there are only a few occasions when using the word, “You” is productive and beneficial; “you seem angry/annoyed/emotional”, etc., where the word “you” is used in a reflective sense, can help the person self-recognize – and confirm – the emotional state they are in. In almost every other instance, the use of the word “you” will seem accusatory. During my time working door security, I changed the way I interacted with people, especially when I had to enforce a rule, to use the word “I” instead of “You” e.g. instead of saying something like, “You can’t come in because you’re wearing sneakers/trainers”, I’d change it to be something along the lines of, “I can’t let you in tonight, because of the club’s dress-code policy”, etc. The rule of enforcement is the same; both statements suggest the same outcome. However, one puts responsibility on the club, whilst the other puts responsibility on the individual for dressing a certain way. This may seem insignificant and unimportant however, if I’d just let somebody in who was wearing a $20 pair of shoes that conformed to the dress-code, and then had to refuse somebody who was wearing a $200 pair of designer sneakers/trainers, I don’t really want to make it about the individual or the footwear; I’d rather make it about the club/bar’s policy, and put myself in an impersonal role of having to abide with that. By using a term like “tonight”, the interaction also becomes about a “moment” in time i.e. it’s not that the person’s sneakers/trainers are always inappropriate footwear, it’s just that tonight they’re not – even if the bar/club’s dress-code policy means that such footwear is never acceptable. “You”, is often interpreted as a posturing word/term e.g. “You need to calm down”, “You need to stop shouting” etc. that is, it’s associated with instructions, and commands i.e. telling people what to do. By re-wording sentences so that the word “I” is used instead, this issue can be resolved e.g. “I’m having difficulty understanding you when you’re shouting.” – the difference is, that this is a request which has the addition of benefiting the individual (if they can stop shouting they may have their issue resolved), and takes away the focus from them ‑ rather than giving them an order or instruction, that creates/reinforces a power-differential, which is aimed at putting them in a subservient role. The philosopher, George Herbert Mead, saw interactions and communications as being one of two types i.e. either constructive or conflictive. However, even in constructive interactions where conflict isn’t apparent or evident, power is rarely shared equally between all parties – and the roles that are adopted by participants have hints and echoes of domination and subjugation; level playing fields don’t really exist anywhere, and the people that argue they do, are usually the ones in positions of power, etc. It is important that the language we use when trying to de-escalate a situation, doesn’t make us look like we are adopting a dominant position, and instructing the other person how to act and behave. Restricting or eliminating the use of the word “you” in such interactions, will help us avoid having the other party feel the need to posture back to us, in order to re-establish power they feel is being denied them. In medical/clinical settings it used to be that the traditional goal of de-escalation was to try and calm an emotional patient down, however this has changed to a more collaborative approach of helping a patient calm themselves down, so as to avoid any dominant-submissive connotations. Any communication should be concise and to the point; an emotional/angry person has a particular need and doesn’t want to hear you ramble on, as you try and feel the situation out. Language must be simple, basic and understandable. When people are highly emotional their ability to process verbal information diminishes, and so if you are using long words, or complex vocalizations that require extra-processing power and time, the result is likely to be frustration and confusion, resulting in an escalation of emotions; moving the person closer to violence. Sentences need to be kept short, and deal with a single point e.g. “I can’t let you in tonight because of the club’s dress-code policy” – everything is about the dress-code policy; something which is impersonal. It’s all too easy to give a potentially aggressive individual too much to work with against you by talking too much and trying to give multiple reasons to justify a position you’re trying to enforce. If there has to be a debate/discussion it should be about one thing, rather than have to hop between different points and arguments; multiple reasons for something, implies that no one good reason exists, which will undermine any position you find yourself having to enforce. Most fights and violent encounters, even premeditated/planned ones, start with some form of verbal interaction, which means how you communicate with an aggressor is extremely important; especially if you are trying to enforce a position, without escalating things. What you say i.e. the words that you use are key to this, and a soft/calm voice – which rarely has a place in real-world de-escalation - isn’t going to make up for poor content, such as overly using the word “you”.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=421 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=420 There are certain things we can sometimes forget to protect. When I first started training and grappling with BJJ guys, I found that they often became vulnerable to leg-locks e.g. knee-bars and ankle-locks, etc. During my time practicing and competing in Judo, I’d trained some SAMBO, where these types of attacks/submissions were commonly used, but weren’t so well known (at the time), in BJJ. That’s all changed now but at the time, most practitioners would leave their legs open for attack. In reality-based self-defense, I see many people leave their fingers vulnerable and open to attack. Fingers need to be protected, as if they get damaged in a fight, your ability to punch and grab become severely compromised; I can speak from experience as I have broken several of my fingers, as well as having had the tendons around my right thumb completely ripped/torn – I was fortunate that the incident was over almost as soon as this happened, because my hand was completely inoperable, and required immediate medical treatment; the recovery took 6-8 weeks. Partly due to this experience, I started to see my hands as something that needed to be protected, and became much more aware of avoiding splaying my hands and fingers, to ensure that they never got bent back, and broken etc. In a controlled training environment this isn’t so important, but in the messiness, which is a real-life confrontation, it’s all too easy to see your fingers get compromised when you try to block etc. We are well aware when we throw punches that the fist needs to have integrity so as to not cause injury to ourselves, and should afford this same attention to other positions our hands may be in, in the course of a fight (blocking, de-escalating, etc). In this article I want to look at the importance of protecting your own fingers, and how you can exploit those who don’t, and demonstrate the opportunities that they present. One of my most successful and consistent tactics when I worked door security was attacking people’s hands and fingers. It still amazes me how many people used to poke me, to illustrate a point, or put their hands out in front of them, fingers splayed, where it was easy to grab a couple of them, bending them back; one of the quickest ways I know to get somebody’s knees to buckle and bend. Whenever I teach de-escalation/interview stances, where the hands are placed out in front, in a placating manner, I make sure to teach that the fingers should not be held up vertically, where they are easy to get a hold of – the only time I teach that the palms should be placed face out, towards an aggressor is if they are temporarily in this position to communicate that somebody should stop what they are doing and back away; and when this is the case, the fingers need to be together rather than apart, where they can be isolated and exploited. This detail may not seem important, in a sterile and sanitized training environment, however in the real world, it is all too easy to have a finger bent back and broken because the hand/palm was positioned with the fingers pointed upwards; it may not even be somebody deliberately exploiting this vulnerability, which causes the damage, but somebody throwing a sloppy punch or similar can catch and injure them. When blocking, I also teach that the fingers should ideally be next to each other, each one providing support for the other – if you’re caught by surprise, getting them to be tight against each other may be difficult, but as long as they are not open and splayed (which isn’t a natural position for them to be in, anyway), they aren’t going to be overly vulnerable. Although for circular attacks, I tend to use the forearm to block, if I can have my fingers tightened, and close together, my hand has enough integrity to stop an attack (when coupled with my body movement); this increases the length of my blocking surface by almost 6-inches – something that is not insignificant, if all you can do is get your arm up in front of you to block an incoming strike/punch/attack, as opposed to timing the perfect interception, etc. The larger the blocking surface, the more likely it is that you will stop the attack, and if you are able to make a solid structure using the hand, by pulling the fingers together tightly, you increase your chances of intercepting the attack – it’s not ideal to use the hand to block in this way, but it is certainly better than being hit. When dealing with weapon threats (not attacks) I will always try and get my hands up level with the weapon e.g. if somebody places a knife to my neck/throat, I will shrug my shoulders and raise my hands up in preparation for controlling the weapon/weapon arm, should I need to. It’s imperative in such situations that I keep my fingers close together, effectively joined to each other. If I don’t, it is likely whilst I am adrenalized and under stress and duress, that the fingers will start to twitch and move involuntarily as blood moves from the peripheries towards the major muscle groups. If I am trying to set things up so my hands can get as close to the weapon as possible, I don’t want there to be any movements that will draw attention towards this. By keeping them close together, it is unlikely that they will start to move, and so my attacker’s eyes aren’t drawn to the fact that they are relatively close to the weapon; both making them nervous and putting them on their guard. Twitching fingers draw attention to the close proximity of my hands to the weapon/weapon-arm, and this is something I want to avoid. I used to exploit poor hand positioning, and I know from experience how effective it can be; once you grab fingers and start bending them back, people will move in such a way to save them – usually bending their knees and trying to lower themselves, etc. If I can exploit a weakness in others, I need to recognize how my own weaknesses can be exploited and learn to eliminate them. By keeping my fingers together when my hands are open, and not presenting them vertically/flat-out towards an aggressor, I reduce the chance of them being either deliberately or inadvertently exploited.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=420 Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=419 Recently, I’ve been doing a fair amount of work surrounding risk prediction, and mental illness. There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding concerning mental disorders and violence, with many people having an unnecessary fear of those who suffer from such illnesses. This is not to say that certain disorders, such as schizophrenia, don’t have an association with violent behavior, however the majority of sufferers don’t ever engage in violence, and it may be that other non-clinical factors – that may have been present before the disorder developed – are more important when predicting future physical aggression. In this article, I want to look at the role mental illness, may have in violent offending, and why it might not always be as significant in explaining violence as other factors. This is not to dismiss the importance of clinical disorders, but to put them in some context where violent offending is concerned. Mental health symptoms are traditionally divided into two groups: Neurotic symptoms and Psychotic symptoms. Neuroses are symptoms that can be considered as extreme forms of normal emotional experiences e.g. depression, anxiety, and panic attacks, etc. They can be seen as extreme “exaggerations” of commonly experienced emotions, such as sadness i.e. all of s have experienced sadness at some time, or feelings of low self-esteem, however only a smaller number of us have suffered from clinical depression, where these thoughts and feelings are magnified to the point where we feel we can’t do anything, or have suicidal ideation, etc. Neuroses can lead to violent offending, however somebody who is suffering from depression or anxiety is more likely to withdraw from society than engage with it, and so the risk of conflict is often reduced. A person suffering from Psychotic symptoms has an altered and different perception of the world, where they might experience delusions, hallucinations or paranoia – where they see and experience things which aren’t really there or interpret other people’s actions and behaviors differently to how they’re meant/intended. Psychotic episodes, can see people smelling, hearing, and seeing things that aren’t even there. Although this altered view of the world can lead to a person feeling threatened, where no danger exists, or believing that they need to act violently against someone for the greater good of society, for the most part this isn’t the case; and it is usually more likely to happen when coupled with substance abuse: drugs and/or alcohol, etc. Although these clinical factors may play a part in violent offending, equally – and perhaps more – important are dispositional factors. It is easy to define somebody by their mental disorder e.g. they are a schizophrenic, and forget that they also have a personality, which makes them an individual. As stated earlier, the majority of those with schizophrenia don’t engage in violent acts, however aggression and violence are risk factors associated with this illness. If a person is already predisposed to anger, this predisposition is perhaps more likely to lead towards violent behavior in somebody suffering from schizophrenia, than someone who doesn’t have this disposition. People who have found that anger is a successful strategy/tactic when interacting with others – regardless of whether they have a mental illness/disorder – are more likely to use anger to achieve their goals, than those who have experience of using other social tools successfully. It is also worth noting that there is a difference between transient anger and permanent anger e.g. a psychotic episode which sees an expression of “transient” anger, is very different to somebody whose personality is permanently, and largely, defined by anger. It is easy to forget that clinical factors work with dispositional factors such as anger, and that these underlying personality traits may be more important in predicting violent behavior. Contextual factors also play a part e.g. if an individual suffering from a mental illness, is hungry, homeless, and in pain/discomfort, ceterus paribus, they are more likely to act and behave violently than somebody who is comfortable and who feels a degree/level of control over their life. A person with a mental illness, may have no thoughts/ideas of acting violently until a crisis event occurs, such as losing their home, or coming to the end of a program they are on, etc. Change and uncertainty affect us all, and some of us respond to such things with aggression and violence e.g. we may feel that life, society etc. has treated us unfairly, and that we are justified in reacting violently to the changing events we experience. If we suffer from a psychosis, we may interpret changes in our lives, in a more extreme form; somebody suffering from paranoia, may interpret the loss of their home, as a conspiracy against them, with the event taking on a certain significance, that it doesn’t really have e.g. they were evicted because they were unable to manage their rent/mortgage payments, etc. Until that point, they may have been able to function and live with their disorder, however this event pushes them over the edge. It is very easy to blame mental disorders as being the reason for violent actions and behaviors, especially when looking at extreme forms of violence such as active shooter/killer incidents – and in certain instances this is the case e.g. Adam Lanza, Kip Kinkel, etc. However, it is an extremely simplistic way of understanding such incidents; obviously somebody who engages on such killing sprees, is going to be suffering from mental health issues, however few are actually suffering from what would be clinically diagnosed disorders, and where they are, dispositional factors such as a preference for using anger and rage as methods of social interaction, or contextual events, such as a personal crisis, or access to a weapon, etc., may be more important than the illness itself in predicting such violent behaviors. Another important contextual factor is that of who the individual associates with – it is unlikely that Dylan Klebold, a meek, shy individual who suffered from depression, would have expressed himself by killing his classmates at Columbine, if it wasn’t for the psychopathic influence of Eric Harris. When considering the role of mental illness in violent offending, it is only one part of a complex jigsaw e.g. it may be easier to medically treat a clinical disorder, such as schizophrenia, than change/alter the underlying personality of the individual.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=419 Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=418 There are different types of humor that we use in a variety of ways e.g. there is affiliative humor, that we use to create bonds, and enhance existing friendships, there is aggressive humor, that is used to promote and reinforce the identity of the individual, such as when somebody makes fun or mocks something somebody else has done, and there is self-defeating humor, that although potentially injurious to the individual, is used in a self-deprecating way to establish a lower position in the pecking order, so as to be accepted by those above them, etc. Humor is also used as a coping mechanism to relieve an immediate stressor or threat, or to voice a dangerous concern that we’d rather not acknowledge; if we make light of something that we’re genuinely concerned about, we can put it in a context, where we don’t have to actually face its reality. This week, ex-NBA executive, Michael Redlick was stabbed to death by his partner – who is being charged with second-degree murder. Only a few weeks previously, he had publicly joked about having to hide the steak knives from her. Such comments and remarks aren’t accidental, and don’t come from nowhere. Michael Redlick knew he was in potential danger, however the laughs he received from the comment, instead of being an acknowledgment of that fact/danger, were used to downplay the seriousness of his situation – he was able to dismiss, deny and discount his concerns. His dark humor was a predictor of an event, that he knew at the very least was a serious possibility, if not a certainty. Humor plays a number of roles in predicting violence; we may use it as a socially acceptable way to voice a concern, and receive confirmation that we’re overreacting, being stupid or paranoid, etc., without overly-embarrassing ourselves, or we might use it as a form of denial so that we don’t have to acknowledge the immediate threat or danger that we’re facing, etc. In this article, I want to look at the ways in which humor can be used as a predictor of violence. When Pat Sherrill fired the initial shots, that signaled the start of his shooting spree at the post-office in Edmonton California, where he worked (this is where we get the term “Going Postal” from”), a co-worker taking a break, joked to another that this was probably “Mad Pat” coming back to shoot his Managers/Supervisors – and it was. By the end of his short rampage, twenty were dead, including himself, with another five seriously wounded. The co-worker was spot on — Mad Pat had come to work with the intention of shooting the supervisors who the previous day had seriously reprimanded him – unfairly, as he saw it - for misconduct; however, his anger wasn’t just directed at them, but at everyone, and the institution where he worked. The fact that he’d been given the “humorous” nickname, “Mad Pat” was a warning sign in itself – another dispositional risk-factor in predicting violence for both the mentally healthy and the mentally ill is that of anger; both Sherrill and Redlick’s wife (at the time that she stabbed her husband, she was on probation for assaulting/punching a paramedic), had a long-term history of anger, however this is often also a risk-factor that is dismissed — as previous outbursts that didn’t lead to violence are discounted as singular events, etc. If such a history of anger leads us to make dark jokes, as a coping mechanism and/or an attempt to normalize somebody else’s behavior, we should be taking note.      A 2004 (Ryan & Kanjorski) study of college students found that despite women finding sexist/disparagement jokes more offensive and less enjoyable than men did, they were not significantly less likely to tell them. Such “humor” – telling jokes, making remarks you personally don’t find funny, but think/believe others will – serves many purposes e.g. it can be used as a tool to fit in, to demonstrate that you don’t take certain issues too seriously, even if you do, or as a coping mechanism, that allows you to deny and dismiss the reality behind the joke, etc. The telling of aggressive, sexist jokes by men is associated with rape-related attitudes and beliefs, and when told by women is only positively correlated with an acceptance of interpersonal violence. Our use of humor, and the way others use it, can help us assess our levels of risk. It is worth noting that whilst exposure to such humor is not likely to create negative stereotypes, it has been found to increase the tolerance for incidents and events of discrimination for people who already have existing prejudices (Thomas & Ferguson, 2004), against a certain group, such as women – expanding the boundaries of what would be considered normal and acceptable behavior i.e. exposure to sexist and/or rape jokes, is not going to create or turn somebody into a sexual assailant or rapist, but for somebody who already possesses a level or degree of sexual aggression towards women, it may lift some of the behavioral restrictions that they once had e.g. before they may have thought unwanted touching was a boundary that they shouldn’t cross, but now they don’t believe that this is a convention they should or have to adhere to, etc. Perceived social boundaries normally get pushed bit-by-bit, and people who have not yet crossed them, may find that their negative attitudes suddenly become acceptable within a group, without having to advance or push them, themselves. Humor is a large part of who we are – or for most of us, anyway. However, it is used in a myriad of ways and not just for personal entertainment purposes e.g. it can be used to assert identity, both positively and negatively, and it can be also used to deny a reality. We should observe both when/how we use it, along with the way in which others do, as both can help us determine potential risks, as well as assess the culture and environment we are in.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=418 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=417 I have written about burglary before, but it is not a subject I cover a lot. I also have been reading a fair amount of “top tips” pieces recently, about who burglars are, how they commit their crimes, etc. Some of which are good, and some of which are woefully off the mark. Generally, I try not to provide tips and rules, as these can easily be gotten around, when criminals become aware of what the general public are being advised to do e.g. if the tip says to check a person’s ID, before you let them into your house, the criminal work-around would be to get a laminator and make a fake ID, etc. I think it is more productive to provide researched material that can educate, and help guide us in putting into place effective measures.   It is important to understand how your house and neighborhood, may appear to a potential burglar. This will help you to establish a level of risk and understand your vulnerabilities – which in turn you will want to reduce/eliminate. A study by Cisneros (1995), found that the less “permeable” a neighborhood was, the less crime it experienced. A locale that is easy to navigate and drive through, is more likely to experience crime — including burglary — than one that is difficult and complicated to move through. There are several reasons for this, however the primary one is that areas that are less easy to access, are going to require more time for a burglar to familiarize themselves with e.g. they will need to have a good understanding of the road layout, in order to plan their exit strategy, and the more time they spend in a neighborhood, the greater the chance that their presence there will be questioned – criminals need to claim “legitimacy” in an area, so that they don’t stand out. The more restrictive the access to a property, such as a house at the end of a cul-de-sac, the less likely it is to be burgled i.e. there’s theoretically only one way in and one way out. Access control, also effects how a criminal can gain access to your property; how permeable is it? Do you have real and virtual barriers, surrounding your house? Is there a gate that somebody has to open in order to get onto the front path that leads to your door, or can they simply step off the side-walk/pavement and walk up to it? A good thorny bush planted under a window, can reduce access to what might otherwise be an easy point of entry. Burglars follow the path of least resistance, so the less permeable and accessible a property may seem, the less likely they are to select it. One of the aspects of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) is “Territoriality”. Symbolic barriers such as fencing – low as well as high - around a property, create an idea of a “zone of control” i.e. this is not public space, it is protected space, etc. Armitage (2000), found that higher levels of territoriality, resulted in lower crime-rates, however, Hollis-Peel and Welsh (2014) found that when “fortressing” occurred, many of these benefits were negated, as high walls, the planting of hedges and shrubbery, that increased privacy, resulted in the reduction of the levels of natural surveillance; once a criminal was behind these barriers, they could act unseen and unobserved. Many burglars (Cromwell and Olson, 2004) have reported that they stayed away from neighborhoods, where the lawns were trimmed, the gardens maintained, and where it was obvious that the owners spent time looking after their property. Several reasons were given. One was the assumption that because they spent an effort looking after their home, it was likely that these houses had burglar alarms and good locks, another was that people in the neighborhood would be out working in their yards/gardens all the time, so it would be likely that they’d be observed as they engaged in their crimes. Whilst it may not be the case that this is the reality, it is the perception, and that is enough to deter many criminals. There is little research done on the effects/impacts of good locks and bolts, etc., though a study by Wright and Decker (1994), showed that locks which slowed down a burglar were likely to have a deterrent effect, with the burglary being abandoned. However, for many burglars their point of access is through an open window or unlocked door – the best security features, if not used, are worthless. Most experienced burglars prefer to access a property from the back and will use small crowbars and screwdrivers to pry open windows and doors (Hearndon and McGill, 2004). In the U.S., a common entry point is through the basement door, which is not normally as sturdy as the other doors to the property; once inside, they are free to work at getting into the main property (there may even be easily visible tools in the basement to assist them) unobserved. Once inside, the main bedroom was usually the primary target, with other “adult” bedrooms being checked afterwards (Nee & Meaghan, 2006), before looking around downstairs. This order of operation occurs for several reasons. The contents of most downstairs rooms such as the living room can be assumed (there will be a TV, DVD/Blu-Ray Player, X-Box or Nintendo, etc. – many burglars will avoid old or electronic devices which go quickly out of date), whereas the contents of a main bedroom are not assumed, but may contain smaller, more valuable objects, which are easy to transport e.g. if you can steal a lot of easily transported jewelry, why bother with the TV on the way out? If you come up short in the bedroom, then there are always the electronic goods downstairs you can take on your way out. A practical measure to this is not to store your valuables in the main bedroom and/or fit a lock to secure it when you are out (also provides you with a safe-room). Another reason why experienced burglars work in this way, is that the longer the burglary goes on, the more likely they are to get caught (however this is not when/where most burglars are apprehended), and so it is better to be nearer to the exit routes, the longer the break-in goes on, rather than being caught upstairs, etc. Most stolen goods are dispensed with extremely quickly (Ferrante & Clare, 2006) using known fences and certain pawn-brokers and second-hand shops. When I was a student, student houses which were easily identifiable by burglars – lots of young people, living together, who didn’t dress like the locals – were the main target for burglaries in the city e.g. if six people lived in a house it could be assumed that there were six stereos, possibly multiple television sets (this was the 90’s), etc. as opposed to a family residence where there would only be one of each. These burglaries were usually committed at night, when the occupants were out at bars, pubs and clubs, etc., as opposed to most residential burglaries that happen during the day, when people are out at work. If you were burgled, you would normally find your stolen goods the next day (afternoon), in one of a number of second-hand shops on a certain road. The goods were stolen, and turned into cash, in the shortest possible time. Whilst many burglars spend time casing a neighborhood and selecting properties, often the actual moment of breaking-in is decided opportunistically e.g. a window is open, there is nobody on the street, etc., and most burglars report that if things aren’t going their way in the first two or three minutes, they’ll abandon it. There are things we can do to make our properties look less attractive to burglars, both psychologically and physically, and ways to target-harden our homes so that only the most determined burglar would spend the time trying to gain access to them, with most giving up and moving onto another property.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=417 Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=416 I’ve always been a proponent of OC/Pepper Spray for civilian carry – where it is legal. Whilst I have written about the technical attributes, characteristics and effects of such defensive sprays (in this blog) before, I haven’t written much concerning the legalities, consequences and situational components that should be considered when using pepper spray. I understand the reluctance and concern(s) of using sprays in law-enforcement and security settings, such as the effects of cross-contamination when trying to both spray and apprehend/control an aggressive individual, etc., and this article isn’t aimed at this group/audience; rather it looks at civilian situations where the ultimate goal is to disengage and exit the situation, moving away from the assailant – not towards them. I understand that OC Spray is often looked on as a female self-defense tool, however I believe that it’s a useful self-protection apparatus regardless of gender, and can/should be used by men when their safety is compromised and threatened; I have little time for ego where violence is concerned, and if people want to make the argument that there is something “nobler” about defending yourself empty-handed and scrapping with your fists, etc., I would question whether such notions are based on an accurate perception of what real-world violence looks like; I would rather spray somebody and go home, and drink coffee, without the risk of personal injury than engage in a “fight” and deal with all of the possible consequences – personal harm and injury, legal issues, guilt, etc. - that may arise from such a confrontation. Violence always has some cost(s) associated with it. Perhaps one of the most beneficial uses of any defensive spray is to confirm to yourself that the danger you are facing is real i.e. if you are holding on to the spray, you have to admit and acknowledge to yourself that you are in danger, rather than discounting or denying the threats you may be facing. If I am holding on to my canister – even if it is in my pocket – getting ready to draw it, I am giving myself physical confirmation that I may need to act, and defend myself. Our natural cognitive response to our fear system being triggered is to dismiss the hazard, by telling ourselves that we are imagining it, over-reacting, or simply being paranoid. If as a go-to, when I recognize the potential for danger, I immediately put my hand around my spray, and get it ready for deployment, etc., my physical readiness confirms that I am at risk and I should start running through my personal safety check-list e.g. looking for objects to use as barriers and obstacles, checking exit routes, identifying synchronous movements towards me, etc., rather than telling myself I’m being stupid and imagining things. Any object/item can be used in this fashion, such as a tactical flashlight, or a set of keys e.g. if you’re holding your car key between your thumb and forefinger as part of your preparation to deal with an attack (and you can do this concealed), then there is danger in your environment, and you should look to exit it. Along with denial, there are likely to also be peripheral doubts that come to you when you’re contemplating whether you need to defend yourself physically e.g. what if you’re unable to hit them hard enough, what if you’re not in the legal “right”, what if you use too much force, are you even “morally” right to be looking to hurt the other person, etc. These doubts can cripple you into inaction, or at the very least cause you to hesitate. OC Spray is considered a less-than-lethal tool; of the few deaths that have occurred, where it has been used, most have been as a result of other factors – such as weight being placed on the chest/lungs by somebody trying to control an assailant who has been sprayed – rather than by the Oleoresin Capsicum (Pepper) itself. The takeaway from this is that you are less likely to kill somebody by spraying them, than by punching/striking them, throwing them, or taking them down, etc. The effects of the spray are short-lived. In 20-to-30 minutes, the person will be okay again, and there are no known long-term effects of having pepper spray used on you. If you punch/hit somebody, they may claim all manner of side-effects as a consequence of your actions e.g. constant headaches, impaired sight, traumatic nightmares, etc., and they may take legal/civil action against you. It would be very difficult for them to make such claims if sprayed. Spraying an attacker is much more likely to result in them being stopped or slowed in their attack than a punch or strike would, making pepper spray a more reliable/predictable way to start your personal defense. In addition to the benefit of deploying OC Spray at distance, before an assailant makes contact with you, the container can be used as an impact weapon, when working at closer ranges i.e. it can be used to make hammer-fist strikes, which will have more impact when they connect than if they were delivered using the bottom of the fist alone. Smashing a metal container into somebody’s face creates more destruction and delivers greater concussive force than doing so with your bare hands. If for this reason alone, you should want the canister in your hand at some point during the fight, whether you spray your attacker before this phase in the conflict, or after. I always teach to have the thumb on the top of the spray, rather than the forefinger; this allows for your hand/grip to have greater integrity when making the strike, and also to aim better when delivering the spray towards your assailant. Just because you carry spray, doesn’t mean that your empty-hand skills become redundant i.e. you may need them to disengage and give you the time to access your spray if caught by surprise, you may be able to spray three members of a four man group before running out and still need to “finish” the fight empty-handed (a much better option than having to fight four people), and you may not land the spray on an assailant and need to fight without it having had an effect, etc. It also doesn’t mean that your personal safety and self-protection skills are no longer needed, because if you are unable to predict, identify, and recognize danger, you won’t be able to access your spray in time. When you consider all of the difficulties and consequences inherent when dealing with a frenzied knife attack, why would you, when you have an option to debilitate your attacker with a spray, not do so? You won’t want to solely rely on this tactic being effective, but it may be a better first defense than trying to deal with the attack empty-handed, regardless of however competent you believe yourself to be in the studio or dojo setting. If we have the legal means to carry tools that can enhance our safety, in the way that OC Spray can, then it makes sense to do so.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=416 Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=415 I have written about some of the personal safety issues regarding mobile phone use before, however there is a lot of activity on social media at the moment, concerning/surrounding this, so I thought it would be a subject worth revisiting and expanding on. Firstly, let me state that if you are looking at your phone or on the phone in a public space, you are distracted, your awareness is compromised etc., and you may stand out as an easy target. However, not being on your phone, doesn’t automatically make you more aware, mean that you don’t have other distractions, or cause you to immediately disappear from a predator’s radar. Getting off your phone, isn’t enough – learning how to identify and predict danger and develop suitable disengagement strategies is also necessary. We should also recognize that mobile phones do have some benefits regarding our safety, and we should learn where and when to take advantage of them; I don’t include in these “safety apps” which alert friends to the fact that you may be in danger, etc., as trusting and relying on someone else to sort out a personal safety issue for you is not a good strategy – most people won’t act (due to denial and discounting the threat/danger – especially when they aren’t the one facing it), and if they do, it’s extremely unlikely that they will be quick enough to have an effect due to the speed of real-world violence e.g. there have been rapes that have occurred in a few seconds; the rapist was already aroused, and only need a few seconds to access and control their target. We are creatures who want to “feel” safe, and we will often pursue this goal, even when we know our actions may compromise our safety – or we may do so without realizing they do. Awhile back, I was on a panel discussing campus safety at a University. One of the pieces of advice that was given by a student, and that received a lot of nods and positive response, was that when you are walking alone late at night, you should talk to a friend on your phone so that, a) any potential assailants would know that somebody knew where you were and would avoid you as a target, b) an assailant wouldn’t try and interact with you because you were having a conversation with somebody else, and c) you wouldn’t feel frightened or scared. Firstly, it may be safer to call an Uber or other ride-sharing service than be out walking late at night – or call the campus police for a lift, which was a service the police sergeant on the panel was advocating i.e. you don’t have to be in that position in the first place, etc. However, there is likely to be that scenario, where you find yourself on your own, in a deserted place, late at night, etc. These situations aren’t always avoidable, and we should know how to behave and operate when we are in them. I know of few predatory criminals that would be deterred by someone knowing where you are; muggings, assaults, and the like are usually over in seconds, and it’s going to take the other person a relatively long time, to realize what is happening, formulate a plan and either get themselves or somebody else to you – if that all happened within 15-minutes I’d be astounded. Act out in your head, all the information you’d need and what you’d actually do, if you heard a friend of yours have their phone snatched away and thrown on the ground, etc. Would your first though be that they’d been attacked, or would you think it was probably more likely that they dropped the phone? Would you immediately call the police, or might you be apprehensive about wasting their time, etc.? I would also question the politeness of a criminal who was thinking of assaulting, mugging, or raping you. Is it likely that they will respect the social convention of not interrupting another person’s conversation? I’m not sure that a fear of appearing rude is top on their list of concerns. It is more likely that they will see your conversation as a distraction that they can exploit and/or your phone as a relatively easy commodity for them to steal – they don’t even need to engage you in conversation if this is the case; and the phone is unlocked, which means anything you have open at the time is available to them. If your email is open, they may even be able to reset passwords and usernames of certain apps – and if the answers to your security questions, such as which High School you went to, or the name of your first pet, etc. are available via your postings or profiles on social media, they may well be able to gain access to your bank accounts or similar (if you haven’t asked your banking app to remember your password, in which case they’re already in once past the lockscreen). If we are trying to suppress our fear system’s identification of danger, we are in big trouble i.e. if we actively engage in an activity to prevent us from being scared, we have got things upside down. If we know that we are putting ourselves in a situation where we could experience our fear system being triggered and alert us to a threat, and we don’t want to experience this “warning” but rather stay oblivious to it, by engaging in a conversation, things are really wrong. Either we should be avoiding that situation in the first place, or recognizing that we need to be actively aware and engaged with our environment when we are in it – because we need to be alerted to potential dangers, and enact our safety strategies when this occurs; such as getting our pepper spray ready to use, or changing our route so that we can get to a more populated place, quickly. It may be comforting to talk to a friend who is safe and warm in their house, relaxed and drinking a glass of wine, etc., whilst we are on our own, waking through an underpopulated location, late at night, but their world is not ours, and we shouldn’t be looking to try and exist in it, so we don’t have to acknowledge the realities we face. A conversation with a friend who was with us in this location would be fine, as they would be experiencing the same things, and possibly help alert us to danger, however a conversation with somebody who is somewhere else is a complete distraction that prevents our fear system from doing the job it was designed for i.e. alerting us to danger.  Our mobile phones can be useful security assets e.g. they can store and make available our ICE (In Case of Emergency) contact, they can be used to access ride-sharing services, or simply call somebody to let them know when we should be back home, etc., but they are an unnecessary distraction when out in public, and when using them we may fail to identify danger and/or those people who possess harmful intent towards us. Not only should we stop using our phone as a comfort blanket when we feel unsafe, but we should also restrict our use of them to those environments when we can be sure that we are safe.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=415 Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=414 You should have more than one way to finish a fight. Whilst many fights can be decided by the use of concussive force i.e. punching/striking, there may be times when you face a pain tolerant/resistant attacker, who will continue on, regardless of the punishment you inflict upon them – most assailants will take themselves out of a fight (emotionally crumble) when faced with a barrage of punches, kicks, knees and elbows, but there are those who due to experience, adrenaline, drugs and/or alcohol, will react to these things as if you were flicking cocktail sticks at them. In a dynamic situation, relying on landing a “knockout” blow to shut somebody like this down is extremely risky, and more conclusive methods, such as chokes and strangulations, may need to be used. Professionally, I have had to deal with aggressors on PCP and other drugs, where strikes/punches and conventional control/restraint methods – applied by a team - were completely ineffective in subduing them i.e. they had to be choked out and rendered unconscious, to be stopped. This is not to say that all situations need to be concluded this way, but if you are relying solely on striking to end a confrontation, you may find yourself wanting when faced with a pain-resistant assailant; most people will want to take themselves out of a fight when they’ve received a few powerful strikes (giving you the opportunity to disengage), but there are those who won’t, and these individuals need to be mechanically shut down, in order for you to create a chance to exit. Medically, the difference between a choke and a strangulation, is that one is an internal event, and the other is an external one i.e. strangulations occur when something is wrapped around the outside of the neck, constricting/restricting either airflow to the lungs, or blood to the carotid processes (not the brain), whilst a choke is an internal restriction - in the throat – that prevents air getting to the lungs, etc. Unfortunately, this distinction doesn’t help us understand the different types of “chokes”, and their effects from a fighting/combative perspective. I use the term, “strangulation” to refer to a choke/strangulation hold that prevents air being received by the lungs and, “choke” to signify a constriction of the carotid arteries, that prevents blood being received by the carotid processes. If others want to swap these around and argue that these should be reversed, etc., it really doesn’t matter to me; as long as the use of terminology is consistent, then the necessary information can be conveyed. Blood chokes are quicker to apply than strangulations i.e. air chokes. In a strangulation, where air/oxygen is prevented from getting to the lungs by a constriction of the airway, the individual being strangled still has oxygen in their lungs, and their brain has oxygenated blood – all of this will have to be used up before they are rendered unconscious; a process that may take 30 seconds or longer – I remember reading a case where it took a husband nearly 5 minutes to subdue his way wife this way (before killing her), due to the difficulties of fully blocking the airway. Blood chokes, by contrast, can shut off cognitive processing almost immediately, and when applied correctly, shut somebody fully down in a matter of seconds. This occurs not by shutting off blood supply – and oxygen – to the brain, but by causing the brain to “flush” itself of oxygenated blood. There are two major sets of arteries that supply blood (and oxygen) to the brain - the Carotid and Vertebral arteries – so if one set were to be simply constricted, the brain would still receive blood/oxygen from the other. However, when the Carotid arteries are closed/restricted, the Carotid processes, which monitor blood pressure in the brain, take this as an indication that there is an over-pressure of blood in the brain, and as a safety measure, causes it to flush blood out – due to the subsequent lack of oxygen, a “shutdown” starts to immediately occur. This is why the effects of a blood choke are experienced so quickly, and there isn’t a process by which somebody can override it i.e. it will work against the most pain-resistant attacker. Despite the mechanism by which all blood chokes function in the same way, different methods of constricting the Carotid arteries can have different effects and consequences. Applying pressure using the arms, rather than the person’s clothing, puts four times more pressure on the neck and throat. This pressure can cause the windpipe to swell, and/or damage to the cartilage of the throat, that in turn can lead to breathing difficulties i.e. although the intent is to cause pressure to the arteries, a secondary and unintended effect can be to prevent or restrict oxygen getting to the lungs. This is one of the reasons I favor the use of clothing when applying chokes; I can render a person unconscious without causing possible secondary issues, such as having/leaving them unable to breathe, which may result in legal issues later, etc. The primary reason though for selecting clothing as the means to choke somebody out, is that it is usually quicker i.e. it cuts into the arteries, as opposed to just putting pressure on them (using my arms). Oftentimes, I will use either strangulations, and/or chokes with the arms to transition into clothing chokes, as it’s generally easier to get into an effective position this way, rather than going straight for the clothing; which may be hard to initially access/grab – but with the goal of using the clothing to complete the choke. Our goal should be to equip ourselves with the necessary tools to do every job that we may be faced with. We should recognize that going into a situation relying on a single approach, such as dealing with every encounter using striking/punching, may see us coming up short when our sole reliance is on this solution. Sometimes it is worth imagining/considering our worst nightmare e.g. the 280-pound, drug dealer who doesn’t care about any moral/legal consequences, and has faced far more competent – and deadly – adversaries than ourselves, etc. If we think that our ability to deliver pain/concussive force is going to have an impact and stop them in their tracks, then we may find ourselves mistaken and ultimately overwhelmed. There is a benefit to allowing for the possibility that our worst nightmare may be there person we are confronted with, and consider whether our striking/punching is liable to overwhelm them, or whether we might need some different tools in our toolboxes, such as shutting them down with a choke, rather than relying on striking and concussive force to stop them.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=414 Mon, 14 Jan 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=413 What may seem to us as a single incident, may not be from a legal perspective. If you disarm somebody of their weapon, such as a gun, and step back 5 or 6 yards, a separation has occurred; what happens next will be looked on as something separate, to what preceded it, and how you now decide to act will be judged on its own merits i.e. you are now the one in possession of a lethal weapon, and the power differential has shifted, etc. The burden of proof will now be on you to justify your further actions e.g. if you deem that the person is a threat because they move towards you, and you decide to shoot, you will have to justify the use of lethal force in that moment – what went on before will give a “background” to your decision to shoot, but it won’t justify it i.e. in that moment, where there was distance between you, and you were in possession of a firearm, why did you determine that lethal force was necessary? Obviously, different US states have different viewpoints concerning “stand your ground”, etc., however understanding the concept of how a violent encounter may be broken down into separate incidents, which may be viewed/looked at differently is important when considering our self-defense solutions – and it can be quite far-reaching. This doesn’t mean we should over-think things to the point where we are paralyzed and end up doing nothing, but we might want to consider using the gun as a cold weapon, to deliver concussive strikes, and render an assailant unconscious whilst we are still “engaged” with them, rather than stepping back, as we tap and rack the weapon, hoping and assuming that the threat of lethal force will be enough to subdue them, etc. Our decision-trees should be determined ahead of an event, rather than in the midst of it. I teach and believe in the use of improvised weapons, however there is a huge difference between striking somebody when you have something in your hand, and getting something, or altering something in order to have a “weapon” in your hand e.g. if you are drinking at a bar with a bottle in your hand, and somebody attacks you, and in response you hit them back, and the bottle makes contact, this is one thing; to deliberately smash the bottle on the bar, and then use it to stab and slash your aggressor’s face is another; your intent and escalation are evident. It is also worth noting that should you have to go to court, you are not necessarily going to be arguing your case to a sympathetic audience. Most people have a limited experience of violence, and will not be able to associate with smashing a bottle in order to make a weapon, picking up a brick to arm yourself, or returning to your car to retrieve a tire-iron, etc. especially if an opportunity to disengage was available to you – even if you are in the legal “right”, if t doesn’t look/seem/feel that way to a jury, they will judge against you (and if the other party is standing there with a permanently scarred face, because of what you did, there’s a good chance that he’ll be seen as the individual deserving sympathy, despite the legal rights and wrongs of the situation). Some instructors demonstrate how to “construct” weapons out of everyday items. A common “improvised” tool that football hooligans used to make/use was a newspaper, folded up to make a “brick”. As good and effective as such an impact weapon is, taking the time to construct it demonstrates intent, and a certain thought process; and this will have to be justified if things go legal. As I say, I’m a supporter and believer in the use of improvised weapons, but the “story” behind their selection and use, must make sense, from a legal perspective. Having your phone in your hand, and using it to make hammer-strikes, is a good use of an improvised weapon - and is it beyond reasonable doubt, that you didn’t have it in your hand already when you were attacked? Sometimes we physically separate but don’t do so emotionally, and so feel that we are still involved in an initial altercation. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions when working door security e.g. an altercation that took place outside of the club (which at the time I/we were unaware of), gets brought inside and plays out some time later e.g. somebody, or a group, got into an argument in another bar/club, which didn’t result in anything, and then find themselves together again later, etc. It may be that one person/party thought everything had been sorted or was forgotten, without realizing that the other(s) was still stewing on the perceived injustice and disrespect they’d been shown earlier i.e. they hadn’t emotionally separated from the previous incident; for them the incident hadn’t ended. I have separated many fights, where one person was arguing that the other had started it, because of something that happened several hours earlier. I mention this to illustrate that morality and legality are not the same, despite how strongly we might feel about something. Morally, an individual may feel justified to teach another person a lesson for a past injustice or slight, and believe that it is only fair for them to do so – and that this would in some way benefit society e.g. this person will learn that they can’t act and behave in this way towards others, etc. Such mini moral crusades, however strongly they are felt, can rarely be used as a legal justification for future acts of aggression and violence. If that person then brings a civil suit against you – assuming you escaped criminal charges – and you end up paying them $30 000 in damages (a conservative estimate), who has “won” in that situation?   We don’t want to overthink our self-defense solutions, but we should recognize that self-defense is a legal concept, not a moral or absolute one. Some separations may be obvious — such as when there may be a long period of time between incidents — some may be less so e.g. if I take somebody to the ground, whilst I remain standing, and then stamp on their head – the person’s position has changed, and in this moment, they are no longer a threat to me, etc. Could they pull a weapon? Yes, but do I have a good reason to believe they were about to do so, and will 12 individuals who have never experienced violence before, believe such a story? If in that moment I had an opportunity to disengage and get to safety, that’s a safer option, than stamping them and/or continuing the fight on the ground – creating a separate incident. We can glibly say we’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six, however if these are the only two options we train, then we may be creating unnecessary consequences for ourselves. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=413 Mon, 07 Jan 2019 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=412 Violence in self-defense, is often sanitized and/or romanticized; with the attacker being presented as a neutral player, who is simply going through the motions of an assault. Leaving out the “why” of violence and failing to consider the potential complexity of motive has significant consequences for self-defense and scenario-based training. A mugger doesn’t simply want your wallet/money, they want it for a reason e.g. to support a drug habit, to support themselves and/or their family, etc. Whilst we will not necessarily be able to determine the “backstory” (or involvement decisions) of every aggressor, we have to acknowledge that they have one, and it is this which has brought them to this moment in time – as well as coloring how they view us e.g. are we an object for them to use, a vehicle through which they can express their anger (or a need to demonstrate power and control), or a person with whom they want to interact, albeit through exploratory violence? There is a huge difference between dealing with a threat and dealing with an attack. If somebody is trying to cut, stab, or slash you, considering motive is a distraction; however if they are showing you a knife and making demands of you, acknowledging and recognizing motive will help you determine an effective solution. If you will always go physical, when faced with a threat, you may be putting yourself in unnecessary danger – and it may be that by not considering the motive, and profile of the attacker, you will find that your solutions will be ineffective e.g. most armed robbers/muggers are drugged or drunk when committing their offenses, and so may be pain tolerant to solutions that rely on striking/punching, etc. When we sterilize violence, taking the individuality of the attacker out of the equation, we may be creating solutions that have limited applicability in real life. There is a danger in treating motive(s) as something that develops through a rational, conscious process, and criminal and violent acts, as calculated affairs, where the individual carefully weighs up the consequences of their actions e.g. when somebody points a gun at you, and demands your wallet, all they are thinking about is the wallet; your actions and behaviors will determine their next step, there isn’t a well-structured and organized plan, which has been created considering responses to all possible outcomes, etc. A hesitation on your part to comply, may be interpreted as a refusal to obey their demand(s) – which may be motivated by a need to get money for their next fix, or to pay for drugs/medicine for a sick child, etc. In that moment, an association has been made between your compliance/non-compliance and the “need” that it will, or will not, fulfill. In this moment your wallet/money is far more important to them than it is to you – unless you are living a similar lifestyle. I was recently reading the account of a UK mugger who made the decision to engage in armed robbery, after he and his wife had to clean up themselves and their baby, who had a stomach infection, by candlelight, because the credit on their electricity meter had ran out, and they had no money to feed it. I’m not sharing this in attempt to gain sympathy for those who engage in violent crimes, but to illustrate the level of desperation that somebody committing such a crime may be experiencing, and that this shouldn’t ever be underestimated. If a robbery seems to move – for any reason – outside of such a mugger’s control we should expect them to respond with extreme violence, rather than with a “measured” response. To add depth to our training, we should start to view our training partners, as multi-dimensional characters, who have their own backstory, rather than just as neutral players who are holding a knife or gun, for us to practice against. In acts of spontaneous – rather than premeditated – violence, we should also recognize that although somebody may not have planned, or even looked to take advantage of an opportunity, for violence, they may be predisposed to using violence, either as a form of expression, or as an instrumental means to accomplishing a goal; I have dealt with individuals who lacked the basic social skills to resolve conflicts via dialogue, and so use physical violence instead. This is a real issue when somebody has a weapon on them; which in certain circumstances can be an indication of a risk-seeking lifestyle i.e. a predisposition, rather than a premeditation, for the use of violence - they acquired and carry a weapon due to the anticipation of violence, which is often based on past experiences and interactions they’ve had. These experiences form their “backstories” and need to be taken into account when dealing with incidents of spontaneous social violence. Three assumptions I make when dealing with any aggressor, is that they are armed, assisted, and able; that is, they have the means to handle themselves in the situation, even if there is a differential between our skills and abilities in my favor; aggression, prior experiences of violence, and commitment can go a long way in a fight and are capable of dismantling even the most practiced and proven techniques. What may be seen as an overreaction to a minor slight, such as knocking into somebody, jumping ahead in a queue/line, can be an indication of a person’s prior experiences of dealing with conflict, and if they are still using aggression/violence to settle disputes, it’s a fair guess that this has worked for them enough times in the past. It may be that where violence is concerned your history and experience is secondary to theirs – either time to “walk away” or take the initiative away from them e.g. by going pre-emptive. We shouldn’t simply practice engagement in our training, but how to disengage safely (even if our ego does take a dent in the process). Our training partner should be seen as something more than just a person to train with; they should be visualized and interacted with, as someone with a “story”, that explains why they are acting and behaving the way they are. This will also help make sense of certain techniques and explain the contexts when certain attacks occur. How many times have you practiced a defense against a rear-strangle, without considering why, and to what purpose, somebody would make this kind of attack? What’s the motive, and what is their backstory that created and developed this motive? Violence isn’t simply a “thing”, it’s an interaction with a purpose, and it is only by trying to understand this that we will start to train effectively and realistically. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=412 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=411 Whilst we may be born with an innate will to survive and character traits that help us develop resiliency etc., it is up to us to develop a survival personality, that will help us deal with difficult and potentially dangerous incidents and situations. When tough times visit us, we don’t want to be the caricature that stands there looking up to the sky, shaking our fist, and shouting, “Why God, me?”, but rather the person who can handle what is facing us, and deal with it, in a manner that leaves us with little consequence or trauma. Whilst we may “find” ourselves in a high stress situation, it is more likely that who we are going into it, will determine who we are during it, and how well we handle ourselves whilst in it. In developing such a personality, we must recognize and cultivate 5 basic things: 1), an understanding that we have value and are worth fighting for, 2), an ability to accept rather than question the situations we find ourselves in, 3), a knowledge that the only person who can get us through – and possibly out of – the situation, is ourselves (there may be third-parties and external agencies that can assist us, but ultimately it is down to us), 4) the ability not to panic and attempt to do everything at once i.e. time exists to stop everything at once and we should use it, and 5), tied to this, the ability to execute step-by-step plans (preferably pre-thought and developed). This “personality” needs to be developed in order to combat some of the natural responses that we may have when placed in situations of high stress and duress, including incidents of violence.   There is a time to question things, and a time to accept them. If you are facing an angry aggressor, who you’ve accidentally spilt a drink over – either due to them bumping into you, or you bumping into them – it is not the time to question what has happened, discern responsibility and blame, and/or work out how you might have avoided this situation in the first place. Our ability to question and analyze in order to solve problems is a useful tool when we have the time, and aren’t in imminent danger, but we may unfortunately try to use this as a coping mechanism, to prevent us having to thinking about the potential consequences of the incident we are now facing i.e. a type of procrastination, that prevents us from dealing with what is facing us. It is a form of denial, that will eat up time and prevent us from deliberating, deciding upon, and executing a plan of action. The time to question the potential stupidity of undertaking a certain course of action, such as going to a well-known biker bar, famous for its incidences of violence, is after the current situation has been dealt with — when you debrief yourself after the event. Whilst in the midst of a situation, the first step to dealing with it, is by accepting your present reality. We may find ourselves using humor as a coping mechanism, telling ourselves that the person who is in our face is joking, playing a prank and not really serious about the threats they are making. This is another form of denial, that prevents us from accepting what is happening. We may also “fear grin”, as an innate behavioral response that either hasn’t evolved out of us, or still has some purpose that we’re not quite sure of — but grinning, smirking and smiling, etc. normally escalates situations with emotional and/or aggressive humans. Monkeys and Chimps have been observed to show teeth and smile/grin as an act of submission when there are tensions between them. This action may normalize a tense situation, communicating a desire “to get back to normal”, and demonstrate that this is what the submissive monkey/chimp wants to happen next, rather than for things to head in the other direction. When dealing with emotional individuals, we must be aware of our own body language, such as grinning, which may be a natural response to a tense situation but is in fact socially inappropriate, and potentially dangerous.     Another response we can have to an aggressive/dangerous verbal altercation is something referred to in psychology and psychiatry as the Delusion of Reprieve. It is usually used to describe the response of condemned prisoners to their imminent execution – devoid of any concrete plans that could see them escape their death, they convince themselves that somehow, at the very last minute they will be reprieved. It’s a form of denial; an inability to accept what is happening to them, coupled with the knowledge that they don’t have the means to change their situation, and so to cope they pin their hopes on to an external factor or influence that could alter the course of events. A very long time ago, I used to conduct house evictions, and possession orders alongside a Bailiff/Enforcement Agent. It was not uncommon to turn up on the day that the tenants had to leave the property to find that they hadn’t packed or made any plans to find alternative accommodation, etc., despite having been informed months earlier, that they would have to vacate the property by a certain date. Sometimes when talking to a tenant, they’d be apologetic and explain that they thought something would happen, or someone would step in and intervene on their behalf to prevent the eviction going ahead; they’d not talked to any official or organization about their situation, they just convinced themselves through blind hope, right up until the last minute, that everything would work out for them. I once worked with a Russian who was fond of saying, “there’s always hope, and then that dies.” If we are able to accept that we are the ones responsible for dealing with and getting ourselves out of a violent or dangerous predicament, then we are much more likely to be successful, instead of hoping and waiting for some external party – convincing ourselves that someone will have called the police, or informed security of our predicament etc. - to deal with it on our behalf (unless this is part of a pre-designed plan, when we know somebody will be coming to our assistance). Our natural desire in any uncomfortable situation is to see it end as quickly as possible, and so we may use panicking as a coping mechanism. I have seen people run into traffic, in an attempt to get away from an aggressor as quickly as possible. One of my instructors told of a friend who’d been at a house party when somebody entered the living room, hacking and slashing at everyone with a machete. His friend headed for the nearest door, opened it and when confronted by a short wall, jumped over it to escape. In his understandable panic he’d forgotten that the party was in a block of flats thirteen floors up. In such a situation, quick action is imperative, however there is a huge difference between running from danger and running to safety. It may seem paranoid, but whenever I enter a new building, I plan my exit(s) in the event of an emergency, and try to figure out where different doors lead to, etc. Having these pre-built mental maps, enables me to construct and potentially execute an appropriate plan in the event of an emergency. This isn’t a complicated or elaborate process, but a habitual one that takes a few seconds – if I was Jason Bourne it would be a much more involved and detailed one, but I try not to get ahead of myself when taking safety precautions. Most violent and dangerous incidents aren’t dealt with or solved in one moment, it’s a step-by-step incremental process, whereby bit-by-bit you improve your situation. Whilst we may hope for things to be over quickly, we must accept where we are, and what we are dealing with, and look to manage all the moving parts effectively. Ultimately, we should be doing this because we value ourselves and our value to others, and this is just one of the reasons why we should have a framework of how to act and behave in the types of situations we are likely to face. All of this needs to be internalized and become part of who we are, rather than be a set of external behaviors that we acknowledge, and only look to roll out when everything hits the fan.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=411 Mon, 24 Dec 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=410 I hate golf. Mainly due the fact that I lack even a trace amount of natural ability when it comes to playing it. There was a time when I did try to get into it, but there just wasn’t a fit. One of the things that stays with me from my experience(s), was putting. I’d be going to take – what should have been the final shot – with the ball 2-yards from the hole, and all that would be going through my mind were all the reasons why I should miss. Admittedly, I wasn’t very good at golf, and there were theoretically a lot of reasons why I could miss but sinking such a shot was well within my range of abilities; an untrained novice could make such a shot using the wrong end of the club. But I was always running through the reasons to fail, and as a result, I often did, creating goal discrepancies i.e. not achieving things I was more than capable of doing. Negative self-talk can lead to anxiety (both cognitive and somatic) and is often a feature in the pre-conflict phase of a violent incident, when you are starting to formulate and implement a solution to your situation. It doesn’t matter if you already have a plan in place to act – unfortunately many people don’t – this will be when you start to question the validity of it. Your failures in training will start to come back to haunt you, you will question your ability to generate enough power, move fast enough, etc. Every reason to fail will visit you, this is natural. The golfer, Lee Trevino, was once asked about the pressure he felt when a tournament came down to a single shot that would determine whether he’d win or lose it. He replied that it was nothing compared to his early career, when he was playing for money he didn’t have by betting on each hole. There can be a big difference between not winning, and failing; especially when consequences are involved. In this article I want to talk about how we can combat negative self-talk, when facing aggressors and/or dangerous situations, without becoming over-confident or arrogant regarding our abilities. It has long been recognized that our Inner Speech (IS) can affect both emotional and behavioral outcomes, as well as our self-narratives, which are used to create our identity. Self-talk (ST), is used to interpret our emotional state and help us mediate and “talk back” to it; it’s one of the ways we can manage and control our emotions. Often though, this dialogue only goes one way i.e. we become adrenalized, our emotional state changes, and we feel/interpret and give words to this state by saying, “I’m scared”, “I feel afraid”, etc. By interpreting our emotional state negatively, we may start an internal dialogue which is largely negative and end up becoming paralyzed by our own words. Fortunately, most negative talk is predictable, and one of the ways we can deal with it is to have positive pre-built answers to the questions we ask ourselves; and reassurances to our answers, if we start to question them e.g. we may question our ability to generate enough power in a strike, and/or question if we’ll be able to deliver it without it being blocked/intercepted, etc. We may even go as far as imagining our aggressor’s response to it, and how badly this will play out for us. Before we’ve even thrown the punch, we’ve written a script, with an unsuccessful outcome. Although this is a cognitive process, it is reinforced by our emotional state – when not in physical pain, our fear system doesn’t want us to engage in any action that may alter/change this e.g. even if we know it is inevitable that we are going to be punched i.e. experience “future” pain, our fear system will tell us not to do anything “now”. There are two tools I use to affect my Inner Speech and influence my self-talk. These are: visualization and externalization. Running through scenarios in your head, both from a first- and third-party perspective i.e. what it would look like to you, and what it would like to somebody observing you interacting in the incident, etc., is a powerful tool that allows you to prepare for real-life confrontations and write positive outcomes into your “new” scripts. It also allows you to create new dialogue for your self-talk, that can replace the negative self-talk you may otherwise be inclined to use. Externalization involves having a checklist of steps and processes you run through, which helps you to avoid creating negative scripts in the moment. These can involve physical actions, such as stepping back, moving off-line, shifting weight, putting hands up in a placating manner, etc., as well as verbal steps, such as asking what you can do to sort things out/make things better, etc. Visualizing yourself doing these things will also reinforce this. In short, you are becoming an actor performing a role, rather than an individual calculating the costs and consequences of every action you make and word you say, in that moment. Fortunately, for most of us, the types of dangerous interactions we are likely to be engaged in are predictable and limited, and as we run through scenarios in our head, it is likely that we will find ourselves dealing with them in a very similar manner i.e. we don’t need a million different scripts for dealing with aggressive individuals, but a few variations on one or two simple/basic ones.     We have to acknowledge that it is possible for us, despite all our skills and abilities, to talk ourselves out of an inevitable fight before it’s even begun. When I lift weights there are a million reasons why I may not make a lift; it’s very easy to come up with excuses why today isn’t the day to up the weight, etc. If I think about the lift, I know it won’t happen. When I go for it, I can’t think about it/analyze it, etc. I just have to do it, and rely on my training to make it happen. If you can throw a good strong punch on the pads, there is no mechanical reason that you can’t replicate it against an aggressor coming towards you. The punch is the same, the only difference is the potential consequences associated with it; once these are dealt with and cease to be a concern then the punch, returns to just being a punch again.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=410 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=409 As a kid, I experienced fear on a daily basis. I was bullied, and my life for a long time, was one of jumping at shadows, imagining scenarios – that often didn’t occur – and spending a lot of mental bandwidth planning my life, so as to avoid potential confrontations. It’s not a healthy way to live. Unfortunately, violence isn’t something that really gets talked about in families, and when it does, it’s often sterilized, sanitized, or presented in an unrealistic manner; oftentimes parents don’t have accurate points of reference, and defer to personal safety myths, created by those who have a desire to give answers, but don’t really understand the subject matter e.g. I was told as a kid, to ignore bullies and in response they would just go away (they don’t), that they were only bullying me because they were suffering from low self-esteem – and even if this was true, it doesn’t help in practical terms – and that telling a teacher would somehow solve the situation. Once I dealt with my situation, I soon forgot what it was like to live in a state of fear. We humans can be remarkably resilient in such matters, and harsh, judgmental critics of those who aren’t able to achieve the same as ourselves. At 18, I started working on the door, and soon forgot, what it was like to be standing in front of an aggressor, paralyzed by fear, waiting in anticipation of the inevitable shock, pain and humiliation (perhaps the worst part), which was waiting to begin. I often think that the over-confident social media posts and comments detailing what somebody would do to the other person if they were ever confronted in such a way, are made as a preemptive defense/coping mechanism, by those who ultimately fear such paralysis, if they were ever actually faced with a committed violent aggressor. When we don’t know what violence looks like, everything can be a potential threat, or we can go the other way entirely and deny/discount any dangers and view the world through rose-tinted glasses. Without an education into violence it’s hard to occupy the healthy middle ground, where we consider and investigate individuals and scenarios in a realistic manner e.g. immigrants become scary, youths in hooded tops become scary, the person walking behind us becomes scary, nighttime becomes scary, unfamiliar places become scary, etc. We start to cultivate an unnecessary culture of fear in our lives — and fear feeds upon fear – where we start to jump at the sound of doors slamming, and create narratives behind every squeaky floorboard we hear, and as a result we start behaving like (and identifying ourselves) as victims. Because of this, we may even become one e.g. we start becoming so non/anti-confrontational with people due to a fear of violence, that those observing our avoidance of certain types of interaction, come to view us as potential targets and/or we over compensate and become aggressive at the smallest sleight; writing checks that we’re unable to cash, should we be called upon to do so. Both responses, although at opposite ends of the spectrum, come from the same place: fear. Acknowledging and admitting fear is not a weakness; it’s a sensible first step to dealing with it – if we have particular fears and don’t deal with them then we will have them forever. For many people fear is unimaginable i.e. they can’t – don’t want to – imagine what it would be like to be assaulted and to cope with both the experience/process and the consequence(s). In certain cases, people will be indignant about having to experience fear; that they shouldn’t have to feel this way, that it shouldn’t be their responsibility to have feel this way, or think about these things, etc. and I agree with them on this, but (and there had to be a “but”), if something is debilitating and dangerous to us, we can’t expect for anyone to solve this problem on our behalf. The first step in dealing with fear is to conduct a risk analysis, identifying the assets (including ourselves) we want to protect, the threats that want to gain access to them, and the vulnerabilities we may have in protecting them. A lot of the time, our fear comes from the idea of a larger “general” threat to our safety, rather than from specific ones – when we think about and identify specific threats, they are usually much easier to manage and mitigate against. We may also realize at this point how unlikely we are to experience certain dangers – I once taught a class where a participant thought I’d neglected to teach them how to deal with the mentally ill, as this was to their mind, one of the greatest dangers to people’s safety; I asked them how many mentally ill individuals they’d had interactions with and it turned out to be zero (if I was teaching staff in a psychiatric ward, or a health care setting this would have been different – though in saying that, most staff know their patients and the danger/warning signs well). However, this process also involves us identifying our vulnerabilities, which can be harder to do because they are internal to us, and are things we’re responsible for, unlike threats which are external. The imagined but unquantified threat is perhaps the scariest to have to deal with. When I teach defenses against knife attacks, my first question is “why” i.e. why would somebody attack you with a knife? Not threaten you, in order to get you to comply with a demand, but attack you, looking to cut, stab you, cause you harm, injury, death, etc. There has to be a reason: a motivation. Pure randomness doesn’t exist, every victim is selected for a reason – even if that reason is internal to the attacker e.g. after missing four potential victims, desperation and emotional readiness, mean that they’ll attack the next, etc. If we conclude that this is the most likely reason we’d be attacked, we can quantify this, and place it in the extremely unlikely category. If we’re running with a football firm, fighting against other fans, every Saturday afternoon, then we can understand why we may be targeted by/with a knife attack, etc. Such things can be dealt with via changes in lifestyle. If we understand the contexts in which we may have to face a gun/firearm, we can understand the different solutions that will deal with the situation e.g. a mugger, and abductor, and an active shooter are all different types of threat, despite their similar presentations. We have to manage both our “fear” and our responses differently for each and recognize the different likelihoods of experiencing each one. For a large part of my early life, fear was a constant companion. I didn’t manage it well, and I developed a fatalistic attitude towards being the victim of violence – and even if perhaps this was a “realistic” viewpoint, it wasn’t a healthy one, as I came to discount precautions and safety rituals, which despite not working all of the time, did have their moments of success. I still experience fear, but it’s a healthy fear, that is appropriate for the situations I am in, rather than something I live with, and allow to over-ride my other emotions.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=409 Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=408 Last winter, my right front tire came off – I was driving in a snowstorm, against my better judgment. I managed to find what seemed to be a good spot to do the change. However, I was hit with two problems: my jack couldn’t get and real purchase on the snow/ice, despite clearing a spot, and the lug nuts were too tight for my wrench to loosen them – likely because the last time I’d had my tires changed/rotated at the garage they’d over-tightened them. This meant waiting for AAA to come and change it for me – a task that in normal conditions I’d have been able to do myself. Since this experience, I’ve changed both my jack and my wrench to be more suitable for difficult situations, so I’m prepared should this unlikely scenario, or one similar to it, repeat itself. The point is, I thought I was prepared i.e. I had the tools that had worked for me before in “normal” conditions and hadn’t really consider a scenario where they wouldn’t work, or where they’d have difficulty working. Fortunately, I wasn’t in a bad neighborhood or area, and there weren’t any serious consequences to deal with, however it was a straightforward situation that I should have been able to deal with, and couldn’t. There are many components in real life, which can make what we assumed in our training to be workable solutions, unworkable. We may think we have the adequate tools to do the job – and they may have served us well in the past – but then find ourselves at a loss e.g. I remember the first I did Redman training, against an assailant armed with a knife, and realized I couldn’t control the wrist properly because the padding made the arm too big; something that I I really hadn’t considered until it happened. In this article, I want to consider certain conditions that may impact our ability to do the things, that we believe we should be able to do, and how we might mitigate against these failings in our training. You never have the room and space you think you do (or should have) when dealing with real world violence. There is a tendency when looking at violent altercations, to talk about what would work on the “street” i.e. in a street fight. However, unless you are a street fighter, is this going to be your reality? Most women are more likely to be attacked in their home, by someone they know, than in a public space, by a stranger, and unless you’re living in a palatial mansion, furniture will soon deny you space and room to maneuver. If you’re in a bar/club, not only are there likely to be chairs and tables, there are also going to be other people who will get in your way and restrict your movement. Fighting in such environments can quickly become claustrophobic. I teach a lot about controlling range and creating space in the pre-conflict phase of an aggressive interaction, because this is usually the only time you will have that opportunity. Maintaining range, in a crowded space, during a dynamic confrontation (and violence is dynamic) where your movement is restricted, is a challenge to say the least – especially if you’re not dealing with a cautious assailant/attacker, and in real life, most aren’t. I’ve been flattened against walls, pushed into seating, etc. and there aren’t specific techniques to deal with such scenarios, as they are to fluid. I teach all body striking i.e. the use of legs, hips and back etc. to deliver a strike, but I also advocate learning to strike/punch effectively when you’re not able to employ the body. Body shots are often neglected in self-defense training, but sometimes these are the only targets available, and we should learn to capitalize on them, because we may soon loose the room and space to deliver and generate power in the way(s) we are used to, and the attacker’s head may not be available to us. Real fights have multiple phases. This is one where the MMA/Combat Sports people get it so right, and unfortunately a lot of self-defense training gets it wrong. I’ve been involved in teaching self-defense coming up for 30-years, I’ve practiced Judo for nearly 40. Judo doesn’t have techniques per-se, it has throws, locks, chokes, strangulations, etc. the Judoka is taught to be creative, and put all of these things together to counter and/or attack an opponent. A lot of self-defense training teaches a technique to apply when somebody makes a certain specific attack e.g. this is the technique to deal with a rear-strangle, or if somebody catches you in a side-headlock i.e. you do A-B-C and you’re out. I never learnt Judo this way – if a person was in a certain position, doing a certain something, and I was in a certain position doing a certain something, then that dictated the throw. Solutions were hinted at e.g. if they duck and you can see their belt, then it’s likely a Sumi-Gaeshi is possible, etc., but I was never taught that this throw, was THE response to somebody ducking the head, etc., as depending on all the moving parts, there may be something more effective to do. Often self-defense solutions reduce all of these to only the attack, and don’t prepare individuals for what to do when the attacker attacks us in the “wrong way”. The other issue with becoming technique-centric, is that most techniques are taught as being successful, and conclusively ending the fight/situation, and don’t factor in that the attacker can respond, and you’ll have to respond to that, etcetera, etcetera. Real violence, like combat sports, is made up of multiple phases, and techniques if taught in an A-B-C fashion, will only get us so far – at each stage in a technique we have to train the attacker’s potential and possible responses, if we are to start getting anywhere close to resembling real life conflicts. Obviously, I’m generalizing and there are some great self-defense instructors who are training in ways, which best prepare their students for real life, however if “techniques” are being presented as complete solutions, and practiced, without considering all of the things that are denied you in real life, there is something missing in the training. If every technique ends successfully, without potential counters being shown, etc., there is a problem. If techniques never fail, there’s a problem – all techniques have certain weaknesses that can be exploited, and these needs to be factored into our training.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=408 Mon, 03 Dec 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=407 In September of this year, a number of gas explosions in the Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts), devastated 40 houses, and resulted in thousands of persons being displaced from their homes. As of November 2018, California wildfires have caused nearly $3 Billions of destruction, making it the most destructive wildfire season ever. Both of these hazards (one accidental, the other natural) – as opposed to threats where malicious intent is prevalent – have impacted the lives of thousands in the US, in a very short period of time. Both were emergencies, in that they took those involved by surprise, and were unexpected, however with correct planning and preparation the consequences/impact of both events for individuals involved, could have in most cases been lessened and mitigated. During my time(s) working in Close Protection (bodyguarding), the construction of Risk Registers was key to every project and operation that I was involved with i.e. there had to be a plan in place for what to do, should we get cut off from the hotel we were using as a base, etc. Even though in most instances this was unlikely, it was something that was never overlooked, because when the unlikely happens, and especially when it happens, you want to know what to do; it is not the time you want to improvise and start constructing best-guess solutions on the fly i.e. it’s in emergencies that you need a previously worked-out plan to follow - one that you’ve already run through, and can trust. We often think that bad things won’t happen to us, especially if we live in a modern economy with good law and order, etc. However, emergency preparedness, isn’t the same as “prepping” i.e. you’re not planning for the breakdown of society and civilization, but rather in how best to deal with short-term emergencies; and these can happen to anyone. For the past 20 years, the Northeast of the US has suffered from blackouts, and relatively long-duration power outages; one of the most notable being the 2003 blackout of New York City, that took 3-5 days to rectify – if you were to lose power for 3 days, would  you have a plan you could implement straight away, or would you find yourself solving problems as you encountered/experienced them? Hopefully this article will help you develop an idea of the things you should consider in making your own Risk Register. When you travel, be it for work or pleasure, you may want to also consider making a register that is pertinent to the risks that you face e.g. if an airport was closed or flights were cancelled, as in 2010 when volcanic ash from mount Eyjafjallajokull prevented air travel across many routes, would you have the means to deal with such an emergency? Even though many of us won’t have to deal with a major emergency in our lives, it is worth spending some time planning for what we would do – as those in the Merrimack Valley they had no reason to expect to be evacuated from their homes and be refused re-entry for several days, and in some cases weeks. My aim is not to be alarmist, but to try and motivate people to have a plan in place (that they’ve tested) should they experience something as simple as having a fire/flood in their home that makes it uninhabitable, or find themselves being evacuated, and/or refused entry to their property; don’t rely on the fact that the police will let you cross a cordon/boundary, simply because your request seems reasonable to you. Many people confuse risk with likelihood. Though the two are intertwined, they are distinct and different. Risk occurs where assets, threats (in the case of risk registers, hazards – such as accidental and natural disasters - must also be considered alongside threats, which involve malicious intent) and vulnerabilities occur. Likelihood, is the chance of a risk occurring, based on history, research, statistics etc. If you live in an area classified as a “flood plain”, your likelihood of being flooded, is far greater than that of someone who lives in an area not known for flooding. Likelihood is also subject to change e.g. as sea levels rise, areas which were once unlikely to see flooding, may now see themselves more likely to experience this – which means our risk registers need to be kept updated. When we think about risks, we should consider first those that are most likely, along with those that have the greatest consequences associated with them. From a day-to-day perspective, you should plan for two basic types of emergency: one where you are forced to evacuate your home when you are in it, and the other when you are away from it and are refused entry to it when you return. There are some commonalities between the two, such as where you and your family are going to stay – if you have pets you will also want to consider where these will stay during the emergency as government/state shelters may not allow them in, and it may be hard to find hotels (have a list on your risk register) which will accept them, especially if there is a shortage of rooms caused by the emergency, etc. In both situations you will want to have cash, especially if power is out for a large area, as ATM’s won’t be functioning, and shops and stores won’t be able to process credit card transactions. Cash is also useful if you find you need to buy things, such as gas/petrol, from other people rather than retailers. However, if you only keep cash at your house and you’re denied access to your home, it’s of little use to you there. The same is true of prescription drugs. You may not want to keep prescription drugs at your place of work – and your company may well have policies regarding this - but keeping photocopies of prescriptions, along with other documents may help you in getting them re-filled should such an emergency occur. This is one occasion where paper/hard copies are your best friend: if power is out, you may not be able to access electronic copies. Keep the original documents, along with passports, visas and the like in a water-proof and/or fire-proof container rather than in a drawer or cupboard in your home. If you are evacuating your home, it will save time, if everything you need is in one place. Have a rendezvous point (RV) that all family members are aware of, if you/they are away from your house, when an emergency occurs that prevents you/them returning to it – if you want to be ultra-prepared, have several, so if any of these become blocked off, you will know where to find each other. Don’t rely on cell-phones working, as depending on the nature of the emergency the network may be down, or become inaccessible e.g. a network may become overburdened if everyone in a certain locale is calling each other at the same time, etc. Having a rendezvous point, that everybody is aware of, and has a chance of getting to, means that everybody in your family can be accounted for and will be able to stay together; and energy and mental bandwidth doesn’t have to be taken up worrying about each other. We may mock the need and usefulness of landlines in the age of mobile phones, but depending on the nature of the emergency (such as a cyber-attack on a cellphone network) these may be a more reliable means of communication. It is also worth familiarizing yourself with the localities, and how to get to different locations in it, such as hospitals, police stations etc. or how to exit it, if different routes become blocked. If you are wholly reliant on your GPS, and the network is down, you may find yourself trapped or impeded. When emergencies first hit, information is a premium, but it’s important that you have trusted sources on which you can rely. I follow on Twitter, the Massachusetts State Police, because they are one of the agencies that I trust for information e.g. as the explosions were being heard/experienced in the Merrimack Valley, there was a lot of speculation that they were part of a terrorist attack; the State Police via Twitter made the first announcement that it was due to the over-pressurization of gas. It is worth finding a trusted source who can keep you up-to-date with what is going on, so that you can respond appropriately. If you unexpectedly found yourself having to deal with an armed assailant who was committed to causing you harm, you’d want to know what to do – you’d want to be following a plan, a sequence of actions, etc. You wouldn’t want to be leaving it to chance; you might think that the likelihood of having to deal with such a situation is low (and you’d largely be right), but in that moment you’d be wishing that you’d spared some time to think about what you would do, how you should react, etc. Emergency Preparedness is no different. If you came back to your neighborhood to find that a police line was informing you that you couldn’t return to your home, and you didn’t know where your kids were, etc., you’d wish that you’d spent some time formulating a plan, and possibly running through it ahead of time, to make sure it worked. Things that we value aren’t left to chance, and we should prepare ourselves to deal with them, so that in the worst situation and scenario, we can ensure the best possible outcome. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=407 Mon, 26 Nov 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=406 One of the things I talk about regularly when discussing self-protection and personal safety is the importance of routines and habits i.e. developing routines that become second nature and are performed without thinking; in the beginning, such routines have to be actively adhered to, however this takes mental bandwidth, and so where possible it’s better to have them as things which run automatically in the background, and engage with our conscious mind at appropriate points e.g. I have a routine I run through when entering/exiting my car and my house – which have different actions depending on time of day, etc. — some of the points which I perform, I do without thinking, and others require me to consciously and actively engage with my environment; and before people begin to question my levels of paranoia, I’m not using an inspection mirror to check under my car, or any of the things that I might do in a professional capacity – my routines, reflect my lifestyle, and are used to mitigate the potential risks in it; and these may be subject to change as/if my lifestyle changes e.g. I move to a different country or locale, where different threats are prevalent, such as carjackings and home invasions, etc. Your routines, too, should be in line with and reflect your risk assessments (which I have written about before). Perhaps the hardest part about having such routines is sticking to them, and not making exceptions. A pilot will run through the same checklist before every flight, not making assumptions and missing out steps, because they are in a hurry, or believe that something doesn’t need to be checked, in a given instance. Anyone who has lived and/or worked in a hostile environment will be aware of the dangers of slipping up – a friend of mine, working in the Middle East, was involved in a road-side ambush, due to the individual leading the team being lax in changing the routes they were taking — because things were quiet, and nothing had happened for awhile. For most of us, most of the time, nothing does/will happen, however adhering to our routines, reduces the likelihood of having to engage with any threats that may be present, and if this is unavoidable, we will be in better mindset to deal with them, etc. Developing routines makes us think about our safety, and this alone puts us in a better position to deal with violence. Our routines, should also include our potential responses to threats, such as having a safe place to go in the event of an emergency e.g. if your house/apartment became compromised and you needed to quickly leave it, do you know where you would immediately go? If you have such a plan and somewhere/someone to head to, you are much more likely to leave when it is warranted, than stay. Routines need to be periodically reviewed and potentially updated, in order for them to remain relevant, consider, and account for new threats and dangers. As those who want to gain access to us change their methods of doing so, we may need to adapt our routines in order to counter them. Sometimes, we may periodically have to develop routines to deal with specific threats and phenomena e.g. in 2002, the “Beltway Sniper Attacks” saw two shooters – John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo – target customers at gas stations filling up their cars; many people in the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, at the time, changed and adjusted their existing routines regarding what had been before a largely mundane and safe activity, in order to mitigate this very specific threat. However, on the whole our routines should be general, rather than specific, so instead of having many different routines, for many different situations, we have a few that deal with the majority of potential incidents and events e.g. my routine for getting in and out of my car (embus - debus) deals with people who may want to engage with me as I do so, regardless of their motivation(s) and intent towards me. I don’t have individual and specific routines, that I vary between, as putting such variations into play, can put me at risk if I misjudge a situation; my general routine/method suffices. Routines also stop us from panicking and rushing things. This doesn’t mean steps and stages don’t have to be enacted quickly, but each needs to be completed, in order e.g. when I’m dealing with unknown individuals, I step back controlling range, bring my right foot back, move offline, and bring my hands up etc. This doesn’t mean I’m assuming a De-escalation/Interview stance, as there are an infinite number of ways to position my hands in an unassuming and natural manner – I just want them up, in that initial moment. Context drives this action/response e.g. an unknown person who is at a private social function, is not the same as an unknown person at a public social function, etc., and so this routine is only applied where appropriate. I know there are some individuals out there who see themselves as Jason Bourne characters, where everybody is a potential danger who is out to get them and must be treated with the utmost suspicion, however such hyper-vigilance in most situations is completely unnecessary, and usually counter-productive where personal safety is concerned. Routines are what ground us, and prevent us, from turning small things into insurmountable ones. This is true in all aspects of life, not just personal safety. A lot of mental health issues, such as depression and dementia, can be aided by routine. Improving our levels of fitness, will only occur if we follow some sort of routine. Routines force us to do the important things we would otherwise neglect, and this is why they ae essential, with regard to self-protection and personal safety.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=406 Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=405 If the roots of mass-killings/active shooter incidents are biological, and/or psychological then to prevent such events we need to work at the micro-level, dealing with the individual – either testing and/or assessing them for warning signs — however if such incidents are the result of factors within the (potential) killer’s environment, then to address mass-killings, we need to affect societal change. Much is often made of mental illness, and the underlying biological causes, behind the motivation to kill e.g. the “holes” in Kip Kinkel’s brain which reduced his cognitive abilities and were a pre-indicator of Schizophrenia, or Charles Whitman’s brain tumor etc. or of psychological causes, such as depression and anxiety as in the case of Adam Lanza (whose DNA is being studied/analyzed to see if genetics – biology – provides an answer for mass killing, despite there being no direct relationship between genes and behaviors). However, most people who have mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, or suffer from depression don’t commit rampage killings, and whilst those who do are certainly not mentally healthy, not every killer has suffered from a diagnosable and identifiable mental illness, or psychological condition. Whilst, in individual cases, such factors have invariably played a part, they cannot fully explain the phenomena of mass-killings, and so if we are to look at the reasons behind these events, we must also take a look at the social and environmental factors that play a part, and consider how these might be addressed – and ask the difficult question of why this is a distinctly US problem; just as we must look at knife attacks in the UK, as that country’s particular problem etc. Yes, other countries have experienced rampage killings, but not to the same degree or commonality, as in the U.S., and it is too simplistic to reduce this reason to one of access to firearms: Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, yet has not experienced mass shootings to the same extent as the U.S. It is also worth noting that school shootings are markedly different to workplace shootings, in the demographics of those who commit them; rampage killings in educational settings are largely committed by the young, whilst those in the workplace are predominantly carried out by middle-aged men, etc. And so, whilst there may be factors that are common and shared, there may also be critical and distinct factors that need to be examined. The purpose of this article is to put aside the possible psychological and biological reasons, and look at some of the social factors that may be behind, or contribute to, mass shootings/killings. Actions are ultimately born out of fantasy, and few fantasies are truly original. The 1999 Columbine Massacre was originally intended to be a replication of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing; Klebold and Harris’s initial plan was to blow up the school canteen, and it was only when their bombs failed to detonate, that they engaged in a shooting spree. Their desire to replicate the event meant that they tried to schedule their bombing to be on the same date as McVeigh’s. In the 15 years after Columbine, estimates suggest that the massacre inspired, 21 copycat shootings, along with 53 plots that were thwarted (usually due to somebody being told about the killer’s plans and reporting them); in 14 cases, the shooters planned their massacres to take place on the anniversary of the Columbine Shootings – with 3 different shooters having made pilgrimages to the school, where Klebold and Harris committed their killing spree. For many, such as Alvaro Castillo, who convinced his mother to take him on a road trip to visit the site, and bought a black trench coat in Columbine, like the one that Harris wore, Klebold and Harris were heroes, to be admired. Their confused “message” and reasoning, was one that these copycat shooters and other disaffected individuals, were able to personalize, and apply to their own narratives; the social influence that the Columbine shooters – and other rampage killers have – shouldn’t be underestimated. Such contagion, requires transmission, to make such imitation possible, and Columbine occurred in the heyday of the 24-hour rolling News Network, making it a widely and repeatedly reported event/news story within the U.S. and demonstrated how two social outcasts could come to national – and global – prominence; unremarkable, and unknown in their own locale, they quickly became widely known outside of it. There is some debate about short-term, versus long-term contagion — some studies suggest that for the 13 days after a shooting, each event creates 0.33 further events – there is little doubt that each incident creates the inspiration, and the education, for future ones. There may also be a weaker link, surrounding prominent suicides, and mass killings, as around 30% of such incidents end in the killer(s) taking their own lives, or committing suicide/death by cop; and we know that the suicide rates go up when a prominent individual takes their own life. There is a type of ecological evolution, concerning active killer incidents, where shooters/killers learn from each other, and the responses of the security services; and may even change their tactics and plans based on the way they believe the media may report on them – this may be one reason why in many active killer scenarios an individual has their life spared e.g. Columbine, Standard Gravure, Virginia Tech etc. so that there is somebody who came face-to-face with the killer(s) and can report on the incident. A mass/rampage killing is not a private expression of rage, but a very public one, where the killer wants as many people as possible to know about their killing spree; entitlement is an emotion common to many killers. Mass killers see other mass killers as celebrities, whose actions should be emulated and taken to new heights. One of the changes since Columbine, which has been occurring steadily (with a few outliers), is the phenomena, known as the stopwatch of death. Whereas Klebold and Harris were leisurely in their killing, taking their time, and interacting with their victims (this can be heard on the 911 call made by Patty Nielsen who was hiding in the library), shooters since have been much more about getting on with the business of killing, and trying to get the highest death toll they can, in the shortest possible time. This, coupled with a change in first responder tactics, which by and large, involves the first person on the scene looking to engage with the killer, has meant that active shooters are killing more people in ever shorter time periods. They have also learnt about new responses that are taught to protect individuals, such as barricading themselves in rooms, rather than hiding under desks (Klebold and Harris knew the “traditional” lockdown response taught in their school, and knew exactly where to find their victims, when they entered the library), and may use tactics such as knocking on the door, and pretending to be somebody in need of help; or as in the Parkland Florida shooting, setting off the fire alarm, to get people out of classrooms, which could be barricaded, and into the corridors. Whilst there may be genetics, which cause character traits, that influence behaviors, and psychological conditions such as depression, which motivate people to kill, we must also look at the social factors, and the environment(s) in which such killers grow up and exist, as well as the way active shooters/killers are presented and reported on in the media; and look at whether we are inadvertently equating firearms with power and control, and sending out a message that could be wrongly interpreted, etc. There is not one single factor which has created the active shooter/killer phenomena in the U.S., and we should be looking at both the psychological and sociological reasons that bring someone to the point where they feel the need to kill en masse.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=405 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=404 To the untrained eye, Judo would seem to be a martial art that requires a lot of strength e.g. to pick someone up and throw them, means that at the very least, you must have enough power to be able to lift the other person’s weight. However, Judo and throwing is about the taking of balance, and isn’t about “lifting” – my twelve-year old who is half the weight of me can throw me with little effort, when he breaks my balance. This wasn’t always the case. When he first started learning Judo and hadn’t yet got the hang of balance-breaking, he would have to muscle his throws, and invariably he didn’t have the strength to do so successfully. We need skills to make techniques work, and this is something that often gets overlooked in training. Even the simplest of techniques, needs something behind it to work i.e. the technique can’t execute itself on its own behalf, etc. I’ve had people criticize a technique for not working, because they don’t initially have the skills and attributes to make it work; and rather than focus on developing these, they write the technique(s) off, and go looking for a better solution. In this article, I want to look at skills and attributes and how they relate to techniques. All techniques have failure points, and all techniques only work in the contexts they were designed to work in. When we look to evaluate a technique, context is key e.g. will the same technique work at all ranges, or are there those where it may break down. To claim that a particular technique or solution is universal, and applicable in every situation, is a gross error, and displays both a lack of real-world experience, as well as a limited imagination regarding violence. How well does a technique stand up at different ranges, or when space is limited? e.g. can you execute the same weapon disarm, whilst standing on an escalator, as when you are in open space, etc? If there are scenarios in which a technique may not work, this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad technique – often when I hear/see martial artists argue/discuss the effectiveness of a certain technique/solution, they are looking at the technique working or not working in very different contexts. Also, no technique is infallible, there are always responses that an assailant can make that can cause a technique to fail. I could go through any martial arts/self-defense book or DVD and go “what if”; and we need to look at these “what ifs” in context. In an active shooter context, it’s very likely that if you try to execute a disarm, they’ll pull a second weapon (this is something we have seen happen time and again), such a response isn’t so likely in a mugging/abduction – again, not to say it doesn’t happen. Obviously, we want to mitigate as many responses an attacker can potentially make, but we shouldn’t think that we could eliminate all of them. We are more likely to get a technique to work if we have the skills and attributes it requires to work. Without a degree of hand-speed, no weapon control or disarm will work; if our action is slower than our aggressor’s reaction, good luck controlling the weapon/arm in any way, shape, or form. In terms of skills, speed, decisiveness and commitment are perhaps the most important ones to have and develop, because without them, you will have little chance of dealing with an attacker’s responses and reactions. Some training partners will do everything to make their partner fail, and it’s easy to make a technique fail when you’re expecting it, and you know what the other person will do; there’s a huge difference between genuinely “testing” something, factoring in elements of surprise, decision-making on the attacker’s behalf, etc., and just finding ways to get it not to work. Perhaps one of the most common arguments people make against techniques, is the argument that it relies on strength, and if there was a significant strength differential it wouldn’t work. Firstly, strength does have an effect on almost every technique; the bigger, stronger more powerful an individual is, the harder a time you’re likely to have in dealing with them – there’s a reason I lift weights, I’m not a bodybuilder trying to look good, I’m developing and building functional strength because it affords me an advantage. However, I also do speed training, because I recognize that almost always speed will trump strength; the two together offer me a greater advantage than either one alone. If you weigh 120 lbs. and are concerned about how to deal with a 200 lb. person i.e. overcome their size/strength attribute(s), you have several options. One would be to try and pack on 80 lbs., so that you are now the same weight, the other would be to develop the skills that will negate the other person’s size advantage; get faster than them, develop your aggression, learn to take balance, etc. When I was a competitive Judoka, I didn’t just practice more Judo, to get better, I did footwork and agility drills, I worked on my co-ordination, I increased my fitness – all of this helped me to throw better; but it takes additional time, to your practice-of-techniques time (or a better balance of time) and many people lack the commitment to do this. Having to deal with real-world violence, that involves committed and seasoned aggressors, means that you can’t just rely on techniques, you need skills and abilities. Throwing the most technical punch against pads in a gym, in a controlled environment, is different to throwing the same punch in a real life altercation; under stress and duress, I’ve seen very technical individuals – who were good in sparring – start to throw wild punches as they start to succumb to panic. Coping with adrenaline, and managing fear, are very necessary skills, that need to be practiced and developed, in order to get any technique to work. If we are training to deal with real-world confrontations, we need to look at ourselves as athletes, and understand what skills we need to get our techniques and solutions to work and train and develop these, as well.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=404 Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=403 The “fight or flight” response is perhaps one of the most quoted pieces of “science”, in self-protection and self-defense circles, however most of the academic/scientific studies, concerning this response – along with freezing – have been conducted in animal populations rather than humans, and have largely involved inter-species conflicts rather than intra-species ones e.g. a big cat, attacking a flock of flamingoes, rather than flamingoes fighting with each other, etc. Whilst, we may share 98% of our DNA, with our next closest species the Bonobos, we are also very distinct from them, both in our social organization, and our communication. This leads to the potential pitfall, that we might try to understand and make sense of human conflict – along with its accompanying physiological effects – from the perspective of animals, which we may have less in common with, from a behavioral standpoint. In this article I want to look at the “fight or flight” response (and other associated responses) from a purely human perspective, considering other responses we engage in when threatened by someone, such as negotiating, submitting, ignoring, posturing, etc. Language, and the creation of artificial social structures, has given us both a richer means of communication, and a more abstract set of rules, and conditions to work within. One of the main differences between humans and other animals, is our ability to consciously interpret our emotional state and ascribe language and terminology e.g. a dog can experience an emotional state, but can’t contemplate it, dissect it, or make sense of it as a feeling. Dogs experience happiness, but can’t recognize that they’re happy — they just are — whereas humans when happy can self-reflect on it. A dog, when it experiences a threat or a danger, acts upon its emotional response, because it doesn’t have to make sense of it, in the same way that humans do. We have the ability to recognize at the conscious level what is happening to us. A dog, when it’s being chased by a bear, doesn’t ask any questions about what is happening to it, it just runs – that’s what its instincts tell it to do, and it doesn’t have any doubts about following them – humans, on the other hand, when running, will be trying to interpret their emotional state, and rationalize what is happening to them; this makes sense, as we lack many of the athletic advantages of the dog, and use our creativity and ingenuity to help get us out of trouble. Our flight response is to buy us time to think, and is instinctual, rather than instinctive: the dog has only two choices in how to respond, whilst we have others e.g. we can start losing/dropping clothes in the hope that it stops to examine them, etc. Our adrenal response may alert us to danger, but it doesn’t necessarily remove us from it, in the same way that it does the dog; or cause us to move straight into fight mode – we have to, in almost all cases, interpret our state of fear and decide to act upon it (experience and training reduces this time). Freezing for animals, being hunted by predators who rely on identifying prey by movement, makes a lot of sense – many people have seen the BBC footage of the baby iguana being chased by snakes, who initially froze to prevent being identified. However, in a social setting, in a dispute between two people, this response doesn’t seem to provide many – if any – benefits. That said, there is a benefit in social settings of not acting immediately and taking a moment to establish what the conflict is about. Unfortunately, if we don’t have a script to start implementing (like the dog’s simple hard-wired script to start running), it’s likely that we’ll remain frozen. Just as animals have hard-wired responses, we need pre-built social responses and scripts to implement; these aren’t hard-wired and transmitted via our DNA but are learnt through experience(s) – this is also true for animals which roleplay when young, learning how to posture, submit and act in play fights and conflicts; even the alpha/dominant puppy within a litter, will roleplay with others in order to learn how to act/play submissively, because they know there’s a good chance that at some point they’ll meet a dog who is higher up in the pecking order than they are, and they’ll need to have practiced — have a script of — how to respond in such a situation. The Fight-Flight response may be useful when attacked by another species, but it’s not so useful in resolving conflict within a species. Here we, and to a certain extent, other animals must learn the scripts to implement. Freezing may give us the chance to implement an appropriate script, but if we don’t have one ready to go, we may remain stuck in this state. Not knowing what to do holds us in the freeze state. One of the issues that we face is that our social conflicts are often more complex and nuanced than those which animals face, as ego is involved; a dog doesn’t have the awareness to concern itself what other dogs may think about its actions and behaviors – securing its place on a pecking order in this context isn’t dependent on ego; dogs don’t suffer from social awkwardness. Unfortunately, humans do, and this can be our undoing, because we may know what we should do, such as setting a boundary, but don’t do it because of the embarrassment it may cause us; we perpetuate our own freeze state by not implementing the script we know we should. If somebody makes an inappropriate comment, or touches us inappropriately, we may become adrenalized, and incensed, but usually no fight or flight response is triggered, especially if the social context is one where everybody is laughing and having a good time, such as at a party, etc. If we haven’t practiced and rehearsed what to do and how to behave/respond then it is likely we’ll do nothing, other than remain frozen. When I first started working door security, aged 18, I often found that I didn’t know what to say to people, and found myself always resorting to a level of verbal enforcement, that wasn’t necessary. Over time I learned to deflect conversations, and take them in different directions, building on previous “scripts” that had proven successful.  Recent studies have shown that our emotions are malleable and flexible, rather than fixed and concrete; this has implications for the “Fight/Flight” response, especially when we look at the contexts within which aggression is experienced i.e. most situations are not going to be so extreme, where these are the only options available to us, rather they are those at the end of a very long spectrum of potential responses. Whereas we might be “hard-wired” to respond at these extreme ends of the spectrum, we are not for many of those in-between, and these — largely social ones — are the ones we need to learn how to respond to, by creating scripts that we can run when we find ourselves in such situations – this is one way in which we learn to educate our fear emotion.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=403 Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=402 Detecting violence in social settings can sometimes see us walking a very thin line: we don’t want to escalate a situation where there may not be any actual harmful intent, and at the same time we don’t want to find ourselves failing to react and respond because we’ve discounted or denied a threat e.g. is somebody simply posturing in order to impress a third-party, but aren’t looking to go beyond this, or are they setting themselves up physically and emotionally to launch an attack/assault, etc? If we act too submissively, or try to deal with them rationally, are they going to interpret this as weakness? Or, if we try to enforce a boundary are they going to interpret this as us posturing to them, and is this going to escalate things? If we spend too long trying to answer these questions, because we get caught in a decision loop, we may find that the other party has already moved things along and is in the process of making their attack, before we can reach decision. Being able to quickly assess a person’s real intent towards us, means that we will have the time to put our strategies into action before they can act against us; which may involve making a pre-emptive strike (if somebody is going to be throwing the first punch/strike, it should be us, rather than the other person — I have written in other articles about how to set the conditions so that you are legally entitled to do this). One of the things I hear a lot when people have been attacked during some form of verbal exchange is that they knew the other person was going to do it; and when recalling this, they are usually baffled and confused that they didn’t do something. Our fear system will often “instruct” us not to do anything to change a situation if we’re not experiencing pain in that moment i.e. we psychologically freeze, and although we know pain might be coming somewhere down the line, at least we’re not experiencing it now. One of the things that can help us over come this is to recognize our own body-language, and interpret what it is telling us, rather than simply try to rationally work out what is happening in the situation. Emotional responses are constructed and contextual. Our traditional understanding of emotional responses is that they’re fixed and set e.g. we smile when we’re happy, we grimace when we’re angry, etc. Paul Ekman did several anthropological studies in the 1960’s and 1970’s, which suggested that such facial expressions are universal across all cultures, and that they can be globally recognized and interpreted, without any context. However recent findings suggest that this may not be the case, and that emotions are constructed within context. If you think about the typical soccer player, who has just scored a goal, and look at their facial expression as they celebrate, although they are in a euphoric mood, if you isolated their face you’d think they were extremely angry, aggressive and violent; it’s only the context of the situation that lets you know that they’re actually extremely happy. Equally, you may find yourself smiling (something associated with happiness), when you’re scared and nervous; your response is based on the context of the situation. Many people will misinterpret their own physical responses, and body language, when it’s telling them that they are in danger. If you find yourself making an “inappropriate” response in an aggressive situation – smiling, nervous laughter, dark humor etc. - it’s a good sign that the danger’s real. Being able to interpret what your fear system is telling you, will help you interpret whether a threat is real or not, and prevent you getting stuck in a state of denial. When I first started working on the door, I searched out everything I could about warning signs and pre-violence indicators, etc. The “experts” would talk about physiological changes to look for, such as a person’s face becoming paler, as blood was moved to the larger muscle groups as part of the fight or flight response, etc. — something which is extremely difficult to pick up on when working in low or artificial light. Great in theory, pretty useless in practice. Also, considering the speed at which real-life violence happens in such settings, it’s not an indicator that is immediately apparent i.e. you have to know what their color was before the blood started to drain, and monitor their complexion as it’s happening. I’ve always found it much easier to detect harmful intent verbally, than through such physiological changes. Periods of silence in a conversation, are a good indicator that somebody is considering actual violence. Normal conversations don’t really include these gaps, aggressive conversations do, even when conducted in a seemingly polite and non-threatening way. Both parties require and use these gaps to interpret the developing situation, and let their decision-making processes decide how to precede. This is one of the warning signs I take most seriously when it’s not yet evident if the person I’m dealing with is actually considering becoming more openly aggressive and possibly violent. Obviously, as I’m seeing how the situation develops, I’m controlling the space between us, and positioning myself in a better position to respond – things I’ve written about before. By asking questions of the other person, I can keep the conversation moving, and monitor their speech pattern for these relatively long pauses, and also to see if they’re actually listening to what I’m saying i.e. if they’re not really responding, then then they have an agenda that they’re working to. When it goes silent for a long time and I see their body position shift – they shift weight to their rear leg, and look away, etc. — I can be pretty sure that their next response will be a physical one.    Sometimes the actions and behaviors of an individual, are more overtly aggressive e.g. they have picked us as a target, to demonstrate that they are a few places above us in the pecking order, to satisfy their own ego, and perhaps play to the crowd, or because they do want to physically harm us, etc. In these situations, I base my decisions on their movement. In all of these situations, I want to step back. I do so for two reasons, one to give myself more time to respond, and also to satisfy the legal conditions and requirements for assault; if the person is acting aggressively, making threats to my safety, and moves to a position where they can cause me physical harm, then I’m being assaulted and have the right to defend myself (under US/UK law) – my first choice being in a state that allows me to carry OC/Pepper spray, is to spray them (there are a lot of good use of force reasons why this is preferable to striking/punching), my second choice is to go hands-on, in a way that creates for me a disengagement opportunity, such as a quick hand in the face, allowing me to stun-and-run, etc. As I step back, I’m running through my de-escalation process e.g. asking them what I can do to sort this situation out, etc., and judging from their response(s) if they have enough mental bandwidth to consider alternatives to violence. However, if they don’t then I’m looking to be the first one to go physical in some way. If they were only joking around, posturing for their ego or engaging in horse-play, bad luck for them; they committed an assault, and I have the right to defend myself with an appropriate level of force. Such overt displays of aggression should be treated as real and dealt with accordingly, regardless of the individual’s actual motivation(s). Working out whether somebody has actual harmful/violent intent towards us, isn’t always obvious, and we need to be able to both understand and discern our own responses in a situation, as well as identify the actions and behaviors of the individual(s) we are dealing with; both through their conversation, and their physical actions. There is always the risk of over-thinking, as to who and what we are dealing with, and this can see us getting caught in a decision-loop where we run out of time, considering alternative options. When we recognize the warning signs, we need to be decisive and act.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=402 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=401 I have written a fair bit about risk (defined as the intersection of assets, threats and vulnerabilities) and how to manage/mitigate it, however most of this has been based on an interpretation of past events, where we have past behaviors, and actions – both from our own experiences, and those of others — to guide us in what we should expect in the future, and how we should respond to it. Such a methodology works well where risks are routine, and low-level. For example, we have a wealth of information concerning how burglaries and muggings are committed, and the preventative measures we can take to reduce our vulnerabilities in order to protect ourselves and our assets, however we have less information to work with, when we are looking at the best way to respond to active shooter/killer incidents, acts of terrorism, etc., which occur less frequently; and sometimes past experiences of how to respond in an emergency can misguide us. On 9/11, when the planes hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, many people — unaware of what had actually happened — started to move up the stairs to get to the roof, rather than going down towards the ground level. The reason for this was that several people had been airlifted from the roof after the 1993 truck bombing in the basement of the building, and were using this as a point of reference as to how they should respond in this moment (this was an option that was attempted on 9/11, but the ferocity of the fires and the amount of smoke prevented it from happening). In such high-risk and rare situations, it is important that any response gets it right the first time, however learning from experiences is not always an option. In this article, I want to look at some of the modelling methods we use to formulate Emergency Operations Plans (EOP), that can guide us on how to react and respond when we experience these types of uncommon, but high-risk events. Drills and physical exercises are one way to train and develop responses, however when we are talking about large scale institutions, these can be costly, difficult to co-ordinate or even find the time to do; they may also be extremely disruptive to the organizations day-to-day business e.g. active shooter training in a hospital or healthcare setting, that involves the evacuation of a ward or intensive care unit, may put actual patients’ lives at risk. There may also be kick-back to this type of training from schools, which either believe that this type of training would be traumatic to students – there are of course ways to mitigate this – or find that they are unable to get parental consent for a large majority of students. I can’t stress enough the value of such drills and exercises for perfecting EOP’s and providing a dynamic and kinetic education as to the effectiveness of a plan, however there are also drawbacks to such exercises; if in the review stage it is found that the plan has to be changed i.e. those taking part have just been educated in an outdated response model. If such drilling occurs infrequently, it may be that the “new” revised plan isn’t practiced before an actual event occurs, and so those actors in a situation revert back to something that they have experienced, which may put them in danger; in a similar way to those who tried to get to the rooftop of the Twin Towers, believing that they’d be air-lifted to safety. One way to avoid these problems is to engage in Prospective Hazard Analysis (PHA). With PHA, there is an assessment of all of the things that could go wrong, so all of the potential problems that could be faced, are dealt with and ironed out, so that an EOP can be shown to be proven to be effective. There are many different PHA methods and approaches that are available, such as SWIFT (Structured What-If Technique), FMEA (Failure Mode and Effective Analysis), and HEART (Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique) etc. however, a common component that they all share, is the identification, and likelihood of hazards, and recognizing deviations that could occur, resulting in further hazards e.g. a hazard, could be an active shooter/killer, and a deviation could be that somebody who has identified the killer in a school, office or university panics and forgets to notify the person who is in charge of making the announcement over the public address system (issuing the code green warning), to inform everybody in the building of the presence of a shooter – the resulting hazard is that a mobile shooter is able to find more unprepared potential victims. This deviation can be mitigated against with more training, and the stressing of the importance of informing those in charge of the PA system. Although most Prospective Hazard Analysis, is done at the macro/organizational level, it can also be done at the micro/personal level. This is something I do with clients when taking them through Travel Security basics, such as how to develop an EOP for dealing with a fire in a hotel when abroad. Obviously, the guts of such a plan is to exit the building by making it to a fire-escape, however there can be deviations to this, such as what to do if the fire exit is blocked by too many people trying to evacuate e.g. fire regulations in a foreign country may allow for major exits to have their doors open inwards, meaning large crowds pushing against each other to escape may push against the door preventing it from opening, etc. With some foresight and planning, this risk can be controlled, and a strategy devised for dealing with it i.e. having an awareness of another exit route that although may be less direct, will likely be less trafficked, etc. Although staying in the penthouse may seem luxurious, it obviously lengthens the time it will take you to exit a building in the event of an emergency – the fire plans of the World Trade Center, looked at it taking a minute for a person to clear each floor (something that turned out to be wildly optimistic, with the number of people trying to exit), so if you were on the 110th floor it would take you nearly 2 hours to exit the building in the event of an emergency. It’s also worth noting that over a certain number of stories, no fire ladder, etc. will be able to reach you. Although an organization may have implemented an EOP, it’s worth recognizing its limits and failures, and deviations that might not have been considered e.g. such as the length of time it takes to evacuate a building — if you are a frequent traveler who stays in a lot of hotels, purchase a fire hood/smoke mask, and travel with a flashlight (the electricity may go out in a fire); the mask/hood should give you 50-60 minutes of breathable air, protecting you against smoke inhalation and falling hot ash. If you find yourself on one of the upper floors (you may have asked for one lower down, but none was available), the extra time this gives you to evacuate may be the difference between life and death. In all areas of our life we should have plans of what to do when faced with different types of emergencies, and we should be regularly testing them.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=401 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=400 Two of my core beliefs regarding self-defense training, for reality-based fighting, are that techniques don’t really exist, and that if something hasn’t been experienced – even if it is “known” – it won’t be implemented. These two ideas are linked, and have a basis, in David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory. A Psychologist, greatly influenced by the work(s) of Jean Piaget, who is best known for his work studying the ways in which children learn, and experience things; he lays out a natural learning process, that can be replicated in the way that we teach and train self-defense. In this article, I want to look at Kolb’s theory, and how it can be applied to help us be better prepared for dealing with real-life altercations, and what it may mean for the way we behave, operate and implement the techniques and solutions we have learnt. There is a big difference between education and demonstration ­– as self-defense instructors we should understand the most effective ways to teach, and as students (which we all are), the best ways to learn. Kolb saw experience, and the way it translates to knowledge/understanding as a cyclical process, that occurs over time i.e. we experience something, and then over time we apply certain processes to that experience to develop an understanding of what actually happened, and how we might respond to a similar situation in the future. This is not merely a cognitive/mental process, but one that considers all the components of an incident/experience, such as the environment, our emotions at the time, etc. that all go to affect the learning process, and the way we respond to future events. Kolb identifies two ways in which we initially learn (Concrete Experience(s) and Abstract Conceptualization), and two ways in which we transform that learning (Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation), into knowledge and understanding; that we can apply to future events. These four methods can be viewed as cyclical, but they don’t have to be. From a cyclical perspective the first stage is that of the “Concrete Experience”, which involves participating in the experience. From a training perspective, this may involve somebody throwing a punch at you for example, however to have a complete experience, this shouldn’t be a sterile or clinical one, as context is important e.g. a “storyline” should be created, which might involve somebody shouting at you for spilling a drink over them, then approaching you, maybe pushing you, and then throwing the punch, etc. If this could be done in the actual setting, then the environment in which it was experienced, would be added to the experience, and if the person experiencing the attack, could be adrenalized beforehand, they would have an emotional reference point, that would add to it as well. Anyone who has conducted, or been part of a scenario-based training exercise, will know that it finishes with a debrief, involving a dissection of what occurred and what could possibly have been done differently or better, etc. In Kolb’s model/theory, this would represent the “Reflective Observation” phase, where the individual consciously looks back and reflects on their “experience” in order to make sense of it. One of the complexities in this phase of learning, is that when people are adrenalized and put under stress and duress, their memories of what occurred can be suspect. The brain abhors a vacuum, and if certain parts of the experience don’t add up, and/or can’t be tied together, the brain will create/invent an event so that the complete experience is able to make sense. Professionally, I’ve remembered incidents incorrectly, with CCTV footage correcting my false and created memories – this wasn’t a deliberate or conscious recreation of what happened, rather there were things that I wasn’t aware of, that were needed for everything to make sense of, and my brain filled in the gaps. Anyone who has experience dealing with witnesses in a legal setting can attest to how unreliable a person’s memory can be. If you do conduct any high stress, scenario-based training, my advice is to film it, so that a person’s reflection of an experience can be a correct one. If you are reflecting on an actual experience, trying to re-visualize it can be helpful, so you have something based in reality to reflect on. In the “Abstract Conceptualization” phase, the individual tries to build a theory or model out of their experience e.g. when somebody moves towards me in a certain way that reflects a certain level of aggression, if they push me, the push will be followed by a punch, etc. This is where we start thinking about what happened, in a more practical way i.e. we look at the broader picture of our experience, and try and pick out what the salient and most important points are, which will then lead us into the “Active Experimentation” phase, where we plan what to do in the future, should the same thing, or something similar happen again e.g. we might look at how to better position ourselves in relation to our attacker, how to prevent or recover from a push etc. With this “new learning”, we could experience the training situation again, and create another “concrete experience”, that we repeat the process with, actively experimenting with new and more effective solutions, based on our experiences. Often be repeating such training experiences, with things happening slightly differently each time, we start to improvise solutions based on components of techniques, rather than simply performing or replicating them; and this is one reason why I don’t believe in techniques, as techniques, but as teaching tools that allow us to improvise and respond in the moment i.e. our solutions become more abstract, and experimental, rather than something rigid and fixed; it should be noted that experimental should not be confused with completely untested, whilst recognizing that in every new experience and situation you face, your techniques are untested in those particular ones. There is a difference between education and instruction, which are both different to performance and demonstration. If we practice self-defense techniques and solutions, without thinking about them, we are simply following instructions; a useful method if you are baking a cake, as all of the variables are fixed in relation to each other. However, in dynamic real-life violent situations, all the parts are moving, and that’s why we are required to educate ourselves, rather than simply follow the “instructions” we have been given. Such education requires experience, reflection and abstraction on such experiences, and then experimentation concerning them. If we are blindly following somebody else’s instructions, rather than educating ourselves according to our experiences, we are likely to find our ability to handle a real-life confrontation lacking.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=400 Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=399 For non-professionals engaged in a conflict, physical engagement has one purpose: to facilitate and create an opportunity to disengage i.e. to get away. This may involve a distracting strike (stun and run) or it could see you rendering the other person unconscious, but the purpose of each of these actions is to create an opportunity to escape. This is something that needs to be practiced when training i.e. after the completion of a technique, disengagement needs to be rehearsed – because we will replicate our training in real-life, and if this doesn’t include us moving away after dealing with an attack, the chances are, we won’t; and if our environment has been compromised we should be looking to exit it. This is the difference between practicing techniques and enacting solutions e.g. blocking, trapping, and then striking an assailant armed with a knife is a “technique”, whilst backing away, as you scan the environment, etc. is enacting a solution. The only reason you are implementing the technique is to create the opportunity for you to exit the situation. When dealing with real-world violence, ego has to be checked; your job is not to teach the other person a lesson, dispense righteous justice, show your dominance and prowess, etc. — it is to come away unharmed (or with the fewest possible injuries). Striking, is not to “punish” but to distract and/or debilitate an assailant, so you can get away. If you have broader goals than surviving – and/or helping others survive - when attacked, enroll yourself in a community program or similar, so you can make a difference. The non-professional e.g. somebody who isn’t performing a security role, or similar, should only have one goal when attacked, and that is to disengage and get away; using a level of force that is necessary to do so. I have written about the myth of the, “better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6” line for self-defense, which suggests there are only two outcomes to violent interactions: your death, or rendering your assailant unconscious – because if you don’t, you never know what could happen, and it could result in your death, etc. There are, however, strategies that can help you stay on the right side of the law, and not have either criminal and/or civil charges brought against you for excessive force, and one is to disengage at the earliest – safe – opportunity to do so. If an opportunity to separate from an attacker is presented e.g. their legs buckle, and they start to drop to the floor, etc., and I don’t take that opportunity, I have to be prepared to say why I didn’t, if I end up being “tried by 12”. Listing all the “what if’s” that often get brought up in self-defense circles, such as your concern that they might have had a knife, a gun or another weapon, and that you didn’t want to give them the opportunity to draw it, probably isn’t going to cut it legally, unless you can show that you had some prior knowledge that they were carrying a weapon, etc. However, if your explanation was that you delivered strikes and punches to create a disengagement opportunity, then barring extreme size, weight, and strength differences, it will be hard for somebody to argue that you used excessive force. The longer a fight goes on, the more likely you are to sustain injuries i.e. if you’re not there, you can’t get hurt. I remember watching CCTV footage of a fight in a bathroom, of a club I worked at. It started with one guy pounding another guy, who ended up covering and crouching between two urinals. Instead of walking away and accepting that he’d proved his point, his dominance or whatever his motivation was, he continued his beat down of the other person. After a point, the person who was getting punched realized that this wasn’t going to stop (it’s also worth noting that in these sustained attacks, the marginal effect of each subsequent punch often starts to diminish as the person being attacked, begins to adjust and adapt to the attacks e.g. they cover their face and take the blows on less sensitive parts of their body). Once they realized that this guy wasn’t going to pull away, they knew they had only one option and that was to fight back; and they weren’t fighting to punish someone, they were fighting to survive. With that realization, the tables turned, and the roles were reversed — the situation ended with the original attacker unconscious on the bathroom floor. If the person being subjected to the beat-down had, had a knife, things could have ended much worse for them – they may not have initially had an opportunity to pull it, but as the fight went on, that opportunity was presented to them. Another consideration is that of third parties; if the person who was being subjected to the beating, had friends who came looking for them, then the person attacking them, would suddenly be in a multiple attacker scenario. The longer you stay engaged in a confrontation, the more likely it is that things will start to go against you. At some point in a fight, you will need to disengage, and if it’s not at the first, safe available opportunity, which opportunity is it? The second? The third? The fourth? If your goal is to punish the other person and teach them a lesson, how do you know when they’ve learnt it, or that you’ve done enough? I see a lot of video clips, that finish with an attacker on the floor, and a stomp kick to the head being delivered. If the person is on the floor, no longer a visible threat to you, and unable to defend themselves, whilst you have a clear exit opportunity, you should be prepared for the legal consequences of such an action – and all the costs associated with it. The safest strategy from both a physical safety and legal perspective, is to disengage at the first opportunity possible, and to only what is necessary to create this opportunity; which includes acting decisively with extreme aggression in the first moments.               https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=399 Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=398 I grew up with Judo - my Dad practiced Judo; his nickname in the shipyard where he worked was “Judo”, and when his younger brother started working there, he became known as “Young Judo” – I’ve practiced it since I was eight, and my son now trains in the art; I love Judo. Judo is a linear art, in that it develops skills and abilities in one direction only, like boxing; Judokas are good at grappling and boxers are good at punching, etc. Striking has been removed from Judo (accept in the Katas), so that the focus is on grappling, and boxers don’t train grappling, so they can focus on punching, etc. From an overall fighting perspective, this means both groups have areas of combat that they are not skilled in, and that their systems are not designed to deal with – this became apparent in the early days of the UFC, where certain arts and systems were shown to be lacking in particular dimensions of combat. Much as I would love for Judo to be a universal system, where throwing could be used to deal with all types and manner of attacks (armed and unarmed), this isn’t the case – it’s one of the reasons I started training in Krav Maga e.g. I needed to broaden out my skill set. This became apparent to me when I first started working on the door, and had to deal with people who were predominantly strikers and punchers, because until the distance closed, and I could get a hand/grip on people, it was impossible to throw them i.e. only Dirty Harry, Jason Bourne and John Wick, are able to catch punches and throw off them; if it was possible the MMA guys, who have the time to develop such skills and the financial incentives to do so, would have found a way; there are lots of throws and takedowns in MMA, but not from catching punches. However, there are still those in the martial arts community who propose that catching punches and throwing off them is advisable. In this article, I want to look at the very limited situations when throwing against a striker’s punch(es) may be possible, and why it’s not my first go-to. There are three phases to a throw: Kuzushi (the breaking of balance), Tsukuri (fitting/getting in to place/position), and Kake (the final execution of the throw). All of these have to be present and must start with the breaking of balance. Although many untrained punchers i.e. your average joe on the street throwing a punch, lacks stability when they strike, they remain balanced; they don’t fall over in the process. This means that to throw somebody who is punching, you would have to first take their balance. In a grappling scenario where you are tied up with the person, this is relatively easy ‑ you can pull and push them. However, if somebody was punching you, the only thing you'd be theoretically able to get hold of would be the punching arm; you won't be able to get to the body because the striking arm would be blocking your access – you could perhaps change level and drop under the arm to perform a takedown, but that's a whole other issue, and isn't what's being discussed here.  Grabbing a moving arm, that is punching at speed, and will be quickly recoiling is virtually impossible; think about trying to grab a boxer’s jab. If somebody is bowling into you drunk, and swinging wild punches at you, as they move into a clinch, you maybe have a chance to throw them as they move into grappling range, but here you’re not throwing off of a punch, you’re throwing somebody who is quickly and rapidly moving towards you; and you can exploit their forward movement to take their balance – not something I’d advocate, but a situation that you might be able to exploit with some kind of hip throw, etc. I have heard some people make the argument, that to deal with the speed and recoil of the punch – in order to execute a throw off it – the solution, is to make a simultaneous block and strike; the block to deal with the punch, and the simultaneous strike, to stop the attacker. The problem with this is the way that effective punches stop and/or create movement e.g. If I require forward movement and momentum to break an attacker’s balance, because I’m wanting to execute a hip throw (or similar), when I punch the person coming/punching towards me, my strike will move them backwards/away from me – I might be able to now throw in this direction e.g. using an O-Soto-Gari/Major Outer Reap etc. but I’d be having to chase after them to do so, as my strike will have moved them away from me; and from a practical point of view it’s probably more expedient to fill this gap with other strikes, than to go for the throw. If I step off-line to make my punch, I’ll also move the attacker away from me, and change the direction of their movements. To put it very, very simply, to throw somebody with a hip throw or similar, I need to pull them towards me, not push them away – and a successful punch is effectively the reverse of a pull. When you throw a punch, you are going to want it to deliver as much concussive force as possible, so trying to judge and limit the strike so it simply stops the person, for you then to be able to start their movement forward again by pulling them towards you makes no sense (and I question anybody’s ability - in a real-life confrontation - to make a correct judgment of the force required to accomplish this). I would love to have a proven way of consistently using an Ippon-Seio-Nage, or a hip throw off, off an attacker’s punch – as a Judoka it would please me immensely to be able to do this; I have nearly 40-years of Judo under my belt, so being able to intercept a punch, and execute a throw is more than an attractive idea for me. However, it would rely on luck and a perfect storm, on an attacker’s behalf, to make this happen, and so I have to recognize that throwing in this context isn’t a reliable option – there are many great applications for throwing in self-defense scenarios, but this simply isn’t one of them. I started working door, because all the doormen in my town trained at my Judo school, and although over the years many of them showed me how to get my dojo Judo to work in real fights, never did anyone teach me that I should try a hip throw or similar against a punch. Judo is a highly effective self-defense system/martial art, and with so many fights closing range quickly, knowing how to throw is an essential skill, but recognizing the context when this is applicable is essential.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=398 Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=397 Most violence and aggression that we face day-to-day is low-level. This doesn’t mean that such incidents can’t and won’t escalate, but on the whole, uncomfortable as they may be to experience, they are pretty benign e.g. people are more likely to experience aggressive, verbal confrontations than they are to experience physical ones – and most physical acts of aggression, at least initially, are relatively minor; moving/bumping/pushing into somebody, grabbing, finger-jabbing at the chest, etc. Obviously, such behaviors and actions aren’t insignificant, and can’t/shouldn’t be ignored – and when contact is made, legally constitute battery – but there may be more effective ways to deal with them, than to simply start swinging/punching back. There are also those who will use low-level surreptitious “attacks” to test our response(s). There was a common one in the North of England when I first started working door security, in which one group would approach another group, and in a seemingly friendly manner, ask them if they were having a good time, etc. One of them would then put their arm around a member of the other groups shoulders, and start telling him that he was his best friend, that it was great they were all having a good time, etc. It was a pure act of dominance, testing him and his friend’s response to the group’s seemingly friendly overtures. If the individual, asked for him to remove his arm or tried to remove it, he would become offended, and get aggressive, asking what his problem was, and demand that he buy him and his friends drinks as an apology. If he didn’t try to remove the arm, and/or nobody in the group seemed to want to make a response, they’d be judged as being submissive and confrontation-adverse, and be bullied/menaced into buying drinks for the other group. These are the type of situations where shouting “back off!”, or punching the other person in the face, may escalate things and make it worse, but at the same time there is a need to enforce our boundaries, and not set ourselves up as a target to be exploited further, etc. These are also the types of interactions where the other person(s) won’t just go away if you ignore them; they have to be dealt with. Whilst we may spend a lot of our practice time, learning how to defend against knife stabs, and shanks, how to punch with power, and/or escape from headlocks and holds, etc. little time is often devoted to dealing with these types of incidents; the ones which occur in those grey areas, where it’s not clear, what the other person or party wants from the interaction – and whether they are in fact acting aggressively, and/or in a way where violence is an inevitability for them. These are also the types of situations that it may not be possible for us to remove ourselves from; unfortunately, disengagement isn’t always an option. Do we teach and practice solutions to situations where an individual asks if we’re looking at them i.e. “Hey pal, are you looking at me?” You answer “no” and you’re a liar, which will become the next issue e.g. “Why are you lying to me?”. In response, you tell them you’re not, and suddenly you’re being guided down a twisting rabbit hole, you’ll never get out of. In any of these types of challenges, you have to own it very quickly, before you get owned. Yes, you probably were looking at them, as you don’t have your contact lenses in, and everything beyond 5 feet is just a blur, etc. None of these challenges are particularly sophisticated, but we need quick responses to them, because the individuals we are up against have a pre-written script they are working to; and we need our own, which interrupts and re-directs theirs. Being able to operate in the Pre-Conflict phase of an act of violence is something we need to train and practice. Sometimes a small, discrete shot of pain, delivered in a non-obvious manner, can accompany our verbal delivery; just to demonstrate that we are in possession of the skills to physically back ourselves up if necessary. One of the things I teach my students is how to remove another person’s hands from their body, when they are being touched, in a way that doesn’t draw a lot of attention to them and/or cause a scene, but causes a small shot of pain to the person who is responsible for the unwanted contact e.g. how to remove an unwanted hand from your leg, an arm that is around your shoulder etc. without causing a scene, but causing a small but noticeable amount of pain to the person engaged in the action – they are the only one aware of what is going on (any protest on their part would look unreasonable, and wouldn’t play well to any audience). Saying something polite and distracting as you do this, can help reinforce the physical point you are making e.g. I’ve removed “friendly” hands from my shoulder, whilst discretely inflicting pain, using lines such as, “Easy mate, I’m just recovering from a shoulder injury…” – delivered confidently whilst making eye contact.    A lot of confrontations are about shows of dominance, about testing the other party: do they have an effective response, are their boundaries clearly marked and something they will enforce, are they uncomfortable with confrontation – or do they seem experienced and seasoned? If we follow the scripts of others, we will be saying what they want us to say and playing the part(s) they assign us. If we can’t operate in this phase of violence, we have already lost, and our physical and technical competencies matter little. If you don’t have an answer to, “Are you looking at me?” or know how to remove an unwanted – but seemingly friendly – hand from your body, in a polite but forceful manner, there’s a type of aggression and violence that you will be unable to deal with, should it come knocking.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=397 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=396 I know a lot of people who have given pan-handlers who hassle them money, so that they can avoid an awkward situation; if somebody tells you that they need the money to by a train/bus ticket so that they can visit a sick or dying relative (I’ve lost track of the times I’ve heard this story both in the US and the UK), by not giving them something, you would either be calling them a liar, letting them know you don’t care enough about their situation to help them, or pretending that you don’t have any money on you (which may also be true) etc. None of these outcomes, puts you in a good light – if you care what other people think of you. Predators understand that most decent people, want to appear polite, and want to avoid socially awkward situations. I’ve also seen “professionals” fall foul of not wanting to make a scene, where the appropriate action was either to engage, or start laying down some pretty firm boundaries with the person they were dealing with e.g. stepping back, ordering the other person to step back, and show them their hands etc. Often, when dealing with potentially dangerous situations, we will be put in situations which are socially awkward, in which politeness needs to be put aside; and my belief is that conditioning for this needs to start at a young age. Sometimes we give out contradictory messages to our kids; as a parent I’m aware that I’ve done this on occasions. We teach our children at a young age not to talk to strangers, and then make them do it, when we are present – because we want them to be polite. Crossing guards, cashiers in shops, etc., will often ask our kids personal information, based on conversations we are having with them, and we will tell them to answer the “nice” man or lady, etc., because we want them to be polite. However, we should understand that in doing this, we may be creating socially awkward situations for our child to deal with a later date. If during a conversation with a school crossing guard, we make our child tell them something, because we want them to be polite – and then tell them that it was okay to talk to them because we were there – on a later occasion when they are a bit older and we are not there, is there an implied obligation to talk to that individual? Have we tacitly informed them that school crossing guards are “safe” strangers? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that all school crossing guards are pedophiles out to groom our kids, I’m merely illustrating how a desire for our kids to act and be seen as polite – and friendly (which may reduce our own awkwardness in a situation) – may send out a mixed message to our children e.g. when a stranger tries to engage our children in conversation, might it be better for us to instruct that person, that we are teaching them not to engage in conversation with people that they don’t know, and that they are not refusing to answer out of impoliteness, etc. Saying this in front of our child will teach them that the awkwardness of the situation is not to be avoided at all costs, and that their safety comes first. This is a lesson that will educate them far beyond this one incident. When teaching both adults and children I extend the definition of stranger, not to be someone who you don’t know, but someone (known or unknown), who you don’t know how they’ll act and behave in a particular situation. Often, we think we know someone because we’ve known them for a long time e.g. we may have worked with them for a number of years — however if we’ve never seen them outside of the workplace, we really only know how they’ll act and behave in this setting – with a couple of drinks in them, in a social setting, they may be a completely different person. Unfortunately, we tend to let our guard down with people we feel we are familiar with. One of the scenarios I preset when teaching our women’s self-defense program, is that of a partner’s best friend turning up at the house, at a time when he knows his friend is out, and the partner is alone; with some story – similar to that of the pan-handlers – as to why he needs to come in, i.e. borrowing a book, a set of tools, etc. that was meant to have been left out for him. It’s a socially awkward situation: the partner has met and spent time with him, when other people were present, but has never spent time alone with him. In reality, there may be no nefarious purpose, however at the same time there might be, and this is always the issue when considering personal safety i.e. should she let him in or not, etc. If she does, she creates a potential risk, if she doesn’t, she appears impolite, unhelpful, paranoid, unsympathetic, etc. and risks having this be how she is known and talked about in their circle of friends. It’s these types of socially awkward situations that predators use to gain access to us. There are of course other strategies that she could employ in such a situation, such as letting him in to get what he’s come for, whilst she goes out on an “errand”, etc. Whilst we want to be nice and polite, there are times where it could be our undoing.      Predators are skilled at finding the gaps in our boundaries, and exploiting the fact that we often don’t believe violence will happen to us – because historically, maybe it hasn’t e.g. there have been times we’ve let people into our house who we don’t really know, and perhaps nothing happened. We’ve all had the sensation that someone was following us, without any negative outcomes, etc. Oftentimes, we haven’t called people, actions or behaviors out, that could contain harmful intent, because it would be impolite and socially awkward to do so, and most times, nothing bad has happened; and nothing bad will happen until it does – and at the point, we will probably regret that we didn’t. I value politeness, but I also recognize how there may be those amongst us, who exploit it for their own purposes. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=396 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=395 Several weeks ago, I wrote an article on campus safety for young women preparing to go to college for the first time – and in preparation for a free annual campus safety seminar that my school puts on. The accompanying meme/picture came from a photo shoot, that we did awhile back, which was set at a college style party, and featured a female student in a crop-top (we asked her to bring the type of clothes she’d where to such a party). One notable self-defense instructor made a comment that she shouldn’t be “dressing that way”, and that she should, “show some decency in public” echoing, one of the most judgmental questions/comments leveled at victims of sexual assault and rape: “what were you wearing?” i.e. that victims of such assaults, somehow attract the attention of sexual predators because of what they wear and/or that men, who do not “normally” engage in predatory behavior are unable to control themselves sexually, when confronted by a woman exposing flesh (following this argument, beaches and swimming pools would perhaps be the most common locations for sexual assaults — which they aren’t…). Maybe naively, I’d thought that our industry had accepted that rape is primarily about power, anger and control, and not about sex – sex being the tool by which these elements are expressed; something that Dr. Nicholas Groth’s research in the 1970’s established. Research by Workman and Freeburg, and others, has shown that in certain populations, both men and women believe and judge victims of sexual assault to be in some way responsible, based on the clothing they are wearing. But if we examine the psychology of rape, clothing is rarely, if ever, a significant factor in victim selection; and we are doing a great disservice to women – in a multitude of ways — if we in the self-defense community are elevating it as a risk-factor. In this article, I’d like to examine how women’s self-defense programs may not accurately reflect reality, and how as instructors we may be guilty of promoting and reinforcing stereotypical ideas concerning rape and sexual assault. A number of studies have shown that women are most likely to be raped, by someone they know (often an ex-partner, or somebody they previously had an intimate relationship with), in their home or somebody else’s; and least likely to be successful in fighting off such attacks. It would appear that women have been more successful in defending themselves against stranger rapes, and when the assault took place outside (training not being a significant or notable factor). When we consider these facts, Rape and Sexual Assaults, become socially complex affairs, that involve familiar people in familiar locations – this is reflected in the reporting of rape to the Police, with research by De Mont et al, showing that women raped by a stranger are twice as likely to report the assault to Police, than those who are raped by someone they know. If we consider that most assaults take place in the home, clothing can be seen as an irrelevant factor, as most people dress casually in such settings. We know that rape is born out of masturbatory fantasies, and so when the assailant is someone that the person being victimized knows, it is likely that a certain degree of planning, preparation and orchestration is involved in the assault – the assailant will be able to create and determine the opportunity, etc. If our teaching/training doesn’t reflect this, and we simply create scenarios where a person is attacked, whilst walking alone (late at night), we are reinforcing the idea to our students that this is where/when they are most at risk, which isn’t the case. Obviously, solutions to such incidents need to be taught, but not at the exclusion of the more likely types of incidents that women may have to face. We may also have to convince our audience, that being assaulted in their home, by someone they know, is the most likely scenario they are going to face, as people have a natural denial when faced with statistics, believing that although they may be true, they don’t apply to themselves personally e.g. women in general are most likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know, in their home, but I’m most likely to be raped by a stranger in an outside location, etc. Presenting socially complex scenarios, in a way that doesn’t create paranoia e.g. a fear that every male friend and acquaintance is a potential rapist, etc., and is realistic, is challenging, but to do otherwise is to do a disservice to those who look on us as the experts, and those who should be in possession of the facts. It also requires us to become educated as to grooming processes, and how to identify them, rather than simply look at physical self-defense. Another factor that often gets brought up when looking at rape, is the relationship between alcohol and sexual assault; both from the perspective of the assailant, and the person they’ve victimized. One myth that many men who have been accused of rape try to cling to, is that they wouldn’t have committed a sexual assault unless drunk i.e. it was the alcohol that turned them into a sexual predator – it wasn’t their fault, it was the drink. This argument is no different to that of blaming the person victimized, because of the way she dressed e.g. it’s not the assailant’s fault, because they couldn’t help themselves. If you don’t have a desire to engage in forced/non-consensual sex, alcohol won’t change that – it may however embolden you to act if you do; Brock Turner was already a sexual predator, before he had his first drink at the party where he met the woman he raped. There is obviously a case to be made that alcohol consumption makes both genders more vulnerable, and easier to exploit, however most of the research done regarding the relationship between alcohol and rape, such as that by Harrington et al, has been conducted on University Campuses, and so can only really be used in relationship to this specific population, etc., who lead a specific lifestyle, and may use alcohol differently to the general population.      One major reason that we as educators need to be actively debunking these rape myths, is that we may be inadvertently causing women to see themselves as being responsible for their own assaults e.g. if we promote the myth that a woman wearing a short skirt is, “asking for it”, then if a woman is sexually assaulted when wearing such clothing, she may believe that she is in someway responsible or to blame, and feel that she will either not be believed (that somehow she was looking for this type of attention), or be judged for dressing that way, etc. If we reinforce the idea – by our training – that women aren’t, or are not likely to be assaulted by someone they know, it may be that we inadvertently communicate the message, that what happened doesn’t really constitute rape, etc. If we teach women’s self-defense and personal safety, we have a responsibility to make sure that our training reflects reality. If it doesn’t, then despite our best intentions, we may actually be part of the problem, rather than offering any solutions.             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=395 Mon, 03 Sep 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=394 When it comes to trying to control a limb and/or a weapon, large movements can be bad. Too much movement gives an assailant something significant to react and respond to; the smaller the movement, the less there is to react to. I see a lot of firearm controls/disarms where the person defending, moves the firearm as far away from themselves as possible, giving the person holding the weapon ample time – even if not trained in retention – to pull the weapon away. We are born with a natural grab reflex that sees us pull away from any grab, whether it’s to us, or something we’re holding; and the larger the movement we make, the more likely we are to stimulate it. Yes, we must move out of the line of fire, but at the same time we must recognize that it is a line, and being offline by inches, is as good as being offline by a foot, etc. The only difference is that if we move the weapon to such a degree, we are likely to be met with the assailant’s grab reflex, and find ourselves chasing the weapon, in order to retain/regain control of it. In certain instances, our movements will naturally shrink due to the effects of adrenaline/stress and duress, however we should recognize that in many instances (unless we are trying to generate power), it is often better to shrink and minimize our movements to prevent giving an attacker something major and significant to respond to. This often means rotating from the wrist, rather than the elbow. Often when people are making 360-defenses, against a knife shank/”Oriental” attack, and they go to control the knife, they make a large, swinging action from the elbow, to scoop up the attacker’s arm and bring it to their chest. This large movement not only gives an attacker something to respond to, it gives them the time and space to effectively react as well; a smaller movement utilizing the wrist, is much tighter, and brings the attacker’s forearm to the chest more quickly. The other advantage of starting the movement from the wrist rather than the elbow, is that the forearm, remains in a blocking position (at 90-degrees), until the controlling motion starts – this is extremely important, because the knife is likely to be recoiled in a tight/fast motion, which may mean that the control can only be executed on the 2nd or 3rd stab, etc. It would be nice to think that the knife can be controlled straight after the initial block is made, however at short range, and when taken by surprise, this is an extremely tall order – as is having the room to make a simultaneous strike; there are times when this is possible, but it is dependent on the context of the attack, and should not be thought of as a universal solution that can be replicated in every situation. Working from the wrist to control the arm, rather than the elbow, restricts the assailant’s ability to react, and denies them the room to respond. Smaller/tighter movements are also more effective when executing controls such as “cavaliers”, and similar. Large movements involving wrist controls, may appear to generate more power, but they also give more space and time for an assailant to relieve pressure, by rotating the shoulder and/or stepping around. Smaller/tighter movements deny such opportunities and put pressure on an assailant’s wrist/joint much quicker. Working in this way requires more precision and timing – which in turn requires more skill – however the result is a much more efficient and effective defense. In the early stages of learning, practicing large and expansively makes sense, however in looking at effectively controlling someone, movements need to be shrunk down, and applied much more tightly, giving an assailant no space or time to react. This doesn’t mean that a gross motor movement needs to be turned into a complex one, but rather that the size of the movement should be reduced. This takes training, and may at first appear subtle, however with practice, it becomes a default way of moving and operating. Tight movements are also best in dealing with wrist grabs. If a movement is large, it allows for an assailant to regrip, and reapply pressure in another direction, whereas with smaller movements, these opportunities are denied. This is also true when rotating a firearm, as part of a disarm; a small, tight, fast movement rotates the weapon within an assailant’s grip, making it very difficult for them to reapply pressure – using the barrel as a lever, this sharp rotation should mean that all of the mechanical advantages are with the person making the disarm; a larger, longer, and slower movement means that these advantages are negated. One of the most important instructions I was given, was that to make a realistic defense, you need to have a realistic attack – however this can be rare in training e.g. attackers don’t always recoil the knife realistically, they don’t pull back when the gun is grabbed, they don’t turn out of controls and locks, etc. If they did, we would soon realize that big movements, create big responses and reactions, and the way that we apply techniques isn’t effective – this doesn’t mean the technique doesn’t work, but rather that it needs to be applied using smaller and tighter movements. Large movements are great for initially learning and understanding a technique, but our goal should be to tighten everything up, and remove any unnecessary room and space, being much more efficient in our movements. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=394 Sun, 26 Aug 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=393 There are a lot of books, and articles, that exist about how to detect deception through a person’s body language i.e. the non-verbal cues they exhibit when lying. Whilst the information given is usually physiologically correct, it is often presented in simplistic terms e.g. if somebody looks up when asked a question they are lying etc. There is a tendency for the eyes to roll upwards when somebody is thinking about how to answer a question, if it requires significant cognitive processing. This could indicate deception i.e. the person is considering whether to lie or not, and what details the lie should contain etc. however if the question is complex and/or the answer needs to be detailed, there is more than a good chance that a truthful person will also look up as the consider and process their answer; so lie detection through non-verbal cues is not as simple as looking at a set of signals – the content and context of the question has to be taken into account as well, and most people lack the training and expertise to be able to bring all of these things together, when trying to detect deception. However, sometimes the general demeanor of a person may indicate that they are engaged in deception, and these nonverbal cues can be easier to spot. Perhaps one of the biggest issues in detecting deception through body language is that a base-line is required i.e. without knowing how a person acts and behaves when telling the truth, it’s extremely difficult to recognize when they’re lying. There’s also the issue that if we already believe that a person is lying, our confirmation biases, will interpret every movement they make as an indication of lying e.g. if they keep looking away when they talk, we will take this as a signal of deception, without realizing that this is what they do when they’re telling the truth; most experienced liars will know to make and maintain eye contact when they are lying, as they are aware that most people believe looking away is a signal of deception – it may even be that “good” liars will make more eye-contact than truth tellers etc. The importance of having that baseline is important to those who use polygraphs, which is why the first thing the operator does is to try and establish how the person being interviewed responds to truthful questions; as it is the physiological deviations from this base-line, which indicates deceit. If you were interviewing a baby-sitter or somebody you were looking to employ to look after your children, you could start the interview asking relatively benign and mundane questions (from a security perspective), and then lead up to “stressful” ones e.g. “Would you ever have any one over to the house when you are looking after the children?” and/or, “How do you deal with discipline issues when children misbehave?” etc. Having set a baseline, you could then see if their body-language changes when/as they answer these more “high cost” questions. Perhaps the easiest body-language change to identify when somebody is engaged in deception is “freezing” i.e. they go from talking with their hands and making large gestures, to shutting down most of their movement, even going so far as to sit on their hands, or clasp them, in order to stop them moving. There is believed to be a correlation in the evolution of our hands, with that of our speech; that as our thumbs and fingers became more articulate, so did our language – our ability to communicate verbally is linked to our ability to gesture with our hands. A classic therapist’s trick, when a patient is getting emotional when they speak, is to get them to sit on their hands; the result is that their speech starts to slow down and getting somebody to slow down when talking is one of the tools for de-escalating a situation. When I used to work with collection agencies, I’d advise those who worked on the phones to ask people if they could slow down when talking, if they were ever met with an angry tirade/response; if the person did they would start to interact in a much calmer and more measured manner. When a liar starts freezing up, they are concerned that they may talk too much, and say something that they don’t want to e.g. they might disclose elements of the truth or create a narrative that extends beyond their control. By restricting their hand gestures, they are less likely to over-talk, and this means they have less details to keep track of and manage. If a person goes from talking freely, and expressively, using their hands, to clasping them or limiting their movement in some way – they have deviated from their truthful baseline. What should always be remembered though is that they could be stressed by the question or the change in conversation, for other reasons than deception e.g. because the question brings up a bad memory or trauma etc. and this is why it is important not to put undue significance on a single response to a question, whilst considering whether the verbal cues (talked about in last week’s article), support the person’s change in demeanor. Detecting deception through physical cues, is interesting – and can be useful – but relying on them solely as a means of identifying whether a person is lying or not, is not advisable. This is especially true when we consider that people with anti-social/psychopathic personalities often give of different non-verbal cues; and as this section of the population actively seeks out opportunities to be deceptive, they may be the most common and significant liars we engage with. Statement analysis i.e. the content of what is said, if often more accurate at identifying deception, than how a person physically responds and behaves – especially if they can reduce their non-verbal cues to micro-expressions, which are difficult to detect in the moment – and so we should really look on the physical cues which may be present, as supporting the verbal cues which accompany deception.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=393 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=392 Human beings are not good at detecting deceit – we often think we are, however our ability to detect when somebody is lying is not much better than chance. Professionals, such as those working in law-enforcement have been found to be only slightly better at detecting deceit, when there is nothing evidential to suggest someone is lying (once there is evidence to suggest someone is hiding the truth, modern interviewing techniques are usually quite adept at uncovering further lies, etc). This inability puts us at a severe disadvantage when we are dealing with predatory individuals who may want to gain access to our assets, by conning their way into our homes, getting us to hand over personal/financial data, or gaining access to our children e.g. our kid’s soccer coach may be genuine in their desire to spend extra time coaching our “gifted” child, however they could also have nefarious purposes, and discerning the genuine motive behind their request can be difficult. This is especially true if this is the initial stage in their grooming process, when they will be at their most careful and conservative. There is much that has been written about the directions the eyes move in when a person is lying, and the physiological changes that the body goes through when involved in deceit, however most predators are aware of these, and know how to control them e.g. they know how to appear confident, make eye-contact and hold a gaze, etc., so unless the individual is extremely inexperienced and unskilled, it is unlikely that we will be able to detect deception this way. Looking at the content of their statements is often a more fruitful way of identifying when someone is lying or not, rather than relying on our ability to spot micro-expressions, and subtle physiological changes. When someone is thinking about committing a crime, they create two “narratives”; one is the Schema, which includes the plan of how to commit the crime, and the other is the Detection Apprehension Schema, which includes what to say if/when they are caught. It is this alternative narrative, which contains the lies. One of the benefits of having this pre-built story, is that it helps the individual bypass the delay which is needed to create the lie i.e. the decision to lie, and the construction of the lie itself. One of the supposedly classic signals of lying is hesitation and pausing, however an experienced liar, knows how to avoid engaging in such a behavior. That said, just because a skilled liar has constructed an alternative narrative, doesn’t mean that they will stick to it rigidly, most DAS (Detection Apprehension Schemas) are loose, allowing for wiggle room, if it starts to appear that a particular part of the schema isn’t that robust. If a person doesn’t seem particularly committed to their story, or parts of it, neither should you be. A good lie, to be successful, has to be flexible enough to be altered, changed or redirected, if it’s not achieving its goal. This is why it is good not to fill in the gaps when you have a suspicion that someone isn’t telling the truth i.e. you don’t want to help color and direct the DAS. This is a common method that stage psychics use to make a person believe that they are talking to a dead relative; with a few questions they get the person they have selected to create their own narrative/DAS, which they buy into. With many liars, they also come to believe their own DAS, which is why a lack of confidence cannot be used as a means of detecting deceit. Often the narratives, that those engaging in deceit create, are too rich in detail, and have too much information contained in them. Most truthful narratives don’t contain a lot of inter-linked facts and events. This is where verbal deceit, differs markedly from written deceit, where the storylines constructed are usually simpler and more basic. It seems as the Hebrew Bible puts it, that, “the liar extends their own testimony” i.e. they can’t stop adding to the story; they just don’t know where to stop. In this regard many lies/DAS are over-thought and designed to be able to withstand questioning from a multitude of directions. Someone who is telling the truth, is unlikely to consider all the possible avenues of questioning i.e. the truth isn’t bullet-proof in the same way a false narrative is. Gavin De Becker, sums it up nicely when he lists as one of the predatory warning signs: too much information. Though it’s almost impossible to discern in conversation, lies contain more nouns than truthful statements – if there are too many people, objects, places and things in someone’s statement/conversation, it may be time to start asking some questions, rather than simply accepting what’s being said. When questioned about their “story”, most liars will try to deflect rather than deny – only when directly accused will they deny, and then to a greater extent than those who are telling the truth. Even experienced liars try to avoid making outright lies; these are too easy to prove wrong. Often lies will include omissions, rather than absolute falsehoods, or will be based upon an element of the truth rather than a complete fiction. When questioned about these things, rather than directly answer them, they may try to answer the question with a question e.g. “Why would I want to do that?”, this could be coupled with some form of statement around the person’s dignity: “That’s preposterous…why would I want to do that?” i.e. making the question look like it calls into question the person’s character. By appearing offended, the person who is lying can make it look like you’re being ridiculous, and that you’ve crossed a line, that offends them. In many situations people will be too embarrassed to continue such a line of questioning, as it would be socially awkward to do so. They may add to both of these with some form of projection, to distance themselves from the lie e.g. “That’s preposterous…why would I want to do that...only a sick person would think something like that is acceptable.” Another method they may use is to turn the question into an accusation - “That’s preposterous…why would I want to do that...only a sick person would think something like that is acceptable…are you saying that you think I’d be capable of such a thing?” With such a projection the individual distances themselves even further, whilst at the same time implicitly demanding that proof is provided, to back up the implication of the question. Most people don’t possess evidence and facts to back up their line of questioning, and so end up backing down – after all it’s not fair to keep pursuing someone just based on a hunch.  It’s of little use to detect deception, unless you’re going to act on your discoveries, and many people lack the social confidence to do so e.g. if you suspect your brother-in-law is a pedophile, based on their statements, and responses to your questions (if you have the confidence to engage and question them on this), are you prepared to cut ties with them, never allow them in your house when your kids are home (and don’t fool yourself into thinking, that it’s ok as along as you are there)? It is one thing to engage in the detection of deceit, another to act on your findings; many people would rather discount, deny, and explain away what they have discovered than accept it as the truth.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=392 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=391 Some people have a perception about personal safety and self-defense, that it’s really just about common sense and a few simple moves, and most of it can be covered in an hour or a little more. I’ve been training in the martial arts, and systems of self-defense since I was eight, and recognize that I am far from the finished and complete product, both in my understanding of violence, and my physical capabilities to deal with it. Personally, I don’t believe there’s a point where I’ll ever stop learning, and adapting what I do e.g. as predatory individuals educate themselves to become more efficient and effective, so must I etc. However, all of this can be hard to convey – and is not really useful – to someone who is about to go travelling, or who is off to college, in a few days’ time, and realizes that in their logistical preparations, they may have neglected to consider their ability to identify threats and dangers, and/or physically deal with them. For these individuals, when it comes to physical self-defense, it’s good to have a simple plan to work to – this is also the same plan I advocate to my own students as a starting point for dealing with most physical altercations—and all it involves is getting a hand into your aggressor’s face; after that, it’s your training that kicks in – the longer you’ve trained, the more adaptable you will be, the more power you’ll be able to generate, the quicker you will recognize opportunities presented to you, etc. There are several reasons why as a starting movement, simply getting a hand into your attacker’s face, is a good way to go. Firstly, it’s simple and achievable. Many people over-estimate what they are capable of doing/achieving in a real-life altercation; they believe – and some instructors encourage this belief – that what they can do in a training environment can be perfectly replicated in real life, with little to no degradation. But however realistically you train, it will always fall a long way short of reality; especially if you are experiencing reality for the first time. A poorly delivered hand in the face, will get you much further than a poorly delivered punch, and so as an initial attack I favor it. One of the most important things you need to do at the very beginning of a fight is disrupt your assailant’s attacking ability – and gambling on your ability to deliver a one-punch concussive blow that both stops an attacker and renders him unconscious involves putting all your eggs in one basket; it’s a gamble that is unlikely to pay off as an initial move. Where possible, I advocate striking pre-emptively; if you set the conditions correctly i.e. you can prove you were justified in fearing for your safety, and your attacker was in a position to cause you harm – they don’t need to have actually touched you – then (in most Western countries) you have been assaulted and have the right to defend yourself. If you are standing in front of an aggressor, recognizing that you need to do something, you will have many peripheral doubts. You will question both your right to act, and your ability to do so e.g. you will question your power generation, the effectiveness of your striking, etc. and so having a simple, achievable, opening move—one that is very unlikely to go wrong—is a good way to start. During that initial disruptive strike – hand in the face – you can set yourself up to be in a better position to deliver concussive force, to rip, to gouge, etc. Another reason for making your initial strike/contact a hand in your attacker’s face, is that it can be delivered when standing, when seated, and when on the ground, etc., so it doesn’t matter what position you are in; unless your hands are trapped – and then other targets such as the groin are likely to be available to you. Rather than have different opening movements for when you are caught in different positions, which may take you time to recognize and realize, simply getting a hand into your attacker’s face gives you an effective go-to, which can buy you time to recognize what you need to do next. In the heat of the moment, I have seen people who are effectively in someone’s guard, do something that would only work if you were in a mounted position – they recognize that they are kneeling and that they are above their opponent, but they fail to realize in their emotional, aggressive state, that they lack the control they need to make their technique work. Having something that is universally applicable, even if it is not the best, most effective thing to do, has a lot of benefits; including giving you a moment to take stock of your situation. Often, self-defense solutions are presented as silver bullets, where as long as you apply the technique, the fight will then be magically over. In reality, most fights involve incrementally bettering your position, bit-by-bit, rather than in one go. Getting a hand into the attacker’s face is a good starting point for this process – and can be used as a disruption/distraction that allows you to recognize your situation and get into a better position, for your other training to take over. In high stress and duress situations, you will have many doubts concerning your abilities, recognizing when and how to act, etc., so having one simple go-to, is something that will allow you to be decisive and act, rather than having to evaluate and decide upon what it is you should do. A fast open-hand to an attacker’s face will have some effect, even if it’s just obscuring their sight, and disrupting their ability to attack or continue attacking; it’s basically the equivalent of suppressing fire. It won’t finish the fight in and of itself, however committing yourself to something that could, in that initial moment, can be risky. It is often better to accept that you will have to engage in a process; this usually involves further striking that aims to generate power and hurt and/or concuss your aggressor. Being decisive and acting quickly, with a “lesser” technique, is a better starting solution, than being slower to act, with a “better” technique.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=391 Mon, 06 Aug 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=390 I’ve never really like the term self-defense. I see it more as a legal term/concept than a descriptor of what occurs in a fight. If you are assaulted, you’re in a fight. And if you’re in a fight, simply “defending” yourself is not enough; there must be some offensive action on your part if you are to successfully survive the altercation. There is a common misconception that certain styles and systems are defensive and attacker-friendly i.e. their intent is not to cause harm to the attacker but merely dissuade them from continuing their assault, with other arts being overly-aggressive and brutal in the way they deal with an assailant. I once had a prospective student tell me how they liked the approach of Aikido and Ju-Jitsu, which allowed an attacker to safely roll away, unharmed, without realizing that most attackers are not skilled in breaking falls, or going with the flow of an attack, etc. and if these defenses were applied against an unskilled assailant it is likely that a joint would break, and/or a concussion would be experienced, etc. Violence is, of course, context-specific, and there may be times to simply break-away from an assailant, or apply pain-compliance before disengaging, rather than delivering concussive force in every situation, however if you are involved in a fight, your goal is to cause pain and/or disable an aggressor in some way; my rule of thumb is to deliver enough force and pain to facilitate a safe disengagement and escape – a heuristic that should help you avoid using excessive force i.e. if things do go legal, and you state that you did what you did in order to get away – and make your disengagement at the earliest opportunity, you will be a much more credible defendant; if it’s a civil suit brought against you, where the burden of proof is much less than in a criminal case, you will need every bit of help you can get (just because you were “right” doesn’t mean what you did was “legal”. In saying all of this, everything you do to survive the incident should be offensive, including your movement and blocking. Blocking should not be seen as a defensive action. It should be viewed as an attack, on the incoming attack. It shouldn’t simply protect you, but rather it should do something to disrupt and damage your attacker. If I am using an outer defense (a 360-defense), to deal with a circular attack, such as a swinging haymaker, a wide-arcing slash, or a stab, my block needs to do more than simply stop the attack. When I lived back in the UK I used to follow football/soccer and keep up to date with the transfer of players between clubs. Strikers who score goals, are more valuable to a team, than defenders who stop them, and trade for a higher value; as one manager put it, a defender will get you a draw, but a striker will win you the game. The same is true of simply blocking/stopping an attack; it doesn’t get you any further ahead in the fight – to do that you need to attack, and this is what your block should be. When defending a circular attack, I’m looking to slam and drive my forearm into my attacker’s arm. I want to cause them pain. I don’t simply want to protect myself – I should be able to accomplish this goal by controlling range/distance, and my relative positioning to my assailant – but rather use my block as a delivery system to start shutting down both my attacker’s ability to use their arm, and their desire to do so. If I can cause them to be hesitant in their following attacks because of this, my blocks are getting me something more than a draw. My goal is to get my assailant to associate all of their attacks with pain i.e. every time they go to strike me, grab me, push me, etc., they get hurt in the process. This interrupts their expectations, causes hesitancy, and may even result in reluctance, and an under-commitment concerning their attacks. When defending knee strikes, I’m ramming my forearm (reinforced with the other arm – as the incoming leg is much stronger than the arm), into the quadricep muscle of the upper leg; I’m not blocking the knee strike, I’m attacking it. Trying to catch the leg without causing this moment of pain, and interrupting the recoil of the leg because of it, is next to impossible. If I’m not able to catch the leg this time, I know that the next time the knee comes in, it’s likely to be less committed and a little bit slower, due to both the physical trauma caused, and the attacker’s anticipation of pain. Of course, there will be people who are impervious to pain, because of drugs, alcohol, adrenaline, conditioning and inherent pain tolerance, and I’ve also encountered people who were too stupid to realize they should have been hurt, etc., however, my goal should be, that when they contact me, and I contact them, they—rather than me—experience pain. This should be true with actions that aren’t normally associated with causing pain e.g. If I grab on to somebody, I should be looking to inflict pain with my grab, rather than simply taking hold, etc. No person should relish the opportunity of inflicting pain on another; if you do I would argue that you’ve taken the wrong message from your training. Every time I have had to, it’s depressed me afterwards, i.e. it’s never been satisfying, even when someone “deserved” it. However, when assaulted and/or attacked, delivering pain to those involved is usually the fastest and most conclusive way to deal with them – most people emotionally crumble when they feel pain, even if the force/power involved isn’t concussive. Blocks, should not be viewed as defensive tools, but as attacking ones that allow you to join/blend with your aggressor, and cause them to reevaluate their role in the fight.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=390 Mon, 30 Jul 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=389 When driving there’s a huge difference between looking in the rear-view or wing-mirrors as a matter of habit, and actually looking in them to investigate other vehicles around your car. The same is true of listening i.e. you can hear the words but not take the time to discern their meaning. Oftentimes, we see what we want to see, or expect to see, and hear what we think should be said, without actually listening to what we’re being told – if what we’re being told contradicts our own viewpoint, we may well be formulating a criticism/critique before we’ve actually heard what the person is saying. If we are involved in a spontaneous act of aggression—where somebody has become angry with us, due to something we’ve said, or the because of the way we’ve acted/behaved, etc.—we need to listen to our aggressor’s complaint and deal with it, rather than assume that we know what the solution is beforehand, if we are to resolve the conflict non-violently; if you’ve knocked into somebody and spilt their drink, the solution may not be as simple as buying them another one. I have written in this blog, and more extensively in my second book (Krav Maga – Tactical Survival), about proven methodologies for de-escalating such situations, however these solutions can be enhanced if we understand how to actively listen to an aggressor; this will also help us deal with more minor conflicts such as in the workplace, or in our homes, when there isn’t necessarily a risk of physical violence. Often, when a person becomes aggressive over what may seem like a minor/inconsequential incident, there is a larger narrative driving the conflict. The event itself may be the straw that broke the camel’s back, while a much greater perceived injustice is at the root of the problem. In a lengthier negotiation process, we may want to discover what this is, however in a barroom confrontation, we will not have the time to do this – in either case, we want to let the aggressor do most of the talking. The Louisiana State Police — who have one of the best crisis negotiation units in the U.S.—having resolved incidents non-physically that the FBI’s HNU (Hostage Negotiation Unit), believed to require physical intervention – work to an 80/20 rule, whereby the negotiator allows the aggressor talk for the majority of the time. From my own experiences in de-escalating aggressive individuals, I have certainly found that not letting them have a voice does little to calm them down i.e. everybody believes their viewpoint is valid, and worthy of being heard, especially if it is in regard to an injustice they’ve experienced, whether real or perceived. This doesn’t mean that there was always time to let somebody speak, as sometimes quick and dynamic enforcement and engagement were necessary, however if angry people believed they were being heard, and their grievances taken seriously, situations could often be resolved without going hands-on. Lines that I’ve used successfully, have been some form of, “I understand that, but…”, “I can see why you’d feel that way, but…”, “I’d probably feel the same way in your position, but…” Most of what needs to be said should be repeating and summarizing the aggressor’s point of view, rather than introducing your own viewpoints, etc. It is the other person who requires the conflict to be resolved, not you. By stalling for time using these tactics, the aggressor’s emotional energy will often start to dissipate, and if you’re perceived as an empathetic/sympathetic party, you may stop being seen as the bad guy in the situation. We should try to reflect the language of our aggressor; people are more likely to trust someone who is like them, and conducts themselves in a similar manner, than someone who appears to use clever and more involved language, etc. It is easy to fall into the trap of talking down to someone, without realizing that this is what you are doing. This is why paraphrasing, reflecting and responding to what an aggressor is saying, using similar language to them, is much more effective than simply saying what you believe they need to hear. This doesn’t mean that you have to agree with them, or even acquiesce to what they want/demand, however speaking in a similar manner to them, is a good step to resolving a situation non-physically. When working door/bar security, when someone wasn’t getting anywhere with an aggressive individual, having somebody else step in who used the same language as them, would often work to calm them down, i.e. they were dealing with someone who was like them, etc. Starting out from this same position, is a more effective means of communication. I was once able to de-escalate a situation on a train in England, with an aggressive Scottish parolee, who was threatening people with a knife, because I was able to talk to him using language that he was comfortable and accustomed to – until the Transport Police were able to deal with him at the next station.        Often, emotional people aren’t aware that they’re being controlled by physiological forces and believe that they’re reacting/responding cognitively/consciously – there’s a big difference between feelings and emotions; a feeling is a conscious awareness of an emotional state. One method to help an aggressor recognize their emotional state is to label it for them e.g. “You seem really angry”, “It seems like you’re really upset about this”, etc. To be effective, these types of statements/labels need to be delivered in a manner which isn’t condescending or patronizing, however when done correctly, an aggressor may almost ‘wake up’ from their emotional state and recognize it e.g. “Yes, I am pretty angry.” Once they are able to recognize how they are feeling – and their actions and behaviors relating to this – and understand that they are dealing with someone who is empathetic/sympathetic, there is a good chance that the situation can be resolved in a non-violent manner. When a person returns to using their reasoning/rational brain, they will be able to operate from a place where they are not being driven by their emotions. It may be that we are scared or embarrassed to interact with aggressive individuals, and we’d rather try to ignore them, hoping that they will get tired of the conflict and go away. Unfortunately, this is simply wishful thinking; if you ignore somebody, who believes they have a legitimate grievance against you, your silence and disinterest is much more likely to escalate an incident than de-escalate it. Actively listening, taking seriously and showing a desire to resolve the conflict is much more likely to be successful, even if it requires some effort, involvement and engagement – angry people, like bullies, don’t just go away.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=389 Mon, 23 Jul 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=388 If I only had 60-minutes to teach someone how to protect themselves, most of that effort would go into how to predict, identify and prevent violence, rather than physical solutions – firearms advocates may suggest that this time would be better spent learning how to shoot; however I would argue that even if technical proficiency could be acquired in this short time frame, along with a tactical and legal understanding of the “how and when”, to use a firearm, if the individual wasn’t able first to identify and recognize a threat, it matters little what tools they are equipped with. Next weekend, we run our free annual campus safety seminar; 90-minutes of teaching young women how to recognize potential dangers – without becoming paranoid – and avoid/disengage from them, and some basic physical solutions for dealing with certain types of attack etc. In this article I would like to share some of the things that have come out of these seminars over the years, in case there is something that may prove useful to others, when conducting similar training(s). Please feel free to take or leave anything in this article, as I would never prescribe how anybody should teach their material, etc. One of the biggest impacts I’ve found – which surprised me­—when talking about the consequences of rapes and sexual assault, for women at college, was not the psychological or emotional trauma caused by such sexual violence, but its potential financial impact(s). It is important to note that I’m not making any judgments here, but simply stating my experience(s) from teaching personal safety to young women about to go off to college/university. Firstly, according to certain statistics, U.S. college women are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted, than any other age group, and women who attend college are more likely to be raped than those who don’t; there is a societal problem when trying to improve your educational standing, increases your chances of being violently/sexually assaulted – and this is to some degree a structural issue of gender inequality, which needs to be addressed. So, when we are conducting campus safety seminars, without being overly-dramatic, we are talking to a potentially “at risk” population. It is hard to convey the traumatic effects of being raped without the possibility of causing trauma yourself, however listing some of the effects of trauma, such as anxiety, depression, the inability to sleep and/or concentrate/focus, etc., often fails to communicate the devastating consequences of rape/sexual assault. Where I have gained reaction/response is when I’ve talked about the number of women who have dropped out of college as a result of being assaulted, who have been burdened by student debt, and without a university degree, are denied better employment opportunities and so earn less, etc. When survivors of rape do stay on to finish their studies they often find that their GPA’s (not surprisingly) have dropped, after the assault. It’s not that I think young women don’t appreciate the emotional and psychological costs of being raped, but rather that the financial costs are often far more evidential and tangible. Going to university/college is a time when you look forward to fulfilling dreams and aspirations, and understanding how a sexual assailant could take these away from you, highlights one of the long-term consequences of rape/sexual assault – it also demonstrates that what to the rapist is but a moment in time is a life-changing experience for the victim, and should never be discounted as simply “20 minutes of action” (nor be excused as a result of drinking) as Brock Turner’s father described his son’s rape of a college student.    An argument that I’m often met with when I talk about the importance of personal safety – especially concerning sexual violence— is that it shouldn’t be the responsibility of the potential victim to take measures to stay safe, but rather it should be the responsibility of the potential assailant/rapist not to attack/assault. I agree with this argument, however whilst attackers/rapists continue to not take responsibility for their actions it’s somewhat of a moot point; Brock Turner, and his father, argued that his raping of an unconscious victim was the result of alcohol consumption, however when he was caught/disturbed he ran i.e. hew knew what he was doing was wrong, despite being drunk. Still, he doesn’t take responsibility for what he did – and this is true for the majority of rapists. If, after the fact, they won’t take responsibility, it is highly unlikely that they will before, or during, the assault. I agree that it is not fair that we have a need to protect ourselves against violent and predatory individuals, when we don’t act that way towards others, however unfortunately when it comes to staying safe, this point of view isn’t a luxury we can afford. One of the biggest difficulties I have when talking to young women about to go to college, or who are in their first few months on campus, is that your dorm room, is not akin to your bedroom at home, and the halls of residence are not comparable to your home i.e. you have not simply transferred from one location to another, with everything else staying the same. At home, you can (usually) trust those you live with not to steal your things and/or cause you harm; and this may not be the case on campus, e.g. there may be students who will steal your textbooks given the opportunity, despite living in the same halls as you – I’m back at university doing a second Masters, and three text-books I am using for a particular part of my course may have a total value of around $500 (more than the current value of the laptop I am using now) etc. There is a real danger of thinking that everybody coming to a university, shares the same background, moral compass, and aspirations as yourself, and so trust them as you would trust yourself, etc. however the truth is, this is not the case, you are living in a very mixed environment, that is vastly different from your home. This is the 6th year, we have offered this free seminar, and the 90-minutes we have is a great opportunity to get across as much relevant and practical information as we can, however if we had a few years beforehand we would have been able to teach so much more. If you are a parent with a 15 or 16-year old, or younger, please think about starting training soon. Even those young women who have been training with us for a number of years we advise to take this seminar, as it focuses on a specific time of life, in a specific environment, which has its own threats and dangers. If you live in Massachusetts/New England – or know somebody who does – and are off to college/university this Fall, you can sign up for next week’s seminar by clicking here. If you aren’t able to attend, we have a free website addressing campus safety which you can access by visiting our womens self defense site: www.womensselfdefenseboston.com. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=388 Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=387 I’m a Judoka, I understand combat from the perspective of a grappler, rather than a striker – this doesn’t mean I advocate grappling over striking, rather that I understand striking from a grappler’s perspective. I see striking not only as a means of delivering concussive force, which throwing can also be used to achieve, but as a distraction or disruption; something taking a person’s balance achieves. Both grapplers and strikers are looking to achieve similar things in a fight, however both use different means to achieve them – as an approach, both are looking to do the same thing. A striker will favor disruptive strikes, such as flicks to the eyes, etc., and forceful/concussive blows; whilst a grappler will look to take balance as a means of disruption, and throws and takedowns to take the fight out of an attacker. Different methods to achieve the same goals. Both strikers and grapplers may draw lines in the sand which reflect their tribalism, and partisan sympathies, but at the end of the day neither is absolutely right or wrong e.g. taking somebody’s balance can be as effective, and more so or less so, than a punch or a strike; the skill of the individual performing/executing the solution is what determines whether it will be successful or not. This is where techniques, take a back seat to skills and attributes e.g. a Karateka who can deliver greater concussive force when it is called for, will trump a Krav Maga practitioner who struggles to do the same, even if they are practicing what is deemed to be a more realistic or effective system. The taking of balance as a set up for both throwing and striking often gets overlooked. A good strike/punch accomplishes little, unless an aggressor/opponent is put in a disadvantageous position. In competition and tournaments, I have been punched and kicked with extreme force, but to little effect – this is not to portray myself as some kind of hard person who is able to tolerate a lot of pain, but rather to point out that unless a strike, or other form of attack, can put somebody in a disadvantageous position, it is unlikely to be effective. In a professional combat sports match such as boxing or MMA, both participants are capable of delivering a knock out strike and/or submission, but it normally takes them a period of time for one of them to achieve this – as they are unable to put the other competitor in such a position, that they can do this. Taking a person’s balance is one of the best ways to disadvantage them, whether the finishing technique is a strike or a throw — and there is more than a little science and scientific research to back this up. Dr Gerhard Roth, a Zoologist who has studied, and written extensively about the evolution of the human brain and mind, states that all of our other senses are subservient and subordinate to that of balance. As a disrupting force, balance trumps pain, and any other visual stimuli. What we feel is much more compulsive than what we see. This is not to say that the follow up to the taking of balance has to be a strike or a punch, but rather that the taking of balance will result in a much more effective strike or punch i.e. unexpected pain when unbalanced is experienced to a greater degree than when the person is balanced – even an “uneducated” fighter knows this, which is why one of the most common attacks is for somebody to push you and then punch you. Even when a person knows their balance is being played with, such as when wearing a virtual reality head-set, they can’t do anything — consciously or subconsciously — to counteract the effects. Whilst we can manage pain, we can’t manage being unbalanced. When we are attempting simultaneous and near-simultaneous counter attacks, taking an attacker’s balance, should be considered alongside that of delivering disruptive and concussive force – if both can be achieved as part of the same process, this is something that should be sought. This is why it is important to keep a fight dynamic, even if this requires us to move more, and expend more energy – I don’t hold to the idea that in a conflict, energy conservation is your primary goal i.e. you should be looking to end the fight as soon as possible, and if this means setting the pace early on, you should do so – I have worn people out in a few seconds by coming out of the gate at 100 mph, and exhausting them before they have had the time to catch their breath, etc. Balance-taking should be part of every knife and gun disarm/control, as well as a strategy and technique against an empty-handed attacker. Bursting forward, is one way to achieve this, but pulling and creating lateral movement is also important, as it may not always be possible to direct a fight in one direction. Taking balance quickly, is one of the most effective ways to disrupt an assailant; if it can be done whilst administering pain, all the better. In a real-life confrontation, we should be looking for quick and easy wins, early on in the physical conflict. Disrupting an attacker’s balance is probably the quickest and easiest way to do this, regardless of size and strength. The science backs this approach up, as well as experience e.g. rag-dolling somebody around is one of the quickest ways to negate their ability to respond aggressively and effectively. Being able to “add” to somebody’s movement by stepping back as they push, or turning, rather than resisting their movement is a key self-defense skill to develop. If there is a large size and weight disparity, then trying to disrupt an attack using concussive force may not be effective, whereas playing with their balance may be. If attacking an assailant’s balance can be used to make strikes, throws and takedowns more effective, in most cases it really doesn’t matter which option you take, along as its preceded by a balance break.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=387 Mon, 09 Jul 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=386 Neuroscience tells us that our unconscious mind is our “now” mind, and our conscious mind is our “historic” one. For many people this may seem the wrong way round, but what you are thinking about in this moment, is not what is going on around you in your environment, but the words that you are reading; and as you read them you are applying, and constructing thoughts around the words – you are not actually in the moment, but your unconscious mind is; it’s the one monitoring for changes in your environment, and if they’re important enough to bring to the attention of your conscious mind, it will. Driving is a great example of your unconscious mind at work. If we had to consciously think about speeding up and slowing down, changing gears, looking in the mirrors, etc., we wouldn’t have the mental bandwidth, to plan our day, or listen to the news on the radio. In fact, it has been estimated, that if we processed everything in our environment with our conscious mind, our brains would have to be around five times larger than they are. If something in our environment changes, such as a car suddenly pulling out, our conscious mind will be alerted, and we will be shaken out of the daydream we were having. Recognizing this has significant implications for the way we train. How we train is often more important than what we train, however martial artists and self-defense practitioners are often happier to talk about the usefulness and effectiveness of techniques, rather than the appropriateness of the training methods, that are responsible for getting them to work in real-life situations. Understanding that the unconscious mind is responsible for the “now” of a situation, means that it is this that we need to train to make us decisive and quick to respond. Decisiveness is one of the most important skills we can develop, and trumps technique i.e. a sub-optimal technique that is enacted decisively, is more effective than an optimal technique that is employed with delay/hesitation, or not at all. If you are constantly, consciously aware, you do not have good situational awareness. Your conscious mind can hold and rotate about four things in it at any one time, that means if you are actively scanning and looking around you, a threat might be the fifth thing, that you’ve missed. Your unconscious mind is able to process, and assess, much, much more information than this, but it has to know – and more importantly – have experienced (in some form) what danger looks like. It is one thing to know about an aggressor’s target glancing, scanning and synchronization of movement, as pre-violence indicators, it is another thing to have witnessed and experienced these things. The good news is, they can be created in the training environment, so that our unconscious mind has a reference point from which to work. If this is coupled with a strong emotional response, it will become better anchored in your mind. This is referred to as experiential learning and is recognized as the most effective way to educate the unconscious as to what it should be looking out for. If we only ever practice knife attacks, where our partner stands in front of us, with the knife displayed, we are not training for real life; we are training for a situation in which a person stands in front of us with the knife on show – this is not reality. If we have our partner move around, glancing at us, scanning the environment, and then move towards us, hand(s) hidden, etc., before they make the attack, we are starting to train our unconscious mind, to bring to our attention these pre-violence indicators, should we experience them in the real world. Now we might have a chance of dealing with the situation; by exiting the environment, making our would-be attacker aware that we have spotted them, and/or preparing and positioning ourselves to make a defense, and put in play a solution. Indecision in a high stress situation, is a direct result of not having experienced that situation before. If we are to prepare ourselves for reality, we need to experience situations, not simply practice techniques. We can do this in a number of ways. One way is to do proper and full scenario-based training, that replicates all phases of a conflict, from non-conflict through to post-conflict. It is not enough to have a training partner sit in a chair, tell them that this could be a situation where they are sitting on a bench at a train station, and somebody attacks them with a knife. The “story” and all its phases have to be experienced: the attacker has to move around, act out the selecting of a target, approach them, hide their hands, possibly engage them in conversation, etc. Explaining the scenario and then practicing a technique based upon it, is not the same as “living” it, and it won’t educate your unconscious mind. Although not a replacement – because it lacks an emotional context, that even a contrived scenario has, to a degree – visualization is a great way to reinforce scenario-based training. Here, the scenario can be imagined and run through in the actual context of the situation e.g. you can imagine yourself at a train station, with crowds, sitting on a bench, when somebody picks you out as a target. As with all visualization, first imagine watching yourself as an actor, and then again, from your actual perspective as you would see it.        If we can educate our unconscious mind – the one that operates in the now and brings important changes in our mind to our attention – we stand a much higher chance of dealing with an attack, because we will recognize what is happening sooner, than if we simply practice techniques. Practicing a technique will increase your technical competence but not your operational competence; and in the real world this is the one that matters. It should also be noted that to train effectively, your models of violence need to be accurate; it’s why I believe self-defense instructors need to have a proper understanding of what violence looks like, and can’t simply take their ideas from watching The Bourne Identity, etc. Our models need to be accurate and up-to-date, for them to be relevant. Because we don’t want to experience a situation or incident for the first time in real life, we need to experience them beforehand, so that we can recognize a situation as it develops, and not be indecisive in dealing with it.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=386 Mon, 02 Jul 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=385 A baseball bat, or similar stick-like weapon, is not as easily concealed as a knife or a gun, which means it’s unlikely to be a weapon that an attacker has on them, as part of their everyday carry. This means that it will likely need to be fetched before an attack– such as a tire iron, retrieved from the trunk of a car – or found, e.g. a piece of pipe lying on the ground, a pool or snooker cue in a bar, etc. Otherwise, it’s part of a pre-planned assault, such as a weapon to be used in a robbery. I once witnessed a guy try, unsuccessfully, to smash the glass of a Post Office counter in Liverpool. Understanding the context of an attack is important, as it gives us ideas about tactics and strategies we may employ; if an assailant goes to the trunk of their car to get a weapon, then we may in that moment have time to disengage and put an obstacle between us such as another parked car, if an attacker’s focus is on smashing a window to break through to a cashier in a Post Office or bank we are in, if we haven’t an opportunity to exit, we may be able to move to a place where we are not a visible or obvious target. If we do have to deal with an attack with a stick-like object, there are several things we should note. The real power of a baseball bat attack – or similar – is in the last third of the stick, and the power generated decreases exponentially the closer you get to where it is being held; moving in and closing distance represents your best chance of dealing with an attack, if there are no other options present e.g. disengaging, using barricades and obstacles, using an improvised weapon such as a chair to defend yourself with, and/or pool/snooker balls as projectiles, etc. Understanding that the bat/stick only has power along a limited part of its lengths, means that although such a weapon gives an attacker range, it only does so at a certain point; once you are inside of that last third, getting hit may be uncomfortable but it shouldn’t stop or disable you. Obviously, an assailant can manage range, and step back, to keep you at distance, meaning you will want to try to get an attacker to move forward. This way, as you try to move past this corridor of power, they will not be able to quickly move backwards, and control the distance between you. In a stand-off between yourself and an attacker, where they are threatening you with the weapon without committing to an attack, you should be careful of feints, where they pull the weapon back, and then slightly forward, without making any commitment to the attack; trying to move in at this point, could see them step back, and then swing. Before moving in, you will need to make them commit to an actual attack in some way. If you are close enough and have the chance to pre-emptively assault them before they have a chance to even pull the weapon back, that is obviously a preferable option. Try to control the attacker, not the weapon. Although a stick/baton/bat, can be grabbed, most of the leverage advantages are with the assailant, not with you. Even a person who is not trained in weapon retention, will have an innate understanding that if they twist and pull in a certain way, they will be able to release your grip on the stick. Trying to wrestle it out of their hands unless you have a clear and obvious opportunity is not advisable. It is generally better to try to control the assailant’s arms and/or body, than the weapon itself. This may mean having to move a lot further in than you would if you were going for the weapon, but it will enable you to have better control of the attacker’s ability to retain and swing the bat, than if you were trying to directly control it. Rather than grabbing, attempting to wrap their arms with yours will give you a greater degree of control. Disarming shouldn’t be your priority, unless you need to equip yourself with a weapon to deal with other attackers, etc. Whilst you have control of their arms, and are hanging on to the stick, their hands will be occupied and they won’t be able to use them for striking and grappling; at close range, unless they know how to grapple with a stick, it is worth letting them hold onto it, whilst you use combatives to soften them up and shut them down. Their best chance for freeing their arms, comes from releasing the stick, however many attackers will be too weapon-focused/centric to do this, and will continue to hold on to the weapon even when it is of no use to them. If you believe you can exit the area safely without doing so, don’t get caught up in trying to disarm them; if your attacker has had the fight taken out of them, and is sufficiently disabled, go. The longer you spend engaging with them, the greater the chance that somebody may come and assist them, or that they will begin to formulate a strategy for dealing with you. Ego may tell you to stay and teach them a lesson, whereas survival will tell you it’s time to leave. If you do need to disarm, then do so, but understand from a legal perspective a separation may have occurred and depending how the fight continues, you may now be judged as the aggressor. These considerations should be factored into your solutions and strategies ahead of time, rather than in the moment.      It is easy to look on dealing with sticks and bats as simple and straightforward – and on paper this may be the case – however in reality, moving towards an aggressor, and through the danger-zone, where the bat has power is a scary proposition. In some cases where the stick is moving too fast (and may have nails and/or sharp objects embedded in it), for you to get past it, and control the arms, your only option may be to try and go under it and tackle the aggressor. This should never be your first option, but if your attacker is using their weapon in such a way that you won’t be able to control their weapon arm(s), your next option – and you always need a next option – is to try and control them; the same rules apply here, such as getting them to move forward with their attack, etc. Attackers deliberately don’t make it easy for us to counter them, and we should always have options, even when our preferred ones have run out, or are not available to us. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=385 Mon, 25 Jun 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=384 Everything works within its own context. Despite the claims of some systems/individuals that a particular solution or approach will always work, anyone who has a first-hand experience of violence will tell you that there are times when things that have worked well in a number of situations, aren’t necessarily going to work in every one. I see effective self-defense training, as teaching individuals how to recognize, create, and adapt to the situations they find themselves in, rather than blindly trying to fit square pegs in round holes, because all they have—and have been given—are square pegs. Violence is context-driven, and a solution that works well in one situation, may not be applicable to another – or it may involve trying to fit the wrong shape/sized peg, into a hole it wasn’t really designed for. Unfortunately, many martial artists and self-defense practitioners, take a tribal approach to discussions and debates on the effectiveness of techniques, and will say that something doesn’t work, or that “it’s a good way to get yourself killed”, because they don’t want to allow for a context in which a solution may work, or may be effective—or one it may be designed for. One of the criticisms, that a lot of people make about Krav Maga, is around the use of the simultaneous block and punch/strike to deal with knife attacks; which in turn results in many Krav Maga proponents arguing—to defend what they see as an attack upon their system/approach—that this is a universal approach that should be applied in every type of knife attack. At the end of the day, context is the key to when something should be attempted and when it shouldn’t. There are good heuristics – rules of thumb – but these shouldn’t be dogmatically adhered to when the situation isn’t the one they’re designed for. It would be simplistic to argue that a knife shank, is a knife shank, is a knife shank, etc. This is not the case. Watch some CCTV footage of a knife shank attack that targets a single individual, in an assassination-style assault e.g. an attacker has homed in on one individual, and is solely focused on them, etc. Then look at a terror attack, where an individual— or group—is moving around, looking to stab/kill as many people in a crowd as they can. The differing motive changes the nature of the attack, even though the knife is basically being deployed in the same way. When an assailant targets an individual, all they have to do is focus on that one person, if they are attacking a group, looking to kill as many people as possible (as in the London Bridge terror attack, June 3rd 2017), they need to move around from one person to another with their attention divided – the range and distance they are attacking at, especially if the group is scattering, is much greater, and people have an awareness that there is an assailant with a knife present. If you look at an attack that targets a single individual, the attack is usually an ambush, committed at extremely close range; certainly, within the assailant’s arms-reach. The non-weapon hand is also usually in play, with the attacker grabbing the clothing of their victim, and/or pushing/pulling them to either disrupt their balance, and/or prevent them from making distance and getting away. This is the reality of such attacks, and has to be acknowledged – at this range, which is essentially a grappling one, attempting to simultaneously block and punch, is extremely difficult (even if the punch or strike is only intended to disrupt rather than deliver power); especially if (as is often the case) the attacker chooses to make their assault, from an oblique angle, off to the side, rather than face-to-face. A good drill to demonstrate this, is to have a partner with a training knife, stand about 30 centimeters i.e. a foot, off to the side of you at an angle. Don’t have them facing you but have them stand at an angle where they can keep their knife hidden—most assailants committed to stabbing you, won’t present the knife to you before the attack. Stand with your eyes closed, and only open them when your attacker grabs you and starts stabbing—have them also unbalance you as part of the attack (this is only going a small way to replicating the shock and surprise of a real-life attack). At this range, and with your balance upset, trying to divide your focus between blocking the short repetitive stabs of the knife and making an effective strike (even a disrupting one), is very, very difficult – and if your attacker keeps their face down, as is common with many attacks of this nature, finding the face as a target, under this type of pressure is extremely unlikely. In such instances, your focus has to be on controlling the weapon arm, and only once this is done, looking to disrupt your assailant, by striking, moving them, taking their balance, etc. Now change the scenario, to a terror attack, where an assailant has shown you the knife, and is screaming and running towards you; here you should have the time and the space, to deal with them combatively e.g. kick them away, block and strike, etc. It’s a different context. It’s not that one approach is right and another is wrong, but rather each is applicable in the situations where they work; round pegs for round holes, square pegs for square ones, etc. Not all attacks are the same—even when they are, the attacker’s motive can change the nature of the attack. I remember watching an interview with Paul Ferris, a notorious Glasgow gangster, who was known as the “wee man”, on account of his short stature. Paul Ferris grew up using knives, and he told of the way he’d attack when he’d identified a target. It was to grab and hang on to them, at close range, and just keep pumping the knife into them, until they were unconscious—and sometimes afterwards. Having grown up in Glasgow, and having lived/worked in the UK, I know that this was not a unique approach; head/face down, with the knife arm moving like the needle of a sewing machine. An active killer—or group—with a knife, doesn’t have the luxury of focusing on one victim, they are looking to up their statistics, requiring as many dead and as many injured as possible—and they want to cause terror and mayhem, rather than “quietly” stabbing a single victim, over and over again. With space/distance and an attacker coming at you from the front, your combative solutions come into their own, as does your ability to use the environment to your advantage e.g. pick up a chair, get behind a table, etc. If we can lose the tribalism that characterizes much of the martial arts and self-defense world, and move beyond wanting to see ourselves as right, and everyone else as wrong; if we can see that context dictates what we do, and acknowledge that we may only be viewing a solution within the confines of our understanding, rather than in another context, we can prepare ourselves to deal with all incidents, not just the ones our experience or understanding restricts us to. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=384 Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=383 In instances of stranger-related violence and crime – where the aggressor is unknown to the victim –  perhaps the most significant component is the location where the interaction takes place. Crime isn’t evenly spread across a geography, it is concentrated in “hot-spots”, even down to the house level e.g. those working in law-enforcement will tell you there are homes they are repeatedly called to etc. However, locations aren’t static; they are dynamic things which possess life-cycles i.e. different types of crime will happen at different times of day. City centers host a disproportionate amount of crime, however the type of crime varies throughout the day e.g. during the daytime, there may be pickpocketing and shoplifting, whilst at night, when the pubs, bars and clubs start to pick up business, acts of violence become the more predominant criminal activity etc. and these may be more likely to occur at closing time, and on particular days (such as Fridays and Saturdays). This means that when we are looking at locations from a personal safety perspective, although the physical geography plays a part, it is the movement of people through them which is the more important factor to understand; as one Chicago mugger/robber told researcher K.B. Peter in his 2007 book, Pockets of Crime: Broken Windows, Collective Efficacy, and the Criminal Point of View, “You go where many people go, but you go there when many people are not there,” i.e. the when is as important as the where. Criminals are usually both planners and opportunists, and this is reflected in crime hot spots; there are times when they will find themselves in a location, where a potential victim is present, and there are times when they will plan to be in a certain location in order to actively search for a victim, to commit a crime – this determines whether the location is a “generator” of crime, or an “attractor” of criminals. Certain locations will naturally create opportunities e.g. if a mugger finds themselves in the parking lot of a shopping mall, as part of their everyday activities, and comes across a suitable target (because due to the large number of people coming to the mall – such as mid-afternoon on a Sunday – there is likely to be somebody who fits the “profile”), then the location will have generated that crime. A check-cashing shop, on a Friday evening, or Saturday morning, when people may have just been paid and will be looking to cash their checks, is likely to attract financially-motivated criminals – with the location being a crime attractor. By understanding the days, and the times, when certain criminals are likely to be attracted to a location, we can either avoid being there at that time, or be extra vigilant when we don’t have a choice i.e. we may have to be in a particular location due to our work, our commute, or because we live there, etc. Avoidance isn’t always an option. The majority of predatory criminals, whether financially, sexually, or otherwise motivated, appear to be “marauders” rather than “commuters” i.e. they operate from a base, within an area – sometimes their home, a bar they frequent, or even their place of work – and commit criminal acts within a relatively close proximity to it, returning there afterwards e.g. it has been found that for over 80% of homicides where the offender is on foot, the offender lives within 525 yards of the crime. Criminals like to hunt on familiar ground, where they know who will be present and when – this includes law-enforcement, whether uniformed or in plain clothes. The amount of time street criminals spend conducting surveillance and educating themselves about a location, such as recognizing the exact places/spots where people are distracted or naturally have their awareness lowered (this happens to many people when they enter/exit shops and restaurants and switch off in that moment), makes it pretty much a full-time job, even if the attitude displayed by those conducting it appears casual. Next time you are in a neighborhood, take a moment to see if anyone there is just observing and studying what is going on around them. If a criminal does commute to commit a crime, it is likely that they will choose locations that resemble ones that they are familiar with i.e. environments that they understand. It would be easy to get caught up with the idea that a run-down area/location is reflective of social disorder, and lack of control in a neighborhood, and that this results in high crime rates, because the community turns a blind eye and/or is unable to prevent criminal activities, etc. However, if this was true, it would suggest that Disneyland – as a perfect world, with strong governance and security – would be a crime-free zone, and that is certainly not the case. Predators go where their prey is, and it is the prey’s relationship with the location, that is more important than the physical environment, itself. The physical environment can and does play a part, in factors such as the numeracy of escape routes, the lack of CCTV cameras and natural surveillance, etc. but it is the people within the location, that determines the level and consistency of criminal activity; and different groups/categories of people exist in the location at different times. By understanding the life-cycle of a location, we can determine when we are at most, and least, risk. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=383 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=382 In 2013, the rules of IJF competitive Judo changed, disallowing any grabs to the legs, or the pants of the GI (the blue or white uniform that competitors wear). Whilst, I understand the reasons for doing so, what was lost, were a number of throws, and controls that from a self-defense perspective were extremely useful, and effective. As I don’t teach competitive Judoka anymore, and my focus is purely on self-defense and reality-based fighting, I still teach and allow grabs to the legs and the pants in my training. In this article I want to look at some of the ways, in which controlling the pants (or trousers, for those in the UK), can be used in self-defense scenarios. One of the useful skills that Judo taught me, was to be able to think clearly, when being thrown and rag-dolled around. Fights are dynamic things, that involve movement, and if you’re not used to people pushing, pulling you and throwing you around – often by grabbing your clothing – it can be an overwhelming experience, with all of your conscious effort and bandwidth being taken up, with just trying to stay on your feet and maintain your balance. Trying to workout an appropriate response to your situation, when all you can do is to try and stay on your feet, can be difficult. Sometimes, you need to slow an attacker’s movement down, or prevent them from moving entirely. One of the attacks, where this can be necessary, is when somebody has you in a side-headlock, with your head trapped under their armpit, and they’re throwing you around, possibly punching you and/or trying to throw you onto the ground etc. Often, this part of side-headlock attacks are removed when defenses are being taught, or only the initial balance break of the attack is addressed, with the idea that the attack immediately gets interrupted by some form of counter-strike to the groin etc. What gets lost is the repetitive nature of the attack, where the assailant repeatedly pulls your head down and around, often making it difficult to land a decent enough strike to prevent their continuous attack – just as we want to make attacks, in a continuous unbroken fashion, so we should also assume that our assailant wants to do the same. One way to slow down and stop the attacker’s movement should a groin strike fail to do so etc. is to grab on to your attacker’s pant leg and root their leg to the floor. You can also use this rooted leg, as a support to help you to regain your balance. Once done, you can start to make your escape. You can make use of the pant legs in a similar way, when you are in a clinch situation where somebody is trying to throw knee strikes. This wouldn’t be my primary way of dealing with knees in a clinch, but there may be times that more conventional defenses and solutions fail to be effective – especially if your attacker, has a good control of your head, and is throwing you around, as they throw their strikes. In such situations, grabbing the pants (doing so at the belt-level, will work for this), and pulling down on them will restrict your assailant’s movement, and ability, to both throw you around, and/or make their knee strikes. This also sets you up well for making knee strikes into your attackers Quadriceps, as they will now be static targets, that will absorb all the power of your strikes – due to the fact that they will be rooted and cannot reduce the impact by moving with the strike i.e. riding it. If you can deliver forceful strikes to your attacker’s legs, you will deaden them, making it difficult – and in some cases impossible – for them to put weight on them and/or move; the benefits of this in a fight are obvious. If you are on the ground when dealing with a standing opponent, controlling your attacker’s legs by taking hold of the clothing, may be a way to reduce their opportunities for delivering kicks and stomps, along with a means of disrupting their balance; trying to get a direct grip on a leg can be difficult, as the shin bone and calf muscle, is much larger than the wrist and forearm, and so it may be easier to grab the pant leg and try and control the leg this way. Once you have a grip, you may be able to climb up their leg, so as to get back to a standing position - using your attacker’s as a support to help you get back to your feet. In real-life situations there are rarely magic solutions to situations, that immediately and automatically solve every problem for you. Often surviving a violent altercation, involves doing things step-by-step, rather than all at once, and this is especially true if you find yourself in extremely disadvantageous positions e.g. such as being on the ground, whilst dealing with a standing attacker (who has little reason to follow you to the ground). In such a situation, grabbing a pant leg, may be the first step in getting you to a better place. There are of course many great throws and pickups that involve taking hold of the legs, either directly or by using the clothing. One of the nice things about many of these throws is that they can be executed when you are facing, or to the side of your attacker, without having to fully turn your back to them, that many other traditional throws require. Also, because you are looking to control one or both supporting limbs, the moment you grab on to the leg, your assailant is in danger – even before they experience the breaking of their balance. It is also very difficult for an attacker to try and remove your grip, once you have it in place, as in most cases they will need to reach behind them to do so. There are obviously dangers too, with grabbing the legs – one notable one being that your hands and arms are tied up and can’t be used to block or strike with. However, the damage that you can cause to somebody with a good pick-up, means that there are times, when it is worth doing so; as nothing hits harder than concrete. I was disappointed at the IJF’s decision to ban such grabs and throws, as they had always been high-earners for me in competition, and suited my game; they were also techniques that I’d found very useful when working the door – as a smaller person, larger people would often try to “crowd” me, which made them vulnerable to such pick-ups; throwing was a great equalizer for me, when I had to face people who could take a punch and didn’t mind getting hit – and there’s a surprising number of such people who understand that getting hit with a punch that renders them unconscious is remote, and so it’s worth taking a few if they believe they can hit harder (if you train in a manner that when you start striking/punching your partner stops attacking, you may find yourself in for a shock). Using clothing grabs on the legs, is a useful tool to have and be aware of, even if it isn’t part of your primary game-plan. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=382 Mon, 04 Jun 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=381 I have been knocked out twice, both times were by headbutts. One, I never saw coming– I walked into the “wrong” bar, and a seemingly friendly patron who was interested in the part of town I was from, smashed his skull into mine, as I started to answer. The other was during a verbal confrontation, that I thought I was handling – there’s having control, and then there’s the illusion of control. Both times, I was fortunate that there were other people with me, and that my assailants didn’t follow their attacks up. Both incidents occurred in Glasgow, in my early twenties, and very close together; in the city (and outside) such attacks are affectionately and referred to as the “Glasgow Kiss” – or more recently as, “receiving a face full of dandruff”. Most of the pain we experience we forget quickly, it’s part of our natural human condition. I have experienced acute back pain, due to two fractured vertebrae, and whilst I can remember how extreme it felt, I can’t recollect the actual feeling. I can’t say the same for being head-butted; I can recall quite vividly the concussive force generated, the moment of impact, and the nauseating headache that followed when I returned to consciousness (think about the worst hangover you’ve experienced, crammed into 10 seconds). Since then I’ve had a morbid fascination with head-butts, and using the head, as an attacking tool. Most real-life confrontations occur at nose-to-nose distance, with participants of the conflict, up in each other’s faces. If you’re not keeping your hands out in front of you, to manage and control the space between you and your aggressor, they are filling that space by moving in, and crowding you – if you think reality affords you the same amount of room as you have in your studio/dojo, to keep backing away into, you’re very much mistaken; you’ll soon be bumping into other people, furniture, cars, and objects, etc. In some situations, you may be so cramped you won’t have the ability to control range and put space between the two of you. In some, there may not even be the room – or time – to get your hands up. We can create perfect training scenarios that allow us to demonstrate and practice our techniques in a way that gets them to work, however we also need to acknowledge that there will be occasions, not necessarily only when we are caught by surprise, but where we aren’t able to position ourselves, or move to an advantageous/non-disadvantageous distance, etc. It is at these ranges that we become susceptible to close/short range attacks, such as headbutts – and also have the opportunity to use them pre-emptively. When I was growing up, I was told a couple of things by my peers, regarding personal safety. One of these was to keep your chin down – tucked to your chest - when you talked to somebody who was acting aggressively towards you, so that your face wasn’t exposed to the head-butt, and the other – which I feel was a mix of the apocryphal, reality and urban legend, was never to grab somebody’s lapels because it was likely they’d sewn razor blades into their clothing, to prevent you grabbing them in this way; the reason people would grab clothing like this was to facilitate the headbutt i.e. they’d pull you in as they smashed the top of their forehead into your face – usually the bridge of your nose. The lessons I take from this sage advice, is to tuck your chin in and protect your face, when you can’t control range, and not to make lapel grabs (there are better places to grab clothing, if you are looking to control another person this way). If your chin is tucked, and somebody attempts to headbutt you – which in all likelihood, will be too sharp/quick of a movement to avoid – they will probably come away with the worst of it, cracking a thinner part of their skull, into a heavier/thicker part of yours. This will still hurt you, but it should hurt your attacker more; and for them it should be unexpected pain, as they were expecting to be the deliverer, rather than the receiver. There are three ways I advocate using the head: to deliver concussive force, to use to drive and push with, and/or to grind/crush with. The classic method of delivering concussive force, is to bring your head back, and then smash it down on a soft part of the face, connecting with the thick part of your skull. Fortunately for instructional – not cosmetic purposes - my hair has receded to the point where my hairline, represents the point where you should make contact; a photograph of me from any of my books published before 2018, will give you the correct point you want to connect with; in later books you may need to make an appropriate age-adjustment. Don’t worry about this movement exposing you to a counter-attack, it is so quick and fast that anybody – who hasn’t already tucked their chin in, in preparation for defending it – won’t be able to react and respond in time. Another way to deliver it, is to drive the top of your forehead into your assailant’s face. Your head represents a good 7-kilos of solid, hard skull (apart from the face), and when driven forwards/upwards, with the strength of the spine and back muscles behind it, can be used as a focused area to concentrate force against an assailant and move them back. Another way the head can be used, is to grind the boney parts of the skull, into the soft areas of the face. This is something I teach as a simple defense/attack when you are clinched up with an aggressor i.e. grind your forehead into their eye-socket, to create movement. If you can control their head with your arm, as you grind your skull into their face, you will be able to move them in the desired direction – my default being to drive them toward the ground. The head/skull is a good attacking weapon, whilst the face a vulnerable target. We need to protect one and leverage our attacking possibilities with the other. The good news is that the face is a relatively small target to protect, and the head is a large attacking tool, which is difficult to defend against.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=381 Tue, 29 May 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=380 Last week, I wrote about some of the lessons that those of us concerned with reality-based self-defense  can take from MMA and Combat Sports, such as recognizing that catching punches from blocks etc. isn’t practical or viable e.g. if it was possible to do, with all the money that is in these sports, somebody would have found a way to do it etc. In this article, I want to look at some of the things I teach and practice in Krav Maga, and why these things aren’t seen in MMA and Combat Sports. I have heard and seen several arguments made, that if somebody doesn’t do something in an MMA match, it’s not applicable for real-life, and whilst I do believe there are things we in the reality-based self-defense world can learn from combat sports (as I wrote in last week’s article), the argument itself fails to take into account the differences between sport and reality. You are unlikely to see a Krav Maga 360-block replicated in an MMA or Combat Sports match, and there are several reasons for this; these blocks see the forearm at a 90-degree angle to the upper arm, intercepting circular attacks. In most combat sports, where striking is involved, fighters tend to cover rather than block per se – incidentally, I do believe covering, and riding punches and strikes has a place in real-life confrontations. Covering works well against unarmed attacks, when you know that your assailant doesn’t have a knife in their hand; but against a blade, it is not so effective. In dealing with punches, covering can work well, but when you are simply reacting to a movement, where you don’t know if you are dealing with a knife slash or a haymaker swinging in against you, it is safer to try to block. Often, you will not have the time to register the nature of attack and will simply have to react and respond to the movement/motion. In such instances, it is better to try to block the attack, rather than cover. In an MMA match, both fighters know that the other will never have a weapon and so, don’t need to worry about blocking an attack in this way – they don’t have to account for the risks of covering and being met with a blade to the back of the neck. If knives were ever introduced into a cage or ring fight, my guess is that blocking would start to become a much more important tool in a fighter’s arsenal. Another reason that 360-blocking is rarely seen in sport, is that both fighters are switched on and ready to fight i.e. they aren’t often caught by surprise. This type of blocking is based on your flinch reflect, where an unexpected movement crossing your peripheral vision, and stimulates a reflex, which sees you bring your arm in initially to protect, and then outwards to “attack” the attack coming in. You will occasionally see fighters make such movements if they are caught by surprise, but more often than not they are able to recognize an attack/punch as it is being made, and deal with it using a “trained” response. One of the lines I often use to describe Krav Maga, is that it is, what you will do, rather than what you may want to do e.g. you may want to cover to deal with a swinging haymaker, but if you are caught off-guard, and your flinch reflex is stimulated, that won’t be what you will do. Another reason you are unlikely to see 360-blocks in an MMA match is that the striking is much tighter and more controlled. Whilst, occasionally you may see one fighter wailing on another, wind-milling and flailing their arms as they punch, most professional fighters will try to minimize their movements when striking, so that they don’t telegraph their strikes. An untrained individual, looking to generate as much power as they can, is usually unable to do so with any subtlety and so loads weight on the rear leg, transferring it forward, as they swing in their punch with as much movement as possible. It is these large movements which tend to stimulate our flinch-reflex, rather than smaller ones. As stated, I believe covering from punches has its place, and is a useful and necessary tool, however I also believe that 360-blocks (coupled with movement, away from the attack, and towards the attacker), are important to learn, because of the nature of reality – not everything in the cage or ring can, or should, reflect real life. In the same way, you are unlikely to see Krav Maga responses to chokes and strangles, in MMA fights. This is not to say that the MMA solutions to these attacks are wrong or ineffective, rather that they assume that the person being attacked has a level of preparedness, and is ready to deal with such attacks, recognizing them as they are being applied. With Krav Maga, we are working with the body’s natural responses, which will be triggered whether we are prepared or not e.g. when the throat is attacked, and the airway blocked, our hands will naturally come up to try and clear the hands or limb that is obstructing it. There is no need to train this response, it occurs naturally. I am not going to argue or debate that there may be more effective ways, in MMA or other systems, to deal with such attacks; if caught by surprise that is the first movement you will make, and for speed and efficiency it should form the first part of our defense, as we don’t know what else we may have to deal with, such as a second attacker. In the ring or the cage, you must only deal with that attack, meaning you have a degree of time, and the ability to focus your attention on the choke or strangulation. In a real-life altercation, you often don’t have time to dedicate and direct all your focus on that one attack, as you will need to be aware of everything else that is going on in your environment. As reality-based practitioners, there are a lot of lessons that we can take from MMA, including some of their training methods, but it would be wrong to assume that outside of the controlled conditions of the cage or ring, everything is applicable for reality; just as it would be wrong to say that Krav Maga techniques, would be the most suitable ones to use in an MMA match. Those of us who train in reality-based systems should look at the lessons combat sports teach us, but at the same time recognize that the context and environments that we are fighting in are not fully replicated in such fights, and that we have good reason to do some of the things – such as making 360-blocks – that professional fighters don’t replicate.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=380 Mon, 21 May 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=379 There are things I want to be true but know/understand that they can’t be. As a Judoka, I’d love to believe it was possible to throw off a punch, but my experience tells me otherwise; I’ve tried to do it, but it’s never worked: not in sparring or reality. When it comes to real-life violence, we need to be honest with ourselves e.g. we can’t change an attack, in order to get our techniques/solutions to work. I could set up a training partner, to make such a punch, that would allow me to execute a throw off it, but I’d have to alter a lot of things to do so, such as stop them from recoiling the punch, take away their ability to throw a second strike, get them to over-commit their weight forward, and lunge into the strike, etc. – things that nobody in real-life altercations does. Maybe in another world where the stars aligned, such things would happen, but not in the one I exist in. This doesn’t negate the value of throws and takedowns, but trying to catch a punch, in order to execute a throw, although not in every context impossible, shouldn’t be something I expect to work for me. Whilst combat sports such as MMA, don’t mirror real-life encounters (I’ve written about this in the past), they do reinforce such points. If an MMA athlete had found a way to consistently catch punches and throw off of them, they would be doing it. The financial reward of being able to do this would have motivated not just one fighter, but many, to find a way to make this possible. MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) contests, and other combat sports give us a good insight, into what won’t work in a real-life encounter, and it is worth us taking note, as in reality-based systems we often lack an outlet for really testing what is possible and what is not. To my knowledge, and recollection, I have never seen somebody in an MMA fight, grab a punch i.e. block it, and then with the fingers grab hold of the arm, and control it. If it has ever been accomplished, it’s not an action that is consistently repeated, successfully. I have seen punches controlled by hooking actions, and wrapping actions, but never by grabs. The physics bear this out. Punches are recoiled, and pulled back, after being thrown, with the pull back potentially generating more power than the actual punch i.e. if the punch is recoiled with the pulling action of the body rather than just the arm, the back muscles, along with those of the hips, will be employed, and that will overcome anybody’s grip strength. If it was possible to hold on to a punch, the MMA guys would have figured it out, as the financial rewards would have justified the training investment; to be able to catch a punch, by grabbing it, would give you immediate control of the arm, and a significant advantage over the other person. However, there is a reason that this doesn’t happen in MMA matches, as it’s almost impossible to pull off; especially without potentially injuring the fingers and the hand. If you train blocking, and then grabbing the arm with your hand, consider why a professional fighter, looking for every competitive edge doesn’t do this. If your argument is that it needs a simultaneous strike to accomplish it, ask yourself again why a professional fighter doesn’t employ this tactic to get it to work. They have the time to train it, and the financial incentive to do so. There’s an obvious reason why they don’t. If you think that this would work against a knife, but not a punch, understand that a knife can be recoiled faster than a punch, as a knife attack doesn’t need the same level of power as a concussive blow. Knife attacks are far more frenzied and involve much shorter and faster movement than punches and strikes. Is it possible to control, an attacker’s knife arm? Yes, but not by trying to grab it with your hand; you need to wrap their entire arm with yours, etc. Is this easy to do? Of course not, trying to control any rapidly moving limb is difficult, however trying to grab it with your hand is next to impossible. If the MMA guys, don’t train to grab/catch a punch, then we’re wasting our time trying to do the same with a knife attack. I understand why people want to think it’s possible, but in reality, no knife attacker will allow it to happen. Of course, we can always change the way a training partner attacks with a knife, so that we’re able to grab it, but in doing so, we’re fooling ourselves. Just like throwing off of a punch, I wish grabbing the wrist of a knife attacker’s arm was possible, but everything I see – and have experienced – tells me otherwise. In a cage/ring fight, many conditions have been set (some which drastically differentiate it from a street-fight), however one that’s not, is how the other person attacks; that is entirely their choice. They’re not from the same system, they’re not someone that “knows” how to attack in a certain way – they’re doing everything to be as non-compliant/competitive as possible. In this regard, they mirror a real-life assailant. They don’t want their opponent’s defenses and techniques to work, and this is why nobody tries to grab a punch – it’s going to fail. Hooks, wraps, jams, traps, etc. are all viable options that have been proven to work in MMA, and our techniques that reflect and replicate these methods should be celebrated, and we should have confidence in, but trying to grab a punch and hold it in your grip, there’s no precedent for. If it was possible, professional fighters would have found a way to do so. It was this argument that convinced me that lifting my heel and turning on my toes would allow me to deliver a more powerful punch i.e. that’s how professional boxer’s punch, and when there’s millions of dollars on the line, you’re going to choose substance – that delivers – over style, where it doesn’t.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=379 Tue, 15 May 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=378 Last Autumn, I went back to school to do a second Master’s. It had been over 20-years since I’d been in academia, and I needed to both broaden and update my perspectives. My self-study approach to both psychology and criminology, had run its course, and I was in a situation where I didn’t know, what I didn’t know. I wanted to engage in thinking critically about what I already knew; as well as learn things I didn’t. This is something that is encouraged in academic circles (my professors don’t want me to read only one opinion), but which is often avoided within the martial arts – one exception being competitive martial arts, such as MMA, where any new perspective, idea or approach could give somebody the edge when they compete. In reality-based martial arts and self-defense, this critical thinking, is only applied by those who truly expect to have to deal with real-life situations. Those who don’t believe it will ever happen, can afford to engage in cult-like thinking, where they only have to think about how they would fit – sometimes shoe-horning in - their current approach and way of thinking i.e. what their system tells them to do, into their idea of reality. In certain cases, they have to alter reality to do this, so that what their solution “works” e.g. they create in training more time and space for themselves, than is actually present in a real-life conflict to react and respond, and/or they don’t recoil the knife or the punch, to enable them to control it, etc. In this article I want to look at the dangers of cult-like thinking, and why we should apply critical-thinking to that which we teach. Cult-like thinking promotes idealism over realism; whereas critical thinking acknowledges that a one size fits all approach, isn’t applicable or effective in every situation. I prefer to use the term ‘heuristics’ to describe what many others refer to as ‘principles’ – but if people prefer to use the term ‘principles’ to determine the approach they take, we still need to acknowledge that reality has enough grey areas, that these can’t always be followed to the letter, or applied as hard-and-fast rules to every situation. Appropriate responses to violence, are governed by the context of the situation i.e. situations determine solutions and not the other way around. There are concepts and ideas that can guide and direct us, but these should never be seen as principles that we must follow at all costs; it is cult-like thinking that would tell us, or prescribe, that we should always respond to a situation in a certain way. Critical thinking allows us to see many ways to respond and allows us to determine which one(s) will be effective and appropriate, given the context of the situation we are dealing with. A system, such as Krav Maga, should direct our responses, rather than dictate them e.g. there will be times to combatively shut down an armed attacker before we control the weapon, as well as times when we should control the weapon before we shut them down; and there might be times when we disengage, instead of shutting the attacker down, etc. Violence is fluid, and subject to context, and it is this that determines what we “should” do.  Perhaps the biggest issue with cult-like thinking, is that someone or something must be wrong, for it to be right i.e. it’s not able to acknowledge that a contrary opinion to its own can be right, for different reasons to its own. This comes partly from an inability to understand the importance of context, and partly from an insecurity, that sees its viewpoint and opinion as having to be right, and everyone else’s as wrong. During my time in the martial arts, and Krav Maga, I have been taught several different ways to throw a roundhouse kick, along with different methods of throwing back and side-kicks, etc. Cult-like thinking says that only one of these methods can be right, critical thinking on the other hand, says they can all be right, and in fact each one may have strengths (as well as weaknesses) that the others don’t. My background is predominately in the Japanese Martial Arts, but I have spent a little time studying Korean Martial Arts – in certain instances similar kicks are executed differently e.g. sometimes a kick is chambered to generate power, in other instances it is “lifted” to gain power. Which is right? Both are, context dictates: sometimes you need power over speed, and sometimes it’s the other way around. If you don’t understand both approaches though, you’ll always assume that the other party has got it wrong. In cult-like thinking, one must be “wrong”, to make the other “right”. In conflict resolution terms, we refer to this as a competitive-conflict, where there must be a win-lose outcome, because the loss is as important as the win, to one of the parties. To put it another way, the goals of both parties are negatively independent as opposed to being positively interdependent. In a positively interdependent conflict, everybody wants a win/win outcome e.g. whichever kicking camp you are in, you want to educate the other party as to why you kick the way you do, and better understand why they kick the way they do, etc., recognizing that you might learn something new from them, and them from you etc. We refer to this as a co-operative conflict. Unfortunately, for those engaged in cult-like thinking, co-operation in a conflict, and learning from others outside their own circle, is anathema. Any conflict exists to prove they are right; they must win, and the other party must lose – with the loss being as important to them, as the win. Many people, when they first start working door security engage in this type of conflict resolution, which is really a type of enforcement. Instead of trying to get a person who needs to be ejected, to see that it’s better if they leave of their own volition (interdependent goals: they want to leave, you want them to leave, etc.), they feel the need to be the one that comes out on top, and wins the conflict, by making them leave i.e. making the other person lose in the conflict. The need to win, and to be right, usually leads in sub-optimal outcomes for all involved. If we truly expect that we may have to deal with violence at some point in our lives, we will always be looking for new, better, different and other ways to deal with such incidents; this doesn’t mean we have to sacrifice our approach, but recognize where we may have gaps and weaknesses. I am constantly on the search for better ways to deal with knife attacks – I’m not happy with what I teach, but it’s the best way I have found to this moment. I train, talk with others, watch other system’s approaches, to better learn and understand, and see if what is being demonstrated works in the contexts I’m training for and/or has something to offer me. If it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean it is wrong, and neither do I feel the need to say so; I may simply not be aware of the context (context is king), or the reasons behind that approach i.e. it may be that we are both right, even though what we teach/propose may be different. Rather than cult-like thinking – where we view everything different as an attack that we must defend against – we should try to engage in critical thinking when seeking solutions to violence. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=378 Mon, 07 May 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=376 Violent crime is a process. An aggressor, regardless of their motivation, needs to go through a series of identifiable steps to commit an act of violence e.g. they must select – or find themselves in – a location, they must select a victim, assess them, etc. But before they orchestrate (or find themselves in) such a situation, they must go through another process: they must become comfortable with the idea of using violence, or, as the criminologist Lonnie Athens would put it; they must go through the “Process of Violentization”. Just as a predatory criminal must come to accept using violence to achieve their goals, so must we, though our goals are largely singular; to defend ourselves, through a variety of means, to survive their assault. If the individual we are dealing with is better prepared to use violence against us than we are to them, it is likely we will not be successful in achieving this. There are those who may not be happy with me describing “self-defense” as violence, but really self-defense is just a legal term, that could be substituted for “justifiable violence”. I think it is better to recognize a violent incident for what it is: different parties using violence against each other for different ends (ours, as the defendant, being both moral and legal). If we look at the process of Violentization that the criminal goes through, to become comfortable with using violence against another person, we can better understand how we can prepare to use violence, as well as the obstacles that we will need to overcome, if we are going to become as adept at using it as our assailants are. In my time working door security, I witnessed a lot of violence in bars and clubs. Those that were most “successful” in an altercation were usually those who were quickest to act violently (i.e. they were decisive), and were prepared to act more violently than the other person e.g. they would hit harder (rarely through any greater physical ability, but more because of the emotional intensity of their attacks), and be more sustained in their attack – most of these fights were over in seconds, with one party emotionally crumbling under the ferocity of the attack. Learning to become violent, and using violence, is a process that violent criminals go through, and we need to go through a similar - though different - process in order to reach, at the very least, the same point as them. To be successful in a violent confrontation, we can’t come in at a lower level than our assailant. Athens saw Violentization as comprising of four stages. Rather than detail them, I’m going to describe them as barriers to violence, that must be overcome, so that we can see how we might overcome these same barriers in a training process. In the first stage, the individual experiences and understands the horror of violence, through a subjugation to it. In the second, they resolve to do something about it i.e. to use violence when (not if) threatened or attacked. In the third stage, they act for the first time, by using violence. Quite correctly, Athens’ research – which is quite extensive – recognized that this isn’t as easy a step or transition, as many suppose – I’m often amazed at the glib responses those involved in self-defense and Krav Maga make, regarding how they would act and what they would do in certain situations, when they’ve never actually been in a real-life altercation before. Athen’s research, showed that moving from a resolution to use violence, to actually using it, involved clearing many emotional hurdles; and these were violent criminals he was studying, not law-abiding citizens i.e. they’d already satisfied themselves as to the legal consequences of hurting and injuring somebody. It is one thing to have confidence in your training, it is another thing to be confident in implementing it; it is one thing to spar with gloves on, and another to punch somebody full force in the face with bare knuckles, possibly more so when you have a roomful of people watching you have a face-to-face argument with an aggressor – most violent altercations happen nose-to-nose, and are preceded by a verbal exchange. In the fourth stage, in Athens’ process, the individual was able to use violence without provocation. If Athens is right and it is not ultimately “poverty or genetic inheritance” that causes violent behavior, but a social process that violent criminals go through, then it is one that we can replicate in a lawful, and controlled manner. This shouldn’t be confused with “aggression training”, it is something else i.e. it us learning to be comfortable implementing aggression training, in real-life situations, and overcoming the moral, legal and emotional barriers that may prevent us from doing so. Whereas in Athens’ model, criminals come to understand that the legal system and society’s rules, doesn’t represent or protect them from being victimized themselves, so we must recognize that in the moment when somebody threatens us with violence, neither the law, nor society, is going to protect us; it’s simply a framework within which we must operate. If you train outside the scope of the law, believing that it is better to be “tried by twelve than carried by six”, good luck implementing your extreme solutions in that moment when all your doubts about acting violently come to visit you i.e. giving yourself another hurdle that you will have to overcome. It is not enough to say that we have to use violence to defend/protect ourselves, it is not enough to simply do aggression training that trains us to operate in a certain emotional state, but like the samurai, who meditated upon their own death, we should seriously think about our ability to use violence. Some of us may have already made the transition, from resolving, to actually using violence, and we would do well to go back to that moment, and acknowledge the doubts we may have had and the reluctance we may have felt; what it was to overcome that moment of hesitation. These things are valuable experiences to share. We should look at training methods that allow us to practice punching with full force, that have a potential consequence to them – board breaking is one training method I use to accomplish this i.e. if you don’t break the board, there’s a consequence. Spar, without gloves and shin-guards, and feel what it is like to connect bone-on-bone. Start knocking off those things which may cause you to doubt your ability to use violence, so in that moment when you are required to do so, there is no hesitation.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=376 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=375 Occasionally, when I’m conducting corporate training sessions and I mention that we’re living in the safest times ever, somebody will make a comment/question, asking me if I ever watch the news and that somehow, I must be misinformed about the state of the world. Whilst I acknowledge that there are locales (and regions), that have seen raising rates of certain crimes, “street crime” in general has been falling in the U.S. and despite having experienced some major terrorist incidents (9/11, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Boston Marathon Bombings), it has not yet had to endure any long-lasting and coordinated terror “campaigns”, such as in Israel with Islamist Terrorists (from a number of different organizations) or the UK with the IRA. From a day-to-day perspective, public life in the U.S. for most middle-class people, is safe. That is not to say there aren’t rapists, muggers and burglars etc., or individuals planning acts of terror, or that we shouldn’t take our safety seriously. Violent crime does happen, and its impact can be both extensive and long-lasting; often affecting many more people than just the victim(s). However, there is a danger that we end up subscribing to the “Moral Panics” that both the mainstream and social media try to present to us e.g. despite the number of Facebook articles that say otherwise, there aren’t no-go areas for the police in the UK, due to the implementation of Sharia Law, and neither are there in the U.S., etc. The danger in succumbing to moral panic, is that it ends up distracting us from other real dangers, that are both more common, and more likely. In this article, I will take a look at the phenomenon of moral panics, and the creation of “folk devils”, and how these things can affect our personal safety. The term “Moral Panic”, is largely attributed to a British Criminologist, Jock Young, however it was an associate of his, Stanley Cohen, who really examined, and expanded the work on this phenomenon. It is important to note that a moral panic, usually has a genuine and real foundation. In the UK, several years ago, we experienced a moral panic, concerning violent videos and video games (many countries have experienced this for a variety of different reasons), that were seen to play the part in the murder of a toddler – Jamie Bulger – by two pre-teen boys. Such killings are extremely rare, and it would be simplistic to argue that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, killed a two-year old, because they had watched a violent movie. The danger of creating such causal links is that it can dissolve the individual of personal responsibility for their crimes. However, a UK public struggling to understand how children could be killers, were keen to be given a singular and straightforward reason that would explain why seemingly “innocent” children could and would engage in murder. The “moral panic” was started when the media picked up on a comment by one of the trial judges in the Bulger case, who stated that the killers exposure to a violent video, “Child’s Play 3”, gave an explanation as to why the two boys had killed the toddler; the only problem being that neither Thompson or Venables had seen this movie – it was a piece of uncorroborated evidence that had been introduced to the trial but later dismissed, when the truth emerged. What followed was a moral panic, with several Tabloid Newspapers and major Video Chains/Stores conducting public burnings of the video, and removing similar items from their shelves, etc. The media presented a simple solution to a complex and uncommon problem, and in doing so created a moral panic, concerning the effects of watching nasty videos; when in fact the argument that horror videos were to blame for the death of Jamie Bulger is patently untrue. There is a discussion to be had on the role that such movies and video games may play in instigating and/or influencing violence, but that is another debate entirely. Most moral panics, look to create “folk devils”, of those that are responsible for certain criminal activities, and are responsible for the perceived evil in our society. Often the focus on these individuals distracts us from the real dangers that we face. A few years before I moved to the U.S., one of the tabloid papers in the UK ran a piece on pedophiles that had been released from prison, and were publishing the locations of the UK towns and cities where they were living. This prompted a wave of vigilante groups, who attempted to seek them out, and banish them from their communities. One group, in their search mistakenly targeted a Pediatrician. This is quite a common occurrence in moral panics: that those who have nothing to do with the panic, become targets of it. The McCarthy Witch hunts of the 1950’s in the US offer a good example of how moral panics, sweep up innocent individuals, in their need to feed themselves. In a moral panic, somebody has to be held responsible and to blame i.e. there has to be a folk devil to attack. If those involved can’t find those that are responsible, those that are available and look acceptable, or can be argued to be responsible, are attacked. Nobody wants to have a convicted pedophile living next door to them, however when innocent people are targeted because people think, and convince themselves, that they are a danger, there is a problem; and this is one of the results of moral panics. Also, if we look at the facts, surrounding child sexual abuse and child killings, most children are victimized by family members and friends, not by strangers. This is one of the primary dangers when we create “folk devils”: we stop trying to identify the real danger, because we have an easy and simple target to aim for. We are susceptible to being caught up in a moral panic, if we hold beliefs that can be exploited e.g. if we believe that most criminals are both young and black, then we’re susceptible to believing that the greatest threat to our safety is young, black teenagers and men in hoodies – a moral panic that has been experienced in both the US and the UK. If our models of violence are founded on race, rather than actions and behaviors, we are likely to get caught up in those regular media and social media campaigns that look to create folk-devils out of black people per-se. When we look at pre-violence indicators, race and social demographics are irrelevant. If you’re scanning, you’re target-glancing, and you’re synchronizing your movement with mine, you’re a threat; nothing else matters to me, whatever the media would have me believe. In this regard, a drug addict targeting me for a crime behaves in the same way as a city banker. Predators are predators, and they can be identified by their actions and processes. Ted Bundy, when he finally confessed, said “I’m good looking and charming, none of my victims stood a chance.” For all Ted Bundy’s niceness (a behavior, not a character trait), whiteness and charm, his actions and processes, screamed predator – to those who knew what they were looking for – he didn’t fit the media profile of a serial-killer (even though almost all serial killers are white). There is a great danger, as well as an injustice, to treating those who aren’t a threat or danger as something else. If our eyes are always on that which doesn’t cause us harm, but we’ve been led to believe does, then they’re not on that which will. My Facebook feed gets over-run with videos and stories that want me to believe that there are certain dangers I need to be aware of, and rarely is this the case –the “Knock-Out” game, for example, stories of  which created a panic that anyone walking down the street could be attacked without warning, turned out to be very limited in its scope, and only involved a handful of incidents. These stories need to be fed to be kept alive, and a quick share, or a comment, adds numbers and weight to their cause, feeding the panic. Yes, there are very real dangers in this world, and we should want to talk about them, however we should be careful not succumb to moral panics, or create folk devils, where there are none.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=375 Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=374 There are many definitions of what situational awareness is, but if we were to boil it right down, it would basically involve, knowing what is going on around you – and from a self-protection perspective, if any of it involves potential or actual harm/danger. Most people lack good situational awareness, because they lack an interest and a curiosity, about their surroundings and the people in their environment. This was true, even before the mobile phone began to compete for our attention e.g. people would get lost in our own thoughts, daydream, and space out, etc. As society became safer, and we didn’t have to actively reserve bandwidth for identifying danger, so our awareness began to lower. Human Beings are the laziest creatures on the planet. We are quick to adapt, and to develop ways of doing things, which require the least amount of effort e.g. if experience has taught us that every time we walk on a crowded street, nothing has happened to us, then it is likely that any effort we may have once put to identifying danger will be reduced. It is also worth noting that previous generations educate the next: if our guardians/parents lacked awareness, we probably assumed as children that we didn’t need to be aware either. Unfortunately, a lack of awareness is a vulnerability, that a threat can exploit, and so increases our risk of being targeted and victimized. To get this back, and/or increase our level of awareness, we need to develop our curiosity. One way to do this is through labeling. This is a means by which we can manage the objects and persons in our environment, and our relationship with them. You may have had the experience, where you think you keep seeing the same person in different places, but can’t be sure. This could be an important piece of information: if it is the same person, they may be following you, etc. However, if it isn’t, it may not warrant your interest and time and may distract your attention away from something that is a threat/danger. When things first attract your attention, label them e.g. tall man in a green coat, big blue car, etc. These labels allow you to manage and place them in your thoughts. If you see the tall man or the car again, you have already registered them, and so you will be able to reference them back. The label is a term on which you can hang all their previous actions and behaviors e.g. tall man in a green coat, scanning the street, big blue car driving slowly, etc. The label/name we give allows us to make and remember these associations. Anyone or anything that evokes our curiosity, we should give a label to. By doing this, it becomes difficult to deny or discount danger. If the tall man in the green coat starts to walk towards us, or the big blue car pulls up next to us, then we need to be preparing ourselves – or potentially exiting/leaving our environment. Because we have labeled them, we have an interest in them, and this prevents us from ignoring their actions and behaviors. Obviously, a man in a green coat, can change it or turn it inside out, etc., to help avoid detection, however this type of action is only going to be undertaken by someone who is carrying out some form of planned and detailed surveillance of you, and for most of us, this isn’t a likely occurrence. If the green coat is what makes the individual notable to you, that should be your label, rather than searching for something which they’re less likely to easily change in a moment, such as their shoes, but which aren’t as recognizable to you. If the person you are labeling looks like someone you know, or a celebrity, you could label them as so-and-so look-alike, etc. Anything which makes them memorable to you in that moment should be used. Once you have given the label, you don’t necessarily have to hold it in your head, trying to remember it. If the person isn’t acting strangely, or in a way that gives you concern, you can move on and identify and label somebody or something else, in your environment. If their movement, or another action they make, draws your attention back to them, this will act as the recall for the label, which will in turn enable you to recall the original actions and behaviors, which first drew your attention to them, such as them target-glancing you, and/or scanning their environment, etc. You can go through the same process, with your physical environment. When I’m in restaurants, I label my exits e.g. main exit, kitchen exit, patio exit etc. This may seem paranoid, but if a threat or danger blocks one, I have a named escape route elsewhere. In a rapidly developing situation, that requires disengagement, having already decided upon your route speeds things up considerably. Perhaps one of the most important survival skills we have is decisiveness, and knowing how you are going to disengage in a dangerous situation, avoids hesitancy. Having assigned a label, means a quicker recall of the exit, and this can make all the difference.          This method of labeling takes little effort, and no training to do, and it will immediately up a person’s situational awareness, by giving them a curiosity around things – people, exits, hiding/concealment places, etc. – in their environment. Like all methods that aim to improve situational awareness, it needs to be trained, until it becomes a habit. For this to work, the distractions must be let go, and we must be engaged with our environment. We should be much more curious about the physical world, when we are out and about in it. Such curiosity is something that is developed over time, and labeling expedites this process, making us more effective at managing and keeping track of those things around us. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=374 Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=373 I recently read a headline that claimed the murder rate in London, UK, has overtaken that of New York. Whilst this is true on a month-by-month basis, for February and March, it is not true as a trend, over 2018, or 2017. What it indicates is that London has experienced a surge in murders, in these two months, and although they may remain statistical outliers, they highlight an underlying problem that London and the UK has always had to deal with, which is knife crime/violence. This is not a new phenomenon, and knife attacks have always been relatively common, even before there was a firearm ban. Having lived and worked in the UK, and London, I always assumed anybody that I was dealing with was carrying a knife, even if I couldn’t see one, and I still assume everybody I’m dealing with is carrying a weapon – this may seem paranoid, but life has made me this way. I also work to the understanding that a knife, or other weapon, can be pulled at any moment in the fight, rather than only at the start of the confrontation e.g. you can be punching the hell out of someone, believing that you are overwhelming them/shutting them down, and they may be “covering” and weathering the storm with their attention and focus on pulling their blade, etc. Real-life violence isn’t as neatly compartmentalized as it is often presented in training. It’s one of the reasons that I teach engagement as a means of disengagement e.g. be the first to attack and then get out of the fight at the first opportunity; it’s about survival, not ego i.e. you’re not there to punish, or teach your assailant a lesson. If you consider that many of the attacks in London, have involved groups, staying too long, may also see you in a multiple armed attacker scenario – in such instances, you may want to consider, whether disarming or overly-long combative solutions, which take time, are the most effective options. This compartmentalization of the different components of violence, can lead us to train in an unrealistic manner, and this is especially true where knife is concerned. If we always train from the perspective of seeing the knife, and having it “presented” to us, before the actual attack, we are not training for reality. Somebody who is attempting to stab, slash or cut you, is unlikely to increase your chances of defending their attack, by either approaching you directly, and/or displaying their weapon. If they do, chances are that they are trying to intimidate you first, because they lack the initial confidence or surety to make the attack, or they have other advantages that can help give them an edge, such as numbers. I was once attacked in Green Lane, London, by two youths, one of whom had a Kebab knife (this is a knife that is nearly a foot long and is used for cutting meat). The knife was kept hidden behind a baseball cap, that one of them had taken off – I wouldn’t class this as a pre-violence indicator as such, but it drew my attention to this individual i.e. why do you just take a baseball cap off, and hold it in front of you, with both hands? As we passed by each other, there was little room for me to create space/distance and control range, and he pulled the knife back from the cap and made to shank it. At such close range, blocking in the traditional sense goes out the window, especially when you are working against an extremely long blade – you’ll never be able to get the arm out far enough to stop the knife, or pull the body back enough to avoid getting stabbed (especially when you are crowded, and your movement is restricted). This is where techniques, as techniques, fail and fall down, and you’re left with concepts to guide you e.g. get two hands on the attacking arm, and stop the movement of the knife, and only then look at possibly shutting the attacker down, before disengaging, etc. Getting temporary control, taking balance, and then disengaging was what got me out of the situation, but not without a 2-inch stab to my arm. Violence involving knives isn’t neat and tidy, attacks are not always immediately identifiable, and assailants can mask and disguise their movements. When re-telling this event, many people had ‘helpful’ suggestions, most of which were the textbook responses, to a textbook knife shank – where the attacker approaches head-on, with space between them and their target, with the knife displayed, etc., rather than from the side, at close range, with a hidden weapon. Violence isn’t something we can fit our solutions into, and yet this is what often happens, which can see us blind-sided when we go to rigidly apply a technique that we think should fit, in a situation where it doesn’t. Techniques should guide us, and demonstrate ideas and concepts, that we can use to create solutions in the moment. Just as violent situations are fluid, so should our responses be. In that moment we are not there to demonstrate the system we train in, but to use the lessons it has taught us, to survive in that instance. The best tools to survive such attacks, are in spotting them before they occur, either to avoid them altogether or prepare yourself for dealing with them. In the self-defense world, we often get our ratio of self-protection/personal safety training to physical training woefully wrong. We pay lip-service to identifying the warning signs, to improving our and our students’ awareness. In that incident, I missed the ‘target glancing’ and the ‘scanning”, which my assailants would have engaged in. If I’d been more switched on, I might have had an opportunity to get my techniques to work, but at the same time I have to acknowledge, that my attackers may have been better skilled at hiding and masking their intentions than I was at identifying them, and when that happens the conditions that make a technique work will not be met. We need to train our awareness to give us the time to create those conditions, whilst at the same time teaching self-defense as a creative process.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=373 Mon, 09 Apr 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=372 One of the lines I’m always saying when teaching physical self-defense solutions is, “Armed, Assisted and Able.” They are three assumptions that you should always make when confronted with an aggressor i.e. that they have a weapon (even if you can’t see it, or have already disarmed them of one), that there are third parties in the environment that can assist them, and that they are technically, physically and skillfully able to respond to anything you do; this doesn’t necessarily mean they are “better” than you, rather that you shouldn’t assume that a punch you throw will have the desired impact, or that an assailant won’t be able to thwart your escape from a strangle, choke, grab, etc. If we work to these assumptions, in almost all situations, we should be doing anything we can to avoid engaging in violent altercations. A few weeks ago, I wrote an article on “Recreational Violence”. This type of premeditated violence often differs from Resource Violence (muggers, robbers etc. who want your resources), and Exploratory Violence e.g. sexual assaults committed by sadistic rapists, in that it is completely uncontrolled, frenzied, and is usually committed with an accomplice or accomplices; imagine a gang armed with knives, blades, and machetes, running you down, to repeatedly stab, cut, and slash you, simply because it gives them something to do; or a group who throws acid at you, not because they want your wallet or other possessions, but because it gives them status within their group, etc. You may feel that this type of violence is uncommon and can be avoided through lifestyle, however these groups and individuals are often opportunistic in who they target – in May 2017, a man was stabbed to death in front of his girlfriend when a mob ambushed them as they walked back to their car; he had no gang affiliations, etc., he was simply targeted because he was an available/suitable victim (Romford, London). In “Recreational Violence”, I suggested certain solutions that may improve your survival chances when involved in such incidents, however it was written from the perspective of being caught on your own, and I was asked how you would handle a similar situation if someone was with you, and you didn’t have the opportunity to run or disengage (probably a consideration that the Romford murder victim was having to make, as he was stabbed to death). One of the five Situational Components that I introduce in any scenario-based training I do – and which should be factored into our solutions ­– is that of “third parties” who may be with you e.g. partners, children, coworkers, etc. Sometimes these third parties may be friends who initiate/start the trouble, and sometimes they may be “bystanders” to the situation who are simply witnessing it, but in some way, you have a degree of responsibility/obligation for their safety and need to include them in your solutions. In this article, I want to look at Recreational Violence, when a third party is with you. I would caveat everything I write by saying these are “ideas” that can be – but not necessarily should be – included in a solution, and should not be read as a prescriptive or definitive solution to every situation. Every situation is different, and situations should determine solutions, not the other way around.      The first step is to have a conversation with those who you are regularly with, such as partners and children, about what they should do in various incidents. Obviously don’t terrify them – especially children – but explain that on a certain signal, or command, they should enact an agreed-upon solution. This may involve them moving behind you, making a phone call, going to get help, etc. Be realistic in your expectations of how they’ll be able to act in a situation e.g. a three or four-year-old, although physically capable of going to get help, is unlikely to leave you, as they still feel a dependence on you to protect them. As a side note, it is important to recognize how toddlers and small children, will follow adults and older children, even if they are causing them pain and harm, because they are programmed to stay close for their safety; Jamie Bulger, a three-year-old boy who was murdered by two, ten-year-old boys in 1993 (Kirkby, England), continued to go along with his murderers, even as they led him to his death. It’s likely that he saw them as his best chance of survival, because he instinctively knew that once separated from his mother, he wasn’t capable of surviving on his own. If it is a small child who is with you, you may want them to hold onto an article of your clothing, such as a pant leg or skirt, so that you can know where they are, and maneuver the two of you to a better position, without having to take your eyes off your aggressor(s). With an older child or partner, you may want them to put a hand on your shoulder, so that you know where they are at all times. If your strategy does involve sending a child for help, give them instructions, and tell them to seek out a woman i.e. someone who is statistically much less likely to be a sexual predator, and someone whose maternal instinct is likely to kick in, and offer help, etc. They should have instructions, to call the police, and then call another responsible adult such as the other parent, or a family friend, who can come and take care of them – if you are the victim of multiple stab wounds, and are taken to hospital, you will want somebody to come and take care of your kid for you. Your child should have such a number memorized, and know their street address, from the earliest age where this is possible. The less you have to think and worry about when dealing with an armed group, the better. You may also want to have whoever is with you, disengage when the physical altercation begins, especially if you are the target. One way to create some more time and distance for them to get away, is for you to initiate the fight, rather than wait for them to do so; in that initial moment of confusion, where the group is being attacked, they may not be aware enough to split their numbers and go after the other person. In your conversations beforehand, you should make sure the person you are with knows that they should run to safety, such as a populated place (where they can seek assistance) rather than simply running from danger, aimlessly. Try to make use of your environments, such as by using natural “funnels”, which restrict access to you both e.g. back away between some parked cars, which will force your assailants to go around them to reach you; again you will want to be trying to move faster than them, so that you can get into another funnel before they reach you (if you are with an adult, have them calling 911, with very brief instructions about your location, and have the dispatcher stay on the line – you should do this as a matter of protocol every time you call the police to turn up; also explain to them who you are, and what you are wearing etc.). In almost every multiple attacker situation, you are better making the first move, with the goal of looking to create an opening from which the two of you can exit. If you are with another adult, you may want to instruct them – preferably beforehand – to fight with you. Have them hold onto you with one hand so that the pair of you can target one member of the group, forcing that individual to deal with “multiple attackers”. If necessary, you can then move on to another group member, and another, putting each in a 2-on-1 fight. As with all types of violence, the earlier you can spot the warning signs, the quicker you can put a plan into place, and the more options you will potentially have. If a group ambushes you, i.e. you never saw it coming, then there is little you can do, other than hope that those with you, haven’t also been targeted. This is one reason when you are with others, you still want to stay aware, and not become engrossed, and entirely focused on the other person. If you do, you will have no understanding of what is happening in your environment, and little chance of identifying or predicting violence. There are no short answers for dealing with Recreational Violence, especially when you have those with you, who may not be able to run or disengage quickly with you, however having a plan of how you, they, and the two of you should act is the first step, in increasing your survival chances.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=372 Mon, 02 Apr 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=371 Unfortunately, reality-based self-defense, is often not informed by reality, but is based on outdated models of victimization, which try to explain who gets attacked and why, based on a person’s lifestyle choices and routine activities. Often in self-defense programs, violent crimes only get presented as opportunistic interactions, between offenders and their chosen targets e.g. a “chance” run-in with a mugger in a parking lot, when you go to get your groceries, etc., and whilst such events do occur, they are certainly not representative of all acts of violence. This idea that violence is down to lifestyle choices, has lead many programs to issue personal safety advice that goes little further than advocating that you shouldn’t walk down dark alleys, that you should stay away from the “bad” parts of town, and that you shouldn’t let your children talk to strangers. Such advice is, of course, valid within a context, however it falls far short of explaining how a lot of real-life violence actually occurs. Most personal safety advice has its roots, and can be traced back to, academic studies in victimology – the study of victims. In the 1970’s, Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo, were engaged in a number of studies that put forward the idea, that being the victim of crime, was a product of lifestyle. The basic idea behind their theory was that if you hang around with “bad” people, and/or frequent the areas where “bad” people and criminals are located, you are more likely to be preyed upon. This is an idea that most people are comfortable and au-fait with, because it echoes the personal safety advice that their parents gave them when they were a kid. It was also a major development in Victimology because before this, the focus of victimization, was on what victims did, how they acted, and how they behaved that attracted a criminal’s attention; with the implicit belief that somehow victims were hard-wired differently to non-victims (this idea of victim precipitation, can be found in the works of Martin Wolfgang – most notably ‘Patterns of Criminal Homicide’). These Lifestyle Theories would make the point that you are more likely to be mugged when using an ATM at two in the morning, whilst in a rough part of town, than if you used an ATM on a busy high street during your lunch hour, etc., and therefore to reduce your risk of victimization, you should change your lifestyle – to avoid early morning visits to those ATM’s located in “bad” neighborhoods. Garofalo and Hindelang’s work, presented a number of variables that, according to the theory, put people at risk. These included things such as the amount of time spent in public places, especially after dark, and the amount of time a person would spend with non-family members, etc. These things were all products of a person’s lifestyle. This saw self-defense instructors at the time creating scripts and scenarios, that were largely based on interactions with strangers, in public spaces e.g. you are accosted by an aggressive panhandler, a stranger tries to force you into their car as you walk home late at night, etc. Again, I am not arguing that such incidents don’t occur, or that lifestyle doesn’t play a part e.g. it would be hard to argue that going out drinking every night, in a bar that has a reputation for violence, doesn’t put you at a higher risk, than if you stayed home with your family. However, these Lifestyle Theories fall a long way short of explaining many other forms of violence – especially that which is directed at women and children, as  their assailant will often be someone they know, and may have a relationship with. Lifestyle Theories also work from the premise that we have complete control of our lifestyles, which isn’t always the case i.e. we can’t always avoid the “bad” parts of town ­. There may be certain aspects of our lives that we don’t have control over and/or are unable to change. At one point in my life, I lived in low-income/government assisted housing, where the local council had a list of approved properties that I could rent – as you can imagine, none of these were in particularly good or nice neighborhoods, but due to my income at the time, they were my choices. From a personal safety perspective, avoiding a certain dodgy area after dark wasn’t an option, because I lived there. Also, because I lived in the area, I knew who all the “bad” people were; they weren’t strangers, and rarely were our interactions purely opportunistic, and by chance. The advice of not walking down dark alleys, etc., also wasn’t applicable, because the block of flats I lived in was at the end of one. Given the choice, I would have preferred to live somewhere else, however when I left university, the country was in an economic downturn, and the only job I could get was as a security guard, which didn’t pay well. This in turn meant that where I lived, wasn’t a “lifestyle choice”. There are many jobs and occupations, which may see you at an increased risk of assault. Some of these may be obvious, some may not. If you are a “new” teacher, you may find that the only schools willing to hire you are those which have a history of violence – later in your career, you may get a choice of where you work, but this may not be the case when you are starting out; avoiding exposure to potentially violent individuals may not be a possible, if you have them in your class. The same is true if you work in many healthcare roles, because you don’t get to select your patients. These aren’t opportunistic interactions, and they’re not ones that you have control over, or can possibly avoid. When we train, do we set up scenarios where we have relationships with our aggressors, people we may have to see again, or do we limit our role-playing to just involving strangers in public parks, streets, and parking-lots? Victimology has moved on from the 1970’s and 1980’s to try to address these more complex incidents. Theories have been developed that go beyond lifestyle and routine activities, which potentially bring us into contact with violent offenders, to recognize that stranger-violence in public spaces (after dark) is only one type of danger that we face. Unfortunately, not every instructor/system has caught up with this, and may not cover the socially awkward and more complex situations that people face. There is nothing wrong with teaching a stranger-danger program to kids, or how to deal with aggressive panhandlers etc., but we should also be teaching children – and adults – how to deal with predatory relatives, friends, and others who we know.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=371 Mon, 26 Mar 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=370 It’s worth remembering, as we go about our daily lives, that we are not in fact Jason Bourne, James Bond or Jack Bauer, and that it is highly unlikely that a well-resourced individual or group is actively hunting us down, with the goal of capturing or terminating us. Because of this, our situational awareness must be appropriate to the situations and the environments in which we spend our time. Many people use Jeff Cooper’s color codes, as a means of understanding when to escalate awareness, however they can also be used as a tool to actively de-escalate awareness; of learning when to relax and “stand down”. For many people, who haven’t worked in the security arena, this idea will seem foreign and even dangerous, as they may hold to an idea that we should always be ever-vigilant – after all, you never know when someone is going to attack and assault you i.e. it could happen anywhere, at any time. I know people who believe that the moment you stop scanning your environment for danger (whatever that looks like), will be the moment you are attacked. Their message being that you should never let your guard down. There may be times, when you need to up your awareness, but equally there are times when you can lower it. You don’t need to live your life in code Red. It's easy to get caught up with “Spy Tips”, believing them to be useful and necessary tools, for understanding and operating in a particular environment. One of these “tips” is to use reflective surfaces, such as shop windows etc. to check what is going on behind you – another, simpler method is to turn around and look. If there is something going on behind you that warrants your attention, in almost every instance, there is no need to be covert about taking a closer look. If someone has identified me as a target and is acting and behaving in a way that demonstrates that they have harmful intent towards me, I will gain few - if any - advantages by “pretending” I haven’t noticed this. It might be appropriate to make it look as though you haven’t noticed them, if it’s part of a movie script, where you need to piece together other clues etc. to work out who, and what organization, is behind the campaign of surveillance against you. However, in real-life, letting the person know you have seen them, is more likely to deter and prevent them from acting against you, than trying to make them believe that you are not aware of their presence. This attitude of pretending not to notice someone who is looking at you, reminds me of conversations between teenage girls, when one notices that a boy from their school, is looking at them. Embarrassment, at not being able to socially handle a situation, and interact with people whose intent makes us uncomfortable, is probably one of the biggest barriers to implementing effective self-protection strategies. There is often a belief that it is better to pretend something hasn’t happened, say nothing, and walk away, than deal with an uncomfortable situation. This is one of the appeals of using reflective surfaces, rather than turning around, to see what is happening behind you: it means you don’t have to interact with the situation. Unfortunately, most people want a silver bullet, for dealing with uncomfortable, and socially-awkward situations, and want these solutions to involve them saying or doing nothing. However, self-protection and personal safety strategies and solutions, are about keeping you safe, and are not primarily about your potential sense of embarrassment at having to interact with, and sometimes, confront others. Predators create and feed off social awkwardness; they know we try to avoid it, and are more likely to take a route that saves our embarrassment, even if it compromises our safety. If you need to know what is going on around you, look. You don’t have to try to find mirrors and windows, to do this. If you believe that someone is following you in your car, there is little to be gained by being covert about this. You are not Jason Bourne, who is going to lure the car, into a deserted spot in order to ambush them. Your goal should be to get them to stop following you, and one way to do that is to let them know that you are aware of their presence. I was told of one person, who advised that you should pull into a shady spot, and then watch them go by. Why? To hunt them down later? To find their car, and then booby trap it? If you find – and believe - that different people are perpetually following you, there are probably some lifestyle choices you’ve made that you may want to look at. As important as we may believe we are, few of us are important enough to be in perpetual danger. This is one of the reasons I’m able to relax, and not actively search for danger, in every environment I’m in. It’s important to know when to stand down. You will only need to be on constant guard if you don’t know what danger looks like, because then, to you, everything is a potential threat. If you use reflective surfaces to see behind you, what are you looking at, what are you looking for? You can look in the rearview mirror of your car, and your wing mirror, due to habit, when you cross a lane, but not actually take notice of what you see, and this illustrates one of the problems with “Spy Tips”. Yes, you can use a shop window to see what is behind you – physics makes that possible – but what are you looking for, and what do you do when you see it? It’s the same issue, when runners are told not to run with headphones/ear-buds in; you have a greater potential to be aware of things, now that you aren’t focused on the music, and have your hearing to pick up on noises, etc. But which noises denote danger? Which behaviors and actions of others denote danger? And more importantly, what do you do, when you see and/or hear these? At face value, these “spy tips” seem to give us an edge/advantage e.g. I can see what’s going on behind me without having to turn and look, but when is this actually relevant? It’s something that appeals to our fear of having to interact with what may be behind us, but from a personal safety point of view if something is worth looking at, it’s usually worth looking at, rather than trying to pick it up in the reflection of a napkin holder, even if this is something that Jason Bourne would do. We are not covert operatives, in our day-to-day lives, and shouldn’t pretend to be, or see ourselves that way. If we understand what violence looks like, and its warning signs, we will notice it; if we don’t, we will have to constantly look for anything and everything, and actively question it. We should know the situations and environments when we can “stand down”, and if find ourselves in situations and locations where we can’t, we should actively look to change them. If you are Jason Bourne, James Bond or Jack Bauer, then you better position yourself, where you can use every reflective surface to give you an in the moment 360 degree view of what’s going on, because they are coming to get you.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=370 Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=369 In one of my former roles, I was called on to create security profiles of employees within a company, to predict the likelihood of future criminal acts – the company was losing a lot of stock, and they were trying to identify, the individuals involved to keep a closer eye on them, and eventually catch them. When doing such profiling, one of the most important components I would look at was motive; at first glance the motive may seem simple i.e. to profit from the sale of the stolen goods, but that only tells us part of the story. Motive consists of two parts: the “what” and the “why”. Unfortunately, the two often get confused and we end up believing the what is the why e.g. we look at the mugger’s motive as being to take our wallet from us, rather than looking at “why” they are taking our wallet. At first glance, this may seem a subtle and irrelevant nuance i.e. why should we care, why they want our wallet/money, and what they’re going to use it for? The “why” though is extremely important, as it tells us a lot about the “who”, and in knowing who it is we are dealing with, we are better equipped to predict their future behaviors, such as whether the mugger is likely to stab/slash/shoot us after we hand over the wallet, or whether they are more likely to disengage etc. There will be those who say they don’t care about the mugger’s motive, because their solution, in every instance, is to physically tackle them. This doesn’t take into account that some muggings will not require a physical response (i.e. handing over the wallet, etc. will see them go), and some will make that response much riskier. There could be two armed muggers present e.g. where the secondary assailant has a firearm, and is just out of your reach. We may like to think that our physical training gives us the superior edge in every situation, however realistically this isn’t always the case, and knowing what to do, and how to act, in those situations we can’t physically control is important for our survival – and understanding motive is key, as it allows us to understand the who. When we deal with a mugger, it’s fairly clear what they want i.e. our resources. But understanding the why/the motive behind the incident, allows us to understand how our responses might put us at risk. Criminals choose their crimes for a reason. There are reasons why somebody becomes a pickpocket, somebody becomes a burglar, and why somebody becomes a mugger etc. Part of the choice is based on means and opportunities. An individual who is dealing drugs, for a supplier, may want to move up the “food chain” to become a drugs baron, but the opportunities may not be there for them, and they may lack the means to do so e.g. the market may be saturated, with suppliers and dealers, preventing them from even moving up to the next level, and they may lack the confidence, charisma, intellect and other means to be anything more than a “runner” for other dealers. A burglar, may choose their crime, because they lack the confidence to engage in a confrontational crime, such as mugging, and wouldn’t be able to cope as a pickpocket if they were caught “dipping” into somebody’s bags etc. The criminal professions that individuals select, can tell us a lot about who they are, and how they’re likely to act in certain situations e.g. a burglar, is more likely to run when discovered than try to physically engage with us etc. In confrontational crimes, predatory individuals are motivated by anger, power and control, along with the need to acquire money – usually to support a drug habit (that is part of their motive). Their necessity to have immediate cash, rather than possessions that they would need to take time to sell, lets us know of their “urgency” in committing their crimes, and also their position on the criminal ladder; they are at the bottom, and probably not tapped into any criminal fraternity, even lacking the connection to someone who could fence the goods for them. They are socially isolated by both legitimate and illegitimate communities. When we add to their profile, that they probably, like most predators have a high sense of self-worth, but a history of what they see as under-achievement, due not to their own faults, but because of the breaks that society didn’t afford them. All of these things combine to produce an individual, who is angry, and combative against everybody else. Part of their motive, is to get back at the world. Taking your wallet, doesn’t just equip them with the necessary funds to get their next fix, it also teaches society a lesson, and more importantly it is them, who is giving the lesson. This gives them both a sense of power, and a period of control; both of which are lacking when they aren’t engaged in robbing people. The act of mugging someone is more significant to the mugger, than just taking a wallet or purse. This is one of the reasons that full compliance with a demand for your money – rather than throwing the wallet, away from you, on the floor, etc. – is usually your best survival option. The same action or behavior, by the same person, over a period of time, can have a different motive behind it. When an ex-intimate partner, immediately after a break-up starts sending flowers, texting, making phone calls etc., their motive might be to try and re-start the relationship by showing that they are invested in it, and care about it. After 3 to 6 months, they may still be engaging in these activities as part of a stalking campaign. This time, the reason behind the emails, phone calls, and gifts is to cause their ex-partner anxiety, and get them to fear for their safety. Their actions are to demonstrate their power, and control over the individual they are victimizing. Once we understand the change in motive, we are better able to predict how they are likely to act and behave next. Understanding motive, allows us to understand the individual better, and through this understanding, we are better able to predict whether they are going to become violent at some point – and implement preventative processes and procedures. There are other predators, who don’t fully understand the “what” and the “why” of their actions. The majority of kidnappings and hostage takings in the U.S. aren’t committed by terrorists/criminals who are looking for political or financial gains, but by ex-partners who have been denied visitation rights to their children – often for the safety of the kids. Out of frustration, and unable to see any alternative means to gain access, they kidnap their children (often with their ex-partner) and take them somewhere. When the Hostage Negotiation Team, arrive and start talking with them, they find out that they don’t actually have a list of demands, and they don’t know what it is that they’re trying to achieve. They understand that living on the “run” with their old family as hostages, isn’t a sustainable option, but they lack an alternative. The underlying motives, of frustration, anger, disrespect and injustice cause them to engage in a kidnapping, but they have no idea what their actions are actually going to achieve. Predators with no goals, are often volatile and confused individuals, who will act in unpredictable ways. When we are dealing with predators, such as muggers, stalkers or hostage takers, it is important that we understand the “what” and the “why” of their motives. This understanding allows us to better predict their future behaviors and actions and get an idea of “who” it is that we’re actually dealing with. When we put this situational component together with others, such as relationship and location, we are quickly able to build a predictive profile of the individual we are dealing with.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=369 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=368 Not all violence is the same. Some incidents, such as muggings, are planned/premeditated, whilst others are unplanned and happen spontaneously. Because not all violence is the same, we may require different methods and solutions for dealing with separate and distinct incidents – rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Predatory individuals – those who commit planned/premeditated acts – engage in violence for different reasons e.g. some use it to acquire resources, whilst others use it to obtain a thrill, and gain excitement etc. Understanding these different predatory motivations, and the forms of violence that they take, allows us to be more effective in the way(s) we respond to them. It also allows us to make sure that our training solutions are comprehensive, and that we are in fact training to deal with all of the different types of situations we may face. In this article, I want to focus on one type of Premeditated Violence: Recreational Violence. Some predators are Recreational Predators; violence is a recreational activity that they engage in, in the same way that others may play a sport, go for a run, or spend time on a hobby. Most recreational violence is social, and involves others i.e. you are more likely to be dealing with a group, than an individual. Where I grew up in Glasgow (Scotland), there’s a lot of recreational violence involving teenage gangs. Groups of teenagers would meet up in parks, waste grounds, derelict buildings etc., get drunk, and then go on the prowl, looking for someone to attack. Preferably it would be someone – or a group – from another district/area, but failing that anybody would do. The violence could be personal e.g. a rival gang, or involve a target whose only value to the individual/group, was that they were available and accessible to be assaulted. Weight of numbers, and weapons, were the favored odds, and the level of force was excessive in the extreme; each member wanting to demonstrate that they were more violent than the rest. I have seen kids run down like they were elk, being chased by a pack of wolves, and then stomped and stabbed repeatedly, whilst they were still unconscious. That’s what recreational violence looks like; it doesn’t have any purpose, beyond itself. There’s often a belief in the US, that the reason the UK has such high rates of knife crime, is because people don’t have access to firearms, however guns aren’t as suited to recreational violence as knives, they are too impersonal – and this is one of the reasons why knife crime has always been prevalent, even before the firearms/handgun ban of 1996. Where recreational violence is concerned, a knife, machete, axe or similar, is a weapon that can be used up close, and personal, and can be used repeatedly, whilst the victim is still conscious. If someone targets you for a knife attack (not a threat, where they show you the knife, but an actual attack), there’s a good chance – unless they have a personal vendetta against you – that you’re involved in an incident of recreational violence, and that there’s more than one assailant.   If your multiple-attacker training, involves a group where everyone stands back, and gives you room to move, position yourself etc., you will not be adequately training for recreational violence. If you set things up, so that you can be Jason Bourne, picking off members of the group one-by-one, with individuals “holding back” and giving you the time to do so, you are training for a very different scenario. In a real-life incident, such intricate choreography is non-existent. If you want to replicate recreational violence, have everybody charge you down as a group, at the same time, some armed with training knives. In such a scenario, you should be running, in an attempt to thin the group out – understand that it will be the fittest and most committed who will follow you the closest and try to close the gap between you and them (and as they’re the most committed, they’re likely to be the ones carrying a weapon). Thinning them out in this way, is not to give you the chance to stop and pick them off one-by-one (save that for the movies), but to give you a chance, and buy you some time, should one manage to get hold of you. Your goal here is not to engage – you don’t have the time, before the next one will catch up to you – but to break away and keep putting distance between yourself and the group. Maybe, you strike, throw punches to do this, but these are there to facilitate your escape. Most of this type of recreational violence happens close to home i.e. in the district/areas where these aggressors live. However, there are times when they stray further afield, moving into other parts of town to provoke a fight, or come into a city center looking for potential victims. One of the key warning signs when groups are getting into position is that they usually go silent and start to fan out around you. The silence is palpable. It is a very sudden, and distinct shift from the previous noise and conversation of the group. This is usually your last opportunity to act first, and disengagement is almost always your best option – any type of engagement, however brief, may see you getting slowed down, or grabbed onto and held, as the other move in around you. There will be many people who will tell you, that you shouldn’t grapple with an assailant armed with a knife, and that you should be moving and punching etc. I understand both perspectives, and each one is correct, within different contexts; different situations require different solutions. However, it is worth noting that often you don’t get to make the choice as to whether you wrestle or strike, and in this type of situation, as you will be grappling against armed assailants; this might be a skill that you want to develop, rather than ignore. There are individuals who will commit recreational violence on their own. Many predators have a certain superiority complex, and suffer from high self-esteem, yet find this opinion of themselves difficult to marry up with their actual situation; where others don’t seem to recognize their true worth, and they find they’re not being rewarded in a way they feel they deserve etc. These are “losers” with a superiority complex, who can’t shake the feeling that however great they may think they are, they’ll never actually make it, or amount to much – there is a sense of desperation. Such individuals, may engage in violent acts to give themselves back a sense of power and control over their life. This is not something they may consciously recognize, but after a few drinks, feel the compulsion to act violently towards someone in order to restore a sense of balance to their lives. This could see you having to deal with recreational violence on a one-on-one basis. Of course, this same motivation and need could affect individual members of a group, which is on the hunt for a victim(s) as well. There are no “great” physical solutions to group recreational violence, other than running, and getting away. If you believe multiple assailant situations can be strategized out, and practiced/trained by placing one person here, another person there etc. and then moving one in front of the other and you away, forget that when your dealing with recreational violence, where the group is coming at you as one, at the same time. This is the time to run.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=368 Sun, 04 Mar 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=367 There are those who, because of the job I do, think me paranoid; and I get why people may think this i.e. if I’m spending a lot of my waking hours researching and thinking about violence, that when I leave my desk or school, and come out into the world, I must be on the constant lookout for potential dangers and threats: that I must be the guy who always sits facing the door in a restaurant, that I’m constantly randomizing my movement like I’m on foot patrol in a warzone, and every time I hear a loud noise, I’m hitting the deck etc. If anybody believes that these behaviors and actions, are the signs of somebody with good situational awareness, I would argue otherwise – yes, there are benefits to sitting facing a door, but there are other entrances and exits to be aware of as well and having these “blind” rules that we follow is not productive. Also, if you see me at a bar, and you tap me on the back, don’t worry that I’m going to turn around and deliver you a “death blow”. I’m prepared, I’m aware, but I’m not paranoid, and I don’t see danger everywhere I go. The reason for this is that I think about, and study, aggressive, criminal and violent behavior - a lot. For many years, I had an extreme fear of flying – and especially flying at night. I’d been involved in a near-to, a while back, and abrupt movements due to turbulence, or even subtle movements involving changes of direction, would cause me to sweat, and tense up. I wouldn’t say that I now enjoy flying, but it’s no longer a traumatic experience for me. I finally got over this “fear” by reading everything I could about air disasters, and also everything I could find on flights that could have gone in this direction, but didn’t. Although I came across instances of technical and human failures, by and large, I was impressed at the intelligence, ingenuity and creativity of pilots to overcome some truly overwhelming odds. I have also talked to pilots, and asked them questions about what a sensation, such as feeling pushed down in your seat (something that used to happen to me many times on flights between Boston and New York/Newark), actually meant in terms of the physics of the plane etc. I’m a big believer that when educated about something, the unknowns start to disappear, and it is these that are often responsible for our fear and unease. It is the unknown that causes us to be afraid, and paranoid. One of the analogies I use about the way education, reduces rather than increases fear/paranoia, is that of gazelles in Africa – the way in which animals manage their fear and keep safe, bears great lessons for us humans. The lion, is one of the gazelle’s natural predators, but sometimes the best grass to graze on is in close proximity to a pride; and also, when they graze, they want to be relaxed, so their digestive systems work efficiently. Gazelle, know that lions usually sleep in the afternoon, rather than hunt, and more importantly what a sleeping lion looks like, as compared to a hunting one. They’re educated about the threats and dangers they face, and when they’re likely to face them. This allows them to go about their business in a relaxed state. When the lion wakes up, and starts to stretch, that’s when they start moving, and raise their awareness. Not thinking about something is stressful and anxiety-provoking. If you know what dangers there are out there and how manifest themselves, you can prepare to deal with them – once prepared, you can relax i.e. you know and can identify the warning signs, and you have a plan in place to deal with the situations that can arise. If you don’t want to think about your potential threats and vulnerabilities, everything will frighten you, because you won’t know what you shouldn’t be frightened of. Several years ago, in the UK, the tabloid press, ran several scare stories that made it look like any group of black teenagers in hooded tops, were the biggest threat to your safety. I lived in London, next to a park, where there were always groups of teenagers, wearing hooded tops. Never did I see any of them behave in a manner, or give off any warning signals, that signaled they were about to attack me, or anyone else. But, I knew several people who were scared to walk through that park. They didn’t know what to look for as far as Pre-Violence Indicators were concerned, so their only option, with the incorrect information they had, was to be scared. A little information, around identifying danger, would have allowed them to relax. Many times, people don’t want to think about a particular threat or vulnerability they have because it overwhelms them, or they are convinced that there is nothing than can be done – often they get caught in a strange Catch-22, where they don’t want to believe that there’s anything they can do, because if there was, they would be forced to think about it. Often schools, colleges and universities don’t want to think about Active Shooter/Killer scenarios, because it exposes their vulnerabilities, and suggests a level of susceptibility etc. It is easier – and more reassuring - not to think about it; until an incident occurs and they have to. It may be initially unpleasant and uncomfortable to think about a mass killer in your educational facility, and something that scares the hell out of you (as it should), but there are methods and approaches for dealing with such situations, that don’t rely on gun control, or passing legislation that allows/requires an armed presence in a school, etc. That debate and discussion can happen, whilst other solutions are being put into place – getting distracted into inaction, by believing the solution is only a legislative/debatable one, means we don’t have to think about what changes we could make on the ground now. It’s a way of not thinking about the issue, which leaves us paranoid, rather than prepared. There are those who over-prepare to the point of seeming paranoid, but it doesn’t have to be this way. A good and realistic education into different forms of violence, should see us putting plans into place that deal with them – and when we do this we can relax and go about our business, just like the gazelle. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=367 Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=366 A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article on several physical steps that can be taken in the Pre-Conflict Phase – in Socially/Spontaneously Violent Situations - to improve your chances, should things have to go physical (Working the Pre-Conflict Phase – February 5th). In this article I want to look at how to manage, some of the psychological and emotional factors that may affect us, when having to deal with an aggressive individual, in the moments before it goes hands-on. Managing Disbelief: overcoming the surrealness/bizarreness of the situation. I have seen people laugh in disbelief just before they were punched; they simply couldn’t believe that the incident they were involved in justified the use of physical force – it was literally laughable to them. This reaction/response is more common than you may think, and everyone is susceptible to it. We may like to think we will always judge a situation correctly, and recognize aggression in others, but sometimes our own positive/buoyant emotional state (especially if fueled by alcohol), will make us interpret a person’s actions and behaviors from our perspective rather than theirs i.e. if we are feeling happy, we will have a tendency to interpret another person’s facial expressions, such as a grimace, as being a smile, and even believe that their displays of aggression are in fact them “joking” around. Disbelief, is a form of denial, and this is one of our default coping mechanisms when dealing with aggression and violence: if we can tell ourselves something isn’t happening, we don’t have to feel scared or afraid – and that’s a feeling that we’re largely unfamiliar with, don’t like, and try to avoid at almost any cost. Laughing, makes us feel better, and allows us to deny the danger we’re in i.e. a quick mental re-write of the situation, and we’re all good. The first thing to do in your mental checklist, is to accept the situation for what it is, and recognize that it is not your rational/reasoning understanding of the situation that is relevant, but the other person’s aggression and emotion. What is the likelihood that somebody would threaten you, act aggressively towards you, for any other reason, than wanting to potentially harm you? The less you believe that you will ever have to deal with a potentially violent aggressor, the more likely you are to be caught in a state of disbelief when you do. Managing Fear: overcoming the fear of fear. Fear is an emotion, not a feeling – being afraid is the “feeling” you get when you interpret your emotional state, within the context of harm and danger. Another way to look at it is, being afraid, is how you describe to yourself, and the word(s) you use when you talk to yourself, about your emotional state. When your fear system is triggered – subconsciously – you become adrenalized and your emotional state changes, and you tell yourself, “I’m afraid”. Our use of language to help recognize and describe our emotional state is important. If it was ethical to do so, I could take someone into a lab, wire them up, to record certain physiological changes (such as temperature, sweat, pupil dilation, blood pressure and other physical conditions), and give them the most terrifying experience of their life, and record the results to see what changes occurred. If I repeated this experiment, but instead of frightening the person, made them extremely angry, and then compared these changes/results, with those of the first experiment, I’d find that they were pretty much the same. The emotional change/shift would be almost identical. What would be different was how the individual described and talked to themselves about how they “felt” in each instance i.e. the language they used. When facing an aggressive individual, we can tell ourselves that we are “scared”, that we are “intimidated”, that we want to “hide”, that we “wish this wasn’t happening”, and any number of things that allow us to view our emotional state in a negative way, or we can turn it around and use other language to describe how we feel e.g. “this is unjust”, “this is bullying”, “this isn’t right” – and turn our sense of being afraid into a righteous indignation. Managing fear in this way doesn’t mean we should respond in an overtly aggressive manner, or that we should fly into a rage etc. We still should run through our de-escalation methods and processes (“Dealing with Angry People” – 21st March 2012), and attempt to resolve the conflict peacefully, but at the same time this shouldn’t be done in an overly passive or submissive manner, as this could convince an aggressor that they would be able to deal with us physically – and it’s a good idea to always have them questioning whether this is the case or not, without coming across as challenging or overly aggressive. There is a lot more to de-escalation, than simply putting your hand up/out in a non-aggressive manner and talking softly/apologetically; there are several things that need to be communicated to an aggressor, both verbally and non-verbally. Our ability to mask our aggressive mindset, and our “righteous indignation” is a key skill to develop and cultivate. It is worth noting that once you start “fighting”, when you have something to do, and a goal to achieve, you don’t have time to consciously process and interpret your emotional state i.e. being afraid usually goes at that point. It is the anticipation stage, during the Conflict-Aware and Pre-Conflict phases, that gives you the time and the bandwidth to think about these things. Managing Peripheral Doubts: is it legal, am I morally entitled to use force, what if I make things worse? Etc. Peripheral doubts are those which cause us to question our ability to act physically/violently, and even whether or not we should. One of the questions I often hear when I teach groups for the first time, and talk about things such as pre-emptive striking, is, “is that legal?” Unanswered, that would remain a peripheral doubt that may cause them to hesitate and miss an opportunity to act, in a real-life confrontation. The easiest way to deal with this doubt, is to gain an operational and functional understanding of the legal aspects of self-defense and use-of-force etc. Know and understand what constitutes an assault, and learn to control and set the conditions, so your aggressor is the one who is/will be guilty of this. If you always have as your goal to disengage, and understand the way aggressive/violent incidents may be legally separated out to contain different phases, it is unlikely that you will ever be guilty of excessive force. If our solutions put us on the right side of the law, this doubt will be easily dealt with. If you’re legally entitled to implement your solutions, you should be morally entitled as well i.e. society is morally agreeing with you. The fear of making things worse, is one of the major peripheral doubts we have around acting – especially when nothing physical has happened yet i.e. even if we are morally/legally entitled to make a pre-emptive strike, what if it doesn’t work and it just makes our aggressor angrier and spurs them to violence? Being able to recognize the warning signs that precede an attack, inside the legal framework that gives us the right to do so, will tell us “when” we have to act, and “when” we have no choice but to act. When violence is inevitable – and this is what the warning signs tell us – then in almost all instances it is better to be the person who acts first. Taking the initiative is better than playing catch-up and trying to create an opportunity in a dynamic confrontation. The best way to deal with peripheral doubts, is to educate yourself about all aspects of violence. If you’re relying solely on your physical skills, abilities and techniques, you will find yourself wanting when it comes to dealing with real-life confrontations. One of the key survival skills, which I emphasize, teach and write about a lot, is decisiveness; being able to decide on a solution and act quickly. Disbelief, Paralyzing Fear and Peripheral Doubts all cause us to hesitate, and delay action, when it may be required. Learning to deal with these things and manage them is essential for effective real-world self-defense.              https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=366 Sun, 18 Feb 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=365 A line that I use a lot when talking about real-life conflicts is, “violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum”. This is something that can easily get forgotten or lost in the training environment, where you might be practicing techniques and solutions in an open and unobstructed mat space e.g. will you have the space in a real-life confrontation to perform an armbar, or guard sweep, that works well in an open mat space? That’s not to say that such techniques aren’t appropriate or don’t have value, just that we need to understand the contexts in which such techniques and approaches will work, and when and where they won’t. It would be nice to think that all techniques and solutions are universally applicable to all situations, however this is not always the case, and one factor that can affect the appropriateness of a particular technique is the environment – have you room and space to perform it? Is the surface you are on level enough to allow you to perform it? etc. Whilst the environment can restrict and limit our options, it can also create and present “new” solutions to us, such as providing us with improvised weapons that we can use to help increase/up our survival options. However, we can also use it in other ways; by putting ourselves in a position which restricts our assailant’s movement, or using objects as barriers and obstacles to slow down/prevent and attacker’s access to us etc. One of the issues that we often face when dealing with social/spontaneous aggression, is that when do we draw a line, and make it clear to the other party that we regard the situation as a conflict; this may escalate it into a violent altercation. In the initial phases of a dispute or disagreement with somebody, the other person’s emotional state might be “edgy”, rather than overtly aggressive. This would not be the time to shout, “Get Back!” and adopt any semblance of a fighting stance; as this would simply escalate the situation and take it in a direction, that it probably didn’t need taking, however at the same time we may want to do something discrete, that starts setting things in our favor, should it go physical. Many years ago, I was drinking in a pub with some friends, at a table, when a drunk man bumped into me, and spilt some of a drink he was carrying – I was seated and stationary at the time. Immediately, he became aggressive and started to blame me for knocking into him. In any situation where you are seated, and something like this happens, you need to stand up; one, it puts you in a better position should things go physical, and two, it prevents the other person from dominating you, by standing over you (if they’re able to do this, they may conclude/convince themselves that they have a greater ability than you to act physically). I stand at 5’6”, so I’m not a physically imposing individual, and anything I can use as an “equalizer” I’ll take. As I stood up, I turned the chair I was sitting on, so that the seat was pretty much level with my aggressor’s knees – I held on to the back and rooted it to that spot. If they wanted to throw a punch, or try and make a grab at me, they’d have to do it over the chair. From this position, I was able to look fairly casual – as if I was having a normal conversation – as I went through my de-escalation process. The chair was not a substantial barrier, but it would have hampered their ability to make an attack, and in some cases, this is all that it is needed for an aggressor to question their ability, especially if their strategy relies solely on getting in the “cheap shot”. Of course, if things had kicked off, the chair could have been picked up and used as an improvised weapon. Moving furniture, such as tables and chairs, to impede an attacker’s advance towards you, and help create the time to make your disengagement is a good and productive use of your environment. Often, when we are looking for self-defense/self-protection solutions, we are looking for the “silver bullet”, that will deal with everything, and solve the problem we are facing: we want one simple thing to do, that will make everything right. Most real-life situations, are solved bit-by-bit, by doing several things, which may not be significant on their own, when added up, create the solution. Stepping back, and pulling chairs and other objects in front of you, as you disengage is not going to stop your attacker indefinitely i.e. they can move these objects out of the way, just as you were able to move them into their path etc. but it will give you a millisecond here and a millisecond there, which when added together, can help facilitate your escape.  In Active Shooter/Killer scenarios one solution, which may be available to you (and suitable to your situation), is to to barricade yourself in a room, piling tables, chairs, and other pieces of furniture up against the door. Will such a barricade ultimately, prevent a shooter from getting to you? Maybe not, but most will be unwilling to spend the time trying, when there are probably easier and more vulnerable targets to be had. Active Killers, are on the clock to kill as many people as they can, in the shortest possible time (before those who are capable of stopping them enter the scene), with the goal of exceeding the number of fatalities achieved by prior shooters. When students in room 205 of Norris Hall barricaded the door against the Virginia Tech Shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, preventing him access, he eventually gave up trying to break the door down, and went looking for easier targets. This strategy was replicated by students at UCLA in 2016, to prevent active killer, Mainak Sarkar - a disgruntled PHD student - from gaining access to them. These are not isolated incidents, neither did they involve “trained” and “informed” individuals. These were persons who saw the importance of using that which was in their environment to increase their survival chances.       I’ll often describe myself when I provide corporate services as a “Professional Coward” – it’s the job description I use. Although at first glance it may just appear a self-deprecatory remark, it actively describes who I am, what I do, and what I teach. All violence comes at a cost to those involved, even if at the end of the event you deem yourself to be the successful party. If there is a chance to disengage, take it. If you can slow things down to facilitate your disengagement, do so. I have learnt over the years that few violent situations can be dealt with in one go, and that most have several stages and phases that you must work through – even if this involves setting things up to make a “conclusive” strike (which in reality is rarely conclusive) or disengaging at the earliest opportunity. Knowing how to use the environment to increase your chances is a key survival skill.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=365 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=364 From my experiences, and those of other security professionals I’ve worked with, and supported by the research I engage in, most fights and incidents of social/spontaneous violence start face-to-face, and are preceded by some form of verbal communication; this may involve direct threats, or involve dialogue where the harmful intent is hidden or disguised. What we do and say, along with how we act and behave, is crucial during this Pre-Conflict Phase. In this article, I want to talk about what to look for, with regards to warning signs and imminent Pre-Violence Indicators (PVI’s), along with how and where to position yourself, and what to do with your hands. Your success in this phase of the conflict, largely determines your success in the next phase; if/when the altercation becomes physical. Whilst we may train from a position of unpreparedness, this should not be a state that we want to find ourselves in, and the earlier we can recognize the presence of danger, the more options we will have; both physical and non-physical. I have written about many of these things before, but in this article I am presenting them as a series of steps to follow. Step-1: Control range and distance. I’ve written a lot about the importance of range control, but it is always worth mentioning and re-emphasizing it again. If you let somebody get to close to you, the chances are that their action, will always beat your reaction, even if you are in a state of readiness. In most instances, even when prepared, their movement will “surprise” you, even if that surprise is only momentarily; and if the attack involves a knife that means you’re getting stabbed to some degree – even if you are able to get your arm out to make some semblance of a block, that makes contact with your attacker’s arm, it’s probably not going to stop the knife completely (and at this range, forget about any form of simultaneous block and strike). To control range, check that when your eyes are on the center of your aggressor’s chest, you can see their forward foot, and a sliver of ground in front of it, using your peripheral vision. This should keep you at a natural distance for talking/communicating with your aggressor but will force them to have to move their body forward to make an attack; a much bigger movement to respond to than an arm swinging in to punch or stab/slash you. Step-2: Control the “space” between you and your aggressor. I talk with my hands a lot, when dealing with aggressive and potentially violent people, using either a “static” or an “active” defense with my arms/hands. This sees me, extending my arms and putting my hands out in front of me. Sometimes, I gesticulate with them, “talking” with my hands (an active/moving defense), sometimes I have them out statically in a more passive and placatory manner, and other times they are extended more emphatically, with the palms out facing the aggressor, communicating a message of “stop”; both being more static defenses. How I position my hands is usually based on the level of aggression that is being displayed e.g. if it is fairly low-level, and I’m confident that it’s a situation that can be de-escalated, I will be more casual in my hand and arm movements as I “talk” with them, than if I’m dealing with somebody who looks like they are getting ready to cross a boundary. I may also be more active, moving my hands as I talk, if I’m preparing to make some form of pre-emptive strike; with the hands already moving, I am much more likely to get past an assailant’s flinch response, than if they suddenly start to move from a static position. One of the main purposes of having my hands out in front of me is to control/occupy the space directly in front of me, so that I can maintain my control of range. Step-3: Step back. Whilst this is often necessary in order to control range, it is also an important action that will help you/your attorney present the incident in your favor, should the situation turn physical, and you find yourself involved in a criminal and/or civil case. For the conditions of assault to be met, you must fear for your safety, and your assailant must put themselves in a position where they can cause you harm – for an assault to take place, there doesn’t have to be any actual contact (when that occurs the assailant will have committed an assault and/with battery). If you step back, your aggressor has to actively move themselves to a position where they can cause you harm – should they wish to physically engage with you. At this point, you are permitted to strike/attack pre-emptively. By stepping back, you are demonstrating – to any witnesses – that you are moving away from the conflict i.e. you are not the aggressor, and if the other person moves in (and you have reason to fear for your safety), it is clear that they are acting in the role of aggressor. Even when I command people to “Back Off!”, I do so as I move back, in order to set these conditions, and ensure that it is clear who the aggressor is. If it looks like things are going to get physical, now is not the time to demonstrate your assertiveness, and try and force the other person to back away – if you command somebody to “Back Away” and they don’t follow your order, what is your next move/step? To hit them? If this were the case they/their attorney may be able to successfully argue, that you were the party that was guilty of assault and battery i.e. they had reason to fear for their safety, and you put yourself in a position to cause them physical harm, and then preceded to do so. Step-4: Move slightly offline. Don’t stand directly in front off your aggressor. Your movement should be subtle enough that they don’t feel the need to turn, in order to face you, as you talk. However, it should mean that they will be forced to turn/rotate slightly if/when they make an attack. You’re maybe only gaining a millisecond of time here when they do attack, but every bit helps and adds up, improving your chances of making a successful defense. Generally, I’ll shuffle slightly to my right, away from their right hand/arm. I work off the premise that most people are right-handed, and so that’s the hand/arm that they’ll use to attack with – and I want it to travel the greatest distance to reach me (it is also likely that it will be slowing down and reducing in power, as it would have been timed to hit me, had I been directly in front of my attacker). Oftentimes, an assailant will give you a clue as to the hand they are going to use, because they will step back with the same side leg, and load weight on to it – this allows them to shift weight forward, to help generate power, when they make their attack. If somebody shifts weight on to the left in this manner, I’ll assume they are left-handed, and move slightly off-line to my left, away from their hand. All the time, I am checking for other signs, such as target-glancing, and scanning (you’ll be surprised at how many people look/glance away, and back at you when they’re planning to make an attack), which may indicate their readiness to punch/strike/stab/slash/grab etc. Step-5: Keep your plan simple enough, to allow yourself to be decisive. I’m a strong believer in the effectiveness of pre-emptive striking. My “regular” plan, is to move back, and when/if my aggressor steps forward, committing an assault, to be the one who strikes first; because situations determine solutions this isn’t a hard and fast plan, but simply the one I generally default to. When I strike, I have only one thing in mind: getting a hand in to my attacker’s face. This is actually my “self-defense” plan in just about every situation; get a hand into my assailant’s face, and then let my training take over. Trying to think two, three moves ahead is impossible in a real-life encounter. This is due in large part to the fact that you can never predict your attacker’s response(s) to what you do. When he played IBM’s Big Blue Computer, Chess Grandmaster Gary Kasparov, stated that he only ever calculated (and was only capable of), one or two moves ahead at a time, from there he was simply responding to the situation and letting his years of experience and knowledge intuitively guide him. In contrast, the computer – and a team of programmers – calculated all of the possibilities to the millions of iterations and possibilities as a result of each move, and at the end of the day, lost. A real-life violent encounter is far more stressful than a chess match (whatever the stakes), and two moves ahead, is usually too much to think about. Keep it simple and have a go-to starting move. For me, it’s the hand in the face, to disrupt my attacker - after that, my training – my time sparring, my work on the pads etc. – leads me. Everything I do, is to ultimately facilitate safe disengagement at the first opportunity; this goal also helps me avoid the risk of using excessive force (i.e. I do only what’s necessary to give me the opportunity to get away safely). Obviously, some of these steps happen simultaneously, rather than sequentially, however laying them out in this fashion, allows me to have a checklist of things that I need to do, if involved in some form of spontaneous social violence. It also gives me something to focus on, and have a plan that I’m working to, which is one of the ways I control my fear, and prevent my overall response from being one of panic. Having something to do in that moment, is better than trying to work out what you should do. In terms of what to say, and when and how to de-escalate a situation, use the website’s search function to look for articles on “de-escalation”. Any de-escalation process you employ should be done whilst following these steps. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=364 Mon, 05 Feb 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=363 When it comes to looking at the most common attacks we are likely to face, there really are no reliable statistics to go on. A small UK police force, once collected this data over a short period of time, and presented a list of the top 10 most common “street” attacks, however this was a fairly crude piece of analysis and left many unanswered questions e.g. were the attacks evenly split, or did the top three (for example), account for 90% of the attacks? Was there a regional bias? What about unreported attacks and assaults – would these have skewed the data in a different way? Were there “biases” that could affect the order, such as when the attacker was a stranger, or when it was somebody known? These are some of the issues with presenting data in such a simplistic manner, even when it comes from the “field” and is reliably gathered. In most instances, an instructor’s ideas around common attacks, is based on their experience (if they have any), and the experiences of others they have talked and conferred with etc. The problem with experience, is that it is by nature limited e.g. I have worked door and bar security, and have seen a lot of fights, but I have seen them in the context, of a bar/pub, when people are crowded together and usually drunk. Whilst my experience is valid in that context, it is not directly applicable in others, such as attacks that occur in the home etc. So, to get an idea of the most common methods of attack, we need to combine anecdotal evidence, our own experiences and whatever research exists, and accept that this may be limited to geography, gender, age, relationship statuses and any number of other demographics etc. When I tell you, that some of the most common attack methods, I and (others who I have worked with) have seen, and which some “statistics” and other pieces of research (including that done by the aforementioned UK police force), possibly confirm, involves pushes and grabs (usually clothing), take it with a pinch of salt, and recognize that these may not represent the most common types of attack that you are likely to experience, and may be restricted to certain contexts and situations. Pushing – and taking a person’s balance – is an extremely effective way of putting somebody in an extremely disadvantageous position, which sets them up nicely for being punched. This is something that was pretty common, in the pubs and bars I worked in, where the conflict involved two men – it was usually preceded by some argument/verbal altercation, and possibly a couple of “light” (but escalating, in force) two-handed pushes; often used to test the other person’s response. All of this – and this is important to note when training defenses against pushes – happens at close range. A person would generally feel the push, rather than see it. This was partly due to the fact that they’d be looking at the other person’s eyes, which is natural when conversing, and not watching their hands, and partly because they were too close to see their hands come up. The simplest defense to avoid/prevent being pushed, whether it’s one-handed, or two-handed, is to step back, and control range i.e. I’ve never seen anybody run at somebody to make a push, when facing them (I have seen people do this from the rear); it’s just too telegraphed an attack. Stepping back, and putting your hands up, and out, in a placating manner, means that your aggressor needs to either knock your hands away, or find another way to gain access to you. If you miss the opportunity to do this, and somebody goes to push you, it’s likely that the first thing you are aware of is your attacker’s hands on your chest – and if you are training to deal with such attacks, this is where your partner should start their push from. Most attacks, where social violence is concerned, is going to be initiated at this or a similar range, with you and your attacker being nose-to-nose. Your first job, in such conflict is to step back, put distance between you and them, and begin to control range, and alter your positioning, so you aren’t standing directly in front of them – your movement off-line should be discrete and not so noticeable that your aggressor will feel the need to realign their body with yours; the time they will find/realize that they need to do this, is if they were to make a physical attack, such as a push. Setting yourself up, to be able to control range and body positioning, in the pre-conflict phase of an altercation, is key to making your Krav Maga/Self-Defense effective.   Just as we should recognize how effective a push against us can be, in terms of disorientating us, and allowing our attacker to control the range/distance between us, we should also understand how pushes can be used to our advantage – when/where appropriate. When I spar, I use pushes quite a lot, especially to set up low roundhouse kicks. It allows me to move somebody back to a range/distance I am comfortable with, it upsets their balance, so they are not able to both recognize the attack, and form a defense against it, and because they normally try to root, as part of their process to regain balance, their leg absorbs all the power of the kick. Does it work well against people who are significantly bigger and heavier than me? Not particularly, and I don’t use it then i.e. different tools for different jobs. Although sparring doesn’t fully represent a real-life fight, there are moments when it does, or can, and we should take those lessons learnt and appropriate them for reality. Pushing an assailant isn’t particularly clever, and may not demonstrate our technical prowess, but it can be extremely effective at putting an attacker in a disadvantageous position that we can exploit – and we shouldn’t think that it is something, which is beneath our dignity to use and employ. What works well for the untrained individual, should work well for the trained individual as well. Training to defend against pushes, both one and two-handed, may not be the most “exciting” or “sexy” part of our training, but it is necessary. Once your balance is taken, you are extremely vulnerable, and your chances of defending yourself in that moment, is almost impossible. If somebody is able to land a solid punch, as you fall/move backwards, and continue striking you, you may find it extremely difficult to get back in the game; both mentally and physically. Preventing that push, should be one of the priorities of our training.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=363 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=362 On Friday, I gave a training session to one of our corporate clients on transport security e.g. how to safely navigate subways, bus terminals, parking lots, and similar. One of the subject areas I covered was pickpockets, and as part of my presentation included CCTV footage of some at “work”, as they committed their crimes. Whenever I show this type of footage, people are amazed at the speed and audacity of these criminals, and often ask for me to rewind and show the footage again; because even though they knew, who and what they were looking at, the actual moment of execution was so fast, it was almost missed. This is often the case, when dealing with predatory individuals, who are skilled and operating to a plan – a plan that often takes into account their target’s reduced state of awareness. If you’ve ever witnessed a pre-meditated knife attack, where the assailant approaches their victim, already possessed with the intent to stab/shank them, the actual moment of the attack is as fast as lightning (something that rarely gets accurately replicated in the training environment). However, if you watch a knife attacker, or a pickpocket, synchronize their movement with a target, and close the distance between them, the process is glacial by comparison – only the lifting of the purse/wallet or the knife attack itself has a sense of urgency and immediacy about it – the preparation takes time. One of the phrases that stays with me from a Tactical Driving Course I attended many, many years ago was, “Slow in, fast out” i.e. you approach a hazard/danger with caution, and once past/through it, you get away from it as fast as you can. This is how many predatory individuals plan their actions. A pickpocket will spend a long time observing, approaching, and positioning themselves, but their execution and disengagement happen at speed – a pre-planned knife attack is the same; there’s no rush in getting to the victim, but once in range the attack occurs at full speed, usually with a similarly speedy disengagement based on the situation and circumstances. To be successful in dealing with either of these criminal activities, it isn’t techniques that will save you, it’s an understanding and awareness of what’s happening before the criminal makes contact with you – in most cases, even with training, at the moment of attack, you will not be aware of, or quick enough, to deal with the criminal; the crime/attack will have been committed before you have time to even register it. 99.9% of the time, action will beat reaction – and when the assailant has a plan of action, we might as well say it’s 100%. Pickpockets usually only take the effort to disguise the moment they “dip” into somebody’s bag or pocket. Up until that moment, they are often fairly blatant about what they are doing e.g. walking extremely close to the person they’ve marked, covering a target’s bag with a newspaper they are holding, or a coat that is over their arm, etc. They may even deliberately bump into somebody (using the motion of a bus or train as an excuse), in order to initially feel where a wallet/purse is being held. The CCTV footage I have collected over the years, shows both the lack of subtlety in the “approach” phase of their crimes, and the lack of awareness of the individuals they are targeting e.g. I have several clips of pickpockets pushing the wallet up out of the back trouser pockets, of people in front of them on escalators, so that it is easier for them to grab/extricate; they’ll often wait for the person to make a reassuring tap on their back pocket to check that the wallet is still there, before they make the lift/dip. Pickpockets are not alone amongst predators, in giving us plenty of warning signs, that indicate and demonstrate their harmful intent towards us. Unfortunately, we often discount these warning signs away, rather than taking them seriously. Several years ago, a man had his buttocks slashed whilst he watched the Notting Hill Carnival, in London. One of the attackers filmed it, and the footage made its way to the major TV Networks. As a Self-Defense/Krav Maga instructor teaching in London at the time, I, like many other instructors became pretty much obsessed with finding solutions to such attacks i.e. when you are attacked with a knife from behind. However, the dirty little secret about real-life knife attacks, is that most people are as unaware about being slashed and stabbed, when the attack comes from the front, as they are when it comes from the rear; in both cases it is largely unseen, with orientation meaning little in the initial moments of the attack. As instructors we can get caught up in arguing which system’s techniques are better at dealing with knife attacks, whilst forgetting that most people, whether trained or untrained, will be stabbed/slashed multiple times before they even get to the point where they can respond; and yes, I include techniques and systems based on natural reflexes and responses, such as the one I teach (such things will only get you so far, and have a limit on their effectiveness). Watching and studying pickpockets allows us to see how obvious their approach and positioning is; a quick search on YouTube, will demonstrate how clearly identifiable their process, approach, and positioning is – you will be amazed at how obvious their tactics are. However, the difference between you, watching it unfold from the outside, and the target, is that you have the opportunity to see what is going on; the person looking at their phone, walking looking straight ahead, or reading a newspaper etc., doesn’t. However, that is a choice they have made.  The signs, the signals, are all there, clear as day. Physical attacks, whether armed or unarmed, are no different. There are always Pre-Violence Indicators (PVI’s), and often these are as obvious as the ones that Pickpockets display. Without picking up/identifying these, your techniques have limited value, and the likelihood that you will sustain multiple stab wounds, or take multiple strikes and punches is extremely high. I say it all the time, Self-Defense/Krav Maga/Martial Arts, on their own rarely work, because they need awareness and preparation to allow them to have the edge/advantage. If you don’t believe that crime – including violence – that targets the individual isn’t predictable, take a look at pickpockets in action, and then compare their actions leading up to the execution of the crime, to physically violent predators.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=362 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=361 Fear is an emotion (not a feeling), and it provides us with the context for understanding what is happening in our environment. Recognizing this is key to understanding how Situational Awareness works in real-life situations. Awareness isn’t by default a conscious process; it can’t be. Consciously, we can only focus on one thing at a time – our brain in this mode can’t multi-task - and this is the very opposite of “awareness”, which requires us to be able to keep track of the many different things that may be happening in our environment. Our subconscious processes work faster than our conscious ones, so even when we think we have “consciously” recognized/picked up on a warning sign, our subconscious processes have beaten us to it – they process the information quicker than we can process it rationally, because they don’t rely on having all of the information before they move into action e.g. if you are walking through the woods and you step on something that moves (hidden beneath leaves etc.), you will probably involuntarily jump back because your subconscious fear system will take over and move you to safety; just in case what you stepped on was a snake or a piece of unstable ground that would have caused you to fall, etc. It won’t wait to identify what the precise danger/threat is (to have complete information), and may even react to something that isn’t harmful e.g. a broken branch you stepped on. What your fear system has done is given you a context, in which to understand your situation: leaving you to now rationally make sense of that situation. When I teach people about “warning signs” that indicate somebody is planning to assault you, there is often a confusion, that I am suggesting that these are things people should be actively looking out for and trying to identify and pick up on. In certain situations, it may be the case that you do need to actively up your awareness, such as when you are walking in a bad part of town late at night (something you shouldn’t plan to do, but may be unavoidable; you may live there, for example), but for the most part we shouldn’t be walking around in a heightened state of awareness, as this will distract us from the things that we need to do on an everyday basis. We should allow our fear system to do this for us. If I take two warning signs that can indicate the possibility of danger, such as “Target Glancing” and “Scanning”, it can be found that people will do these things for none nefarious reasons, as well as nefarious ones. Target Glancing, involves somebody, repeatedly glancing at their target (this can be things/resources as well as people – a pickpocket looking to take a purse or wallet will not stare at it, as this would possibly draw attention to their intention, but will check it with a glance, and then looking away, repeating this process till they are ready to take it), often from different positions. Scanning, involves a person repeatedly looking around them, to check their environment – when it is done by a criminal, it may be to check for the presence of law-enforcement/security, if there are CCTV cameras around and where the blind spots may be, and to make sure their escape routes after committing the crime are clear and accessible etc. There are however a multitude of honest reasons why somebody may scan and target glance. A father out shopping with his child will scan to keep sight of them. If a person thinks they recognize somebody, but is not sure, they will probably keep glancing at them. None of these things in such a context, indicate harmful intent, however if your fear system, changes your emotional state, by adrenalizing you, these behaviors and actions, should be identified for what they are: warning signs. Your fear, has given them a context in which they should be understood. Your conscious recognition of these warning signs, haven’t alerted you to danger, they are helping you identify – and confirm - what the danger is. Fear is the context, that changes an otherwise innocent behavior, into a warning signal. One of the ideas/concepts that I teach is the Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA). When you are alerted to the presence of danger, within your environment, you need to make an assessment of it, and this assessment is based on the warning signals that you can pick up on – if you pick up on any, it is a “High Risk” situation, if you can’t pick up on any, it is an “Unknown Risk” situation (your fear system picked up on something, so if you can’t recognize/identify it, it remains an unknown stimuli, which you must continue to search for and investigate). There is no such thing as a “Low Risk” situation; if risk exists, it should in these situations always be categorized as “High”, that way it is never denied or discounted. If you hear loud bangs, in an office building you work in, and become adrenalized, they must be interpreted in your “new” emotional state, in the context of fear i.e. as gun shots. Unfortunately, in many active shooter/killer contexts, these warning sounds are not interpreted within the context of fear, and are explained away as somebody letting off fire-crackers, etc. If your fear system adrenalizes you, and you pick up on somebody’s footsteps behind you, they must be interpreted from your new emotional context; as a warning sign that should be investigated and evaluated, rather than as something that should simply be explained away.            In the 1880’s, the psychologist William James, changed the way we understand fear. It used to be thought, that we saw a threat, became afraid, and then responded to it, or as in James’ analogy we’d, “see a bear, fear it and run”. James came to the conclusion, that this wasn’t the correct order of events, and that in fact we’d, “see a bear and run”, and as/because we were running we’d consequently fear the bear. Or, to put it another way, we’d understand our situation i.e. our emotional state (fear) gave us the context to understand what was happening to us. In the case of a wild bear, the danger is evident, when dealing with human predators the warning signs of a threat may be more subtle, however many of these warning signs can easily be explained away e.g. the person we identify to be walking behind/gaining on us is simply in a hurry or is trying to catch up with us because we have dropped/left something etc. Without the context of fear, this is the correct way to interpret such things, but when in a state of fear, they should be treated as warning signals – even if there is a chance that our subconscious processes have alerted us using incomplete information. We don’t have to be always actively looking for danger, but when our fear system is triggered, everything should be interpreted within this context.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=361 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=360 I’ve been practicing martial arts since I was 8 years old, and for as long as I can remember I have been interested and fascinated by them. My philosophy, even as a reality-based self-defense practitioner and instructor, remains a largely “martial arts” one: that we each have our own individual journey and way, and that nobody has the right to dictate to you that their way, has to be yours e.g. if you want to cross-train your Krav Maga with Karate, BJJ, Muay Thai, Judo, etc. that is your way, and nobody can tell you that you are wrong to do so. If you are with one Krav Maga organization, and want to train with an instructor from another, this is your way, and nobody can tell you that you shouldn’t. At the same time, if you want to only train with your instructor, and your organization, that is fine as well. Nobody can tell you that your way/journey is wrong. We are all different, and have different needs that we must meet. I have had students who wanted to compete in combat sports, because they had to know, that they were able to do so, and would be capable of being successful in that environment – I never tried to talk them out of this, nor would I confirm that it was necessary for them to do this as part of their self-defense training; they get to decide what is right for them. When you stand, facing a committed aggressor, in a real-life confrontation, who is looking to take you apart, the fewer doubts you have about your skills, abilities and competencies the better, and if competing/cross-training helps you remove some questions you have about this, who can criticize? I don’t see it as a short-falling in the system/method/approach I teach, nor my abilities as an instructor, when someone leaves my school, rather I see it as part of that person’s journey, and whilst I may be able to explain to them from a technical perspective why the system I teach doesn’t require such cross-training/competing, I recognize that from their personal perspective it does. This idea of training being a journey, has largely been lost in the reality-based self-defense community, with some instructors arguing that their way/system is the only way, and anyone who follows a different path to them is at worst doomed, or at best wasting their time. Unfortunately, this system over individual approach, is detrimental to both a student’s progression and their ability to deal with real-life situations. When a student is confronted with a real-life situation, it is them, not the system, that is put on the line, and it is them, not the system, that will have to live with the consequences of their actions, regardless of whether they are successful in defending themselves and surviving the incident. Hopefully, their training has prepared them, and the techniques they know will improve their chances of dealing with the confrontation appropriately, but ultimately it is them, who will have to act. I was once attacked by two people, one of whom had a knife, and attempted to shank me. Instead of making a 360 Block, I ended up grabbing the arm, blocking with my thumbs (not something I teach or recommend). It was something that I did in the moment – and there are times, due to the various components/factors in a situation, that the “wrong” thing will work, however this doesn’t mean it should be adopted as a universal solution. My background is in Judo, so I’m used to grabbing at things, and I have a pretty good grip. In that moment it was my “way” that saved me, not the system of Krav Maga that I’d learnt. Had I not had those years on the mat and those skills as a Judoka, maybe I wouldn’t have stopped the knife. If I hadn’t those experiences, maybe I would have made a 360-block. At the end of the day, nobody knows and nobody can say, but what is indisputable is that I – not a system - stopped the knife. When I explained what had happened to me to the head instructor of the Krav Maga association I was with at the time, to try and gain a better understanding of the way in which I’d reacted, I was told all the reasons why what I had done was wrong, and what I should have done instead (something I was already aware of as an instructor in that system). The attitude was that, the system was more important than what had occurred, and that in some way I’d disrespected the system by implementing a “different” solution to the one it taught and advocated. For the record, I still teach the solution that I was taught as an instructor in this Krav Maga system, and not to grab the knife arm with two hands, but it was clear to me that all of us training in the association were meant to only be cookie cutter replicas, of the “ideal” practitioner that the association aspired to. It is this rigidity that is dangerous for the individual, who must be allowed when necessary to respond as fits the situation, in that moment, rather than trying to fit the system to it. The real danger in the promotion of the system over the individual, is that students can come to believe that simply turning up and practicing whatever system it is, is enough; in the same way that people believe that it is enough to turn up at the gym, move about the weight machines for 45 minutes, in order for them to get stronger and more powerful. The system, over the individual, approach means that those performing a gun disarm put their faith in the system and not their own abilities, something that will do them little good when dealing with a real-life scenario. When a student steps out onto the mats to train, it is their attitude, their work-rate, their effort and commitment which will yield the rewards; there are no medals or prizes for simply turning up, or selecting the most battle-tested, proven and effective system, known to man; it is the individual’s practice and application that will get it to work when crunch time arrives. I’ll put my money on a traditional Karateka, who trains with blood, sweat and tears and who has never trained a gun disarm before in their life to deal with such an armed assailant, than a Krav Maga practitioner (who knows an effective solution), from a legitimate system, who approaches their training from the perspective of, “it’s enough to just turn up”. Krav Maga should not be simply a system, it should be part of an individual’s journey; something that they make their “way”. It is something for them to adopt and personalize, not merely replicate. This is the student’s responsibility, not the instructor’s. Sometimes as instructors we must lose a student, because they find their “way”, which doesn’t involve us – often from my experience they come back, not because they were “wrong” to leave, but because it was, what they needed to do at that time, and now that time has passed – sometimes, we must accept that they want to “extend” their training, by training in another system, or with another instructor, etc. It might be that the training they engage in, is unnecessary, or even undertaken mistakenly, but if it adds to their journey – as all experiences should – then it has served a purpose that is beyond our judgment.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=360 Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=359 Often when we look at the issues, problems, and complexities of multiple assailant scenarios, we look at such incidents from our own perspective, rather than from that of the group that we are facing. This is both natural, and understandable. However, if we can understand the dynamics of the group, the relationships between its members, and the different roles they may play/adopt, we may be able to enhance and improve our tactical responses to such scenarios. Whilst our physical tactics, might tell us to operate in one way, our “social tactics” may suggest a better and more effective way. It is important when looking at fighting concepts and principles for dealing with multiple attackers - such as lining attackers up, moving to the group’s flanks, etc. - that we don’t just blindly apply them, but fit them into the context of the situation we are dealing with; sometimes we can find that doing the “right” thing, is in fact wrong, because of the situational components present in the conflict. Every situation is different, and principles should guide our responses rather than define them. In real-life situations, many principles are heuristics (rules of thumb), rather than hard-and-fast rules. Just as with one-on-one situations, the first question you must ask yourself, is whether this is a premeditated conflict, or one that has occurred spontaneously i.e. did the group plan the incident, or did they become involved organically, because of something you said or did, to one of its members e.g. such as knocking into one of them, inadvertently looking at them for too long, etc.? There is a big difference between a group, that is actively working together, and who has planned and orchestrated their interaction with you, and a group that forms around one of its members after an injustice, real or perceived, has been committed against them. In a premeditated multiple assailant confrontation, group members have likely been assigned roles, and are working to some form of script. In a spontaneous incident, members are working individually and to their own agendas/understanding of the situation. If the group has a collective experience of violence, informal roles may be adopted by members, based on past events e.g. the group may know who the fighters and aggressors are amongst them, who will do the talking and who will stay quiet, etc. In a truly spontaneous situation, it should be the “wronged” party who will do the majority of the talking - if another member of the group takes up their cause, and they step back, there is the strong possibility that the group has been in this type of situation before and are working to an informal script (or even a ritual if this type of incident has occurred repeatedly), which sees one member adopt the role of the primary assailant. In a premeditated situation, the person doing the majority of the talking may not be the primary aggressor, and instead be a decoy who is there to draw your attention away from them, as they position and ready themselves to initiate the attack – that will see the rest of the group follow. In a few situations, such pre-conflict phases may be less defined, and you may find yourself having to physically defend yourself from an angry mob/gang who attacks you with little/no warning, however these types of assault are not the norm, and in most incidents any physical attack will be preceded by some form of dialogue. Being able to differentiate between someone playing the role of the “trigger”, and the primary assailant, is key to surviving such multiple attacker scenarios. It is generally advisable to try to “target” the primary assailant, as they are the one who will want to be involved in the actual “conflict” phase of the fight, with other members being more reluctant to get involved. Trying to nullify this individual first, is often the best strategy, even if they may be in a position that would compromise a “physical strategy”, such as remaining in a central position, where you wouldn’t be able to line up other attackers behind them, and/or move/position yourself on the flanks of the groups. Just as Russian Snipers in Stalingrad during WWII, were taught to take out German Officers, because it would reduce the leadership capabilities of the German Army and offensive, taking out the primary assailant in a group will do much the same thing with the group. Not every member of the group has the same role or capabilities, and removing the primary assailant deprives the group of its most important asset.   It is unlikely that every member of a group is committed to violence, in the same way, and at the same level, as each other – this doesn’t mean that they aren’t still capable of extreme forms of violence (in the murder of Jamie Bulger, although both Venables and Thompson committed atrocious and despicable acts, it was Thompson who appeared as the accomplice rather than the driving force i.e. although both were able to commit torturous acts, it was Venables that displayed more of the appetite to do so – the torture and murder of Jamie Bulger by two ten years-old boys, should act as a reminder that children can commit extremely heinous criminal acts, and whose creativity and need to examine and explore the boundaries of human pain and suffering, can rival that of an adult) but that they may be reluctant to act, unless somebody else initiates the attack. I have seen, on several occasions, members of groups hang back, unwilling to get involved, until the individual being targeted is unable to fight back, and at that point they become some of the most enthusiastic participants – social diffusion reduces their individual responsibilities/culpabilities and frees them to act in a more extreme form than they would if they were on their own. If the primary assailant can quickly be shown to be vulnerable, susceptible to pain, and their abilities called into question, such individuals may find themselves less committed to the assault. By pre-emptively biting the nose, ripping the eyes from a primary assailant’s face, a strong message of deterrence can be shown/demonstrated to others in the group.    These individuals have a relationship with the primary aggressor, and whilst their role may be to support them during an assault, it is certainly not to replace them as the major attacker. Groups have hierarchies, and individuals adopt roles within those hierarchies. Most violent acts by groups, should reinforce, not question or challenge, those roles, or positions – unless there are those in the hierarchy who want to challenge those above them, etc. - something which is more prevalent in premeditated incidents of violence than in spontaneous ones.   It would be dangerous to fall into the trap of believing that all participants in a group, engaged in a violent act, have the same motivations, the same levels of aggression/commitment, and want the same outcomes. Assailants are not toy soldiers, that you can position, lay out, and treat as equals. To do so is reducing each attacker to merely be person1, person2, person3, etc., when in truth person2 and person3 may have no desire to be involved in the fight. When a Field Marshall lays out his battle plan against an enemy, it is not just their regiments’ numbers and resources that are considered, but also their reputation, commitment, and resolve, etc. Our approach to dealing with multiple assailant situations should be the same; that we recognize each individual in the group for who they are, and devise our strategy for dealing with them accordingly.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=359 Tue, 02 Jan 2018 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=358 In last week’s article, I looked at some of the reasons why people are reluctant to act, when they are presented with a threat or danger. This reluctance, is very different to “freezing”, which is largely an emotional response, rather than a psychological one. Reluctance, is much more akin to the denial and discounting of the danger, and the deliberation involved in reaching a decision, as to how to deal with the threat, than the physical inability to respond i.e. freezing. This is not to say that the two won’t occur in tandem, just that the methods to overcome a reluctance to act, are somewhat different to those used to move out of the freeze state – though they will assist in this, where there is a physical component to them. The first step in overcoming a reluctance to act, is to be honest with yourself, and what you can expect of yourself – your training, however realistic, will only go so far in preparing you; this is not a criticism of anybody’s training methods, just that the reality of a committed attacker coming at you with a knife, etc. can’t be fully replicated in a gym or studio setting, unless a real knife is used, and the attacker is given the remit to do everything that they can to repeatedly stab you, until you can’t fight back anymore, etc. shock knives and other training tools are great, and extend the reach and reality, of the training environment, however you will still know that you’re going home at the end of the session (and this underlying knowledge and assumption will influence your response and reaction to the danger). Don’t be blasé, about what you believe you would do in a particular situation, and how you would react, as this may mean that you won’t recognize your reluctance to act, when facing someone who is dedicated to causing you serious harm/injury. None of us are perfect, and none of us will react/respond perfectly in every situation. However “good” we believe ourselves to be, we must recognize this, so that we can overcome this “reluctance” if we experience it. Often, we must “force” ourselves to act. I wrote in the last article about our natural/in-built reluctance to do anything to change a situation in which we are not yet experiencing pain, and in which the consequence of acting could result in pain e.g. if you are facing an aggressor who is spitting, screaming, and shouting threats as they move towards you, you “know” that your survival chances will likely increase if you act pre-emptively. The problem is that, this could cause your attacker to respond by attempting to inflict pain on you; ironically, what they are intending to do to you anyway. One way to overcome this natural reluctance, is to have processes and procedures that you run through, which force you to act. One that I adopt when dealing with verbally aggressive individuals, is to step back and raise my hands (adopting a De-escalation Stance), and ask a pre-set, open-ended question. If my assailant steps towards me, I attack. I have a pre-built opening combination, and after that, the situation, my attacker’s responses/movements, etc. will dictate my striking patterns. I only ever prepare for the first few moments of the conflict phase, and after that it is the “training” that takes over. My initial response/decision to act though, is based on my attacker’s response: their movement/step towards me - it is this, which forces me to act. I have several of these simple scripts that I work to, and they help me overcome any hesitation and doubts that I may have about responding physically. The “when” of responding, is as important as the “how”, although this often gets neglected in training e.g. if you are going to attempt to disarm somebody of a knife or gun, when do you do it? Do you always attempt to control the weapon as soon as you see it? Do you wait until the person makes a request (such as for you to move, hand over your wallet, etc.), and make a judgment to act based on this? It is worth remembering that situations determine solutions, and not the other way around. There may be times that you should look to control a weapon immediately – when you believe that it is going to be used straight away, in some assassination attempt – but there may also be times that you may not see, or be aware of, the weapon, until you hear an assailant’s demands, etc. If you are not looking to spoil the draw, have a response that sets off a chain of events. Putting your hands up, when a weapon is aimed at your head, etc. is a good physical response, if mental processes are attached to it, and it’s not simply a “passive” response to the threat. Have a pre-built decision tree, that dictates if/when you will attempt to control/disarm them off their weapon e.g. if they demand that you move, if they remain after you’ve handed over your resources, etc. – these pre-built responses/decisions, will help you overcome any natural reluctance, you may have to act. Be aware that you will only be able to hold a couple of thoughts in your head, under the stress and duress of the situation. Attempting to think about too many things that you have to do will keep you in a state of indecision, and hesitation. Just as I only think about the initial strike I’ll make when acting pre-emptively, I do a similar thing when dealing with weapon threats. I will have a “mantra” that I recite, such as “Move the weapon, move the body”, that I repeat in my mind – two simple things, which will give me a hand-defense and a body-defense (basic Krav Maga principles). When I act, this should get me past the most crucial stage of the defense, and allow me an opportunity for my training to take over. I also use the syllables in sentences I may say, as points to force me to act. If I’m dealing with an armed mugger who has taken my wallet and/or other resources, I may say to them, “Is there anything else you want?” As soon as a question is started e.g. “Is there…” an individual will start to mentally fill in the rest of the sentence, before it’s been said (this is the same phenomena as reading ahead in a book, where we start to process sentences before we have fully read them). This will distract them from whatever task they were planning next, which may involve using the weapon against me. However, my intention is not to complete the sentence, but force myself to start my solution/technique, on the third syllable (“Is there any…”). This is like counting, 1,2,3 before jumping out of a plane, or off a platform when doing a bungee jump, etc. When we have to overcome a fear, forcing ourselves to act on a particular count, helps us overcome our reluctance. Having a sentence/statement/question that you make to an aggressor, with a syllable, such as the third (1,2,3), that you use to force yourself to act is a great aid to decisiveness; one of the most important self-protection and self-defense skills we can have. Just as we train – or should train – to overcome the freeze response, so we should also train to overcome our reluctance(s) to act. Just as we can talk ourselves out of acting, we should be able to self-talk ourselves into responding. Creating and having scripts and processes that we use to do so, is an important part of our training. Visualization is also a key tool to helping us overcome our reluctance to act, and this is something I have written about extensively (you can use the search functions on the Krav Maga Blog page, to find articles about this). Whilst physical techniques need to be practiced, these are only one part of any solution to violence, and we need to have everything in place that will allow them to work, if we are to be successful in dealing with real-life violence.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=358 Tue, 26 Dec 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=357 There is a huge difference between “freezing” in the face of a threat or danger, and being “reluctant” to act; yet we often make the mistake of confusing these two very different things as being one and the same. When somebody truly freezes, they are experiencing an emotional response to danger, however once this passes (and this often happens before they are physically attacked – as most assaults happen face-to-face and are preceded by dialogue), an individual is still left with their cognitive process intact, and so has the ability to act. Unfortunately, many people will still fail to do anything, even when their abilities to physically respond to a threat return, and it is often this reluctance to engage that creates the inaction that leads to a person failing to deal with the danger they face. Even a seemingly trained and prepared individual, may fail to respond because of a reluctance to act, rather than because of freezing, and in this article I want to examine some of the reasons, why people don’t respond to an assault/attack, in a way that their training suggests that they would. In many ways, the better your training, and the greater your preparation, the more pressure you have on yourself to perform well. A black belt in any martial art, has an expectation on them, to be able to easily deal with any untrained individual i.e. they supposedly possess the knowledge, the skills, the fitness and the techniques, that make them a superior adversary to the aggressor(s) who they are facing etc. However, most people training in martial arts and self-defense (and I include myself in this), have a dirty little secret; that they fear real-life violence (as they should), and understand that it is their training alone, which gives them the edge against an experienced and committed aggressor. I never ask anyone to be honest with me concerning this, I only ask that they be honest with themselves. The issue is that a person’s training is an “external” thing; it is something that they have applied to their lives – it is not something that is intrinsic to who they are, and this means it is something that they must have faith in, and develop a trust in themselves to apply – the goal of the martial arts being that over time this starts to transform who they are, however it is far from an overnight process. If this is lacking in any way, shape or form, an individual will be reluctant to put their trust in it. It doesn’t matter how authentic, proven or “battle-tested” it is, when it comes time for a person to enact a solution for themselves, it is down to them to make it work. I still remember the first punch I threw, as a professional, and 99.9% of the power came from a hope and a prayer that it would do what I knew it was capable of doing in the training environment. I had to drown out every doubt I had, with the belief that it would accomplish the goal of significantly stunning, and slowing down, the person I was facing. It was a pre-emptive strike, and I was reluctant to throw it, because I wasn’t sure that I could trust it to work. As an instructor, I spend a lot of time, developing student’s convictions in their skills and abilities to be successful, whilst at the same time giving them realistic expectations as to their assailant’s responses. Many people are reluctant to act, because they believe a better opportunity may come along; that “now” is not the right time. I believe that what separates the effective martial artist/self-defense practitioner from the ineffective one, are not superior skills and techniques, but decisiveness. It doesn’t matter how good you are, how effective your techniques are, etc., if you are not decisive and are too reluctant to act, your aggressor/assailant will never see these. Successful fighters, in real-world situations, are not often the most skilled and able, but the individuals who are committed to acting first. If you are continually waiting for a better opportunity, the other person is likely to overtake you. When I first competed as a Judoka, I was always reluctant to attack, telling/convincing myself that there would always be a better opportunity, that now was not the right time, etc. Most of my initial fights were lost on penalties for being too defensive and not aggressive enough. After a while I realized that nobody would give me that perfect opportunity, and/or that if it was presented I’d usually miss it. The perfect moment, is the one you create, not the one you wait for, and often you create it by moving events forward, rather than by waiting for things to align. If you need to take a knife away from your throat, because you believe somebody is going to cut you, you’ve got to do it – and often force yourself to do it – rather than wait to see if the perfect, or a better moment come along; they won’t. Unfortunately, reluctance is built into our DNA – if something is not causing us pain now, we are hard-wired that it is better to do nothing than risk changing that, even if/when we know we are likely to experience pain in the future. If somebody is pressing a knife into your neck, and demanding that you move with them, you know that you shouldn’t i.e. they obviously need to move you somewhere else, because they can’t do to you what they want in their current location (which means dealing with the threat/danger there is probably your best survival chance/opportunity). However, in that moment, you are not experiencing pain. You are aware of the future possibility of pain, but in that moment, you are not being hurt. Your survival instinct will tell you to do nothing to change that. Action means the risk of that changing, inaction means preserving the status quo, and so you will be reluctant to act. Many times, this will be excused, or explained away, as freezing, but it is not: it’s a reluctance to act and deal with the danger. As those practicing and preparing for reality, we need to be aware of the difference, and train not just to overcome a potential “freeze” response but also a “reluctance” to act. Social media, has provided many examples of this reluctance. Most of us will have seen footage of law-enforcement officers not drawing their weapons, even when the situation was obviously one where they were entitled to do so. In some cases, these individuals emotionally froze, but in most they were too reluctant to escalate their level of force, and these are trained individuals (the reason I am using them as an example). Some, may be reluctant because they know the potential legal consequences of drawing their weapons, some may be reluctant to act in this way due to moral concerns etc. There are a whole host of reasons, however in many cases it is a reluctance to act that holds them back, rather than their “freeze” response. These are trained individuals, who deal with violence on a near daily basis, and yet they can fall foul of this indecisiveness, and we should be aware that we can too. Rather than blaming inaction solely on freezing, we should consider the reasons why we may be reluctant to act, and train to overcome them. We’ll take a look at some of the ways we can do this, in the next blog article.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=357 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=356 We have already lost a lot of our survival skills, due to our modern lifestyles. We are no longer as aware or curious about our environments, as we once were, and we generally spend less and less time thinking about and considering our personal safety. Modernization has meant that our lives our generally safer than they have ever been – compare living in a city today, with a century ago, etc. Some of these changes are good i.e. the chances of being murdered and killed, are a lot less than they were a thousand years ago, and some of these changes aren’t so good, such as the adoption of bad personal safety habits e.g. walking whilst texting, being on the phone when we should be looking around, etc. We have also become more than happy to pass off personal safety responsibilities, to technology. In the past year, I have seen more personal safety gadgets and applications, that promise “touch-of-a-button” solutions to situations, than ever before. These gadgets and apps, all promise one thing; that they will deal with a dangerous situation for you, and this is an extremely attractive message. The promise is that you will no longer have to make risk assessments, concerning the situations you put yourself in, and if it does appear that you may be in danger, the app/gadget will resolve the situation for you in a non-confrontational manner. Some of these gadgets seek to assure you that you will no longer need to learn how to set boundaries, learn to be assertive, or navigate socially awkward situations, as the app/gadget will make these skills redundant. However, technology in and of itself is not a solution, and to work it needs to be implemented in a realistic, natural and effective manner. The underlying message of these apps/gadgets is fundamentally flawed; they still rely on human behavior and action to make them work. Many of these gadgets are aimed at women, and promise to reduce/eradicate rapes and sexual assaults, and yet don’t address the most common situations, where such attacks take place. Women, are statistically most likely to be raped by someone they know in their home or somebody else’s, and yet most of these gadgets, are marketed around the idea that women are most at risk from strangers in public spaces, such as bars and clubs. Often, these gadgets are disguised as pieces of jewelry with a hidden distress button, that when pressed alerts friends in a network, that a person is in danger, and informs them of their location via GPS. The idea is that a woman who is being harassed/pressured, or feels threatened, can discretely press a button on a bracelet, and her friends will rush to her assistance. This would work if her friends were a) in the vicinity, and b) took the alert seriously, however there is a rich supply of studies that show people have a tendency to deny and discount danger when they are alerted to it. Imagine that a friend of yours phones you because they are walking on their own, late at night, and they feel nervous/scared. They haven’t identified anyone in their environment, or any actual threat, but it’s late, and they tell you that they would feel better talking to someone. Suddenly, you hear a scuffle, and the phone goes dead, what do you do? Do you give them 5 minutes to see if they phone you back? Do you try and call them back? And what do you do if you don’t get an answer? Do you call the police, risking the potential embarrassment of being wrong and “wasting” their time? Most people will discount the danger and deliberate for a period of time before doing anything – and most will do nothing, convincing themselves that the most likely explanation is that the person’s phone went dead, etc. If that person’s entire safety/survival strategy rested on somebody else’s actions, they are in trouble. If you receive an alert, and the GPS shows that the person is at home, and you’re either at work, or its late at night, are you going to assume the person is in danger, or that the alert is a “false” one? Or perhaps that somebody else in the network of friends will respond to it, so you don’t? What if your friend does phone the police, or the device contacts law enforcement directly? What are the response times for the area you’re in, and how much information do the police have on where to find you? The briefest sexual assault on record took place in under seven seconds, between two stops on a New York subway. The woman who was assaulted wasn’t able to react until it was over, due to the shock of the attack. An assault may be over before the police are able to locate and get to you. Any personal safety solution that relies on the actions of others is fundamentally flawed. I have also heard about apps/gadgets – usually disguised as jewelry -that will send a “fake” text message, or phone call to your mobile, so that you can exit an awkward, inconvenient and/or dangerous interaction, by making an excuse that you have to take it. This non-confrontational approach to exiting a potentially dangerous situation, is very appealing, but has many potential flaws. If you are in your home (and will you be wearing your bracelet/jewelry in your house?), with somebody who is making you feel uneasy, and you press the alert button, which sends the call to your phone, what are you going to make up/tell them, that will be a believable reason for getting them to leave? If they ask questions or press you on it, is your story going to stand up? If they have harmful intent towards you, are they likely to respect what you are saying/asking them to do? If you are going to end up having to be assertive, to back up a made-up phone call, wouldn’t it have been better to be assertive in the first place, asking the person to leave – or explaining that you have to leave – because of a legitimate reason. When we write the script for predatory individuals and believe that they will always behave/respond in a certain way, we will find ourselves in trouble when they don’t. Several years ago, a woman was raped in the North End of Boston. She realized she was being followed, and pretended to be on her phone, believing that the man who followed her would respect the social convention, of not interrupting a person who was on the phone. He didn’t. Someone who didn’t have predatory, harmful intent towards her, may have respected that convention, however such individuals are not the people we need to protect ourselves against.    The best way to see how these apps and gadgets may be used is to role-play with them in a variety of likely and realistic scenarios. Not testing them to see when/where they work, but testing them to fail e.g. have somebody become incensed that you take a call when talking to them, or refuse to leave when your friends turn up to assist you etc. Change the location from a bar/public space you your house or room. Have somebody question the legitimacy of your call. Understand as well, that at some point the “professional” predators will be aware of these gadgets and apps, and be ready to challenge them, as well as find ways to circumvent them. When it comes down to it, these apps and gadgets are not solutions, and certainly not a replacement for self-protection knowledge and understanding. Hoping that an individual will respond in the way that the app or gadgets believes they will, is no self-defense strategy.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=356 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=355 The elderly are a naturally vulnerable group; with age there comes a deterioration in physical abilities. Strength and movement start to decline, and because of this, the ability to physically defend yourself when attacked is reduced. It would be nice to think that through training we can delay these things – and to a certain extent we can – but for those of us with elderly parents and relatives, who have never trained, this isn’t an option (my parents are in their 80’s – and have never done any martial arts or self-defense training). There are those who would suggest firearms training, to help “level the playing field”, but this may not be appropriate, due to diminished mental faculties – a firearm in the home of somebody suffering from some degree of dementia may be more of a liability than an asset – and physical concerns, such as vision problems, tremors, etc, also come into play. Firearms ownership also isn’t legal in every country or locale. This means that in order to keep our elderly relatives safe, the focus (as it should be with all self-defense training), should be on prevention and target-hardening, to avoid victimization. It is worth understanding some of the particular types of crime that target the elderly. Drug addicts, know that the bathroom cabinets of many elderly people, contain prescriptions for opioids – including Fentanyl - and other powerful pain killers. In many cases, there may be the remnants of courses of these drugs, that were over-prescribed, and never used. This makes the homes of the elderly an attractive target for criminals in pursuit of these drugs. It also makes the elderly vulnerable when they pick up/fill their prescription, and they should take the same precautions when in the pharmacy, as they would when getting cash from an ATM/cash machine i.e. being aware of who is around them, who seems interested in them, etc. If it is possible for them to use a delivery service for their prescriptions, this would be preferable to picking them up, in person. I would also advise that they not use ATM’s for cash withdrawals, but instead use the counter service at the bank, as there will be security cameras, and other people present (crime preventers), which are likely to deter most opportunistic predators. As we get older, our memory does start to deteriorate – the degree to which it does will vary from person to person – and we will be more likely to forget to lock a door, or close a window, than we would have, when younger. One way to help mitigate this vulnerability, is not to rely on memory, but instead use checklists as reminders. If you have an elderly relative, you may want to help them create a checklist of windows and doors, etc. that they need to make certain are secured, before they go out, and/or when they return home. This list can be pinned to the front door, and it can also be used last thing at night, before they go to bed. The list can also include things such as checking that electrical items are turned off at the socket, etc. As long as the individual sticks to the list, and goes through it each time they leave the house (or go to bed), they will know that they will have limited these opportunities for criminals to exploit. The elderly are often targeted as victims of fraudulent marketing campaigns, whether by phone or door-to-door. Unfortunately, many seniors, who would once have recognized a con with ease, are no longer so confident of their world as they once were, and may be susceptible to misinformation, especially if the consequences of not going along with the plan are presented in dire and extreme ways e.g. if you don’t switch over your electricity provider, you’ll be cut-off within 7 days, or if you don’t sign these forms, your pension will be frozen, and you’ll not be able to make a new claim for 30 days, etc. One role that you can play in the life of an elderly relative, is to be the person that they direct any cold-caller, or telemarketer to, with your role being presented as the final/actual decision maker. It is also worth reminding them that no legitimate organization is going to require an on the spot decision about anything, and that they will have the time to talk things over with yourself, and that you will be able to talk things over with whomever it is that has contacted them about services, etc. When a con-artist, has to involve another party, they are likely to back away, as there are unfortunately far easier victims to exploit.  If you are able to, get a security chain fitted to your relative’s front door, so that they never have to fully open it to someone. If a criminal has targeted an elderly relative’s home, because they believe that there are valuables/drugs inside, but there are no accessible windows and doors that would facilitate a break-in, they may attempt a simple home-invasion, via a “push in” e.g. when the door is opened they barge in, knocking whoever opened it out of the way. For many doors and frames, it will be difficult to screw the security chain unit, deep enough, for it to have much integrity on its own, and so it is worth backing this system up with a rubber door stop, that can be pushed under the door as it is opened. The two together should be enough to stop the door being pushed in – if not, standing on the door stop can strengthen it further. A high-pitched alarm, with a pull string release, can be placed by the door, and set off if/when somebody tries to get past the chain and door-stop. This is likely to make a would-be intruder question the potential costs of trying to continue the break-in i.e. there are probably easier properties to target. Security and personal safety are, at their core, largely about procedures and protocols, and as somebody gets older and their natural abilities start to diminish – so that they can’t see or hear as well as they once did, aren’t as strong/agile as they once were – these protocols become all the more important. Telling an elderly relative to simply be more aware, may be something that they forget to do, or are unable to do, etc. Having lists, that they follow to the letter, will hopefully ensure that from a basic personal safety perspective they are becoming a harder target than those around them. With unlimited funding and resourcing there are many things that can be done to make an elderly relative’s life/home more secure – such as installing surveillance cameras in their property, so that you can check if doors/windows have been left open etc. – however, this isn’t always possible or practical. Setting our elderly relatives up with simple manual processes and procedures requires little or no investment, and can in fact have a great effect on their overall safety.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=355 Tue, 05 Dec 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=354 The motivations and reasons for violence are often many-layered. At the lowest – and deepest -layer/level, violence is borne out of shame. Shame, as a form of trauma, is a reaction/response, that comes out of being forced to deal with an emotionally challenging and demanding situation, in which the person involved wasn’t able to exert any control over it; it was disempowering and humiliating, even if nobody witnessed the individual going through it – it’s enough that they knew, and they weren’t able to do anything about it etc. A child who is sexually abused is likely to suffer shame, throughout their life, concerning their inability to prevent such abuse from happening, even if when older they “rationally” understand, that they couldn’t have been expected to have control or influence in such a situation. It would be wrong to assume that in every case, this shame, will result in acts of anger, aggression, and violence. However, when a victim of abuse does commit physically violent acts, it is likely that this sense of shame, is one of the underlying causes. We can feel disempowered and humiliated, over trivial events also. If somebody cuts us off in traffic, and we become emotional because of it, this inability to exert control in the situation, whilst in an emotional state, may lead us to feel disrespected, which in turn may lead to feelings of inadequacy and shame. Most people are able to write off, and forget about these incidents quickly and easily, but some people are unable to do so, and see such examples of disrespect as reflecting a larger attitude towards them e.g. each new incident is added to the previous one, until society as a whole is seen as disrespecting them. Such individuals may use “random” acts of violence, as a means of demonstrating to society at large, that it can’t disrespect and take advantage of them, etc. In this article, I want to go one layer up, and instead of looking at these root/base causes of violence (shame, and guilt – guilt being a “private” form of shame), look at some of the personality types of those who are predisposed towards engaging in violence. By understanding how such individuals think, behave, and operate, we may better be able to avoid having to physically deal with them (even if this means our ego taking a hit – and most avoidance strategies involve this in some capacity). Survival/Fear/Panic/Pain – I once had the privilege of having a Norwegian Elkhound. He was a great dog, but he didn’t have a “soft” mouth like a Retriever or a Labrador. When he bit, he bit hard, that was just the way of his breed. Because of this, I was instructed that he had to learn bite control, because if he was surprised by getting his tail caught, or having his paw stepped on, he would probably react by biting (this is an instinctive response dogs have when reacting to pain), and if a small child was present/the target, you would want him to release pressure, once he felt he was biting into flesh. On several occasions he bit people, but never applied any pressure – I’m not going to say it wasn’t scary at times, because it was, but he never injured or left a mark on anyone. Some people though, haven’t learnt to control their “bite reflex”, and when they experience pain, fear, or even physical discomfort – such as being too hot – lash out at those around them; whom they may perceive to be the cause of their pain. Next time you bump into somebody, step on their toes, or in some other way cause them discomfort, understand that they may react violently towards you – their bite control may not have been educated enough, and they may not know how to stop themselves. Some people are genuinely excited by violence; they enjoy and receive pleasure from the emotional state they’re in when they are fighting, and/or the elevated state they experience post-conflict. There are those people who want it to kick-off, and they’re not always the people you would think. Many of those involved in football hooliganism in the UK, have families, and good solid jobs. In their roles as employees and fathers, you wouldn’t imagine that they would be capable of inflicting serious injuries upon another person, as well as deriving pleasure and satisfaction, from the act. As the criminologist, Lonnie Athens, would describe it, they are “actors”, who play different roles at different times, and one of their roles, is that of the hooligan – and just like an actor playing different parts, the parts/roles can be very, very different. The clean-cut, family man you’ve just spilt a drink over in a bar, may choose to act, and play a different role to the one that he looks dressed for. Narcissism and vanity, can cause an individual to act or respond violently towards you. The fact that a narcissist sees themselves as the undisputed king of the world, justifies them to act in any way they want towards you – societal rules and conventions don’t apply, because they see themselves as above them. If they feel you deserve to be punished or attacked, not even because you have done anything to them, then that’s a good enough reason (they don’t need to explain it to themselves or anyone else). Although for all intents and purposes, these types of violent outbursts, resemble those of psychopaths/sociopaths (or to use the correct term, as stated in the DSM, those individuals suffering from an anti-personality disorder), the difference is that with a narcissist, the assault is emotionally driven, rather than occurring with an absence of emotion. If you don’t “get” that a narcissist needs to be treated in a certain way, or that you are a “lesser” being than they are, you will be heading for conflict. If you aren’t sure if you are dealing with a narcissist, ask them if there might be a better way for them to handle/approach the conflict. If they tell that it couldn’t be handled better, and nobody could handle it better than they are, etc. you know who you’re dealing with. Some individuals have a sense of Existential Honor; that if they fail to stick up for who they are, to settle for less respect than they feel they deserve, the sense of who they are dies. This idea of honor is clearly built on previous feelings of shame, however it is more aggressive and demanding, than simply seeking to avoid shame and humiliation – it is pre-emptive in nature, rather than responsive. The idea of honor is something that is presented, and any challenges to it searched for i.e. the individual is actively looking to be disrespected, and will fit/alter any interaction they have, to be one in which their honor is challenged e.g. an offhand look, the way something was said, can be shoe-horned in, to be a challenge/threat, and a matter of disrespect, that needs to be responded to. Retaliation, for sexual abandonment. When I was a teenager, perhaps the most humiliating experience I could imagine, was to be publicly ridiculed – in some way, shape or form – by a woman. The ego is a fragile beast, and even at its strongest, is extremely sensitive to belittlement and abandonment. It should come as no surprise, that victims of domestic abuse, are most at risk, when their partner comes to understand that they are thinking of, and getting ready to leave. In fact, it isn’t just the partner who is at risk, it is usually everyone in the abuser’s life, including their children. Those fears, of humiliation and rejection, that we may have worried about as teenagers, can be rooted deeply in some people’s psyches. Most of us grew up, and as adults understand rejection, not as abandonment, but as a choice that another person is free to make, but in some instances this rejection is seen to represent something much deeper, and some people feel a need to respond to this sense of inadequacy, by proving their “manhood” through violence. There are of course other motivations for violence, including practical gain e.g. a mugger is financially rewarded by acting violently, however even a mugger chooses their particular type of crime for a reason, and mixed in with these may be ideas around abandonment and honor, etc. Violence doesn’t have to make sense to us, in order to make sense to the person committing the crime. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=354 Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=353 Crime, including violent crime, relies upon opportunity. Sometimes a criminal creates, orchestrates, or takes advantage of an opportunity, and sometimes our actions and behaviors can facilitate an opportunity e.g. we leave a window open, that a burglar uses to break in to our house, etc. There is a theory concerning crime and opportunity called Routine Activity Theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Its basic premise is that, where a predatory crime occurs, an offender, and a likely target come together in a time and place without the presence of a capable guardian. The idea of a “capable guardian”, is specific to the context of the crime that is taking place. If the violent interaction was to take place in a pub/bar, a “capable guardian” that could prevent the incident from occurring, might be the large number of friends that you have with you, versus the lone offender, or the presence of door security personnel, etc. Although the theory doesn’t elaborate on it, the capable guardian, is judged or viewed to be capable based on the offender’s perceptions; the lone offender in the pub/bar, might not believe that your friends are “capable” of preventing an act of violence (a crime) against you, so in the context of the theory, if that were the case, they wouldn’t count as the “capable guardian”. What the theory really stresses though, is the idea of relationship, that there is a relationship between the offender and the victim, a relationship between the offender and the location, and a relationship between the victim and the location. In short, violence is about relationships. One of the most over-looked areas of reality-based self-defense and self-protection is the relationship between the offender and the victim. Most women, when asked, understand that (statistically) they are most likely to be raped/sexually assaulted by someone they know, in their home or somebody else’s i.e. they will have a pre-defined relationship with their assailant, and both the offender and the victim will have a pre-defined relationship with the location. It is the “relationship” between the offender and the victim, which is key in such assaults, as it is this that the predatory individual uses to create the opportunity. However, often the “opportunities” that are taught in women’s self-defense classes don’t reflect this, with the attacker being presented as a stranger, who ambushes his victim, in an unfamiliar or irregular (based on the victim’s routine) location, such as a park, late at night. Neglecting to teach women how to manage the “relationship”, they have with a friend or acquaintance, who has adopted the role of a predator, in that situation (time and place), would be neglecting to address the most common types of sexual violence, that women are likely to face. Rather than focusing on physical solutions for dealing with predators who jump out from behind trees and ambush their victims, we should be directing our attention towards teaching social and verbal strategies, to deflect and disengage from the more likely situations, where a partner’s best friend, or a work acquaintance, turns up at the front door (place), at an unexpected time (time), with a story/reason why they need to be let in. Such predators work on our inability to manage our relationships with them in socially awkward situations and if we fail to address the “relationship” aspect of such violent assaults, we are not going to be effective in preventing these common attack scenarios.      We also know that women are more likely to be physically assaulted by their partners than by a stranger. How do we address these situations and scenarios? Or are they simply too complex for us to provide solutions for? What are the potential consequences for a victim who fights back, but doesn’t leave their partner (relationship), or their home (location), because they may have children, or not have the financial resources to do so? I’m not suggesting that we become councilors and mental health professionals, but as those involved in reality-based self-defense, we need to teach to reality. It may be that we limit ourselves to teaching the predictive elements of potentially abusive relationships, so that those who may be at risk can understand the situation they are in, and have the opportunity to exit and disengage from the relationship before all parties have become too invested in it. Violent offenders, even if they don’t know their victim, have a relationship with the locations they use. They will probably have a degree of familiarity with the location, understanding its life-cycle e.g. when it’s busy, and when it’s not. The rapist who targets his best friend’s partner, at her home, will know or find out the times when she will be alone. Certain criminals will choose locations near to where they live, others may choose locations some distance away, and may even leave their car in another location, so that it isn’t tied to, or associated with the crime scene e.g. a sexual assailant, whose MO (modus operandi), is to target lone women, in areas which are sparsely populated, may park their car some way away, so that they are not linked to that area at the time(s) when they commit their assault(s). In such instances, locations have relationships with locations; where the car is parked, although far away, will be located on a route which is both discrete (for instance there may be a lack of CCTV, which may in this context act as a Capable Guardian), and easily accessible. Both the crime scene location and the location where the car is parked, will be linked by a “channel”. The location may also actively “draw” both the offender and the victim. In June of 2015, there was an attempted abduction of a 15-year old girl, at a retail outlet in New Hampshire (I wrote about this at the time in a blog article called “Real Life Predator Process”). The media expressed surprise that the assault occurred at 4:15 pm when the outlet was relatively busy. The offender knew that there would likely be   a large number of teenage girls at the mall, shopping after school was out. He knew that this location, would draw a certain population, as well as when this demographic was likely to be there. He understood the relationship that his potential victims had with this location, and this created opportunities for him. If his particular victim demographic was middle-aged women, he may have chosen a different time of day to visit the retail outlet, possibly choosing an earlier time in the day, when their children may have been more likely to be at school, giving them the opportunity to shop. If his demographic was women in their late teens and early twenties he may have chosen an entirely different location, and time, such as a city center, when the pubs and bars were closing. Predators go where their chosen prey are, and they have a good understanding of the relationship their victims have with certain locations. From a predictive perspective, we should examine the relationships we have with certain locations, and understand the relationships that an offender might have with them, and at what times these may be. If we then find ourselves in this location, at this time, with someone – even if we have a prior relationship with them – we should at the very least be wary of their motive. Understanding the relationships we have with people, in certain locations, will allow us to understand the opportunities we may present for offenders, and we should develop tactics and strategies for dealing with them when this happens. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=353 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=352 Cognitive Biases are rules of thumb that we use to make quick decisions. In many ways, they can help us e.g. we know to hand over the wallet to a mugger, as 99% of the time, this is the quickest way to get them to leave us. Like all rules of thumb, or heuristics, they are there to guide and direct us, rather than to offer absolute solutions – situations determine solutions, rather than rules and preconceived notions of what we should and shouldn’t do; 1% of mugging incidents, will require a different resolution than handing over the wallet, so we also need to have a plan/tactic, for when the mugger doesn’t leave. Unfortunately, there are times when these cognitive biases lead us astray and misdirect us, and we should be aware of this, so that we don’t build or work with incorrect “models of violence”. A model of violence, is an understanding/replica of how we believe a certain type of violence will play out e.g. if we believe that the most likely rape/sexual assault scenario that we will face involves a stranger and a remote location, then we have built and constructed an incorrect/unlikely model of violence concerning this type of assault, as these types of assaults are more likely to occur in our home or somebody else’s, and involve somebody we know, etc. One type of cognitive bias we use is “anchoring”. An anchor, is an experience, rule, or piece of knowledge that we adopted early on, find ourselves referring to on a regular basis, and continue to compare new information against. One of the first pieces of safety advice that we were probably given as children, was not to get into cars with strangers, etc. Our parents/guardians, would have painted a picture, and/or described a situation, in which we would be playing in our front yard, and a stranger in a car (or possibly the infamous white van), would pull up, and ask us if we wanted to go and see some puppies, etc. As children, this may have been a likely approach for a predatory individual who doesn’t know us to use to get us into their car, but as adults it is a highly unlikely one. A predatory stranger is much more likely to use other methods, to get us into their car e.g. they may crash into our car, in a remote location and offer to give us a ride to the nearest town, etc. Unfortunately, our anchor, may cause us to not recognize what is happening, because the situation we are in doesn’t reflect the model it was built around. Whilst the anchor of not getting into a car with strangers, was constructed around an adult predator targeting a child, it doesn’t reflect the methods that such predators would use when targeting adult victims. Anchoring biases are often supported by confirmation biases e.g. we may have been educated early on, that one of the biggest threats to our safety comes from the mentally ill. Using this as our anchor, we may focus on information that confirms this viewpoint, and ignore the larger body of information and evidence that disproves this, or sets it in the appropriate context. For someone who believes that the mentally ill are dangerous, the fact that the killer involved in the recent Texas active shooter incident had been diagnosed with a mental illness, will confirm their viewpoint, and may lead them to conclude that this is the primary motivation and reason behind all active shooter/killer incidents, even though when looking at past incidents, anger and isolation issues, appear to be more common driving forces. We all have confirmation biases. It’s one of the reasons why we watch certain news channels, and read certain news sources – we want our views and ideas to be confirmed. The danger is that when we apply this to personal safety, we may find ourselves building incorrect models of violence, that put us in danger when we try to apply them.    Often, when trying to understand something, we will settle on the first alternative/option that makes sense to us, and not investigate any further. If we are told that the best way to de-escalate a confrontation is to talk calmly and apologize for whatever indiscretion we’ve committed, or if dealing with a mugger, to throw our wallet away from us and them so they leave us and go to the wallet, etc., we are likely to accept these rules, and not consider that these solutions may in fact increase the danger we are in. Our natural desire to settle on the first solution we are presented with often leads to tunnel vision and incremental thinking, where we are only able to move in one direction, rather than operate laterally, recognizing that different solutions may be more effective, and not lead us into danger. Although settling on the first solution someone tells us, may quickly give us a tactic and strategy to adopt, it doesn’t mean we’ll be equipped with the right one. Another cognitive bias that we use, is that when facing a certain situation, it is likely that we will try to compare it to another similar one we’ve seen, in order to replicate and copy the solution that we used to deal with it. Certain training methods can reinforce this. If, when you practice gun and knife disarms, you simply practice the technique, without putting a context around it, it is likely that your solution to every situation you are involved in where a gun is involved will be to perform a disarm, etc., even when a mugger demands your wallet, and the incident can likely be ended without violence, by handing it over. This simple heuristic of acquiescing to a predator’s demand, can also get us into trouble, if they are demanding that we move from our primary location to another; as this is something we shouldn’t agree to, and would be an appropriate time to perform a disarm, etc. Understanding that not every situation where a person threatens us with a weapon is the same, will help us avoid replicating inappropriate tactics. Studies have shown that vivid information, and personal accounts, affect our thinking and understanding to a greater extent than statistics and studies. An individual’s personal recollection of an experience will color our thinking far more than the results of a study, that contains the experiences of many individuals, but is presented as a set of numbers, or displayed in a chart, rather than as an anecdote/story, etc. This also means that we are more likely to be influenced by a dramatic movie scene, that is fictional, than by less graphic depictions of violence that are reality-based. It is far easier for us to imagine and fixate on a sexual assault committed by a stranger, late at night in a deserted location, than by a work colleague in our home or theirs – even though statistically this is much more likely. Whilst cognitive biases are rules of thumb, that can help us quickly reach decisions, we need to know their potential adverse effects as well, so that we don’t build incorrect models of violence that can misdirect our understanding of how to effectively act and behave in dangerous situations. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=352 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=351 The larger the striking surface, and the larger the target area, the less likely you are to miss with a strike. This is one of the reasons, I like using roundhouse kicks – shin to ankle as a striking surface, against, almost every area of the entire leg – hammer-fists, and forearm strikes offer a similar advantage. In real-life situations where you are operating under high stress and duress, target size becomes extremely important; if you start to suffer from tunnel-vision as part of your adrenal response, it is likely that objects in front of you will start to shrink e.g. the head will start to appear as a smaller target. This is one of the reasons why it is worth considering how you use protective headgear (which will make the head a larger target) and gloves (which will make the striking surface larger) when you train under stress; this is not to say that both types of training equipment don’t have their place, just that we need to be judicious when we use them. In a manner of speaking, the forearm, and the hammer-fist are the upper body combatives equivalent of the roundhouse strike, and probably deserve a loftier position, in our arsenal of striking tools. The hammer-fist is perhaps one of the most versatile striking tools we have. Because we are striking with the bottom of the fist, the number of directions we can angle the strike from (such as downwards, inwards, and outwards, etc.) means that it is multi-directional tool, unlike straight strikes - which also have their place. Another advantage that the hammer-fist has over straight punches, that connect using the knuckles, is that there is considerably less chance of damaging the hand when throwing the strike. As long as the fist is tensed when connecting with the target, the adipose tissue at the bottom of the hand, will protect the relatively delicate bones of the hand from injury. One of the benefits this has, is that the strike can be thrown at full speed, and with full force, without having to worry about injury to yourself. I have seen people pull back on delivering full-force punches because they have doubts about their ability to do so without injuring themselves. Although, with the appropriate training this can be rectified, if a person is caught in a situation, at a time when they doubt their ability to throw punches without injuring themselves – or can’t take the risk of damaging their hand, because their “primary” weapon is a sidearm – the hammer-fist is a good alternative, even when a straight punch may be the more appropriate/relevant tool.    I often talk about the forearm strike and the hammer-fist, as the same strike, when attacking a target such as the neck i.e. when I use them, I often use them together, with the only variable being which part of the arm/fist makes contact – at longer range, it is likely to be the bottom of the fist, at shorter range, the forearm itself. The neck is a good target because it doesn’t move in the same way that the head does (and can’t ride a strike in the same way either), and is located at/towards the centerline of the body, something which becomes more relevant if your vision is adversely affected by the stress and duress of the situation. A hammer-fist/forearm strike, swung inwards and downwards at the neck, has a better chance of landing, with force, than a straight punch to the face (though of course such strikes to this target do have their place). If the force lands with sufficient body-weight behind it i.e. not just the weight of the arm, the effect is normally to “crumple” the person, and send the body into a temporary state of shock – making it a good way to open them up to further successive strikes. In a fight (where we aren’t dealing with an armed assailant) 90-100% of what we should be doing is delivering concussive force, and hammer-fist and forearm strikes, are an important tool in assisting us in doing this. From my own experience, I have often found it much quicker to move into space vacated by an assailant, using hammer-fists, than with straight punches. A downwards hammer-fist, with the rear-hand directed towards the face, can be delivered with full force, whilst taking a fairly large step forward - the same cannot be said of a straight forward/lead punch, where the step forward has to be somewhat smaller, with the comparable amount of force generated being less. This is not to say that such strikes don’t have their place, just that if you need to move into someone at speed, throwing repetitive powerful strikes to force – or chase - them back, then moving rapidly forward throwing forward/downwards hammer-fists is probably your best option. Also, it won’t be necessary to change your attack if they start to duck and cover, and you begin to jam up, as you will simply start connecting with your forearm to the back of the neck, rather than the bottom of your fist to their face. This gives you a fairly simple strategy for dealing with an assailant, that doesn’t rely on a large number of technical tools. I have never been an instructor who believes that aggression is a replacement for skills and techniques. I don’t believe that a poorly executed strike, becomes a good strike, just because the person making it is aggressive. In my time working security, I have been hit by angry and aggressive people who lacked the ability to generate power, and have an effect; their aggressiveness did not translate into force. In saying that, a good strike thrown with aggression, will generally have more power to it, than one thrown without. Certain strikes lend themselves to aggression, and I believe hammer-fists are one of them. Although every bit as technical as a straight punch, less of the technical points need to be present to generate the same amount of force, as with a straight punch. As movements start to shrink when we become adrenalized, the larger body movement involved in delivering a good hammer-fist, shrinks less than the hip and back turn involved in straight striking. It is also often easier to concentrate and focus on the single forward movement of a downwards hammer-fist, than the multiple chained movements that make up a good, powerful straight punch. It may seem from this article that I am not a fan of straight striking/punching, however this is not the case; at my school we probably spend more time training these types of strikes/punches, than any other, because they are extremely technical strikes, with many, many teaching points to them. However, when I look back at my own time in security, hammer-fists were probably the strikes I had the greatest effect with, especially when having to move forward at speed, into an attacker; they were also the ones that connected the most, and were the hardest to block and dodge. Developing an effective and powerful set of hammer-fists should be a goal of anyone practicing reality-based self-defense. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=351 Sun, 05 Nov 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=350 When people first start training, they are often in a rush to learn, and collect the techniques that they believe they will need, to survive a real-life altercation. They want to know what to do if somebody catches them in a guillotine, a head-lock or similar. Often, these escapes are seen as the essence of what self-defense is, rather than being recognized as an “interruption” in the fight, which should be avoided. Your first task, when engaged in most violent confrontations, will be to deliver as much repetitive, concussive force as you can. If your assailant catches you in a guillotine as you do this, then this is an interruption to that process, one which must be dealt with, before you can carry on with the task of continuously striking them. Escaping such holds and controls, is an “inconvenience” that you have to deal with in order to continue your fight. The idea is therefore not to get caught with these things in the first place, and it is your fighting skills, rather than techniques that enable you to do this. It will also be your fighting skills which will get your techniques, such as the guillotine release, to work. Unfortunately, skill development is often looked on as something that MMA practitioners, or martial artists work on, and that those practicing reality-based self-defense systems can bypass by using aggression. Skills are developed through drills – and it is worth noting that drills are not scenarios. There are two basic types of drills in Krav Maga training: open and closed. A closed drill is one where the outcome of the drill is defined, and an open drill is one where there is no pre-defined outcome, and those participants involved in the drill create the outcome based on their actions and responses to each other. An example of a closed drill, would be one in which a pad holder with a focus mitt, starts out of range, and then moves into range, with somebody striking the pad when this happens. The goal of the drill being to train threat recognition, reaction/response time, range appreciation and power generation, amongst other things. The drill could be “opened” up to have more outcomes, so that the person striking the pad trains their decision-making abilities as well. Before all this happens though, the person involved in the striking portion of the drill, needs to have the appropriate striking skills, and this may be best trained with a non-moving partner, whose role it is to simply hold the focus mitts whilst they strike, so they develop the body mechanics, to punch/strike with power. At some point, the student will need to take the skills they have learnt in these closed drills, and apply them in open drills, where there are no pre-defined outcomes. A good example of an open drill is sparring. There are rules and restrictions, as far as what can and can’t be done, and there is a format that participants adhere to, but when somebody is responding to a punch or other attack, they don’t have to do so in a pre-defined way; they are “open” to responding how they want to, and the person they are sparring with, doesn’t know beforehand what that might be. I have met a lot of people in the reality-based self-defense world, who don’t believe in sparring, because it doesn’t replicate what a real fight looks like. This is, once again, to confuse drilling with scenarios. Sparring doesn’t replicate real-life violence in a number of ways: it’s consensual, both participants know when the “fight” will start, they know when it will stop e.g. how long the round is, and what will end it, etc. But sparring, as an open drill, also develops a lot of fighting skills, such as an appreciation of range, how to effectively move relative to someone else’s movement, how/when to recognize that someone is vulnerable to a particular type of attack, etc. Sparring doesn’t reflect a real-life fight – it’s not intended to – but it’s a great way to develop fighting skills, which can be applied to scenarios. In scenario training, we bring the “reality” element into our training. There are story-lines and motivations, that different participants in the scenario have. Time and distance are commodities that are in short supply, and some of the skills developed through open and closed drills can be applied, such as controlling range, where to position yourself and stand so that you can make an effective defense and counter-attack if necessary (not all scenarios may have a physical outcome to them), etc. This is where a partner doesn’t comply to the rules and format of a drill, but works according to the script that they have been given as part of the scenario e.g. a drunk in a bar who has had their drink spilt over them, and isn’t going to respond to any attempts at de-escalation, etc. Drills too, can have elements of “non-compliance” e.g. working against a pad-holder who doesn’t allow you to control range, and keeps closing you down, etc., but they are still drills, intended to build skills. It is in scenarios, where all of these skills may be tested in a way that reflects reality. In creating effective scenarios, an appreciation of what real-life violence looks like, and how people actually respond in these situations, needs to be replicated. Not everybody will back off, after you disarm them of a weapon, not all people will move back, as you deliver continuous strikes and punches, there are those people who will fight back after you’ve applied an armbar, etc. All of these responses need to be trained for. Things that might be successful in a drill, such as applying an armbar when drilling groundwork, may not end a scenario – a participant may “tap out”, but the scenario restarted, recognizing that they are still able to fight on. Self-Defense/Fighting is not just about techniques, it is also about skills development, and this means using drills to develop these things. A drill might train a skill that is just one precise piece of the overall Jigsaw, or it might train many skills at once, but in either case it’s not a scenario, and shouldn’t be confused as such. If you’ve ever worked a heavy bag, you are drilling a set of skills. The swinging motion of the bag doesn’t accurately reflect an individual’s movement – the bottom swings more than the top – but it is still a great tool for drilling movement skills, power generation, against a moving target/object, etc. To be effective in our training, we need to drill and train skills, learn to apply those skills in dynamic and open settings, and then transfer them to realistic scenarios. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=350 Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=349 We see the world as we “feel” it, and not necessarily as it is. If you feel angry, you are more likely to interpret somebody’s smile as an aggressive grimace, rather than as an expression of happiness; and vice versa. Our emotional state affects how we see the world, and those within it. I have seen this happen when working door and bar security, where somebody in a good/happy mood, causes another person to become aggressive, by knocking into them, spilling a drink over them, etc., and is unable to read the intensity of the other person’s anger; sometimes believing their expressions of rage, to be part of a joke which is being played on them – after all, everybody is just having a good time. We also have a tendency to think that other people think like us, and share the same values as we do e.g. because we wouldn’t become physically violent if somebody spilt a drink over us, we don’t expect other people to become overly aggressive towards us, if we do the same to them. Because we have difficulty reading emotional signals, and generally believe everybody else to share the same rules that exist in our own reality, we can end up denying and discounting threatening behavior that is directed towards us. Sometimes it is very clear that another person’s reality is different to ours. If we are in a biker bar, or a pub with a reputation for violence, we are probably going to accept that the “rules” around, and the consequences for, spilling a drink over somebody are different, to those we’d expect in a family pub. However, even in the most respectable of establishments, we may still run into someone who is predisposed towards using violence as means of righting a perceived wrong i.e. they may feel justified to use violence, and that there are no satisfactory alternatives available to them (this is their reality) – part of the process of de-escalation and conflict resolution, is to remove that justification, and help our aggressor determine alternative outcomes that would resolve the incident for them. It would be dangerous to underestimate a person’s readiness for violence, simply because in the same situation we would act differently. Sometimes an aggressor’s alternate reality, is so different to ours, we believe that they must be misreading a situation entirely. Imagine walking into a bar you’ve never been to before. To all appearances, it seems respectable, is in a good part of town, and there’s nothing to indicate that it’s an establishment with a history of violence - if a place has many past incidents of violence and fighting, these are a good predictor that there will be future occurrences. It’s early afternoon, and the bar is almost empty. You go to the bar, pull up a stool, and order a drink. About 20 minutes later, somebody taps you on your shoulder and informs you that you’re sitting in their chair. You look around at all the empty seats, and tell them, that you were here first, there was nobody sitting here when you arrived, and that you’ve been sitting here for the past 20 minutes. Once again, but more emphatically this time, they inform you that you are sitting in their chair. At this point, you’re becoming more confused, and a little bit angry, that this person is trying to take your chair away from you – you arrived first, it’s your chair. Suddenly, you feel a punch to your kidneys, and when you look down your shirt and trousers are covered in blood; you’ve just been stabbed (knife stabs will often feel like punches). In your reality, this response may seem excessive but to your aggressor it may seem completely justified, and they may feel that there were no other alternatives available to them.     In your reality, chairs are allocated on a first come, first served basis – you got the chair first, therefore it should be yours, and the other person should find another, regardless of whether they want it or not. However, in your attacker’s reality, the allocation of seats is based on “tenure”; for the past twenty years, they’ve sat in that exact same place, only to find you sitting there when they came in – you were sitting in their chair. When you kept refusing to move, and arguing back that it wasn’t their chair, they began to run out of options to get you to move, and so resorted to violence. It is worth remembering whenever you are in a dispute over something that somebody believes is there’s – whether it’s a chair, a parking space, or something else – that people will try, on average, three times harder, to get back what they’ve lost than to acquire something new. Your aggressor had a 20-year investment in that stool, much greater than yours. This may seem like an extreme example/situation, however where I come from in Glasgow, there are families who have tables and booths in certain pubs and bars, which they’ve always sat at/in, and anyone who was found “trespassing” in their space, would be dealt with violently (and I know from my travels that Glasgow isn’t the only city, where this type of behavior occurs).    In 2016, a man in Boston was shot, over a parking space. There is a practice in Boston of using “space savers”, to reserve parking spaces after a snowstorm i.e. after you’ve dug your car out in the wake of a storm, you put a garden chair or similar into the empty space, to let other drivers know they shouldn’t park there. Whilst it’s not illegal to do this in Boston, it’s also not a legal right that you have; so somebody can remove your space saver and park there – and of course people do, which can lead to aggressive and sometimes violent confrontations. Because the realities of both parties surrounding the validity of “space spacers” are different, there is no common ground for compromise. The only way for the dispute to be resolved without violence, would be for one person to back down – and in the 2016 incident, when this didn’t happen, one person got shot. It is likely that before the gun was pulled, there was a period of dialogue, with both parties explaining to each other, why the other person was wrong. Unfortunately, deeply held beliefs and convictions, are unlikely to be overturned during such a dispute. If somebody believes they have a right to a parking space, or a bar-stool based on their reality, it is very unlikely that you will be able to convince them otherwise, especially when they are highly emotional. It's a popular saying that you sometimes have the choice to be right, or to be effective. In your reality, you may be right, but that doesn’t mean in another person’s you are. To be effective, in these situations, and avoid a physical confrontation, you have to put ego aside and give up the chair, or the parking space, etc. Many people believe that this makes them look like a victim, and that it might encourage the other person to act violently towards them. This may be the case in some instances, when the individual was looking for any excuse to act violently towards you, but in those situations, you would be fighting for survival (not ego), which will allow you to defend yourself without doubting whether you are right to do so – in a fight for survival, everything is on the table. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=349 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=348 I was recently asked by somebody working in the UK, about acid attacks e.g. how to predict, identify, avoid, and deal with them etc. To give an idea of the extent and prevalence of such assaults, this July two teenagers on a moped in London, carried out five acid attacks, in the space of 90-minutes – racing around and selecting victims at random. These types of attacks are on the rise in UK, and in London specifically - where more than half of all attacks with corrosive substances in the UK take place (there were over 450 reported attacks of this type in 2016). Even in London, such attacks aren’t evenly spread, with the borough of Newham (in East London), having three times as many attacks, as the second highest borough for such assaults – location and geography are key situational factors in any crime, something I have written about in more detail, in previous articles. The rise in acid attacks, may be partly due to the work that has gone into dealing with knife crime. This is not to say that the UK, and London, has solved its problems with knife attacks (Between April and June of this year – a three-month period - there was a total of 5,237 knife possession offenses recorded in the UK), however a two-strike rule, introduced in 2015, in which minimum custodial sentences were set for those who were convicted of a second offense, may have made carrying a blade a less attractive proposition than it once was. With the UK Ministry of Justice still getting to grips with the sentencing terms for acid attacks, and not yet having legislation in place concerning the legalities and illegalities of possession of acid and corrosive liquids, acid may be at this moment in time a preferred weapon of choice for many criminals and gang members. In many ways it is a more predictable weapon than a knife or a gun. There is a much higher chance of someone dying from a stab wound or gun shot, than there is from an acid attack, meaning that an assault that was just meant to punish, injure or maim somebody could lead to a fatality, and as a consequence, a higher sentence if caught. It is one of the reasons that Stanley Blades, Box Cutters and Razors, have been popular in Glasgow (where I grew up), as they would maim, and leave a visible cut or a stripe, when slashed, but weren’t particularly good stabbing weapons – and stab wounds, by and large, are much more likely to lead to fatalities than slashes (unless major arteries are cut in the process, and a victim bleeds out). During the 80’s and 90’s, many gang members, and teens I knew who carried a knife for “self-defense”, would tape two blades of a box-cutter together, with something that acted as a spacer in between them, so a “double stripe” – that was extremely difficult to stitch up - would be left. We should never doubt the ingenuity, resourcefulness and creativity of violent criminals, and a shift from knives and guns to acid, reflects this; if you legislate and crack-down in one area, another method of inflicting pain, and injury, and of maiming, will be found. Another advantage that acid has over a knife or a gun, is that a criminal or predator can have their weapon out and on display as they talk to/interview their target. This means that they don’t have to reach for it, draw it, and make it operational, before it is used. Somebody intending to attack you with acid, can stand with an open water bottle, containing the corrosive liquid, and talk to you, without you being aware that they have a weapon, “drawn” and ready in their hand. The other advantage that acid has over a knife, is that it can be used at a greater distance. When working, I would always maintain a certain distance between myself and anyone who acted and behaved in a manner that might indicate they had harmful intent towards me, and anyone else I had a responsibility towards – I needed this distance so I could see their hands, and also have time and space to react and respond, if they were to pull a weapon. It’s important to note that this wasn’t a lot of space; close enough that I could carry on a conversation with someone, without them feeling the need to step closer, but enough that I had a chance of responding to any attack they might make. With an acid attack, the assailant doesn’t have to move in (a pre-attack cue), but can throw their liquid from where they stand, or even as they’re moving away. This makes physically intercepting and preventing an attack, extremely problematic, with the space created only serving one purpose, and that is to give you the time to turn away, and cover your face – the likelihood being that you’ll still be hit, but hopefully on your arms, back of head, rather than your face. Having an awareness, of anyone with an open bottle in their hand – especially one which they’re not drinking from – and not discounting the fact that it could contain a corrosive liquid, is your best safety guide. Upping your awareness, when you are in locations where such attacks are prevalent, is also important; whilst you should never be switched off in any location, raising your awareness in others, where a certain threat is known to be prevalent is key. In many acid attacks, multiple assailants are present, and mopeds and scooters are often used – groups of young men, and pillion passengers on bikes, are things that should attract your interest.  If you are involved in any verbal altercation, with someone who has an open container, acting pre-emptively and disengaging quickly will be in many cases your best strategy – if you don’t have an option of initially disengaging and exiting the situation. Acid attacks also demonstrate the need for first-aid skills, and knowing how to treat yourself and others as quickly as possible. It always surprises me, the number of people who practice reality-based self-defense and yet have no first-aid skills. If you train defenses against knife and gun, you should also train how to deal with stab and gunshot wounds. Being able to stop or slow down the bleeding so that you are still alive by the time you get to the hospital, improves your survival chances greatly – in many instances it will be quicker to get to the ER/Casualty yourself (with somebody else driving), than waiting for an ambulance. Having a bottle of water on you at all times, and knowing how to treat yourself or someone else (or be able to instruct another person what to do) if attacked, will lessen the effects of such an attack greatly. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=348 Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=347 This is not an article on the recent Las Vegas shooting tragedy, but rather a piece that looks at the motivations and emotions that different killers have exhibited, as drivers behind their mass murders. This is not to justify their killings, or show sympathy towards them, but rather to try and understand what drives an individual to not just have the desire to kill on mass, but why it seems necessary for them to do so. Whilst I am sure that in both the fantasy and planning/preparation stages, a potential killer has doubts that they must overcome, by the time they come to execute their plan they will have convinced themselves that what they are about to do, has to be done. It would be wrong to try and search for a “rational motive” in any mass killing/active shooter incident, because there never is one, however to the killer there is always a logic (and inevitability) behind their actions, and to them, what they are engaging in makes absolute sense – and above everything else, has to happen. Killing is born out of fantasy, and the need and justification to kill is fed by fantasy. Eventually, the fantasy will grow to become something all-consuming, and the killer will enter an alternate reality, where they can only make sense of what is going on in the/their world, by looking at things through the lens of the fantasy. Every action and behavior any person, group, government or entity makes, will be understood as it pertains to the fantasy; a fantasy that leads the individual to one inevitable conclusion, that they must kill others. Feelings are the conscious interpretation of emotions, and are what fantasies are based on e.g. a feeling/sense of injustice, may lead to a desire for retribution and punishment, that develops into a fantasy that involves killing others. Fantasies will feed and reinforce feelings and vice versa. In many cases, it may look like a shooter has just snapped, but in reality, they will have had their dark thoughts and fantasies for a relatively long time. Some of these feelings/emotions that past killers have had include: entitlement, injustice, bullying, isolation, anger/hatred and/or a desire to be recognized as a significant individual i.e. fame and notoriety. Rarely will just one feeling/emotion be at play, and it is more likely that an active killer, will have a shifting and complex cocktail of many.    Many active shooters/killers have a sense of entitlement, as to how they should be seen, how they should be treated, etc., and kill, because they are not recognized by their group or community, as they feel they should be. In 2014, Elliot Rodger killed 6 people and injured 14, before killing himself. Before he went on his rampage, he uploaded a video to Youtube, where he explained and justified his motive. He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him (one of the targets of his shooting was a sorority house), and punish men for being sexually active – he envied those who had active sex lives, when he himself didn’t. Throughout the video, he demonstrates a sense of entitlement, explaining that women were wrong to reject him in favor of others; and that because of this, women are sluts and whores who need to be punished. There is a sense/feeling (though it has no empirical backing), that one of the reasons school shootings are on the rise, is because successive generations are becoming more and more entitled, believing that they deserve to be treated in a particular way – and when this doesn’t happen, they become frustrated and feel a need to punish those who haven’t treated them as they felt they should have been. Bullying takes many forms, and doesn’t have to involve physical contact. In 1989, Joseph T. Wesbecker went on a killing spree at the Standard Gravure printing works in Kentucky. Wesbecker had started out with the nickname, “Little Doughboy”, but it was later changed to “Rocky”, after he was beaten up in a bar by a woman he’d been hitting on. Wesbecker, wasn’t only ridiculed by his colleagues, he was also involved in a long, running battle with management, who refused to allow him not to work on a machine, which both his doctor and union, had stated was bad for his health – other employees had been excused from these duties on the same grounds. Wesbecker, felt that the whole world was against him; he’d divorced his wife earlier when he found that she’d been sleeping with his co-workers, and he was openly mocked both by them and his supervisors/management. Caleb Sharpe, when he opened fire on his classmates at Freeman High School (Washington), said he did so to “teach everyone a lesson” about bullying. People will turn to violence, when they believe there are no other alternatives to dealing with their situation. This doesn’t mean that they are right to do so, however to themselves this is justification. Both Wesbecker and Sharpe had been bullied for a long period of time, and both came to the same conclusion about how to resolve their situation, and punish those they saw as responsible for it. Individuals can become isolated for a number of reasons, including bullying, anti-social behaviors, and simply not being able to socially adapt to fit in with those around them. Once someone becomes isolated, they may start to feel that their “rules” of living are more important than those of society. If they feel that society has rejected them, they may feel that they are free to live by their own rules and standards. This is one of the features of the Columbine Shooting, where Eric Harris became enticed by the Nazi ideal of a Master Race, of which he saw himself part (entitlement). Already rejected and isolated, this allowed him to develop a number of dangerous views, ideas and opinions, that weren’t ever going to be challenged by those around him – because his community had effectively cut him off. Isolation can also be self-motivated, with an individual withdrawing from those around them because they don’t feel part of the group or community. Many people suffering from PTSD will withdraw, because they feel/believe that those around them don’t understand what is important and what is insignificant, and what matters and what doesn’t, etc. Feeling that they have no common ground, or shared experiences with anyone, they can withdraw and become isolated. On their own, they may start working to their own alternate reality. The emotion that drives almost all instances of violence, is anger, and sometimes hatred. There are times when that hatred is directed at the community, as is the case with many school shootings (the school is the hub and focus of the community), and there are times when it is directed at a particular group. This might be an ethnic group, such as the 2015 Charleston Church shooting, that targeted African Americans. Dylan Roof hoped that his mass shooting would inspire other white supremacists and nationalists to start a race war. Both the Pulse Nightclub Shooting (Orlando, 2016) and the London Nail Bombings (London, 1989), specifically targeted those cities Gay communities, and were acts of hatred. The 2017 vehicular ramming in London, at the Finsbury Park Mosque, was an act of terrorism that specifically targeted Muslims. Not every target/location chosen has a relevance to a particular group or community – some are simply chosen because they offer the opportunity to kill the most people possible – but many are. Perhaps the hardest motivation to understand, behind mass shootings, is the desire and need for notoriety; to be infamous. All of us want to be significant and relevant in some way, and want some form of recognition from others – even if that is just to be thought of as a good person or friend, etc. Human beings are social creatures and need to be connected to others in some way. When a mass shooting occurs, for a period of time, everybody knows the killer’s name, is interested in their life, their views, their beliefs, etc. Mass shootings are public events, that occur in front of an audience, and this is extremely important to understand – few, if any killers, given the choice, would prefer to not be in the news and talked about. Mass killers are competitive, each one wanting to kill more victims than those who went before them. They study and select their methods – and their targets – based on their ability to kill the most people possible (in the case of specific groups, where ethnicity, religious belief or sexual preference is the driver – it will be the largest number of victims within these groups based on opportunities presented). Active shooters want to be in the limelight, even if it is posthumously. To a certain extent, these killers are showmen, who want the attention of the world – and this is a large part of their motivation. A mass killer may have all of these motivations, feelings and emotions present, to different degrees, and at certain times one may have more significance than the others. There will be many arguments about gun control in the coming months, some constructive, some reactionary, etc., however, attention should also be given to understanding why our society produces people with the need and desire to kill on mass, and how we can possibly recognize the warning signs of those who are starting to go down this path. Approximately four out of five mass shooters tell someone of their plans, and if we can understand the emotional and psychological makeup of someone who is serious about what they say, we may have the ability and opportunity – as has happened in many cases – to prevent future killers from executing their plans. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=347 Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=346 If you’ve ever leaned back in a chair, and found yourself on the wrong side of the tipping point, you will have experienced a moment of panic, where your only thoughts and actions would have involved trying to regain your balance. The same will be true if you find yourself slipping on ice, tripping over an object, or losing your footing in some other way. It doesn’t take much to lose your balance. The head weighs about 8 pounds, and doesn’t have to pass too far from over the shoulders and the hips, to take your body out of balance – if this happens rapidly, in an uncontrolled fashion, that feeling of panic, borne out of our natural fear of falling, takes over. We may be able to train our body to respond to this sensation, such as by going with the fall, and making a break-fall, etc., but we can’t switch our thought processes to something else. When we spar, or are involved in a fight, we can turn our pain management systems on, in order to control our experiences of pain – we can also condition ourselves to reduce the feeling of pain e.g. if you’ve never experienced the trauma caused by a roundhouse kick to the thigh, when it first happens the pain will be excruciating, but after several years of training and conditioning where you’ve experienced this type of pain over and over again, the effect will be lessened – you will know what to expect, and you will have learnt to manage it. If you have to deal with someone in a real-life confrontation, who has experienced many fights before, your striking is not going to have the same effect, as if you were going up against someone who’s never been in a fight. The experienced fighter is going to expect to be hit, and probably won’t care too much about it – the shock and surprise of being punched will have left them a long time ago, and if they’ve been drinking or taking drugs, being punched/kicked, etc., is unlikely to disrupt them. Taking their balance, however, will. One of the most common initiating attacks I’ve seen, and experienced, is a hard push followed closely by a punch. Even the untrained attacker knows that whilst their target/victim is falling/moving backwards all their attention will be on trying to regain balance, and during this period they will not be in any position to make an adequate defense to the following strike/punch. Most fights are over in seconds, and the person initiating the attack is normally the successful one; if they can keep the other person off-balance and moving, it is unlikely that they will recover enough to both defend themselves adequately and respond with attacks of their own – most will emotionally crumble at this point and take themselves out of the fight. Taking balance is the key in delivering success to this type of assault. As martial artists, we may look down on these unsophisticated tactics, however we must ask ourselves why trained people often fall foul of them, and a large part of that answer is that we can’t train ourselves out of that moment when we first lose our balance. Even if we are experienced Aikidoka and Judoka, who once we recognize it, can respond, we are still vulnerable in that moment – and our focus goes to initiating the break-fall, not dealing with a follow up attack - this extremely short window is what the untrained but seasoned fighter is able to exploit (and we should learn to exploit it as well). Using simple pushes, that take an assailant’s balance, can also help us position our assailant so that our strike, punch or kick is more effective from a power generation perspective. When pushed, a person will try to regain balance, by centering and attempting to root their weight. When they do this ,their legs become vulnerable to low kicks, as their weight will be loaded firmly on them. This can easily be trained and developed in sparring. A variation of this – that doesn’t involve taking balance – is to push yourself off an attacker, pressing their legs into the ground, as you move back and kick the legs. This is another way to make sure that weight is loaded onto the limb you are attacking. Taking an attacker’s balance when you are disarming them of a weapon, is a good way to take their attention away from the knife, gun or stick they are holding. Disarming should not be a static process, it should involve moving the person, so that all their attention is directed towards them staying on their feet, and not on retaining their weapon. If this movement can be combined with lower-level combatives, such as knees and kicks, then all the better – arms and hands should be kept, controlling the weapon arm, and weapon. When a person is rag-dolled around like this, they are disorientated and focused on one thing only: regaining their balance. Attacking balance, should be put on the same par, as attacking with strikes and punches, and in reality, is often much more effective at disrupting an assailant’s assault, whether it is armed or unarmed. Attacking balance is the first thing that should be done when attempting to throw or perform a takedown. Unfortunately, many people still see throwing somebody as an act of “lifting”, which requires strength, and this is not helped when videos and photos, show a throw being attempted on someone whose head is still over their shoulders, and their shoulders positioned over their hips, etc. This is why it is virtually impossible to throw someone who is punching with good form, as unless they are over-committing to the strike, their balance won’t have been disrupted – plus, if they are recoiling the punch, there is little to no chance of taking/grabbing hold of the arm. There are some very, very restricted instances in which throwing someone who is punching is possible, but it relies solely on their movement and them giving up their own balance. Balance taking, makes a throw effortless, because the person is already falling, and only requires being directed. This is a skill which takes time to develop, however it is one that allows a smaller person to overcome a much larger attacker, where there is a significant size and weight disadvantage e.g. a 110 LB individual, will be able to generate more power against a 250 LB person through throwing, than they would through punching/striking. Balance taking doesn’t have to be as “sophisticated” as throwing, sweeping or reaping, but the tactical advantages it gives should be appreciated and understood. If we recognize that pushes followed by some form of attack, work well for untrained individuals in confrontations, we should look at ways we can incorporate and improve on them, in our own training. An individual is perhaps no more vulnerable when they have lost balance, and this is something we should use to our own advantage.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=346 Mon, 02 Oct 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=345 One of the ways to test security protocols and systems is to run a set of simulations against them to find out and discover their weak points, and the ways in which they can be breached and compromised. Every protocol and system has gaps and vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and running simulations allows you to expose and understand them. Changing a simple variable within a combination can cause a system to fail. Self-defense techniques, methodologies and solutions are no different; change a variable, such as the way a person reacts to a strike/punch, and you can see your solution fail and fall apart; expecting an armbar to cause a break that renders the arm inoperable, and finding that it doesn’t, can severely compromise your solution. There are no certainties in real-life encounters and to assume that there are is an extremely dangerous route to go down. Never assume that a punch is guaranteed to disrupt or damage, or a joint-lock to incapacitate an attacker; this is simplistic thinking that may seem to make sense in the training environment, but has no place outside of it. I have written before about the importance of training a technique to failure, and understanding its inherent weaknesses, and eventual breaking points – and every technique, regardless of style and system has these. This doesn’t mean the technique is worthless. A punch can be ineffective in disrupting a highly adrenalized, pain resistant (whether due to drugs or natural attributes), and committed attacker, however it would be stupid and incorrect to say that because of this possibility, punching shouldn’t be taught. At the same time, it would be incorrect and simplistic to not recognize this possibility – and either alter a solution when this is realized, or choose a different one from the start if you believe this is/would be the case. Because situations determine solutions, you should never just have one to work to. Running a different set of simulations against a technique will determine what works when under a certain set off conditions. Every technique will work within a limited set of conditions e.g. a certain knife disarm may work if you are dealing with a single attacker, with a certain amount of room, on even terrain, etc. - change one of these components and the technique may no longer be effective. In the world of safety-testing, simulations are extremely important. You would not want to step foot on a plane that had only been tested and flown in good weather, where all the conditions are set to allow it to fly successfully, unhindered. You want to know that it can cope with adverse conditions as well. A plane has tolerance in certain weather conditions but will fall apart in others; a technique is no different. Understanding the limitations of something is as important as being confident in its abilities, and effectiveness. We should be taking techniques and solutions and running them through different simulations and judging their effectiveness, and weaknesses, so we can understand what works when, where and why. In real-life encounters, we can’t set and/or (often) control the conditions and variables that are present and color the incident, and so we need more than one solution, to what may appear in a sterile training situation, to be the same problem. Sanitized self-defense training is a decent starting point, but continuing to train within a vacuum, where an attacker will only respond in one way, doesn’t reflect the reality of violence. Not all solutions/techniques are equal. There are solutions that are preferred in one situation, over another. In one situation, it may be preferable to control the weapon, in another, the assailant e.g. in many active shooter incidents, the killer has multiple weapons, and controlling the evident/primary weapon may give them the opportunity to pull their second or backup weapon. When Mark Moogalian tried to wrest the rifle from the gunman during the Thaly’s Train Attack (2016), the shooter pulled a pistol and shot him through the neck. Later in the same incident when three Americans tried to subdue the shooter, they were slashed and cut, as he gave up using his rifle and pistol. There are times when it is advisable to control the attacker, rather than their weapon. Next time you run a “simulation”, change the number of weapons and see if your technique/solution breaks down and either needs to be modified, or another solution chosen. The Thaly’s Train Attack is only one of a number of active killer situations where those tackling the killer found themselves having to deal with a second weapon, after trying to control the first e.g. the Thurston School Shootings in 1998, First Baptist Church Maryville, Illinois Shooting 2009, Pacific University in Seattle Shooting, Washington 2014 etc. In your simulations, when you test your techniques, add a second active weapon – when/where I lived in Glasgow, assailants would tape a knife to each hand/wrist when they went looking for victims (something that the London Bridge terrorists did with their knives in the 2017 attack – preventing the possibility of a disarm), or would attack using a pair of cutthroat razors, etc. In these types of situations, would your current solutions be effective, or would you need to think about altering and changing your approach/methodology?          When we look/consider all the different situations we may have to face, we need to consider all variables and understand the contexts in which a solution will and won’t work – there isn’t a one size fits all approach. This is what separates and differentiates Krav Maga from many other martial arts e.g. Boxing says that the only way to deal with an attacker is through striking, Judo and Wrestling through grappling, etc. These are linear approaches to self-defense and fighting, and we should not limit ourselves when dealing with real-life violence, to one approach. I have spent many years running simulations for businesses, agencies and enterprises, testing their precautions and preventions to avoid their assets being compromised and exploited, I take the same approach to the physical self-defense I teach.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=345 Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=344 At its root, martial arts and reality-based self-defense training is about intent; recognizing our partner’s, or aggressor’s intent whilst disguising/masking our own. Before I started training in Krav Maga I was – and still am - a Judoka (Judo Practitioner). A large part of Judo, is recognizing your partner’s intent i.e. what are they thinking about, and preparing to do, etc., and then formulating a response. At the same time, you want to prevent your partner from recognizing your intent, as this will allow them to formulate a strategy/response to prevent you succeeding, and possibly countering you. The earlier you can discern and recognize their intent, the better prepared you will be to deal with their attack e.g. you will have time to create space, position yourself, and generally get yourself ready to meet their attack. The better you are at hiding or masking your intent, the less time you will give your partner to formulate a response, and their only recourse will be to react – with training and the appropriate skills and attributes this may be enough, but their chances of making a better/more effective response would have increased had they been able to recognize your intent sooner. In a real-life encounter, the sooner you can recognize the intent of an aggressor (who may be trying to disguise it), the better your survival chances. If you can also disguise your response/intent then you will be equipping yourself with the advantage of surprise. The martial arts are full of tales and stories about the great masters, recognizing an attack before it occurs. There is a scene in The Seven Samurai, where one of the swordsmen who is being recruited refuses to enter a room, because he believes he is about to be ambushed as part of his test, as to whether he is good enough to be considered part of the group. In the film, it is portrayed that he has a 6th sense for danger. If we unwrap the idea and the mystery of such a “6th Sense”, and look at what it actually is, we’re left with a high-level ability to discern intent. In a real-life scenario, it may be that the person who is about to enter a room where another person is concealed, may see the person opening the door glance towards someone/something in the room, and/or “feel” their anticipation and nervousness, or simply hear the other person’s movement, etc. All of these things are signals of a person’s intent. There isn’t any mystical power at play, just the experiences and abilities of a highly-tuned individual, who is able to read the intent in a situation. We are naturally equipped with an ability to discern intent. Most of us have had the experience of walking into a bar/pub, or a social gathering where things have not seemed right or have felt out of place, etc. At the time – or even afterwards – we may not have been able to identify the cause of our unease, but we have picked up on the harmful intent within our environment; at base, this is what situational awareness actually is – the recognition of harmful intent in our environment. It may be that our fear system subconsciously picks up on a number of factors, such as someone (or a group) in the room looking at us a fraction of a second longer than would be normal, or a brief pause in conversation whilst those in the room size us up. If we were to consciously pick up on these signals, we would be identifying “target glancing” (occasional glances in our direction), scanning (predator(s) looking around, for cameras, to see if others might intervene with them/against them, etc.), synchronizations of movement (movement that puts an attacker in a position to make/launch their attack), “conspiratorial planning” (different attackers within the group, assigning roles and discussing their attack – possibly signaling to others of the group if they are spread out), etc. All of these things during the “Conflict Aware” phase of an assault – especially when combined – signal harmful intent within the environment, and should be signals to disengage, and/or not enter room, etc. During the Pre-Conflict phase of a violent encounter, when an assailant has put themselves, or is in the process of putting themselves into a position where they can cause you harm, and you have discerned that they have harmful intent towards you, you have one of two engagement options: you can wait for them to launch their assault (having prepared yourself, possibly moving, changing your stance to limit their attacking options), or you can pre-emptively attack them. If your decision/strategy is to go pre-emptive, you will need to hide/disguise your intent, or your assault will lack the element of surprise – this may give your assailant the opportunity to counter it, or at the least turn on their pain management systems so that they can prepare themselves to deal with the pain. If you decide to wait to respond to their attack, your assailant may still try to hide their intent to physically assault you, however there are certain clues and indicators that demonstrate a person’s intention to punch/strike you. One of the most common is turning away and loading weight onto the rear leg; this preparatory shift in weight identifies their intent to bring it forward to add power to their punch/strike, and looking away can be an attempt to not show you the emotional change/intent in their face as they get ready to act violently towards you. Turning away can also make it look like they have lost interest in the confrontation, as well as giving them a chance to quickly scan for others, security, etc, before they launch their attack.      Once the physical fight is underway, you will need to understand the intent behind your attacker’s movements and attacks e.g. are they moving forward into space that would make your kick or punch more effective i.e. they are walking on to it, etc., are they moving away, and is this disengagement genuine or is their intent to get you to move forward onto their punch or kick? Discerning their intent, and hiding/disguising yours now becomes a physical thing. Our survival in any confrontation is about discerning and recognizing a person’s intent. Often, predatory individuals will try to mask it however few individuals are truly skilled at hiding the intent behind all of their actions and behaviors. There are times when part of the intent is obvious, such as the anger and high emotion that an individual who you have spilt a drink over demonstrates as they stand there, shouting and making threats towards you – now it is a matter of discerning the intent behind the threats e.g. are they preparing to attack, or simply sounding off? Again, if we know what to look for, the intent becomes obvious and apparent. Once the physical fight begins, we must try to identify the intent behind an assailant’s movement, and how we can take advantage of it – whilst hiding our own intentions. Distilled down, reality-based self-defense, and the martial arts, are lessons in and demonstrations of intent.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=344 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=343 The most important piece of training equipment you have is your training partner. The way the two of you interact together is an integral part of both yours and their development. To get the most out of a training session both of you must be “working” together, however this doesn’t always happen. Sometimes it’s because one partner adds an objective that they feel the instructor forgot to mention, such as adding in undue resistance so that their partner gets to experience how a real-life attacker might react or respond (something that at some point needs to be practiced, but not when first learning the mechanics of a technique), or that a drill needs to have a competitive edge added to it, etc. These are often honest mistakes that partners make, believing that they are assisting their partner’s development, rather than hindering it. In this article, I want to look at a few areas, where well-intentioned partners go wrong, and how and why their approach to training won’t actually help their partner learn and develop. When you learn or train something, it is no good if you always and only fail; you need some wins. If you’re never able to make a block, because your partner is feinting before they throw them, you are soon going to lose confidence in yourself, and the system you are training. Your partner may genuinely believe that feinting before throwing a strike is helping you, however if you keep failing to make a block because of it, you won’t be getting to practice your blocking, which would be the purpose of the drill you are engaged in. Most training drills shouldn’t involve trying to catch a partner out, or be seen as a competition where your partner needs to feel that they make more successful blocks than you do, etc. If you are working with somebody who is not able to complete a technique because you are working too fast for them, or applying too much strength, dial it back until your partner can get what they are practicing too work. If they are learning something for the first time, you may have to dial it back quite a bit e.g. I’ve had students on occasion, pulling a gun back as soon as they see their partner try to practice a disarm for the very first time, arguing that this is what would happen in real life, etc. This may be the case, but all their partner is getting to practice is not doing a disarm. Yes, at some point dealing with an attacker attempting to retain their weapon has to be practiced, but if an instructor doesn’t tell you to try retaining the weapon (unless your training at a level, where this is expected), then you probably shouldn’t take it upon yourself to add this component in. Stick to the drill, and have confidence in your instructor’s teaching structure and approach; it’s highly unlikely that they’ve simply forgot to mention something that you think should be included. At my school, we do a fair amount of dynamic pad-work, and often when people partner with somebody who’s a different height to them, they forget to make the appropriate adjustments to the way that they hold the pads. I have had taller people make the argument to a shorter partner that they need to learn to punch upwards, as this will be their experience in the real world. Again, this may be the case, however to prevent bad habits from developing it is better to first learn how to strike and punch well, against somebody your own height, rather than learning to punch upwards (or downwards). For a straight punch to have maximum power, the shoulder must “sit” in the socket, rather than be raised or lifted. This allows the arm a certain degree of structural integrity when delivering power, and it also allows the back muscles to be relaxed (another important part of power development – engaged and relaxed back muscles). Only when you can punch well at your own height, should you try varying your striking height. If your partner keeps raising or lowering the pads, instruct them otherwise. There are some people who only have one speed when training, and that is full out. This often involves their partner getting hit, or having to experience pain, when they train with them. The problem with this, is that their partner will become hesitant, and pull and hold back their attacks for fear of getting hurt. This will mean that they start to make unrealistic attacks e.g. if they keep getting hit hard in the groin every time their partner makes a defense, they’ll start to make their attacks with the hips held back, so that they can protect themselves, etc. This doesn’t make for a realistic training experience, as an attacker would not position themselves in this way. To make/practice a good defense, you need your partner to make a good attack. If they are nervous, reluctant and hesitant to engage with you for fear of getting hurt they won’t do this, and you will have deprived yourself a training opportunity. It is often those individuals who train in this way who wonder why their ability to perform techniques is inconsistent, and that their success in making them work depends on who they train with i.e. they are good against those individuals who “gift” them the technique for fear of getting hurt and/or who attack in a non-committed fashion, but not so good against those who aren’t hesitant and make proper attacks. We all respond to motivation differently, and not everybody will respond to the things we say, as we might. You may respond well to somebody telling you that you are not punching hard enough, or that you should be punching harder, etc. Other people, especially if they are beginners, may take your “encouragement” as criticism, or even belittlement. It can sometimes be a fine line, between motivating someone and “trash talking” them, regardless of your intentions. We learn best when we are comfortable in our training environment(s), and if when you are motivating someone they don’t seem comfortable, and are not responding positively, the answer is probably not more “encouragement”. People need to practice, and practice takes time. Few people have the learning capabilities to remember more than a few basic teaching points when initially practicing a technique. Trying to keep reminding a partner about everything they should be doing is neither helpful nor constructive, no matter how well-intentioned. Advice and motivation, could well be overwhelming, and come across as overly-critical, to the person you are training with. When you motivate, see how your partner responds, when you offer instruction and help, keep it simple (and make sure you follow your own instruction – there is no better way to confuse a partner than to tell them to do something, and when it is your turn fail to do it yourself). When training reality-based self-defense, we are all in it together. We are not training for sport or competition, where we may feel the need to demonstrate where we are in the school “pecking order”. Rather, we are looking to train ourselves, as well as those we train with, to be able to protect ourselves from attacks in the real world. Our goal should be to help each other, as well as be helped by each other, and a large part of that means being the best training partner you can be.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=343 Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=342 It is very easy to get bogged down in the fine details of something, and miss the point. A visiting student from another school, once tried to engage me in a debate, about the orientation of the fist when punching. His argument against me fully rotating the fist – so that the thumb is positioned down, at the “bottom” of the fist – was that this was unnatural, and that if you raised the arms straight up and made a fist, it would be at a 45-degree angle. I explained why I punched this way e.g. fist-to-wrist alignment, engagement of the shoulder in the strike etc. whilst at the same time, not trying to counter his arguments and reasons for striking/punching the way he did (if something works for you, I’m not going to try to convince you to do something else – there are people who teach and deliver their roundhouse kicks, differently to me, and with the same amount of power; I’m not going to try to teach them a different method, if the end result will be the same). Unfortunately, his goal was to try to get me to change the orientation of my fist when punching, by simply repeating his argument. Eventually, I asked him to demonstrate what his punching looked like. Like he said, his fist was at a 45-degree angle, however his hips hadn’t turned, weight hadn’t transferred forward, the back muscles hadn’t engaged, the hips hadn’t “sunk”, etc. There was so much to work on, before the “debate” on fist orientation was to be had, however the fixation on one component, was making him blind to everything else. He was focusing so much on 5% of what he was doing, that 95% of what goes into making a good punch/strike was being lost. It is often these little differences, that are seen to define systems and styles, and lead people to conclude that what they are doing is right, and what everybody else is doing is wrong. When delivering a punch, with as much power as possible, whilst remaining stable and balanced, there are certain things that have to happen bio-mechanically, and if every instructor sat down together and discussed these, we’d be largely in agreement; there might be some nuances, and some exceptions and caveats noted, but by-and-large we’d all agree, on the components that need to be in place. This is because several factors, that we’d all agree on, make up 80-90% of the power of the punch, and this is the same for many techniques. I remember having great difficulty, in my early days of training, determining whether a gun positioned to the side of my head was in front of the ear or behind it (under the real-life stress and duress of having a live firearm placed there, I’m not convinced I’d be able to make an exact determination of its position). The idea being that if it’s positioned forward of the ear, the gun should be pulled forward to reduce the amount of time, that your head is in the line of fire – and if behind, backwards towards the aggressor. It’s also worth noting that these preferred methods, may not be possible, depending on where the aggressor is positioned, and how they are controlling you with their other arm; your body movement may be restricted so that you are unable to move in the direction you’d want to, etc. Whilst the position of the gun is a factor, it’s not as important as your ability to move the gun away from your head as fast as you can. A faster hand movement in the “wrong” direction is in fact more important than a slower hand movement in the “right” direction. If the success of your survival is wholly dependent on determining whether the weapon is half-an-inch, forwards or back from the ear, it is probable that you don’t possess the ability to make either technique work. It is important to understand which skills and abilities are needed to make a technique successful, and which components are the most important to a technique’s success, and to work on developing these. In real-life scenarios, certain details aren’t available to us, which might appear to be in the training environment. In a “controlled” sparring environment, picking targets to strike/hit, is a luxury that the relative time and space given to you, allows you to do. In a real-life assault, no attacker(s) will afford you this luxury. Many years ago, I attended a seminar, where an instructor was talking about where to aim on the jaw/chin, and at what angle to strike, in order to guarantee a knock-out. I’m not going to say it’s not possible –  and you can increase your chances of landing such strikes, by positioning yourself in the pre-conflict phase of a confrontation and/or striking pre-emptively – but being able to put all of those pieces together under stress and duress, and get the timing right, is extremely difficult. My default advice for striking the face, is to aim at the center of the thing, which floats above the shoulders – that’ll give you a good chance of connecting with the target (and that can be a lot harder than it seems when you practice it in the training environment – which is why I’m an advocate of large striking surfaces, such as the forearms and shins, against relatively large targets such as the neck/trapezius and legs). Specifics and details are important, but they’re not as important as those things and components, which power the technique, or increase the chances of a technique being successful. Fighting rarely comes down to subtleties. Training, sparring? Yes, there are subtleties, but real-life fighting? Almost never. That doesn’t mean we should neglect the details in training, or not break techniques down, etc. but it does mean we should understand the “few” things that make a technique work, or increases its likelihood of success, and prioritize our emphasis on these. These are the foundations that support everything else, and without them, we will have nothing to build on or develop. Good foundations on their own, will support us much better, and increase our survival chances, more than anything else.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=342 Mon, 04 Sep 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=341 I was bullied as a child. I was constantly told by my teachers, my parents, and other people in authority, who I looked to for advice, that if I ignored my bullies they would go away – I tried it, and they didn’t go away; in fact, it made it worse, because the more I ignored them, the greater the lengths they’d go to, to get my attention. Nobody responds well to being ignored. When working door/bar security, If I was on my own and I had to separate two aggressors, whilst I was talking to one, the other would become frustrated that I wasn’t talking to them, and end up getting more emotional – he/she was invested in the dispute, and had no intention of walking away from it. It sounds a simple strategy: ignore them and they will go away, but deep down, we all know it’s fundamentally flawed, and will often escalate situations rather than de-escalate them. I have written a lot about de-escalation in this blog, however I’d like to talk about some proven methods that can be used effectively, in the right circumstances. Firstly, de-escalation is rarely if ever successful in premeditated confrontations, where the aggressor has come to, or orchestrated the incident, with a goal or outcome in mind e.g. if a mugger demands your wallet, they are only going to be satisfied with one outcome – walking away with your wallet. If, however, you spill a drink over somebody, or act/behave in a way that causes them to become aggressive i.e. it is a spontaneously aggressive/violent situation, they may not have a goal/outcome in mind, and this is where de-escalation has its place. If you’ve ever been in a heated/aggressive argument or confrontation, you may have had the feeling that the other party wasn’t listening to what you were saying – strangely enough, it is likely that they were feeling the same way. When people become angry/aggressive it is because they believe that they are in the right, and are justified to express themselves in the way that they are (even if this constitutes an assault – there doesn’t have to be physical contact for someone to assault you). By arguing back, and/or trying to make/state your case, you will be perpetuating this feeling in them, as they become baffled by the fact that you are not listening to them or taking them seriously i.e. you should be responding to what they are saying, not making a counter-argument. One tactic to get around this is to use a strategy known as reflective listening. With reflective listening, rather than trying to state your own case, you acknowledge your aggressor’s emotional state and position e.g. you say, “You seem really angry, why is that?” this gives an aggressor the chance to acknowledge their emotional state, and rationalize it. When they give the reason as to why they’re emotional, you may be able to validate it by agreeing that this would make you angry too…if that was in fact the situation; allowing you to start introducing some logic and reasoning into the confrontation. If they respond emotionally/aggressively to what you say, again you can reflect, by stating that you can see how they might see it this way, etc. De-escalation is a process. There are no silver bullets, but by helping the aggressor acknowledge their emotional state, there is a chance that they will respond positively. One de-escalation strategy that has recently gotten a lot of attention is something called “Non-Complimentary Behavior”. This method involves responding to an aggressive individual, by acting/behaving in a way that doesn’t reflect the way that they are acting/behaving e.g. if somebody acts in an aggressive/nasty way towards you, you respond by being non-threatening and nice, etc. The aim of the strategy is to take away the aggressor’s justification for their angry behavior; it isn’t “fair” to be aggressive towards someone who is being nice/kind. The success of this strategy depends upon the emotional state of the aggressor, as well as the relationship they have with the person they are targeting i.e. they have to care about being seen to be fair, and to a certain extent reasonable, something that is more likely if they are still in control of their emotions, and care about how their target – and possibly those around them - perceives them. It is important to note that ignoring someone isn’t a non-complimentary behavior. An example of a non-complimentary behavior, would be to bring in doughnuts to work, and offer one to someone who had been extremely rude and aggressive towards you – almost shaming them of their actions and behaviors. Ignoring someone at work who you had a dispute with, wouldn’t be a non-complimentary behavior, it would just be ignoring them, and if you actively and deliberately ignored them, it would in all likelihood make the situation much worse. However, the concept of non-complimentary behavior has been used to justify an intervention strategy, that involves ignoring an aggressor, when intervening in a hate crime. There is a poster campaign around Boston at the moment, advocating that a person who witnesses an incident of religious/racist abuse should intervene by talking to the target about frivolous topics, such as the weather, movies they have seen, etc., until the aggressor/abuser gets bored and walks away. It’s a nice idea, but it is neither an effective strategy, nor an example of non-complimentary behavior. Just as with bullies, ignoring somebody who is invested enough in their view-point to publicly, verbally assault someone, is not going to see them go away, and may in fact escalate the situation. Non-complimentary behavior can be effective, but usually only when that person cares about how they are perceived by others – not the case in most incidents of spontaneous violence, where de-escalation can be used. Nothing comes with a guarantee, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution where de-escalation is concerned. Having a number of different tools in your toolbox, that can be applied in the appropriate situations, is your best survival strategy.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=341 Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=340 Sometimes when I talk to people about self-protection, they come away with the idea that those of us who think about our personal safety are in constant state of highly strung paranoia, jumping at shadows, and ready to decimate anyone who has the misfortune to approach us, outside of our field of vision. Sometimes, instructors promote this idea of “good” situational awareness, by telling stories about how their wife, friend, acquaintance, tapped them on the shoulder when they were distracted or deep in thought, and they turned ready to deal a death blow, only to recognize at the last moment that this person isn’t an enemy hell bent on their destruction. These stories are almost apocryphal in nature, and are terrible examples of what good situational awareness is, and only go to reinforce the view that to be aware of what is going on around us, we need to be in a constant state of high vigilance – when we recognize danger or harmful intent, this should be the state we enter, but it is not the state that allows us to recognize the danger in the first place; in fact it is likely to prevent us from identifying threats – we can consciously only process one thing at a time, so actively looking for signs of danger (before we’ve narrowed the threat down), is going to be an extremely inefficient and ineffective way of identifying harmful intent in our environment. I have found that it is this perception, of having to constantly think about danger, which is one of the biggest barriers for untrained people when considering risk, danger, and threats to their personal safety; they believe that their quality of life will drop, if they have to be constantly on the lookout for trouble. In this article, I want to look at the positive effects of good situational awareness, that go beyond keeping us safe. One of the problems with modern living is that we are too comfortable, and too accustomed to our environments. We have lost the desire – and sometimes the ability – to be in the moment. Our familiarity with our surroundings and those in them, have caused us to completely switch-off, or actively look for something to distract us; such as reading something on our mobile phones. Our environments bore us, and we have stopped being interested in them. This isn’t just a problem from a personal safety perspective, it’s a problem with who we’ve become. We have lost the ability to enjoy the quality of the moment, and to be curious about the things around us. We shouldn’t be actively looking for danger, we should just be looking. A few weeks before I moved to the U.S. I was walking along the South Bank of the Thames in London – I often used to walk this route, as there was a company on Tower Hill, that I used to do some consultancy work for. This time, for whatever reason, I stopped, and looked across the river, at the London skyline. It was the first time I’d done so. In that moment, I began to realize some of the reasons why tourists came to the City; the skyline is an extremely impressive one. As I looked along it, I saw countless tourists taking photographs of it. They had a curiosity I lacked. The familiarity and the routine of the route, had taken me out of the moment. As “aware” as I thought I was, I wasn’t really aware of my surroundings. By being mindful in that moment, I increased my awareness. Good situational awareness doesn’t just alert us to threats and dangers, it increases our quality and appreciation of life. When man first came down from the trees, and ventured out onto the savannah plains, he’d have been curious about everything. His survival depended on that curiosity. What did the new sounds he heard mean and signal e.g. the presence of prey that could be the next meal, or the proximity of predators that signaled danger, etc. Nothing could be or was taken for granted. This was a new environment and needed to be understood. This is the start of developing good situational awareness; understanding the environments that we exist in. If you were blindfolded, could you easily and quickly find the fire escapes at your place of work? This is an environment you probably spend an excess of 40 hours a week in, so this should be an easy one for you to do. Do you know where the nearest hospitals and police stations are on your way to work.? When you walk through the town or city where you live do you ever look up, or do you only look straight ahead? How well do you really know the physical environments, of the places you travel through, work in, visit etc.? We should be curious about our environments, so we can educate ourselves concerning them. This also allows us to live in the moment, and appreciate our surroundings, which is something we should be doing as living creatures. Whenever I drive at night and park my car, I sit for a few moments with the lights off (central locking on), to let my eyes become accustomed to the darkness. This is something I started year ago, as a safety precaution, however I have seen wildlife that I would never have seen otherwise, and this has improved my quality of life. If I hadn’t taken these moments I would never have seen a young coyote play in the snow, which was extremely entertaining and life-affirming. Being situationally aware, involves being aware of everything, not just the things that can harm us, and this part often gets forgotten. Situational awareness means that you are living in that moment, and when we start to do that, not only do we become safer, but our quality of life goes up. Being aware does not involve being fearful, or constantly imagining the dark thoughts that others may be having towards us. This would be both exhausting and depressing. It involves living in the moment, something which will make our lives both safer and more enjoyable. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=340 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=339 In real-life confrontations, stances – as stances – rarely exist. If you have time to adopt a “Fighting Stance”, like an MMA fighter, at the start of a bout, you will have missed an opportunity to attack your aggressor. In violent incidents,  there is no referee, telling you when the fight will start, and if you have the time to get into a stance, you obviously recognized that the situation was turning physical, and therefore you should have made a pre-emptive assault, instead of getting into a position which sees you waiting for your aggressor(s) to attack you. If you were taken by surprise – which you shouldn’t have been, if you are aware of your surroundings – you won’t have the time to get into a stance, you’ll be blocking and moving, and trying to play catch up on what has happened to you. In this article, I want to look at the role stances play in real-life confrontations, their relevance and use, and what they can teach us about fighting.I strongly oppose the notion that Krav Maga is MMA for the street. This isn’t about rules, and what techniques are effective or not; that’s another debate/discussion. The format of an MMA bout, bears little resemblance to a real-life confrontation – real life violence is non-consensual, and occurs without warning. There is nobody there to start (and stop) the fight, and combatants generally start nose-to-nose, without the luxury of distance. From a fighting perspective, there isn’t an opportunity to get into a stance, you are simply fighting from the moment things go physical. However, there are occasions, during the verbal confrontation, that precedes most physical confrontations, when you do have the time and space - and should adopt a stance - but it won’t be your “fighting stance”.Anyone who has worked in some public-facing form of security, will have found, or been taught a stance/position, where they don’t look aggressive, but are ready to act. On many CP (Close Protection) courses, you are taught to stand, with arms half-folded – the idea being that you appear non-threatening, but have a free hand that can be used, to push, grab and make quick distracting strikes, etc. Personally, I liked to put my hands out in front of me, palms somewhat down in an Interview/De-escalation Stance. I’d normally, “talk” with my hands, moving them as I spoke, so that if I had to go pre-emptive, my hands were already moving, and were less likely to cause a reaction from the person I was dealing with. If in these situations, if I’d pulled a “traditional” fighting stance, with my hands coming up to guard my face, I may well have been viewed legally as the aggressor, and seen to have committed an assault i.e. I was in a position where I could cause harm to the person I was dealing with, and would have given them a reason they should fear for their safety. Forgetting any legal perspectives on the “Fighting Stance”, if they had a weapon on them, they may now feel threatened enough, and feel justified, to use it. Adopting a “Fighting Stance” during a social interaction is only going to escalate things, and let your aggressor know where your intent is.So, what is the purpose of a “Fighting Stance”? It is there to teach concepts and principles. A fight is a dynamic thing, and you need to be mobile in all directions, so your weight needs to be divided equally between both feet – as you move, not as you stand there. Obviously, if you are striking, weight transfer will occur, though it should never result in more than 60% of your weight being loaded onto the front foot – something worth checking, next time you throw a straight rear-hand punch/strike (if you can lift your rear foot from the floor as you strike, you should look at centering the weight in your hips, by sinking them). Fighting is about moving, and a “Fighting Stance”, should teach you how to move.When you move, you need to be stable, and able to generate power. Many people confuse stability with balance. The individual who throws their rear-hand punch, with everything they’ve got, loading 90% of their weight onto the front foot is balanced, but they are not stable – they are effectively standing on one leg. A “Fighting Stance”, should teach you the importance of keeping your head over your shoulders, and your shoulders over your hips i.e. not to lean, whether you're moving backwards or forwards. It’s not so much a stance, as a lesson on what to do when you are moving.In a fight, both hands should always be active. The idea that you will ever simply have your hands up in a static position is erroneous – they should be doing something; preferably striking. There really shouldn’t be a time when they are both up, simply guarding your face. This mistake often gets made, when people confuse sparring with fighting. Sparring has many merits, however it shouldn’t be looked on as replicating a real-life fight. Sparring is something you and a partner do together, a fight is something you do to each other i.e. my aggressor is trying to violently assault me, and I am trying to violently assault them – the fact that I am doing this in order to defend myself is a secondary concern. A real-world confrontation sees somebody coming at you, there really aren’t moments when you are circling each other in stance – if there are, why aren’t you attacking in these moments? Fighting should be a zero-sum game, if your attacker isn’t doing anything to you, you should be doing something to them – you shouldn’t be giving them the time and space to recover and maneuver.We need to stop confusing real-life violence with combat sports. We need to recognize the format of violent confrontations, and understand the purpose of the “stances” we teach from, and practice in. There should be no static elements in a fight – we should be moving and attacking, or at worst moving and defending, in order to set up our attacks. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=339 Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=338 Often, when people with little understanding of what real-life violence looks like - because they have been fortunate enough to never experience it first-hand - try to imagine incidents, situations and scenarios, they build their “models of violence”, from the media, the movies, and third-party anecdotes, imagining that common armed criminals such as muggers, are at some point looking to, “complete the task of termination”, rather than simply exit the environment with your wallet. A rich diet of action movies, and extreme news stories, can distract us from the reality of violence – which is more likely to comprises of pushes, shoves, grabs and punches, than assassination attempts. In this article, I want to look at some of the elephants in the room that often don’t get discussed in self-defense classes, and some common misconceptions around violence. There is a tendency when teaching techniques to remove the context e.g. a knife defense gets taught, without an explanation as to why somebody is making the attack in the first place – when we introduce the attacker’s motive into a scenario, we can understand much more about the when, where and whom of assessing risk. One of the other five situational components, that features in a violent confrontation, is relationship i.e. what is your relationship with your assailant? It is often implied – or sometimes explicitly stated – in self-defense scenarios that our attacker is a stranger, however this does not reflect reality, where we are statistically more likely to be assaulted by someone we know; and when we look at particular demographics such as children, this is especially true. There is a value to teaching “Stranger Danger”, and other similar programs, but we are fooling ourselves if we think we are addressing the danger of sexual assaults on children, when they are far more likely to be committed by family members and their friends. If our child safety programs don’t reference this, it would be wrong to think of them as being truly comprehensive. Even when we are presented with the facts and statistics, it is all too easy to think that they don’t apply to us. In a now-famous study concerning how we apply statistics to ourselves, there was a survey that consisted of a number of factual statements, where participants were asked to state their opinions, thoughts and ideas about them. One of the statements/questions was, “The average life-expectancy of a US Citizen is 88 years old. How old do you expect to be at your time of death?” Nobody answered 88 or younger, everybody believed that they would beat the statistic; that it didn’t apply to them. We can argue to ourselves that we, personally are most likely to be assaulted by a stranger, however we are part of the statistics that say this isn’t the case. We do a huge disservice to our female students, if we present rape and sexual assault scenarios in the context of strangers, making surprise attacks from the rear; when in fact most rapes involve people the victim knows, and occur in their home or somebody else’s. Most violence happens face-to-face, and is preceded by dialogue. A subjective study will confirm this. How many verbal altercations and disputes have you seen, versus physical fights? How many physical fights have you seen – from the starting point, not having walked in on – that didn’t start first with a verbal confrontation? Do sneak and surprise attacks happen? Of course, and we need to train for them, however we also need to train to deal with violence from “conversation” range, and from the standpoint that there are things we can do to better our chances of surviving such altercations during this phase of the fight (the Pre-Conflict Phase) e.g. controlling range, bringing our hands up in a placating manner, attempting to de-escalate the situation (if it’s spontaneous in nature), etc. If we train from the perspective that people just attack/punch us, out of the blue, and that’s what is most likely to happen to us, we aren’t training for reality. Most violence is low-level, that occurs spontaneously, and can usually – with the correct training - be de-escalated. One good way to stay on track and make sure we are training realistically, is to introduce “motive” into everything we teach; why is the person targeting us, why have they chosen to be violent towards us? Is it something we’ve done? Is there something they want? If every time we teach or learn a technique the motive of the attacker is introduced, we will quickly see if we are creating contrived, and unlikely scenarios. When we consider that most violence happens face-to-face, and is preceded by dialogue, and recognize that the person who initiates the physical confrontation will have the advantage, we really have to teach and/or practice pre-emptive strikes and attacks. If you are in fear for your safety, and your attacker is in a position to cause you harm, then you are being assaulted, and you have the right to defend yourself (under US law), and that includes being the one who makes the first strike. Don’t be fooled into thinking that this is school, and the guilty person is the one who “started” it. If you have the opportunity presented to you to make the first strike, and put your assailant in a position where they are the one who is reacting, don’t pass it up. Be aware of what would constitute reasonable force in such a situation, and don’t pass up on an opportunity to disengage, and get to safety, because you’ve been lead to believe that in every situation you need to fully incapacitate your assailant – not being there is, in most cases, the safest strategy. If you believe that your attacker might eventually pull themselves together and come hunt you down, you’re most likely confusing yourself with Jason Bourne. Reality Based Self-Defense, means basing what we teach on reality – how real-life altercations actually occur, not simply what we imagine them to look like. We should not be trying to create realities which don’t exist or are unlikely, just because they “could” happen; anything could potentially happen, and we need to put aside our flights of fancy, to be grounded, and to teach, train, and practice for the real-life situations we are actually likely to face. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=338 Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=337 A core component of self-protection is risk management and mitigation – whenever I do any form of consultancy, this is where I always start. I’ve written in more depth about what risk is, and how to define it. In short, risk is where assets, threats, and vulnerabilities intersect; e.g. where there are no threats and vulnerabilities, there is no risk to our assets (which can and does include us). It is virtually impossible to live in a world, or act and behave in such a way, that there is no risk; as soon as you leave your house, you become more vulnerable to attack – and the risk to your safety goes up - because you lack the protection of your home. One way to mitigate and manage this risk, is to never leave your house, but obviously that would be both an impractical and unhealthy solution to dealing with the risk, especially when there are other practical and simple ways to reduce vulnerabilities, and often the opportunity to limit your exposure to threats and dangers e.g. don’t go to a bad part of town late at night, etc. One of my students relayed a story about a female friend of his, who believed somebody was following her. She approached a man on the street, and asked him if he would walk with her, until she got to her house. He refused. Amongst my student’s group of friends, there was a sense of moral outrage, about the man’s refusal to assist, and the emotional part of me agrees. However, the objective risk-mitigator/manager in me sees things differently. Obviously, those friends of the woman, knew that her story was genuine; that she felt she was in danger, and approached somebody whose presence would deter the person following her, to walk her home. To the person being approached, they have no idea what the back story to the incident is e.g. is the person following her an ex-partner who is jealous that she is seeing other people (and could be armed), is she part of a gang that is using her to lure targets/victims to a location where they will be mugged, abducted, etc? What are the risks, and the level of those risks, involved in walking this person home? And are we prepared to accept them, because the cost/risk to the person asking for assistance is potentially greater? Most of us, I believe, would accept these possibilities, to do what we would see as the “right thing”, but at the same time, we shouldn’t do this blindly, in case by doing so, we are putting ourselves in danger . We should gather more information. We need to understand the “threat” portion of the assessment more fully, and we can gain more information concerning this, by asking questions e.g. does the person know the individual following them? If so what is their relationship? Where were they coming from, and when did they notice/realize that somebody was behind them? If it’s the crazy ex who saw her in a pub or bar, and has decided to follow her home and confront her about something – and he has a history of violence – walking her back to her house may not be the safest strategy for either of you; especially if she has just moved in order to avoid him knowing where she lives. Just because somebody asks for help, doesn’t mean that the help they are requesting is effective help. They could be making the situation worse for themselves, as well as you. In this scenario going to another place of safety, would be a better strategy. As part as your own personal self-protection planning, you should have safe places you can go to – apart from your home – when you find yourself having to deal with a threat. These can be friend’s houses, well populated places, police stations and hospitals, etc. If the woman you were trying to assist believed she was in imminent danger, there may be places of safety closer to you both than her house. There is a terrible poster campaign running on Boston’s subway network. It is well intended, but poorly executed. It involves intervening on another person’s behalf, when they are having to deal with an aggressive individual. In it, a white man is shouting aggressively at a Muslim woman, who is sitting in a subway car. The poster advises that you should intervene, by going up to the woman, sitting next to her, and starting a conversation, about the weather, movies, etc. The misplaced belief is that the aggressor, who is now being ignored, will walk off frustrated. It’s a lovely idea, but ignoring someone who is emotional and angry will, in most cases, only escalate the situation. The poster was designed by a French artist – there is a reason I don’t give drawing lessons, and there is a reason why artists shouldn’t be given well-intended, but misplaced/misunderstood advice about de-escalation. When you accept a risk, such as intervening on somebody’s behalf, you need to make sure that you have the “tools” to do the job, or you may make the situation much, much worse, increasing the risk of violence, both to yourself and the person you are helping (I have written articles on more effective strategies for intervening in such situations – you can use the search box on www.kravmagablog.com, and type in the search term “intervening” to find them). Are you prepared for a violent confrontation, if/when the aggressor doesn’t walk away, but instead gets physical? We can mitigate risk, by having the correct tools to deal with a situation. A large part of risk management is reducing our vulnerabilities – those things which a threat can exploit, either directly or indirectly. Often, our vulnerabilities come from ignorance and misguided advice about what violence is, and how we should handle it e.g. when we are in the presence of an aggressive individual we might think we should pretend to be on our phone, and that they will respect the social convention of not interrupting a conversation – a predatory individual who is looking to cause you physical harm, has already ignored perhaps the greatest social convention of all; being perceived as impolite is not going to deter them. Neither are they going to be deterred by the fact that somebody else might know where you are – they know that the assault will be over before any assistance can reach you.      We may choose and believe that walking the woman home is an effective strategy, but as we gain more information about the situation, we should be flexible in taking it on board, and changing our strategies for dealing with it. Understanding what the threats and vulnerabilities are in a situation allows us to make informed and rational decisions, rather than emotional ones. Most of us want to do the right thing, and will accept a certain level of risk that comes with that, but there may be ways we can do this, while limiting both our vulnerabilities in the situation, along with those of the person(s) we are trying to help. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=337 Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=336 Most times when I make a post or put up a video that contains some form of throwing, somebody will contact me, and/or make a comment, that throwing is too complex a skill, takes too long to learn, and therefore shouldn’t be taught. There’s also usually an assertion that throwing is something that only the strong can do, and isn’t appropriate for weaker and smaller people, etc., and therefore shouldn’t be included in any Krav Maga syllabus. Rather than fall back on the simple argument that Imi taught and practiced Judo, and incorporated various throws into the Krav Maga that he taught, I would rather address some of the arguments that people make regarding throwing and its appropriateness to reality based self-defense, and why throws, takedowns, sweeps and throws can be incorporated into a Krav Maga syllabus – I’m not saying that they always should; if an instructor lacks the appropriate training, skills and knowledge, they shouldn’t be teaching their students something that they don’t know/understand, and I’d make the same argument about striking; if somebody doesn’t understand the mechanics behind striking, and how to move, generate power – especially if it is a smaller/weaker person – transfer weight effectively, etc., then they probably shouldn’t be trying to teach and develop this skill in others (simply telling a person to be aggressive when they strike, isn’t teaching them effective striking). Are throws, takedowns and reaps, appropriate for the smaller person? When Jigaro Kano, created and developed Judo, this was one of his goals; minimum effort, maximum efficiency. He wasn’t creating a system that relied upon brawn and strength, but one that utilized movement, weight shifts, and the taking of balance, so that an aggressor who is thrown, falls without having to be lifted. In a well-executed throw, there is no effort expended, and weight differentials don’t matter. In fact, once balance has been taken, a heavier attacker, will have a harder job trying to regain it than a smaller/lighter person, making throwing a very effective strategy to adopt when dealing with a much larger opponent. If somebody doesn’t understand the mechanics of a throw, then they will have to use strength and force, and this is why I wouldn’t advise an instructor who doesn’t understand these things to teach throws, reaps, sweeps and takedowns. However if they do, then being able to equip a smaller person with a way to defeat a much larger aggressor, is certainly something they should do; in fact they will be able to cause much more damage to an attacker using a throw – and the ground to hit with – than they will with their striking. When I did my first IKMF (International Krav Maga Federation), Instructor course, there was time devoted to learning and practicing break-falls or fall-breaks. It was well understood by those running the course that if you didn’t know how to fall, and were thrown to the ground, or knocked down in the fight, there was a serious risk of injury. Let’s turn this around for a moment, and look at ourselves as the person throwing, or knocking the other person to the ground, etc. If they don’t know how to fall, they are probably going to get injured. If we teach our students how to break their fall, and insist that this is an essential self-defense skill to avoid injury, why not teach them how to cause this type of damage to the other person? Although there’s not a straight comparison, it’s almost like teaching somebody to block and/or take a punch, without teaching them to strike. Throwing, and throwing well/efficiently, is a skill that takes time to develop (but then so does learning to strike/punch well), and it’s not one that I introduce to my students straight away. It is quicker and easier to teach somebody to punch/strike in a way that will have an effect, than it is to teach somebody effective throwing, and the syllabus I teach acknowledges this e.g. you’re going to learn eye-strikes, and hammer-fists before you learn any type of throw, sweep, or reap. However, my goal is to get my students to adopt Krav Maga for life, not for a few weeks or months, and given a lifetime, there are many areas of combat that they can spend time practicing, learning and developing skill in, and this doesn’t just include throwing e.g. ground-fighting, offensive knife and baton (useful skills if you practice any form of weapon-disarming), flying knees, high kicks, etc. If your goal as an instructor is to teach a basic syllabus, without a focus on skills development, equipping students with rudimentary self-defense skills relying on aggression and mindset to be effective, there is nothing wrong with that; it’s the approach I take when teaching seminars, short courses, and corporate training events, where I have limited time with the students to develop their skills. However, if you have longer, the way to improve your students’ fighting abilities is to develop their skills and attributes. My school’s Black-Belt program is around 10-years, throwing is a fighting skill that really starts to be developed around years four to five. This is how I teach, and if people offer shorter or longer paths to Black Belt that is for them, not me, to decide. One of my first Krav Maga instructors told me that it is worth knowing how to, and to be able to kick head height. His two reasons were as follows: so you would be able to teach and practice blocking high kicks, and so when advocating that high-kicking is a potentially risky strategy in a real-life conflict, nobody could make the argument against you, that the only reason you weren’t teaching high-kicks was because you yourself couldn’t do them. Is your only defense to a throw or a takedown to break-fall? If it is, you will quickly find yourself coming undone against a person who knows how to grapple – and there are grapplers who know how to negate strikers very quickly. If you don’t know how to throw, I would argue that your ability to defend against these types of attacks, might be lacking; admittedly, they are not the most common types of attack, and if your goal is to teach a basic program, with a reduced syllabus, that is fine, however there are those Krav Maga instructors who want to offer a more comprehensive approach to dealing with violence, and to say that to do this isn’t in line with the original intention of Krav Maga would be wrong. Imi believed that it was important that a practitioner could defend themselves from those skilled in other arts and systems – this is especially true for military personnel who would be going head-to-head, with other trained military personnel. There are many ways to teach Krav Maga, and to me that is the beauty of the system. When I teach a 90-minute seminar, it’s basic, simple strikes, a focus on aggression, and a large dose of personal-safety and self-protection, so those attending learn to predict, prevent, and avoid violence. At my school, my program is much more comprehensive, and once students become effective at striking, punching and hitting, other areas of combat and fighting-skills start to be developed. If other instructors want to stop at this point, and have students simply continue to practice what they have learnt, I’m not going to claim that this isn’t Krav Maga, however at the same time I’d expect the same courtesy extended to myself, and other instructors and associations, who try and equip our students with other fighting skills, such as throwing, sweeping, reaping, and groundwork. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=336 Mon, 24 Jul 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=335 When it comes to dealing with violence, avoidance is always the best policy. When I teach corporate clients and other groups, this is perhaps 80% of what I teach; how to avoid being involved in a violent confrontation, and most of this comes down to planning and preparation. Too often, the focus of those who want to protect themselves is what to do in the moment, rather than how to avoid it. Sometimes, people will want to skip over and rush the avoidance piece, already imagining that they’ve failed to predict, detect and deter – or that somehow it didn’t work – and they’re having to deal with an aggressive incident, that was always inevitable; even though it probably wasn’t. If you read the emergency procedures/safety card on an airplane, you increase your survival chances significantly – somewhere around 75% of those who survive air-traffic disasters, report having read this card. None of the information on it is new, if you’ve flown before, and this is why many people neglect to watch the safety video or demonstration; they’re already in a state of denial about being involved in a crash. It’s not necessarily that those individuals reading the card are expecting to crash, they’ve just considered that it’s a possibility. Planning and preparation, puts your mind in the right place. When your head is in this space, you might think twice about taking your shoes off, during take-off and landing (the times when a plane is at greatest risk of crashing), in case you need to exit, and you might practice unbuckling your seat a few times (one of the most common problems in an evacuation), etc. If you take the time to plan and prepare for avoiding violence, you are considering the possibility of it, which means you will be more open to identifying the warning signs and pre-violence indicators, rather than discounting them. One thing I do to prepare, is having my wallet readily available – I carry a decoy wallet, and practice retrieving it from my pocket. Most muggers, unless they have secondary motives and goals, will want an incident over with as quickly as possible. The greater the time they spend engaged in their crime, the more likely it is that they will be spotted, identified, and potentially caught. You need to assist them in their resource-driven crime, by handing your wallet/cash to them as quickly as possible. I often hear strange ideas around when you should and shouldn’t hand over your wallet, such as the idea that if you have a large amount of money in your wallet, you shouldn’t, but if it’s a small amount you should, as if the money you have on you somehow enhances your ability to physically control and disable your assailant. The mugger, in their mind, is leaving with your wallet, whatever the amount of money in it – the variable is whether you get cut or shot in the process. Often, when I explain this advice, somebody will say, “but what if my wallet is at the bottom of my purse?”, or, “what if I don’t have any cash on me?” Both things are easily rectifiable: make sure your wallet is easily accessible, and make sure you are carrying some cash. Planning and preparation resolves both issues. The question is whether you believe it’s worth taking the small amount of time and effort to do this; just as it might be worth splitting up large amounts of cash about your person, if you are in a situation where you have to do this. If you’ve ever been involved in a CP (Close Protection) detail, looking after somebody, you will have multiple safe places that you can take them to in the event of an emergency – a great deal of effort is put into avoiding such an incident, such as avoiding routes that might be easily compromised, and creating an unpredictable schedule, etc. - things that can be adopted, and built into anyone’s personal life. These safe places, might be another room in the hotel where you are staying, or another hotel in another part of town. These safe places, may also involve hospitals and police stations (understanding which ones are manned and unmanned), etc., and it is likely that a member of the team will have checked routes to and from these places, at different times of day – to account for traffic – before everyone has deployed. This allows you to not be put in a situation where you are having to run from danger, but one where you can instead, run to safety. If in the middle of the night, you believed that there was an intruder in your house, and you had to exit it, where would you go? If you had an argument with your partner and they hit you, and you needed to exit your house, where would you go? If you were being followed in your car, where would you go? Would you know the best route to get there e.g. one where you could keep moving, and wouldn’t have to stop at traffic lights? All of this may seem a bit paranoid, until it happens. Yes, it’s uncomfortable to have to think about these things, especially of your partner being abusive and violent towards you, but it can happen – they could lose their job, get depressed, start engaging in substance abuse – and the question is, do you have a plan? Just as importantly, do you have a plan to avoid threats and dangers? If you’re out clubbing/drinking late at night, do you have a plan to get home? When I ask people this, they will often respond that they have Uber, or another ride-sharing app on their phone. Technology is not a plan. If you leave a club when it closes there will probably be a huge number of people using these apps, meaning that you may be waiting for a very long time, before you can get a ride. Often with ride-sharing services, the price goes up when demand is high – it maybe that you now can’t afford to use the service. All of this could probably have been avoided if you had left 20 minutes earlier, before the club closed. Maybe, because you hadn’t planned for the possibility of such delays with the ride-sharing service, you decide to take a chance, and use one of the unlicensed taxis that are lined up outside – just because you didn’t envisage an issue with using a ride-sharing service at a particular time, doesn’t mean that a sexual predator hasn’t thought about this, and how they could use it to their advantage; they will have done their planning and preparation. Planning and preparation is the non-sexy part of self-protection and self-defense, which is why it is so often over-looked. It doesn’t involve weapons disarms, it doesn’t see you punish an assailant or put them on the floor. Its goal is the exact opposite of all this, and you don’t get to put your training to the test. It’s the mature, grown-up part of self-defense, that says you’re better not being there in the first place, and you know how to get out of there if you are.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=335 Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=334 Glib phrases are not uncommon in the martial arts and self-defense. Some of these involve “absolute” statements, and proclamations, such as “high kicks don’t work on the street” or “95% of street-fights go the ground” etc. Neither one of these statements can be backed up, or statistics provided, to reinforce the argument. But it’s often easier and quicker to be glib, than to talk about the issues and problems with high kicks – whilst acknowledging that in some specific circumstances they may have their worth – or the importance of training to fight/survive on the ground, whilst at the same time acknowledging that most fights start from standing, etc. When I first started teaching, the internet didn’t exist, so these phrases and statements were restricted to in-person conversations, and articles in martial arts magazines, however with the proliferation of social-media, their usage has increased – and this is a shame because positive, productive conversations, discussions and debates could take place, instead of dismissive quips, and glib phrases. In this article, I want to look at some common phrases that are often used, and why it may be worth taking a look at when they may be relevant and when they add little, or detract from the debate. “I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.” In the right context, there is nothing wrong with this statement. In a conflict where your life is at risk, there really is no such thing as excessive force, however in many incidents of social violence, this isn’t the case, and force has to be metered. It’s why I advise those who carry firearms, to carry pepper-spray as well; there is the need to have less than lethal options, as well as lethal ones – if you look at the tools on an LEO’s belt, there’s usually a baton, OC-Spray, and possibly a Taser, as well as a firearm. That doesn’t necessarily mean reducing intensity, as extent can also be reduced e.g. you can hit somebody with all the force you can muster, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that you should keep hitting them, when you have a clear and obvious opportunity to disengage, it doesn’t mean you should keep stomping on their head, whilst they are lying unconscious on the ground, “just to be sure”. Use of force, and how it should be applied, is part of reality-based self-defense training. The legal ramifications for what we do are important; you may not be found guilty of criminal charges where the burden of proof is extremely high, and reasonable doubt is at play, but if the person and/or their family bring a civil suit against you, where your guilt may rely on a 49/51 split, you could find yourself settling for tens of thousands of dollars – if being carried by 6 wasn’t really a possibility in the confrontation, you’ll regret being tried by 12 (they are rarely the only two options). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not underestimating the potential risks and dangers in a violent confrontation, and this is why I always stress disengagement, but we do need to have an understanding of appropriate use of force – and how to setup and control situations so that we don’t have to use excessive force. This may reduce the black and whiteness of violence, to having some grey areas, but that is part of the challenge of understanding and being able to identify different forms of aggression and violence. “I’d have done X, Y or Z….” These comments are often found accompanying some CCTV (Closed Circuit TV) footage, of a real-life incident, such as a mugging or similar, and are used to criticize an individual’s actions and behaviors – even if they are successful, (and by successful, I mean coming out uninjured, alive, etc). If you’ve never faced a gun, or been attacked by a knife, you don’t know what you would do, and even if you have, no two situations are the same, so it is impossible to say with surety what you would do. It is also worth noting that in CCTV clips, you may not be privy to all the information that the person being targeted has e.g. you may not know the relationship that the target has with their assailant(s), you may not know what is happening outside of the frame, and you probably have no idea of the events that led up to the incident, etc. There is a very real danger in trying to deal with violent situations with fixed and prescribed plans of action; they may simply not be appropriate in a particular scenario – no two muggings are the same, even if the weapon is held in the same position, by an assailant of the same build, etc. If they are treated as the same, then the approach to self-defense is technique-centric, rather than situational – and this puts you at risk. There are times when it is effective to acquiesce to a predator’s demands and times where it is not, being able to discern when to do something and when to do something differently is a key survival skill. When I first started teaching martial arts and self-defense – nearly 30 years ago – you’d commonly hear martial artists say, “yes, but that would never work on the street.” Over the years, this has changed to a more categorical, “that’s a good way to get yourself killed.” Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely some approaches that will get you killed, such as listening to the bang of a gun, and using that as a cue to step off-line; we don’t need to even debate that one, physics has the answer. However, when we move beyond the laws of physics (you’ll find it extremely difficult to throw somebody who is in an upright position – I won’t say you can’t, but it’ll take more effort than if you unbalance them first), everything comes down to context; when to do something, and when not to, and what options are available to you (and it’s never all the ones you had in your training environment). In one context, one thing may get you killed, in another it may be the only survival option available to you. I’ll sometimes hear self-defense instructors say you should never go to the ground – it’s a good rule of thumb, but it shouldn’t be an absolute one. If you are getting beaten unconscious by someone you know is superior at stand-up, and you have no disengagement option, maybe going to ground, and trying to control them there becomes your best survival option – or is going to ground a good way to get yourself killed, because they could pull a knife? Context is key, and if it is lost, we are reduced to being technique-centric players who can only operate in a vacuum or gym setting. Of course, we can disagree with each other, and point out what we see as issues in an individual’s approach, etc., but the use of dismissive and glib comments does little to move a discussion forward or add to its content. Our experiences are useful, but so are our experiences, and we should respect those of others – even if they are different, and/or bring people to different conclusions. Rather than simply dismiss what we see with a comment of, “that would get you killed in the street” etc. if we want to add an opinion that moves the conversation forward, we should be prepared to take the time and effort to demonstrate the different ways we would solve a particular problem, and be ready to explain, and answer questions that may arise from this. We’re all guilty of making glib and off-hand comments concerning self-defense and personal safety e.g. “personal safety is just common sense” – no it’s not, and this is why predatory individuals have the edge on us, because they know how our “common sense” tells us to act and behave etc. These phrases and statements give us a quick, short-hand way to express our opinions, however they don’t help us, or the people we direct them towards, or those who are listening, or give us anything to work with, and can even misguide e.g. someone who hears, “I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6”, may be under the impression that they don’t need to consider use of force, which could be a very costly mistake, or if they take on board someone saying, “I’d have done X, Y or Z…” without any explanation of context, may try and replicate that solution, when it would be a bad idea to do so. In most cases, we need to leave the short-hand, and explain, the why’s, the what’s, and the when’s of violence.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=334 Mon, 10 Jul 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=333 I’m a big believer in skills and attributes. I put them ahead of techniques. If you look at a boxer’s toolkit, it is comprised of four basic punches; and yet boxing takes a lifetime to master, because it involves developing the skills and attributes to make those four punches effective. One of the biggest issues I’ve found that boxers, traditional martial artists, MMA practitioners, etc., have with many of those who practice and teach reality-based self-defense, including Krav Maga, is that they lack any real fighting skills; and instead argue that aggression can be used as a substitute for these things. Whilst I believe aggression is a vital component in the mix of reality-based self-defense, it is not a replacement for having solid fighting skills and attributes. In this article, I will aim to demonstrate why one skill – control of range and distance – cannot be substituted, and needs to be developed, even if that means taking training time away from learning techniques. If you’ve ever been attacked with a knife, there are several things that you’ll have wished for – apart from not being there in the first place. One of these will have been to have had adequate time to react and respond; something that most attackers will deny you. If an attacker has done their job properly, you’ll not initially see the knife, or you will only pick up on the movement of the weapon – not necessarily the weapon itself – at the very last moment. The chances of making a strong block are not good, and making a simultaneous attack will be almost impossible. To have a chance of making these defenses, you will first have had to accomplished two things: you must have been able to pick up on the pre-violence indicators that warn you that an attack is imminent, and you will have had to control range and distance, giving you the time to react and respond. It doesn’t matter what your level of aggression is, you can’t substitute it for these two skills. Threat identification, effective decision-making, and control of range are necessary attributes for dealing with a knife attack, as well as many other types of assaults. A good control of range will also limit the effect of a stab that you fail to block – and no blocking system is perfect. A friend of mine who I used to train with in London, was a forensic scientist, who worked for the London Metropolitan Police Service. He told me that for most stab wounds to be fatal, they must cut to a depth of about 2 inches (despite the fact that he told me this over 10 years ago, I’m pretty sure it still holds true today) – obviously this is a statistical truth, and there are many variables at play e.g. if the knife cuts a major artery, etc., however, if we can limit the depth of a cut, we increase our survival chances significantly, and one way to do this is to be further away i.e. control the range. Another way to limit the depth of the cut is to blade your body, so that your torso is angled away from the knife i.e. if your attacker is holding the weapon in their right hand, you should stand with your right foot forward, and your left back, so that your body is slanted away from the knife. This may only give you a few more inches of distance, but it may be these that limit the effect of a stab wound if you are cut. By controlling range, and appropriately angling your body, you will limit the effects of a stab, if you fail to block the attack in time. Once again, if you fail to identify the pre-violence indicators that precede the attack, both of these things will be hard to do once the attack is under way (most knife attacks involve the attacker moving forward, as they stab, making range control very difficult once the attack has started). Just as the effects of a stab can be limited by range control, so can the effects of a punch. If you are extremely close to an aggressor when they throw a punch, you may not have enough time to react and block it – action beats reaction. At close range, the punch will have driving force, as the attacker will be able to punch through the target; whereas with distance they’ll only be able to punch at it. You should aim to, but not expect to, block every punch, but a good control of range will mean that those which do reach you will be limited as to the amount of force they can deliver. A good control of range also means that an attacker will have to commit their body to the attack i.e. they will need to move and shift their weight towards you, rather than just swing an arm out to cut, stab, punch, or grab you. Transference of weight, means that to attack or move again, they will need to re-transfer weight, first. This will interrupt the speed at which they can make attacks. Imagine that an attacker, to throw a punch, must take a large step forward in order to reach you. Their weight will now be fully loaded on to the front leg. To make another attack, they will have to unload some of this weight first, so that they are able to move. This “interruption” is one that you can take advantage of – either to disengage, to get yourself into a better position to attack, or to make an attack of your own, etc. The shift of weight to the front leg also means that the front leg becomes an effective target for low-kicks; there is no chance for your attacker to “ride” the kick – moving it to limit the effects of the impact – and so all of the force of the kick will be fully absorbed. To be a comprehensive fighter you need aggression, however there are many fighting skills and attributes that it can’t replace or compensate for. In order to get many techniques to properly work, there need to be skills and attributes behind them. Our training shouldn’t just involve practicing techniques, and aggression drills, it should involve training methods that specifically target skills such as control of range, effective movement, physical co-ordination, balance, etc. For many new students who have not practiced sports and athletics, these are the areas where most of the work needs to be concentrated e.g. if a person is unable to stay balanced when they step under a person’s arm/armpit when practicing an escape from a rear strangle, working on movement and balance will see them progress faster, than simply training the technique over and over again. In our own training, we should identify where our weaknesses are, and put effort into developing the skills that will see us progress.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=333 Sun, 02 Jul 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=332 If you were to employ somebody as a bodyguard to protect you, you’d have a lot of expectations about their experiences, qualifications, the level of their training, and the extent of that training. You wouldn’t hire somebody who had taken a few self-defense classes. Even if you weren’t aware of all the skills and abilities a CPO (Close Protection Operative) needs to possess in order to keep you safe, you would intrinsically know that they won’t have been acquired in a few hours, or could have been gained from a couple of classes. This is where people sometimes seem to have a strange disconnect concerning their own training requirements, when it comes to doing the same job that the CPO would be hired to do i.e. protecting themselves. If we are serious about our safety and security, we need to be able to fulfill all the requirements of a CPO – not necessarily to the same depth and degree, unless we were dealing with active and serious threats – in terms of identifying, predicting, avoiding, and dealing with danger, etc. That’s a serious undertaking, and something we shouldn’t expect to learn in just a few hours. However, many people expect that this is all the time they need to invest in order to keep themselves safe. Every year, about this time, my school is contacted by parents who have daughters, going off to college, travelling abroad, spending time in another country on an educational program, etc., who require self-defense training. The requests come, maybe a few weeks before they go away, and training time is limited; maybe one or two classes. The request is, that in this time they learn EVERYTHING they need to know to keep themselves safe, and physically protect themselves. In this article, I want to try to realistically set expectations, about what you can hope to achieve when you have days and weeks to train, versus months, years, etc., and where your time and efforts are best invested. Many people believe that CPOs/Bodyguards are large, intimidating people who can push others out of the way, and physically dominate people. These types of individuals may be necessary in certain circumstances, however “real” CPOs are intelligent individuals who know how to spot danger and move away from it, rather than move towards it and engage with it because they can. If you’ve ever seen Kevin Costner in the film, “The Bodyguard”, in the real world he’d have lost his job/contract before the film even started. If you only have a few days/weeks to invest in your training, your emphasis should not be on physical self-defense, it should be on preparation and planning, along with identification and avoidance. In a few classes, you are not going to develop the appropriate skills and attributes that will allow your techniques to work. Nobody would expect a tennis coach to prepare a teenager for the Wimbledon finals, in two classes; skills development takes time. That is not to say that some simple strategies (not necessarily techniques per-se, but ideas, such as gouging and ripping the face, not giving an attacker your back, etc.), coupled with aggression training, are not worthwhile, rather that the greater part of the time should be spent learning how to predict, identify, and avoid violence. If you are not going to have the time to learn how to fight, learn to avoid it – something which should be everybody’s goal, even if they possess fighting skills and abilities. You only have an hour to learn something? Learn to make risk assessments and how to be a hard target, rather than how to punch and kick. If you’d given yourself more time to invest in training, then the physical component could be expanded on, but with only 60 minutes, focus on educating yourself about how violent situations occur, develop and evolve, along with predicting and avoiding them. If you’re going to be a locale where OC/Pepper Spray is legal, consider educating yourself as to its use. From a CPO perspective, when tasked with keeping someone safe, planning, preparation and avoidance are the core/fundamental skills that define a good operative. If you’ve got months, keep investing in this self-protection training, but add in some very simple physical self-defense strategies that will work when powered and fueled by adrenaline e.g. no technical strikes, such as straight punches, etc., but open palms, power slaps and hammer-fists, which you can use to create disengagement strategies. Your goal; to physically and psychologically stun your attacker before you disengage. With this little time your strikes and techniques can really only be powered by aggressive intent. Also, focus on the most likely types of attack you will deal with; there is no definitive list, but rather look at the threats and dangers you are likely to face, due to the geographical region you will be in, and your demographic e.g. if you are a woman travelling to the UK, to spend 3 months at an educational establishment, don’t waste your time learning gun disarms, etc. Also, have a realistic expectation of what techniques require technical proficiency, and won’t work based solely on aggression. It’s no good learning techniques that you’ll not have the skills to make work – and possibly find alternative, simpler solutions even if they aren’t the “best”, if you believe that there is a likelihood you will experience these types of threats, dangers, and attacks. If somebody tells you that they can get you ready to deal with every type of violence in a few classes, you are dealing with a salesman. Be realistic in your expectations. Dealing with a real-life violent altercation where somebody is aggressively and determinedly attacking you is more stressful than the Wimbledon finals, and a much harder situation to deal with.      If you have a few years to devote to training, you can start to look at developing fighting skills and attributes to underpin your techniques and aggression training – whilst aggression can help fill a void, where skills and attributes are absent it shouldn’t be looked on as a substitute. It should be understood that aggression plus skills/attributes beats aggression alone, and if there is enough time to develop these things then they should make up part of your training. It is one thing to throw a strike/punch with aggression, another with aggression and good form/technique. Ultimately, we should be looking to invest in learning to do what we do “correctly”, and with maximum efficiency. We should also be looking to develop and enhance our self-protection skills in parallel with these physical skills, as the more time we devote to training them, the sharper they will be, and the quicker we will be able to identify threats and respond to danger – either by avoiding it altogether, or by preparing ourselves to deal with it i.e. we are never caught by surprise. I would also add that to be truly comprehensive in your approach, you should have a good working knowledge of tactical first aid, and be able to treat yourself as well as others in the event of a medical emergency. Time is a finite resource, and we need to determine how best we allocate it, however we have to recognize what is achievable in the period we are prepared to devote to self-defense/self-protection training – and have realistic expectations as to what can be achieved in that timescale. Sometimes we must neglect areas of training, to focus on those that will be most effective in keeping us safe, even if that means neglecting those areas we are “emotionally” drawn to e.g. we may feel that we “need” to know how to physically defend ourselves, even if we “know” that the amount of training we can dedicate to this will not be enough, and that our time would be better spent learning how to predict, prevent and avoid it. Just because we can visualize a physical attack, and can’t visualize avoiding an attack, doesn’t mean that we should place our emphasis on dealing with physical assaults, if we have only allotted a short time to train. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=332 Sun, 25 Jun 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=331 I’m not a great fan of air travel, however whenever I fly I’m reminded of a lot of security and personal safety lessons that can be applied to everyday life. Having just returned from training/teaching in Israel, I thought I’d share some of these in this article. I’m not referring just to specific security issues, but to more general ones as well, that effect our day-to-day safety. Firstly, planning and preparation is everything. When I fly and need to make connecting flights, I try to cut the layover time, so I’m not stuck in an airport for many hours waiting for my next flight; I don’t enjoy the process of travelling, and the shorter the time I spend engaged in it the better. At the same time, I don’t want to cut the time down so much that if my initial flight is delayed, I miss my connection. This means that I want to know the gate where I land, and the gate, where my connecting flight departs from, along with the gate that my plane lands at. Most airports present this information online, and in most cases, the flight numbers and the gates they depart from, etc. are the same day-to-day. This allows you to have a fairly good idea of where your plane will land, and the gate from which your connecting flight will take off; using the airport map, which can also be found online, you can have an idea of the route you will have to take, along with the time it will take you to make your connecting flight – I’ll also note bathrooms along the way, restaurants, shops, etc., in case I need any of these along the way. I’ll also, once landed, check on my phone that the gate hasn’t been “changed”, so that I’m not working with out-of-date information. This may seem a little over the top, but the 5 minutes it takes me to do this can cut down on a lot of anxiety when trying to make a connecting flight, if your initial flight was delayed. Most airlines will allow you to check-in online before you fly; this speeds up the check-in process, and also allows you to select your seats. A 2011 study, based on 100 air crashes, (by Ed Galea of the University of Greenwich, London, UK), found that those passengers seated within 5 rows of an exit stood the best chance of surviving a crash. The study also showed that most people survive the initial impact of a crash, but if they don’t get off the plane in the first 90 seconds, their survival chances decrease significantly – being decisive, and starting to move as soon as the plane comes to rest (rather than waiting for cabin staff to instruct you), is your best survival option. It is also worth counting the seats to your nearest exit, so if the cabin is filled with smoke, you will be able to “feel” your way to safety. Another important choice to make involves footwear; you don’t want to be trying to walk across burning aviation fuel in your flip-flops. Also, think about and practice undoing your seatbelt – under stress and duress, we resort to normal actions/behaviors, and the seatbelts in our cars are released by pressing a button; this is something that many people do when involved in an air-crash, rather than pulling the clip to release the belt. There are also lessons from air-travel that we can take and use in our day-to-day lives. When taking off or landing at night, the lights in the cabin will be dimmed. The reason for this is that if the plane crashes or was forced to make an emergency landing, etc., and passengers need to exit, they wouldn’t be subjected to night-blindness; something that would happen if they were moving from a well-lit, bright environment to a dark one, etc. This is something that you should note when leaving/exiting your car at night. If you have been driving with your headlights on, your eyes will take time to adjust when you park and switch them off. Waiting in your car for 10-15 seconds, with the central locking on, and checking your mirrors to get an understanding of what your environment looks like – and who may be in it – will give your eyes time to adjust, before leaving the relative safety of your vehicle. The recent fire at the Grenfell Tower in White City (London, UK), served as a stark reminder that if you’re above a certain height, neither ladders or fire hoses will be able to reach you. You may like to stay on the upper floors of hotels to enjoy the views, but if you are too high, you risk your safety in the event of a fire. In developing countries, there may not even be a nearby fire service, or their equipment may be substandard. Because of this, you may want to make sure that your room is one that is closer to the ground than if you were staying in a Western hotel. It is also worth noting that the estimated time it takes to evacuate a floor may be woefully inadequate. On 9/11, it took nearly 2 hours for some people to evacuate the buildings – if you were on one of the higher floors, there were so many people on the floors below attempting to evacuate that the time to clear each level increased dramatically, the higher up you were. When staying in a hotel, make sure that you are not so high up that your ability to evacuate would be compromised. You may also want to consider taking a smoke escape mask/hood with you when you travel. Such an item may seem over the top, however in the event of a fire, this will give you about 25 minutes’ protection from smoke, and chemicals such as Hydrogen Cyanide (80% of people who die in fires do so from smoke and chemical inhalation). Travelling can give us a good reminder of how to improve our safety precautions in other areas of our life, whether that is in improving our planning and preparation, or being reminded about the importance of fire-safety, etc.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=331 Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=330 On 6th June 2017, a hired van plowed into pedestrians on London Bridge, before the three attackers it carried debussed and ran down to Borough Market, where they engaged in a stabbing spree in several pubs and restaurants. Less than 3 months earlier (March 22nd), 52-year old Khalid Masood drove a car along the pavement of Westminster Bridge, killing 4 and injuring 50, before crashing his car into the perimeter fence of the Palace grounds (where the British Parliament sits), and fatally stabbing an unarmed police officer. Both sets of terrorists, were eventually shot by armed police. Both of these incidents are examples of “Vehicle-Ramming” attacks; where a car, van, or similar is used to ram crowds, buildings, or checkpoints, etc., to kill, injure and/or gain access to an area/environment. Although currently in vogue with terrorists, it was common in the 1980’s and 1990’s in the UK for criminal elements to use “vehicle ramming” tactics to smash through shop fronts, and steal merchandise; these ram-raiders would use estate cars/station wagons to reverse into shop windows, breaking the glass, and then would access the shop through the rear door and load the vehicle with merchandise/products before the police could respond to the shop’s alarm system. Although ram-raiding a shop, and driving a car into a group of pedestrians as part of a terror attack, may seem very, very different events, vehicle-ramming, in a broad sense, is not a new phenomenon in the UK. In terms of terrorist attacks, it is likely that the use of cars and vans to run down groups of pedestrians is going to increase. Whilst we get better at securing our perimeters, and preventing explosive devices from getting into buildings – the suicide bomber at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, targeted those leaving the concert, and didn’t try to get past security – terrorists will look for ways and means to cause death and destruction where no such security exists. This means the targeting of civilians in unprotected areas. The terror effect of this is also greater, as it effects everyday life, rather than just specific events; something that the IRA understood all too well, in the pub/bar bombings it carried out in the UK during the 1970’s and 80’s. Disrupting the way a city operates on a day-to-day basis, forces people to think about terrorists and their goals, more frequently than attacks that target specific events, etc. Vehicle ramming takes little to no training, and requires no specialist equipment e.g. any car, van or lorry will do, and possibly a valid driver’s license, if the individual(s) is attempting to hire a vehicle. As has been seen in both Nice (86 people killed, in a Lorry attack in July 2016), and the latest attack in London where 8 people were killed and 48 injured, the casualty rate can be both high, and largely guaranteed – there are many factors which may limit the effects of an explosive device, and there are always complexities in the design that may cause it to fail to detonate, etc. Driving a vehicle into a crowd is simple, direct, and the results are pretty much predictable and guaranteed.  Whilst there is little we can do to stop a car/van that is attempting to ram us, if we can understand some of the environmental factors that are required for such a terrorist attack to be successful, then we will know when we must be more aware of our surroundings, and can heighten our vigilance accordingly. Firstly, if a terrorist is looking to use their vehicle to ram people/crowds, they will be looking for the highest kill-rate possible; the more people dead, the greater the success of the mission. In both London attacks, the terrorists chose times and locations when there would be relatively large numbers of people present. In the March attack, Khalid Masood targeted Westminster Bridge, mid-afternoon; a time and location where there would be many people sight-seeing, etc. In the June attack, the terrorists chose a location, day, and a time, when they knew there would be a lot of people out socializing; a Saturday night around 10 pm (whilst it would seem that part of their target selection involved those who they thought were living an impure lifestyle – they were heard to shout “stop living this life” – the Jihadist/Islamist viewpoint sees every non-believer as being impure). The timing was also important in that there wouldn’t be heavy traffic. To use a vehicle successfully in such an attack requires it to be able to hit people with enough speed, that it will knock them out of the way, allowing them access to a greater number of potential victims. Both locations were chosen because there was enough space/room to get up to/maintain a decent speed. In the June attack, the terrorists had intended to use a heavier vehicle – a 7.5 ton truck – but weren’t able to provide the necessary payment details, and so had to hire a smaller van. The heavier the vehicle, the more room to pick up and maintain speed (in the March attack, Masood managed to get his car up to 76 mph), the higher the kill-rate. Heavy traffic, narrow roads, parked cars, and tight corners are not conducive to vehicle-ramming attacks that target crowds.      Terrorists watch and they learn from each other. In the Westminster Bridge attack (March 2017), the media reported that pedestrians were knocked off the bridge and into the water. A bridge acts as a funnel, that forces people into a denser group, and restricts their movement. Terrorists and criminals, understand and make use of funnels all the time e.g. pickpockets like targeting individuals at the top and bottom of escalators, where people bunch together and slow down. Understanding when you are entering a funnel is part of good situational awareness, whether it is a bridge, the top/bottom of an escalator, or a doorway, etc. These are the times to be aware of who and what is around you. Awareness is not just a visual skill, it is an auditory one as well – hearing a car engine, which is louder than it should be, along with shouts and screams, should help alert you to the presence of danger. If you couple this with walking on the side of the road where you can see oncoming traffic, you will increase your reaction/response time; a car could cross over from the other lane, behind you, however it will need time and space to do this, that can’t necessarily be guaranteed.     There are things that the authorities can do to restrict vehicle ramming attacks, such as putting up bollards. In the 2007 Glasgow airport attack, security bollards stopped a car packed with explosives, from entering the terminal. Obviously bollards aren't going to be completely effective in all situations, especially where the vehicle size is of a significant weight and there is enough time and distance for it to pick up sufficient speed, etc., but even in these instances where the vehicle may continue through/past the bollards, they will have slowed it down somewhat, potentially reducing the casualty rates. In both of the recent London attacks, bollards on the bridge, and the approach to it, would have likely prevented such an attack from being successful. However, if these targets had been hardened in this way, it is likely that another location would have been chosen, which is why understanding when and where such attacks are likely to take place (along with where they are not), and raising our awareness accordingly is our best chance of surviving such attacks.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=330 Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=329 Why would somebody attack you with a knife? An attack is very different to a threat, in that the person attacking you wants to cause you harm, rather than get you to acquiesce to a demand, such as handing over your wallet, etc. So why would somebody want to stab or slash you? Most of the time, when practicing defenses against knife attacks, we don’t consider or think about the attacker’s motive, we just practice the technique(s) – because if we were to be attacked, the assailant’s motive wouldn’t be relevant, we’d just be forced to defend ourselves. In the moment, I agree that understanding motive isn’t the most important concern; blocking the knife and nullifying the attacker/attack jump to the top of the queue. However, when we train knife attacks, we should think about the motive of the attacker, because it may give us a better understanding of how real-life attacks occur, the context of such attacks, and whether the training scenarios we create and/or drill are realistic. If somebody decides to attack you with a knife, there must be a reason. It doesn’t have to be a good reason, but there has to be one. If you look at the people in your life: friends, family members, associates, work colleagues, people you know, etc., do anyone of them have a reason to attack – not threaten, but attack - you with a knife? If you are an adult, interacting with other adults, the answer is probably no. Most of us are not engaged in serious or important enough disputes, either in real-life or on social media, that someone would think about attacking us with a knife - this doesn’t mean that it’s not possible, or doesn’t/won’t happen, just that it’s a big step for someone to take. Most people have too much to lose and not enough to gain, from engaging in such acts of extreme violence. A teenager’s reality may be different to this, and they may be at risk from peers who do feel slighted and disrespected by things that are said, and written about them, and feel justified to cause harm with a knife, etc., but once the ego of youth is left behind, most of us understand the seriousness of attacking somebody with a blade. So in what situations might you face a knife attack? There are several scenarios in which you may end up dealing with a knife attack. One obvious one would be when you get in to a disagreement/argument with somebody, who ends up pulling a knife at some point during the confrontation; it might be at the beginning, but it could also be in the “middle” of the fight. In either case, the knife has to be drawn, the fight doesn’t start with it out. This is why training to spoil a draw from a multitude of positions should be a key part of our training. We should also train against an assailant who is attempting to intimidate us with the knife, rather than simply attack us e.g. there are those individuals who carry a knife because they are scared of confrontations, but have the type of ego that gets them involved in them – these individuals will often show/display a knife in the hope of getting the person they are dealing with to back-off, not realizing that once drawn, their ego will not let them put it away, without using it. This is why scenario-based training is so important, as it allows us to recreate these social interactions, so that we have the proper contexts for our training e.g. students can practice having an argument, where a knife gets drawn at some point. Unfortunately, most training involving knives focuses on the knife being out and on the attack – often with good distance between the attacker and their target. If you drill from the position of two individuals arguing/talking, you will get to train at the correct range and distance for these types of assault.     The individual pulling the knife at the beginning of the fight to intimidate you may not have a motive to kill you, however that may change as the fight progresses. They may have initially drawn to intimidate you and dissuade you from getting physical with them, and then made a few slashes to try to cut/injure you, but as you keep defending yourself, and attacking them back, they start to realize the pressure they are under, and their own survival instinct takes over. They will move to an emotional place, and start to make stabbing actions – this is when they have emotionally crossed over into kill mode, and they have one goal, which is to put you out of commission. This is one way, in which somebody who only ever thought about using their knife for “self-defense”, ends up using it to kill someone. Knife attacks are also committed by predatory individuals, usually in pairs or groups, who are actively, or tacitly looking for victims, so that they can feel good about themselves – and gain some respect from each other. Often, their attacks are used to display to the others in the group, that they are tough and not to be messed with. These attacks may be preceded by some form of dialogue, or they may be conducted more as an ambush, with the initial assailant moving in close to the target/victim, before grabbing, and repeatedly stabbing them. They may decide not to approach their target head-on, where eye-contact could be made, and their victim could engage them in dialogue, but instead approach or sidle up, at an oblique angle, which makes it difficult for the target to identify if the attacker’s movement is related to their own. In any case, they will probably try to control them with their non-weapon hand, either grabbing the head to pull them in, pushing and pulling them with a lapel grab, or driving them back with the forearm against the throat, etc. However they try to control/latch-on to their victim, they will be trying to move them and disrupt their balance – this may mean that the only initial defense that can be made is to block/defend yourself, as you try to get stable (there are many ways to do this – but until you do, striking and/or getting control of the weapon arm will be largely ineffective). Knife attacks are dynamic, frenzied affairs that involve movement, and will often see you taken by surprise; this is why it is so important to understand and be able to identify the pre-violence indicators so that you can exit a situation – or at worst, prepare for it – before the initial attack is made. A big question though, is how often do we train knife against multiple assailants? Situations can change. What started out as a simple mugging scenario, where a knife was used to threaten and force a target to hand over their possessions, can change to an attack when they refuse, or if they try to resist. A mugger with a knife is not simply going to walk away, if you resist or refuse to hand over your wallet – they will use their weapon against you, it’s as simple as that. This is why it’s always best to comply with a demand for resources. If, after complying, the mugger hasn’t walked away, they’re no longer behaving like a mugger, and you are dealing with a different motive. This is where you need to go on the offensive and defend yourself. It is worth noting that anytime you attempt a physical solution to a knife threat, you have immediately elevated the situation to a knife attack, as the mugger will now be forced to use the knife to “defend” themselves with. Knife attacks don’t just happen in a vacuum, they happen in a variety of situations, with different situational components. If we only train against an attacker who shows you a weapon, and comes at you from distance, we’re not training for reality. We need to think about “why” somebody would attack us, and because of this “why”, what their attack would actually look like.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=329 Sun, 04 Jun 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=328 There are a lot of things to learn from the recent terror attack in Manchester at the Ariana Grande show, and I would like to use this blog article to draw attention to some of them, so that we can all better understand the nature of this type of threat. There are few actual lone wolves. Terrorist organizations such as ISIS, can inspire, enable and even directly orchestrate and engage in acts of terror. They can provide the motivation and encouragement to commit terrorist acts, and help enable them, such as providing an “inspired” individual, with access to a bomb maker, who can provide them with a suicide vest/backpack, or an education in bomb-making (as seems to be the case with this attack). They may also help them determine an appropriate target, and keep them reassured and motivated to engage in the act, when they have doubts and concerns. We may like to think of religious zealots as never questioning whether what they are doing is warranted or justified, however someone who is planning to kill themselves and others will have moments of reflection and questioning; regardless of their commitment to the cause. One of the four main tactics for dealing with terrorism is referred to as “Civic Action”, which focuses on trying to provide appealing societal alternatives to terrorist actions, both in those who are planning to commit such acts, and the communities that support them – if individuals don’t feel disenfranchised and disrespected, they will be less motivated to become supporters of terrorism. These are both things that terrorist organizations need to overcome to keep their operatives on track. Salman Abedi, was banned from a Mosque, after criticizing an Iman (he accused him of “talking bollocks”), whose sermon criticized the Islamic State. Already feeling disenfranchised as UK citizen, he was now facing non-acceptance from the Muslim community around him. A key message that ISIS, keeps telling its recruits, is to stay away from the Mosques; it doesn’t want them to be subjected to any message other than theirs. It is also important to note that the elders at the Mosque reported him to the authorities, for the extremist views he expressed. This was one of several warning signs that Abedi gave, showing that he was harboring extremist sentiments. Before you can consider and fantasize about an extreme act of violence, you must first recognize it as acceptable and justified. This often becomes evident, when individuals express acceptance and possible admiration for the violent/terrorist acts of others, e.g. a disgruntled employee who isn’t appalled at mass shooting at another workplace, and instead remarks that management got what they deserved, etc. This is one of the first indicators that somebody may be considering an act of extreme violence – and it is significant enough to take note of, and not be dismissed or discounted as “just talk”. Abedi, told family members and friends (who informed the authorities), that he thought being a suicide bomber was “okay”. It is not clear, whether he said this before he was recruited and had a plan in place, or after, however when somebody expresses that acts of terrorism by others are acceptable, then they are also expressing that they have passed a moral boundary that could potentially see them engage in such an act. The US Secret Service found that in 81% of School Shootings, the shooters told somebody of their plans; whether that is somebody who they deem sympathetic to their plan, or not. It seems that acts of terrorism are no different. We know for sure that Salman told his brother, Hashim Ramadan Abu Qassem al-Abedi, about the plan, and it is probable that he told others. There are many personal motivations as to why somebody engages in a suicide bombing apart from wanting to do something for the cause, and some of these can only be satisfied before dying e.g. if you want to experience the admiration, or even the fear, of others, you need to do this before you die, and this involves communicating what you are about to do. You may also have concerns and doubts, that you don’t want to let the organization you are part of know about, for fear of losing respect, etc. We often talk about and simplify the character of terrorists as being simply barbaric animals, however it is their human nature, and the need to be recognized socially that can give us the warning signs of their intent. One of the glaring questions that people are asking in the wake of the Manchester attack, is: despite all the warning signs that were there, and the reports to the authorities, etc., how was Salman Abedi able to carry out this terrorist act? There is probably a myriad of reasons that compiled would give an answer, but one that seems apparent is the lack of police manpower in the UK, due to the recent cuts and downsizing of the police force. There need to be enough people who can join the dots, to create a full picture. There need to be people “on the ground” who are aware of what is going on in the community. I remember driving through Herzliya, Israel with Dr Dennis Hanover, and remarking about all the new construction that was going on. He pointed out that if Israel didn’t have to worry about security to the point it did, and devote the massive amounts of resources to it that it does, there would be even greater growth and expansion. In the age that we live in, security is one of our most valuable commodities, and it is not one that we should skimp on. What can we as individuals do? One thing is to give blood. There will always be those who get through the net, however much security there is. Abedi didn’t cross any security perimeters; just like Mohammad Daleel, who detonated a backpack he was wearing at the entrance to the Ansbach Open Music Festival, in July 2016. As security tightens, the perimeters become more vulnerable, and open to attack. Terrorism is a question of “when” not “if”, and we can help limit the casualty rate by making sure there is an adequate supply of blood, in our blood banks – as an individual you don’t necessarily have to prevent a shooting or stop a bomber to save a life; you may do so by giving blood. Learn first-aid. Learn how to properly tourniquet. Carry a first-aid kit. You’re going to need something a bit more than your boy scout or girl guide’s first aid course, but tactical first-aid courses are available and out there. You may be the first one at the scene who can help, and cutting the time, when people receive assistance, cuts fatalities – one of the reasons that the death rate was so high in the Orlando Nightclub Shooting in June 2016 (49 fatalities), was because it was over three hours before medical services could get to those shot. We don’t want to get nervous around anyone who is wearing a backpack, but there are places where someone with a backpack is going to look out of place - e.g. outside a concert, outside a football ground, etc. Abedi demonstrated that you don’t have to get into a venue to make an attack, you can target the crowd outside. Play it safe, and don’t arrive or leave with the crowd. Don’t be afraid to report your suspicions – anyone who turns up to a crowded event wearing a backpack, needs to understand that they will be a cause for concern. Remember, the more assumptions you have to make about something, the less likely you are to be right about it e.g. is someone walking towards a concert that’s ending, wearing a backpack, just picking someone up to go on late night camping expedition? We may not want to come to the conclusion that we, or others, may be in danger, but if we find ourselves coming up with unlikely reasons to explain something away, we probably are, and need to act.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=328 Sun, 28 May 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=327 I was recently writing a piece on narcissism and paranoia, and how these two disorders can play a part in abusive relationships e.g. narcissists are control freaks, and individuals suffering from paranoia, see the world as being very black and white with no grey areas, meaning they will try to interpret – and connect - other people’s actions and behaviors in a very black and white way, etc. As I went through the symptoms and signs of these personality types (it’s a good few years since I studied them to any depths), I was reminded that in any diagnosis of a disorder, it’s as important to recognize what isn’t there, as what is. The absence of certain conditions/symptoms, is as crucial in terming/diagnosing a personality disorder, as those conditions that are present e.g. for somebody to be classified as a narcissist, five or more things must be present out of a list of the following character traits: has grandiose ideas about themselves, requires continual and excessive admiration and attention, feels/believes they are entitled, exploits others, lacks empathy, fantasizes about success and power, believes they are unique, is envious of others and behaves in an arrogant and aloof fashion. We may know someone who has one or even four of these traits, but without a fifth, we wouldn’t be able to “technically”/”correctly”, identify them of being a narcissist. We would refer to this absence of a fifth condition, as being a “Pertinent Negative”. The value of these Pertinent Negatives is that they stop us jumping to conclusions about things, which would result in an incorrect diagnosis, and a misunderstanding about what is actually happening. Pertinent Negatives, also come in to play when we look at Situational Awareness, and assessing threats/dangers. During a corporate seminar, I was asked by a female participant/attendee, about a particular situation that she often found herself in. On the opposite side of the road from the front door to her house, across a relatively busy road, two older men would regularly shout inappropriate suggestions and remarks to her as she left or came back home – these guys hung out, on the corner of a street. Her question was an extremely reasonable one: should she fear for her safety? I asked her a few questions, about how long this had been going on? Since she’d moved in a few years ago. Had anything that had been said escalated over that time? No, it was pretty much the same remarks and comments, each time, etc. I also asked her if they’d ever tried to cross the road to make contact with her, to which she replied that they never had made any movement that suggested that they were going to cross the road. This lack of movement was the Pertinent Negative. If they had wanted to cause her physical harm, they would have had to cross the road – and until they did that, as uneasy/threatened as she felt, she was not at any physical risk; we talked about being prepared, and what to do if they did, including the use of pepper spray, and other strategies, etc., however until they engaged in that synchronization of movement, and tried to get close to her, she wasn’t in any physical danger. When I used to work door, and had to refuse people entry, I’d often receive a lot of verbal abuse, which was normally delivered from a certain distance. In assessing that there was no immediate risk/danger, the Pertinent Negative was the fact that those hurling the abuse kept back, at distance, and out of range, etc. Sometimes, they would work themselves up, and then move in to close the distance, but until they did, there was no imminent danger. The Pertinent Negative of an aggressor putting themselves in a position where they could cause you harm, means that legally they are not committing an assault, they are simply engaging in threatening behavior. Once they move into a position where they could cause you harm (and you have reason to fear for your safety, e.g. they are telling you what they are going to do to you), then they are guilty of assault. It is not just the absence of movement or position, that can act as a Pertinent Negative. It is sometimes the absence of things in our environment, which give us the warning that we are in danger. Take a scenario, where a utility worker knocks on your door, and tells you that there is a crucial issue with one of your services – maybe they tell you that a gas leak has been detected, and traced to your house, and unless they see to it right away, your entire street is at risk (nothing like putting the burden of responsibility on you for everyone else’s welfare and continued existence). Despite the worker having the appropriate ID, and uniform, etc., you feel that something isn’t right, however you can’t quite put your finger on it. As you start to tell yourself you’re being stupid and imagining things, you realize that this workman who is to do this vital work (and will need tools to do it), doesn’t have a van/truck with them. You suddenly realize that this is what is missing from the situation. It is easy enough for a determined predator to get hold of a discarded utility uniform, and fashion a realistic ID, etc., but much harder for them to get hold of a company truck/van. It’s the absence of this which is the Pertinent Negative, and that alerts you to danger. When I talk about effective Situational Awareness (SA) versus Hyper-Vigilance (which people often mistake situational awareness for), I often liken it to the way in which a gazelle, can graze within 20 feet of a sleeping lion; it’s natural predator. It can do this in a relaxed state, because there is an absence of any hunting activity or behavior – an extremely Pertinent Negative. Often we are told that good situational awareness involves looking out for and identifying certain things, but it also involves understanding what should be present in a dangerous situation, and isn’t. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=327 Sun, 21 May 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=326 When I was a kid, there was a bully at my school. There were actually quite a few, but this kid was the loner, who all the other bullies looked up to, feared, and respected. Unlike most of the other bullies, he didn’t seem to have an agenda or any specific kids he picked on. He targeted anybody and everybody. Nobody was safe from Jamie - I forget his last name; something that isn’t that relevant when you’re 6 or 7 years old. I do remember a group of us, meeting to discuss tactics, strategies, and techniques for taking him down, and sending a message that the bullying would have to stop. We decided on a really simple plan: somebody would punch him in the stomach, and when he bent over, knee him in the face, and kick him in the groin. It was a great plan, if it worked. If it didn’t work, it was a terrible plan, and that’s why nobody volunteered to be the one who implemented it. This article is about the failure of techniques, tactics and strategies, and what to do when our plans don’t work. Firstly, there might have been ways we could have gotten our plan to deal with Jamie to work, or at least improve our chances of success. If we had been able to adopt the right mindset, and develop the necessary skills and attributes, such as learning to punch hard and fast, our chances of success would have gone up. To put it another way, without the correct mindset and the necessary skills/attributes, failure would be virtually guaranteed. However, it is worth noting that even with these things present, nothing would be certain, as there are always variables at play which can cause a strategy or technique to fail, regardless of whether it is sound or not. All techniques can fail, all techniques have inherent problems and issues with them. Many reality-based self-defense instructors deny this truth to their students, and present techniques as perfect solutions to problems, not being subject to any issues and potential problems. I have heard instructors say, concerning knife attacks, that you block and keep punching until you shut your aggressor down, etc. It’s a great strategy if it works i.e. if your punches are effective. If your punches aren’t effective, it’s a terrible strategy. Mindset, and the necessary skills/attributes, will improve your success rate, but they won’t guarantee a particular outcome. Your attacker may be pain resistant/tolerant, due to drugs, alcohol, or adrenaline, or they may have a similar mindset, and set of skills/attributes to yourself e.g. they know how to ride your punches, and know how to cover up and continue attacking, etc. The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Investing more effort into something that isn’t working is not an acceptable solution to a real-world self-defense problem, we must be ready and able to move on, and attempt different things; this is why we need a broad base of solutions – this doesn’t mean that we don’t practice in depth, rather that we don’t put all our eggs in one basket. Different techniques tend to solve one or two parts of a problem well, and neglect or attempt to mitigate others, and it is when these come in to play that we may need to be flexible and change our approach and/or do things in a different order. We may need to control and then strike, rather than strike and then control, or vice versa. We must also recognize that one approach, can result in multiple outcomes. For example, if you punch somebody they may not move back, but instead cover up, or immediately come back with a punch of their own, etc. Attackers, don’t necessarily try to retain their weapons in the way our techniques anticipate they will; a good technique will take retention, and the most common modes of retention into account (or they should), but there will be times when an attacker responds in a manner that the technique isn’t primarily suited for. There are no 100% techniques, tactics or strategies; all rely on certain assumptions and expectations. Techniques do the best they can, but none are perfect. I would suggest that any individual or association that fails to acknowledge this about what they teach, either lacks real world experience, or is expecting its members to blindly follow what they put forward without ever questioning what they’re learning. Most self-defense instructors hate the “what if?” questions when they demonstrate a technique. In many cases, an experienced instructor has heard them, and answered them, a million times before, and responds in a tired fashion, as if the student should have been there to hear their response on any of those previous occasions. But “what if” questions are extremely valuable, because they often illustrate the natural “gaps” that techniques have e.g. what if, when your controlling the knife hand/arm, and punching your attacker in the face, the punches aren’t effective, and they start using their free hand? A common response might be, “well, if you’re punching them hard enough, they won’t be thinking about their free hand.”  This is an answer I’d largely agree with, however “what if?”, your punches aren’t having an effect. I would make the argument that in most cases they will, but there will be times they won’t. If that is the case, what would you do? This may not be something that should be immediately focused on and demonstrated, however at the same time it shouldn’t be dismissed. A good instructor should be able to answer the question, without insisting that the answer is, more of the same. There are obviously preferred solutions and tactics, etc. but to be prepared for reality, we may need to broaden these so that we can handle the “exceptions”, that are present in many real-life scenarios. Simply insisting that more of the same is the answer to a dynamic, and changing situation, is a simple message, but too simplistic for reality. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=326 Sun, 14 May 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=325 I grew up on the mats, practicing Judo. The school I initially trained with placed a great deal of emphasis on Ne-waza/Ground techniques; this was back in the day when competitive Judo allowed you much more time on the clock when a fight went to the ground – now judges are much more eager to get people back to the feet if it looks like a submission or pin isn’t going to be found. When I found out about BJJ (Brazilian Ju-Jitsu), I started training in that. In short, I’ve grown up with, fighting on the ground and love this type of training and sports combat. However, I also teach reality based self-defense and recognize that ground-fighting/ground-survival in real-life confrontations, is very different to the training I’ve done on the mats. In this article, I want to look at some of the differences and common misconceptions, concerning sport-based ground fighting, and its application to real-life ground fighting. Some techniques that work well for submissions on the mat, don’t necessarily have the same effect in real-life; chokes and strangulations work well, but arm-bars aren’t always that effective (which is a shame because when I competed, Juji-Gatamae – cross body armbar – was one of my favorite submission moves). The problem with armlocks that attack the elbow, is that after the hyper-extension of the arm is applied, and the elbow is popped, the joint will almost always reset itself, and the arm will still function (the angles and pressure needed to actually make a "break" are almost impossible to accomplish in a real-life enccounter). The person having the armbar applied to them, will be in extreme pain, however adrenaline (drugs and alcohol) can nullify this and give them an opportunity to fight through it. Also, there are times when the pain is only felt momentarily – with the major part of it being experienced the next day etc. I have seen students have their arm popped when incorrectly breaking their fall i.e. sticking their hand out to slow their descent etc. and still feel that they are able to continue with class. It is worth recognizing that something which works in a training or competitive context, doesn’t automatically translate to real-life. In real-life situations, the ground isn’t always going to be flat. If a fight you're involved in goes to ground, you may find that you’re not on a flat surface e.g. you could find yourself being pushed/driven down onto a flight of stairs, or pinned on a sofa or set of chairs, etc. The surface may not even offer you much support –bridging someone who has pinned you down, when you are on a bed with a soft mattress, isn’t going to be as easy as when you have a solid surface to push off from. I am not saying that training on a flat surface, doesn’t help give you the skills and abilities to deal with these situations, rather that our expectations of what a ground fight looks like, shouldn’t be restricted to the environments in which we train. Understanding that we may not be fighting on the same level, solid surface that we practice on, will help deal with some of the shock and surprise we may have, when we find that the escapes and techniques that worked so well in class don’t work as well in reality; and so we have to adapt and modify them in the moment to take account of our new terrain. Recognizing beforehand that we may have to do this will better prepare us for reality. One common restriction that many real-life incidents impose on us, is a lack of space. On an uncluttered mat area, there is the possibility to do many different types of techniques, that would be impossible to pull off in the back of a car, in between the seats of a bus, in a corridor, etc. When a fight goes to the ground, you may find your movement impeded by both objects and people – there may not be the room for people to move away, giving you and your assailant space to move. If you have an extensive catalog of ground techniques that you like to use on the mats, you may want to select a few that don’t require much room/space to execute, and have these as your “self-defense” go-to’s and/or make some modifications to others so that you’ll be able to get them to work in confined spaces, or when your movement in a certain direction is impeded, such as if you and your assailant are on the ground against a wall, etc. If you get pushed to the ground, knocked over, etc., and your assailant remains standing, don’t expect them to follow you to ground – chances are they’d rather stomp and kick you, than come searching for a submission. This means training yourself to be able to deal with someone who is standing and working combatively, rather than against another grappler, who is looking for a way to enter, and get past your legs, etc., in order to pin/hold you; a trained grappler’s mindset is very different to that of your average street thug/hooligan. It is also worth noting, that many techniques which aim to sweep the legs of a standing aggressor, such as a leg lasso may not be successful in an environment where there are objects that the person standing can hang on to (tables, chairs, other people, etc.), to steady themselves and remain balanced – you may get “lucky” and find that you are fighting in space, but you should have other techniques and methods of dealing with a standing attacker, that don’t rely on you having space around you both. I sometimes hear people say that Krav Maga is MMA for reality, or something similar. It is not. This is not about the different techniques, or even the fact that in combat sports such as MMA there are no weapons or multiple attackers, etc. It is because the environments within which combat sports are fought, whether a ring or a cage, are so different to those where real-life incidents take place. The contexts are so different, the environments so different, etc. This is not to say that grappling on the ground and rolling don’t have their place. They do. They’re excellent tools for building skills and attributes, which will help you deal with a real-life confrontation that goes to the ground. But we shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing that this type of training mirrors reality, and we should have a ground game that works in confined spaces, on uneven and unfamiliar terrain, and that doesn’t rely on our aggressor having a grappling mindset, etc.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=325 Mon, 08 May 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=324 Emotional intelligence encompasses many things. It involves the ability to recognize your own emotional state, along with those of others e.g. to be able to verbalize to yourself, your's and other people’s emotion – using the vocabulary of “feelings” is one way that we do this. It also involves using this information to guide our thinking, our actions, and our behaviors e.g. “I am feeling scared, so I should look for whatever or whoever it is in the environment that has triggered my fear system.” Part of our self-protection training should involve educating our emotional systems, and improving our emotional intelligence. This will both speed up our responses to threats and danger, and prevent us from having emotional disconnects, that stop us from listening to what our fear system is telling us e.g. denying or discounting why we have become adrenalized; not believing there is a legitimate and real reason for our emotional state changing. Anyone who has worked in the security industry or the military in active/live situations for a period of time, will tell you how their senses have been sharpened, perhaps to the degree where they have a sixth sense about telling when things are wrong, or are about to kick off. Basically, their experiences have educated their emotional systems, so they are more “intelligent,” or finely tuned. In some cases, their fear system may become over-educated to the point where emotional responses occur in incidents that shouldn’t trigger an emotional shift. This also occurs in people who have phobias, such as a fear of snakes, where anything that looks remotely like a snake, gets identified as a snake e.g. a person sees a piece of rope, an electrical cable, a piece of hosing - something that resembles a snake - and their fear system immediately identifies it as such and adrenalizes them. The same may happen to martial arts instructors who jump, flinch or start to respond violently to any movement or physical contact, even when it doesn’t contain any harmful intent – I have lost count of the stories told to me by individuals who “nearly” applied the death touch to someone who bumped into them in a bar, or who tapped them on the shoulder in a non-threatening manner, etc. This is nothing to be proud of. Being emotionally able to recognize and respond to danger, also involves being able to discern when danger isn’t present, and when a person’s actions and behaviors aren’t threatening or nefarious. This is all part of emotional intelligence. One of the skills we need to develop is the ability to guide our emotional responses in the moment, and this involves developing a synopsis of our self-protection information, so that our emotional systems can quickly look up, understand, and make an appropriate response, and/or guide our conscious thought processes so that we make a better-informed response. One myth that often gets talked about in this process is that of time slowing down. It doesn’t. Our recollection and memories, of us trying to make sense of our thought process in this moment, has us believing that more time passed than actually did, however our thought process didn’t actually speed up – which would cause us to feel that time was slowing down, and everything was happening in slow motion e.g. your life doesn’t actually flash before your eyes in that moment of danger, it is your memory of how you felt at the time which remembers this happening; and our memories of what and how things happened is extremely unreliable – and lawyers or police officers who have had to work with witnesses will tell you this. To improve our emotional intelligence, we need to create “anchors”, for our emotional systems to hold on to, these are brief synopsizes and sum-ups of more complex and involved self-protection/personal safety concepts. For example, when we look at the geography of crime, and consider factors such as crime attractors, crime preventers and crime promoters, we can develop a fairly rich and in-depth picture of the types of locations various criminals frequent and target e.g. a good supply of potential victims, a high number of potential escape routes, and areas within such environments where there is a lack of natural surveillance, etc. We can also look at how our awareness changes in different locations; that we’re naturally more aware when we are on our own, and less aware when we are in crowded places (we naturally lower our own awareness, trusting that those around us will help us to identify and pick up on danger – unfortunately, they’re relying on us to do the same for them). This is all interesting from an academic perspective, and allows us to look at different locations analytically. There are, however, too many variables and ideas contained, to be useful in improving our emotional intelligence – here we need to come up with very simple statements and instructions e.g. criminals are active in crowded locations, so we need to raise our awareness when in these places. Actively accepting this, gives permission for our fear system to actively alert us, if it picks up on a threat or danger, otherwise it may believe that such an “alert” would be filtered out or discounted, and may therefore ignore making us aware of the possible presence of danger. It is okay to have complex models that explain how violence works, but for practical purposes, and for the education and use of our emotional intelligence, they need to be boiled down to simple, actionable statements – we can go into the whole psychology of why the best survival option is to hand over the wallet to a mugger, but in the heat of the moment, all our fear system needs is the response i.e. to hand it over when asked. In raising our emotional intelligence we also need to acknowledge its messages when we receive them. Most of us have had the experience when walking of feeling that someone is behind us, following us. Most of us will then go into a state of denial, convincing ourselves that we are imagining it, or discounting the footsteps, coming up with a list of other, more plausible reasons as to why it might appear that we’re not being followed, etc. The reality is that our fear system identified movement that is associated with being followed, so that we can investigate it, determining if the movement does actually contain harmful intent. Instead of taking this information/warning seriously, and making an appropriate investigation concerning it, our default response is to throw it away, and hope that the potential danger isn’t real. This is a terrible way to train emotional intelligence; in fact, all we are doing is instructing our fear system that its alerts are wrong and unnecessary. It doesn’t matter if in 999/1000 cases, the movement is benign, our fear system has identified the intent it could contain, and we should make the effort to investigate it e.g. change our movement pattern – direction, speed, etc. – and see if it’s matched/mirrored.   Our emotional intelligence increases with our education of reality – through experience as well as understanding – and our acceptance of its value and worth. It needs to have simple responses and rules to follow, because to work fast, it can’t work in a complex manner; and the advantage that it has over our conscious intelligence is the ability to react and respond quickly.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=324 Tue, 02 May 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=323 When Chesley Sullenberger radioed a Mayday call, that he’d lost power in both the engines of US Airways Flight 1549, he made one mistake, he got his call-sign wrong; he said “Cactus 1539”, instead of “Cactus 1549” – remarkably, everything else he and his co-pilot said/did were on the money, and 4 minutes later, he landed the plane in the Hudson River, with the loss of no lives. It was a minor, inconsequential error, however it demonstrates that trying to recall names, codes, and similar under stress and duress, is not something we do naturally or easily. Depending on the code/term, we may have to go through a process of translation, as we search for its meaning, or even refer to, or look it up in a manual or glossary.  Institutions will often have security codes that refer to different types of threats and dangers e.g. a hospital might use a certain security code, to refer to a potentially violent patient who is unaccounted for, and another one for when there is an active shooter in the building, etc. In the case of the missing patient, using a code, is a good way of informing those who know what the translation of the code is, whilst not causing potential alarm and panic in those who don’t. However, when it comes to informing everyone about the presence of an active shooter/killer, the use of a code/term, means that only those who are able to translate the code, will be aware of the danger. There is also the risk, that people translate the code incorrectly, and believe that they are safe and don’t have to act, when the opposite is true. Codes and terminology are good ways to communicate information to a select audience, however they are terrible ways to inform the general population of something; in such cases, using ordinary, descriptive language is the best e.g. “there is an active shooter in the building…” as opposed to, “it’s a code 43”, or, “it’s a code blue”, etc. Martial Artists like terminology – it’s our language. It allows us to talk to each other, and only have those who are also martial artists understand what we are saying. When I used to do a lot of personal training, I felt it was essential for my clients to know the correct anatomical terms for their body parts; I believed that part of my job was to educate them, so that they became better aware of their own body. In retrospect, it made no difference to them if they were doing an exercise that strengthened the muscles of the back of their arm, or one that strengthened their Triceps muscle(s) – the choice of language used, didn’t change the result. However, if I wanted to strengthen a particular part of the Triceps, it may be useful to explain that the Triceps Muscle, is in fact a three-headed muscle, where it is possible to isolate and target each “head” individually etc. In the initial stages of training the terminology becomes a barrier for communication, however later on it can – in certain cases – be useful. Terminology becomes useful, when it contains descriptive language that can aid memory, and communicate ideas e.g. “Tri” meaning three, etc. This is something that Jigaro Kano, the founder/creator of Judo understood very well; the description of each throws is contained in its name, and references the action that needs to be performed. O-Soto-Gari, translated is Major (O), Outer (Soto), Reap (Gari) i.e. it is a large reaping action performed on the outside of an assailant’s leg. The terminology is direct and simple, and needs little translation, to understand which technique/throw it’s referring to. If, however it was referred to as Throw No. 5, which is where it is positioned in the Gokyo – the five throwing sets, which form the basis of Judo – you would need to perform some form of translation, which might involve counting off the throws from the beginning, before you understood which particular throw was being referenced. Jigaro Kano was a professor of education, and understood very well, how we learn and remember things. Numbering systems might work well, if you’re referring to three or four things, but beyond five, our ability to recall accurately and quickly what the numbers refer to is extremely limited.  When creating/developing frameworks for understanding violence, I have found that the maximum number of items that can be easily recalled is around five, and if it can be broken down into fewer parts even better – and those parts need to be labelled with descriptive titles, that easily make sense. I have spent 20-plus years, teaching corporate and professional clients personal safety and self-protection i.e. how to predict, prevent, identify and avoid violence. In some cases, I have only a 60-minute session, to teach them the predictive skills that they will use to keep themselves safe – sometimes in potentially hostile environments. The language I have to use is everyday descriptive language e.g. I don’t talk about debussing, I talk about getting out of a vehicle, etc. These individuals don’t need to learn military/security terminology; they simply don’t have the time to learn another language and it serves them no purpose.  In communicating self-protection concepts and principles, and teaching techniques, we should concentrate on using straight-forward descriptive terms, that can easily be recalled and don’t require us to have to make translations. It is not necessary to give names to all that we do, and the less terminology we employ the better. The language we use, should replicate and reflect the situations we are training to deal with, and describe our responses to them. A lack of jargon will make what we do far more accessible to those we aim to teach. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=323 Mon, 24 Apr 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=322 It is all too easy to get technique-focused in our training, especially if we are working to, or following a syllabus that has a list of techniques we need to learn and be proficient at for a particular level or belt e.g. we need to know how to escape a rear strangle, a side-headlock, a guillotine, etc. The danger with this, is that we become really good at dealing with these individual attacks and problems, but lack the context in which they occur; nobody just puts a guillotine on you, there must be a “phase” in the fight that precedes it where they manage to get control of your head, either because you tangle up together in a clinch, or you slip/trip forward, lowering your head for them to get control of etc. Going a step further, there must be a phase/stage that precedes the clinch, and so on. There’s a story to any attack, and that needs to get told in our training. This is where Multi-Phase and Multi-Dimensional training becomes important. When you first learn a technique, it is important to practice it as a technique i.e. learn how to perform it properly, be able to perform it dynamically, and against a resisting/reactive attacker, etc. But it’s important not to stop there. At this point, we are simply good at performing this particular technique - in fact, we may even be good at performing it under stress and duress - but that doesn’t mean that we’ll be able to perform it successfully in a real-life confrontation. We may have both the physical and emotional skills/attributes to get it to work, but we haven’t trained it in any type of context e.g. we haven’t looked at the types of attacks, situations, etc., that precede it, and the responses an assailant may make to it; we haven’t placed it in the story, and without doing this, we may not recognize such an attack in a real-life conflict. This is something that many people who haven’t any experience of violence often don’t realize. In the middle of a confrontation, it can be really difficult to identify what it is that is actually happening to you, and what the appropriate solution is. In the moment, you may focus on one detail of what is happening to you, and base your response on this, rather than correctly identifying the actual threat/danger. I once witnessed a knife attack, where the person being attacked managed to get two hands on to the attacker’s arm, stiffen their own arms, and hold the knife at bay. In this case, the attacker was the one who wasn’t able to make sense of what was happening, and began pulling and pushing his arm, trying to rip it free, and never once thought about changing/passing the knife to his other, free hand – this struggle lasted about 10-15 seconds, before two doormen were able to get to the attacker and subdue him. With his focus solely on the knife, he wasn’t able to understand what was actually happening, and what his options were. I see a similar phenomena in my school when teaching groundwork skills. I will demonstrate the difficulty of trying to perform an arm-lock on somebody, when you are in their guard, as they can normally prevent you by holding you back, by straightening their body and keeping you trapped between their legs, however when it comes to rolling and being “competitive”, I’ll see people try and dive for an arm when they are in their partner’s guard i.e. they don’t understand where the arm-bar is positioned in the story e.g. it comes after they have escaped guard etc. When we become so focused on one detail, we can forget and lose context. Surviving a violent encounter is often done incrementally, rather than all at once; you do one thing that puts you in a better position but doesn’t completely solve your situation, and then you do another thing which improves on this, and another, and another, etc. This is especially true if you are caught by surprise, and find yourself a long way behind on the curve. Attacks, such as guillotine chokes and side-headlocks, often are started from a clinch, or a scramble - they are rarely isolated attacks, and in both your attacker has to bring your head down in some way. In our training, we want to become familiar with the feeling of having our head brought down, and the positions we may find ourselves in, that allow this to happen. When we train our defenses/techniques from here, we will recognize and identify the threat much sooner than if we simply train these techniques from the perspective and position of having been caught in them – we will also start to understand those things that we can do to prevent such attacks from being fully applied e.g. it is much easier to deal with a guillotine attack as it’s being made, rather than after it has been applied. One way to do this is to chain techniques together in an escalating/progressive manner e.g. teach a defense against a wrist grab, a push, or a swinging right, where you end up in a clinch, and from the clinch the guillotine defense, and escape - and then put them all together. At any stage in the chain, you can have a successful outcome e.g. the attacker makes a wrist grab, you escape/deal with it, and they follow up with a push, which you successfully deal with and are able to end the confrontation there. Sometimes, the situation doesn’t end with the push, and the attacker keeps coming, making a swinging right, from which you end the confrontation, by blocking and launching into combatives, etc. Sometimes it ends in the clinch, sometimes it runs right through into the guillotine, etc. In this manner, you are creating stories that have context. You can start the story much earlier, by creating a story about why the person grabbed your wrist in the first place e.g. was it a situation which you tried to deescalate but were unsuccessful, was it part of an abduction attempt, or did it involve somebody who didn’t want you to leave, etc? By doing this, you can introduce the self-protection/personal-safety aspect of your training, and teach people how to identify, predict, and avoid violence. We must also introduce other dimensions into the training of techniques e.g. a knife can be pulled in the midst of a fight, not just at the beginning, and we should train for this. If we train our grappling dimension in isolation to our knife defenses, and vice versa, we are training our techniques in distinct and separate channels. Few fights start off on the ground, but groundwork is commonly taught in isolation of everything else, and because of this, many people don’t understand why, how, and when fights go to the ground.  We can train multiple-dimensions, within Multi-Phase training e.g. in our chain, once the clinch stage is reached, our training partner can either pull a knife, or apply a guillotine choke. In this way, we start to open up a closed drill, into something that is more likely to reflect what a real-life confrontation looks like. Although our goal as practitioners is to end every situation as quickly as we can, we must recognize that this is not always possible, and that a fight can move through many phases, which can involve other dimensions of our training; for example, grappling can involve striking and weapons, etc. It is important to train our threat recognition abilities, so that we can quickly identify attacks, and what is actually occurring in our situation, rather than responding at the last moment. Understanding the context and story of violent assaults through this type of training allows us to do this. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=322 Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=321 n July 2016, I wrote about the Nice lorry attack, where a “lone wolf” terrorist drove a 19-tonne cargo truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing 86 and injuring 434 more. Two days ago, a similar attack occurred in Stockholm, Sweden, killing 4 and injuring 15. A little over two weeks before this, a terrorist drove a car into a crowd on Westminster Bridge in London, killing 4 and injuring 49, before stabbing/killing a police officer. None of the perpetrators – at the time of writing this - had any direct links to a terrorist or political organization, but all three mentioned/demonstrated sympathies to ISIS – and ISIS made claims that both the London and Nice attacks were committed by its “Soldiers” (though in both cases there is no evidence of any formal ties, and the lack of biographical evidence that ISIS was unable to provide about both attackers suggests that there was no direct contact between both parties). Despite this, it would be wrong to think of these individuals as true “lone wolves” who acted entirely independently, and without first communicating with others. In both the London and Stockholm attacks, the suspect was known to the security and intelligence services, who had either interviewed or investigated them before. In the case of the London terror attack, the perpetrator was 52, and didn’t fit the demographic of most terrorists, who are largely under 30 – terrorism tends to be a young man’s game. The fact that these individuals were known to the authorities (Khalid Masood – the Westminster Bridge killer - was investigated by MI6 in 2010, for “Violent Extremism”), suggests that they had some “links” with others that brought them to the attention of the security services, or had interacted in some way with those who were known to be involved in extremist activities – not really “lone wolves” at all. It is highly unlikely that somebody else hadn’t been informed, or somehow involved in their plans. Those who plan mass killings, whether they are terror-inspired acts, or workplace/school shootings, have a tendency to tell others about their plans; the US Secret Service found that in 81% of school shootings, the shooter told others about their plans – and more often than not, those told discounted or disbelieved that the killers had either the intent or the capability to carry out their plan. ISIS, through the use of social media, is able to both inspire - and in some cases, enable - those who commit acts of terror in their name. They are not restricted to having to direct and organize each act, and because of this, can have a wider reach and influence e.g. they didn’t have to provide the car that Khalid Masood used to drive into the crowds on Westminster Bridge, they merely had to inspire him to do so, etc. In the case of the Stockholm terrorist, there may have been a greater degree of collusion, as it appears that there was some form of explosive device in the truck that he drove – it could be that a member of ISIS enabled him in some way by building the device for him, or helped him in its design and creation. This would not be unusual for the group which has been involved before in what is termed, “Remote Control” terrorism i.e. they have provided guns and ammunition to those they have inspired to plan acts of terrorism e.g. Hyderabad, India. Rarely are those who we think of as lone wolves, truly without some form of assistance or guidance. In 2015, Elton Simpson drove to a parking lot where a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest was taking place, and opened fire on those gathered. Initially, he was thought to be a lone wolf, however an examination of his social media accounts showed that he had contact with members of ISIS, and was not working completely alone (even though ISIS hadn’t appeared to provide any logistical help/assistance) – this was the first attack on US soil that the group claimed responsibility for. This “method” of terrorism is very different to that practiced by Al Qaeda, a group which has tended to direct all operations and be actively involved in them; this limited the number and frequency of attacks, but allowed them to commit more involved, complex and coordinated attacks such as those carried out on 9/11, when two planes were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, with a third plane planned to crash into the Pentagon. In the days after 9/11, the only people who really feared for their safety – in regards to terrorism - were those who worked in skyscrapers, and other significant/tall buildings. Once it was understood the amount of work and preparation that went into these attacks, it became obvious that AQ had spent most of its resources, and that there were no subsequent and/or similar attacks lined up i.e. there would be no more planes flown into buildings, etc. Such large-scale terrorist attacks, exhaust the resources of those individuals and organizations who plan them – the FBI correctly reasoned that after the Oklahoma City Bombing, whoever planned and orchestrated it (Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols), didn’t have the capability to commit another similar act of terrorism without a great deal of time. However, when you have a network of individuals inspired and enabled to conduct less sophisticated and complicated acts, such as driving a car or truck into a crowd of individuals, such acts can occur and be repeated within a short period of time of each other e.g. the London attack occurred on 22nd March, and the Stockholm attack on the 7th April. The effect on the population is also greater, in such attacks, as everybody has a reason to fear that there may be another similar one. I grew up in the 1970’s, during a time when the IRA was responsible for a number of pub bombings on the UK mainland. The IRA understood that the most effective way to have an impact on a population, was not to attack large scale targets, but rather to attack a “way of life”; in doing so, you effect all of the population. By planting bombs in two pubs in 1974, that killed 21 people and injured 182 more, the IRA grabbed the attention of just about everybody – the local pub is the focal point of every community, and there are very few people in the UK who don’t participate in pub culture. The casualty rate was nowhere near that experienced on 9/11, and the results not as “spectacular”, however the impact was much farther reaching, and much more effective; especially when further terror events kept bringing memories back round to the idea, that when relaxing and socializing in a pub (something most individuals did several times a week), you were at risk of being subjected to an act of terror. ISIS has learnt that attacking the population as it goes about its everyday business is more effective at creating terror than targeting large events or very specific targets – if you now start to question your safety every time you walk down a street, because somebody could drive a car into you, you are thinking about that terrorist organization, their aims and goals, the causes of their actions, etc., far more than if you only thought about the risks to your safety when you go to large scale events – which are less frequent. In the age of the internet and social media, lone wolves no longer exist. The ease of communication, and the sharing of information, that can now be enjoyed means there is no reason for any terrorist to truly be a lone wolf. This doesn’t necessarily mean that identifying those who are planning to commit acts is easy and straightforward, just that nobody now has to work alone, when there are those actively inspiring and enabling others to commit acts of terror. The shift from large, significant targets to everyday ones is going to become more frequent, and we are perhaps at the moment going through a transition, where this will become more common e.g. both attacks happened at historic locations – the Westminster attack happened outside the Houses of Parliament, the actual target of the Stockholm attack looked to be their Parliament Buildings – though they targeted civilians outside, etc. In the future, the locations are probably going to be less important than the aim of effecting people’s everyday lives. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=321 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=320 When I first started to do door work, those that I worked with used to impress upon me the importance of witnesses; of making sure that whatever you did, looked and appeared justified and reasonable to those around you i.e. if somebody decided to press charges against you and/or the establishment you were working for, that your actions would look reasonable and not be deemed excessive. However, if you ever talk to somebody who witnesses an incident you are involved in, you may be surprised at what they do and don’t remember, along with their version of events – which may differ wildly to yours. Those in law enforcement who have taken witness statements, will tell you that even somebody who seems very sure they could identify a person in a line up, or says that they can remember events clearly, can find that their memory of things falls apart quite quickly when questioned from a variety of different angles and directions (something that lawyers and attorneys are all too aware of). In this article, I want to look at some of the reasons why it is generally not a good idea to solely rely on a witness’s testimony. Our memories can change over time, and we can add to them and lose certain details and events, as we retell them, either to ourselves or others. Much of the way we remember things is as stories – there’s a good reason that our early ancestors used stories as a way to preserve knowledge; it’s a much better method than simply trying to remember a list of facts. It’s also one of the reasons that creating a scenario/situation in training helps students to better remember techniques and solutions – if you can create an incident, where a person is followed to the ATM, withdraws some cash, and then has a mugger stick a knife in their back, they will remember the defense/technique far better than if you simply introduce it without a context/story (plus they are getting a much better idea of what violence actually looks like, the warning signs that precede an event, decision making under stress/duress, etc.). Stories, are how we learn and remember things. Our stories, however, aren’t written on a blank canvas, they come influenced by our previous experiences (other stories), and belief systems e.g. if somebody believes or has a perception that Scottish people are aggressive by nature, they may well remember things a Scottish person says as being overly aggressive or threatening, even when it wasn’t the case, in reality. We are also much better at remembering events, than we are at remembering details. A witness is much more likely to remember you stepping back from your aggressor, than their height/size or what they were wearing, etc. Therefore, it is good when you are dealing with an aggressor to emphasize your actions e.g. if you back away to “invite” an aggressor into your space (one way to make it clear and visible that they are committing an assault), make it a definite step back, rather than something that could be remembered as a shuffle, a weight shift, or similar. You should also remember that your memory of an incident is susceptible to change and alteration – one reason it is a good thing to talk over what happened to a lawyer, before rushing to make a statement (you have the right to remain silent, and you should take it, however “clearly” you think you remember things, and how justified you felt to respond in the way that you did).   How people remember the length of incidents can be extremely inaccurate. In short incidents (which most violent incidents are), people’s remembrance of how long they lasted can be increased by a factor of 5 e.g. an incident that lasts 1 minute, can be remembered as lasting 5 minutes, etc. Many people are aware of the phenomena of time slowing down when they are involved in a stressful incident (Tachypsychia), and there are many reasons given for this. Studies have shown that this effect doesn’t occur in the moment, and our perception of time slowing down comes as we remember the event, afterwards. This itself can occur during an event, as we try to work out how long an incident has lasted e.g. if you find yourself taken to the ground during a fight, and you find yourself struggling with an attacker, you might wonder to yourself in that moment how long you have been fighting for, and have the feeling that you’ve been on the floor for many minutes, when you’ve actually only been down there for less than 10 seconds. This is a good reason not to think about what has happened during a fight, as a) it’s likely to be incorrect, and b) it doesn’t achieve anything – what is important is what you are doing to survive in the moment, not what went before. The environment can also play a large part in what a witness is able to remember and recall. Some of the clubs that I have worked in had extremely low light, which drastically reduced a person’s face-recognition abilities. When you have a group of doorman, all dressed in white shirts and black trousers, with short haircuts and a common muscular build, identifying a particular individual whose face you may only have caught a glimpse of, from a distance, and in low light, becomes extremely problematic. I remember one occasion when a stag party was evicted from a club I was working at; they were removed through a side exit, and immediately returned to the main door, where I was working, to try and get back in. One of the party accused me of using excessive force when removing one of his friends. I’d been working front of house all evening, and hadn’t been involved in the incident – if he’d thought about it I wouldn’t have had the time to move through the club to the main door from where they’d been kicked out. However, he was adamant it was me, and even when the person he was talking about turned up, and identified himself, he still didn’t believe it. There’s a rule known as the “Rule of 15” that states, that under 15 lumens, and at a distance of 15 meters or more, facial recognition cannot be trusted or relied upon; in most Nightclubs, the ambient/normal light level is below this. Most people, when they see a violent altercation, will fit what they see into their existing understanding of what violence looks like – many people don’t have an accurate reference point, if they’ve not witnessed a number of incidents. It is likely, that if they have been involved in a violent incident, this will color how they understand, make sense, and remember other violent incidents and events. If there are gaps in what they remember, it is likely that they will fill these in using their own experience(s) and/or assumptions about violence. If you are ever involved in a violent incident that goes legal, hope that there is good CCTV footage that captures the event, and that you don’t have to rely solely on what those witnessing it remember. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=320 Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=319 To deal with violence effectively, we must understand the message that it’s communicating to us, because violence is a form of communication. This may at first seem impractical e.g. when somebody is throwing punches, does it really matter what the “message” is? It is worth noting however, that most physical assaults are preceded by some form of verbal exchange, and it is here, in this phase of the attack (the pre-conflict stage), that we can gain an understanding of what is actually being communicated to us; and when we understand this we can formulate an effective response and strategy for dealing with it. When we spill a drink over somebody, cut somebody off in a line, etc., and as a consequence, they become aggressive towards us, what they are communicating to us, is something very different to the predatory individual who wants to sexually assault us – the initial physical attack may be the same in both instances, e.g. they go to grab us, push us, etc. - but what they are “communicating” to us is very different. This is something that often gets lost in self-defense training i.e. we focus on training to deal with the grab or push, without defining the context of the situation, and teaching what the attacker is trying to communicate to us. The sexual assailant is attempting to express power and control, whilst the person who has had the drink spilt over them, is demonstrating frustration, social humiliation, and the need to right a wrong, etc. When we understand what aggression and violence is attempting to communicate to us, we have an opportunity to respond more effectively – whether that is with a physical or non-physical solution. It is easy to get caught up in the moment, and not question what is actually being communicated to you. If you are in the midst of a stalking campaign, that sees you constantly receiving text messages, phone calls, and emails from an ex-partner, you will a) be exhausted and overwhelmed, and b) have your focus directed towards the latest message or attempt at contact. You probably will not be questioning what the stalker and their campaign is trying to communicate to you. However, understanding this is key to effectively dealing with it. An ex-partner who continues to contact you, is telling you that you don’t have the power to end the relationship with them; that they can continue to have a relationship with you, whether you want that or not. This is what their campaign is trying to communicate to you. The campaign also has a secondary message, which is that you should be thinking about them all the time; by making sure that 80-90% of all of your electronic communication is from them, you come to believe that every time your phone rings, or you receive a text, etc., it is your stalker i.e. you are continually thinking about them. If we understand what a stalker is communicating to us, we can start to effectively deal with them. If they want to demonstrate that they can keep having a relationship with us(regardless of our choice in the matter), we need to make sure that we don’t respond to the things that they do – if we do communicate back, we are engaged in a relationship with them, and proving their point. Aggression using social media needs to be looked at in the same way. What is it that the troll or bully, posting aggressive comments on a post, or making a post, is trying to communicate? Again, it’s easy to respond emotionally, and become angry, etc. if the comments/post get directed at us, but it’s worth taking that moment to look at what the individual is communicating by making their post. We tend to look at these actions and behaviors being the mark of somebody suffering from low self-esteem i.e. they are knocking somebody down to feel good about themselves, etc. However, a person who suffers from low self-esteem, would not want to have the spotlight turned on them, and yet a large part of the post is about saying, “look at me”. This is the behavior of someone who has a high level of self-esteem, not a low-level. However, posting and commenting in such an aggressive/negative way, is not the mark of a confident or secure person; such people are self-contained and don’t need to gather attention in this way. Once we understand that we are dealing with an insecure person with high self-esteem i.e. they question why others don’t recognize them in the same way that they view themselves, a lot of the initial power that such a post/comment may seem to have, is greatly diminished, and we can choose how best to deal with it. When we understand that a sexual assailant is motivated by the need for power and control, and this is what their violence is trying to communicate, we need to demonstrate immediately that we are those individuals who possess our own power and control, and cannot be dominated in this fashion. Our own violent response needs to communicate back this message. In fact, much of what we do in a violent confrontation is communicating with our attacker – most fights end not because one party is physically incapacitated and unable to continue, but because they no longer have the desire to continue fighting. Part of our extreme aggression in the face of violence, is to communicate that this confrontation will not, and is not going to go favorably for them; when you throw multiple strikes, one after another at your attacker, you are not only delivering pain, you are also communicating to them, that you can overwhelm them, that you are not a victim, and whatever end goal they might have envisioned when they started/initiated their assault isn’t going to happen. A lot can be communicated in a punch.   Understanding that violence is ultimately a form of communication, may at first seem philosophical, or merely a theoretical notion, however when we can understand the messages that different aggressors are trying to send us, we can formulate better and more effective solutions for dealing with them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=319 Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=318 Whilst I was doing my Master’s degree in psychology, I was given the opportunity to interview/talk to several convicted sex-offenders, as part of a research project that one of my lecturers was engaged in. Most of them were serving long sentences, with little chance of parole, and I wasn’t privy to any rewards/benefits that they might have received for taking part in the interviews, so I was surprised that any wanted to take part, but a good number did. At the time, the prison was a “Category A” Prison – meaning that it held convicts whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public. Further, within the UK prison system, those offenders in “Category A” Prisons, are divided into three groups: Standard, High, and Exceptional Risk, based on their likelihood of escaping. Most of the interviewees, were classed as High and Exceptional Risk. This was the first time – and one of the few – where I was to meet such individuals face-to-face. At the time, I seriously wondered whether I’d have been better off pursuing a different academic route, rather than trying to understand the causes and motivations of violence, amongst a population where treatment programs at the time were close to non-existent, and had yielded little quantifiable proof of being successful in preventing the risk of recidivism. The fear of fear is always worse than fear itself, and although none of these offenders posed a direct risk/threat to me, when you think about talking to people who have committed the unspeakable, such as sexual violence against a two-year old, the unpredictability of such an individual’s ability for violence starts to get questioned e.g. if they are able to, and prepared to commit such violent acts against a child, what other violent acts are they capable of? Any research involving sex-offenders is beset by issues, especially when their victims and those they target are children – these people know how the public perceives them, and how society judges them, so to get them to speak openly about their crimes is difficult. Most that I interviewed downplayed their role, blaming stress and alcohol, for causing them to make poor decisions; that it was a “dark time” in their life, etc. They would claim to now realize/understand their wrongdoings. Despite these general tendencies, I spoke to one man who was very open about his crimes, and even went into great detail about them. After the interviews, I asked my lecturer about this, and was told by him, without any irony or humor, that I’d just been that predator’s latest victim. There are moments in life when you realize that you’ve been played, that you’ve been shown to be naïve, foolish, etc. The person I’d interviewed was a sadist, somebody whose pleasure and sexual gratification is based on the pain and suffering they cause to others; in a prison setting, with the opportunities to cause physical pain restricted, a sadistic offender will settle for emotional pain and distress, instead. It is not uncommon – so I was told – for sadists to agree to be interviewed about their crimes so as to feed off the discomfort of the interviewer, as they describe in great detail, and with specifics, the things they made their victims endure. Sadists will often try to make out that they are unable to read human emotions and responses, that they are oblivious to their victim’s pain and suffering, etc. The truth is that they are acutely aware of the things that their victims fear the most, probing and testing them, to find out exactly what it is that they fear the most, and which causes them the greatest pain. These are individuals who understand psychological and emotional responses to their actions and behaviors all too well – enough that they can feed off a 22-year old graduate in an interview room. I like to think I gave them nothing, but I know that this wasn’t the case; somebody who has lived their life 24x7 feeding off the discomfort of others will recognize a pause, a hesitation, or a look - however brief - for what it is. Fortunately, sadists are a rare form of predator, however they tend to be those that commit the most heinous and horrific crimes, extending the agony of their victims for the longest times, before growing bored of their suffering or deciding to end it; not because of any merciful considerations, but to experience death as the greatest form of pain – few are satisfied with this ultimate high, and go on to commit other killings in order to experience the emotions they fantasize about. Psychopaths are different to Sadists, in that they don’t experience empathy for their victims; they are unable to “feel” or “associate” with what their victims went through. This was something that many of the rapists, who sexually assaulted adult victims, exhibited. A good percentage of those interviewed in the study I was involved with didn’t see that what they’d done as wrong, or if they did agree that it was “wrong”, they’d judge that the punishment that they’d received was unfair and disproportionate to the crime they’d committed. Many believed that their victims were simply over-reacting to what had happened to them. Psychopaths do, and can, experience excitement, but it is the excitement of engaging in something that is antisocial, rather than something that is drawn from the victim i.e. the individuals they target are merely pawns in a larger game, and have no significance as individuals. Unlike the sadist, the psychopath isn’t attuned to the suffering of their victims – they simply don’t care, and/or pick up on it. The driving force of psychopathy is entitlement; they can act how they want, without consideration for the effects their actions and behaviors have on others. Not all psychopaths engage in criminal activities – you may in fact work for/with one. If they genuinely don’t care about anyone’s feelings, take big risks, and don’t care for the status quo, etc., they may pass the Psychopathy Test with flying colors (Yes there is a test, a simple google search will bring you to it). I have found there is a lot of confusion between Psychopaths and Sadists (this article is in response to a conversation I overheard yesterday), and I hope after reading, people understand the distinction between these two personality disorders. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=318 Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=317 Time exists to stop everything from happening at once – if it didn’t exist, it would all be over in a single moment. The first time I experienced violence, at the hands of a non-family member, was when I was 6 years old; a gang of much older kids whipped the back of my legs with electrical cords and ropes, as myself and a friend walked (and then ran) back home from soccer practice; it sucks growing up Jewish in a city divided on sectarian lines (Glasgow) – you end up getting assaulted by both the Catholic and Protestant populations. When it first happened to me, everything was a complete shock; the assailants seemed to come from nowhere - I was completely surprised and had no idea how to respond: everything seemed to just happen at once. As I grew older, and witnessed, as well as experienced, more violence I began to realize that violent acts don’t just happen, they play out along a timeline. I’m by no means the first person to recognize and understand this, or come up with the idea that there are distinct stages to violent assaults, however in this article I want to share, my understanding (based on my experiences, as well as informal and formal research into violence) of the Timeline of Violence, and how this can help us effectively respond to violence, when we are targeted.      As most people read this they should be in a Non-Conflict phase/stage – if you’re not, you should put down the phone or device that you are reading this on, and start to make a dynamic risk assessment of your situation. Unfortunately, this non-conflict phase is one that many people want to quickly return to, even when a threat/danger is present that stimulates an adrenal response e.g. I have heard many people say, that when they are out and they feel scared, they use their mobile phone to call a friend and as soon as they hear the calm voice at the end of the line, they feel much safer. The problem is, they’re no longer in a Non-Conflict stage, they have just entered the Conflict-Aware phase of the Timeline, however they don’t want to admit or recognize this (this is a normal human response to danger: denial). As soon as you become adrenalized, you move along the Timeline, from being in the Non-Conflict phase, to the Conflict-Aware phase. Rather than denying that you are in a potentially dangerous situation, you need to determine whether the danger/threat in the environment is real, and whether it is targeting you. After I was assaulted by the group of teenagers, I never viewed the presence of groups of teenage boys the same; these were people who were capable of causing harm and serious injury to me, and had no qualms about doing so. Initially, I became hyper-vigilant. Any time individuals in this particular age-group were present, my over-focus on such assailants left me blind to others, who were my same age (and equally merciless). This is something that we need to understand about the way our fear system works; it can become hyper-sensitive to certain threats and dangers that really don’t contain harmful intent towards us – the teenagers eating fish and chips together and talking amongst themselves weren’t a danger to me, it was the ones who were kicking an old can around and looking for something to do, etc. There is a danger in not recognizing the differences between the two groups, and moving into the Pre-Conflict phase of violence, unnecessarily. It is not good for our bodies to become adrenalized when it is not necessary; the cocktail of hormones, which make up adrenaline, take a heavy toll on the body. If it isn’t necessary to enter the Conflict-Aware phase/stage of violence, we should avoid doing so. When we become adrenalized and move from the Non-Conflict phase/state to the Conflict-Aware one, our primary task should be to ascertain whether the danger we have perceived is real. If you are walking home late at night, and your fear system alerts you to the fact that there is somebody walking behind you, possibly in step with, or gaining on you, you need to determine if the person’s movement is attached to yours, or if it is independent. In this moment, you are making a Dynamic Risk Assessment to determine whether you may remain in the Conflict-Aware phase, or have in fact moved into the Pre-Conflict phase. When you make such an assessment, there can be two possible outcomes: your situation either is a high-risk one, or one that contains unknown risks. The fact that you entered the Conflict-Aware state/phase means that there is the possibility of danger, so you are unable to determine that your situation is a low-risk one; it is one that contains unknown risks that you need to investigate. Once you determine that the threat is real and directed towards you (for example, you believed you were being followed and when you crossed the road the person followed), you have entered the Pre-Conflict Phase of Violence. There are certain tactics you could employ here: you could attempt to disengage, you could try to de-escalate, and/or you could try and verbally or physically confront them, etc. When aggression and violence is directed at you, you need to respond, rather than continuing to deny and ignore it. When I saw the group of teenagers take an interest in me and I felt uneasy, I should have recognized that I’d effectively moved into the Conflict-Aware stage, and when I saw them move towards me (Synchronizing their movement with mine) I should have picked up that I was now in the Pre-Conflict phase. This is where you need to make an effective decision, to try an avert moving into the Conflict Phase. I should have recognized – at the time I fatalistically knew, but did so anyway – that running wasn’t an option; they were bigger, faster and looking for sport. This is why understanding the motivations behind violence is so important. There are some situations you can de-escalate, some that you can disengage from, and some that require a physical response. This is something that you need to determine in the Pre-Conflict phase. Sometimes an assault can’t be deflected, disengaged, or de-escalated and you enter the Conflict Phase; the fight itself – as an adult it is often easier to avoid this than when you are a child or teen. However, there will be those who won’t want to be diverted from violence and/or find a non-physical solution to a disagreement or a situation. In such situations, you should be fighting for survival rather than ego. If you’ve been able to recognize the movement along the Timeline, you should also be better prepared to deal with this, and in most instances be able to attack pre-emptively, etc. After the Conflict Phase, you move into the Post-Conflict phase. In some instances, you may escape with little consequence e.g. it took 7-10 days for the cuts on my legs to heal, and my life was never at risk, etc. However, in others, you may exit an incident requiring both medical and legal assistance – do you have an attorney you can call, or know where the nearest hospital in the environment is, etc? Planning can go a long way in helping you determine how to act and behave in this phase of the Timeline. Most violence against an individual doesn’t just happen, and when we look back on an assault that we may have experienced, we can often look back and understand the different phases that we went through. If we can understand these as we experience them – rather than afterwards – we can determine courses of action that will allow us to either avoid them, or better prepare ourselves for the fight itself. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=317 Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=316 Many moons ago, I took part in a city council’s initiative to educate teenagers about the dangers of the “Knife Culture” that is so prevalent in the UK. Part of it involved teaching self-defense, and talking about the dangers of knives and weapons to kids at various youth centers around the city, with the hope that they’d start to realize how deadly and dangerous such weapons are – the program wasn’t perfect by any means and had the obvious danger of further glamorizing knives, and reinforcing the idea that these were weapons had the potential to kill, etc., however it was hoped/believed that when the true horrors and consequences of knife attacks were explained, that the majority of youths who carried, might consider not doing so. When I would talk to a group, I’d normally start by asking how many of them carried a weapon. There are a number of issues with self-reported surveys, as some people will want to give of a certain impression of themselves that isn’t true, whilst others will not want to draw attention to themselves, etc., however all other things being equal (ceteris-paribus), the average was about 7 to 8 out of 10 teenagers admitting that they carried a knife. The number one reason, when asked, was that they did so for self-defense; almost everybody I talked to argued that they wouldn’t use their knife offensively, only defensively i.e. they wouldn’t pull their knife unless they were threatened. What seemed to be happening was that there was a localized “arms race” i.e. you only carried a knife, because everyone else in your neighborhood did, also. If this was truly the case, nobody would ever pull a knife, because there was a risk that the other person would too. The problem was that knife attacks were extremely prevalent, and usually involved an armed assailant against an unarmed one – or somebody who didn’t pull their knife, either because they hadn’t the time, or weren’t motivated to do so, etc. When I would start to talk to these kids about “when” they would pull their weapon, and discuss scenarios and situations with them, they would become less definite and oftentimes frustrated – they had difficulty verbalizing what would cause them to draw their weapon. This is true of many adults who carry – if you talk to many individuals who carry a firearm for self-defense, they can quote you the laws surrounding when they are justified to pull and use their weapon, but often have difficulty applying these laws to actual scenarios i.e. you present them with a situation which isn’t cut and dry and they become less certain about their rights – this is one reason I’m such an advocate of scenario-based training, as this gives people the opportunity to understand and work through their decision-making process. When I would push these teenagers to explain what would cause them to pull their knife, I would commonly be told that it was due to an issue of respect e.g. somebody looked at them in a funny/disrespectful way, and if they didn’t stick up for themselves then they’d be marked as a coward/target and would be abused in some way in the future. Hence, they’d pull their knife and attack the individual(s) who disrespected them. When asked as to what constituted “disrespect”, the list was random, and truly at the discretion of the individual – one teenager told me how he’d stabbed a middle-aged man who’d held a door open for him, whilst giving him a “funny” look. I asked him what he meant by “funny”, and he responded by telling me that it was “just funny” – just about everybody in the group nodded, knowing exactly what he meant, without being told anything that was exact. This particular individual wasn’t excusing what he had done, he was genuinely justifying it; in his eyes, he’d been disrespected. This wasn’t a rational response, it was an emotional one. If you are angry, you will interpret everybody else’s behaviors and actions, as being angry also – we see the world as we are experiencing it, not as it is. If you show a photograph of a smiling face to an angry person, they will tell you that the person is smirking, and laughing at them – those around them are there to justify and reinforce their anger – or is in fact angry themselves, with the smile being seen as a grimace. Mix this inability to interpret looks and behaviors correctly, into a culture where there is the idea of “honor” and “respect”, and you have a dangerous cocktail that is brewing. I’m sometimes asked why somebody would just attack another stranger, without any obvious motive - this is one of the possible reasons. It may seem strange to us that these individuals can’t walk away, i.e. they seem to have a choice, in that they must notice a glance or a look, then choose to interpret this as a slight, and then act upon it – it is a process that they must go through. However, the guilt and shame of not acting would, as the psychiatrist James Gilligan put it be, “Psychic Annihilation” for them; that is, they can’t live with the fact that they were disrespected, as they see it. This pressure to act is magnified when a group is involved, as the individual will fear losing the respect of the group (which may mean that the group will turn on them, or disown them, if they are perceived to be weak) if they ignore something that could be interpreted as a slight. This causes a level of hyper-vigilance in groups, and causes individuals to respond more aggressively and violently towards those who disrespect them. This notion of existential honor, was something that I was palpably aware of when working the door in certain clubs. It was not uncommon if somebody caught you looking at them for too long (as they judged it), for you to be called out, if it was deemed that you were disrespecting them; you’d be met with the aggressive question, “are you looking at me?” At first there appear to only be two possible answers: yes, or no. The danger with answering yes, is that your response would be taken as a challenge, escalating the situation, and if you answered “no”, you’d be called a liar, and judged as somebody who could be intimidated. Either answer will justify to the individual that they have been disrespected, and cause them to act, in order for them to avoid Psychic Annihilation. The question is structured in such a way, as to justify the use of violence. I would usually choose a middle route, and tell them that I wasn’t wearing my contact lenses, and not to worry, leaving them a face-saving back door that they could exit through. I’d then be keeping a much closer but more surreptitious eye on them for the rest of the evening, as I now had a better measure of their character – If I’d not been in a position of responsibility, I would have left that environment, as I don’t want to share it with a volatile individual who is only going to drink more. If you haven’t grown up in, or experienced a culture, where the concept of honor trumps all other reasoning, it is hard to understand why simple actions, behaviors and comments, can cause people to become aggressive – to the point where they would pull a weapon and potentially kill somebody. We should be aware that such individuals exist, and that there may be times when we interact with them. If they won’t accept a face-saving way out, and we don’t have a disengagement option, acting pre-emptively is most likely to be our best survival option. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=316 Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=315 The transactional nature of certain violent crimes, such as muggings, street robberies and car-jackings, etc., may at first glance lead us to believe that these are relatively simple events i.e. somebody wants something we have and uses force to deprive us of it. However, if we view these and other similar crimes is such a simplistic way, we may in fact misunderstand an incident we are involved in, and engage in dangerous decision-making. Although not all of the information available to us, when we are targeted by a violent criminal(s), is weighted evenly, it is worth taking the time to try to understand some of the lessor factors and components behind such crimes, so that we are better able to deal with them if we find ourselves involved in such incidents. It is worth noting that criminals choose the activities they engage in – they rarely find themselves committing crimes without engaging in some thought process, beforehand. There is a reason why a mugger chooses robbery, and a burglar engages in break-ins, etc. In some cases, it could be that a peer in their neighborhood introduces them to a particular type of crime, such as having them play a role in a mugging e.g. be a lookout, a decoy, etc., and as they gain more experience, start initiating crimes of their own. However, even in such cases where they are exposed to one form of criminal activity, it is likely that they will compare others, to see if they would be better suited to something else, such as burglary or auto-theft, and their decision-making process gives us a clue as to their personality, which in turn can help us understand a little about the individuals we may have to deal with. A mugger doesn’t get much out of each incident, due to the fact that most people don’t carry a lot of cash – unless of course they are targeting individuals in districts where there are check-cashing shops, etc., or in neighborhoods where individuals are likely to favor cash over credit/debit cards e.g. low income areas, where individuals have bad credit ratings and are unable to get cards, or are charged at such high rates of interest that they prefer to deal in cash – in such instances a mugger may, every now and again, enjoy a large payout. A burglar, who breaks-in to a property, ultimately gets a greater financial reward, however it takes time to turn the goods they have stolen into cash. Muggers generally don’t want to have to take the time or the effort, to see a profit from their crime, they want their reward immediately. They may also not be “plugged into” a criminal fraternity, where they would have access to a fence who could facilitate such transactions, and/or they may not want to engage in negotiations that could see them get conned out of the true value of the goods they’ve procured. When we start to understand these things, we can start to build a “common profile” of a mugger that helps us to understand who we are dealing with, e.g. they’re unable to delay gratification (they need/want the rewards of their crime immediately), they aren’t deemed significant by other criminals, and they want the full reward of their crimes, without negotiating with others, etc. Basically, they are insecure, volatile individuals, who want what they want, now. In any violent crime, there are always secondary motivators. Three common ones that are present in all violent crime are: anger, power, and control. If we understand that muggers are generally on the lower social strata of both society at large, as well as the criminal underworld, we can recognize that such individuals have little power and control over their own lives, and will have a certain level of resentment and anger to those they target. Crime affords them the opportunity to dispense anger, as well as enjoy a sense of power as they exert control over their victims. Muggers will talk about targeting people who they believe think a lot of themselves, Black South African car-jackers have talked about selecting white drivers who put the central locking on when they see a black person, and of enjoying the power/control they had when making a rich white driver acquiesce to their demands, etc. When we understand that a mugging, wherever it takes place, involves these three variables, it becomes clear that our best bet of surviving such altercations is to acquiesce to a mugger’s demands – and to follow them to the letter e.g. if we are asked for our wallet, we should not to throw it away from us onto the floor, etc. As hard as it may be on our egos, our safest route out of the incident involves us letting our aggressor have a degree of power and control over us. This is not to say we should comply with a demand that targets us, rather than our resources. If a mugger goes off-script i.e. they stop behaving like a mugger (only wanting our possessions), then we should offer resistance e.g. once we have handed over what they asked for, if they don’t exit the situation but remain, we will need to enact a physical solution. All criminals enjoy a sense of entitlement. Muggers, Burglars and Car-Jackers are able to easily justify their criminal activities. In a rational moment, they may acknowledge the immorality of what they do, however they will soon be able to excuse their behaviors and actions, so as to commit their next crime; their conscience is fluid and temporary. If you believe that in a mugging incident, you are dealing with a person who has a conscience, think again – if you don’t hand over your wallet, expect to be cut, shot, etc. In the mugger’s mind, it will be your fault for not complying, and you – not them - will be paying the cost for not handing over your wallet, IPhone or laptop, etc. - which they will then take from you. Whatever happens, in their mind, they are leaving the scene with whatever they came for. Although muggings are usually over in a matter of seconds, it is worth understanding how the person you are dealing with got to this place in their life; the thought processes they went through, and the decisions they came to. If you were desperate for cash, and had to engage in a criminal activity, which one would you choose? Would you be a mugger, a burglar, a shoplifter? Think about those things that would deter you from engaging in certain crimes – could you justify robbing a bank or stealing from a shop, because no individual directly loses out, whereas robbing an individual deprives them of resources, etc? A mugger, to a greater or lesser extent, will have engaged in these same thought processes, and decided that robbing people with a weapon suits them best. Think about this for a moment. The typical burglar hopes that they’re not disturbed, that they won’t have to confront somebody, and that they won’t have to cause harm to someone; a mugger knows that their crime involves confrontation and the possibility of causing serious harm – they’ve reconciled that. This is why compliance to a demand for your resources is favored, as you don’t want to engage in a power struggle with someone who is prepared and comfortable with using this level of violence.   The good news is that most criminals are lazy individuals who don’t want to put much effort into anything, including their crimes, and this means we don’t have to do much to avoid encountering them; we just have to do more than those around us. If we do end up interacting with them, we should be well aware of the personality type and profile of the person we are dealing with, and behave in an appropriate manner.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=315 Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=314 People have pain management systems; they get switched on, when somebody is preparing to fight. If you’ve ever stepped into a ring to compete, or put on a pair of gloves to spar, you will have begun to make some mental shifts, preparing for the potential pain you may experience. The same thing happens in real-life confrontations, and it is important to know how to bypass an aggressor’s pain management system and shut it down, especially if you are dealing with a highly-adrenalized assailant, who will be naturally pain resistant, due to their heightened emotional state.  Social violence is largely ritualistic, and aggressors use these “rituals” to get themselves worked up to the point where they are both ready to make a physical assault, and physically prepared to deal with any pain they may have to experience. Most people have witnessed these rituals, where aggressors shout at each other, make threats, back away inviting their opponent to attack, take their tops off, etc. These are tools that are used to intimidate the person they are dealing with, and at the same time get themselves emotionally prepared and ready for the fight. This is perhaps the best time to deal with an aggressor’s pain management system; before it is fully switched on. Interrupting the ritual, and not letting them get to a state where they are ready and prepared to fight, puts you way ahead on the curve, and forces them to play a game of catch up. Unfortunately, in most violent altercations, we allow these situations to play out, hoping that our aggressor will calm down, or decide to walk away e.g. we let them make their threats, shout at us, run through their rituals, etc., without making a physical response; or worse, we get caught up in the argument and return their abuse, allowing them to feed off our emotional state, whilst losing the opportunity to shut them down. Pre-emptively striking an aggressor, who is not yet ready to make their attack – and if they haven’t made it yet, they’re not ready – is the best way to prevent them from having the chance to turn their pain management systems on. Not all pain is the same, and some types can be managed better than others. I remember sparring on a beach. It was bare knuckle (no shots to the head) and both myself and my partner were going great guns at each other. I then stood on a broken bit of shell, and the pain was crazy – it dug right into my heel, and I couldn’t escape it. I had switched my pain management system on to deal with a certain type of pain – hard blows to the body and limbs – but when a different type of pain was introduced, all of my focus shifted to that. Certain types of unexpected pain can bypass our pain management systems and unsettle us. This is why it is good to change our methods of striking, to cause different types of pain to our assailant e.g. mixing up eye strikes, and throat strikes, with punches and hammer-fists, etc. If we just deliver concussive blows then an attacker can get used to managing these, and in a very short time, they may cease to be effective. By ramming a thumb in the eye during such a striking sequence, focus will shift to managing this new pain, resetting their system, and allowing our concussive blows to once again have an effect. In most fights, assailants are head hunters; both parties are looking to deliver the “elusive” knock-out blow – something that is extremely hard to do in a real-life confrontation, unless you set it up preemptively. However, there are times when it is useful to mix these up with body shots. Body shots can be just as painful as head-shots, and also have the added benefit of being able to tire out an aggressor e.g. repeated shots to the stomach and solar plexus, will interrupt an assailant’s breathing pattern, making it difficult for them to concentrate on anything other than getting breath, and regulating their breathing pattern. Most people will hold their breath when they physically engage with someone, and so be out of breath from the get-go. By using body shots in the initial phases of a fight, you can make sure that they never recover from this oxygen debt, and are always in a process of catching up with their breathing. In this exhausted state, an assailant will be unlikely to keep their pain management systems switched on. Switching between head and body shots, will also cause your attacker to have to manage different types of pain. Changing targets will also interrupt a person’s pain management systems, by giving them the sensation that their whole body is being assaulted. If an attack is made to the head, then the legs, then the neck, then the body, etc., in quick succession, the assailant will be overwhelmed. The type of pain delivered to these targets, can even be the same e.g. blunt trauma strikes such as roundhouse kicks to the legs, forearm strikes to the neck etc. If the targets are struck with different types of pain, however, then the effect of working on multiple targets will be multiplied. Obviously there are times when an attacker’s pain management systems can’t be overcome; you may meet the battle-hardened, adrenalized person who is too stupid, or doesn’t care about registering pain, however these individuals are fewer than we think. Drugs and alcohol can also enhance an assailant’s ability to manage pain. In these situations, you will need to mechanically shut down your assailant, either by destroying their limbs so they can no longer function e.g. breaking a leg or arm, etc., or by choking them out. One of the problems with applying joint locks as a means of destroying the limbs, is that it is often more common to cause a temporary dislocation, rather than a break e.g. you pop the elbow dislocating it, but it then returns back into place, etc. A pain resistant attacker may be able to fight through this pain, and continue to use their arm. This is why I prefer chokes as a means to dealing with highly adrenalized, pain resistant attackers, as once secured, there really is only one result. As a general starting point, causing pain fast, and in a way that bypasses an attacker’s pain management systems is the way to go. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=314 Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=313 Attacks and assaults occur along a timeline, with warning signs and pre-violence indicators, that precede the physical phase of the assault. There is sometimes a tendency within the self-defense world, to simply teach that a punch is a punch, a grab is a grab, a push is a push, etc., without looking at the context within which these assaults are made e.g. there is a big difference between dealing with a grab, following an assailant having tried to disguise their motives, win your trust and putting you at ease, and one where a visibly aggressive person verbally confronts and threatens you before trying to take hold of you. We may use the same technique to deal with both attacks, however contextually the two situations are very, very different. For us to be effective, in both preventing and dealing with different types of violent situations, we must recognize that there are different “methods” of attack, and these should be incorporated into our training. There are four general methods of attack, that most assaults will fall into. These are: 1. Blitzing 2. Ambush 3. Grooming 4. Burning (Fast/Slow)   Blitz style attacks, are the ones that we don’t see coming e.g. somebody grabs you from behind and starts shanking a knife into your buttocks and lower back/legs (do you train for this?), or grabs you from behind in a rear strangle, pulling you to the ground, or cold cocks you from the side, etc. They are the attacks that come out of nowhere, and take us completely by surprise. Although it’s true that such attacks do occur- and the media does like to report on them- they are not that common when compared to other methods of attack. These are the types of attack that hit us emotionally. One question I get a lot when teaching people who haven’t trained before is, “but what do you do when you’re grabbed from behind?” There tends to be a view amongst the general public that most assailants attack their victims from behind, without giving any warning, etc. Although this may seem at first glance a logical way for predators to attack their victims, in most cases it doesn’t serve their ultimate motive(s) e.g. it is easier to “convince” a person to get into a car, than to drag them into it, kicking and screaming. Blitz attacks are conducted by predatory individuals who have planned their assaults. In an ambush, a predator uses some form of request or interaction, to allow them to put you at ease, whilst at the same time synchronizing their movement to yours, and closing the distance between you. They may ask you for directions, the time (a strange request when most people have a mobile phone these days), or for money, etc. Their goal is to arrest your movement, and put you off guard, so that they, or an accomplice, can make an attack. Such ambushes play on our desire to be seen as polite and social, and not appear rude to people. This is something a lot of predatory individuals will use against us, creating socially awkward situations, that direct us to acquiesce and comply with their demands. I have no problem if I’m perceived as being rude or not; if someone wants to interact with me when I’m in public, and my polite but firm refusal is taken as rudeness, I’m comfortable with that. There may be times I interact. If you’re a family with kids, and I’ve been able to observe you for a period of time, etc., I may engage with you, but as a rule of thumb, no; I’ll keep moving. A more sophisticated type of ambush is known as grooming. When somebody grooms you, they are looking to get you to hand over control of the situation to them. They are not just looking to disarm you and get you to lower your guard, they’re looking for you to be passive, and for them to guide and control your decisions. When I do corporate training, I often start the session by asking if anyone would ever get into a car with a stranger (I clarify that this doesn’t include Taxi and Uber drivers, etc.). Most people believe that they never would. The problem is that when they think of scenarios involving getting into a stranger’s car, they are imagining somebody pulling up alongside them and asking for them to get in – when we were kids that’s the type of scenario/situation that our parents warned us against i.e. a man in a car or van pulling up, whilst we played in our front yard or at the park, and asking us if we wanted to go for a ride, see some puppies, etc. Predators who prey on adult victims, know that trying this method would be unsuccessful, and so are more subtle/sophisticated about getting their victims to come with them in their cars. When I was studying for my Master’s, I became involved in a case study that had seen 27 victims raped/sexually assaulted by a single predator (this is an extremely high number, because most sexual assaults aren’t reported). The assailant used the same method each time, to get his victims to get “willingly” into his car. His MO (Modus Operandi) was to date women online – this was in the very early days of internet dating, demonstrating that predators are very quick to adopt new methods by which to gain access to potential victims. He’d organize dates, suggesting they should go for a meal, but allowing his victims to choose the location and times of where they’d meet, giving them the illusion of control – the first step in the grooming process. He understood that when people go on dates, they are hoping that everything will go well, and that the person they’re out with want to see them again (this is the same for both men and women) i.e. he understood what people want from a date. Towards the end of the meal, he’d say something along the lines of, “this has been great, I haven’t enjoyed myself this much in such a long time. It would be a shame to end things now. I know a great bar across town, why don’t we finish the evening up there?” Even before the first date was over, he was offering a “second” date – something that most people on a successful date are already looking for – predatory individuals are very good at recognizing what we want to get out of a situation, and will play to this. He’d also been extremely flattering, by saying that he’d enjoyed his date’s company – we all like to be flattered, especially in a dating setting, and feel more at ease with people who think something of us i.e. our guard drops. In 27 instances, we know that his victims agreed to go with him (in truth the number is probably much higher). Once he and his date were in the parking lot, he’d say, “tell you what, it’s not the easiest place to find, why don’t we just take my car. We can talk on the way and I can drop you back here afterwards. I’ll be the designated driver.” His victims/targets had a choice: they could go on the early “second” date, but it would mean getting into a car with a man they’d met only an hour or so earlier. Twenty-seven women took that chance, even though they understood the risks – in interviews all expressed personal safety concerns about getting in the car. If his victims hesitated, he’d directly shut down their concerns by stating them, “What? You think I’m going to attack you?” etc. By voicing the objection on behalf of the victim, he’d present their concern as an insult, which had offended him. His victims were too polite, and wanting to get back on the good side of a man they liked and wanted to see again, accepted the ride. Predatory individuals, especially rapists, are socially skilled players, who know how to create socially awkward situations to direct our actions and behaviors. They’ll get us to want what they want, and voice our concerns for us. Every objection we have, every conversational escape route we have, they’ll shut the door on it, until we’re left with one option; to appear rude, voice our objections, and walk away. This can be extremely difficult, especially if a large part of us wants what the other person wants, whatever that is. Pedophiles know how to package what they are offering in a way that is attractive to a child (not all choose to do this), giving gifts, attention, and praise as a reward or incentive to engage in their abusive activities. They are very quick to find out what their victims want, and then provide it, in return for taking part in their activities. They know how to explain away their victim’s objections, and questions, and use their victim’s confusion to get them to doubt themselves e.g. they can create a physically pleasurable sensation for a child, that at the same time is emotionally and psychologically painful, and direct their victim to believe that the correct understanding of what they are experiencing is good and enjoyable, etc. We often think that ourselves and our children are too smart and savvy to fall for a predator’s grooming process, however such individuals live their lives 24x7, creating ways to exploit our confidences and safety rules. When we compare this with the amount of time we spend trying to understand these persons and their methods, we are a long way behind on the curve. I’m not surprised so many women got in the car, with a man they’d only known for an hour or so; they were dealing with an extremely skilled predator, who knew how to play his victims. In “Slow” and “Fast” Burn situations, you are dealing with an individual who has become aggressive due to actions and behaviors on your part – whether real or perceived e.g. somebody believes you spilt a drink over them, cut them off in a queue or a line of traffic, etc. These are spontaneous acts of aggression, where something you have done, has lit the person’s fuse. Sometimes it’s a short fuse, sometimes a long one. If it’s a relatively long one, you may be able to deescalate the situation, and work with your aggressor to find an alternative to violence. If your aggressor has a short fuse, it will burn quicker, and there may not be the time for talking. These different methods of attack, should be incorporated into our training. We should set up training scenarios, where there are ambushes, as well as burn situations where de-escalation could be a solution, etc. We should set up situations where a training partner tries to “groom” us and get us to do something that may at first not seem to compromise our safety, but sets them up to push for something else that does. This is the reality of violence, and our training should reflect it. Next time you teach or practice a gun disarm, imagine the context in which such an incident would occur – were you ambushed, groomed, or did something you do cause the person to become aggressive, etc? Add visualization to this, when you’re outside of the training environment, and your mindset will start to become attuned to the realities of violence.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=313 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=312 There is a huge difference between proactive blocking and reactive blocking. Many people believe that any block is a reaction/response to an attack, however this isn’t – and shouldn’t – be the case. Every block should be seen as an attack, that creates an opportunity, and something that is proactive, rather that reactive. There are of course times when we may be taken completely by surprise, however these should be exceptional circumstances, rather than the norm. Most social violence happens face-to-face, with an abundance of warning signs that allow us to recognize when an aggressor is getting ready to initiate a physical attack; if we can recognize these signals, a block can be used proactively to increase our survival chances, rather than reactively, as a response and catch-up to an attack. To use a block this way, we must first be able to identify when somebody is preparing to throw a punch, stab us etc. We want to be responding to an attack, in the moments before it has been made. Unfortunately, much Krav Maga training, is done from the perspective of being 100% caught off-guard or surprised, and blocking as seen as something reactive/responsive rather than as something proactive. Just because we have a level of preparedness doesn’t mean that our natural reflexes and responses aren’t important or shouldn’t form the basis of our blocking system i.e. even though I may be “prepared” for a potential attack, it doesn’t mean that I’m going to override my body’s natural reflex/response to the movement of the attack; even if I am mentally prepared that an aggressor is going to punch at me, when they swing/throw their strike/punch in, my flinch reflex will be stimulated, and rather than fight against this impulse I should work with it (this is the basis of Krav Maga’s 360 blocking system). However, if I am prepared for a potential attack, I can start my body defense, as soon as I am aware that my assailant has started punching, and my hand defense can be added to it e.g. moving forward, or to the side, depending on the system of Krav Maga you practice, etc. If you are caught by complete surprise, your body movement will have to be added to your hand defense; your flinch/startle reflex will be triggered first, and then your body will move as a response to this. A clear indication that someone is about to punch you, and with which hand, is the way that they shift and load their weight, before they make the punch; most skilled boxers and ring/cage fighters try to disguise their setups, however in real-life scenarios, the ways that people do this aren’t subtle, and are relatively easy to identify and pick up on. When somebody wants to generate power in a punch, they will shift and load their weight on to their back leg, in preparation for transferring their weight forward as they make their strike/punch. If somebody who is in your face, arguing, and making threats, takes a step back, there is more than a good chance that they are loading their bodyweight in preparation for striking with the same hand. At this point, you may not know if they are going to be swinging their arm in a circular fashion, or delivering their punch straight at you (few “straight” punches in real-life, even when delivered by trained people, are as straight as those you experience in a training environment; when adrenalized, even a trained person will fight the body’s natural urge to swing and make circular strikes – this is how we naturally generate more power). However, if you hold your hands up – in a placating, non-aggressive manner – in front of you, you will make it difficult for an aggressor to make effective straight strikes; your hands will be in a position to block anything coming directly at you. With your hands in front of you, your assailant will be forced/directed into making circular strikes, therefore when you see them shift their weight back, you will know which hand will be making the punch, as well as the nature of the attack. Perhaps the clearest signal that somebody gives that they are about to make an attack, during a verbal confrontation, is when they glance/look away. If they go silent when they do this, you can be fairly sure that their next action will be to make some form of physical assault. If they combine this with stepping back to load their weight, they are almost giving you a guarantee that they are going to be punching you. This action of turning the head away, is normally preceded by staring/focusing on your face in a concentrated fashion (this can be a subtle cue to pick up on but it is usually there). This short process contains the following component; when an attacker goes silent during a verbal confrontation, they have emotionally shifted into full fight or flight mode – the time for talking is over. When they focus on your face, they are mentally marking their target (when they turn away, you should change position so that the “target” is no longer where they are expecting it to be). Turning their head away from you, achieves several things. Primarily, it is done to make you think that the confrontation is over i.e. they no longer want to engage/interact with you, etc. This is done to get you to lower your guard. An attacker may also do this to scan their environment and check for the presence of security, witnesses who might be observing the altercation, etc. They may combine this act of looking away, with shifting their weight back, or even taking a step back. Usually, there is a pause, a moment of silence, and then the punch comes swinging in. On a related note, I once witnessed a knife attack, where the assailant approached their target/victim with their head turned away, and their knife in their rear hand (hidden by their bladed body). They walked up, with their body almost side-on to their victim, who saw them coming and tried to verbally engage with them. All of the victim’s effort went into trying to get the attention of the assailant, and engage/communicate with him, which was fairly fruitless because they couldn’t make eye-contact with him. When somebody isn’t looking at you, they don’t want to communicate with you, and the question then has to be, why are they moving towards me if they don’t want to communicate with me? The attacker almost made contact with their shoulder, with their victim still asking him questions and trying to make eye-contact with him – they were then grabbed behind the neck, and repeatedly shanked. When people look away from you, when they should be communicating with you, prepare yourself for violence. When we understand that most social violence, is preceded by a verbal confrontation or verbal ambush, and that we can identify the signals that show an attack is being setup, we can prepare ourselves to better deal with it, either by making a pre-emptive attack, or a proactive block (obviously if disengagement, de-escalation are options we should attempt these first, or in parallel with our physical preparations). The advantage of proactive blocking, is that you can set ourselves up to attack much earlier than if you are blocking reactively e.g. trying to simultaneously block, move, and strike effectively, when you are truly reacting to an attack is next to impossible – it may be something you do in the training environment, however it is worth pointing out that the moment you enter a training environment, you are switched on, and true, real surprise is hard to replicate. In most instances where you are blocking reactively, your instinct is defensive, not offensive. If you can prepare yourself by understanding/predicting the pre-violence indicators that identify somebody is about to hit you, every movement you make can be an offensive one.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=312 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=311 If you’ve spent any time working in the security industry, you will have spent a lot of time observing people, and you will soon have come to the realization that most assaults follow a similar pattern/process. When you understand this, you will be able to recognize attacks before they occur, and either disengage, or prepare yourself so you can increase your survival chances. I have never been a great athlete, or benefited from an unusually great reaction time, etc., however I have learnt to act quickly and decisively in situations, in the moments before an assailant initiates the attack, which gives me the illusion of speed and athleticism. In this article, I want to look at four things which are common occurrences in knife attacks, and how identifying these things can help us either avoid such attacks, or get ourselves into a better position to deal with them. I would also make the argument that our training partners should replicate these things in the training environment so that we have an accurate and realistic idea of what a knife attack looks like – if we only ever train our defenses, from a position where the knife is visible, and our attacker stands in front of us at distance, we will only get good at dealing with attacks that happen like this; which are few. Victim selection and surveillance, are two of the activities that an assailant will engage in before they initiate their attack. An assailant will typically take several quick looks over in your direction, often moving their position, after each one, so that it becomes less obvious that they are looking at you – they will use their new position, to make it look like their movement is bringing you into their eye-line, rather than something deliberate on their part. This action is referred to as “Target Glancing”. An attacker is going to want to make sure that they have targeted the right victim; somebody who is unaware, preoccupied and doesn’t appear as though they will offer up much resistance. If you pick up on an individual who is target glancing at you, move out of the environment. You should also be aware of “Accomplice Glancing”. This can be seen where a group or gang are working together in a particular location, and will look to each other to communicate information, such as agreeing on a victim that one of the group has selected. These glances are typically longer and less well disguised than those directed at a target, but equally significant. You should pay particular attention, if after a look/glance, one of the members starts moving, as this normally signifies that the group is getting everybody into place before they begin the actual assault. Check to see if anyone is moving to block off entry/exit points, etc. Attackers will also scan their environment to check for the presence of law-enforcement or security, as well as the general awareness level of those around them e.g. is there anyone who would make a good and credible witness against them, is there anyone who has identified their criminal intent, etc? The difference between this and target and accomplice glancing, is that there is no real focus when a person scans i.e. they are not looking in a specific direction, or at someone, but looking around, more generally. They are checking for people who may be interested in them. They may also be checking that an exit/escape route remains clear. Scanning becomes very noticeable when somebody looks behind them. There are very few reasons why a person would look over their shoulder, other than to check that they are not being observed. Clothing checks and adjustments, are a good indicator, when combined with target glancing and scanning, that an individual is looking for victims, and has a weapon on them. Before just about every knife attack I’ve witnessed, I’ve seen the assailant stretch out their clothing and/or adjust it, so that they have easy and clear access to their weapon. This action is often repeated several times, with the location of the weapon being checked as they do it. An attacker armed with a knife will keep it concealed until the very moment they are going to use it. They are not going to put it out there on display and give you time to register it – many people who are stabbed in a fight don’t even see the knife, and believe that they have been punched; it’s only in the post-conflict phase when they check themselves and discover blood that what’s happened begins to hit them. If a knife is stabbed in and out repeatedly, cutting tissue “cleanly”, then the more immediate sensation is the hilt of the knife hitting the body; which feels like a punch. (It is worth pointing out that slashes are experienced more as electric shocks, etc.) Part of our training should involve defending knife attacks, where we don’t initially see the knife – and I would add in here attacks from the rear, that you have no chance of reacting/responding to, till you are initially stabbed; I can understand the reluctance of instructors to do this, as it can be a hard message for a student to swallow – that there are times when you might not be able to initially defend yourself – but if we are teaching reality based self-defense, rather than just demonstrating a system, as a system, we have to be honest about what reality looks like. It’s also a good advertisement of the self-protection/personal safety piece, which teaches them how to predict, prevent and avoid assaults before they occur. For me, the biggest pre-violence indicator, is a person’s movement. If somebody is moving around me, target glancing and scanning (possibly adjusting their clothing), there’s a good chance I’m in danger. If I move, changing my position, and they move with me, I’ve confirmed it. I now need to check for accomplice glancing, as the last thing I want to do, is to move towards an exit, where there is an accomplice/third party who is assisting them. “Sheepdogging” or “Shepherding” is something that groups will do to direct a person’s movement in a particular direction, and it is important not to fall foul of it. An attacker may try to disguise their movement, by changing position every now and again, moving towards you incrementally. This type of synchronization of movement is common in crowds, where an attacker will try to disguise their movement, by changing their position in the group every now and again, possibly making it look as though they are trying to get a better vantage point if it’s a sporting match or nearer to the front of the group, if they are on the platform, waiting for a train, etc. If you are in the center of a crowd, it may be difficult/impossible for you to control the range/distance between you and your would-be assailant; a good reason to try and avoid situations where you will be in the center of a large group.   Our training needs to be realistic, that’s the bottom-line. This means putting our students into difficult training situations, where at times they may not be able to make a successful defense, from the outset.  However, we should be clear that this is not necessarily failure. Failure is not surviving. If, because we have set the odds against the student, such as only allowing them to see the knife at the last minute, or having their partner pull the knife when they are clinched up, or on the ground, there is a good chance they will be “stabbed”. However, if they can block, create distance, and disengage, getting stabbed doesn’t represent failure – it’s a consequence of the confrontation that can be dealt with. If we can put into our training, target glancing, accomplice glancing, scanning, clothing adjustments and realistic movement, we will be training our students to recognize the pre-violence indicators that warn them of an assault. If they don’t have the time to disengage, they will at least have the time to prepare and position themselves to better deal with the attack. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=311 Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=310 Crime and violent crime may at times be opportunistic, but it is never truly random, yet unfortunately we often use randomness and opportunity as synonyms, when in fact they aren’t the same thing. If we leave a window open which a burglar uses to enter our house, we may curse our luck, and argue to ourselves that we were subjected to a random crime i.e. what are the chances that a burglar would be walking past our house on the one day, when we forgot to close a window? The point is, we helped provide the burglar with an opportunity that other house owners in the area didn’t; it is unlikely that the burglar was specifically targeting our house, much more likely that they were trawling the area, looking for opportunities. There would also be other factors that go into creating the opportunity, such as: does the house look like it is worth breaking into - does it look like it contains the particular valuables/items the burglar is looking for, such as pharmaceuticals or electronic goods etc.? If we can understand what goes into “creating” an opportunity, we can look to change those things and reduce the likelihood of being targeted by predatory individuals, whether it’s for burglary, mugging, or a violent assault. When we look at risk assessments, one of the elements that is difficult to alter is the threats that we face e.g. we can’t change the number of muggers and burglars out there – social policy may be able to do this, but as an individual, this is largely out of our control. When we look at reducing the opportunities we present to a predatory individual, we are in fact looking at two things: target hardening, and victim displacement. We are looking to make ourselves and our assets difficult for a predator to have access to, in relation to other available targets in the locale. If our home is a harder nut to crack than our next-door neighbors’, and a burglar perceives them to contain equal assets, then their house will be targeted rather than ours (this is the same for muggings – predators choose us by comparing us to, and selecting us from, other potential victims). It is worth noting this because one of the common excuses I hear people make for not taking security precautions regarding burglary is, “if they really want to break in to my house, they’ll find a way.” Unless your home contains specific items of worth that no others in the vicinity contain, there is no reason why anyone would “really want” to break in to your home if there are easier ones around. So what opportunities does your house create for a burglar, that others around you don’t (and vice versa)? Likewise, mugger selects his victims from a pool; so what opportunities might you create for them, that others around you don’t? What makes us, and/or our assets, easy targets? Ease of access/accessibility creates opportunities for predatory criminals. Rarely do I give people access to myself, and I don’t stop moving if I do engage. This may appear as rudeness to brush off someone approaching me on the street, however I see few ways I could genuinely be useful to somebody, and I’m not willing to compromise my safety. There are people who need assistance, and I will make myself accessible to them - such as the woman who needs a hand carrying a stroller down a flight of stairs - however this is me initiating access, not responding to it. I’m extremely suspicious of anyone who wants to engage me in conversation, especially so if they want to stop me from moving as they do. Being stationary is often used/seen as an invitation for access, and creates opportunities for predatory individuals to engage with us. Looking at home security, not having clear delimiters and boundaries around your property also “invites” access to it – it should be obvious to anyone around if somebody is on your property or not, and in what capacity. Accessibility creates opportunities for predatory individuals, and is something to avoid. Predatory criminals usually want and seek privacy in which to commit their crimes. By giving them this, you are creating opportunities for them. When you park your car, is it visible to other people, or is it in a place where there is little traffic, either vehicular or foot? Are the entrances to your property visible to passers-by on the street, or to neighbors, or do they afford potential criminals privacy? Forget good lighting, and well-lit places, unless they enjoy natural surveillance i.e. there are a number of eyes constantly or regularly on them. Our homes are perhaps the most private places we have – who do we let into them? Most sexual assaults against women happen in their homes or somebody else’s, by someone they know - forgot the “stranger jumping out from behind a tree” myth – such attacks happen, but they’re rare. Who we allow to share our privacy is important from a personal safety perspective. Affording somebody access to us, where they enjoy privacy, is not an opportunity we should create easily for people. In my very, very younger days I’ve fallen foul of the, “look, I just want to talk to you” ruse to get me to leave a populated place to go somewhere more private/less visible; and more than once, it was a setup. I’m also very wary of anyone who is constantly looking around – checking their privacy – to see if anyone is observing them; couple this with hands I can’t see, and I’m definitely making distance. This may seem paranoid, however I’ll back it up with some academia. There is a philosophical principle known as Occam’s Razor. It states that if there are two explanations for a situation, the simpler one is usually the correct one. To put it another way, the more assumptions you must make to get an explanation to work, the more likely it is to be the wrong one. If somebody is looking around as they approach you, or talk to you, what assumptions would you have to make that they don’t have harmful intent towards you? If somebody wants to move you from one place to another, or is trying to get you alone, what assumptions would you have to make that they don’t have harmful intent towards you? Another way to look at this, would be to ask what opportunities you create for somebody by letting them do these things, knowing that predators by and large desire privacy. Does using Occam’s Razor, mean you sometimes get it wrong? Yes, it’s a tool that “usually” gets it right, but not “always” however as Clint Eastwood said in “Dirty Harry”, “if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster”. I’ll accept usually, because always doesn’t exist. Criminals and predatory individuals require opportunities, and we need to look at and understand the opportunities we present to them. Accessibility and communication creates opportunity, as does privacy. If we can limit these three things, we naturally increase our personal safety, and reduce some of the vulnerabilities that put us at risk of becoming a victim.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=310 Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=309 A lot of people in the Krav Maga community knock traditional martial arts, such as Karate and Judo, without understanding the value of certain training methods and ideas that they contain. There is sometimes an “arrogance” pertaining to Krav Maga, that it’s got it 100% right, and the traditional arts are flawed and have got it wrong. I would argue that neither have got it completely right or wrong, and I include myself in this – If I am always striving to improve the way I and my students train, and find more effective training methods, drills etc. I endeavor to find the best way to balance training time, so that students get the right mix of aggression, technical, and skill building training; which is not to say that I’ve attained this (there’s never enough training time, to do everything that is needed to prepare a student for dealing with real-life violence). What I do believe though is that Krav Maga, as it comes out of the box, so to speak, doesn’t get it completely right for the civilian audience, and that the traditional martial arts can help us understand what we need to do to amend and develop what we teach to make it relevant. You can be teaching authentic Krav Maga in a way that just isn’t relevant. In traditional martial arts the “starting” position, more often than not sees you facing your opponent/adversary, while in Krav Maga the “starting” position, can see your aggressor initiate an attack from the rear, from the side, etc. A great deal of emphasis is placed on being able to respond/react when ambushed. This is certainly a strength of the system, and one that I appreciated from having worked in door security, where assaults did occur on a 360-degree basis. However, for most people, in most situations, an attacker will “start” their assault while facing you; that is the nature of the social violence that we are most likely to face. This is something that the traditional arts understood about fighting; on most occasions, it starts face-to-face. Martial arts historians may argue that this is because historically most fights were of a dueling nature, and this was the format of fighting that the warrior code prescribed. I would make the case that most male-on-male violence, is a duel of sorts, with its own format and rituals e.g. posturing, shouting, pushing, etc., before the first punches are thrown. This often doesn’t get acknowledged in Krav Maga classes, and a greater emphasis is placed on practicing “surprise” attacks from the rear than on dealing with an aggressor who is standing in front of you, screaming and shouting threats. Where Krav Maga gets it right, and the traditional martial arts often get it wrong (with regards to real world violence), is on the time and distance that is given, before the fight starts – in real-life encounters, your attacker will most likely be in your face, rather than a few feet away. This is also an important fact when considering how closely MMA, Boxing, Muay Thai fights resemble reality, as fighters are always separated from each other at the start of the fight. By no means am I saying we shouldn’t train to deal with attacks from the side or rear, however we want to best prepare ourselves for the realities that we face, and with limited time to train we should acknowledge that most of the time, we will have to deal with an assailant who is facing us. It is also worth noting, that some of the traditional attacks from the rear such as a rear-strangle, occur differently in a civilian setting to a military one, and when adapting a military system for the civilian population, the correct context needs to be explained to our students. In my experience, and those of others I’ve talked and trained with, rear strangle attacks are normally committed by a third party, pulling you off/away from a friend or associate you are interacting with i.e. the attack is more of a pull round the neck than an actual strangulation. For Krav Maga to be relevant, such contexts need to be explained, and trained. Again, I am not saying that lone attackers don’t initiate attacks this way, just that they’re not as common as we may be led to believe. In a lot of Krav Maga videos I see posted online, where students are punching pads, they are too far away to realize their full striking power; I see this a lot when students do bag-work, they simply don’t stand close enough to hit as hard as they could – their punches lack driving force. Whenever I mention board-breaking, somebody will quote the Bruce Lee line, “boards don’t fight back”. They don’t but, when you’re punching a pad, whether it’s a focus mitt or kick shield, it doesn’t fight back either. What board breaking teaches you, is to punch through the target, in a way that a focus mitt never will – it will also test if your fist is solid, and your wrist is properly aligned etc. If you asked a student to break a board, rather than hit a focus mitt, the first thing you’ll see them do is step closer; they want to make sure their strike is going through the target, rather than bouncing off it. The influence that boxing has had on Krav Maga, is a positive one, however the incorporation of pad-work, without incorporating the skills of the pad-man has meant that many students use of the pads leads to ineffective striking, that lacks driving power. Breaking boards also give you confidence in your ability to hit a hard surface and have your hand survive it. If you go to punch with all your force, against somebody’s face and your punch has only ever been tested on a pad, or when wearing a glove, how much confidence are you going to have in your strike? There is a very real risk that you will pull your punch and not deliver it with full force. If you’re able to punch through one or two pine boards, and have experienced what it is like to hit something that is solid, and doesn’t give (like a pad), I would argue that you’ll feel more confident in striking with maximum power. A good addition to any studio is a re-breakable board. It’s an excellent training tool for students who you see not punching through the target. You can get them with various levels of resistance, so you don’t have to expect a new student to punch through the equivalent of a one inch pine board, etc. The point is to demonstrate the range that you need to be at to effectively strike, and the need to extend the strike beyond the target. It is one of the best visual training aids to get this point across. It also gets students to realize that fights occur at much closer range than they may initially think. The problem I often have when I talk to other Krav Maga instructors about board breaking is that they’re worried about their student’s perception of it i.e. that board breaking is something that traditional martial arts do, and their students don’t want any part of that – they came to Krav Maga because it doesn’t look like a traditional martial art and they didn’t want to wear a Gi (the traditional white jacket and pants), etc. So what are we against? The image of the traditional martial arts, or their content? If a training method benefits and corrects a common mistake, it has value and should be incorporated. The traditional martial arts haven’t got it completely right, but they’ve got a lot of it right, and we would be wise to acknowledge this. At the same time, we should be constantly questioning where our Krav Maga training might not reflect reality, and in fact may not be relevant. Too many people fall foul of assuming that because what they are training is called Krav Maga, that it is by definition relevant and realistic, and looking at the Karate School across the road assume because they are wearing a white jacket and pants they are missing the point. We should always be looking at our own training, and looking at how and where it can be improved – and that may well mean taking some lessons from the traditional martial arts.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=309 Sun, 15 Jan 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=308 It is easy to fall into the trap of overthinking a situation. It is also easy to fall into the trap, of believing that more information about something will help you reach the best decision. If you are dealing with one or more aggressive individuals, you won’t have the time to gather more information about the situation – however, many people try to do just this. I have seen people trying to process what is happening to them, and gain a complete understanding of it, when they are dealing with a person who is only moments away from punching them in the face. Asking “why” won’t help you in this situation. There is really only one relevant piece of information when somebody is in your face, screaming and shouting, and that is, there is a person in your face screaming and shouting; until you deal with that immediate problem there is no point in asking “why” they are behaving this way. People will sometimes confuse de-escalation and conflict resolution, mixing the two up; de-escalation is what you do to get the person into an emotional state where you can then attempt to resolve the conflict – only when they have been removed from their volatile emotional state can the “why” of the situation be examined. Children are often very good at recognizing the important factors in a situation and responding to them. On the 26th December 2004 a 9.3 magnitude earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean. The earthquake triggered a number of tsunamis, along the coasts of almost all of the landmasses bordering the Ocean; somewhere between 230,000 and 280,000 people in 14 different countries were killed. Holidaymakers on a beach in Thailand, watched as the sea suddenly retreated. Most stood mesmerized, trying to work out what had caused this phenomena. An 8 year old girl came to a quick and startling realization; if that amount of water moved away so fast, there was a good chance it would come back at equal speed, and being in front of it wasn’t a good place to be. In that moment, she hadn’t stopped to ask the “why” of the situation, she’d instinctually understood what was the only relevant piece of information to her, and she knew she had to act on it. When she told her parents they should move off the beach because the water would be coming back at force, they didn’t question her reasoning; once revealed to them, it made absolute sense – they’d just got caught up in asking to many “whys” about what was happening, rather than considering the possible consequences of it. Her family returned to their hotel, and went to the fifth floor, and from there, they watched the sea rush back in. When I was six or seven, I don’t remember understanding much about firearms. I guess I must have known that they need to be reloaded, etc., but I don’t think that really affected my and my friends’ play – I just remember us all running around pointing two fingers at each other and repeatedly shouting “bang” over and over again (I also don’t ever remember my fingers jamming). On December 14th 2012, Adam Lanza walked into the Sandy Hook Elementary school and started shooting. There were many heroic moments performed by staff members, including the School Janitor, Rick Thorne, who ran through the hallways alerting people that there was a shooter and to evacuate the building; often people who practice martial arts and self-defense think that the way they can be most effective in a situation, is to use their skills and engage with an attacker – it may be that simply informing people of a danger/threat is the best way to be effective and save the most lives. At some point in the shooting, Adam Lanza, needed to reload his rifle. In that moment the shooting stopped. A 7-year old child, urged five of his classmates that this was the time to move from their hiding place and evacuate the building. All six survived, what is still the deadliest school shooting in US history (26 lives taken, not including Lanza who committed suicide). Too much information can cause us to hesitate e.g. if we have a good working knowledge of firearms, we can come up with a multitude of reasons why a shooter may stop shooting, and we might start to reason the possibilities and consequences of each one. That 7-year old knew one thing. If the shooter had plenty of targets and wasn’t shooting, it was because he couldn’t, and that’s a good time to try and get out of there. Simplified Thinking in action. Children are also some of the most effective survivors of wilderness disasters, and cope with them better than adults. Up to a certain age, children don’t understand that the world continues beyond the horizon; what they see is what there is. Adults, however, understand that the world continues, and when lost, believe that there may be “information” beyond what they can see e.g. if they can keep moving forward, backwards etc. they’ll come across a landmark that they can use to orientate themselves with, or get to a vantage point that will allow them to see how to get back on track, etc. This search for “new” information, will often see adults rush forward, exhausting themselves. Children, on the other hand, only have the information available to them and so use that. Most adults who get lost in the wilderness exhaust themselves in their panic for information, whereas children just respond to their immediate situation; they eat when they’re hungry, sleep when they’re tired, etc. When we are dealing with the immediacy of aggression and violence, we need to think more like children – I refer to this as Simplified Thinking (it’s not simplistic, just simple). The information we have is what we should work with, and not overthink the situation; we simply don’t have the time for that. We should take the first effective solution available to us – if it’s a tsunami, get to high ground, if it’s an active shooter situation, when the shooting stops we should look to evacuate, etc. If we get caught up asking ourselves the “what ifs” of a situation, then they will overtake us. Identify the relevant information and use it to respond.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=308 Mon, 09 Jan 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=307 I’ve written about improvised weapons before, explaining the categorization system that was taught to me by Avi Moyal of the IKMF (International Krav Maga Federation), and the differences between “weapons of carry” (things that you have about your person) and “weapons of opportunity” (things in the environment), etc. I haven’t, however, written much about “drilling” the use of said weapons. Before I go into some of the drills I have used, and teach, it is important to understand what we mean by “improvised”, as there seems to be a level of confusion around this. If you teach somebody how to fight with a chair (and there are many merits to this), you are not really teaching somebody to improvise a weapon, you are instructing them on how to use a chair as a weapon. This may seem a subtle difference/distinction, but it is an important one: if a chair isn’t available in their environment, the skill they have learnt isn’t applicable. If they are taught to improvise, they should be able to use everything in the environment as a weapon of some sort. That is not to say there isn’t value to teaching people how to use specific objects as weapons, but recognizing other objects as weapons is what improvisation truly is. Another important point to bear in mind is that if you don’t know how to use a stick or baton, you won’t magically acquire this skill, when you recognize that an umbrella or similar object resembles a stick/baton, and could be used as such. The idea of an improvised weapon, can sometimes overtake the fact that we don’t know how to effectively use the object. The weapon could even be a hindrance to us if we must think about its use, before defending ourselves with it. This is why I believe it is important to train in the basic use of knife and stick, to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both weapons e.g. a stick/baton when swung, really only delivers power in the last third of its length, unless it is extremely heavy. Trying to swing an umbrella, or similar, at somebody who is charging you down is probably not the best use of it, as hitting a fast-moving target in exactly the right spot when under stress and duress, without having trained this skill using a baton, is probably not going to be successful. Anyone who has drilled stick versus knife, will soon be aware of the limitations of a baton against a determined attacker intent on stabbing you. The last thing you want to do in a real-life confrontation is pick something up that you have no skill in using (this is the same when you disarm somebody of a weapon). It should also be noted that you need to first possess the intent to use the weapon you’ve chosen e.g. could you smash a bottle, and then stab and grind it into somebody’s face, etc. In my experience, instructors often overrate their student’s ability to use extreme violence – and this needs to be trained. If a student is unable/unwilling to use a bottle in this fashion, they may be better (and there are also other good reasons for this) to not smash it, but to use it as an impact weapon. We need to be realistic in what we can expect ourselves and our students to do – if you only teach your students to tap and rack after disarming a firearm, you are directing them to behave/act in a way they may not be able to perform i.e. are they comfortable with the idea of using the firearm to take a life, if their attacker moves/comes towards them? Don’t fall into the trap of always training that a fight stops when a weapon is disarmed. If a student lacks the skills and intent to use a weapon, whether improvised or not, then it may in fact prove a hindrance to their survival. The most effective way I’ve found to train students in improvised weapons is to teach them the basic categorization system, and then give them a variety of objects to use, discussing the relative merits afterwards. Some of the “weapons” that always spark a good discussion are water bottles. Most of my students use/have them, and they come in a variety of sizes and materials, which can determine their use. Often the first thing a person will do, is pick it up and use it as an extension of their hammer-fist. If you then give them a kick shield or similar to strike into, they find that they can’t properly hold onto it when they start to try and strike with force – they can with two hands, but that then restricts their ability when they are dealing with a dynamic attacker(s); they will need their other hand to control range and set up their strikes. Often, they will find that using it as an extension of a palm heel strike, held and delivered forward - using the side, rather than the bottom, of the bottle as the striking surface - is more effective e.g. they can deliver more power, and their strike is harder to block, etc. Training this way gives them a more personalized approach to improvised weapons e.g. not everybody’s hand is the same size or their grip strength equal, etc. Once they have an appreciation of the different uses and strengths of various objects, they must learn to recognize them in their everyday environments, and visualize using them. I am writing this in a Starbucks; within easy reach, there are chairs that can be used as shields (further away there are high stools that would have a greater reach), tables that can form an environmental advantage when used as a barrier (as well as striking surfaces), hot coffee that can be thrown, a glass bottle that would make a solid striking unit, or could be smashed, etc. These are my weapons of opportunity. I also have on me coins that could be thrown, keys that could be thrown – one that I could cut/slash with – and a mobile phone that when held would focus the power of a hammer-fist strike, etc. I then go through the process of visualizing an incident, in which these different tools are used. Repeating this exercise, your eyes will soon be naturally drawn to objects, the moment you enter a room, rather than having to consciously search for them. Being able to improvise a weapon out of the objects around us is a skill that we and the higher-functioning primates share – it’s one of the things which has ensured our survival, and is a very “human” way to fight. However, because we have become so out of touch with violence in our daily lives, we now need to rediscover and retrain these skills.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=307 Mon, 02 Jan 2017 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=306 I was recently asked to write an article on physical conditioning for Krav Maga; and with people beginning to think about making New Year’s resolutions, which usually include some health/fitness goals, etc., this is perhaps the best time of year to be writing such an article. I believe that it is necessary to have two types of fitness, which are in fact inter-related: you need to have a certain level/type of fitness that allows you to take part in classes without succumbing to exhaustion, and another type/level that allows you to survive a real-life violent confrontation. The two are of course similar, however they are not the same; one must allow you to complete an hour-long class, and the other to survive 5-15 seconds (the average length of a physical encounter), and in certain cases longer if it’s a prolonged ordeal – your fitness in such a case should reflect all the “dimensions” that such longer fights tend to, and may be, composed of e.g. grappling and ground, etc. One of the best things that distance running taught me (as well as getting me a solid cardio base), was how to regulate and set a rhythm for my breathing rate. This is an extremely useful skill to have when you start to grapple and/or go to ground. If you consider the amount of physical work that you are doing in such situations – moving another person’s resisting body – even when employing leverage, etc., it is still significant. Preventing yourself from becoming exhausted, through controlled breathing, gives you a physical edge over your assailant, who is likely to be panting and exhaling with little or no control. Maintaining an aerobic, rather than anaerobic, breathing rate will ensure that you don’t build up an oxygen debt, which would end up crippling you. I have personally found that putting a 3-5 mile run somewhere into your fitness program helps accomplish this. It’s also a good foundation on which to build and develop your other energy systems. This type of fitness, will also help you in regular classes and training. If you find your normal classes generally over-exhausting, to the point where you spend more time catching your breath than you do learning and practicing/training, then you will not be able to get the most out of each training session. There are of course moments and times in a class, where the point of the training is to tire and exhaust, however if you’re continually exhausted when you take a class, you need to address your general fitness level, and/or control your breathing so that you maintain an aerobic rate throughout, and can concentrate on learning and practicing technique, as well as improving skills and abilities. This can also be a problem created by instructors where they feel/believe that a class should be perpetually exhausting for the students, which gives students an aerobic high afterwards, along with the sensation of training hard etc. However, being tired is not a good state in which to learn/practice techniques or to try to improve/work on skills, such as controlling range, developing striking power, improving movement, etc. A Krav Maga class should have elements of a work-out and help improve general fitness, but the overall goal of a class should be to develop and improve fighting/survival abilities. In most physical altercations I have been involved in, or witnessed, everything is over within about 15 seconds. Training to be able to work at maximum intensity for this period of time, recover quickly, and then work again at this rate for this duration, and repeat, is the type of fitness you are generally looking for. When I trained competitive Judo, we used to train for 5 minutes of sustained high intensity, with a 10 second break, followed by another 5 minutes, another 10 second break, with a further 5 minutes. The idea was that you might take the full 5 minutes (the length of a match) to win your contest, and then have the next two fighters end their bout immediately, and be called back to fight again, etc. In short, if you were unlucky enough to see a full contest go this way, you may have to fight for 15 minutes in a row – unlikely, but something we prepared for. Unfortunately, real-life confrontations aren’t as predictable, however training in a similar manner for 15 seconds of maximum output will allow you to perform this way. One of the best ways I have found to develop this intensity is hill sprints. Find a hill that takes you 15 seconds to sprint, and run it as fast as you can. After sprinting it, jog down, and repeat – not sophisticated but very effective. I have generally found that combining this type of training with running distances of 3-5 miles at medium intensity got me into the best shape. I have also found that lifting weights has helped my overall fitness, especially when it comes to working explosively for short periods of time. For me, the Power Clean, is one of the best exercises to develop composite overall explosive strength. Not only does it improve your strength and power, it teaches you how to chain muscle groups together, which is extremely useful in educating the body as to how to perform a similar action when punching. Just like a Power Clean, a punch starts at the ground, and works its way through the muscle groups. In recent years, I have combined Power Cleans with lifting Atlas Stones, to both vary my workouts, and put emphasis on the development of different muscle groups. I have found that I have benefited most from these exercises when I perform them as either single individual lifts, or in sets of 4; lifting heavy when I do. When this is combined with pad and bag work there is little risk of becoming “heavy” or “muscle bound”.         In my younger days, I used to use extremely complex workout routines, with on days and off days, splitting muscle groups, weights and running, etc. As I’ve become better educated and trained, I have recognized that general fatigue of the nervous system is the biggest inhibitor of training. This has led to me training on the days when I feel I have the energy to train, and resting when I don’t. This does take a level of discipline, and the need to resist the tug of laziness, however it has resulted in me being able to train injury free. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=306 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=305 I’ve written about Synchronizations of Movement before, however I want to put these pre-violence indicators into the context of victim selection and being targeted for surveillance (themselves pre-violence indicators that can help us predict violence). This week, CCTV footage of a woman being kicked down a flight of stairs in a Berlin subway started to do the rounds on social media (N.B. the man responsible for the attack has now been identified), and there are several personal safety and self-protection lessons that can be learnt from this. This article is not attempting to blame the victim in any way, but to illustrate those of her actions and behaviors that helped facilitate the assault. Victims are not selected at random, and violent crime is not purely opportunistic. When making a risk assessment, whether personal or professional, one of the areas I must look at and consider are the vulnerabilities that exist to whatever asset I am trying to assess, and ultimately protect; an asset could be myself, somebody I am protecting, a building and its contents I am looking after, etc. Opportunities are periods of time, moments when/where vulnerabilities can be exploited, however opportunities don’t exist unless there are prior vulnerabilities. At first glance, this may seem a matter of semantics, however there is an important difference between the two. If there are no vulnerabilities, there are no opportunities – and no risk. The violent criminal in the video was looking for opportunities to cause harm to someone, and the reason he chose this individual was because she had several vulnerabilities that he could exploit. One was her clothing. Her hood was up, both obscuring her vision and her hearing. Even by turning her head, her large and expansive hood, would have prevented her from looking behind her. Her attacker understood that he could gain access to her without her being aware of his presence. A 1981 study by Grayson and Stein, where they showed film of people walking along a New York street, to convicted felons and asked them to select potential victims, revealed that people walking with their heads towards the ground were much more likely to be selected than those looking ahead. None of the felons interviewed consciously recognized this vulnerability, and verbalized it, they simply knew – like the attacker – that if a person’s sight lines will not pick them up as they approach/synchronize their movements to them, then they will have a much easier time making an assault (attackers will always try to deny you time and distance to react and respond). If the woman who was targeted had pulled her hood down whilst she was in the subway, she would have gone some way to hardening herself as a target – we know that subways attract different types of criminals due to the large number of potential victims; whilst it may be impractical to suggest that people walk around in the winter time without wearing a hood to keep them warm, when we enter known locations that criminals select for their crimes, we may want to take them down – or perhaps choose headgear that doesn’t obscure our eyes and ears so greatly. The fact that she had her hands in her pockets – again it may be safer to wear gloves, than walk around with our hands in our pockets – also made her vulnerable to this type of attack. In the video, you can see her attacker hold on to the hand rail as he kicked her. He understood, that the environment compromised a person’s stability (made them vulnerable), and this was something that he could exploit. Within an environment, an assailant/criminal, will chose or exploit a location, that compromises our ability to respond. I personally, never stand on an escalator, I walk it, holding on to the hand rail. Being stationary on a platform where there is only just enough room to stand, makes you vulnerable, as you have no room to physically respond to any threat or danger e.g. if a person puts a knife in your back on an escalator, think about how your “traditional” knife controls and disarms would work (have you even considered that this is an environment where you may have to physically defend yourself, and do you have a plan for doing so? The woman who was targeted had probably never thought about the possibility of being assaulted as she walked down a flight of stairs). Walking in a straight line, made it very easy for her attacker to synchronize his movement to hers. Imagine if instead of walking straight down the stairs, she walked down them diagonally from right to left, and then changed her movement back to right as she descended. How difficult would it have been for her assailant to have followed her and correlated his movement to hers? He’d been drinking (evidenced by the bottle he had in his hand, and the one that fell out of his pocket), and may well have needed to hold on to the hand-rail to stay upright as he kicked. Trying to launch an attack on somebody whose direction is not predictable and changes complicates matters; it also gives the observant person a chance to see who is carrying out surveillance on them, and moving into a position where they can make an assault (synchronizing their movement). One of our primary senses that our fear system utilizes is sound. Historically, when our predators were more likely to be wild animals that would ambush us, we would more likely hear the danger before we saw it – this is why we often flinch and freeze when we are startled by loud noises. Her attacker was part of a group who had been and were drinking – groups of drunk men, make noise. It maybe that she didn’t hear them, or heard them and tried to ignore the potential threat/danger, discounting it, hoping/believing that if she hurried away they’d leave her alone (staying in a state of denial and not acknowledging potential threats, isn’t just a vulnerability, it’s something that stops us even making a risk assessment of our situation). It may seem paranoid to “always” walk down a flight of stairs diagonally, changing direction, but in the presence of a group of drunk, young men who are moving behind you, this may be the time that you want to consider putting such a preventative measure in place. I know some people who will make the argument of “why should you have to do this”, or that “you shouldn’t do anything which lets a potential assailant know that you have identified them and are making a response because of them”, etc., however these thoughts and ideas are motivated by ego, and not by survival. If the woman’s hood had been down, her adrenal system would have been alerted to the sound of her attacker’s footsteps behind her. In 1884, William James changed the way we understand the process of fear, and how we are alerted to danger. He postulated that you see a bear, you start running, and because you are running you realize that you’re afraid – this was contrary to the established view, at the time, that you saw a bear, became afraid, and then ran as a result of understanding the danger. As her attacker broke away from the group he was with, sped up, and synchronized his movement with hers, the woman’s fear system should have recognized the movement as containing harmful intent, and started to adrenalize her; at that moment, she would have become conscious of the threat, and could have done something about it e.g. turned round, reached for the handrail, changed her direction, etc. - as long as she accepted that her adrenalized/emotional state was telling her to act. Two things would have needed to happen for this to have worked as nature intended: 1. She would have needed to be able to hear the footsteps (something her hood, earphones or anything else that covered her ears would have prevented her from doing),  2. She would have needed to accept that becoming adrenalized meant there was danger in the environment. Unfortunately, many people deny and discount what becoming adrenalized means, and try and explain away the possible reasons why their emotional state has changed. If you could never imagine and accept that somebody might attack you in a relatively populated place, on a stairway, accepting what your emotions are telling you will be difficult, even if your auditory senses pick up the movement. The clearest warning sign that you will have in the moment, that somebody means to harm you or somebody else (if you’re working close protection), is their movement – even a shooter who can cause harm at distance needs to move to a position where they can make their shot. Be interested in who around you, has interest in you – the drunken group may have selected the target together, talking and laughing about her, on the subway or as they walked behind her – and especially when they change their movement to match yours; her attacker sped up to catch up with her. All your senses are required for this to happen, along with a curiosity about what is happening in your environment.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=305 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=304 One of the lectures I remember most clearly from my university days, was by a professor who was explaining how the human brain operates, if you were to view it as a computer e.g. what algorithms, sorts etc. it uses to manage information. The reason I remember it so vividly, is because I came away from it going, “Is that it?” I was sorely disappointed that the actual underlying operations that the brain uses to manage the information it stores and recalls was basically very simple – almost simplistic. Obviously, the inner workings are more complex than this, but at the crudest level, the brain uses categories and scripts to manage its information; what it knows is labeled into a category for recall, and may have a script of behaviors/actions attached to it. The brain is basically a giant filing cabinet. Sometimes the categories (or drawers of the cabinet) get confused and/or things get incorrectly filed. This can be seen when people develop a phobia. If a person has a phobia of snakes, they will start to identify and react to things such as electrical cables, pieces of rope, etc. - as snakes. These things bear a close enough resemblance to a snake, that they get categorized as being snakes. We also develop and have pre-written scripts that inform us as to how we should act and behave in certain situations; these could be referred to as rituals. When we are involved in non-predatory aggressive conflicts, we by default, follow these scripts or rituals – no differently to any other species; we shout, we posture, we push and shove, a punch gets thrown, a person goes down, etc. In last week’s blog article, I talked about the differences between fear and anxiety; fear being a fear of the known, and anxiety being the fear of the unknown. One of the reasons we are so uncomfortable with anxiety is that we can’t categorize what is unknown, or apply a familiar script to it. Our brain’s computer can’t handle these exceptions well – in fact, we will often try to imagine what it is, or come up with a reason for what is causing us to be anxious, so that it can be filed away neatly. Our emotional state is satisfied regardless of whether the categorization is correct or not, it just needs everything to be put in a drawer. We may turn the reasons for anxiety into a known fear, because at least we can manage that, and/or apply a script to it, even if the outcome envisaged is not a positive one for us e.g. we will willingly make a bad choice if that allows us to understand/categorize the situation we are in. One of the most effective doormen/bouncers I knew, like most effective security personnel, hardly ever had to use physical force. He also never said much during a verbal altercation, and ended disputes and arguments that had every appearance of turning nasty, very quickly. He had a simple trick for unsettling aggressive people which was to smile warmly at them – an action/behavior that is hard to categorize in an aggressive altercation, and one that doesn’t have any familiar scripts associated with it. His response to aggression caused anxiety, and people don’t like to be anxious. They may be comfortable managing their fear, but the unknown makes them feel extremely uncomfortable, and this leaves them floundering. If he had responded aggressively, posturing back, to their posturing, they would have been on familiar territory – they may have felt fear, but it would be known, understood and could be managed. The unknown is different, it is unsettling, it causes doubt and in extreme cases, panic. If you can unnerve a person, the fight is already over. Now, I’m not saying that smiling at an aggressor is a solution that can be rolled out in every instance, and it takes a certain personality to pull it off convincingly i.e. it must be a genuine smile, not a put-on one. When we are looking at emotional interpretations of body language and behavior, fakers are easily spotted, however there are other ways to unsettle and unnerve aggressors, which are easier to make work than smiling. The goal here is to make an unfamiliar/unknown response, that can’t be categorized and processed, and/or misdirects the aggressor to interpret it in a way that they are familiar with. I often hear people talk about fighting stances. Fighting stances don’t exist in real-life confrontations; fights are dynamic things, that should involve movement – you should be striking, moving, blocking, etc., not standing stationary with your hands up; that just lets your aggressor know what you are up to, and gives them a piece of information they can categorize (clenching your fists and holding your arms up is familiar to them). However, most fights and conflicts are preceded by some form of verbal exchange (the Pre-Conflict Phase of the fight), and the stance you adopt in this phase can be used to unsettle your aggressor, and in some cases, cause them to walk away. An aggressor involved in a verbal confrontation will expect you to either act submissively or posture back to them – responses that follow an understood script and can be easily categorized. Not responding in either of these ways, can unsettle an aggressor causing them anxiety (fear of the unknown). If you stand upright and tall with a straight back you are posturing, however if you put your hands out in front of you with the palms loosely facing your attacker, your hand gesture is submissive i.e. this is the international body language for, “I don’t want any trouble”. When an aggressor meets your eyes, and is met with this confident/posturing but submissive stance, they must try and put this information into a compartment, and find an associated script to interpret your actions/behaviors. When they can’t do this, they will be unsettled and anxious. If in this moment you ask them, “what can I do to sort this out?” you are now giving them a “familiar” script for them to interpret – that of the helpful person looking to assist them in finding a solution to their situation. They are likely to trade the unknown, for the known, and treat your question as a life-line to help them from experiencing the anxiety they are currently feeling. Is this approach guaranteed? Of course not. There are individuals who may react to uncertainty by fast forwarding themselves towards physical violence, but in truth, such individuals usually find themselves heading there anyway, regardless of how you act/behave. Even if unsettling an aggressor, doesn’t allow you the chance to de-escalate, a hesitant and unsure attacker is easier to deal with than a decisive and committed one. Unsettling somebody is a set up for de-escalating the situation, and not an end solution.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=304 Mon, 12 Dec 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=303 I am a big believer in people making personal risk assessments for themselves, and where appropriate, for their families. I have written before about what risk is: the intersection between assets (things, persons you want to protect), threats (those things which could harm your assets), and vulnerabilities (those things which a threat could exploit, inadvertently or deliberately, to harm an asset). One of the reasons I believe it is important to make such assessments – and regularly update them – is that it forces you to consider the potential threats your assets face (you are also an asset), which in turn reduces anxiety. Anxiety and fear, are often talked about as if they are the same thing, however they are not, and it is important from a personal safety and self-protection standpoint to understand the differences. The easiest way to understand the differences between the two is to define fear, as the fear of the known, and anxiety as fear of the unknown. From a practical standpoint, you would be anxious walking into a bad neighborhood, late at night, where you know that you’re potentially in danger, but you don’t know exactly what the danger is, or what form it will take; it is unknown and unforeseeable. Anxiety is a type of fear that we don’t cope well with, and that we’ll do almost anything to avoid, even making potentially bad choices in the process e.g. if a car pulled up to us as we were walking through that neighborhood, and a friendly voice told us to get in quickly because we’re in danger, there’s a good chance that we might do this, as this known fear (getting into a car with a stranger), trumps the unknown fear(s) in our situation/environment. We will trade anxiety for fear, even when we consciously know it is to our detriment. By making risk assessments – even dynamic ones, when we are in a situation – we are forced to acknowledge the dangers and threats that we face; this is how to turn anxiety into fear, and fear is good because that is something we can work with. Many people become confused when a woman who has been in a physically abusive relationship, ends up with another abusive partner, then another, and another, etc. Whilst there are certainly character traits and behaviors that certain people give off, which abusers are quick to pick up on, it is also true that women (and men) who have been in abusive relationships, subconsciously and emotionally seek such relationships in the future, because they are familiar with how they work and operate – they know what to expect. To be in a different type of relationship, would/could cause anxiety e.g. how are they expected to behave and act, or respond in certain situations, etc. Human beings are creatures who crave familiarity, we are not good with change, and we seek to avoid it, even when that change is for the better. Change takes us into the unknown, and in the unknown exist “fears” that we don’t know how to control and manage. This week I was on an Active Shooter/Killer course put on by A.L.I.C.E. (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate). There are many similar courses, such as “Run, Hide, Fight”, which are trying to move schools – and other institutions – away from the historical concept of the “traditional” lockdown. In a traditional lockdown, when a rampage or spree killer enters the building, the response is to lock the doors (if possible) and hide under tables, etc., and wait for Law Enforcement to arrive and deal with the killer. This is an outdated and ineffective method for several reasons, one being that most active shooter incidents don’t last longer than 5 minutes (there are of course exceptions), and it usually takes law enforcement 8 to 10 minutes before they are on site and able to initiate a response i.e. it’s all over before they begin. The current thinking is to empower individuals to choose different survival strategies and solutions, such as running/evacuating, barricading rooms and physically countering the killer if there is no other option. In light of all the statistics and facts, as well as taking into account our natural responses to danger (freeze, flight or fight), sitting under a desk waiting for law enforcement to turn up and save the day, is not a good solution. The problem is that it is a familiar one, and people/institutions/organizations are unwilling to move away from it. When you make a risk assessment, you look directly at the threats you face, and consider the vulnerabilities, that these threats could take advantage of, to cause harm to your assets. If you are a school principal, one of your assets is your student body, the individuals who attend your institution. A potential threat is an active shooter/killer. The issue is that most people, in considering the risk of such an incident, look first at familiar and known solutions (such as law enforcement turning up and dealing with it), to deal with their anxiety over it, i.e. reduce it to a fear, rather than first considering their vulnerabilities e.g. they don’t have looking doors, that their doors could easily be breached with a single round, etc. Once you consider each vulnerability that a threat could take advantage of, you start to turn your general anxieties into specific fears, and this is a much more productive means of reducing risk, than running ahead and bypassing this step in order to get to the solutions (risk is the intersection of assets, threats and vulnerabilities – you reduce your vulnerabilities, you lower your risk). When we recognize that anxiety and fear are not the same thing, and that by making risk assessments, we can turn the unknown into the known, we not only make ourselves safer, but give ourselves the ability to manage and control our fear emotion. The only way to deal with anxiety, is to turn the unknown into the known, and this means ascertaining and managing risk. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=303 Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=302 One of the most neglected areas of reality-based self-defense training (including Krav Maga) is breathing. It is something the combat sports and traditional martial arts emphasize a lot, but is somehow seen as irrelevant or a low priority when it comes to dealing with real-life violence. I have heard more than one Krav Maga instructor state that because real-life confrontations only last a few seconds there is little reason to spend any time training breathing – unfortunately this idea that real-life fights only last a few seconds, fails to take into account all the time spent in the pre-conflict phase, where an assailant will argue, posture, hurl abuse, etc., before launching a physical assault – if you don’t take your breathing into account, you may find yourself exhausted before the first punch is thrown. If your Krav Maga training only involves or emphasizes sneak attacks, and surprise assaults, your training won’t reflect reality; most violence against both men and women, starts face-to-face, and is preceded by some form of verbal exchange. The actual physical component of the assault may be over quickly, but the entire confrontation will last much longer. Because of this, controlling your breathing is an essential skill to have. If you want to get a good idea of what your breathing may look like in a real-life confrontation, hold your breath for as long as you can and then start doing burpees. About 5 burpees in, you’ll feel what it’s like to have been in a fight for a couple of seconds. If you want to add some real stress and duress to the drill, have a partner strangle you till your lungs are almost empty and then do your burpees. If you want to go one step further, have your partner strangle you, then release the pressure so that you can breathe out (something you must do before you breathe in – this is a good way to improve the effectiveness of a strangulation), and then reapply it before you can take a breath in – then do your burpees (for safety, make sure your partner has experience of performing safe strangulations, and is prepared to release when you tap). Whichever way you drill this it sucks, and you’ll feel exhausted and gassed. This is what real-life will feel like, if you don’t learn how to regulate your breathing. Whenever I put a new student into a stressful situation where they feel under pressure, the first thing I notice that they do is to hold their breath. This is replicated in real-life incidents, when two untrained individuals start to throw punches at each other; it lasts all of 3 seconds, before they clinch up, and hold on to each other exhausted. They’ve only been exerting themselves for a few seconds and yet they’re physically spent, and gasping for air, just because they didn’t breathe whilst they were working. It is essential that we don’t find ourselves replicating this. If you’ve worked in the security industry, law enforcement, or the military, it is likely that you have been introduced to “Tactical Breathing”, as a means of managing high stress and emotion. When people find themselves under duress, one of two things tends to happen: they stop breathing or they hyperventilate. Tactical Breathing aims to counter these two extremes by having the individual regulate their breathing, by breathing in for a regular count, holding their breath for a regular count, and exhaling over a regular count e.g. you breathe in for 2 seconds, hold for 2 seconds, and breathe out for 2 seconds. From my own personal experiences, Tactical Breathing is the closest thing I have found as a magic bullet, for alleviating panic and calming the nerves. Fear can be overwhelming, and adrenaline can take over our actions/behaviors to our detriment. Regular breathing, regulates our heart-rate, and the blood flow around our bodies – the blood which carries both oxygen and adrenaline to our muscles. Tactical Breathing is something we should initiate when we enter the Conflict Aware phase on the Timeline of Violence (when we first become aware of the presence of danger in our environment), and continue during the Pre-Conflict Phase (when you understand that you are the target of danger/violence), where possible. Once you are involved in the conflict/fight itself you need a different type of breathing. I have practiced different types of Karate, which use different methods of breathing. I have practiced styles from the Shurite school, which emphasize natural breathing (you just breathe normally, regardless of the movements you make), and styles such as Goju-Ryu, where breathing and movement are tied directly together. Whilst I prefer “natural breathing” I have found it very difficult to teach – students seem to find and adopt it through practice rather than instruction. It is easier to teach breathing when it is tied to movement, such as breathing out when you punch/strike. The issue comes when you have larger, multi-phased movements, which don’t lend themselves to a rhythmic inhalation and exhalation. As a Judoka (somebody who practices Judo), throws are often created by opportunity rather than just intent, and so trying to tie breathing to a throw, which came about through opportunity is pretty much impossible; you have to breathe to keep your brain and muscles oxygenated, in preparation for the throw, rather than regulate it to the phases of the throw. This though doesn’t come naturally, it comes through practice. One of the best ways to sort this type of breathing out and get it to be “natural” is to spar, and you must do different types of “sparring”. I remember the first time I rolled with a BJJ guy – we started on the floor. I believed that within seconds I’d have him wrapped up and pinned down. My style of Judo was pretty powerful and extremely strong, and I thought that it would be seconds before I had him immobilized in a good scarf hold. Thirty seconds in I was done; completely wiped. After taking a breather, I employed exactly the same tactics, to exactly the same result. I’d never done ground-work from starting on the floor, it’d always been as a continuation from a throw, or after being thrown. To train your breathing effectively, you must spar in different ways. I’ll be the first to admit that sparring (in any form) doesn’t resemble reality, but it’s an excellent way to teach you to breathe naturally. You may at first have to apply some conscious processes to this, such as trying to set your breathing to a regular aerobic pattern, as if you’re going for a run, etc. This is what got my groundwork breathing to a good place when I rolled with the BJJ guys; I imagined I was on a run, and set a steady, regular breathing rate, rather than applying the explosive/steam-roller breathing that I used against Judoka. Next time you train, consider the amount of physical work you accomplished, against your level of exhaustion. If the two don’t marry/add up i.e. you’re effectively wrecked after what was really only a minor exertion, you probably need to work on your breathing.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=302 Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=301 Most of us, when we see an injustice, want to speak out or do something about it. For practicing martial artists and self-defense practitioners, when we see or hear about somebody being bullied, attacked or assaulted, we want to intervene – or at the least wish we could. I have spent a good number of years working bar/pub security, where I’ve had to intervene in violent altercations, where the violence/aggression was primarily directed at others, rather than myself. For those who believe they would/should defend others who are being assaulted, I would like to share some of my thoughts and experiences, not to dissuade you from acting, but to give you an idea of the consequences/results of your actions so that you are better prepared if you do decide to intervene. Real-life violence has no definite or prescribed outcomes; and a situation you intervene in may not go as you expect it to. I was once approached by somebody who wanted to start organizing aid work in a certain African state, and wanted to involve me in training those who’d be working for his organization. At the time, as it is now, there was no American embassy in the country, and only one or two military complexes stationed there, purely to have a presence, rather than exert influence. Within the first few minutes of the meeting it was clear that despite having the financial means to put his plans into action, he had little clue about the environment he and his organization would be working in, and the dangers that they’d face. More importantly, he didn’t understand how his work and his mere presence in the region could increase the danger to those he was trying to help. I was/am no expert in that particular country, however I’ve worked with several people who knew the region, and anyone or community receiving aid from an external organization was punished for doing so. This individual had very genuine and noble aims, however they weren’t able to see how they might make a bad situation worse, rather than better. This is a hard lesson for us to learn and accept: when we try to help others, we may in fact make things worse. I would add, that this doesn’t mean we always shouldn’t - just that we should expect and prepare for the worst. You may intervene in a mugging to protect somebody who is receiving a beating as they resist, only to have the mugger who is now outnumbered, feel threatened and see the need to pull a firearm to “defend” themselves, etc. You should also assume that others will come to your assailant’s assistance, rather than your own i.e. they’re not acting alone. Your intervention could escalate and make the situation worse, and you need to accept this potential outcome and be ready (and able) to deal with it. I’m not trying to put a headful of doubts into anyone’s mind, however it is important to recognize what can happen as a result of your actions and be prepared for it. The victim may not want or be grateful for your help. I have intervened on the behalf of many people who were receiving a beating, and not received the thanks that I thought I deserved. This was especially true when I would break up a violent confrontation where a man was beating up a woman, who turned out to be their partner or girlfriend. As soon as I pulled the attacker off her, I became the common enemy – she was also well aware that she’d later be blamed for me and my colleagues making her partner look weak, insignificant and unable to handle himself, etc. - all common conditions that challenge the male ego. Although this intervention might have saved her from a beating now, it may have set her up for a much greater beating later. I’ve had more women turn on me than thanked me by a large percentage. When I was younger, this used to offend me, now I get it. There are five situational factors concerning violence, and the two most important ones are: relationship, and location. Oftentimes we look at an assault and conclude that this was an assault on a train, this was an assault in a park, this was an assault on a street, etc. We often forget to ask, if this was an assault by a stranger, an assault by a family member, an assault by a friend, a colleague, etc. It is simplistic to assume that all assaults are committed by strangers, and that there are no long-term consequences for the victim when you intervene. Don’t let this deter you from involving yourself, but be aware of it. Intervention rarely comes with thanks. Do you know how to protect others? Intervention isn’t simply about you defending yourself from an aggressor, it’s about defending someone else. What you may have learned in a self-defense class, may not be easily transferred to defending somebody else. Be honest with yourself: would you know how to protect somebody else, rather than simply engaging their aggressor in a fight? Again, I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from intervening in a fight that they see as unjust and unfair, however if an individual is serious about being able to do this, they should look for/seek the appropriate training, rather than just assume that what they know to defend themselves is applicable/transferable to protecting others. Do you know how to effectively stop somebody from hitting another person? Do you know how to move somebody out of danger, and move between them and the aggressor? If you step in to protect somebody, they’re not likely to come to your assistance, so don’t think that you’re going to be involved in a two-on-one situation, or that the odds will be in your favor; you may in fact end up entangled with one person, as you fight off another – have you trained for this, or like this? Have you even thought about or visualized what intervening may look like? One of the big and essential questions that often gets left out of self-defense training is “when?”; when do you intervene? Do you intervene when a mugger demands money from somebody else? Do you intervene when a mentally ill person starts shouting at a fellow passenger on a train? It is easy to imagine a “clear-cut” situation, where an older man or woman, is being beaten by a younger one, etc., but in reality, things are often not clear-cut. Often in scenario-based training, I will set up a scene where a man is pinning down a girl, whilst her friends are shouting for him to let her go, and leave her alone. Few people stop to finds out what is happening, and immediately jump in to pull the guy off her. When this happens, she stabs the man who she was wrestling with, and runs off with her friends. The back story was that the man was a law-enforcement officer trying to apprehend a criminal. Things may seem very clear to you, however you may not be in possession of all the facts. Situations that appear obvious may not be. I once witnessed a dispute between two homeless men, where one was fighting the other to get some stuff back that the other had stolen from him – depending on when you came in on the scene, it would have looked like the man trying to get his stuff back was a mugger. This raises another question: would you intervene on behalf of a homeless person who was being victimized in the same way as a fellow commuter on a train? This is important, if you decide to wear a safety pin, to identify yourself as someone who will stand up for somebody’s rights if they are abused/attacked/victimized etc. Choosing to wear a safety pin makes the statement that you will stand up for anyone who is the target of a bigoted attack/assault, not just certain groups. It is also more than a statement, it is an assertion  that you will act on another person’s behalf. Many people will see intervention as a heroic action, where they make a stand that will be welcomed and appreciated by both the victim and any bystanders present. This may be the case, but don’t expect it. Instead, plan and prepare for the worst - and everything in between. It may be worth testing the support of those around you before intervening – it may be that they have more information concerning the incident that could be useful to you e.g. they might know the victim, the aggressor, the relationship between them, and what the motive is behind the aggression. If you can arm yourself with information before you intervene, you may increase your success rate. I’ve initially broken up fights, and caused hesitation in assaults, by shouting out the names of the two combatants – familiarity from a different voice can be used to slow things down. There are no golden bullets, no guarantees, and no defined outcomes when you intervene, however there are things that your conscience will not allow you to turn a blind eye to, and force you to get involved in; plan and be prepared. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=301 Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=300 This is the first of a two-part blog looking at bystander intervention and verbal confrontations i.e. what and what not to do when you see somebody being verbally harassed/abused and feel compelled to intervene. The second article will look at when and how to intervene on behalf of somebody who is being physically assaulted. I understand good intentions; I understand people wanting to encourage others etc. however we do have to check whether the people giving us advice – however sensible it may seem – are qualified and experienced to do so. When the Fukushima nuclear reactors overheated after the Tsunami in 2011, I had some ideas, based on my High School physics classes, of what possible courses of actions could have been taken to avert a disaster. Fortunately, nobody listened to them, or took them on board. I have no qualifications or experience in radiation cleanup, and so was in no position to give advice. In the realm of personal safety, there is a feeling that everyone is qualified to put across their views and opinions, and as long as they are presented well – and make sense to us – they are taken to be true e.g. I think everyone has heard of the “good advice”, concerning throwing your wallet away from you when confronted by a mugger; there are too many reasons to describe in this article why this is bad advice, however logical it may seem (there is a link at the bottom of this article to a piece I wrote about personal safety myths, which goes into the details). Recently, a Paris filmmaker and cartoonist published what is being described as a “helpful” illustrated how-to-guide, on how to intervene on behalf of somebody who is being verbally abused in a public setting such as a train or a bus. It looks good, is well intentioned, and presented in an authoritative manner, however the approach presented is deeply flawed and is likely to escalate, rather than de-escalate, a confrontation. The premise of the piece is that when you see somebody being verbally abused, you should go up to them and start a conversation about something else. The idea is that the two of you have a conversation, and ignore the abuser. Because the abuser no longer has an audience, they will go away. Sounds simple and logical, plus it’s something that even a timid person will feel they have the capability to do i.e. they don’t have to confront anybody, they just have to assist somebody in ignoring the assailant. It’s a very appealing strategy that helps people feel empowered to do something. Unfortunately, this tactic is more likely to escalate a situation, rather than de-escalate it. Ignoring an abuser is not likely to make them go away; anyone who has been bullied will tell you that ignoring a bully, encourages, rather discourages, them. If somebody feels they are being ignored, they will escalate their actions and behaviors to make sure they get the attention of their target. Aggressive and violent individuals feel justified to behave and act in the way they do, ignoring them is to delegitimize this justification, and only frustrate them into more extreme behaviors. They are not likely to simply go away. We may like to think that we have somehow put the aggressor in their place, but this is simply wishful thinking. I have seen too many situations, in bars and clubs, where people have tried this tactic, only for it to fail miserably. Not taking seriously an angry individual who feels that they are justified and in the right, is not going to de-escalate the situation or force them to disengage from it. Quite the opposite. The advice also imagines just one type of harassment/confrontation, and this often happens when people don’t have a wide range (or any) firsthand experiences of violence; they can only imagine one type of scenario. Abusive situations can be quite diverse, and may require different solutions. In the cartoon a large aggressive man is shouting islamophobia rants at a Muslim woman. What he is saying is depicted as squiggly lines e.g. it is just incoherent aggressive statements without any substance. What if the person being aggressive is coherent, and is blaming the woman for the death of his son who served in Afghanistan? Is the blame warranted? No. Is his manner of interacting with this woman socially acceptable? No. However, is the man’s grief and emotional state understandable? I would say yes, and I think it is wholly inappropriate – and dangerous – to discount his grief by going up to the woman he is shouting at and start talking about the weather. I’m not saying that you, the victim and the aggressor should all sit down and sing “Kum ba yah” together, or start an impromptu therapy session for all concerned. Personal safety is about being effective and ignoring the aggressor – and their grief – is not an effective solution. Acknowledging it and challenging his behavior concerning it, will get you further. It would be simplistic to always paint violent situations without any shades of grey – this is not to blame the victim, but to help us understand the motivations behind such aggression, so that we can deal with them more effectively. When we can only imagine a singular picture of violence, we will be ill-equipped to deal with reality. So how do we intervene on behalf of others who may be the targets of other people’s anger and aggression? First, we must listen to what they are saying. They may be trying to start a “forced debate”, where they are trying aggressively to get their target to interact with them, so that they can make a point to a larger audience. This is a much more rational/reasonable type of aggression, and it may be possible to interact with the individual, and explain why they can’t force somebody to talk to them, that people have a right to privacy, etc. You can acknowledge their anger. This is something that is a common de-escalation tool i.e. approach them and say, “You seem really angry”. Often when people rationally recognize their emotional state, they will “wake up”, from it. As you can see, these approaches involve interaction, rather than ignoring the aggressor. Anger doesn’t dissipate, it grows, and it needs to be either de-escalated or deterred - not ignored. Without going into a full description of how, when and when not to de-escalate (I have written many articles on this – you can use the search function on the page to find these), there are times when you need to deter violence. If a person is screaming and shouting, it is unlikely that they will be able to comprehend what you are saying and so it will be impossible to de-escalate, and you will have to confront and deter the aggressor from continuing/escalating the situation. One way you could do this is to appeal to the other people around you e.g. “This is America, and while we might have disagreements with others, our society doesn’t tolerate the way you are acting/behaving. Put your hand up if you agree with me.” Understand that you might now become the target, if nobody wants to stand with you, and this is always a danger when you intervene on behalf of others; you may not have the support of either the person you are trying to protect, or of those around you. The target may wish to keep their head down and put up with the verbal abuse, rather than have somebody potentially escalate it for them. Another strategy that may work on a subway train – the setting the cartoonist depicts – is to inform the aggressor that they are guilty of assault (they are giving the target reason to fear for their safety and can physically accost them – there doesn’t have to be contact for it to constitute an assault), and that if they don’t stop, you will press the emergency button/pull the emergency cord etc. and that this will involve the transport police arresting them at the next station. Both actions may deter an aggressor, and may get the crowd on your side – it could also do the opposite e.g. if you do pull the chord/press the button people’s journeys may be disrupted, which may turn them against you, or may turn them against the aggressor. Intervening doesn’t always make the situation better, and you should accept this, and know what to do if the situation starts to turn against you. You should be prepared to become the target of the aggressor’s wrath as well as not being supported by those around you, etc. Do you have a strategy if this happens, or are you gambling everything on your intervention being successful? A cartoon may make it look like intervention is easy and simple - we can all talk about the weather – but its advice is ill-founded. The cartoonist says that their approach is based on the concept of “non-complementary behavior”, which basically involves responding in an opposite manner to the person you are dealing with e.g. facing an aggressive with a caring/welcoming demeanor rather than matching their aggressive one. The problem is that their approach isn’t based on this, their approach is not one where the aggressor is met/responded to, but one where they are ignored – the opposite of “non-complementary behavior”. Bad advice, is bad advice - however well-intentioned it is, and shouldn’t be followed. If you do plan to intervene where you see verbal abuse happening, think through all the possible outcomes and start to develop strategies for them, rather than simply imagining everything turns out well. For those who are interested in why you shouldn't throw your wallet on the floor, when it is demanded by a mugger (and some other personal safety myths) please use the link below: http://www.kravmagablog.com/kravmagablog-February-2016.php#5PersonalSafetyMythsThatPutYouInDanger   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=300 Sun, 20 Nov 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=299 I have always believed in the power of politeness and a good smile, however a few days ago I got to see just how powerful these tools can be in disarming someone from following basic security protocols, and potentially putting themselves and others at harm. I’d been booked to do some security training for some local government officials at a government building in the US; part of this training was an active shooter component, so myself and my associate who were conducting the training had brought along some Rings Blue Guns (training guns), that included both short and long barrel weapons, along with non-metal training knives. For those who aren’t familiar with Blue Guns, they’re exact replicas of actual firearms, but cast in a dense/solid blue plastic. We’d contacted the department who had organized the training ahead of time, to inform them of this, and that it would be wise to inform security that we’d be arriving with these items – or if there was a better/preferred way of bringing them into the building (it turns out that security was never contacted). When we turned up at the building, it was extremely busy, busier than normal, and we ended up in line behind a woman with a baby and a pushchair. I had passed the bag to my teaching partner, who is female, and a lot more innocent looking than myself to try and lower any anxiety that the security personnel may have had when I explained what was in the bag. Whenever I explain to law enforcement, security etc. that I have a bag containing replica training weapons, I always ask them whether they want to open it, or have me open it. It’s a simple thing that lets them know that I am handing control of the situation over to them. I also give them the name and the department of the person who has organized the training, and a quick outline of what it is. I’m always polite, slightly apologetic for the difficult situation I’m putting them in, and make sure to smile. In this instance – and I would point out that this is the only time this has happened – I was told not to worry, and to put the bag on the belt for it to go through the X-ray machine. I have done training exercises before using X-ray machines, and I have used Blue Guns (along with other types of replicas and training weapons), as dummy weapons to see if operators can identify/pick up on them. In an X-Ray machine, the rays go out at roughly a 45-degree angle, from bottom to top, creating a slightly skewed angle. An operator needs to take this into account when trying to identify certain objects, and it can take more than a quick glance, depending how items are positioned, and what they are next to. It is also worth pointing out, that different types of object, display as different colors e.g. metals range from black to blue, and plastics blue to green. The colors relate to the density of the material the object is constructed from. These training guns, were fully weighted replicas, so the plastic used is very dense; enough for the gun to appear closer to a blue than a green – and certainly given the fact that the image would have been very clear (the guns were laid flat), enough that the bag should have been inspected after going through the machine – it should have been inspected before. We both walked through the metal detector “clean”, picked up the bag, and took the elevator to our destination.  That’s how I got three MP5s, 6 Glock 19s and 8 training Knives into a government building, without a challenge, a questioning look, or even a glance – The X-ray operator was looking and talking to me, as the bag went through. I’ve worked various security roles, and many can be boring, monotonous and underpaid. Many security guards can feel undervalued. When I apologized for putting the security guard in an awkward position, over bringing training weapons into their building, and that I had informed the person organizing the training to let them know in advance, I was told with a sneer, that nobody tells the security guys anything. I’m not excusing the guard for not checking, but when a “them and us” attitude develops between security and those who work in a building, guards are not going to be so inclined to be vigilant. Next time you fall foul of security by forgetting to bring your pass to work etc. try to be polite and understanding. Yes, they may know who you are, and using your logic and understanding of the situation, should just let you in, however they should have policy and protocols to follow e.g. they don’t know if you’re an employee who has been fired, and had your pass taken off you etc. This is the way security should work: no exceptions, no flexibility, no bending of the rules, no “just this time”. Although such an approach may seem over the top, and overly rigid, it is necessary, and we should accept it. Without this approach, it is possible for the nice people, with the nice smiles, who understand the difficult job security has (and can empathize with them), to bring guns into a busy workplace.     The day that we turned up was an overly busy day. It is easy for security personnel to forget what the actual job is i.e. preventing the wrong people getting into the building, and become focused on just getting the “right” people in. This may seem like a semantic issue however many people can come off or try to present themselves as the right people – myself and my fellow-trainer were all too quickly cast in that role. If we’d been planning a rampage/spree killing, this would have been an attractive day to carry it out as there would have been more potential victims for us to have gunned down; in most active shooter situations headcount is the major motivator. This should have been a day, when a supervisor or manager, told their staff to be extra vigilant rather than less. Security is a serious business and should be treated as such (I also believe that those working in the sector should be better paid and remunerated – and at the same time held to a higher standard). Whilst it is looked on and treated as an inconvenience, that is necessary to satisfy the insurance companies, it will never fulfill the requirements it is intended to. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=299 Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=298 One of the principles that I was first taught in my Krav Maga training, was the idea of every defense having a hand-defense and a body-defense. This was explained to me through the concept of a 200% defense i.e. if you did the hand-defense correctly, it alone would be a 100% defense, and if you did the body-defense correctly, it would also give you a 100% defense. This meant, if you only managed to do each 50% correctly/well, then you would still have a 100% defense. From my own experiences, I appreciated the understanding that when put under stress and duress, it was unlikely that you would perform perfectly, and that you would need solutions which would work even when performed sub-optimally. From my time studying Japanese martial arts (Judo and Karate) the idea of body movement (Tai-Sabaki) is a key part of any defense, however it has a few nuances that when understood, can enhance our appreciation of body movement in our Krav Maga training. Anyone who has studied traditional martial arts, understands the concept of getting out of the line of an attack, as part of a defense. In many Krav Maga systems “bursting” forward, into an attack is taught, rather than stepping off-line, and there are good historical reasons (as well as practical ones) for this. When Imi first started designing his approach to fighting, he was looking to teach a basic infantry man/woman how to defend themselves against common attacks of the time – violence changes over time, and also has cultural and regional aspects to it - which is why Krav Maga as a system needs to adapt and evolve, and be taught in a manner relevant to its audience. At the time, Imi was looking at ways for a person with a pack on their back to be able to move, and how the position and weight of the pack might restrict that movement. If you have 50 lbs on your back, movement to the side (stepping off-line) could see you become unbalanced, whereas forward movement would allow for the weight of the pack to add momentum to the simultaneous defense and attack. This also had the effect of being a simpler movement to teach, rather than having a person take the time to train and develop the movement skills, to both block, move laterally (out of the line of the attack), and deliver a simultaneous strike. There are several misconceptions about Tai-Sabaki. I have met and trained with people who believe that it refers to a particular movement, that takes you out of the line of attack. I have also heard from some that it is purely an evasive maneuver to get you out of danger, and doesn’t have an attacking component to it; from a traditional perspective, both are wrong. Tai-Sabaki, can utilize many different types of movement, including pivots, steps to the side, sliding steps backwards/forwards, etc. If you have studied traditional Karate, and practiced Kata, you will have been introduced to many different forms of Tai-Sabaki. In its truest form, Tai-Sabaki should not only move you out of the way of the attack, but at the same time it should put you in an attacking position, where you have the advantage and your assailant is at a disadvantage. When I teach sparring, this is the key concepts I try to get across to my students e.g. it is no good throwing a punch or a kick, when your partner is not at a disadvantage – people will often throw out kicks and punches, when a person is moving away, rather than first getting them rooted, or moving onto your strikes, where they will have a much greater effect. It is fine to move away from an attack, but such movement should set up an attacking opportunity, whilst putting your attacker at a disadvantage. This is what true Tai-Sabaki is, and it can be in any direction. When I was a competitive Judoka, it was drilled into me by my coaches that there should be no truly defensive movements to my game; defense had to incorporate an attack, or set up an attack (concepts I teach as part of my Krav Maga training). Defense alone only creates a further attacking opportunity for the person you face. This is one of the reasons I have problems with referring to what I teach and train as being “self-defense”; it communicates the wrong message about the solutions I, and others, teach. A major change in my Judo came, when my previously defensive movements became offensive ones. As well as giving me more attacking opportunities, it also took away some of the “panic” I’d previously experienced when I was just “avoiding” attacks. From a real-world perspective, I see striking as a zero-sum game: if you’re not hitting/attacking the other person, they’re hitting/attacking you. Making sure that all your defensive movements contain an attack or put you in a position to make an attack is what Tai-Sabki and good Krav Maga is all about. Many Krav Maga practitioners see the traditional martial arts as outdated and/or irrelevant. However, these systems contain the same fighting principles upon which Krav Maga is founded and based. Krav Maga may take on a different form to Karate and Judo, but it did not create different fighting principles and concepts. If we are to evolve who we are as practitioners and teachers, it is worth our time looking at and studying ideas from other arts and systems, so that we can better understand those of our own. We may, as direct and practical Krav Maga people, believe that the subtleties of the traditional martial arts may be too subtle to be relevant, however looking at what we do from a slightly different perspective can both give us a better realization of what it is we are actually doing, along with ways of how we can improve our performance of it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=298 Mon, 07 Nov 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=297 This article comes out of a conversation/thread on social media that I was involved in. During the conversation, I mentioned that striking, and especially striking with a simultaneous block, isn’t always effective – I’m not saying that it’s never effective, just that there are times, especially when you are dealing with knives, that your emphasis should be on controlling the weapon arm at the earliest opportunity, before moving on to combatives, etc. One response that I received, advocated the use of simultaneously striking, whilst blocking against a knife attack (and once again, I’m not saying this isn’t ever effective), based on the fact that when training against an “assailant” wearing protective cage headgear they only needed 20% power in their punches to be effective. There is sometimes a danger in drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of things, based on the way that we train. There are times that our training replicates reality, and times when it may mislead us. In this blog, I want to look at some of our training methods that, while they may be beneficial in one context, may not be in others - and why we should be aware of this. Training in protective headgear has benefits, however we must be careful about the conclusions we draw when training with such equipment. As soon as you put headgear on, you increase the size of the target quite considerably. Also, headgear tends to “flatten” out the target, presenting a striking surface that is much easier to hit. The face/head is largely a cylindrical striking surface, which can result in strikes/punches rolling off it, rather than being absorbed by it. If you then put any form of protective mitt or glove on the hand, you increase the size of the striking surface. A larger striking surface, hitting a larger, flatter target, gives you a much better chance of accurately landing a strike that will drive into the target, when compared to a fist hitting the face. When you add the fact that most headgear, by weight or design, prevents the head from turning when hit, the effect you get when training this way, does not reflect reality. Are there benefits to training this way? Absolutely. If we are to try and put our students under pressure and give them a feel for what a dynamic assault looks like (in a safe manner), putting on headgear and gloves helps us to do this. However, determining the efficacy of striking in every situation based on this manner/style of training would be wrong. In real-life, punches don’t always get absorbed to the same degree that they do when training with gloves and headgear; they roll off, they get ridden, etc. In some cases, against a pain-resistant attacker (under the effects of adrenaline, drugs or alcohol) they don’t even register – and this is something that is extremely difficult to replicate in training. Just because one method of training has certain benefits and usefulness, this shouldn’t lead us to believe that it accurately reflects reality. Sparring is another training method that has great benefits, but shouldn’t be thought of as replicating a real-life fight. It teaches a lot of things but it doesn’t teach everything, and this is something that we need to understand when we try and give our students the skills and attributes they need to survive a real-life altercation. With any training method, such as sparring, we should be aware of the skills that the method is trying to develop. Sparring teaches breathing, threat recognition, dynamic responses, movement, etc., however it doesn’t replicate an assault, because it’s consensual, with each participant separating and giving distance to give the other opportunities, etc. Sparring, is a back and forth game, rather than the one-way street that an assault is. I have had students who were lousy at sparring, but could handle themselves in real-life altercations – hopefully their experiences when sparring helped them, but it would have been wrong to predict how they would have responded to an actual assault based on their sparring performance on the mats. I believe sparring has benefits, but like any training approach, I recognize its limitations. We should also recognize when our equipment may produce bad habits, or make it difficult for our students to perform good technique. A long time ago, I stopped having my students practice punching on kick shields, or other large flat pads. When I took my first IKMF course, I was told by an instructor that the first equipment I should invest in were kick shields, as these were the most versatile pads and could be used for all manner of striking. In one sense, he was right, but what I started to notice was that because my students were striking a flat surface directly in front of them, they weren’t turning their hips into the strike, and were simply punching straight forward with their arms and shoulders, and not utilizing the larger hip and back muscles. When I started to use focus mitts for training punches, having the holder angle the pad, so that the person throwing the strikes had to turn their torso to make the punch, the problem was rectified. Are kick/striking shields useful? Yes, like all pieces of training equipment they have their place, but they shouldn’t be used universally. Another issue that can arise from training with pads, is that unless the pads are moved, the student only gets good at striking against static targets, and may be left with a false sense of their ability to generate power. There is a big difference about how you generate power when moving than when static, and when we consider that real-life violence is dynamic, we should introduce dynamism into our pad work. This is something that those practicing combat sports understand very well, but is not so prevalent amongst the reality-based self-defense community. If you practice dynamic pad-work as well as static pad-work, fantastic. If you don’t, I would advocate that you should start. The full training package that we offer/present to our students should replicate and represent all parts, and potential parts, of a real-life altercation, however we don’t need to do it utilizing just one method or approach. We should be very clear about what skills we are trying to train and develop, whilst at the same time understanding what isn’t being trained, and/or isn’t representative of reality. In my early days of teaching and training Krav Maga, I convinced myself that real-life reflected the way I’d been trained (I even rewrote some of my previous experiences of violence to fit in with some of the things I’d been taught), and was surprised when it didn’t. Our training should reflect reality, and not the other way round, and this means constantly analyzing our methods, and amending and developing them as necessary.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=297 Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=296 In the time that I’ve been training both in Israel and other countries, I have found that there are basically two approaches to teaching/training Krav Maga: a traditional one, and a more progressive one. The “traditional” method of training, takes the system/techniques that Imi laid down, and with minor alterations and developments, presents them as a solution to violence. The progressive approach, which I have seen instructors teach, both within the IDF and in the civilian sector, looks at the types of violent situations that they (and their students) are likely to face, and how Krav Maga techniques and solutions can be used to deal with them – in some cases making major alterations, and in others developing new solutions altogether, based on the principles and tactics that Imi laid down/advocated. It is also worth noting that Imi did not develop Krav Maga in a bubble/vacuum and that there are others who played a part, and had an influence, on what we refer to as Krav Maga – in fact, when Imi first left the IDF, he didn’t refer to what he taught as Krav Maga, and used terms such as Ju-Jitsu and self-defense to describe his system. The reason I mention this, is that within the IDF the Krav Maga which is taught is influenced by many different instructors who modify, cross-pollinate and influence the systems of hand-to-hand that are taught. One of the issues I have with some of the “traditional” approaches to Krav Maga is not with techniques or principles, but with the presentation of what violence looks like. Much of the original approach to Krav Maga was based on the idea that the person being attacked was always, or in most cases, assaulted from a position of surprise. From a military perspective, this makes a lot of sense - if you have time to see your enemy/assailant you will probably not engage them hand-to-hand, but elect to use a rifle or other firearm, etc. The time when this option may be taken away from you, is when you are surprised, and find your attacker on top of you before you have the chance to use a weapon. Where social violence is concerned, most assaults happen face-to-face, with some form of verbal exchange preceding the physical attack i.e. you have a chance not to be surprised and caught off guard. When this reality isn’t trained or presented as the most likely scenario a student will face, a warped and skewed understanding of what violence looks like is conveyed. It’s like looking at news and media reports on sexual assaults on women, and concluding that in the majority of cases, the attacker ambushes their victims by jumping out from behind something or tackling them from behind. Whilst these types of attack do occur, they are relatively rare and uncommon (which is one of the reasons why the media picks up and reports on them) compared to the face-to-face rapes and sexual assaults that women face in their own homes, or others, by someone they know. Yes, we do need to know how to defend ourselves in a 360-degree fashion, however such assaults do not happen on an equal basis, as for civilians most happen from the front – after a period of dialogue. This means we have an opportunity not to be surprised. It is worth at this juncture pointing out that surprise is different to denial and unpreparedness. I have seen people standing, laughing, and generally looking confused as an aggressive individual shouts, screams and makes threats towards them. Such individuals are “surprised” by an attack because they are in denial about the reality facing them. As good as a 360 block is as an instinctive response to a circular punch that an attacker may make in such a situation, we shouldn’t be training it as the initial response when dealing with such a scenario – we should be looking at de-escalation, effective positioning to limit/restrict an attack, when and how to pre-emptively strike, etc. Emotionally and psychologically, we should be teaching students how to shake the state of denial and prepare themselves for violence, rather than just teaching them what to do when surprised. In many cases “surprise” is a choice, and we should be training ourselves and our students not be caught in such a state. Yes, there may be times that you are sucker punched, attacked from the rear – which normally happens when you are engaged with a primary attacker face-to-face – caught off guard, etc., but teaching solutions to violence from the “worst case” scenario standpoint is not realistic when looking at the most effective ways to deal with real-life situations. Unfortunately, when Krav Maga is presented primarily from the position of “surprise”, it ceases to be relevant (it can, of course, still be traditional and authentic), and many out there considering it as a reality based self-defense system see it as unrealistic. Technology changes, and solutions need to be updated and/or put into context. I see many long gun disarms that rely on grabbing the barrel of the weapon. In the days when assault weapons that fired semi and full automatic were not distributed as widely as traditional single fire rifles (e.g. in the 1940’s), grabbing the barrel of a rifle would have been a fairly good solution as a means of initially controlling the weapon. With a weapon on semi or fully automatic fire, the barrel gets extremely hot (even the handguard can become hot enough to be uncomfortable to handle). Whilst I have seen some groups and associations update their solutions to take this into account, I have seen others fail to evolve their solutions. Yes, there may be times when the only possible solution – because of the situation – is to grab the barrel, however the context of such situations need to be explained, and the student/practitioner told what to expect, etc. There are also assaults/attacks that were once common and that have changed e.g. two-handed chokes may have been a common attack in one era, however presenting them as a common attack in today’s day and age is so unrealistic, that it makes Krav Maga look to be an outmoded/outdated system. Don’t get me wrong, for “traditional” Krav Maga to continue to be relevant doesn’t require a revolution, it just requires a degree of evolution; something Imi acknowledged in the creation of the original “Kauf Mem” logo, where the Hebrew letters of K and M were surrounded by a circle with two breaks in; one to let out dated techniques/solutions, and one to let new ones in. Unfortunately, this has not always, and will not always be the case, as individuals and organizations fail to evolve because they feel that by losing the “traditional” techniques and solutions, they will lose some of their authenticity. Of course, in a real-life confrontation, a student shouldn’t be worried about whether what they learnt is authentic, instead they should be looking to trust in the relevance of the solution.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=296 Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=295 How many martial artists does it take to change a lightbulb? 100. 1 to get up on a chair to change it, and the other 99, to tell them that their “technique” would never work on the street. The “it would never work on the street” argument, is one that every martial arts/self-defense instructor will have been subjected to at some point. More often than not, no actual argument is made as to why a technique wouldn’t work, or a better solution offered, etc. there is no discussion, and not even debate - what is being criticized is simply dismissed. In this article, I want to share some of the general things I look for in a technique, as to ascertain whether it has merit for me, personally and/or for my students. Firstly, I don’t believe in absolute statements – they have a danger of tripping up the person who makes them. I remember a discussion I had in Israel with some other European Krav Maga instructors, from different associations, in which we were sharing some different ideas and approaches to various threats and attacks. Everything was going great, and we were all broadly agreeing with each other’s input, when I demonstrated a certain knife control. One of the Israelis who was with us, stated that it was an interesting solution that he hadn’t seen before, and that he would like to try/test it a bit. The solution/technique wasn’t “traditional” Krav Maga, but was one that someone who used to work door/bar security had taught me; and that he’d used successfully on a number of occasions. Before we had a chance to play around with it, one of the European instructors jumped in to say that it was a bad technique that would never work. The technique was one that I’d used successfully a few weeks earlier, so I had firsthand experience of it working, and the knowledge that it had worked on several occasions for the person who taught it to me. This is the danger when absolute statements are made, as you may well be talking to a person who has used a technique or tactic, and made it work. This doesn’t necessarily make it a good technique that everybody should learn – both myself and the person who taught it to me had a very strong background in Judo, and the technique relied heavily on the skills and attributes that training in this discipline brings. Was the technique a good, universal technique? Probably not, but for a Judoka, it worked well. When looking at/evaluating a technique, one of the things I look at is what skills and attributes are needed to make it work. Just because I may not possess them, doesn’t mean the technique won’t work for those who do. Skills and attributes count for a lot e.g. Terry O’Neill, a famous British doorman, used to end most of his fights/confrontations, using a high kick; but according to many reality based self-defense instructors, high kicks don’t work on the street. Context is perhaps one of the most misunderstood concepts when it comes to “evaluating” self-defense techniques. A technique that might be appropriate for one situation, may not be appropriate for another. If your self-defense experiences only come from the dojo/studio, a particular technique may seem universally appropriate – and may even be taught as such. In reality, situations determine solutions, and there may be times when it is impossible to apply what you thought would work in every situation. A fight is a dynamic thing, and sometimes an aggressor’s fast movement, and close proximity make things that worked well in the studio, fall apart extremely rapidly, in real life. In a certain context they were “good” and “reliable” but in another, wholly inappropriate and even dangerous. A good way to test whether your gun disarming techniques are appropriate for all situations, or whether you may require some alternative methods, is to have a partner with a small frame revolver or pistol repeatedly strike you with it, as they move you in a variety of directions – be honest and record your success rate. If a high percentage of your disarms fail, you need to ascertain whether it is down to a lack of skills and attributes (and what amount of training it would take to address this), or whether your “standard” disarms don’t enjoy a great deal of success in this context. This doesn’t mean they are bad techniques, but just that, like any technique, they can be limited by context. When I evaluate a technique, for my personal use (I have certain skills and attributes my students don’t, or don’t yet possess) or for my students, one of the things I look at, is whether the technique takes into account the assailant’s potential response to it. When I deal with knife, I look to take away movement of the weapon/weapon arm, and wrap/clasp the weapon arm as soon as possible. The reason I look to do this, is because I know my attacker will begin to retract/retain their weapon, as soon as I try to control it. If a technique fails to acknowledge the potential response(s) an attacker will make when a particular technique is employed, I know that the technique has certain failings or certain skills need to be trained in order to get it to work. My evaluation of whether the technique has merit for me, is based on the time I believe it will take me to develop the necessary skills to get a high enough percentage score where the technique is successful – otherwise I may be better off looking at other techniques that enjoy a similar success rate, but require fewer skills and attributes in order to make this happen. It doesn’t mean the technique is a “bad” one, just that those who will be able to make it work, possess necessary skills, which I would need to work on and develop.  Another thing I look at in a technique is the position it puts me in, should it fail e.g. do I have a next solution/technique I can try to implement, or has my commitment to a particular technique been an all or nothing endeavor? Don’t get me wrong, there are times when absolute commitment to what in other situations, would be a sub-par solution, is necessary – if an assailant denies you use of preferred solutions that enjoy a relatively high success rate, you may need to commit to one that in normal circumstances you wouldn’t use/employ. This is where it is important to understand the context in which a solution is being taught. Our preferred solutions should give us options if they are to fail e.g. we should end up in a better, rather than worse, position if we are not successful in employing them. Failure to acknowledge that a technique can fail, due to our poor performance, or the actions of our assailant, is a dangerous oversight to make. Knowing what to do, and having a course of action you can take when a technique fails, is an extremely important survival skill to have. Saying “never” and making absolute statements, without first examining context, looking at skills and attributes, considering responses, and looking at different outcomes, may result in you dismissing something that may have some merit, or at least enhance your understanding of your own solutions. Any and every technique can be made to, and will work in the right context/situation, and it is worth remembering that. Whether the technique is a relevant one for you personally, is another matter. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=295 Sun, 16 Oct 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=294 Violent criminals aren’t stupid, they know how to stack the odds in their favor – this is why they may choose to carry a weapon and/or commit their crimes as part of a group. There are three assumptions I always make when dealing with an aggressive individual: that they are armed, they are able to effectively respond to what I do, and that they are assisted by others. The fact that criminals often don’t work alone is one of the reasons that it is imperative to exit the environment at the earliest opportunity. You may believe that you are only dealing with one person, however more may be present, and the longer you stay in a particular location, the more time you give them to get involved. One of the things that often gets left out of training is this “disengagement” piece e.g. a person practices a gun disarm, steps back, motions to tap and rack it (possibly mimicking the clearing of a jam), and then stands there, pointing the firearm at their training partner- and the scene ends there. Without going into all the reasons you shouldn’t trust your safety to a firearm you know nothing about, the location you are in is obviously not a safe one – so why stay around, even if the firearm you’ve just disarmed is working and operable? This is unfortunately when ego, rather than survival, infects our training. When the scene ends, with one person standing pointing a weapon they’ve just disarmed, they are in a position of supposed control and dominance. If they leave, and exit the scene, then who’s come out “on top” in the scenario is unclear. Really, the safest option in any such scenario, is to exit before a third party can become involved. A student of mine was once mugged by a teenage kid who was armed with a gun. She did the right thing and complied, handing over her wallet and phone. The kid then walked 10 paces or so, to an adult who was sitting in a car observing the whole scene, who then drove them both off. Whilst she was being robbed, she was unaware that there was an accomplice involved. Could she have performed a disarm? Yes. Could she have stood pointing the gun at her assailant, telling him to “back away”? Yes. These were all options, yet she hadn’t noticed an accomplice, and even if she had, she had no knowledge about how he would act/respond if she attempted to disarm her assailant. If her attacker hadn’t backed off, and remained pointing the gun at her – no longer adhering to the script of the mugger – a physical response would have been necessary, and once performed, she would have needed to exit the location before the accomplice would have time to get involved. It is also worth noting, that there may well have been others who were positioned ready to get involved. She only spotted one accomplice. If we assume, and factor in, that the person we are dealing with is always assisted, then we should be more willing to comply with demands and actions that don’t affect our survival (such as complying with a mugger), and quick to disengage and exit the location/environment as soon as we can. A great piece of advice that was given to me on a tactical driving course I took many years ago, concerning how you deal with hazardous situations was, “Slow in, fast out.” When dealing with violence I have found this to be extremely useful; try to slow what will be a fast-moving situation, and once you’ve dealt with it, exit quickly. There is rarely a good reason to stay in a place where you have just been assaulted, especially when you assume your assailant can be assisted further. Exiting the environment to avoid third parties, who could come and assist your primary assailant, stays true, even if you still have skin in the game, after you’ve dealt with the initial assault/threat. If you are assaulted as you return to your car in the parking lot, depending on the situation it may be safer to exit the lot, rather than continue moving towards your car. Leaving and returning with the support of law enforcement/security may be a safer option. Just because one phase of the conflict seems to have ended, doesn’t mean that you are safe. Accomplices may make themselves visible from the outset, rather than remain hidden. Criminals in groups can use each other to create barriers that block people and restrict their movement, and obscure whatever criminal activity they are engaging in. A fairly common mugging tactic, on the London tube network, was for a group to converge on somebody who was standing on a platform, and surround them. As well as being intimidating, having so many aggressors surrounding you at such a close distance, the actual robbery would be obscured from CCTV cameras, and any individuals who might inform security, of what was happening. One simple tactic to avoid being a victim of such a mugging, is to keep changing your position on the platform, so that it is difficult for a group to form around you. Other criminals who worked the tube network, such as pickpockets, would use accomplices, and members of their group, to cause bottlenecks that slow movement down, allowing the person who is targeting the victim/mark to have more time to commit their crimes e.g. a group on an escalator, would get off it very slowly, so that the actual pickpocket had more time to target someone who was behind them, etc. Groups and gangs intent on causing you harm, may also give a warning as to their intent, by fanning out as they approach you. If there is a group of five people who are closely grouped, and they start to spread themselves out across your path, they are effectively “fanning” out. Fanning out accomplishes a few things. Firstly, it restricts the intended target’s movement, meaning that it will be difficult for a person to move around the group and will instead have to continue through them – if they intend to keep moving in the same direction. The other benefit to the group in fanning out is that it can bring all of their members into the fight, rather than having some stuck behind others. For those interested in military history, this approach of spreading individuals out, rather than grouping people together was a deciding factor in the battle of Waterloo. The British used to fight using the “line”. This saw their infantry spread out along a line, with each soldier being able to fire, without being obstructed by a person in front of them. By contrast the French, marched in ranks, meaning that it was only possible for the first few ranks to fire, as the ones behind them were being blocked by those in front. Because of the differences in these formations the British were able to bring greater firepower to the battle. The sensible option when you see a group start to fan out, is to put ego aside, and move away. Avoiding group violence is preferable to having to deal with it, and understanding how a group operates, and what situations they favor is key in doing this. Even if you are dealing with someone who looks as though they are operating on their own, you should assume they have third parties who can assist them – and the longer you stay in a compromised location, the more likely this is.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=294 Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=293 Before I write the 2nd article on group violence, I wanted to address something that came up in the news this week. I’m an animal lover. I simply don’t understand abuse or violence towards animals. There are actually very few animals on this planet, which mean us harm, and most want to bond with us in some way- something which humans do not always earn/deserve. This week, I was asked via social media to sign a petition, to get the Fayettville (Arkansas) police to prosecute a group of high school students who had hired a baby goat, to abuse at a party they were holding e.g. they filmed themselves breaking a beer can open on the head of the animal, etc. Unfortunately, violence towards animals is often discounted, and not taken seriously, which sends a message of acceptability to those who engage in it, and reflects very poorly on our societies ("The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Gandhi). However, when such crimes go unpunished, a valuable record that could be used to predict more violent crimes is lost. In many cases, hurting and killing animals for entertainment, is a precursor to similar actions, committed against humans. Two of the greatest predictors of psychopathy that manifests itself in the form of serial killing, are arson, and the torture and killing of animals. Both are destructive behaviors, which gives the individual the feeling of complete power and control over others. Serial killers seek to exert complete control over their victims, and at a young age, animals may be the only creatures that they can dominate and have access to. In the video, where one of the high school students smashes his can over the head of the frightened goat – who is held in place as she struggles to get away – there are no signs of remorse over the distress and pain of the animal. In fact, this merely adds to the humor, for these individuals. It takes little imagination to see how a human could be substituted for the goat, in this scene. It would be wrong to make a leap, based solely on this piece of evidence, to say that these teenagers are going to develop into serial killers, however without an arrest, there is no record of this happening - and if one is later arrested for arson, there is no way for the connection between these two predictors to be made. Often, when we ignore or discount lesser crimes, we can fail to predict more serious ones. We know of active shooters, who have engaged in the torture and killing of animals, before they turned their attention towards humans. William Bryan Cruse, who in 1987, who went on a killing spree at a shopping center in Florida, killing 6 and injuring 14, was known to attach animals to his fence with wire, and leave them there to die. Andrew Golden, who with Mitchell Johnson, was responsible for the massacre at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas (1998), which saw 5 students killed, and a further 10 injured, had previously killed a fellow classmate’s cat, with a BB gun. Killers will often experiment and “practice” on animals, before they move on to human victims. Becoming a killer is a process that occurs over time. For some, the torture and killing of animals becomes something of an addiction, that needs to be fed with ever more serious prey e.g. they may begin with mice and rats, graduate onto cats, and later move on to dogs, and larger animals, until they will only be satisfied by torturing and killing another human being. Another “lesser” crime that is often a predictor of a greater one, is the stealing of women’s underwear. Whilst this can be a fetish in its own right, it is can also be a good predictor, that the perpetrator will eventually move on to sexual assault, and rape, sometimes becoming a “peeping tom” in between. For certain types of rapists, such as Power Assurance rapists, they need to feel that they have a certain type of relationship with their victim. If they have spied on them previously and possess, “intimate” items such as underwear, they can create in their mind some form of fantasy that sees them and their target being in some form of relationship. Strange as it is, these predators, believe that their victim is already in love with them and doesn’t realize it, or will fall in love with them during the assault. Stealing underwear from clothes lines, or shared washer/driers in communal living spaces, is something that should be treated seriously and given the appropriate attention it deserves, as this could be an indicator that somebody has been selected for an assault. It is important that certain “lesser” crimes be pursued and prosecuted, not just so that justice is served (though that is a reason in and of itself), but because such a record, allows for a profile to be built, that may help us predict future violence and crimes. Understanding how certain crimes are linked can help law enforcement solve current cases e.g. we are now aware that sexual predators who are incarcerated for long sentences often see their target/victim groups change over the years; a serial rapist who 15 years ago preyed upon a certain demographic, such as women aged between 18 and 25, can change their interest over time to boys aged 8 to 12. It used to be that when a child was abducted in a neighborhood, the only sexual predators living in the neighborhood who were interviewed and suspected were those who had prior offenses against the demographic the missing child fell into. Now that the potential for a target group to shift is understood, those sexual predators who may have once, many years prior, targeted adult victims, are now included in the list of potential suspects. If we are aware that violence against animals can also develop and evolve into sadistic and psychopathic violence towards humans, then a similar “link” can be made. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=293 Sun, 02 Oct 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=292 Whilst most of our personal models of violence probably involve single assailants, the reality of modern violence is that we are just as likely to be assaulted by more than one person. If we look at the social settings where violence occurs, such as in bars, pubs, and clubs, etc., it is likely that an aggressor will not be alone, but will be part of a group. It is also true that many predatory criminals work together, such as muggers, who find strength in numbers, and can use members of the group to act as lookouts, as well as to help locate and identify potential victims/targets. Because of this it is worth looking at group dynamics, and how these effect our solutions to violence. A group can consist of two or more individuals, where there is some form of common bond and possible interdependence e.g. friends, who share a history of experiences together (common bond), and also watch each other’s backs/take responsibility for each other’s safety (interdependence) i.e. the group has a social relationship. When people come together as a group, they will often act and behave not as individuals, but as a single unit, adopting a certain set of characteristics across its members. If we are to be successful in dealing with group aggression and violence, we need to understand these dynamics. The term “Groupthink” was first coined by William H Whyte Jr, in 1952, but was adopted by Irving Janis, who conducted many studies on the way that an individual’s critical thinking diminishes when they identify themselves as part of a group. Imagine a situation, in a bar or a club, where you accidentally bump into someone who is drinking with a group of friends, and as a consequence, they turn around and start threatening and shouting at you. Other members of the group may think that their friend’s behavior is over the top and an extreme reaction to what has just happened. However, if all of the individuals, strongly identify themselves as part of the group, it is likely that nobody will voice their own opinion, as this could possibly see them going against the group. Irving Janis, identified three main characteristics of groups, these are:   Overestimations of the group Close-mindedness Pressures towards uniformity   When we understand these things, we will be better positioned to find solutions to group aggression and violence. Groups tend to make overestimations about their invulnerability, with members believing that they are less likely to get hurt, which means that they are more likely to take risks e.g. a normally reserved and cautious member of a group, may be emboldened to act in ways they wouldn’t – such as making threats, and/or acting violently – because they feel that they enjoy the protection of the group, etc. Groups also tend to suppress an individual’s possible criticisms of the group’s actions, as no one wants to be seen to be offering an opinion contrary to other members of the group (a member’s silence will often be taken by members of the group to signify agreement). There is also the pressure of uniformity that makes members see any non-members of the group as an outsider. Just as groups join people together, they can also cause members to look on non-members as a potential threat or challenge to the group; when you are dealing with one member of the group, you are in fact dealing with them all. Not all members of a group are the same as each other. There are basically three roles that a member of a group can assume when we are addressing a group’s violent behavior (identifying who plays which role is important when you are dealing with group aggression):   Leaders Agitators Followers      Leaders and Agitators, can be difficult to distinguish between: a Leader is somebody who’s decision-making process, influences and directs the group, whilst an Agitator is somebody who tries to influence the way in which the group acts and behaves e.g. possibly acting as a “Mindguard” suppressing any dissent within the group, and vocally encouraging certain actions – “You’re not going to let him get away with that”, “Hit him!”, etc. A Follower, is somebody who will go along with whatever activities the group thinks is appropriate, but will not initiate or encourage. When you are dealing with a member of the group, you should look to isolate them from the group in some way – when I worked in bar security, we used to refer to this as “sheep dogging”, where you – like a sheepdog - try to separate one individual from the group/flock. One way to do this is by relative positioning. By taking a step backwards, you may be able to draw the individual you are talking with away from the group (which will also give you more time to deal with them, if the situation becomes violent, before the rest of the group become involved); without the relative close proximity of the group, they may not feel as sure of themselves, and so be less likely to act violently towards you. If you are able to identify the Leaders of the group, you may want to step back, and at an angle, so the rest of the group and/or the person you are dealing with, are lined up, this puts the Leader (one person) between you and the group, slowing down the others’ route to you – if things do become violent, it is the primary aggressor(s) who will be the first individual(s) to try to get involved, so it is better to deal with them as an individual, rather than as one of several members of the group. If it looks as though they are already getting into position, it is worth moving yourself towards them, as if you can pre-emptively take them out of the game, it can cause hesitancy on the part of the group (exposing vulnerabilities), which may allow you a good disengagement opportunity. It is worth noting, when you are dealing with an aggressor who is part of a group, the reactions and responses of the other members e.g. who appears vocal and nervous, but doesn’t move into a position where they could do something (possibly an Agitator), and who looks like they want to get actively involved, (a Leader). It is often easy to get a feel for whether the person you are dealing with is confident in themselves, or seems to be seeking the direction and support of the group. You should be aware that peer pressure also plays a part in any group and an individual may feel pressure to act violently towards you, if they feel that this is what the group expects. If it feels like the person you are dealing with is forcing themselves to become emotional and aggressive towards you, it is likely that you are dealing with somebody who feels that they have to act violently. In any group situation where the incident occurred spontaneously and was not premeditated, you should first attempt to de-escalate the situation (if you have an easy disengagement opportunity, take it). If it’s a pre-meditated situation, where all the group wants of you are your possessions, you should acquiesce, if they want you, then the fight is about survival, and you should act pre-emptively. In a spontaneous situation, where there is no chance of de-escalating or disengaging from the situation, you should also look to act pre-emptively. Your goal in acting pre-emptively is to get the members of the group to question their invulnerability; to demonstrate that they may get hurt and seriously injured. Your goal is to work with extreme violence against the Leader, or one of the Leaders of the group, causing them extreme pain, so that the rest of the group witness it, and start to have doubts about their invulnerability – that they start to question what might happen to them rather than trust in the invincibility of the group. If you are unable to dissuade other members of the group from getting involved, and you are involved in a group fracas, your goal should be to exit the scene as soon as possible. It is unlikely you will have the opportunity to spend any length of time dealing with each individual, unless you can line everybody up (which becomes extremely difficult if you are dealing with more than two people, or are not in a situation where the environment prevents access to you). In such instances, disrupting strikes to the groin and eyes, rather than power shots which are hard to perform when moving in certain directions, should be used to help you clear a path/route which will allow you to disengage safely. In a prolonged fight, where disengagement isn’t an option, you will need to look at nullifying each member of the group, and taking each member of the group out of action, one at a time. There will come a point in a multiple assailant assault where you will need to focus your efforts on one individual, rather than having your attention divided by the group, and after dealing with them, moving on to the next, etc. This approach realistically is the only way to successfully conclude the fight, as otherwise you run the risk of prolonging the altercation by only doing enough to disrupt each member of the group, rather than taking any of them out of the picture. This approach will mean that you have to take punches and strikes, and can’t retaliate to every attack made. This is where pain management, and an understanding of pain versus danger really comes in. One of the strange phenomena of group violence is that it is often the Followers and Agitators who inflict the most pain and injury during group violence. Primary aggressors have a fairly distinct role that they play, and a very clear goal to fulfill, which is to prevent the person they are dealing with from being able to threaten them and members of the group, whilst at the same time confirming their social status within the group. This often means that once they have, for example, put somebody on the ground, they will walk away. In many instances, it is the Followers and Agitators who will continue the assault, beating and assaulting their victim, as they try to demonstrate their allegiance and value to the group. Because of this, it is important to keep fighting, however convinced you may be that the main aggressor will back away if you capitulate. Once, when I was working the door (bar security), I came across two guys in a bathroom who were kicking an unconscious man, lying on the floor. At first glance, it looked like they were the primary aggressors, however when we replayed the CCTV footage, it came to light that there had initially been three attackers – the one who had knocked the man unconscious had left after throwing a couple of punches, leaving his two accomplices who then set about kicking and stomping the victim. Group violence is never pretty and always volatile and unpredictable, this is why it is best dealt with through de-escalation, even if this means taking a hit to your ego. If violence seems inevitable, it is normally best to go pre-emptive, and look to disrupt the group, before they are ready to fight. In my next article, I will look at how groups operate in pre-meditated acts of violence, such as muggings, and coordinated and planned “beatdowns“ of victims. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=292 Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=291 Students who have little or no experience of violence, will often fall into the trap of believing that real-life violence reflects their training environment; this may also get reinforced by watching combat sports such as MMA, as both the training and sport environments of the martial arts and self-defense share many properties that don’t exist in the real-world e.g. they both occur in uncluttered environments, where there is a good deal of space in which to maneuver (in fact, a cage or ring is designed to allow combatants to demonstrate what they can do – it is designed to enable, not restrict the athletes). In this article, I want to look at some of the ways in which real-life violence, differs from the typical training environment, and how we can better prepare ourselves and our students, for dealing with real-life violence. I readily acknowledge that these components, factors, etc. are based on my firsthand experiences of violence, and that other individuals may have had different and equally valid experiences. I hope that by sharing these, and possibly encouraging debate, those instructors and students who haven’t ever been involved in a fight or confrontation may gain a better idea of what reality actually looks like, and what to expect if they ever have to use that which they have learnt in the studio/dojo. If your expectations are based on wrong assumptions, it is likely that you will be crippled into inaction very quickly when you are confronted with the reality of violence, and suddenly realize how unprepared you are. The time and distance that you normally have when you practice, is going to be halved and halved again, in a real-life confrontation. In a training environment, partners, even when they come at you fast, will rarely come at you as fast as an attacker in a real-life confrontation. This may be due to the fact that they fear being injured and/or fear injuring you. Also, many training partners don’t know how to attack, like a real-life attacker e.g. they don’t recoil the knife, they don’t attack in a frenzied manner, they don’t close distance at speed, etcetera, etcetera. It is hard in the training environment to convey that in real-life scenarios, assailants don’t attack - they assault. An attacker with a knife, is not going to try to stop you performing a technique, they don’t care, because their intent is simply to cut you and stab you as many times as they can, and this normally sees them moving in to you at a speed, something that is rarely replicated in training – this is why training with resistance, doesn’t always replicate reality; attackers will often not resist, they will be focused and completely concentrated on their attack – and this will be the “resistance” that you meet. This is one of the reasons why it is sometimes necessary to look beyond the attack, and at the attacker. Violence can be multi-phased. Often in training, when a technique is performed, the scenario or situation ends, however this is often not the case in reality. This is probably most clearly typified in the practice of gun and weapon disarming, where once the assailant has been disarmed the “scenario” ends e.g. a gun is disarmed, the disarmer steps back and mimics “tapping and racking” the weapon; end scene. However, reality may not be that clean or clear-cut. What if the attacker, attempts to get their weapon back? What if they pull a knife and charge you? What if their friend or other third party pulls a gun on you? Always training for one outcome, and always achieving the outcome, is simply choreography, and does not represent real-life. Sometimes, solutions don’t work, or they are temporary. Do you train what to do, when a technique or tactic doesn’t work? I have punched people so hard, that I was sure I’d knocked them out, but I didn’t; I’ve thrown people so hard that it should have ended the fight. In real-life, “that should have worked”, doesn’t cut it, you need to be able to keep going, and going, and going. If you have only ever trained for success, you will have little/nothing to respond with, when you’re not at first successful. I often hear people talk about improvised weapons as if they are a solution in themselves e.g. if somebody has a knife, grab a pipe or piece of scaffolding and start attacking them with it, etc. What do you do when that attacker gets inside the swing of your pipe? What if they aren’t particularly affected by its use? Getting an improvised weapon doesn’t be default end the fight, though this is often the implication in training.   Most of our training, is conducted in an environment conducive to the practice of our techniques, however in real-life there may simply not be the space in which to execute them. I remember a stabbing in a crowded nightclub, where the victim had hardly any room to move, due to the people around him (many of whom were oblivious to what was actually happening). A friend of mine was mugged on an escalator – his attacker came and stood on the step behind him, and put a knife to his back. If he’d needed to perform a control and/or disarm, he’d have had almost no room to move, and would have been on a different elevation to his assailant. Have you ever trained for such a scenario? Since hearing about it, I’ve always walked up escalators to avoid such a situation. Predatory individuals, understand how to use the environment against their victims, in a way that gives them the greatest advantage. Have you ever tried and tested your groundwork techniques in the backseat of a car, with the child-locks on? What you have found to work on the mats, and which you are confident that you would use, may fail you in a real-life situation because you find you rapidly run out of the space needed to get it to work.  You can start to combine these things together e.g. maybe you successfully deal with the attacker on the backseat of the car, only to have them pull a knife as you start climbing through the center console to get to the front seat, etc. Is this an extreme scenario? Possibly, but it starts to put some of the real-life components into the training. If we only train the simple scenarios, with “attackers” who give us time and distance, who don’t change their attacks, and are always suitably affected by our techniques, etc., we are not training for real-life; we are simply showcasing our systems, and this should not be our goal.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=291 Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=290 Most Krav Maga students will have had little exposure to actual violence (there are also instructors out there who fall into this category). Because of this, students can fall prey to the idea that the practice of techniques and skills in a classroom setting, accurately reflects the real world. There is also the idea that simply practicing techniques, against committed, realistic attacks, replicates real world violence – in some regards it does, but in many it doesn’t. It trains, and improves, skills and attributes, and technique execution, but it doesn’t actually improve a student’s “understanding” of what violent situations look like, and how they should act and behave in them, whether physically or non-physically. Regular class style training rarely prepares students for the “when” of violence – when should they attempt a physical solution, etc? If we don’t address these issues, of threat recognition, effective decision making, appropriate information gathering and the like, along with de-escalation methods, we are not preparing our students for the real world; we are simply teaching Krav Maga, as we might a traditional martial art, and not as something that should be relevant to those who come and train with us. In this article, my goal is to demonstrate, from some of the scenarios I used in a seminar this weekend, why scenario-based training, needs to be part of our Krav Maga training. One of the ways I try to get students to think about how they should act and behave in a situation, is to withhold a vital piece of information from them, and see if they recognize that they might not actually understand (at the outset) the situation in which they find themselves. One scenario I use, is that of a man who is wrestling with a girl on the ground, trying to get control of her, whilst her friends stand by, shouting for him to leave her alone. When the student happens upon the situation, the group asks them to help their friend. Most people do. The missing piece of information, is that the man trying to control the women is a plain-clothes policeman, trying to make an arrest. There is subtle information given out on the scenario, such as one of the group, shouting, “leave her alone, she didn’t do anything,” etc. -comments and remarks that should prompt the student to try to inquire as to why the man is trying to control their friend. One of the problems that many Krav Maga students have, is that they are taught to be decisive, and act. This can make them enter “fight” mode too early in a situation, where they don’t actually understand what is going on around them. Being able to understand what information is missing in a situation, allows you to make an appropriate and effective decision, rather than acting at face value. The woman being controlled wasn’t in imminent danger, she wasn’t having her head smashed of the concrete, or even being punched. In some situations, there is time available to get a better understanding of a situation, and if this luxury exists, it should be taken. Not every violent situation may be what it first seems. Another benefit of scenario-based training is that it teaches students, that there aren’t always “happy path” solutions, and that when you deal with real-life violence you can be caught in a situation, with ever decreasing circles of opportunity. One scenario I use involves the setup of an express kidnapping (obviously the student in the scenario is not aware of this “intent”). An express kidnapping is one where a person is kidnapped, and taken to a series of ATM/cash machines, and forced to withdraw money – sometimes they are kept overnight, so that the kidnappers aren’t restricted by the daily withdrawl limits that most banks place on ATM usage. In South America, a common setup for an express kidnapping, is for a taxi driver to pull over to pick up another passenger (usually explaining that ride-sharing is common in their country), who is an armed accomplice. I use this type of scenario, to demonstrate how options that you may think you had, can easily be taken away from you. When we ran this scenario this weekend, one student participating, offered to pay double if the taxi-driver didn’t pull over – the fact that they were refused was a good indication that there was more to this pick-up, than the driver just making an additional fare. This is a good example of information gathering, which allowed for a better understanding of the situation. The student now had to decide whether to stay in the car or get out, and when they get out whether to try and gather more information, run/disengage or engage with the would-be fare. It is worth pointing out that some scenarios are setup to be benign i.e. nothing happens. So from the student’s perspective, it could just be a taxi-driver picking up an extra fare, who has no malice or harmful intent. In this scenario, I usually have the location be somewhere remote between two towns. The reason I do this is to get the student to question whether disengagement is appropriate. That is, they may avoid this incident, but there is nothing to stop the taxi-driver and his accomplice from turning the car around and driving after you, etc. Sometimes it may be appropriate to disengage from one incident, recognizing that you may have to face another, other times, it’s better to deal with the first incident. The most valuable part of scenario-based training, that challenges students’ threat-recognition and decision-making, is the debrief, afterwards. After each scenario, we sit down and discuss, what happened, what other options may have been available, and how the situation might have played out differently. Training to deal with violent incidents in the real world has a cerebral component to it. One scenario I used this weekend, involved a road traffic accident, that the student comes across whilst driving late at night on a remote road – the scenario is just that, there is no harmful intent in it. It is, however, a situation that could be a setup for something nefarious, so you have a situation where you may feel compelled to help, but still need to ensure your own safety. Debriefing such a scenario, where nothing bad actually happens, is a great opportunity to talk about every day processes and procedures you can employ to keep yourself safe whilst dealing with seemingly “ordinary” situations. I am a firm believer that because Krav Maga is a reality-based self-defense system, our teaching and training shouldn’t just focus on skills and techniques, but on improving our students’ (as well as our own) understanding of violence.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=290 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=289 If you’ve ever competed in a martial arts competition, you’ll have likely found that certain things that you could successfully, and repeatedly, pull off in the training environment, didn’t work so well for you, when the stakes were higher. It took me a lot of competition time, when I was practicing Judo, to get to a stage where I was consistently replicating what I could do back in the Dojo – and at times, even perform better. In this article, I want to look at some of the issues that arise when you are put under stress and duress, whether in a competition setting, or when dealing with real life violence. One of Judo coaches back in the day, used to remind me that, “time exists to stop everything happening at once”. The flip side of this, is that when you panic, you try to do everything at once i.e. you forget the process and the order of doing things. To throw somebody, you first have to break their balance, and then fit in – even seasoned Judokas sometimes forget this when competing, and try to “force” a throw, by moving towards their opponent. When panicked, we seek the outcome the first, and put the process into second place, rather than following the process to get to the outcome. In my early days of competition, when the clock was ticking, I remember the urgency I felt, and the desperation of just needing to get the throw – “how” I got the throw became less important. Invariably, this saw me rush the technique, miss out the crucial steps, and put in more effort than should have been necessary. In this exhausted state, the pressure became greater, and I would repeat the same process again and again, to no avail. I often see this same thing in my Krav Maga classes, when a student is put under stress and duress (and this is class, not real life) and is attempting to perform in an exhausted state; they will rush to the end of a technique, missing out some of the crucial and life-saving components. Understanding the time that you have, and the process that needs to be followed, and committing to it, are key fighting skills for both competition, and survival. Another issue I faced when competing, was trying to attack, when my opponent was in a strong position, and not first positioning them in a disadvantaged one (a situation that usually arose out of panic), where the attack stood a chance of working. One of the things I used to see a lot of with junior belts who competed in BJJ, was trying to apply arm-bars that were meant to be applied when in mount, when they were in somebody’s guard; the more the technique didn’t work, the harder they tried. What had happened was that they’d see an opening, such as an outstretched arm, and seize the “opportunity”, forgetting that the position they were in wasn’t one from which the technique could be applied i.e. their opponent wasn’t in a disadvantaged position. Being able to recognize the position you are in, relative to your opponent/assailant, and how to reposition both of you, so that they are in a disadvantaged positon, is a key fighting skill. This is also why it is important to understand all the phases involved in a fight, including the pre-conflict phase, as it is often during the verbal exchange, that precedes most fights, where you have the best chance of altering the positioning. Under stress and duress, when adrenalized, your movements shrink and become smaller. This can see your techniques lack the “commitment” that is necessary for them to work e.g. the punch becomes shorter, the drag on the arm becomes less, etc. One of the things that we used to do leading up towards a competition was exaggerate our movements in randori (Judo sparring), making them much larger than was actually necessary, understanding that they would “shrink” to normal size, on the day. This is a method of training I still employ when teaching Krav Maga. There is a benefit to training big and with exaggerated movement, especially on certain techniques where there is a tendency to naturally shorten the movements, such as with hammer-fist strikes. Sometimes when you look at novices compete, it is hard to understand why they are exhausted so quickly, having done very little actual physical work – certainly not enough to warrant their level of fatigue. The two reasons I put down to this (and learnt to manage during my competition days), was 1. Not breathing properly, and 2. Not managing adrenaline. When I first started competing, I’d take a deep breath, and hold it, and I know I am not alone in this. This would then upset my entire breathing rhythm, and put me at a disadvantage throughout the bout. Learning to regulate your breathing in order to avoid exhaustion is as relevant in real-life as it is in competition. Being able to set a regular, steady, aerobic breathing rate when fighting is an essential skill, and it is something that has to be worked on in training. Next time you spar, roll, etc., consciously work on your breathing; this also has the added benefit of giving your techniques their own timing and rhythm. Competition, is adrenalizing, and it should be, but it is important to control and manage your adrenaline, because whilst it does equip you with some major benefits, it can also impede you e.g. giving you tunnel vision, shortening your movements, etc. Also, if you don’t control it, and your adrenaline “dumps” on you (within about 15 seconds), when it wears off you will be exhausted, and your body will be wanting to go into recovery mode. The best way to regulate adrenaline is through regular, aerobic breathing (breathe in for a count, hold for a count, breathe out for a count). Although competition will never reflect reality e.g. there are rules, the environment is controlled, there are designated outcomes, a referee manages the contest, etc., there are certain parallels, and certain lessons that can be drawn. Many of the problems that competitors face and have to deal with, are experienced in real-life encounters, and learning how these problems are dealt with in competition can guide us in our training for reality.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=289 Mon, 05 Sep 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=287 When dealing with armed assailants (whether with a knife, gun, etc.), there are a number of approaches that you can take; which you select depends on certain situational factors – do you have an easy disengagement route, are there third parties with you, does your assailant look conversant with the weapon they are using, are there objects (improvised weapons, obstacles, etc.) in the environment that you could use to your advantage? The various combinations of such factors and components, means that only having one approach to dealing with an armed assailant, such as controlling and disarming, is extremely restrictive and limiting, and could see you trying to employ a tactic that in a particular situation is sub-optimal and potentially dangerous. It should always be remembered that it is the situation that ultimately determines the solution, rather than a rigid set of rules. A system of self-defense should empower us, rather than restrict us. If you find yourself in a real-life assault, you are not there to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding to your assailant, but rather deal with them in the most efficient and effective manner possible. In a violent encounter, you need to be able to act decisively, and this means being able to reach decisions quickly – the faster, the better. Unfortunately, you don’t have time to consider the best option (using a rationalistic decision making model that sees you compare the relative merits and demerits of each available option) and instead must select the first effective option available to you. At the very top of your decision tree, should be disengagement – if you’re not there, they can’t harm you. If this option is available and would work as a solution to the situation, you should take it. It may be that you need to create time and distance in order to disengage safely, which could see you throw a pre-emptive strike before you quickly exit the situation (something referred to as “Stun and Run” in the British Military). You may have to clear the weapon in order to do this, such as knocking it to the side, so that you have the opportunity to strike and run. This may also be a strategy you want to employ, if you are in a multiple attacker situation, where you may not have the time to control and disarm your primary assailant, before the others in the group would be able to engage with you (though based on the situation, you may choose to take that risk and disarm your attacker, in order to equip yourself with a weapon, that you can use against the group). Because of such situational factors, it is necessary to look at solutions that don’t require you to spend time “engaging” with your assailant(s). If you have distance between yourself and an assailant – especially if they are in the process of drawing the weapon – using a forceful push/stomp kick to the torso, to disrupt their movement, and potential attack, so that you have the space and time to disengage safely, may well be an effective option. In a confined space, such as an elevator, such a tactic may be employed to initially keep somebody, armed with a knife, back and “soften” them up, before either disengaging (when the doors open) or controlling them and/or their weapon. To believe there is only one course of action available to you, rather than simplifying your decision making abilities, may turn your models of violence into simplistic ones, where effective solutions are discarded in favor of a prescribed, dogmatic approach. One of the skills I try to equip my students with, is how to quickly interpret the situation they are in, and select an effective solution. My goal is to enhance their creativity and allow them to effectively assess what is actually happening to them. I have found that scenario-based training is the best way to do this, and in the debrief phase where we talk about different ways a situation could have been handled, you start to see people thinking laterally, rather than in a blinkered way. Violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and sometimes regular training, can make it seem sterilized. Sometimes it is not possible to directly control the weapon, and you have to control the weapon-holder instead. It may be due to your position that the assailant is accessible, but their weapon isn’t e.g. you are positioned behind them. In such situations, pickups, throws, and takedowns become an effective way of dealing with an armed assailant. The weapon itself isn’t directly controlled, but the person controlling it is. Would it be better to directly control the weapon? Possibly. However, in an active shooter situation where the barrel of the weapon is hot, after repeated firing, taking control of the weapon may be extremely difficult; something that is exacerbated if the assailant is using a sling or harness. In such instances, it may be difficult to effectively control the weapon (although there are of course ways of doing this), and opting for a solution that requires less skill, especially in such a high stress situation, may be preferable. The skill level of the practitioner should also be taken into consideration e.g. I can teach somebody how to knock a weapon away and run, in about 30 seconds, and with 5 minutes of practice, they will be fairly confident in their ability to do this. Teaching and practicing effective controls and disarms, takes much more time, and much more practice. Sometimes you don’t have that time with a particular audience, and this limited time means you’re not able to teach them every technique and solution; not everyone will dedicate the time and the practice to make it to Black Belt and beyond, and we have to accept this. An effective system of self-defense should be able to accommodate everyone, and this sometimes means we teach simple approaches, that although not covering every base, equip people with something that can work in a lot of situations, if not every. I would argue that for a student to have a comprehensive set of solutions, for dealing with armed assailants, they need to be proficient in five basic solutions (I would also argue that they should be proficient in the use of the weapons they face – and be aware of the fact that any weapon they disarm is not their weapon, and may not be truly operable e.g. a gun they disarm may not be loaded or operational, etc.). These five basic approaches are: 1. Disengaging from your attacker 2. Controlling your attacker (rather than the weapon) 3. Combatively assaulting your attacker whilst controlling the weapon 4. Disarming your attacker, after controlling the weapon 5. Using the weapon against your attacker whilst they still hold it, and you control it Obviously these approaches can be combined e.g. you can combatively assault an assailant and then perform a disarm against them, or use their weapon against them as they still hold it etc. Just as you can control the attacker, before controlling the weapon and disarming it. Different situations, require different solutions, and the principles we use to direct us, must be firm and solid enough to offer a true direction whilst at the same time not restricting us from choosing and deploying the most effective solutions.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=287 Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=286 When dealing with armed muggers I teach people to first hand over the wallet. I do this for a number of reasons, but mainly, because in the mugger’s mind, they always see themselves leaving with the wallet – the variable being whether the victim is shot/stabbed or left unharmed (if they have acquiesced). Most people accept this approach, but now and again, some will kick back against it, arguing that they would be the person who would just act – almost without thinking – and try to disarm/control the weapon, and do what was necessary to prevent their assailant from taking their valuables. This article isn’t just about why you should hand over your possessions, but about those who possess a genuine warrior mindset versus those who don’t, and about how a person who trains a couple of times a week, can develop a realistic strategy for dealing with situations, that they can employ when being threatened/attacked.   Most people haven’t dealt with real-world violence, that’s just the simple truth (and this includes some self-defense/Krav Maga instructors – which isn’t always an issue if they appreciate what violence actually looks like). There is a huge difference between the “idea” of violence and the “reality” of violence; though many don’t understand this. Most people don’t understand the shock and awe of physical violence, of confronting someone who not only has a knife, but has a clear intention of using it. Most people have never felt what it is like to have a firearm pressed against their body. The corresponding emotions/feelings that occur in such incidents aren’t indignation and a sense of unfairness, but an immediate understanding, that you are dealing with someone, who is lacking certain moral and social inhibitions, and has a singular, clear intent to cause you serious harm without a second thought. In such situations you aren’t dealing with another “you” – you are dealing with a wild animal. If you were to encounter a wild dog that was snarling/spitting and moving towards you, you would think of every option but confrontation. To think differently when dealing with an armed assailant, who would leave, if you handed over your wallet, makes little sense. The language that the wild dog understands, and the language that the mugger understands are both foreign to most individuals. The only reason to act, when you have an option of avoiding physical engagement, is down to ego; there is no ego involved when you are confronted by a different species. Danger is danger, regardless of its source. I believe in training, and training realistically, however it would be wrong to say that the training environment can ever represent reality 100% - the simple fact that you know it is a “training” environment with boundaries and rules etc. is very hard to eliminate. Training can prepare you and equip you, with the skills necessary to deal with real-life situations, however there is always a gap, and this should be appreciated. Nobody, however many years they have under their belt, should want to “bring it on”, or believe that, given the choice, avoidance and de-escalation, shouldn’t be attempted. Acquiescing to a demand, when the odds are stacked so far against you (and any armed scenario falls into this category), is the sensible option, both for you and your family. I was once pitching a training package to a company, on the day that a pensioner had been stabbed to death for refusing to hand over his wallet and mobile phone to two muggers. The person I was talking to, pointed to a newspaper headline, that declared that the dead man had died a hero, and tried to make the argument, that society needed more people like him i.e. those that would stand up for themselves, etc. The man was dead, he was a father and a grandfather, who left behind those who loved him – and I would guess, those who wished he hadn’t been so stubborn and had just given his assailants what they wanted. The effects of confronting an assailant may not just be borne by you, and to forget this in the moment because you get carried away by ego, may not be your most effective option. I don’t believe that this man knew/understood who he was dealing with, and that his assailants were prepared to do to him what they did – judging assailants by our own standards is extremely dangerous.   Accepting the limitations of our training is important, and we should understand how we can make our training effective when the time comes for it. I do believe that it is possible to become that “warrior” in the moment; the one who will fight to the end, with full commitment. However, I believe that we must set the conditions for this. If after handing over the wallet, your attacker(s) remain(s), you are now standing on what Sun Tzu refers to as “Death Ground”, and when you are standing here, you have only one choice, and that is to fight. When the mugger doesn’t leave, they are no longer adhering to the “muggers” script, and so you have only one choice. When there is only one choice, you have to take it. On the Normandy landings, when 150 000 allied troops stepped from the relative safety of the landing craft, into a hail of machine gun fire they were on “Death Ground”. They had only one choice, which was to keep moving forward, and to engage with the enemy. Eisenhower and the other generals who planned the invasion, knew that if the only option to survive was to engage, then that’s what their soldiers would do – they didn’t have a choice. Sun Tzu talked about putting a mountain range, a river or a lake behind an army, so retreat wasn’t an option. When you hand the wallet over, you are doing the same; you can’t go back, only your assailant can. If they don’t retreat, you will find yourself on “Death Ground”. When we fight, we have to force ourselves to fight; training twice a week, doesn’t make you a warrior. By putting yourself on “Death Ground” through the decisions you make, you are firstly avoiding unnecessary violence and secondly, making sure that if you have to fight, it’s down to survival and not ego. When this is the case, there are no doubts, no hesitation, just the complete and absolute need for extreme violence. Many of the troops who landed on the beaches in 1944, were untested, but when put on “Death Ground”, they overcame impossible odds, and committed greats acts of heroism (things they may not have thought they were capable of before). If you don’t have a firsthand experience of violence and are untested, your best chance of surviving a real-life encounter, is when your enemy doesn’t give you a choice – in that moment you can do everything necessary, and be that warrior.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=286 Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=285 There are some who paint a very simple story, concerning the evolution of Krav Maga, tying everything to one single lineage, without acknowledging the others who have played and continue to play their part in the evolution of the approach; to be fair to all those who have had a hand in guiding and influencing the development of the IDF’s fighting systems, it is more accurate to talk about Krav Maga as a common approach, that has borne certain distinct systems, or “types” of Krav Maga, rather than as a distinct or singular system. In the early development of the IDF’s fighting systems or “Krav Maga”, Judo was an integral part, along with traditional Ju-Jitsu, and there are instructors both within and outside of the IDF, who still teach and incorporate a lot of Judo/Ju-Jitsu, into their “Krav Maga”. This is something I continue to do, with the Krav Maga I teach. This is not for traditional reasons, or to pay homage, etc., but because Judo is an extremely efficient and effective system of self-defense, that can be used with devastating consequences. Unfortunately, the use of Judo as a self-defense system has fallen out of favor, and it is now commonly practiced as a sport – BJJ/Brazilian Ju-Jitsu is following a similar path – with Randori (the competitive practice), becoming the focus rather than as a tool/means of developing real-world fighting abilities.    Being able to throw and takedown an assailant is an extremely important skill to have. A large part of the Krav Maga approach is to deliver as much concussive force to an assailant as is necessary to cause them to either emotionally and/or physically crumble; to take the fight out of them. One of the ways you can deliver an extreme amount of concussive force is to throw somebody on the ground, or against another hard surface. This creates full body trauma, and also puts your assailant in an extremely disadvantaged position, giving you attacking opportunities, as well as possibly the time and distance to disengage to safety. It is also an important skill, for dealing with much larger opponents, where you might not be able to generate sufficient striking force, to have a devastating effect on them; the old adage about the bigger they are, the harder they fall, is certainly true. In saying all of this, it is important to know when to throw, how to throw, and also when not to throw. To understand all of this, we need to understand the three components of a throw, and how these relate to real-life altercations.   The first thing that needs to happen when throwing somebody is their balance needs to be broken (Kuzushi), without this, you will have to throw the person, rather than having them throw themselves – the aim of a good throw. The second phase is the “fitting in” (Tsukuri), or getting yourself into a good throwing position, with the last phase being the actual execution (or Kake) of the throw.For balance to be broken, the head must be past the shoulders, and the shoulders past the hips – this is why it is impossible to throw somebody who is striking with good form, or who is delivering tight strikes that doesn’t see them overreach. Also, when a strike has recoil (and we should assume that all punches are recoiled, rather than left out there) any forward movement that could possibly have been exploited, is being re-centered. This doesn’t mean you can’t use throws against someone who is moving/barreling forward, and throwing punches as they come in. If there is forward momentum, with bodyweight being committed, this movement can be used to break their balance; especially if you move back with them, forcing them to extend their reach in order to hit you. This is very, very different, however, to trying to throw off a punch, itself.   The rookie mistake in throwing people is to confusion of the balance break and fitting in phases i.e. I will often see people move towards their opponent, rather than pulling their opponent into them, whilst releasing the pressure of the initial pull, which had caused the Kuzushi e.g. you will see the person pulled forward, and their balance taken, only for the person attempting the throw, to release the pressure as they try to “fit in” to execute it. For the throw to be effective, the balance needs to continue to be taken, as the thrower, gets into position – if the person being thrown can recover, so that their head remains over their shoulders, and their shoulders over their hips, the throw will have effectively been lost.   Many people will dismiss the usefulness of Judo, because it is practiced in a GI (the traditional white jacket and pants), and oftentimes – especially during the summer months - people who may assault you won’t be wearing a coat or jacket. I have successfully thrown people using their t-shirt. The best place to grab to accomplish this, is the material over the shoulders; when you pull the clothing this way, you put stress on the material under the armpits and across the back, which is in fact quite strong; or at least strong enough to move/pull the person towards you, and break their balance. There are also ways to throw without the use of clothing e.g. an arm around the waist or head of an assailant can often be substituted for a grip on the clothing, etc.         When fights close distance, you will want to be able to exploit both the movement of the attacker, and their close proximity. Judo teaches you to do this. I remember a class at Dennis Hanover’s Israeli Martial Arts Center in Herzliya, Israel, when I first trained with his students. I was totally overwhelmed by their striking, and was finding it difficult to keep up. Fortunately, there came a stage in the fighting where we were allowed to throw, and this became my default way of dealing with the onslaughts that I faced. After the class, in a very understated way, Dennis said to me that knowing Judo is extremely useful when the pressure is really on i.e. when you’re unable to control range and distance, and when your attacker is right on top of you, etc. From my personal perspective, that sounded like every fight I’d ever been involved in. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=285 Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=284 I was recently alerted to an article that had been published by Runner’s World on their online magazine, concerning the sexual assault/murders of three female runners that occurred between July 31st and August 7th. Although the article raised some good points about male culture and female harassment etc., it also embodied a very common and prevalent view, that because the rapist is to blame for their assault, it is up to men to stop committing sexual assaults, rather than for women to have to learn and take the effort to protect themselves from such predators. At first glance, this may seem like a fair and reasonable argument, however it is one that many rapists have used to cultivate a certain attitude and culture around sexual assaults, making it look like their behaviors stem from a culture, rather than a pathology. It seems that there is the idea, that rape exists on a spectrum, along with sexual harrassment and other anti-social attitudes towards women, and that these "lesser" offences can develop into sexual assaults. Whilst these attitudes and behaviors need to be addressed, rape and sexual assault are specific crimes, with their own motivations, and emotions and need to be addressed as such, rather than as part of a general issue of male attitudes towards women. If I was able to get every rapist and sexual assailant into a room, and explain why nonconsensual sex, was morally reprehensible, and damaging to both the individual and society at large, etc., I would be unlikely to change anyone’s future actions and behavior (these individuals are emotionally driven and will offend, knowing that society judges what they do as wrong, and regardless of the legal consequences they may face). If I was able to get all the other men in the world into a room, and explain why unwanted persistence, public sexual commentary on a woman’s appearance, etc. was wrong, I may (if my arguments were good) convince a large section of my audience to change the way they interact with women. Yes, there is a cultural issue, around the way that many men perceive women, and it should be addressed, however many sexual assailants use this culture as an excuse/reason for why they commit their assaults. Brock Turner’s Father, in his letter to the Judge, excusing his son’s rape, due to the college drinking culture is a good example of this. It wouldn’t have mattered if Brock Turner, had received all the information, moral guidance and education in the world as to why it is wrong to force an unconscious woman to have sex, he would still have done it. What Brock Turner’s father couldn’t accept was that his son is a sexual predator (not was, is), and to excuse/rationalize his behavior, he blamed the culture/environment that his son was part of. When the argument is made, that the reason that sexual assaults occur, is due to the current boorish, obnoxious male culture that is so prevalent, we are inadvertently buying into, and promoting Brock Turner and his father’s arguments. Do I believe that many male attitudes towards women need to change? Absolutely, and one of the reasons I would love to see the change, is so that women are given an easier chance to spot predatory individuals who plan to assault them. If an individual, who isn’t a rapist, understood that his unwanted persistence, and inability to recognize when a woman was saying “no” (not in a sexual context, but in a social one), mirrors the actions and behaviors of a sexual predator, grooming a potential victim, then they may start to realize that they are behaving in a way that legitimizes the rapist’s method/process; and that makes it difficult for women to differentiate between men who are simply annoying and disrespectful, and those that mean them actual physical harm. When we accept that a rapist, misread their victim’s signals, or “thought” that they were engaging in consensual sex, etc., we are buying into the myth, that rape is caused by the current disrespectful male culture, that sees women as being obliged to act and behave in a certain way towards men. Rape is borne out of masturbatory fantasy, it is not spontaneous; men don’t suddenly find themselves raping women, they plan it – the current culture might make it more socially acceptable amongst some groups, however there is little evidence out there to suggest that men become rapists, due to a prevalent “social culture”. From what we understand, the origins of such dark fantasies start in childhood, and are more specific to the individual’s personal environment and upbringing than a general one. The university senior, who commits a sexual assault, started fantasizing about this many, many years before. Whilst the current culture expressed by many male students towards their female counterparts is both disgusting and wrong, and may make rape/sexual assaults more “acceptable”, the seeds of this evil were sown much earlier. When we blame the culture, we risk taking some of the responsibility away from the perpetrator, and this often allows them to go unpunished for their crimes. Where the culture certainly needs to change is in our judiciary, who time and time again when sentencing, buy in to the myth, that sexual predators don’t really need punishment, but instead an education into the rights and wrongs of their actions. Whenever the argument is made that men should simply stop raping women, and that this would solve the problem of sexual assault, the Judge is given an option of education over punishment – if the assailant can “learn” from their experience, they won’t rape again. All rapists learn from their legal experience(s) is to plan their assaults with more care. Harsher sentencing, would send a strong message to the men who don’t rape (as well as result in a “fairer” experience for the victim; possibly offering some form of closure), as to how society views sexual assault, and those who don’t respect a woman’s right to say “no”, in all contexts, including unwanted attention, persistent harassment, etc. There is little evidence that harsher sentences would deter such emotionally driven criminals, however it may start to educate other men to the importance of a woman’s rights.  It is attractive and tempting to think that by changing men’s attitudes and the current male culture that we will be able to re-educate would-be rapists, and lessen the number of assaults, however this is wishful thinking, only providing us with the illusion that we can solve a problem we really don’t understand i.e. why some men rape, and others don’t. It’s not that many men don’t need to change their attitudes towards women, however there is a big difference between a misogynist and a rapist, and whilst education can go a long way in changing attitudes, it has proved highly ineffective in changing the attitudes and behaviors of sexual predators; hence the high recidivism rates of this particular population. Education may change the way other men view the actions of sexual predators, but it is unlikely to prevent those who have these motivations and fantasies from acting upon them. It is time that a large section of male culture changed its attitude towards women, but it is also time that the realities of rape are accepted - education has, and does prove largely ineffective at both deterring and preventing would-be rapists. This means that the most effective, preventative measures are learning how to predict, identify, and avoid predatory behavior, before it manifests itself in an assault. This may mean that for our safety, we need to adopt safety measures and precautions that alter and change our lifestyle, however these are the immediate and practical steps we can take in order to avoid becoming the victim of a sexual assault. We should stop giving rapists the excuse of “male culture” to hide behind, and shine the light on them, as individuals. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=284 Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=283 Predatory individuals are the masters of creating and exploiting socially awkward situations; situations where we’re not sure what our response(s) should be. The sexual assailant who turns up at his best friend’s house, when he knows his friend is not home but his partner is, will take advantage of the fact that it would be impolite for her not to let him in – even when she may be suspicious of his intent and motive for turning up without any prior warning. The overly friendly person in the bar, who inserts himself into a conversation, will understand that most people in such a setting will not want to appear confrontational or unsettled, and this will allow him to either get his kicks from the uncomfortable situation, or perhaps start to implement some scam that he’s been rehearsing. These predators understand that society has rules and conventions that suggest how we should act and behave and that, in all likelihood, when put in a socially awkward situation, we will follow. These rules stipulate that if somebody we know comes to our door, we should let them in; if somebody is friendly to us, we should be friendly back, etc. The predators who aim to assault us know that there are social scripts that we all default to – if somebody says hello to us, it’s polite for us to say hello back, and rude (possibly confrontational) for us not to – and that when caught off guard, we will probably follow these behavioral guidelines, even though we may be uncomfortable doing so. Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted by somebody they know, in their home or somebody else’s. It is frightening to me, the number of times women have told me about a male “friend” who has turned up at their house, dorm room, etc. unannounced, with some request that would involve them being let into the woman’s home – I mainly hear about the refusals, however I know that these are actually the minority, and that in most cases they will let the individual in, because it would be rude and perhaps socially unacceptable not to. If the male friend in question is part of a social group that you belong to, you may fear getting the reputation as somebody who is paranoid, suspicious, and unwelcoming, both to this person and perhaps to other members of the group; you may fear the judgment of the group for refusing to let him in – especially if this person is popular and well liked (and most sexual predators are). Predatory individuals understand this all too well, and are happy to use our fears, doubts and insecurities against us. A predator will have to “sell” you a story to gain access to you, and if they’re selling, you shouldn’t be buying. We tend to imagine that violence is clear-cut, that everyone’s roles are clearly defined, and that the attacker’s intent is always visible, clear, and on display. This is often the case with spontaneous violence, e.g. if you spill a drink over somebody and they become aggressive, cut somebody off in traffic who decides to follow you, etc. However, if a predator needs to get close to you, before they enact their plan, they will need to be more surreptitious in the way they gain access to you, and this normally means putting you in a situation where you may want to refuse whatever request, behavior or action they’re engaging in, but aren’t sure of a polite or socially acceptable way to do so. This is where you need to have the confidence and the assurance not to play the “game”, to side step it, and not follow convention. One of my students had an experience in a bar where an “over-friendly” individual came over to the group he was with, and started to try and engage members in conversation e.g. “How’s everybody doing? Is everybody having a good time? Are you having a good time?” etc. As he was doing this he was ruffling people’s hair, slapping them on the back, etc. It was an uncomfortable situation. The individual wasn’t behaving aggressively, although the intent was thinly veiled. It may be that his motive was simply to enjoy the “power” he had over everyone in the situation, that he enjoyed making people uncomfortable, and the inevitable confrontation, when somebody eventually asked him to leave, stop touching them, etc. - after all, he’d be justified to feel indignant when he was just being friendly, etc. In his game, the rules were simple: the group would either have to put up with his behavior, or ask him to leave – and it would be wrong for them to ask him to leave, because he was just being friendly, and it would be wrong to be rude/impolite to somebody behaving this way, etc. I used to see a lot of this behavior when I worked in bars and clubs; sometimes it would be an individual who would start up an overly friendly conversation with a girl/woman in order to make her partner/boyfriend, appear unreasonable, jealous, paranoid and rude, etc. It’s a game, where the predator sets the rules, and if you play the game, you lose – that’s the only outcome. My student didn’t play the game; when the individual started to ruffle his hair, he causally grabbed his hand and started to squeeze the thumb, removing the hand from his head, as he did this he smiled and said, “we’re all having a great time”. This wasn’t how the game was meant to go, and the individual in question walked away. When you take control off a socially awkward situation, it becomes awkward for the other party, because they are now playing by your rules (which they don’t understand). We all have a choice - if you ever feel an individual has created an awkward social situation, to get you to comply with a demand or act in a certain way, you don’t have to play their game. If an individual has created a situation where you can either let him in to your house or refuse him entry, choose a third way e.g. tell him you were just leaving to go out. Predators will frame a situation in such a way as to make you believe you only have a limited number of options; options that they control and have responses for. Go off script, create another option. Personal Safety and Self-Protection, is not a set of rules, or “do’s and don’ts” but a creative process. Be confident and be creative in the solutions that you choose. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=283 Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=282 Between July 30th and August 7th, three women have been sexually assaulted and murdered, in three separate states, and whilst all of the victims share a seemingly similar demographic (professional women aged between 27 and 31), there seems to be little else to link/associate these murders (the modus operandi of the killer in each case was different), other than the fact that they were all jogging at the time when they were assaulted. Whilst there is a remote possibility that all of the victims share a common killer, it is more likely that this isn’t the case – it may be that two of the murders were copycat ones, or that the motives are specific to each case and the timing is coincidental. However, what the three incidents do demonstrate are the threats and vulnerabilities that exist when running alone. In this article, I will look at the various steps and precautions that can be taken, when jogging/running alone, and how these can be used to upset a predatory individual’s plan(s). The first thing to understand about violent crimes such as sexual assault (and murder), is that it is a premeditated assault, that has a level of planning and preparation to it, which will follow a certain process, dependent on two situational components: location and relationship. When a violent crime is committed by a stranger, the location where it happens is the driving factor; when it is committed by somebody you know, or who knows you, the location becomes less important, and the relationship you have with your assailant becomes more important. In a “stranger crime”, the attacker chooses a location first and then selects a victim, when the attacker is somebody you know, they will select the victim first, and then the location. One of the commonalities in the three sexual assaults/murders that are in the news of late, is that all of the victims were keen users of social media, and it is likely as runners, shared posts and information about this pass-time. It may be that they wrote about routes, paths and trails they ran on, sharing this information with “friends” on social media. It is believed in the case of Ally Brueger, the 31-year old, who was shot in Michigan while running, that she knew her killer. If she’d shared details of her runs on social media, her killer may well have been able to work out her “location” on that particular day, and simply waited for her. The information we share about ourselves publicly can be used against us, by those who mean us harm; checking in at locations on Facebook, publishing trail routes, announcing that we have just got back from a particular run, and publishing the times of that run, all provide information about where we have been, and where we might be, at particular times. Predatory individuals like predictable individuals, and unfortunately, people like to be predictable. Most criminals, after selecting a victim and a location (or a location and then a victim), carry out some form of surveillance. In one of our free women’s self-defense classes, we once had a teenage girl, who had been the target of an attempted sexual assault whilst out running – fortunately a passer-by had heard her screams and came to her assistance. She had run the same route at the same time, every Saturday afternoon, and her movements had come to the attention of a sexual predator who was looking for potential victims. When he was caught by the police, he admitted that he’d watched her run that route for about 4 weeks before making his assault. This had given him ample time to plan and prepare for the actual assault. Simply changing the days and the times when you run a particular route, so you don’t fall into a regular pattern, can limit the surveillance a predatory individual can conduct on you, and make you an unattractive victim. Sexual assailants fantasize and mentally rehearse their assaults, so by reducing the number of times they potentially see you, and get to feed that fantasy, the more remote it can become (compared to someone they are able to frequently observe). If your movements are unpredictable, it will be difficult for them to plan and rehearse their assault. You should also understand that certain things you do to “increase” your safety, may not actually do so. Much is talked about in the running community of not running with headphones/earbuds. Whilst I agree with this advice, it should be noted that if you’re simply not wearing headphones, you won’t automatically become safer. In one sense, it doesn’t matter if you run through a dangerous neighborhood with your earbuds in or not, you are still exposing yourself to the same dangers and threats. If you don’t look around yourself when you run, it’s unlikely you’ll notice somebody who may be conducting surveillance on you, whether you’re listening to music or not. Not wearing headphones should be part of your overall awareness, not just a token gesture to it. If you run along a route where there are plenty of places for somebody to conceal themselves, headphones on or not, it is unlikely you will spot somebody synchronizing their movement to yours, and positioning themselves for an assault. For this reason, you may want to change your running routes according to the seasons; in winter, when the trees don’t have leaves on them, you might have clear sight lines of anybody else who is in the environment, whilst in spring and summer, these sight-lines may be obscured. Choose your routes based on visibility – make sure other people can see you along your route (if you run along a busy road, there are plenty of eyes on you, and less of a risk of being assaulted, etc. -you can also find less “toxic” routes to run along that enjoy good natural surveillance), and make sure you can see other people. For an attacker (whether a stranger or somebody familiar to you) to cause you harm, they must synchronize their movement to yours e.g. follow you, wait for you, intercept you, etc. For this to happen, they need to know where you will be at a particular time and/or have a way to disguise their movement. By changing your routes and times, by selecting routes with good visibility, and by taking the time to look around you as you run, you will reduce a predator’s opportunity to do these things. Don’t think that just because you take your headphones off you have become safer - without taking active steps to increase your safety, you won’t have. Whilst it would be easy to become paranoid due to the way the media is reporting on these sexual assaults/murders, we should remember that by taking a few simple steps we can greatly reduce the risk of appearing on a predator’s radar. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=282 Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=281 A lot of people have an, “It’ll be alright on the night”, approach to personal safety and self-defense, believing that when put under pressure, they’ll rise to the occasion and develop on the spot, an effective plan/strategy for dealing with the situation. They may convince themselves that this is in fact how they work best, and it’s only when they’re in the worst position possible that they are truly creative e.g. that they’ll come up with a clever phrase or line, which will diffuse and de-escalate an aggressive confrontation, which is about to get physical. Unfortunately, where violence is concerned this is the opposite; people fall apart, rather than getting it together. Making effective decisions when under stress and duress is extremely difficult, and this is why it’s important to have pre-built decision trees that we can use to guide and direct us. The first question I always ask, and that sits at the top of my decision tree is, “Is this a premeditated act of aggression or a spontaneous one?” Premeditated acts of violence, are those that predatory individuals plan and prepare for, whilst spontaneous ones are those that occur because of something you have done, or are perceived to have done – the person has become aggressive as a result of your actions/behaviors. An example of a premeditated act of aggression would be a mugging/robbery, where a mugger acquires a weapon, chooses a location and selects a victim etc. In this example there are two planned steps that precede victim selection, and indicate premeditation. If you spill a drink over somebody, or cut them off in traffic, and as a result they become aggressive towards you, you are dealing with a spontaneous act of violence. The big difference, from a practical perspective, is that premeditated acts of violence have goals attached to them, whereas spontaneous acts don’t e.g. a mugger will know what they want out of a situation, whereas a person who has had a drink spilt over them won’t. In premeditated acts of aggression, where there are goals and outcomes defined/expected, you have a choice: you can acquiesce, or you can fight. If you refuse to hand over your wallet to an armed robber, you should be prepared to fight, if you don’t willingly leave a location with an abductor you should expect your aggressor to use physical violence in order to gain acquiescence. If you consider these two examples, you can see that the predatory individuals want two different things; the mugger wants your resources, your abductor wants you – this then forms the next level of the decision tree, “Does your aggressor want your resources, or do they want you?” If it’s your resources, you should acquiesce e.g. a mugger is leaving the location with your wallet, the variable is whether you get cut or shot, etc. If however, the predator wants you, or to do something to you – such as sexually assault you – you should fight. It is worth pointing out that these directions are meant as heuristics (rules of thumb) to guide you, rather than as absolutes. At the end of the day, it is the situation that determines the solution e.g. if five armed assailants with AK-47’s invade your home, and attempt to take you hostage for ransom, it may be better to acquiesce in that moment than to fight, etc. Below this level of the decision tree, exists another: after acquiescing to your assailant’s demands, do they stay or go? A mugger, once they have your possessions, should be looking to exit the location as quickly as possible. If they don’t go, they have stopped following the “script” that a mugger should be working to, and should no longer be considered as a predator who is after your resources, but as one who is looking to do something to you. This means that it is time to fight. Fortunately, in most cases, after handing over your wallet and/or possessions, a mugger will leave. Their only reason to stay would be if they had a secondary motive, such as sexually assaulting you, or stabbing/shooting you, as part of a gang blooding, etc. If it’s not a premeditated incident, but a spontaneous one, then your aggressor is highly unlikely to have any goals; they are aggressive and potentially violent because they feel they are justified to be so, and because they are unable to see/perceive any non-violent alternatives. It is not the purpose of this blog article to detail the de-escalation process and how this works (if you search kravmagablog.com for “de-escalation” you will find articles on this), however it largely involves asking the person open-ended questions that will cause them to come up with satisfactory solutions to the situation. One of the reasons that the process involves asking questions, is to ascertain how emotional the person is, and if they are still able to use reason to assess their situation. If they’re not able to process your questions, then de-escalation will not be possible. The next level in the decision tree, if the situation is a spontaneous one is, “Are they able to coherently respond to your question(s)?” If they are then de-escalation is likely to work, and should be attempted, if not, then there is one final step left which may avert a physical confrontation. There are two fear emotions we are born with: fast movement, and loud noise. Both stimulate our flinch and startle reflexes, and can cause an emotional reset. If you have spilt a drink over a person, and have been unsuccessful in trying to communicate to them, flicking your fingers quickly towards their eyes (not making contact), and shouting, “Stay Back!”, as you move away from them, may force an emotional reset in them, waking them up from their aggressive fog. Even if it doesn’t, they now have to make a conscious decision to approach/move towards you – which at least gives you more time to act and respond with your own pre-emptive attack. If they make a movement towards you after you’ve done this, they are, from a legal perspective, committing an assault.  Having a simple hierarchical decision tree, whose splits/divisions are based on the other person’s actions and responses, helps us to act decisively, rather than get caught in a deliberation loop. There may well be other ways to respond, that would be applicable in very specific situations e.g. somebody might be able to use humor to de-escalate a situation, etc. However, it is good to have a universal decision tree that can be used in all situations to initially guide us, and discover the “exceptions” as we work through it. Being able to think quickly and efficiently under stress and duress, requires a level of pre-planning and decision trees help us do this.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=281 Mon, 08 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=280 I grew up practicing martial arts; traditional martial arts, where there was a great emphasis on the values of humility and respect. If you practiced martial arts as a child, you probably had a similar experience: you were not just there to learn physical skills and techniques, but to develop character. To become somebody who was honest, who had integrity, someone who knew what was right and what was wrong, and was prepared to stand up for what they believed in, etc. Not only would these things make you a better person, but they would also help to develop a fighting spirit. As a child, I believed in these things, and as an adult I still do. Whilst I still practice traditional Karate and Judo, my time and emphasis is on reality based self-defense, and Krav Maga in particular – where these values, rarely get mentioned. There is a lot of emphasis on aggression training, but not on the development of the person, and it is this development, which leads to the foundation upon which aggression, not anger, can be built. If you truly respect yourself, you will fight with all of your being, when called upon to do so. If you lack this self-worth, then all you’ll be able to respond with is anger. Anger and aggression, may appear similar, however one is built on character, whilst the other comes from a lack of it. I was recently interviewed for a podcast, where the conversation led to myself and the interviewer (a martial artist) discussing why “values” aren’t taught in adult classes. With Krav Maga, in particular, many students (and instructors) didn’t train martial arts as children, and so didn’t get this “education”, and yet we don’t teach or promote the importance of these values to them. We are so caught up in being relevant, and teaching techniques, that we spend little time on the values, which build character, and true fighting spirit/aggression – the desire to fight and defend yourself when attacked. Sometimes, when I’m teaching women’s self-defense, and I talk about sticking thumbs in eyes, biting, ripping and gouging, someone will say to me, that they don’t believe they would be able to do that to somebody if they were attacked. I will often ask them if they have children, and if they do, would they be prepared to do these things to somebody if their child was attacked. Usually they will say that they would. So what’s the difference? It’s that they see the worth/value of their child as greater than their own. It is no good simply repeating the message, that they need to be more aggressive, etc. as repetition rarely acts as clarification. Rather, their own self-worth, needs to be developed and fostered, so that they truly value and respect themselves. On this, aggression can be built. A lack of humility and respect is dangerous in other regards. Without humility, you will not be open to learning, and without respect you won’t value yourself or anybody else, and so not recognize those who could teach/educate you – and there are a lot of people out there who you can learn something from. All my life I have cross-trained, and sought out those who could educate and develop me. Don’t get me wrong, I have an ego – I have to in order to write this blog, and to teach. When I stand up on the mats and teach, I am making a statement, that says I believe in what I am teaching, and that I’m right to teach this (every instructor has to have this belief and confidence to be effective, regardless of the style/system that they teach). However, in making that statement, I am not saying everybody else is wrong (that would make me a cult leader, not a teacher). My ego knows its boundaries, and it is that humility I learnt through the martial arts, which allows me to recognize and be open to other people’s teaching and experiences, and see the value in them. Do I agree, with everything somebody else teaches? Probably not, which is why I teach what I teach, but can I see the value in what they are doing? In most cases, yes. Of course, there are people who teach poorly, whose techniques may be questionable, etc., and there are those who may wish to include me in this population, and they are entitled to do so. However, my starting point is always one of openness, with a desire to learn, not one of judgment. Without this openness, which is an expression of humility, I would be a cult leader/member of a system, that respects no other system or individual teacher. If I told my students that mine is the only way, that everything else that is out there is inferior, and not worth looking at, that I am right and everybody else is wrong, etc. I’d be fostering a “sheep” mentality, where instead I should be equipping them to evaluate what others are teaching, so that they can take these lessons and apply them to their own education. When students move away from Boston (where my school is located), relocating to other regions and countries, I hope that they can evaluate what others schools teach, and have respect for them. When they watch clips on YouTube and social media, they can be open and take something away from that experience. I don’t want them to view self-defense and martial arts from the perspective of, “that’s not what we do, so it’s wrong”. To get a full experience of the extensive and diverse world of martial arts, and benefit from it, there must be humility and respect, and the ability to try to see value and worth in what others do. I can teach “Krav Maga” to an Aikidoka (practitioner of Aikido), and show them how their Aikido can be incorporated into Krav Maga. I can show a traditional Karateka, the similarities between Krav Maga and Karate, and how one can benefit the other, etc. I can see the value in these systems, and the value in Krav Maga. Likewise, I can see the benefits in the approaches that different Krav Maga systems teach and emphasize, however a lot of that is down to my experiences as a child growing up in the martial arts, where humility and respect are strongly emphasized. For many adults who come to Krav Maga without this background, it is our responsibility as instructors to help develop and foster these values, as without them we will create close-minded, divisive cult members, who will not be able to learn from anyone else but their own instructor. Maybe as an instructor that is a frightening proposition, and maybe along the journey, we will lose certain students, but more importantly, we will keep those and attract those who appreciate this positive message.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=280 Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=279 In last week’s blog, I discussed the profile and motivations of criminals who commit home invasions. In this blog article, I will look at the different methods that they use to gain entry to properties and access to victims, along with preventative steps that can be taken in order to deny them both. Unlike a burglary, where signs of occupancy act as a deterrence, for a home invasion to be successful, the homeowners need to be in the property, at the same time as the criminal(s). This means that a criminal has to gain an understanding of when people are at home (and when they are not). One easy indicator of this, is cars parked on a driveway. Using only the most basic surveillance, a criminal can gain a pretty reliable picture of a person’s movements from watching when cars are parked, and when they are absent, from a driveway. It is always a good security measure, if possible, to always park cars out of sight, in a garage – unfortunately, many people tend to use their garage as a storage facility, rather than a place to park their car(s). Once a criminal has ascertained that you are present, either in or on your property, there are four basic ways that they can get into your home, these are: 1. Push-Ins 2. Break-Ins & Ambush 3. Con 4. Blitz A “Push-In”, is as the name suggests, simply involves pushing a person into the house, as they open the door. This could be done as they open the door as a response to someone ringing the doorbell, etc., or it could be done by “following” them in as they open the door to enter their home. One of the most significant deterrents, in all crime, is natural surveillance e.g. the more people who are likely to see the crime being committed, the less likely a criminal is to engage in it. Unfortunately, many people will use the back door of their house to enter their property, rather than the front. This may be because the back door is closer to where they park the car, than the front e.g. the garage or the driveway where they park is at the back of the property and/or because the back door, accesses the kitchen and it is quicker and more convenient, to bring groceries in this way, etc. The security issue, in using entrances at the back of the property, is that they are less likely to enjoy the same level of natural surveillance, as those at the front – which normally face a street or road, where there is both vehicular and foot traffic, etc. In most cases, it is also much harder for people to hide, and obscure themselves from view, at the front of your property, if their plan is to wait for you to return home and then execute a push-in. A common time for push-ins, is early evening, when people are in their homes watching TV. If your doorbell rings, etc. when you are watching TV, your attention will be divided, and you will probably not be paying as much attention to your personal safety, as you normally would – criminals who commit home invasions, will sometimes watch through a window to see if and how many people are watching TV; especially if it is a family- in this case, the threat of violence towards the children can be used, to force compliance, etc. Opening a door, without first checking who may be on the other side, both when you open the door to somebody who has rung the bell, etc., as well as when you go to leave your property, is always a risk. Installing a spyhole, and fitting a security chain across your door, are two simple ways to mitigate and manage this risk. Unfortunately, most doors and door frames don’t allow security chains to be screwed in deeply enough, to stop a determined attacker from breaking through. To reinforce the chain, you can position a door wedge, under the door, when you open it – these two things combined should be enough to stop, or at least slow down, an attacker. Keeping a can of pepper spray by your door, that you can use against somebody who is trying to gain access to your property in this way, will also add depth to your security measures. Another way that a criminal(s) may commit a home invasion, is to break-in to your property and wait for you to return. Many people, when they look at home security, forget about windows and doors that don’t directly give access to their property, such as basement and garage doors; if it is easy for a criminal to break-in to these parts of your property, that adjoin your house, they will be able to take as much time as they need to break into the main building, as they will be unseen, sheltered from view by the basement/garage. It may be that they can use any tools you store in these places to assist them in this, though in many cases this will be unnecessary, as adjoining doors to these areas are often left open. One major weakness to property security in the US, during the Summer Months, comes from Air Conditioning Units, that are placed in house and apartment windows. These can readily be pushed in, allowing easy access for any criminal. For around five dollars, you can purchase an AC window lock, which secures the unit to the window, and will prevent this method of entry. You should also take seriously small breaches to your home security, which may be committed by criminals who are “testing” your property, in preparation for a home invasion (or burglary). A stone/rock thrown through a window, may be an act of petty vandalism, or it could be a test to see if you have a burglar alarm, and if you use it. The unscrewing and loosening, of a security light, may come about through natural wear and tear, or it could be a test to see if you notice that it’s not working, and take the effort to remedy it i.e. is security something you take seriously, or something that is just there for show? A criminal committing a home invasion may favor conning themselves inside, by pretending to be a workman from a utility company, etc. Such uniforms are easy to acquire, and a laminated photo ID, can be created quite easily, and with little effort. What is harder to acquire is a liveried truck or van, from the company they are claiming to represent. If one is not outside, when you open the door to them – with the security chain on, and your door wedge positioned – it may be worth calling the company to check that the visit is genuine. A “Blitz” style invasion, involves the criminals simply smashing your door down to gain access to you. It’s a crude but effective method, against most external doors, which aren’t really designed or installed to be able to withstand a lot of force. If you consider that the police and security services, can quickly break a front door in with a few strikes from a hand-held ram, you should be able to appreciate that most doors are really only designed to block access, rather than fully prevent it – I have worked both in collections, and evictions, where I’ve had to kick doors down, and it doesn’t take a lot. Once again, there are relatively inexpensive ways to strengthen a door, such as installing a larger, reinforced strike plate (cost: about $10). If you look at a typical mortise door-lock, you will see a metal plate that surrounds the hole on the door jamb/frame, which the bolt slides into – this is meant to reinforce the doorframe, so that if pushed the bolt doesn’t simply tear through the wood of the frame. Unfortunately, it is normally held in place by two screws, and so when the door is pushed hard it gets ripped out. By installing a larger strike plate, that is held in place by multiple screws, this vulnerability is reduced/mitigated. Installing deadbolts will also add resistance, and if you want to spend a bit of money, a company called “Door Devil”, make attachments that address all of the weaknesses of a standard door. Home Invasions are not the most common crimes, however they are on the increase, and excessive force and violence is common place, meaning the risk of serious injury is present. They are commonly rehearsed, and more often than not involve multiple assailants. In all cases of violent crime, it is better to prevent yourself from being targeted, through good security processes and procedures, than have to deal with an assault itself – however much you rate your physical skills and prowess, either empty-handed, or with a firearm (never underestimate the moral, psychological, emotional and legal consequences of having to shoot somebody, even if you are “right” to do so). Preventing criminals from accessing you in your home, should be an area of personal safety you take seriously. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=279 Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=278 Every 6 weeks, our school puts on a seminar, that focuses on a particular situation or type of violence, such as active shooter incidents, mugging and street robbery scenarios etc. Last Saturday, we conducted a Home Invasion seminar, looking at Home Invasion Robberies (HIR), and Home Invasion Homicides (HIH). Although these types of crime may not be the most common in the US, compared to a country such as South Africa, they are on the increase, especially within certain populations (the elderly, certain immigrant communities etc.), and despite the fact that we may not see ourselves as prime targets for such crimes, the criminals who commit these acts, may think otherwise. This is a two-part blog piece, with this article looking at and describing what a Home Invasion is and isn’t, and the motivations and profiles of those who commit them, with the second part looking at how Home Invasions occur, and what we can do to prevent them. Although the first use of the term “Home Invasion”, occurred in a Washington Post article in 1925, it was in the 1970’s and 80’s that the term started to become associated with a specific type of crime. Originally it was used to describe the activities of the “Cocaine Cowboys”, in Southern Florida, who would forcibly enter rival gangs’ houses, and steal their drugs, using extreme violence to subdue anyone who was in the property at the time; sometimes taking them hostage, and stealing their personal items, such as credit cards, cash, etc. as well. Other criminals then started to copy this method, applying it to and targeting ordinary citizens, and their residential properties. It is worth noting that although we all know what a Home Invasion is, there is no actual legal definition that matches our understanding, rather a Home Invasion comprises of a number of individual criminal acts that include, breaking and entering, trespass, assault and battery, robbery, etc. Certain States in the US are trying to move towards a singular definition of this particular type of crime, however it is difficult to come up with a comprehensive and extensive enough definition, that would cover all types of Home Invasion.  It’s important to distinguish between accidental/incidental Home Invasions, and those that are planned (and in many cases rehearsed), and fit the true definition of a Home Invasion Robbery. Sometimes the media, will refer to burglaries that have gone wrong, as being Home Invasions e.g. home owners returning to their property, whilst a burglary is taking place etc. This is misleading, as burglary is a stealth crime, and those committing it don’t want to have to deal with other individuals, whereas those committing Home Invasions are deliberately looking to confront the property owners. Many stealth crimes have a confrontational equivalent e.g. a pickpocket wants to acquire a wallet by stealth, a mugger wants to acquire it through confrontation, a criminal who breaks into parked cars and steals them doesn’t want a confrontation, whereas a Car-Jacker does, etc. The makeup and profile of individuals who commit stealth crimes, is very different to those that confront their victims, and demonstrate a preparedness to use force and violence. A burglar may use violence if no easy escape option is available, but generally they will prefer to not have to resort to violence, this is not true of those criminals who engage in Home Invasions. The biggest deterrents to a burglar, are signs of occupancy (which is why most burglaries happen during the day, when people are at work), whereas for those committing Home Invasions, occupancy is one of the required components. This is why most Home Invasions will happen during the evening or on weekends, when people are at home – in certain immigrant communities where a family member might be left at the property to act as security, the Home Invasion may be more likely during the daytime. This also applies to the elderly, who may also spend more time at home during the day. There are a number of reasons why a criminal may engage in a Home Invasion (as opposed to burglary), and some of these are described below. A criminal may know, or have a good reason to believe, that a house is a prime target in terms of the value of the assets that it may contain, but may lack the technical sophistication to disable the house’s alarm system. Because of this, they may determine that the easiest way to get their hands on these valuables, is to “break in” when the homeowner is in, and the alarm is disabled. It could be that they don’t know the location of all of the items/assets of worth, and will need the home owner to retrieve them. If there is a safe, they will need the homeowner to open it for them. This is why in most Home Invasions, the first seconds and minutes, involve extreme violence, both in the form of verbal threats and physical punishment. Those committing the invasion want to make the occupants compliant and non-resistant, as quickly as possible, and the easiest way to do this is to take away any “fight” that they may have. It is not uncommon if children are present, for them to be threatened in order for parents to acquiesce to the criminal’s demands. In some cases, the Home Invasion, may be less about the robbery and the acquiring of goods, and more about the violence meted out against the occupant(s). A Home Invasion may occur as an act of retribution e.g. if a daughter’s boyfriend has started to physically abuse her, her family members may conduct a Home Invasion against them as a form of punishment. It could also be that an estranged partner returns to their ex-partner’s house in a rage, to retrieve/collect items that once belonged to them. These situations may not seem to be common examples of Home Invasions, however certain studies have shown that in 72% of Home Invasions, the victims knew their aggressors, and in many cases didn’t even report the incident – due to the fact that they may have been guilty of criminal activity themselves, or feared further retribution, etc. There may also be secondary motivations to a Home Invasion, including rape and sexual assault; once a person is in your house, and has subdued all the occupants, they are not restricted by time, in the same way that they would be if they were committing a crime in a public place. There are several advantage that criminals who commit Home Invasions have over those who commit burglaries. One is that there is little risk of being disturbed whilst they rob the property, as they will already be with the occupants. Another is that they will also be able to steal credit cards and cash from the occupants themselves. If a criminal is committing a Home Invasion as part of a group, one may be sent out to ATM’s, possibly in the home owner’s car, to withdraw money, whilst the other(s) continue to steal property and keep the occupants under control. The car may also be used to transport any stolen goods, to another vehicle which is parked at a distance away from the property, so that it won’t be associated with it.    When we look at the profile of those who commit Home Invasions, they are largely committed by young, unemployed and uneducated men, who usually work in groups and specialize in these types of crime – and in many cases, as has been stated, rehearse them. It is also estimated that around 21% of armed robbers who normally target commercial properties have engaged in a Home Invasion at least once in their criminal career. When we consider these things, we should begin to understand that we are dealing with a more committed and specialized type of criminal, than your average mugger or pickpocket, etc. and one that is not afraid to use extreme violence against us. In the next blog article, I will look at the different methods of entry that criminals engaging in Home Invasions use, and how the risks of being targeted and falling victim to such a crime can be mitigated and reduced. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=278 Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=277 N.B. This is not a blog about politics, immigration policies etc. It is about mental health issues, terrorism, and security. It is intended to spark debate, and conversation, and a search for real solutions to these problems, and is not intended to be divisive. Late last night, a 27-year old Syrian refugee, detonated a bomb he was carrying in a backpack, outside a music festival in Ansbach, Bavaria (Germany). This was the third attack, against the public, that Germany has faced within a week; a 17-year old had attacked Chinese tourists on a train with an axe and a machete, and an 18-year old went on a rampage killing spree outside a McDonald’s restaurant in Munich, shooting and killing nine (7 of whom were teenagers). All three were Muslims, two of them immigrants from Syria. At first glance, it would seem that these three separate acts, were linked by an Islamist agenda, and whilst this may still prove to be the case, it seems that these three killers had independent agendas and motives, and histories that may suggest that their primary motivations (it may be later revealed that all three were IS sympathizers however that doesn’t be default mean that these were IS inspired attacks), may be more individualistic, with the timings around the attacks, more coincidental than planned. It appears that Ali David Sonboly (a dual Iranian-German national), who shot and killed the teenagers outside of the McDonald’s, had a long history of being fascinated by active shooter incidents; investigators found masses of articles and material concerning mass and rampage killings at his home. It also appears that the timing of his own killing spree, marked the five-year anniversary of the massacre in Norway, where Anders Breivik, a far-right extremist killed 77, attendees of a Workers Youth League summer camp. Ali David Sonboly, was mentally unstable, and had been planning the event for over a year. The Syrian refugee, who detonated the bomb last night, had twice before tried to commit suicide – and had spent time in a psychiatric ward – he was about to be deported to Bulgaria, having had his asylum application denied. The fact that he didn’t even have a ticket for the festival he was trying to get into, suggests an extreme lack of planning – which fortunately meant the impact of his attack was significantly lessened than if he’d managed to get in, and make it to a crowded area, etc. Whether or not these two individuals had any ties to terrorist organizations, it is more likely that mental health issues, had a more prominent role to play than radicalization, etc., and yet it would be all too easy to bundle these two events up with others and play the terrorism card. There is a very real security danger in doing this, if we are to be effective in preventing both further acts of terror, as well as hate crimes. I have long argued against security and safety which is specific rather than general, that focuses on particular threats, whilst ignoring or discounting others, because at face value they don’t seem to carry the same risk. There is a very real danger from this in the current climate, where Syrian immigration is concerned. If the focus is solely on screening, identifying and denying terrorists and would-be terrorists, we may put all our attention into dealing with one threat, whilst ignoring another potential one; the mental health issues that come from growing up in a war zone and living your life as a refugee – especially if you are a child or a teenager. We may be so concerned with the dangers of radicalization, that we fail to take into account and treat, those who have serious mental and emotional health issues; those who will not grow up to be terrorists, but will become active shooters, proponents and practitioners of hate crimes, etc. Terrorist attacks by Syrian immigrants are a real threat, and need our attention, but at the same time, we need to put resources into helping those that have come from traumatic backgrounds, and who carry the scars and experiences that may in later years, propel them towards violence against the communities of which they are now part. Ali David Sonboly, appears to have targeted teenagers (just like Anders Breivik), and whether he wanted his killing spree to appear part of a political or religious crusade or not, it is more likely that his motivations were personal; in all likelihood he wanted revenge on a group/population that had either openly mocked him, excluded him, or similar (in 2012 he’d been the victim of “bodily injuries” in an incident involving young people) – just like the Columbine Killers. Whether he believed the reason for this was down to his ethnicity/religious background or not, and in turn this lead him to sympathize with Islamist extremists, is unclear, however his spree killing seems more like a copy-cat hate crime than an act of terror. Mental health issues were a more important factor than radicalization – this does not seem to be the “traditional” story of a well-adjusted, middle class, individual who became devoutly religious, and was coerced into becoming a Jihadist. The Syrian refugee, who had previously tried to commit suicide twice, had severe mental health issues. Whether these arose from his experiences as a refugee from a war zone, or were deeper rooted, existing before the conflict in Syria began, is unclear and may never be known. Whether he was assisted in some way by a terrorist organization is still unclear, however it is evident, that depression, anxiety and other mental health issues probably had a more significant part to play, than religious fundamentalism. Some will argue that we shouldn’t be admitting any refugees into any country. That the risk of letting terrorists in is to great, that we don’t have the resources to treat those with mental health issues, and so we shouldn’t become an incubator for hate crimes, etc. The truth is, from a security perspective, this is a futile argument; people will cross borders, whether legally or illegally, and will become part of our communities. Many of these individuals will have been exposed to and suffered traumatic events, and to deny them the services that could help them cope and overcome these, may mean that not only are we creating individuals who are susceptible to radicalization, but those who will express their anger, hate (possibly towards themselves and others) and depression, through violent acts (the same would be true of denying these services of our own mentally ill citizens). We may then, once again, miss the point and label these as acts of terrorism, and once again fail to deal with the underlying causes. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=277 Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=276 I have written fairly extensively in this blog about the five different ways you can respond to an aggressor (e.g. Wednesday 23rd April 2014), and the difference between physiological and social responses e.g. if fighting is consciously chosen as a solution to dealing with an aggressor, it is not the same as “fight”, as an automatic, physiological response, as in the fight/flight response mechanism – deciding to run away, is different to finding yourself running away from a threat/danger. However, I’ve not written a lot about the freeze response, it’s purpose, and how to utilize it. This is the purpose of this blog article. Fight and flight are only true adrenal responses, if you become aware of yourself already doing them, and in terms of social violence they are extremely rare. If you are confronted by a bear, and find yourself running, that is a true adrenal response. Your fear system has kicked in, and has started you moving, and it is because you are running that you start to understand the reason why. This type of response is common, when we are confronted by the threat of danger in an instance e.g. we suddenly see a bear etc. It is not that common where social violence is concerned i.e. in intra-species conflicts, where we are dealing with other human beings. If you spill a drink over somebody, and they respond aggressively, you are unlikely to suddenly find yourself running away, or for that matter attacking them. In fact, you are much more likely in that moment to freeze – to stop and do nothing. You may then decide to posture back, or act submissively etc. You may also, consciously decide to fight or run away, however this decision, should not be confused with the fight/flight response (which is physiological and automatic). The freeze response is often painted as a bad thing by self-defense instructors (I have been guilty myself of this at times); In our urgency, to get our students to act decisively when subjecting them to stress and duress, we often inform them to do something, rather than nothing. In certain training scenarios, we may in fact be doing them a disservice, by insisting that they act immediately, rather than acknowledging the role of the freeze response, and the part it may play, in their survival. I recently did an active shooter seminar, where I started the session off with an introduction, that was interrupted by two “shooters”, coming in firing blanks (this was carefully choreographed, and done in a way that although feeling real, everybody was aware that it was in fact a drill). Everybody, to a man, froze – to put it more clearly, they either ducked and froze, or made their way to the walls, and ducked and froze. This is something that we sometimes forget about freezing; it can be preceded by action e.g. people moving from an open space, and flattening themselves against a wall, in order to make themselves less visible and less of a target – watching, I could only marvel, at the simplicity and ingenuity of the human fear system, and the way it instinctively made everyone less of a target. We tend to think of the freeze response as being like a deer caught in the headlights, however in reality, the freeze response may occur after the flight response, etc.  In this particular moment, freezing and not acting, would have actually increased everybody’s survival chances, had this been a real-life situation. Had everyone run away from the first gunman, they would have been met by a second. Getting to a safer place, and staying still (freezing), made everybody less of a target; as movement attracts attention. In Operation Entebbe, where the IDF, rescued 102 hostages from the PFLP-EO, at Entebbe Airport in Uganda, one of the three hostages who died, was killed when he stood up and said, “The IDF are here to save us”. Unfortunately, his movement, attracted the attention of one of the rescue team, as they burst through the door, and he was shot – staying still/freezing would have been a more successful survival strategy. Freezing, has a productive purpose, and as self-defense instructors we have to acknowledge this; the danger of freezing comes when people remain in this state. Another example, of the value of the freeze response, that came from this seminar, was that many people were unable initially to identify where the shots were coming from. Most people heard the shots, and reacted, before they recognized who the gunman was, and where he was shooting from. In enclosed spaces, gunshots echo, and depending on where you are, the echo can sound as loud as the original shot. By immediately responding/acting, you could be running away from an echo, and towards the shooter. By freezing, lowering/reducing the profile, individuals were able to take a moment to assess what was actually going on, and what they should do, how they should respond, etc. Sometimes it is worth taking a moment to assess the danger and formulate a response. There is a huge difference between blind panic and decisiveness, and as instructors we are not always the best at differentiating the two; not all action is effective action. The freeze response, has its place and purpose; it can help keep us from becoming a target, and it can give us a moment to formulate a strategy. The danger from it comes when we don’t have a strategy, and because of this we’re unable to move forward – this is when we become like the deer caught in the headlights i.e. we’re hoping the danger avoids us, rather than the other way round. The quickest and easiest way to make sure we’re not caught in this state, is to breathe. When we freeze, we stop breathing, because our fear system wants us to become like a statue, and the movement of the lungs will prevent this. If we start to breathe (and this must be a conscious, planned thing), we will find ourselves free. This is when we can become decisive, and enact the plans, and strategies we have been taught. All of our natural responses to danger have a purpose – if they haven’t, they’d have died away, evolved and/or transformed themselves in some way. The freeze response has its purpose(s), and we should acknowledge it, and accept and build it into the way we train our students. We should differentiate between decisiveness and actions that are borne out of panic. Our goal is survival, and we should recognize and understand how our natural responses facilitate this. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=276 Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=275 Although we don’t yet know the motives and reasons behind last night’s attack in Nice, France (where a lorry was driven for 2 kilometers along the town’s promenade, killing at least 84), whether it was an act of “Leaderless Jihad” (both IS and AQ have talked about using vehicles to kill), a hate crime, an act of revenge upon the town due to a personal dispute, etc. there are lessons to be learnt, concerning the type of future we can expect concerning mass killings and violence directed towards groups. Violence rarely stands still, and criminals/terrorists are adept at educating themselves to be more effective and efficient in their killings, and to find new targets that they may previously overlooked. In this blog article, I want to discuss two concepts, “Victim Displacement”, and “Target Hardening”. Victim/Target Displacement, is a depressing concept/idea, but one that accurately reflects reality. It proposes that there will always be a certain level of violence, that targets individuals/groups, and that it’s not possible to prevent it, only redirect it. An example of this would be, a mugger who is looking for victims in a particular location; there will be some individuals that they ignore, and others that they select. Those that they don’t target, have the potential violence that may have been directed towards them, redirected towards the more suitable/attractive victims. Theoretically, the mugger still seeks the same number of victims, it’s just that some of that violence is displaced from some individuals, towards others – when we teach personal safety and self-protection, we are not trying to reduce the total number of muggings in our locale, rather we are teaching people, to not be selected as victims; we are Target Hardening them, making them unattractive victims, compared to others. Unfortunately, according to the concept, somebody has to be a victim. The same is true of acts of terrorism; somebody, something or some group will be targeted. Terrorists, don’t give up because things become too difficult for them – they may look for softer targets, and/or conduct more sophisticated attacks. It is probable that Bastille Day celebrations in Nice next year, will be subject to much more scrutiny by the security services, than they were this year, and in all likelihood, roads will be closed/blockaded to prevent another attack of this nature. Nice, beginning today, will start to harden itself as a target, so that it doesn’t become the target for another mass killing. This is not to say it should have or even could have predicted that such an event would occur, rather that the natural response when you have been targeted, is to make sure it doesn’t happen again. This also happens on an individual basis; I think all self-defense instructors have had individuals start training in response to an incident of violence, such as a mugging, or a bar fight, etc. that they were involved in i.e. they want to target harden themselves so this doesn’t happen again, and if it does, they will know how to deal with it.      Victim/Target displacement and Target Hardening, can be clearly seen/demonstrated in the 2016, March bombings at Brussels Airport. Most airports, have tightened security up to a level where it is difficult for a passenger to get a bomb on to a plane, they have also made it extremely difficult for individuals to get firearms and/or explosives into the departure lounge – these locations/areas have been target-hardened. The one area where security isn’t as tight, is in and around the departure hall. Violence, which may have traditionally targeted an airplane in flight, has been displaced to a softer target i.e. the departure lounge. In response to the Nice truck attack, security agencies around the world have said that they will be stepping up, and tightening the security, at events where there will be large crowds. If they are effective at doing this, then the violence that would normally be targeted at these events, will be displaced towards softer and easier targets. These terrorist acts may also become less sophisticated, which means the number of incidents may increase (how much training is required to hire a truck, and drive it along a road packed with pedestrians?), and with this so does the possibility that we as individuals may find ourselves having to deal with an act of terror – something which, at the moment, we may think of as being remote. My intention is not to scare-monger, but explain, that as security in one are increases, violence becomes displaced, and moves to easier/softer targets. The less sophisticated the attack/threat, the less training it requires to execute. The less protected an asset is, the more vulnerable it is to a threat. This combination, means that the risk of being involved in an act of terrorism increases; what was once beyond our imagining is now a distinct possibility, and we should be prepared for it. We cannot rely on the security services to identify and predict every potential terrorist, we cannot rely on law enforcement, etc. to always be on hand – we may be safer at public events in light of the events in Nice, but in our day-to-day lives, we may also be exposed to more risk, because of this. It would be wrong to conclude that because the security services are stepping up their game, increasing their vigilance, and putting more precautions in place that we are actually any safer; in fact the opposite may be true – more “lone wolves” may be inspired to conduct copycat attacks against softer targets, etc. I am not suggesting that more security is a bad thing, rather that we shouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief and believe that because of it, we as individuals are now safer. Terrorist violence has to be directed somewhere, and it will be displaced (and is being displaced) to softer and softer targets, which means it’s coming closer and closer to us as individuals. What should our response be? Education and training in prediction, prevention and identification.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=275 Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=273 We are often advised by police, self-defense instructors, and others, that we should be more situationally aware i.e. that we should check our environment, for suspicious behaviors, and things that look out of place etc. Whilst this is good advice, it doesn’t help us much, unless we know what we are actually looking for – how we actually become more situationally aware. This is one of the reasons that I have little use for personal safety “tips” e.g. when jogging, don’t run with your headphones/earbuds in. Unfortunately, following this advice doesn’t by default make you safer, because if you don’t know what a threat or danger looks like, you won’t be able to identify it, whether you are listening to music or not. One piece of advice that is often given as a good example of situational awareness, is to be suspicious of the person wearing a winter coat on a hot day; yes, they could be a suicide bomber, or an active shooter, using the large coat to conceal explosives, and/or weapons, or they could be the homeless person who uses it to store and transport their possessions etc. The important factor is not the coat, but the context. The better way to become more situationally aware, is to throw out the “rules”, and begin to understand other people’s movement - specifically how it relates to ours, within the context of our situation. For somebody to assault you, they must first synchronize their movement to yours. Whilst it may be difficult to ascertain whether somebody is watching/surveying you, assessing whether you are victim material or not, it is much easier to identify when somebody’s movement, is a response to yours e.g. somebody starts to follow you, etc. There are four basic types of synchronization of movement, which can be remembered by the acronym WAIT. These are:Waiting 1. Waiting 2. Approaching 3. Intercepting 4. Tracking If somebody knows where you are going to be, within a certain time window, they will be able to wait for you there. On Friday, a game called “Pokemon Go”, was released. The premise of the game, that runs as an app on your smartphone, is that there are Pokemon characters, virtually located at certain geographic points. You view the landscape, through the phone’s camera, and when you get close to one of the characters, the phone alerts you to their presence. When you are close enough, the character appears on the screen, as if existing in your physical environment, and you can interact with them. Obviously, the game is intended for children, rather than adults, however it can make adult predators, aware of locations that children who play the game will be heading to – they will also be aware, that a child who realizes they are close to a Pokemon character, will not be thinking about their personal safety, or anything their parents have told them, once they have them on their screen (it’s also a “talking point” that an adult predator can use to start a conversation with the child). A parent may think that their child is safe when playing this game in an enclosed park or similar, where they can be seen, however child abductions can happen in seconds, and if a predator knows where a child will be, they can take steps to plan a successful getaway from that point. This is not to say that children shouldn’t play/be given the game, rather that parents and guardians should be aware of how a predatory individual could use the game to synchronize their movement to a child, and how they can supervise their child’s play to make sure it’s safe. If somebody directly approaches you, it is pretty easy to identify their movement in relation to yours. However, if they use the cover of a crowd, it may be much more difficult to identify e.g. they weave through the crowd, moving towards you, keeping you in their sights, as you make your way through the crowd moving towards them – imagine a subway system where you are walking to one platform, and your potential assailant is moving the other way, towards the direction from which you have just come. This is a common method that many muggers use to commit their crimes. Most people in a crowd, naturally/unconsciously lower their situational awareness, because they believe that they are “safe” when others have eyes on them, whilst at the same time relying on others to identify potential dangers on their behalf – this is why it is important to actively “switch on” when we are in crowded places, as by default, we will start to switch off. Interception is one of the most common forms of synchronization of movement, with a predator either cutting across our path, moving with us at an oblique angle, or getting to a certain place as we do, etc. We should be aware as to when our environment, lends itself to interception. “Funnels” are places in our environment, where we are directed towards a particular location. A good example of this, would be in a subway station, where there is a large open area, with ticket gates, that lead to an escalator; both the gates and the escalator, act as a funnel, concentrating people through a confined exit, and restricting their movement, etc. These locations are prime real estate for pick pockets, who can intercept individuals, moving in behind them to gain access to a purse or open pocket. The funneling effect that the escalators create, give these criminals the time to intercept a target, and potentially hidden by a crowd, the ability to commit their crimes with little chance of detection – any movement their victim detects can easily be explained away by the jostling of the crowd. Tracking is the fourth type of synchronization. We are normally alerted to the fact that somebody is behind us by our fear system adrenalizing us, when it picks up on the footsteps/movement behind us. One way to check whether this is true synchronization, or just somebody who has fallen into step with us, is to alter and change our speed and direction. If the person behind us mirrors this, then we can be fairly confident that they have tied their movement to ours, and we should prepare to deal with the possible danger. Recognizing people’s movements, and how they relate to ours is crucial if we are to have effective situational awareness. If somebody wants to cause you physical harm, they must make contact with you, and this means moving towards you in some way. If we are able to recognize such movement, we may be able to move away and disengage, or if this isn’t possible, at least give ourselves the chance to prepare for dealing with a physical assault.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=273 Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=272 A block should only really be used as a block, if you’re caught by surprise e.g. sucker punched – and if you are sucker punched, you should be aware of what that makes you i.e. a sucker; your situational awareness, threat recognition, and understanding of pre-violence indicators, should have alerted you to the potential danger you were in, and given you the time to create distance, control range, and prepare yourself for the attack, so that you’re not taken completely by surprise (if your de-escalation or disengagement strategies are unsuccessful or unworkable). It is worth remembering that most assaults happen face-to-face, and are usually preceded by some form of dialogue (the “interview”), so there is normally the opportunity to avoid being “suckered” - as long as you are able to accept the situation you are in, and don’t remain in a state of denial. This preparation will allow you to change your block, from being purely defensive, to something that is offensive i.e. an attack. Changing the way you view blocking, from being a defensive tool, to an offensive one, is beneficial for a number of reasons. One of these is the shift in your mindset; you are no longer protecting yourself, rather you are attacking your assailant – every contact you make with them is an attack. If you are defending a circular strike with your forearm (as a 360 block), you are ramming the blade of your bone into their arm, as a strike. You are not looking to merely stop the attack, but to cause trauma to the attacking arm; to destroy a limb. Consequently, your assailant should start to associate every attack they make, with pain e.g. they throw a punch, they get hurt, they try to slash/stab you, they get hurt, etc. This is a very effective way of breaking up an attacker’s rhythm, and flow, causing them to be hesitant, and uncommitted in their attacks – something which is crucial when dealing with an assailant who is stabbing/slashing in a frenzied manner where the knife is being recoiled and returned quickly. When an assailant is stabbing, attacking the arm is crucial, and without this approach, you may see your forearm being cut, if your attacker puts a circular motion to the stab, as they recoil the knife. Breaking and interrupting their recoil/timing by “attacking” their arm will prevent this from happening, and also create the time for you to move in. All blocks, when using them as attacks, should be accompanied by movement. There are three basic reasons why you move: as part of an attack, to put you in a position where you can attack, or to move you away from danger. To end a fight quickly, our block, should facilitate movement that’s part of an attack upon the attacker i.e. our block should attack the arm which is striking/slashing us, and create the space, time and distance, that allows us to launch our own directed attack against our assailant – simultaneous block and strike (a fundamental principle of Krav Maga is the idea that attack should follow defense, at the earliest opportunity). A good example of this is seen when we defend straight strikes and punches. When strikes come out from an attacker’s silhouette/shape, they also act as an obstacle preventing us from moving forward, towards our assailant, where we can deliver our own strikes and punches etc. We may be able to move somewhat to the side and in, however in reality, when an attacker is punching with recoil, their hand movement will beat our body movement, and we will probably find ourselves in range to strike, but having to deal with a second punch etc. If we attack the punch aggressively, moving it across our assailant’s body, not only will we interrupt its recoil, but create the space for ourselves to move almost directly forward – not only beating the recoil, but moving to a position, where we are behind the punching arm. If we keep in mind that we are thinking about our block as a strike to the assailant’s arm, we are already in a “striking” mindset, with our next strike simply being delivered to another target e.g. the head, the throat etc. To use blocks in this manner, we must be able to control range and distance – one of the core skills and attributes that must be developed. By controlling range i.e. being outside of an assailant’s strikes, we will give ourselves the time needed, to turn our blocks from something which is required to defend us (because we have no choice), to something that can be used as an attack. If we can force our assailant to have to move as part of their attack (in order for it to reach us) we will create an “early warning” signal that a punch/strike is on its way. It may be that this body movement alone, would be enough to defend us e.g. we could simply step back in response to our attacker’s movement in order to avoid being hit etc. The block, should therefore, be seen as a way to “join” ourselves to our attacker, so that we are moving towards them, closing down their distance and range, and putting them within ours. Krav Maga is an attacking style, and this means everything has to be part of an attack/assault. Defense, as defense should not exist, it should always be part of an attack, or setting us up to attack. Blocks may protect us as a by-product of the attack, however this should not be their primary intent. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=272 Thu, 07 Jul 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=271 Self-defense and personal safety is specific to the individual; something which can easily be forgotten, when teaching different groups. A good example of this is the difference in the nature and types of assaults experienced by men and women e.g. men are most likely to be subjected to assaults which predominately involve striking, whilst women are much more likely to experience attacks, where their movement is controlled and restricted, etc. This is not to say that women shouldn’t learn how to block and protect themselves from strikes and punches, but rather that if we look at the way women are generally assaulted, it largely differs to the ways in which men are attacked i.e. gender is an important factor in determining the violence an individual is likely to face. Age is also an important factor – in school bullying situations, a bullied child is more likely to have to deal with multiple assailants, than a middle aged man or woman, etc. Violence is specific to the profile of the victim who is targeted. This is important to understand, because when we read magazine articles and similar, that tell us, that these are the five most important self-defense techniques we should know, we should question whether they actually apply to us. Are the techniques/defenses listed applicable to the types of assault we are likely to face, given our particular lifestyle? No writer or author (and I include myself in this), can say that what we present, represents your profile 100% - we don’t know. Crime statistics aren’t categorized in a way that would allow us to make even the most general statements about which attacks people are most likely to face; we rely on our own experiences, and those who we work with – and we have to acknowledge, like our own experiences, that theirs are limited too. Geography has a part to play, when we start to look at what the most relevant types of attack, which we need to learn to defend against. Ice pick style knife attacks are common in Israel at the moment, but don’t appear as prevalently in the US or the UK. When I taught in the UK, I was often asked about how to defend against knife attacks from behind e.g. someone stabbing a knife into your buttocks, when standing behind you, etc. I have never been asked this since I started teaching in the US. I’m sure these types of attack have and do happen here, but from people’s lack of concern about it, it doesn’t seem that they are the most common. I would also hazard a guess that such attacks are aimed more at men in their early 20’s, rather than middle aged people living in the suburbs. Even within the US, different cities, experience different types of violence. Gun violence in Boston, where I live and teach, is not nearly as common as that in a city such as Chicago. What may be a likely type of attack/assault in Chicago, may not be as relevant to somebody living in Boston. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t important for somebody living in a city with low gun violence, to learn how to defend themselves against firearms; such assaults may be relatively low frequency, but they carry and contain high consequences. However, if I was teaching in Chicago, I would probably cover assaults with firearms, on a much more regular basis, than I do at the moment, simply because my students would be much more likely to have to deal with them, and it is important as a reality based self-defense instructor to teach that which is relevant. This is one of the issues with teaching what is ostensibly a military system, to civilians, and the double danger of teaching Krav Maga which is taught to special forces, elite units, etc. A military solution may be suitable for a civilian situation, but it is not by default; the instructor teaching the technique/solution may need to translate what they are teaching for it to be applicable. I remember that one of the first techniques I was ever taught in a civilian class, was how to defend a rear strangle – something that from my own personal experience working in bar and club security, I have rarely seen; normally involving a third party trying to pull somebody away, etc. The technique is relevant for civilians to learn, but the context of the attack is largely different to that faced in the military, where it is taught as a defense against sentries being taken out. Violence is context specific, and needs to be taught this way if it is to be relevant; what may be a likely attack to one audience, might be less likely to another. Violence, also changes over time, meaning that what may indeed have been a likely attack at one point, becomes less likely or irrelevant at a later date. A good example of this can be seen in the way that muggers and robbers have “updated” some of the ways in which they carry out their crimes. I remember having to change some of my knife threat defenses, where the knife is pointed against the stomach, when I heard about a spate of muggings in the area where one of my schools was located, where the muggers were actually breaking the flesh, and holding the knife pushed into their victim’s stomach – not deeply, but enough that if you pushed the knife to the side, you would end up creating a serious wound. In a matter of weeks, what I had been teaching became not only irrelevant but extremely dangerous. Certain scenarios that may have been common at one point, may change over time, and even become less likely than others. The real danger of articles and the like, which suggest that there is a common set of likely assaults that everybody, regardless of age, gender and geography faces, is that it makes people lazy in making their own personal risk assessments, and identifying the specific vulnerabilities that their lifestyle contains – and we all have vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. It can also make self-defense training seem irrelevant to certain sections of the population, if they can’t imagine or see themselves being attacked in any of the scenarios listed. If one takes for granted that there really are 5 self-defense techniques that everybody should know, that deal with the most likely attacks you’ll face, and none of them relate to you and your lifestyle, then one might conclude there isn’t much point investing time in learning how to defend yourself, as there really isn’t any need. Unfortunately, you may be failing to learn how to defend yourself against the types of assault you are more likely to face. I understand the desire of some instructors to try and simplify self-defense for people, to present self-defense in bite sized chunks, that are easy for people to digest, etc. But presenting the idea that every population and demographic is subjected to the same attacks (and hence requires the same defenses), is naive and simplistic, and not relatable to real world violence. Violence is specific to the individual and their situation, and the individual threats and vulnerabilities present in their lifestyle determine what type of situations they are likely to face, and what type of solutions they require. To say that myself and an 18-year old female college student are likely to face the same types of threats, dangers, and attacks, is patently wrong, and to train us in exactly the same way would be to do at least one of us (probably both) a great disservice.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=271 Fri, 01 Jul 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=270 Although running and disengagement are preferred strategies (or tackling an active shooter, in the first stages of an incident – see the previous blog for reasons and details), the situation may not always allow you to implement them e.g. the shooter/killer is advancing towards you along the exit route you have chosen, etc. This may mean that your most effective strategy is to try and hide from them. This may simply involve remaining unseen and letting them pass you by, or it could involve possibly barricading yourself into a room, so that they have difficulty gaining access to you, and move on looking for easier – and more plentiful – victims, etc. When you “hide” there are things that you should understand about your environment. One of these is the difference between cover and concealment; cover offers you protection from bullets, concealment merely obscures you from the gunman/shooter’s view. Fortunately, most shooters don’t understand the difference e.g. if you were able to barricade yourself into an office, during an act of workplace violence, it is unlikely that in a modern building, the partitioning wall between you and the shooter would offer much in the way of protection i.e. a round from a rifle would quite easily pass through it, etc. However, most people operating in a state of high stress and duress, won’t make this calculation. It should also be remembered that an active shooter is looking to kill as many people as possible, and shooting rounds, at the unknown may see them run out of bullets; firing into what may be an empty room, is not a good way to conserve ammunition that could be used against targets that can be sighted. In saying this, should you conceal yourself in this way, it is advisable to stay as low to the ground as possible, and make no noise whatsoever. If a shooter hears a number of voices he may feel it is worth his time, to try and gain entry to the room and/or take pot shots through the wall. There are few objects that actually offer you true cover, and most of these are found outside of buildings, such as the engine block of a parked car (position yourself next to/alongside the front wheel of a car), or a concrete pillar that is used to support part of a building – don’t trust the decorative pillars that you find in many shopping malls, to stop a bullet. If you work in an office that has a door, which is not lockable, and want to be able to secure it, get yourself a rubber door wedge (the type that are used to prop doors open) – in fact get two. They will probably not stop a determined assailant, however they may create enough of a problem that the shooter moves on to easier targets. Don’t make the mistake of positioning yourself behind the door to add weight to the doorstops, and prevent the gunman from coming into the room; this would probably be the time, when they shoot through the door at you. I will talk a bit later in this article about where to position yourself, if you select this survival option. It is also worth noting that there may come a time, when your best survival option is to give up your hiding/concealment place, and make for an exit. If you hear a shooter trying and get into your room, and then move on in a direction away from an exit route you could use to make an escape, it may be worth your while giving up what has in a particular instance saved you, so that you can get to actual safety. There is nothing to say that once the shooter has dispatched the easy target, he won’t be coming back for the harder ones. An office or school room, unless it has reinforced walls, and anti-breaching locks (ones that require a breaching round to break them), is unlikely to stop/prevent a committed attacker from entering. Psychologically, it is extremely difficult to give up something that has worked in the past, and accept that there will come a time when it won’t work i.e. our natural way of thinking is, engaging this action and behavior in the past, saved me, therefore it is a proven and effective solution, which means I should stick with it indefinitely. Unfortunately, attackers change their tactics and methods of assault; they educate themselves, etc. Blocking/Barricading yourself in a room, may work when there are other easier targets present, but once the supply of readily available victims starts to thin, the shooter may revise their plan and come back. Many active shooter situations in buildings, whether they are nightclubs, schools or office buildings, last for hours. What may have been given up in the moment, could become the subject of interest later. Being able to recognize what worked in a particular instance, but isn’t a universal solution, is applicable for all survival situations, not just active shooter and rampage killer ones. Your hide option shouldn’t, unless absolutely necessary, compromise your ability to fight, and here is a truth worth remembering; active shooter(s), are not armies with unlimited resources, they are restricted by both time, numbers, and ammunition. They are not a foe, who can rampage indefinitely, nor resupply or re-equip themselves – what they bring to a particular location, is what they are restricted to using. They are an enemy with limited supplies, and time to maneuver. This means there is sometimes the chance and the opportunity to engage with them successfully. You are not facing an army, you are facing an individual, or at most a few. Fighting is an option, and the way you hide/conceal yourself can radically increase your chances of success. If you have to hide, you should alter your environment to be in your favor, not your attacker’s. If you can darken the room, do so; this may involve pulling down blinds, smashing lights, etc. You will have time to let your eyes adjust to this light level; your attacker will not. Don’t underestimate the effect or value of doing this, the Civil Aviation Authority doesn’t. If you’ve ever been on a plane that’s landed at night, you will have noticed that they dim the lights on landing. There is a very good safety reason for this: if the plane crashes and people have to evacuate the plane, it is understood that survival chances are reduced if people have to adjust from full light to darkness – you want to decrease the shooter’s chances, by making them make this adjustment. If you can upturn a table or desk, so that they or their gun/rifle bump into this as they enter, all the better. The more things that the shooter has to process, the easier it will be for you to tackle them. To tackle them, stay low, by the door. It is likely that they will have their rifle high, so as to be ready to shoot anyone they come across etc. Positioning yourself to be under their rifle, as they enter the room, will make it difficult for them to turn and train their weapon on you. This will give you the opportunity to rugby tackle them from the side, whilst staying under and behind their weapon. Your goal is simply to take them to the ground, smother them, and strike them till they are unconscious/incapable of continuing the fight. If there are others who can assist you, have them positioned behind you, to add weight of numbers to your attack. As always, the sophistication, the planning, the strategy, etc. comes before the attack. Once you attack, it should be simple, violent, and brutal; it gets little simpler than a rugby tackle and a beat down (one reason most street thugs are so effective – simplicity with aggression). As with any type of violence, you should want to avoid it e.g. disengage and conceal yourself (preferably with cover) etc. but when it is inevitable, you should do everything beforehand to increase your survival chances, whether it is an active shooter or another type of aggressor. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=270 Sun, 26 Jun 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=269 I’ve written about Active Shooter and Rampage Killing scenarios before on this blog, however I’m going to write about these types of incidents again, but looking at some of the misconceptions, around different strategies, and how the “Run, Hide, Fight” approach, although fundamentally sound, could actually divert people from implementing effective solutions. To the untrained individual, the “Run, Hide, Fight” strategy, can, at first glance, seem to present these three options in a hierarchical fashion i.e. it is better to run, than to hide, and better to hide than fight. However there are situations, when both running and fighting may both be equally effective options. When I conduct active shooter seminars, one of the drills I use to illustrate the point, is as follows; a shooter with a training rifle stands about 10 feet away from a group, they then start “shooting”, shouting “bang” every time they pull the trigger. The group then charges towards them, whilst they continue shooting, and the number of shots i.e. “bangs”, are counted. In most scenarios, the shooter only gets off three or four shots, before the group reaches them, indicating the point at which they’d be able to control and subdue the shooter. It is also worth noting that in the drill, the shooter doesn’t have time to pick targets, they are just shooting indiscriminately into the group i.e. none of the shots are placed. If you reverse the drill, and have everyone run away from the shooter, when the shooting starts, more shots are fired overall, and the shooter has time to place them. If you compare the casualty rate in both drills, running away results in more casualties, (plus the shooter is still active), rather than fewer. In the scenario/drill, both running and fighting are options, but if taken at face value, the “Run, Hide, Fight” strategy would advocate a course of action that would lead to a higher casualty rate. There are obviously issues surrounding a group tackling a shooter. One of these, is that everybody in the group needs to know that they should do this, and have confidence in the fact that this is statistically a better survival strategy. It is, however, by far the quickest way of taking on a shooter. Of course some people will likely get shot (however without tackling the gunman, the shooter will have more time to hunt down victims, etc.), but because the incident will be ended sooner, they will receive medical help, much more quickly than if an active shooter is still at large. In the most recent incidents, it has taken three to four hours for the emergency services to be in a position to tackle a shooter – that may mean three to four hours of bleeding out, seriously reducing the chances of survival (one of the reasons that knowing how to treat gunshot wounds, either to yourself, or others, is an important part of surviving an active shooter incident). If running, is deemed to be the most effective strategy in a particular situation, it is necessary to consider the best ways to move away from a shooter. An active shooter, whether motivated by hate, or conducting an act of terrorism, is looking to kill as many people as possible, before somebody stops them – usually the security services. This means that they are likely to pursue groups that flee, rather than individuals, as this guarantees a higher kill rate, and requires less accurate shots; aim a gun at a group, and you’re likely to get a hit, etc. Groups, are also less agile and nimble, and move at a slower rate, making them overall easier targets, than individuals. Because of this, one survival tactic that a group can employ, is to scatter in different directions, creating a lot of individual, moving targets. This is a tactic that many social animals and birds use, to distract and confuse predators e.g. if a flamingo in a flock identifies a predator, such as a cat or similar, it will sound the alarm, and the entire flock, will start to take to the air in different directions – the individual bird that the cat might have been stalking, may no longer be a viable target, and the cat will need to reassess a suitable target, from among a number of fast moving birds; something which is a much more difficult proposition. It may be that the “group” lacks this training, however it is something that an individual can employ if they are caught in a group that has been targeted; breaking away in a different direction from the group. Although active shooter scenarios are fast moving and dynamic, it is useful to assess what is actually happening e.g. it could be that the main group are being shepherded and herded, towards another shooter or an exit that has been booby trapped. There is a big difference between simply running away from danger, and moving to safety; and it is the second of these two options that you should be trying to take. Moving away from the group, may give you the time to make an assessment of the scene, and allow you to exit via a less obvious route (you should also be aware that an exit route is also an entry route, which could be used by a second shooter, etc.). If there are no obvious points of concealment or cover, then lowering your profile against a wall, may give you some time, as most individuals when in predator mode, will be shooting at targets that stand out/are silhouetted, or are moving. This is obviously not a long term strategy, but it may be advisable in the initial moments of an incident, where you are trying to assess what is happening, rather than blindly following, and replicating, what everyone else is doing. Panic is what happens, when you try to do everything at once e.g. you just need to get away from the shooter at whatever cost, etc. If everybody else is panicking, because the group doesn’t know how to act, behave and/or operate as a single unit, you probably don’t want to be caught in the middle of that. This means making your way to the sides of the group (allowing people to push past you as they move forward), and start to get to the edges of the group where you can peel off, and start to implement your own survival strategy.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=269 Sun, 19 Jun 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=268 To have a realistic chance of surviving a real life confrontation, you must be used to training under pressure; this is something that those who practice combat sports, such as MMA, Boxing, Judo etc. are used to doing – competitive sports teach you a lot about functioning under pressure, where you have an opponent who is going to try and deny you the time, space and opportunity, to do whatever it is that you want to, or are trying to do. This “pressure” has many parallels, to the pressure that a real-life attacker, will try and do, such as putting you in such a disadvantaged position that your only choice, it would seem, would be to acquiesce to their demands, or capitulate to their assault etc. – a big difference though between real-life and the ring, is that there’s no bell that starts the encounter, and lets you know you need to be ready (the bell effectively rings the moment you wake up). I had a conversation, this week, with a student, about training under pressure, and the way that it changes your outlook on what is possible, and what remains as theoretical. His observation was that the most relevant Akido Instructors, were those who had first studied Judo i.e. they knew what it was to be put under pressure, deal with non-compliant opponents (who also had their game-plan), and not be given the luxury of time to execute their techniques. For our Krav Maga training to be realistic and effective, we must introduce “pressure” and stress into our training – and because reality is a much more complex landscape and environment than the ring or the cage, we must introduce different types of stress, pressure and duress, than that which is experienced in sparring. One area of pressure training, where a lot of Krav Maga training, gets it right, is applying physical stress through fatigue and exhaustion. Once the initial adrenaline burst/shot runs out, what you are left with is not just your base level of fitness, but the consequences of the adrenal dump, which is extreme fatigue. Being able to operate under the pressure of physical exhaustion is a necessary survival skill – as is having techniques that can be recalled when in this state. A lot of people will talk about the benefits of being adrenalized, such as increased pain tolerance, an increase in strength and cardiovascular performance, and not acknowledge the costs and the toll that it takes on the body. Although it may give you 15 seconds of “superhuman” power, it may be due to the social nature of violence, that a good 10 seconds of this is used up in the pre-conflict phase, as your aggressor prepares themselves emotionally by posturing and making threats etc. This is one of the reasons why it is worth acting preemptively against such an assailant; whilst you are adrenalized, and they aren’t yet ready to launch their assault. An area of “pressure” training that often gets overlooked, is threat recognition and decision-making. Being able to think clearly, understanding what information is pertinent and relevant for your survival, along with what is not, and/or may be peripheral to your understanding of a situation, is an important and necessary skill. Being able to assess and make effective decisions, and plans when under pressure, compared to panicking, and trying to accomplish everything at the same time, could mean the difference between surviving and not. In sophisticated active shooter scenarios, it may seem that there is not time to take on board information, and simply acting, such as running away from the shots is the only option, however it could be that the shooter is “shepherding” or “funneling” you towards something, such as a booby trapped door, another shooter etc. Being able to recognize threats, understand what information you have, and what you may need, in order to survive the danger, you are in, and come to effective decisions is a key skill to have, as is the ability to create time and distance for yourself. Rather than simply giving students the opportunity to practice techniques, we should put them in situations where they have to make decisions under pressure – decisions that may involve non-physical solutions as well as physical; we don’t want to create robots who can only follow one line of thinking, but rather individuals who can assess risk and danger, and formulate strategies for mitigating and dealing with it – and more importantly to do all of this under pressure. Pain is a type of pressure, that students need to be able to work under, and there is both a right way and a wrong way for conditioning students to be able to operate under pain and discomfort. When I’m talking about pain, I’m not talking about injuring students, but conditioning them. Too often this type of training is done in such a way that fear becomes associated with pain. I have seen school teach sparring, as if they are trying to replicate a train crash, with two students, padded up, whaling at each other in an uncontrolled manner – arguably to replicate a street fight (not the purpose of sparring). To condition people to deal and operate when in pain and discomfort, fear and anticipation, has to be removed. The first time students at my school take the gloves off to spar bare-knuckle, there is a level of fear – after a few minutes though the fear goes, when the realization sets in, that there is little difference to being hit with no glove on, to being hit with a 6 oz glove etc. The pain, is not physical, it is mental – when people get hit in a real-life confrontation most of the pain is shock and surprise rather than physical, and when students can understand this, they begin to understand the different components of “pain” and what parts of it can be managed mentally. Training under the pressure of pain, largely involves teaching people to manage their fears and emotions, rather than physically conditioning them to taking a beating. The different “pressures” that exist in a real-life confrontation, can’t be trained all at once. If this was the case, classes would just be a series of real-life fights, in a sterile matted environment. Rather, they should be trained individually, and possibly in conjunction with others e.g. decision making whilst exhausted etc. When students are taught to operate under different pressures, they start to acquire the skills that are necessary to deal with real-life violence – without this, they are simply running through a series of choreographed movements.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=268 Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=267 For those of you who haven’t been on social media for the past 48 hours, you probably haven’t heard of the Stanford sexual assault case, where student, Brock Turner, was found guilty on 3 counts of sexual assault, against a female student, and sentenced to a six-month imprisonment in a county jail, of which he may only end up serving three. The case has generated some controversy for a number of reasons, one of which is the leniency of the sentence (6 months is a fraction of the possible 14 years he could have served for his felonies) – compare this with the case of 16 year old Brian Banks who was wrongly convicted of rape, and consequently faced 41 years in jail for the allegation. He ended up with a 6-year sentence, of which he served 5 years and 2 months, only being released when his “victim” admitted that she’d made the story up. The difference between Banks and Turner? Banks was an underprivileged young black man, Turner a privileged young white man. Apparently, Turner coming from a white, privileged background, isn’t prepared for the realities of prison in a way that Banks was, and so should serve a lesser sentence. If the judge’s veiled comments about Turner’s background and “unsuitability” for prison weren’t enough to spark controversy, Turner’s father wrote a letter, in which he pleaded for leniency on the sentence, arguing that his son had already received enough punishment through the emotional distress caused by the case, and that he shouldn’t face a custodial sentence based on what, in his words, only amounted to “20 minutes of action”. Brock Turner’s father, in his letter, told the judge that he knew what was best for his son, and that wasn’t prison, and that his son’s experience could serve as an education about promiscuity and drinking. As I write this, I don’t even know where to begin. Both the judge and Turner’s father, have so far ignored the victim’s plight in all of this – ignoring a 14-page testimony that describes how the assault had scarred her, and taken her previous life away. It seems that the judge and Turner’s father see Brock Turner’s future as more important than hers, and whilst hers may have been taken away, it would be a travesty to take away his. As for the comments and remarks about this being an educational experience concerning promiscuity and drinking, Brock Turner’s victim was unconscious when he assaulted her, and so I can only assume that his father is referring to his son’s drinking and “promiscuity” – and that by promiscuity, he means having sex with someone against their will. As a child who was bullied, I remember one occasion where myself and the ringleader of the group who bullied me, were sat down to try and resolve our differences. There were no differences, I was being bullied. All the teacher was concerned about was trying to get somewhere, where my bully (and his group) could be helped, so that they could stop continually assaulting me. The focus was on him, not me the victim, and it wasn’t about punishing him, but about reforming him. It seems that a similar mistake, and misdirection (on a much larger and more serious scale) is occurring here. Do I want to see Brock Turner be reformed, from being a sexual predator? Of course, if he served the 14 year sentence he should have, he’d be back out in society at some point, and it would be better for all if he was a non-predatory, rather than a predatory, individual. However, he should still be punished for his actions, and his victim given whatever sense of closure that they could take from this. My bullies were never properly punished for what they did, and because of this I was left with no trust in the educational system, or teachers in general to be able to deal with bullying. This verdict, may have caused Turner’s victim to lose all belief in society, the legal system, and everything in her world – that will take a lot to come back from, as well as from the assault itself. The judge in the case, along with Turner’s father, have done nothing to help his victim in her recovery. The main point I would like to address in the case, are two comments that were made: one by the judge, and one by Brock Turner’s father, in his letter. The judge stated that he didn’t believe that Brock Turner was a risk to anyone, anymore, and Turner’s father stated that he “knew” his son. Both obviously know nothing about sexual predators, and if you are of the opinion that Brock Turner, is being punished for 20 minutes of madness or “action”, that doesn’t reflect who he is, you are wrong. All too often, those accused of rape and/or sexual assault, claim that they misread the signals that their victim was giving them, or that they were suddenly (and out of character) overcome by emotion, etc. They do this to try to get those who judge them to accept that they’re not really criminals, and shouldn’t be treated as such. They will make the argument, that it was just a “mistake”, and after all everybody makes mistakes, don’t they? This argument may convince a judge and/or a parent, but anyone who has either worked with sex-offenders and/or studied them will know that this isn’t true. Rape and sexual assault are born out of masturbatory fantasy. Those who commit sexual assaults, fantasize about them, and plan them. If Brock Turner’s father wants to reminisce about how his loving son used to cook meals for him, he may want to spend a moment thinking about what thoughts might have been going through his son’s head, as he day-dreamed, stirring the sauce, etc. Brock Turner’s mind contains dark fantasies. He may not have planned to find an unconscious woman on that night, but he’d had the fantasies about how he’d control and exert power over her, long before. These would not have been fantasies he’d have shared with his family, however this doesn’t make them less real or dangerous – and those fantasies haven’t gone away, nor are they likely to. If the judge in this case doesn’t think Brock Turner will rape or sexually assault somebody in the future, he’s out of touch with current research. There are a few categories of sexual predator who may only commit one assault, however Brock Turner doesn’t fit those profiles. I don’t deny that Brock Turner may have been a star athlete, a great cook, a loving son. He may have done great works for charity, helped others, etc. He may have been the greatest guy to sit at a bar with and have a drink, a man who loved animals, etc. He may have been all of these things, and yet he was, and still is, a sexual predator. No sexual predator is going to announce themselves as such, and many are skilled at hiding who they are and what they do – Pedophiles are very skilled at appearing as upstanding members and often pillars of their society/community, without anyone knowing who they really are. I would caution Brock Turner’s father that he does not know his son. He knows that side of him which he is presented with. He didn’t/doesn’t know him, or relate to him, as a sexual predator. I understand the fatherly desire to not want to accept that this is part of his child’s personality, however it is not safe for society to do this. I would hope that Brock Turner’s sentence is changed, and that the Judge and the Father take some time to actually study and take advice about sexual predation, so that justice is served, the education that everyone needs be given, and most importantly so that his victim can gain some type of closure, and be able to start rebuilding her life. The pain and damage that Brock Turner caused can never be undone, however an appropriate sentence may help in the rebuilding of his victim’s world.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=267 Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=266 There have been few sportsmen or women as charismatic or influential – both inside and outside their sport – as boxer, Muhammad Ali (January 3rd, 1942 – June 3rd, 2016). Below are four lessons, that I believe Ali’s life, and career, can teach us about surviving real-life violence. -        Skills and attributes are more important than techniques -        Style, comes from character, and isn’t a substitute for it -        Be, able to back up what you say -        You need to have an adaptable game plan Boxing is a combat sport that demonstrates, that skills and attributes are what make the difference, in a confrontation, rather than techniques. As martial artists, and practitioners of self-defense, we can often run the risk of becoming technique collectors, rather than skilled fighters e.g. we want to know the technique for dealing with and that attack or threat, how to escape this and that hold and control etc. This puts us in danger of putting most of our efforts into learning more/new things, rather than developing the skills, that will make us better at what we already know and do. Two skills that are essential for dealing with real-life violence, and that Ali had in abundance, are effective control of range, and incredible movement. If you can’t control range, especially during the pre-conflict phase, before your aggressor launches their attack, you are in all likelihood going to get hit if/when they throw a punch – regardless of how good/fast you believe you are at blocking. If you let your aggressor, control the range and distance between you, they will be on top of you before you have the time to react and respond. Ali was a master of controlling range/distance, staying just outside of his opponent’s reach but close enough, to move in and make his own attacks. He also had the movement skills to do this in a dynamic context. Boxing consists of the jab, the cross/straight, the hook and the uppercut, there really are no more techniques in a boxer’s arsenal. What makes a boxer like Ali, “the Greatest”, was his skills and attributes, that made these work for him. Ali had style, but more importantly he had character. In today’s world these two often get confused, and we make the mistake of seeing stylish people, as having character, which may not be the case. A person can look good, sound good, but lack any actual substance – when it actually comes to any issues in their life, they don’t have the necessary depth and resolve, to see through what they are facing/dealing with. In 1966, Ali took a stand on being drafted to fight in the Vietnam war, which he conscientiously objected to, stating, “"My conscience won't let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what? They never called me nigger, they never lynched me, they didn't put no dogs on me, they didn't rob me of my nationality, rape or kill my mother and father.... How can I shoot them poor people? Just take me to jail." Making such a statement shows character, especially when it was made at a time, when there was popular support for the war. As a result, he was stripped of his title, and exiled from boxing – no state would give him a license to fight. This was also at a time, when he was in his prime as an athlete. As his trainer Angelo Dundee said, "One thing must be taken into account when talking about Ali: He was robbed of his best years, his prime years." It was obvious that Ali had style, but more importantly he had character, and this was shown both inside and outside the ring. I am a big believer that martial arts training builds character and I would suggest that Ali’s boxing training helped develop his. Ali was a talker, he was the guy who started the pre-fight “smack down”, insulting his opponents, however he knew he could back up the things he said. Sometimes what he said was for entertainment purposes, but he also understood the psychology behind the things he said. In 1972, Ali was challenged by the basketball player, Wilt Chamberlain, and a fight was scheduled for July of that year. Chamberlain, at seven feet two inches, had a 60-pound weight advantage, as well as a 14-inch advantage in reach; both things which would give him a significant physical advantage against Ali. In a press conference, Ali so intimidated Chamberlain, with cries of “Timber!”, “the tree will fall” etc. that Chamberlain backed out of the fight. Ali, knew how to make his opponents angry, how to unsettle them etc. and he had the abilities to back up what he said. There are times, in real-life confrontations, where what you say, can significantly unsettle your aggressor, and get them to question the wisdom of trying to assault you etc. however at the same time you need to be able to back up what you say, so that your words aren’t empty and unconvincing. Ali knew how to change his game-plans, depending on who he was dealing with, and the environment he was fighting in. Probably, the clearest example of this was seen in the Rumble in the Jungle, when he fought George Foreman (one of the heaviest hitters that the boxing world had seen), and instead of employing his usual strategy of moving, controlling range etc. he adopted his “Rope-A-Dope” strategy, of leaning back on the ropes and riding/absorbing Foreman’s punches, till Foreman was exhausted. He fought the same way in Manilla against Joe Frazier, as a means to combat his own heat exhaustion, as the fight was conducted in near 100 degree temperatures. Ali, knew how and when to adopt a different game plan, based on his situation. In real-life confrontations we need to do the same, both changing our physical and non-physical solutions to the situations we are in; having only one means/strategy of dealing with conflict is not a universally successful approach. When we try to understand greatness, and what makes people great, the life of Muhammad Ali, has a lot of good pointers for us. Although combat sports may not completely and comprehensively reflect real-life violence, there are lessons that we can learn from them, and those who compete in them, that will allow us to increase our survival chances.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=266 Sun, 05 Jun 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=265 We often open ourselves up to the risk of property theft, by extending or changing the use, of things that belong to us. To give an example of this, I recently had to rationalize the use of a bag that I use to transport my laptop in; the bags original use was simply to house my laptop, but over the course of many months, it started to fulfil the role of a storage container, housing many valuable items, which would have been difficult for me to replace, had the bag been stolen. Also, because the bag had started to become heavier due to all these items – which I rarely, if ever used on a daily basis – I had started to leave the bag in my car whereas before I would take it with me etc. Although it is easy to give yourself a break from staying safe, and personal safety, because the last time you did or didn’t do something nothing happened e.g. my car wasn’t broken in to, it is worth noting that criminals operate on a 24x7 basis, and don’t take a moment off from their activities. If anyone had broken in to my car to steal my bag they would have ended up with a lot more than just my laptop – some of which would have been a nightmare for me, from an identity theft perspective. My laptop case had changed from a means of transportation to one of storage.   A good example of the constant observational activities and the change of use of something, concerns burglars and garages. A garage that is attached or next to a residential house, is designed to a house a car; although it can be used to store garden furniture, kids toys, and boxes of old books etc. this is not what it was designed for. By filling your garage with boxes and the like, you will be unable to park your car in it. This may not seem much of an issue, if the climate is good, and/or you have a gated driveway etc. however having to park your car on your driveway, let’s people know both when you are at home, and when you are out. Signs of occupancy are the biggest deterrent to burglars, who want to break in to your house when nobody is around. If a burglar notes the times when your car is and isn’t in the driveway, they will know when your house is vacant. If your car is hidden/parked in your garage and is never sitting out on display, or drawing attention by its absence then no signals regarding when your house may be vacant or not are transmitted. Changing the use of your garage to a storage facility, can create a vulnerability that a threat can exploit. Cars themselves can unintentionally become storage facilities, with valuable items, such as laptops etc. being left in them overnight, rather than being moved into a more secure location such as your house – this may be especially true if you are returning home late at night, have additional bags to carry in, and/or have to manage small children etc. Work laptops often get left in cars overnight on evenings when it’s apparent they’re not going to be used i.e. what’s the point of taking a laptop into your house, only for you to return it to the car, unused, in the morning. The problem is that cars are not secure in the same way that your house is, and are much easier to break into. Cars, can often become storage facilities if they are used to transport equipment as part of your job e.g. film, music equipment etc. can be both expensive and bulky, and up getting stored in a car between jobs rather than being emptied out at the end of the day. The hassle of moving equipment between your car, your house, and your place of work, may seem a hassle you don’t need, especially early in the morning and late at night, but it’s an effort that is worth taking, when you consider the time and cost of replacing equipment, as well as a potential rise in insurance premiums. A friend of mine at University, at the end of a semester, decided that he would pack his car in the evening with everything he had, in order to avoid having to do this in the early morning, when he was planning to leave. As a time saving measure, this made a lot of sense, however as we were living in the North East of England, which has some of the highest rates of car crime in Europe, it was perhaps not the safest thing to do. Needless to say his car was broken into overnight, and every electrical good he owned along with his CD collection – which although monetarily may have been worth a lot was from my own musical preference and perspective, worthless – were stolen. The time he took in calling the police, and making a statement lost him all the time he’d hoped to gain from packing the car the evening before. A packed car, means that items are on display, whether you want them to be or not, and indicates that there well might be valuable things that are out of site. As it was a university town, I’m sure many criminals were aware of students packing up their cars at the end of term, and possibly leaving them unattended either overnight or for an extended period of time. Just as there are criminals who watch our driveways in order to keep track of our movements, there are those that know the lifecycles of the towns, and districts in which they operate. From a personal safety perspective bags and cars should be used to transport items, not to store them. It is worth taking time to clear them out on a regular basis, as well as to take an inventory of them, so that if they do get stolen, you know what is lost. Many people could not tell you the actual active credit/debit cards they have in their wallet/purse, making it difficult for them to report what is stolen should they be robbed/mugged. Garages, should be used as garages, and also made secure, especially if they adjoin a house, where there is the possibility of entry through the garage. Using things as they are intended is good from a personal safety/self-protection perspective.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=265 Tue, 31 May 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=264 A few weeks ago there was an incident in a restaurant in Taunton, Massachusetts, where an assailant went on a stabbing spree, killing one person and injuring several more. The incident, has caused several of my students to question what they should do in such a situation, and even if there is anything they could do if faced with a highly emotional individual stabbing and slashing everyone they come into contact with – it is worth noting that the attacker was in a highly erratic and frenzied state, and their attacks were delivered with full force, and complete commitment; the attacker was looking to kill, not to maim or injure. The first thing to understand about your reactions, and responses in such situations, is that being attacked as part of a group, is very different to being targeted/assaulted as an individual. Unfortunately, much self-defense training, neglects to cover this particular area, solely focusing on scenarios and situations where an assailant looks to focus all of their intent upon one individual. Most schools will train one-on-one, many-on-one (multiple assailants), but not train one-on-many. A simple drill to check how students might respond in such a scenario, would be to have one student in a class, suddenly start running around, randomly stabbing other students - with a training knife - as they practice drills, techniques, listen to instruction etc. or are otherwise engaged. Some students will stand around confused, some will stand back, others will try to engage individually with the assailant, and some may try and shout ideas and commands to others to get them to assist in controlling the “attacker”. These are the common responses of “trained” individuals, who practice self-defense and the martial arts, and they are all valid responses, however other effective and valid responses are often not considered, because the message that gets promoted in most schools, is that because students have skills and techniques they should always look to get involved. Too often, other ways in which a person can be effective in such a situation aren’t looked at or promoted. Firstly, you have to be honest with yourself: just because you may be more skilled, than anyone else in the environment, at dealing with an armed assailant, it doesn’t mean that this should be your first thought. If you are in a group that is being attacked, you may save more lives including your own, if you organize an evacuation of the location. Many people in the group will be caught either in a freeze state, where they are paralyzed by fear, or in a state of denial, failing to recognize that they are in imminent danger. You may not be able to save the person who is currently being attacked, but you may be able to save many more, by waking them up to the threat they are facing, and directing them how and where to exit. I’m not saying this will always be the case/situation, but when you are considering your options, you may come to realize that despite having more skills than others in your group, you don’t have enough skills to successfully disable and incapacitate the attacker. You may want to instruct one of the individuals whose exit, you organize to alert the police/security, so that somebody with the necessary skills and attributes to deal with such a situation is made aware of it – don’t trust anyone’s common sense, that they will naturally do this; people in a state of shock need to be told what to do, otherwise they’ll simply assume someone else has already taken responsibility for this. If you have medical skills, your greatest effect in such a situation may be to administer first aid to those who are wounded and have managed to get out, until the paramedics turn up. The unsung heroes of any battlefield are the medics; the guys who save lives. If you know how to treat and stabilize someone suffering from stab wounds, and reduce blood loss, till the emergency services turn up, you may well save a life. It’s a hard choice between possibly preventing lives being taken (engaging with the attacker), and saving lives – dealing with the effects of their attacks – however it may be one that you have to make at some point, and do so in an honest and realistic way; where are you going to be most effective. There are many more ways to be the “hero” than by being the guy who stopped the assailant. In an active shooter situation – even if you are carrying a firearm – your greatest service, could be dragging those who have been shot and wounded to safety, rather than trying to engage with the shooter. Going into a situation, with only one thought in your mind i.e. engaging with the threat, may see you miss opportunities where you could actually be more effective. It may be hard to “walk away”, when your entire self-defense/martial arts career has been focused on engaging, however disengaging from the assault in order to save lives may be the greatest part/role you can play. The best way to get students to understand the different options that may be available to them in a situation, and to help them find their own answers as to what they should do in certain situations, is to set up scenario-based training. Create situations, and give people different roles to play, different motives etc. Put people in scenarios and make them think. Let them take decisions and then question them, not because their choice(s) was wrong, but so that they can think of other different ways they may have handled a situation. Let them develop a broad range of options to dealing with violent situations and foster/nurture their creativity when dealing with danger. Engagement may be one of several options available to an individual, and it should be recognized that self-defense/martial arts training by its nature naturally trains people to go down this route. This is why we need to engage in training that looks to develop other ways in which we can/may respond.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=264 Sun, 22 May 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=263 One component of situational awareness is recognizing abnormal actions and behaviors that individual(s) within an environment may engage in. To understand the abnormal - what is out of place, or an exception – you must first be able to recognize what is normal; this means establishing baselines. At the moment, as I’m writing this, my view overlooks a parking lot, and I have a “baseline” for what are normal activities to take place in a parking lot e.g. people moving to and from cars, loading the trunk up with shopping, fastening children into car seats etc. These are normal actions and behaviors for people to engage in when in this setting, and having established this baseline, I'm able to identify what are unusual activities e.g. groups of people standing around, individuals loitering, people running etc. All of these things may be legitimate activities with easy explanations; a person could be running because it is raining and they’ve forgotten their coat, a group may form if friends agreed to meet in the parking lot before going to a restaurant etc. Having this baseline, allows me to recognize abnormalities, and investigate them. At this stage I would try and make a dynamic risk assessment of the situation, in order to ascertain whether any of the individual’s actions/behavior contain a threat, that could exploit one of my vulnerabilities (or any of the “assets” I am trying to protect, such as my kid, who happens to be with me). One of the issues we may have with establishing baselines, is when we find ourselves in unfamiliar environments. In such situations, we may find ourselves focusing on perceived “threats” that are actually harmless, and failing to identify potential dangers because we don’t actually know what a particular threat looks like. If we can establish baselines, we can avoid this happening. The first danger we must avoid in understanding our “new” environment, is to accept that another baseline we have may be inappropriate to use e.g. if you are a teacher in a middle school, and try to apply a baseline appropriate to a schoolyard setting, to a rough part of an inner city district, you may find yourself ignoring or discounting certain actions and behaviors that could signal danger; the warning signs for conflict in one setting, don’t necessarily equate to another. Another danger with inappropriate baselines can be seen with travel security, where people visiting a tourist destination see all friendly approaches by locals as being genuine – the baseline has been created from expectations, rather than from reality. Part of travel security is learning and educating yourself as to the different methods criminals in a particular location use, so you can establish an accurate baseline as to what is normal behavior and what is abnormal e.g. is it normal for a taxi you are in to pick up other travelers on route – may be a normal activity in a certain part of Africa, but may signal the setup for an “Express Kidnapping” in South America etc. What is normal in one setting may not be normal in another, and it is only by establishing baselines that we can spot these abnormalities. Baselines, are flexible, and can change over time. Fifteen, to twenty years ago, asking somebody for the time could be categorized as a normal behavior i.e. not everybody wore a watch. Today, few people don’t have a mobile phone, and access to the time, making such a request questionable. Of course there are legitimate reasons why somebody might not have access to the time; they are one of the few people on the planet without one, they may have inadvertently left it in the car, the battery may have died etc. however these are exceptions, that require an explanation, and so deviate from the baseline, where most people have a mobile phone and therefore access to the time. If you have to come up with a reason or explanation for somebody’s actions or behaviors – why are they doing that? Why would they be asking me that? Etc. – then you know that their activities are not consistent with your baseline. An action or behavior that deviates from the baseline, can also be something that someone is not doing rather than something they are. One of the things that marked the two Boston Marathon Bombers out on the CCTV (Closed Circuit TV) footage, was the fact that the two bombers had no interest in the race. Whilst everyone else in the crowd were looking at the runners, the Tsarnaev brothers were faced in the opposite direction. The baseline for any sporting event is that the crowds focus should be on the athletes, anyone not doing so is acting in an abnormal fashion. If you are involved in a physical confrontation, and you see somebody moving towards you, they are not doing what most people will do, which is move away from a fight (at least to a distance where they can watch without the danger of inadvertently getting involved); maybe it is security personnel coming to break up the fight, maybe it’s a friend coming to assist you, but it could also be a second assailant coming to assist the first. In such a fast paced, dynamic situation such as this you will have to make an effective decision on what to do, rather than evaluate all options, till you get the best. It is not possible for us to experience all the environments that we may find ourselves in e.g. it is good advice to not walk down a dark alley, but it is not always feasible not to. It is great advice, to not be in a bad part of town late at night, however a wrong turn, roadworks, the need to pick up a friend etc. may mean that this is unavoidable. Although you may not be able to have a baseline based on firsthand experience, if you understand the common processes that criminals use, you should be able to create one e.g. if you understand the different types of synchronization of movement, you will be able to ascertain if a person’s general movement contains harmful intent etc. We will never have perfect and complete information of a situation, but we should be able to recognize the essential components.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=263 Sun, 15 May 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=262 There’s a lot of different ways to use a heavy bag for training, however I know that many people have difficulty, using the bag and training, as if it were a “sparring” partner. Often bag workouts lack this component, and the bag simply becomes a target for unloading punches and kicks on, almost as if it is just an extra-large kick shield that doesn’t require the use of a partner to hold it. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be used this way, rather that there are other ways in which it can be used, and these are worth exploring. Each bit of kit that you use has its own “role” and purpose e.g. focus mitts/Hook’n’Jab pads aren’t primarily designed as an aid for developing power (though they can be used for this) and are better used as a tool for upping/increasing hand speed, targeting etc. For me the heavy bag is best used a tool for dynamically working range, timing, footwork, movement and power etc. Basically, the bag is a sparring partner, that doesn’t hit back, and can put up with a prolonged beating. If you simply stand, facing the bag and throw punches and kicks at it, with the singular goal of increasing the power of your strikes, you are only using about 10% of the bag’s potential. If you start to look on the bag as a sparring partner, you’ll start to eat into that other 90%. The first thing to look at when you use the heavy bag this way, is your range and distance from the bag. One of the biggest mistakes I see in bag work, is that people start of too close to it, and yet hit when they are too far away. When you spar with an opponent you start outside of their reach, at a distance/range where they can’t reach you, and then cross into that range when you want to attack. This should be the same when you use the bag. Your first/leading strike may be one that isn’t designed as a power shot, but rather as a range-finder, or a disrupting strike that provides cover as you move in – this is ok to do on the bag, not every strike you fire has to be a power shot i.e. it’s alright that not every shot you fire is delivered at full blast. When you do move in though, you will be looking to strike with power, and this is normally when people end up throwing their shots, too far away from the bag. When you throw a power shot, when your fist first makes contact with the bag, there should be about a 45-degree bend at the elbow; this will allow you to drive into and through the target – which is what you should be doing with every punch you throw. On a self-defense note, if you close your fist, you are creating a striking object that should be used to deliver maximum force (normally concussive force), whether it’s a punch or a hammer-fist etc. If you’re not throwing such a strike with full force, use a different strike, such as an eye-strike, a cradle-palm etc. Have the “rule” that when you clench your fist, it’s to strike with all the force your body can possibly generate. There are times when you won’t be able to or won’t want to strike with all the power you can, such as getting a hand quickly into an assailant’s face to disrupt their attack etc. however when you close your fist and punch there should be no holding back, and all of the body – not just the shoulders and arms – should be used. Once you have moved into range, with the bag, work on combinations, and move. Imagine the bag as a sparring partner; you wouldn’t just throw one strike, and neither would you probably just stay in front of them as you punched/kicked – this could be because they move in reaction/response to your attack, or because you want to change angles on them, so that they are put under more pressure. This movement should be replicated in your bag workout i.e. add in lateral movement around the bag, whilst you are in striking range. If you haven’t yet developed this in sparring, work on it using the bag, and then bring it into your sparring game-plan. If you have developed a habit on the bag, of simply moving in and out on a straight line, it is likely that this will become a pattern in your sparring. It may also be worth training this lateral movement whilst you work, before you first move in e.g. before you cross into range, move to your left or right first, and then move in with your initial strike – this will start training you to not just move directly forward against a sparring partner, but initiate your attack at an angle. A good habit to get into when working the bag is not to exit on the same line you entered, and also to work on the speed of your footwork, as you move away out of range. Too often I’ll see somebody work a combination on the bag, and then stop, as if their combination floored their opponent every time. There are times when you will/may have to back away from somebody, not just in sparring but in real-life. If you are dealing with multiple assailants, you may need to back off from somebody your assaulting to deal with somebody else etc. Getting out of the habit of always backing out the same way you went in, is a good one to break. The heavy bag is a great bit of kit, but it is something more than just a receptor for unleashing single punches and kicks on, rather it should have some time spent with it being used as a silent partner, to help you develop movement skills, entry and exit skills, movement when in contact with your opponent/assailant etc. There is much to be learnt and gained from moving around the bag, when outside of what an attacker’s range would be, such as moving in a way that would cause an assailant to move and plant their weight in a certain way etc. In your next bag workout, be creative, and have a plan of what you want to achieve from it.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=262 Sun, 08 May 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=261 Many people who come to a Krav Maga class for the first time, have little or no experience of what real-life violence actually looks like; their last actual reference point may be a schoolyard fight they were in or witnessed. This, coupled with some CCTV clips from the news, and “realistic” TV and movie fights, could represent the whole of their understanding of violence. When someone takes part in what is billed as a reality-based self-defense class, they are effectively being told by the instructor that the attacks they are learning to defend themselves against are the ones they are most likely to face i.e. they are being taught to deal with real-life violence. This is one of the reasons, amongst others, that I stopped teaching defenses against two-handed choke attacks (one where an assailant grabs your throat with two hands and squeezes your neck in order to choke you), early on in my school’s syllabus – one of the hardest parts in defending yourself against a two-handed choke attack in the real world, is getting someone to attack you like this…that is unless you are Bart Simpson and you’ve just done something really annoying to your dad. Don’t get me wrong, two-handed choke attacks do occur, however they are not as common as other attacks (such as being pushed and punched etc.) and tend to occur in very specific situations. In short, they don’t really represent what real-life violence looks like, and yet many Krav Maga instructors present these attacks, as something that a new student is likely to have to deal with – this just isn’t the case. This is one of the dangers when instructors have to follow a syllabus, without questioning whether what’s being taught actually reflects reality – unfortunately, in some cases instructors don’t have any experience or knowledge of what real-life violence looks like, and so blindly believe that what they’ve been told to teach/instruct reflects reality. If a Krav Maga instructor truly believes, or wants to argue, that two-handed chokes are common place, I would suggest that they spend a few years working door or bar security, and tally up the number of times that they see such an attack. From my own personal experience, working the door, and from conversations with other security professionals, who have firsthand experiences of both witnessing and dealing with violence, two-handed chokes of this nature are extremely, extremely rare. When I’ve had this conversation with some other Krav Maga instructors, they’ve told me that they use the choke attack to demonstrate certain Krav Maga principles e.g. different responses to life threatening and non-life threatening attacks etc. While this is a fair point, there are other attacks, that can be used to demonstrate the same points and principles, which are much more common; and so it would be better to teach a new student how to deal those. First impressions stay with people and are hard to undo, so instructors should consider whether it is appropriate to give new students the impression that most violent altercations involve two-handed chokes. On more than one occasion, other Krav Maga students and instructors have accused me of not staying true to “historic” Krav Maga. I’m quite happy to admit that I don’t care a lot about “history” and “traditions”, when it comes to teaching people how to survive real-life violent confrontations. Krav Maga has never been an academic pursuit to me, it’s always been a practical one (something that it has to be if you work in the security industry). Don’t get me wrong, the fundamental principles, concepts and ideas that Imi Lichtenfeld, the creator of Krav Maga, laid down, are good, solid, realistic fighting principles, however I don’t accept that a no-longer common attack (that may have been prevalent in the Middle East in the 1940’s), such as a two-handed choke, should be taught as one of the first things that a new Krav Maga student learns. My personal belief is that the first things a student learns, should be the most realistic and practical, and these can be altered depending on the country, culture and group that is being taught e.g. when I had my school in London, I spent much more time teaching new students defenses against knife attacks, than I do currently at my school in Boston, simply because knife attacks were/are a daily occurrence in London. The number of variations in techniques taught concerning two-handed chokes is also of concern - e.g. chokes from the side, the rear, with a push, with a pull etc. This to me demonstrates the danger of the “what if?” approach to martial arts, and the need to answer such questions, even if the “what if” has no place in reality. I understand that an instructor likes/needs to have answers to student’s questions e.g. let’s say an instructor demonstrates a front choke defense, and a student asks “what would you do if the choke came from behind” etc. however it would be more productive to state that such attacks don’t really happen, and move on, than feel the need to demonstrate a solution, to an almost non-existent problem; I say “almost”, because I don’t want to say it “never” happens. I do teach defenses against two-handed chokes, however I try to teach them in the scenarios and situations where they sometimes occur, such as on the ground (such as in a sexual assault where an assailant has the dual goal of preventing their victim from screaming, as well as subduing them etc.) or against a wall etc. I also acknowledge that certain populations may be more susceptible to such an attack e.g. a Law Enforcement Officer in Massachusetts, told me that officers are sometimes attacked like this when they are dealing with someone who is resisting an arrest etc. but doesn’t want to actually “hit” them. I’m not arguing that defenses to such attacks shouldn’t be taught, just that they should be taught in context, and not as one of the first techniques a new student learns. When new students come to train, we have a responsibility to present them with a picture of what real-life violence looks like. Unfortunately, most students don’t question what an instructor says or does. They believe them to be the expert and the authority, and that’s that. If an instructor starts by teaching two-handed choke defenses they’ll believe that this is what violence looks like – unless the instructor explains the context of such attacks and/or the reasons behind teaching such techniques/defenses early on etc. As Krav Maga instructors, our students will assume that the reality we teach will be the reality they face, and introducing two-handed chokes as one of the first techniques they learn, presents them with an unrealistic picture of violence.               https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=261 Mon, 02 May 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=260 This week I conducted a training session on conflict resolution and de-escalation. A large part of long-term conflict resolution is to try and get all of the parties involved to engage in cooperative rather than competitive practices, so that win-win resolutions (as opposed to win-lose outcomes) can be achieved. As I was presenting, and leading the training, it struck me how much “conflict” exists within the martial arts/self-defense community, and from my personal experience the Krav Maga community; everything is about competition, and negatively interdependent goals e.g. we’re the only instructor(s), association doing it right come train with us etc. as opposed to what should be a positively interdependent goal of trying to make our students as safe, and as competent in dealing with conflict, as possible. I have lost track of the number of times a Krav Maga instructor or association has used the term “only” to describe what they do, failing to acknowledge what other instructors both in the Krav Maga community, and in the larger self-defense community may be doing as well – or doing in a different way. Don’t get me wrong, my goal is not to see every Krav Maga/Self-Defense Instructor, standing on a hillside, hand in hand, singing, “I’d like to teach the world to sing”, but rather for individuals to educate themselves to the different approaches, and seek out the value, of what other instructors are doing/teaching. I’ve always liked the adage that I first heard Avi Nardia use, which is, “Always a student, sometimes a teacher” i.e. you never stop learning. If you are an instructor really want to learn, so that you can best serve your students, you have to expose yourself to new and different ideas, not just from within your own community, but from the larger self-defense and martial arts community as well. I have learnt great principles and concepts from practitioners of Aikido, Kick-Boxing (yep, Kick-Boxing), Karate, traditional Ju-Jitsu, which I’ve been able to apply to my Krav Maga training – ideas, which I’ve not heard expressed within the Krav Maga community, but which have enhanced the way that I’ve taught and instructed. This is not the same as “watering down” what I teach, or creating a “new” hybrid version of Krav Maga etc. but realizing that different arts and systems have value in what they do. I never fail to take something away when I have a conversation with a boxer; I’ve never changed my stance to that of a boxer’s but I’ve adopted many of the ideas from boxing about real power generation when punching, just as I have from studying and practicing Karate. Do I believe I have to cross-train in Boxing and Karate, not necessarily (and I don’t believe my students have to), but I do believe there are great benefits to understanding how these systems work and how their “ideas” can be brought into my own teaching and training. If this means I am somehow not being true to historical/traditional Krav Maga, quite frankly I don’t care; I don’t have the luxury of practicing an “art” from another time – I’ll stay true to the principles but I want to enhance the execution. I don’t believe that you necessarily have to have a wealth of firsthand experiences of violence to be a good instructor; but some experience will help you gain a realistic perspective. I don’t practice Krav Maga knife defenses because they are part of a syllabus, I practice them because they have worked for me, and the method/approach is a logical one I appreciate and understand. This however doesn’t by default invalidate the solutions that other instructors teach and use. I remember, once demonstrating a technique in a forum type setting, where another Krav Maga instructor from another style told me categorically that what I was teaching wouldn’t work (as instructors we’ve all had those conversations). What I was teaching was something I’d applied when working door, a few months previous. This was a great example of competitive rather than cooperative conflict resolution. If instead, he’d said something along the lines of, “I can see what you’re trying to do there but I have an issue with this particular point, can you explain how you deal with that”, we could have had a discussion/dialogue about the problem we were trying to solve (a knife threat to the side of the throat), where we could have both learnt something – even if that was both of us confirming our own positions – and improved our understanding. When you actually deal with real-life violence, you care little for the name of the system where the solution to an attack comes from, you simply care that it works. I have dealt with assailants with knives, enough to understand that I have a lot of improvements to make, and that I’m not in a position to sit back and tell myself that I’ve got this area of my training sorted. When I invite guest instructors to my school, and they ask me if I’ve got any specific things I want them to teach, I’ll always say knife. Last year, we had Ran Steinberg from Dennis Hisardut, come and teach a seminar on knife, this year he’s coming back, and he’s teaching another seminar on knife (along with others) – when we talked about this he informed me that he’s made some changes/adaptations to some of the techniques he taught last time i.e. he’s someone who is constantly developing/improving, and that means searching and trying new things, ideas and approaches etc. If you deal with real-life violence, you don’t care if it’s called Krav Maga or anything else, you just want it to work, and in the most effective way possible – if something from another system, or instructor enhances your understanding of what you need to do, you shouldn’t ignore it because it comes from somewhere else e.g. my understanding of 360 blocking has been enhanced by my Karate training; my block doesn’t look any different to any other Krav Maga 360 block, but it contains a lot more power and force due to my understanding of Karate. If it’s that extra force/power which adds to my survival, I don’t really care where it comes from. One of the best analogies I heard about the evolving nature of Krav Maga, came from Roy Elghanyan (another instructor I had come out and do a seminar at my school), who said, “Imi Lichtenfeld (the founder of the Krav Maga methodology), invented the car, but we don’t drive the same cars now that we did in the 1940’s (when Krav Maga was first developed).” Nowadays we drive cars with fuel injection, that have 16/24 valves, that have ABS, cruise control etc. It’s still a car, it’s still an internal combustion engine, it’s still a barking system etc. Nothing has fundamentally changed, but each of these things has been improved. Krav Maga to stay relevant, to become even more efficient, even more effective needs to change and move forward – it still needs to stay true to the principles, if it’s to remain as Krav Maga. It can only move forward with cooperation and the exchange of ideas, both from instructors within the community, and from those in the larger/broader self-defense community.                https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=260 Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=259 Jigaro Kano, the founder/developer of Judo, had a Master’s in Education i.e. he had an academic background in teaching, and an understanding of how people learn etc. Kano, was the initiator of the colored belt system for grading (that most martial arts have adopted), and organized his syllabus, in a logical and ordered fashion. He understood that students need structure and direction in their learning, and organized his teaching and instruction to provide this. For me, as a Judoka, one of the most important and useful things he did was to name his techniques/throws in a literal and descriptive fashion – in fact the teaching points of the throws are contained in the names e.g. the throw called Harai-Goshi, meaning “Sweeping Hip”, instructs you to sweep the “Hip” when you execute the throw; however many people don’t do this, and sweep the leg – I’ll hazard a guess, that Kano, understood this common mistake, and put a reminder/rectification in the name, so that practitioners would remember what the key component of the throw actually is. I believe that as an educator, Kano understood that jargon, fancy names and terms etc. can get in the way of learning, and can actually misdirect a student so that they execute a technique incorrectly. There is a huge danger in renaming things, as an emphasis can be lost and a misdirection can occur. This can be clearly seen, in the variant of Tai-O-Toshi (“Body Drop Throw”), that is taught in Sambo (a form of Russian Wrestling), as “Front Trip”. A “traditional” Tai-O-Toshi, as opposed to that often seen in competition, involves no leg on leg contact, between the thrower (Tori) and the person being thrown (Uke); the power comes from the person executing the throw, dropping (and turning) their body at speed, in order to take their opponent’s balance and throw them. In Sambo, the “Front Trip” throw, which is executed almost identically to Tai-O-Toshi, sees one of the thrower’s legs placed against the shin of the person being thrown, in order to “trip” them as they drop their weight and pull them forward/round. Despite looking almost identical, these are two very different throws, with the different names, changing the emphasis on the key working of the throws; one is powered by a downwards shift in weight, which pulls a person over, with the other relying on an almost opposite idea, which is to block a person’s movement by tripping them. Descriptive terms, which explain the concepts and ideas behind a technique or principle make more sense than abstract terms and jargon, however the world of self-protection and security, loves to come up with abstract terms and terminology that need to be translated, before they can be understood. I see this a lot in the way that numbers are used, when people talk about level 1, stage 2 etc. Numbers in and of themselves don’t convey any understanding, meaning or message. They are useful in suggesting an idea of progression, but that is all. Telling someone that they need to act and behave in a “Stage 3” situation, means that they have to translate “Stage 3” into some form of descriptive term/definition, and then do the same for “Stage 1” and “Stage 2”, before they can orientate themselves, understand where they are in their landscape, and start to formulate a plan of action. If “Stage 3”, was given a title/name that described the stage/phase, such as “Pre-Conflict”, a person can easily understand by the name/title that this is the stage preceding the actual conflict, and the next phase stage, is not “Stage 4”, but the conflict/fight itself – there is no wasted time in having to translate a number into a descriptor, and having to reference that number in relation to others etc. Jargon and terminology, is a great way, to put barriers up to learning, and create a language that only those who have taken the time to educate themselves to it can use and understand, however it doesn’t help when a situation needs to be understood quickly, and acting decisively is key. Even if you are fluent in a second language, it is still a second language, and to understand what someone is saying a translation process needs to occur. If you are an English person who speaks French, standing in a compound, with a French soldier, who instructs you in French that there is incoming fire, you will still need to translate that; depending on your fluency it might be almost instantaneous, but in most cases there will be some form of delay – the length of time that it takes you to make the translation could have disastrous consequences for you. If your self-protection language has too much jargon, and is too abstract, you may be slowing down a person’s ability to understand what is going on around them, and what they should do. It will also be impossible for a person to understand that “language” subconsciously, as it will always need to be consciously translated. The names, terms and phrases we use, when talking about personal safety concepts and ideas, should be as descriptive as possible, and contain as much information and ideas as is possible in a simple name or term. It should be remembered that it is the idea/concept that we want to communicate and the name/term we give it should reflect that – we should also not get too concerned if people can’t remember the name or term as long as they understand what it is referring to. Our goal should not be to create a “new” language but to impart knowledge and understanding.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=259 Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=258 One of the most important skills to have when dealing with potentially violent individuals is decisiveness; being prepared, ready and willing to act, when assaulted – I’m using the legal definition of assault here, not the common usage one i.e. if somebody, who has yet to make physical contact with you, puts themselves in a position where they could cause you harm, and at the same time causes you to fear for your safety, it’s assault etc. Once you understand, and recognize this, you should be prepared to respond physically, either pre-emptively before the person goes to punch, grab you (battery) etc. or as a response to their attack. There are many warning signs, both verbal and physical that can alert you to the fact that somebody is getting ready to act physically against you. A lot of people in the martial arts community will talk about how people telegraph their striking, explaining telegraphing as unnecessary or exaggerated movements that precede a punch or kick etc. However, telegraphing is more about a person’s entire movement and body tension, before they make the strike e.g. if somebody is bobbing around and shifting their weight when sparring, you know that they are preparing to make an attack; this is telegraphing. If in a Judo contest a person, is pushing and pulling their opponent back and forth, you know that they are setting up/telegraphing their attack (you don’t necessarily know what specific attack). If a Judoka is relaxed, and then suddenly explodes into a throw, or a Karetaka with no tension in their body suddenly darts forward, with a punch, neither individual has telegraphed their attack – there was no overall preceding movement(s) that showed their intent. So when we talk about identifying whether somebody is about to throw a punch in a real-life conflict, we shouldn’t get caught up trying to identify, each movement that precedes the punch, but rather look at their overall movement and energy, and try and see if they’re setting up the setup to the punch, rather than just focusing on the punch setup. An example of this, is somebody who keeps advances towards you shouting, and then backs away, only to advance again etc. This is somebody setting up the setup. They’re not yet physically and emotionally ready to punch you, and they’re getting themselves into a place where they’re ready to do so. This overall body movement is telegraphing their intent. It is much easier to act at this time, than wait to identify the specific attack they’re going to use. There are “necessary” movements that have to occur, for a punch to have power, and one of these is that body weight has to be transferred forward – a lot of martial arts and combat sports striking training involves minimizing large movements that are needed to do this and chaining/coupling smaller less identifiable movements together to achieve, a faster and more powerful overall movement. Most untrained individuals lack the knowledge, the skill and the ability to do this, and so have to rely on relatively large shifts of weight in order to deliver a solid strike. This normally involves transferring weight on to the back foot first, in order to bring weight forward into the punch. One way to do this is to take a step back, or to turn away, almost as if the person is leaving/walking away – which is a fairly good way to get the person they are confronting to relax and drop their guard, thinking that the interaction has ended etc. The person who keeps advancing and retreating is also doing the same thing, as backing away from you can be used to mask this weight shift. Any movement that loads weight onto an aggressor’s back leg, should be considered as a setup for a strike. Both the setup of the setup, and the setup itself, would be good occasions to act preemptively. The setup to the setup, in a court of law, could easily be argued and framed as an assault, and the setup itself could demonstrate the “battery” component of “Assault and Battery” e.g. the movement showed that they were preparing to make physical contact with you. It is worth understanding that the law gives you the right to act preemptively, as you want to eradicate all possible doubts in your mind about making the first strike, in order to be decisive. Your initial preemptive strike doesn’t have to be a power strike i.e. you don’t have to end the fight with your first strike etc. Unfortunately, under stress and duress, many trained people forget their training and panic, using the same methods of power generation, that untrained individuals employ e.g. stepping back, swinging/pulling their punching arm back etc. In essence telegraphing their strike. This is why it is sometimes better to make an initial strike that doesn’t require power, but can be used to disrupt an attacker’s movement and setup a subsequent power strike, such as slamming your palm and fingers into your attacker’s face in a quasi-palm/eye strike, followed by a power strike etc. At some stage in the game, preferably early on you need to be delivering, hard powerful strikes – eye, throat and groin strikes are all good setups, but should not be relied upon to stop a committed aggressor. My personal belief is that when you close your hand into a fist, you should be striking with maximum concussive force. This is something that is often low on the priority list of many reality based self-defense instructors, who teach that punching just using the arms and shoulders, rather than adding movement from the back, hips and legs etc. is enough to stop an assailant. In almost every instance it will not be enough, regardless of the numeracy of the strikes. Ten fast punches lacking complete power, do not somehow equal one punch thrown with full power.   There are also verbal cues, that may be part of the setup of the setup. In most violent assaults, there is usually some thought of verbal exchange that precedes a physical attack. If a person who is ranting aggressively at me suddenly goes silent, I can be pretty sure that what will follow is the setting up and the launching of the attack. If they start to garble and jumble up their words, I can be pretty sure of the same. If they keep repeating a phrase, threat or injustice over and over again, getting louder and faster etc. I shouldn’t be surprised if they then get physical. Telegraphing in real-life situations also involves dialogue, or lack of it. By understanding how people telegraph their attacks, you can respond preemptively, or faster, than if you’re waiting for and trying to identify the specific attack itself. This means you don’t have to have speed, just the illusion of it, because you are able to move/respond earlier than if you were simply relying on your athletic ability alone.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=258 Sun, 17 Apr 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=257 Getting old sucks. I look back at what I used to be able to do 20-25 years ago, and sigh – when my knees were good my throws were twice as explosive, and my striking faster, and more powerful etc. However, despite aging, my reaction and response times have improved, even though I know I’m not as physically quick as I once was. I had cause to explain this during a private lesson on Sunday, and I believe that explaining why you can get better with age, despite your physical attributes deteriorating, can help someone with all their “faculties intact” improve their fighting ability greatly. As I entered my forties I began to realize I wasn’t as fast as I used to be; when somebody raised the pads for me to strike in a reaction drill, I didn’t get to the target as quickly as I used to. However, if I sparred with somebody or did randori (“Judo sparring”) I was just as quick – my natural response times were slowing down, but my actual response times weren’t i.e. in a drill I was slower but in an actual situation I wasn’t. This meant something was making up the difference/shortfall; I didn’t have real speed but I looked as if I did. When you are young and you first learn how to block a punch, you see the strike coming in, and you block it. After you’ve seen enough punches come in (and probably connect, if you are of a certain generation), you start to understand the movements, which preempt the punch e.g. the dip of the shoulders, the pull back of the fist etc. and these start to stimulate/initiate your response; you don’t wait for the punch to be thrown, you react to the setup. As you become more experienced, you learn that a shift in weight, precedes the dip of the shoulder/the arm being pulled back etc. With a lot more experience, you start to recognize, how people set up these movements till you understand that a turn of the head signals an attack etc. After a while your response to an attack isn’t based on the attack itself but on the setup; you don’t have to be physically fast, your threat recognition skills identify the danger before it even exists. Let’s say that martial arts training doubles/educates your physical reaction time. Now you react 0.2 Ms as opposed to 0.4 Ms. What advantage does this actually give you? In a real life encounter practically nothing. If somebody is slashing at you with a knife, throwing a punch etc. your “improved” reaction time will benefit you little; it won’t change your reaction time enough to make an adequate or proper response. To be effective martial arts and self-defense training, can’t aim to train an improvement in your physical response time, it has to train your threat recognition skills so that you identify danger at the earliest opportunity. This is why, that as you get older, as your physical skills diminish, you can still react to danger better than you were able to when in your twenties – even though that was a time when athleticism, and reaction time, was in your favor. I learnt most of my door-craft of a guy who was in his fifties – when I first started working door with him, I was an arrogant 18-year old, who thought my prowess in the dojo, meant something in the real world. I believed my speed and power were what made me. I soon realized it was decisiveness, and the quick recognition of the way a situation was heading that made the difference. I believe that one of the great failings of reality based self-defense, is its emphasis on techniques, and the practice/mastery of them, instead of focusing on situations and the way they develop so that individuals learn to respond at the first sign of a threat, rather than learn what to do once the threat has been enacted; it is easier to stop a punch before it has been thrown than deal with it afterwards. There is a famous Mike Tyson quote where he states, “Everybody has a plan until they are punched in the face.” I couldn’t agree with him more; knowing the signs that signal a punch means that you can react before it’s been thrown etc. In the next blog I will identify the warning signs that signify that someone is about to attack you and prescribe ways that you can deal with this. Don’t worry if your reaction times are slow, or slowing down, we will look at ways in which you can create the “illusion” of speed by responding to a physical pre-violence indicator rather than having to react to an attack itself etc. You don’t have to be athletically fast to deal with an attack, you just have to recognize it and be decisive before it’s begun.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=257 Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=256 A study using British crime survey statistics from 1992 (Pease & Farrell), came up with a fairly frightening statistic: 4% of people experience about 40% of all crimes. The conclusion(s) from the study, was that many victims of crime, had been previously targeted within a 12-month period i.e. there was repeat victimization of those who’d been sexually assaulted, the victims of car theft and burglary, and been domestically abused etc. The statistics would seem to suggest that being the victim of crime, increased the chances/likelihood that you’d be targeted in the future. The old saying that lightening doesn’t strike twice, doesn’t seem to apply where violence and crime are concerned, in fact it is more appropriate to say that lightening does strike twice, sometimes three times and more etc. In this blog article, I’m going to take a look at some of the reasons why victims of crime/violence are repeatedly targeted. The first thing I would like to make clear is that I’m not a proponent of victim blaming; the person to blame for a crime is the criminal. In saying that, I do believe in “victim facilitation”, that there are things an individual can do, that puts them at risk, or aids a criminal in their activities e.g. if you leave your house in the morning without locking your doors and/or windows, if a burglar is looking for houses on your street to break into, then by giving them easy access to your property you have helped/facilitated them. You are not to blame, but at the very least you haven’t made it difficult for them. There are certain less obvious actions and behaviors that people engage in (both consciously and unconsciously), which help facilitate crime.     Sometimes a person’s response to a crime, sets them up to be the victim of further crimes. If your house is burgled, you are more likely to be broken into again within the next 12 months, than a home that has not had a break-in. A burglar knows that at some point you will need to replace your stolen goods, either because your insurance will pay out for you to do so, or you will gradually/organically start to replace items such as your TV, computer, and other electronic goods etc. What might have been a 5 years old flat screen TV, will in all likelihood be replaced by the latest model etc. making your house an extremely attractive target – in fact more attractive than it was previously. It is also worth noting that many individuals believe that when they are broken into that is them done (they’ve become a statistic and it’s somebody else’s turn next), and they neglect to put in place any new/improved security measures e.g. they don’t invest in a burglar alarm, new locks etc. It is also true that initially new security habits/procedures may be put into place, such as an increased vigilance around locking doors/windows etc. however old habits die hard, and after a period of time where nothing has happened, people start to resort to their old habits and security standards slip. Burglars and other predatory individuals understand this, and know that given a period of time, previous victims (although currently vigilant) will soon default to their old behaviors. When people are assaulted there is a reason, and it is rarely down to just being in the wrong place, at the wrong time etc. When you look at assaults in detail, you usually see there are many “potential” victims who are also in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who aren’t targeted. Either their behaviors and actions don’t put them on a predator’s radar, or there are more “attractive” victims in the environment, who demand the predator’s attention. Unfortunately, when a person is a victim of violent crime their attention goes towards upping their ability to handle a confrontation, rather than finding ways to avoid being targeted in the first place e.g. many people’s response to being assaulted, is to start carrying pepper spray, rather than to study and amend/adjust the actions and behaviors, which attracted the attention of their assailant in the first place. Don’t get me wrong, taking a precaution such as starting to carry pepper spray etc. is a great first step, and admirable etc. however it does little to harden you as a target – unless you change/adapt the actions and behaviors that put you on your assailant’s radar, you are likely to be on somebody else’s. Sometimes the trauma of an event, changes a person’s outlook, and they begin to see victimization as inevitable, and future violence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is especially true with children who are sexually abused, and go on to see further abuse by different, and new, predators as inevitable (and deserved). Trauma occurs when individuals are subjected to a highly stressful incident in which they had little or no control e.g. a small child who is sexually abused by an adult – in such a situation the child would have little or no control over the incident, and would have had to acquiesce to the socially, emotionally and physically superior abilities of their predator. Humans, are social creatures, who become ashamed when they are not able to control the situations they find themselves in – children are no different. Adult victims of sexual assault are ashamed of what happened to them, even though they know they are not to blame. One way of coping with shame, is to transfer it to guilt (private shame), however to do this, you need to come up with a reason/explanation as to why you were targeted, and this means blaming yourself e.g. it was something you did, said or the way you behaved, that caused you to become a victim; this gives you back control of the incident. In your mind you are now to blame for being targeted. In certain instances, this may cause you to act MORE like a victim than before, something predatory individuals are extremely adept at picking up on. If you have been the victim of a crime or act of violence, don’t look to blame yourself, look for ways of lowering your profile and hardening yourself as a target. Don’t explain away what happened to you, your house or your car as random, but look to understand why that target was selected, and what you can do to change that in the future; because statistically – and none of us can escape the stats – you’re more likely to be targeted again.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=256 Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=255 When we think of aggressive and violent situations, we normally think of them occurring in unfamiliar places and involving people we don’t know – places and people we can exit from and avoid in the future. Real life incidents however may be more complex and involved; aggressive acts can occur in the workplace, either with customers or colleagues, or with roommates in a house that you share, or with neighbors on the street where you live etc. These are situations where you may end up finding yourself living with/next door to your aggressor, or working alongside a colleague who harbors harmful intent towards you. How you handle yourself in such situations – even if you act and behave legally and are simply exercising your rights – may create consequences that are difficult to deal with, or future situations that put you at greater risk.  One of the issues we often have when trying to settle disputes or disagreements, and/or enforce boundaries, is that we make the mistake of believing that we are dealing with reasonable people, when in fact we could be dealing with individuals who suffer from certain pathological conditions, such as an anti-social personality disorder, or are simply psychologically and emotionally immature, and are unable to control the way they act and behave. Where you might believe a conflict should end, they see it as the event that gives them the right to initiate a campaign of harassment against you. What you see as reasonable request to a neighbor, such as them turning down their music at 2 AM in the morning, they will see as an infringement on their right to act and behave as they want to (even though such a right doesn’t exist and society places rules on our behavior and the ways in which we can conduct ourselves). Your reasonableness will be seen as both a challenge and a weakness. What to you may have been a minor event – asking them to turn their music down – may have become a life-defining event for them, and one that they are unable to get over and move on from. Such individuals will often replay and reinvent the interactions they have with you until they have created a story and script for themselves, which becomes their reality. Such individuals, rarely think about the consequences of their actions and behaviors, and so the normal social conventions that we assume everybody will adhere to, don’t apply. Most individuals who are the target of workplace bullying, find it difficult to believe that an adult would spread rumors and gossip, and engage in name calling etc. Things that most of us gave up on in childhood. However, the truth of it is, that such individuals do exist, and are looking for individuals to “challenge” them and engage with. It is worth noting that trying to reason with these people is fruitless. If they are suffering from a pathological condition, they will be unable to change the way they behave, act, and interact with the world; they are basically hardwired this way. When you formulate a strategy for dealing with them, the approach of “we are all adults here”, may not be an appropriate one. You may feel that the injustice being committed against you is so obvious and great, that your story must be told, however you should be very aware that telling your story, may prompt them to further action, rather than cause them to stop. There is often a big difference between doing what is right, and being effective. So how do you deal with such individuals? The hardest temptation is not to go in all guns blazing. The trouble of trying to show a strong hand early on, is that you often reveal the limit and extent of what you are able to do – and it normally isn’t enough to deter someone who is committed to their cause. People who take out restraining orders against someone who is harassing and/or stalking them etc. are often clearly demonstrating the extent of what they are able to do to their harasser/stalker (restraining orders have their place, but they should be used wisely). After the police/sheriff has served the order, the individual in question, starts to understand that nothing in their life has actually changed e.g. they haven’t been arrested, they’re not in prison etc. What was obviously the greatest card you could play, really hasn’t had much of an effect. Most “reasonable” people would be ashamed that somebody has had to go to such a length, to stop them acting and behaving in a certain way, however not everybody is reasonable, and if they were they would have come to the realization themselves that the campaign they were engaged on was not right. Set boundaries you know you can enforce, and don’t engage in further confrontations or interactions which your antagonist may be able to interpret as them “winning”. This is something I learnt very early on in my career working as a doorman. I once barred somebody from a club I worked at, after he’d been kicked out for being physically inappropriate with some of the female bar staff. I used to work at the club on Thursdays and Saturdays. Once many months later, I ended up covering a shift on a Wednesday night, and discovered he’d been coming back to the club every Wednesday since I barred him – something he took as a great victory. He had enough history as a non-troublesome customer by then, that it would have been petty to try and force the issue that he should be barred; and after such a period of time I wasn’t convinced that the management of the club would be behind me. For the next 6-8 months I worked at the club, I had to put up with his grinning face, every time I saw him. The boundaries you set can be small ones, but they should be ones you have the power to enforce. Keep track of all interactions you have, whether they are friendly, cold or indifferent. It is often impossible to know what is going through somebody’s mind, or what they are planning to do – in many cases such individuals don’t know themselves what they plan to do, and so keep doing things until a plan starts to form itself. Keeping a record allows you the ability to see patterns, possible escalations, and gives you a body of evidence should you ever have the need to go legal. It also allows you to see the direction where things are heading; it is hard to make a prediction, if you don’t know what you are actually predicting, and letting your imagination run riot isn’t healthy – neither of which is denying what is happening to you, something a diary of events will prevent you from doing. Many people look at situations from a very immediate perspective, without considering the bigger picture; how you deal with somebody may have consequences, some of which may be totally unexpected and unanticipated. You can never guarantee how people will respond to simple and justified requests, and if those people are customers or neighbors, you may find yourself having dealing with the long term consequences of your interaction/conflict e.g. a customer who you bar, may initiate a campaign of harassment against you, and your company may side with them on their “dispute” rather than with you etc. Understanding these things, will help you find ways in which to enforce your actions, without finding yourself having to deal with too many significant consequences. Hard as it is to stay quiet on certain injustices, silence can be a powerful tool in taking the fuel away from a person’s perceived injustices.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=255 Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=254 I was conducting a training session for a corporate client last week, where the subject of social media was raised, along with ways in which your online presence could be leveraged against you to compromise your personal safety. Many people when they think of protecting themselves online look at ways to protect themselves from somebody hacking their account etc. and don’t look at ways in which a predator could use the information you have out there to commit other crimes against you and your family. It’s worth noting that most social media apps (including Facebook) have privacy settings that restrict what people can see about you, however you should be aware that the privacy settings of friends and people you are connected to may compromise these. Though this blog article is not really concerned with protecting yourself from hackers, it is probably worth you taking a quick look as to whether the answers to your security questions for online banking, your mobile phone account etc. are actually out there online e.g. common security questions for these services may ask for, the name of your first pet, the high school you went to, your mother’s maiden name, the city where you were born etc. If you have completed a Facebook profile fully, you will have provided the answers for these questions and this information will be out there in the public domain. Many predatory individuals use familiarity as a means to disarm us; something that works especially well against children, who may not categorize or see someone as a stranger, if it seems that they know their name and some things about them. This is one good reason, not to put your child’s name on their school backpack, as it gives any predatory individual, an “in” with your child, as they can feign that they know who they are, and construct a story about how you have asked them to pick them up from school, soccer practice etc. If you have a lot of photos of your child, along with information about the activities they engage in, you are giving out information that a sexual predator could use to disarm and lure your child. Whilst child abductions by strangers are not common, they do happen, and it is often the simple fact that the predator knows the child’s name, which disarms them. Whilst social media is a great tool for sharing events and photos with relatives and family members, it is worth looking at what information you might not want to include in a post etc. Whilst you may want to have a certain degree of visibility on social media, you may not want to put yourself in a position where you are easily searchable by everyone. One simple way, is to not have your Facebook or Twitter accounts, use your actual last name. One of the incidents that was brought up during the training session, involved a woman who received a friend request on Facebook from a client, whilst she was talking to them on the phone – in the context of their work relationship this was inappropriate behavior on the part of the client. The fact that the client could find her so quickly, was because she had used her real, full name, as her profile name, and a quick search of this by the client brought up her Facebook page; if she’d changed her last name to something different (such as her middle name, or something more common like, Smith or Brown) he wouldn’t have been able to find her so quickly/easily. She now found herself in the awkward position of having to either accept his request, thus giving him access to more information about herself, or refusing the request and possibly appearing rude and stand-offish etc. Another thing that is worth knowing about photos that you publish online, is that they might contain geocode data. If you take a photo on a smart phone, without disabling the geocode option, the location where the photo was taken will be stored as part of the digital data. This then allows predators and criminals to possibly work out, where you live, where you work, where you spend leisure time etc. If you are somebody who takes and posts a lot of photos, you may be mapping out your lifestyle in a way that could be used against you, and your family members e.g. if you take your child to a particular park to play every Saturday at 3 pm and take photos of these events, and post them online with the geocode and timestamp in the data, you are detailing exactly where you and your child will be at a particular time. From a personal safety perspective, predictability is a vulnerability. One of the things on Facebook that never fails to amaze me is when people check-in at airports, informing the world that they will be away for a period of time. If this information is coupled with a geocoded photo taken in your living room, displaying a 58 Inch plasma TV screen in the background, somebody may well decide to pay your home a visit whilst you are away. Sometimes it is a good idea to not let people know your real time movements e.g. post photographs of your holiday/vacation when you get back, not whilst you’re away etc. All of this may seem a bit over the top to some people, or even paranoid, however we have to realize that when we publish information about our personal lives online, there are people who may try and use that to gain an advantage over us; that may be a social advantage rather than a criminal one, however any advantage a person has over us puts us at a disadvantage when interacting/dealing with them. Information about you, your family and your lifestyle is valuable to criminals and predators and we should look on it as an “asset” that needs to be protected. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=254 Sun, 20 Mar 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=253 When I used to do bar and door security, I used to have to remind myself that this was my workplace, and I shouldn’t expect to be assaulted in it. This may seem strange to some people i.e. you are performing a job that potentially involves confronting aggressive and violent individuals, however I used to adopt this mindset, because it allowed me to properly identify what was acceptable and unacceptable behavior. There is a great danger in accepting violence in any area of your life as an inevitability. I have trained many people in the health and psych industry, who are resigned to the fact that patients will assault them, and that this is simply part of the job – I would argue quite strongly that it is not. Are you at a higher risk of assault working in these industries? Absolutely, just as you are when you have to deal with drunks, however such aggression and violence, shouldn’t be accepted, as something that is part of the job. One of the dangers that comes from this mindset, is that certain individuals start to believe that they can act and behave with impunity; that they somehow are entitled to act in socially unacceptable ways because they believe the people they are dealing with can’t or won’t go to the police, press charges or allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions/behaviors. Aggression and violence in the workplace, is never acceptable and should never be tolerated.    This week I conducted a training session/seminar on workplace violence, for a social service provider – 70-74% of violent workplace incidents occur in the healthcare and social service sector. I have found in my time delivering such training that many people are confused about their rights to defend themselves, as well as when to – having a right doesn’t always mean it’s the most effective option to choose. I have also found a lot of confusion around “trespass”, and what to do when someone is acting in a threatening manner, in a workplace, and needs to be removed (something I often had to do when working bar/door security). This confusion doesn’t just exist in the workplace, many individuals in everyday settings don’t understand when they have the right/should defend themselves and how to handle someone who is on their property and refuses to leave e.g. a drunk house guest, who has over stayed their welcome, and has been asked to leave etc. Trespass occurs when an individual has been asked to leave either a workplace or a house, and refuses to do so, either by explicitly stating that they’re not going to leave, or by implicitly refusing the request by remaining on the property. The simplest solution is to call the police, however you may find that the police are reluctant to get involved and/or “enforce” your request for the person to leave, if you are in a house or similar dwelling. The reason for this is that they may be unsure if the person you are trying to have removed is actually a legal occupant of the property, and to forcibly remove them may violate that individual’s rights etc. In a workplace setting things are much clearer, as a customer or client, obviously doesn’t reside on the property. In some states physical force is allowed to remove somebody from a property (in others it is only permissible if the person is committing an assault) if you believe that they are committing a criminal trespass – an important fact to bear in mind, if things go legal, is that you must prove that the person committing the trespass was not justified to be on the property (they do not have to prove that they were justified to be there, you have to prove they weren’t). In most workplace settings, trespass is normally accompanied by an assault – especially if a person refuses to leave after a request has been made. If you ask someone to leave your property and they become aggressive with you, or continue to behave aggressively, it is reasonable to have a fear for your safety – if you fear for your safety and the person you are dealing with is at a distance where they could engage with you physically, then they are guilty of assault as well as trespass e.g. if you have a customer who becomes aggressive in your place of work, such as a shop, and you ask them to leave, and they refuse, continuing to act aggressively towards you, which makes you fear for your safety, and they could grab, push, hit you – are at a distance where they could cause you physical harm – you are being assaulted. The next thing to understand is the level of force you are allowed to use. This is both a moral and legal question. This is a subject that the law is relatively quiet on – what most states and countries agree on, is that deadly force is not permitted when trying to deal with a trespasser. When I worked door security, mine and my colleagues goal, was to get individuals who were engaged in anti-social activities out of the building; it wasn’t to “punish” them or teach them a lesson, it was simply to remove the problem outside of the premises. To this end, physical force, usually started with a guiding hand, to direct a person out who had refused a verbal request; if resistance to this was met, this would perhaps become more forceful and the individual would possibly be put in a control hold, if they’d started to throw punches or it was believed that they would. What is important to note, is that all of this would be preceded by verbal requests for the person to leave – only when it was obvious that they wouldn’t, would physical enforcement be applied. I will caveat everything I have written by stating that I am not an attorney, but someone who works in the security industry and has tried to make myself aware of what society both legally and morally judges to be acceptable. Different states and different countries will have slightly different definitions of what constitutes criminal trespass, and how such incidents should be handled. Where things become much clearer is when an assault occurs with trespass – if somebody refuses to leave your property and engages in threatening behavior at a proximity where they could physically harm you – as here the law is clear on your rights to defend yourself. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=253 Sun, 13 Mar 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=252 For those of you who are not aware, we run a free women's self-defense program, at my studio, every Saturday morning. One question I get asked a lot, is why we run it for free – I sometimes get asked why we don't run a free men's self-defense class. In this blog article, I'd like to explain why we run a free women's self-defense program, and at the same time don't offer a free men's program. Women, and young women especially, probably represent the largest "minority" that is directly targeted with violence and aggression. If you don't believe me on this, you don't need to do any google search for statistics, you just need to ask any woman you know if she has ever had to deal with an aggressive, unreasonable man, and in all likelihood she'll nod her head and say yes – and tell you that this has happened to her on more than one occasion. Violence is not spread equally amongst the genders; yes, young men do get assaulted, however in many cases it is their ego and confrontational manner, which escalates a situation to the point where one party feels justified to use physical force. In most of these cases, this is not predatory and premeditated, in the same way that violence against women is generally committed. Unfortunately, many women have come to accept, that aggressive men are just part of life, and should simply be put up with. This is especially true if they are involved in the dating scene e.g. online and public harassment, not taking no for an answer, physical abuse, etc. Many men don't understand that if you block a woman's way, preventing her from leaving, although you may not have made physical contact with her, you are being physically abusive, and are guilty of assault etc. In fact, if you give any person a reason to feel afraid and fear for their safety you may find yourself on the wrong side of the legal system – this is worth thinking about next time you feel the urge to raise your voice to someone, and act in an emotional and insistent manner; something I've seen a lot of men do in bars (when working security), when their advances were turned down, and the woman they were wanting to keep talking to, wanted to disengage. As someone who was bullied as a kid, I recognize this way of acting and behaving as bullying. I know there are many men who will laugh it off, saying that women who are offended by the way they behave are too sensitive, can't take a joke, should lighten up etc. however, these were the types of arguments, that the kids who bullied me, used to make, in order to justify their actions to themselves – I think deep down everybody knew what was actually going on; simple, offensive power games – the games that women have to endure far more commonly than you may think. Whilst we may think of women’s self-defense as being about dealing with rape and sexual assaults etc. It needs to also cover these more common situations as well. Many men (not all) don't see the situations they create as being dangerous for the women that are involved, as they "know" that they're not going to become physically violent, that their veiled comments and insinuations aren't actual threats that they'll fulfill etc. After all, what's the danger in creating a bit of discomfort and unease, for the person who has told them that they're not interested, and would rather not talk to them; it's only fair that the dent to their ego should be balanced out by a level of distress for the person who wanted to walk away and not engage with them. This is what women deal with all too frequently – not overt physical violence, but unstable and unpredictable male aggression, that at times creates an atmosphere of fear in their lives which is completely unwarranted. In many of these situations it can be extremely disempowering for the woman, as it is hard to know if any law has actually been broken, or if the presence of law enforcement is justified. It is good to know how to act and behave in these grey areas, and know what to do if they start to become more defined. This is why I run a free women's self-defense program once a week, and it's why I don't feel obligated to offer the same free service to men (I don't see them as being "at risk" in the same way). Our program, does look at physical self-defense techniques and how to be able to defend yourself when attacked, but it largely exists with the goal of educating women about different types of violence, and how they can learn to predict, identify and avoid danger before it happens, and by having this knowledge and skills, being able to live a life where fear and uncertainty are not experienced in the same way.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=252 Sun, 06 Mar 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=251 Just because somebody believes something should be the case, or that something makes sense to them, doesn’t mean that it is. I recently received a critical review of my book, “Krav Maga: Real World Solutions to Real World Violence”, where the reviewer, claimed that my response(s) to dealing with an assailant armed with a blade were both disproportionate, illegal, and a violation of the human rights of the attacker under European Law. I’m quite sure that the writer of the review would like to see me brought to The Hague to answer for my “war” crimes, of “excessive” use of force. This week, I was also asked my opinion on an incident of “road rage” that one of the attendees of our women’s self-defense class was involved in and the use of force that she would have been permitted to use should the situation have escalated into a physical confrontation. In this article I want to look at what is and isn’t a disproportionate use of force in two very different type of situation. If a mugger, armed with a knife, demands your wallet, my advice is to hand it over to them. This is the most effective way to ensure that you won’t be cut or stabbed. However, what do you do if the mugger doesn’t go, once you’ve handed your valuables over to them? At this stage, they are not behaving as a mugger, and you are in a situation where the likelihood of them using the knife against you has increased significantly – for your own safety you should assume that they are going to stab you. In such a scenario, I present a solution, where you use the knife against your attacker whilst they are still holding it. According to the reviewer of the book, this violates the attacker’s human rights, is a disproportionate response, and is fact illegal (under European Law). I would argue that they are wrong on every one of those points. Firstly, under UK law (the European Law I am most familiar with), use of force is a subjective, not objective thing i.e. you can’t categorically say that a particular “technique” or response is illegal; it depends on the individual interpretation of the situation, and what they believed was happening to them etc. If a person believes that someone is intending to stab, and potentially kill them, and it is “reasonable” for them to do so, then their use of force should be appropriate to the danger they believe themselves to be facing. I would argue that it is “reasonable” to assume that a mugger who doesn’t leave after you’ve acquiesced to their demand(s) is preparing to use their weapon against you i.e. use potentially lethal force, and because of this you have the right to defend yourself accordingly, such as stabbing them with their own knife. This is not a disproportionate use of force in fact it is a directly proportionate use of force – you are doing to them exactly what they are planning to do to you. Do you have an obligation to them, to disarm and not harm them? No. Your only responsibility is to yourself and your own survival, and the law provides for you to do what is necessary as you see fit in that situation. It also recognizes that under the stress and duress of violence, “that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action” (Lord Morris – Palmer v R 1971) i.e. you are not expected to measure your response “exactly” and “precisely”. The law is in fact very forgiving around this. It is also worth remembering that you did not consent to be mugged, or have to deal with an armed assailant this is something they forced on you, and is in fact a violation of your Human Rights. You are convicted for what you say, not what you do, and if you can explain why you took the course of action you did, and why it was reasonable to do so, then your use of force will be justified. In the road rage incident, a driver believed the woman, had hit his car, and followed her – something she was aware of. Instead of driving to a police station (always worth knowing on your routes where the nearest one is), she decided to carry on with her day i.e. she ignored the threat. When she stopped the other driver got out of his car, and started to bang on hers with his hands. The simple solution, would be to stay locked in the car, call 911, and wait for the Police to turn up. However, she decided to get out of her car, armed with her pepper spray and confront him – her goal to stop him banging her car. Instead of disengaging from the situation she was engaging with it. If her concern was potential damage to her car, she could have filmed the other driver as he hit her car, taken note of the registration of his vehicle and let her insurance company deal with it. Trying to confront and engage with someone in such an emotional state is unlikely to yield any positive results. This may seem strange advice from someone who is advocating using an assailant’s knife against them; why such a, seemingly extreme solution in one situation and a totally non-confrontational response in another? The difference is choice and the options available. The female driver had many options that didn’t involve confrontation available to her, the person facing an armed robber, who has already handed over their possessions doesn’t. It is as simple as that, and when we look at use of force, the option to not have to use force has to be considered. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=251 Sun, 28 Feb 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=250 Last week I got to witness an incident of air rage. It was during an overnight flight from Atlanta to Johannesburg, and was a great example of two individuals who became so invested in their anger, and their justification(s) to be angry, that they were unable to consider alternatives that could have resolved the situation – it was also a great example of a lack of training in de-escalation and conflict resolution, on the part of the flight attendants and airline staff; something that is quite disturbing considering the potential danger(s) that an irate passenger can cause at 30 000 ft. Soon after take-off, a man in the row in front (of a passenger sitting on my right), reclined his seat back fully, so that the person to my right was now sitting in a more restricted space. Rather than simply accepting that, annoying as it is, a person is entitled to recline their seat as far back as it would go, the woman next to me, decided to make a point of it. Knowing that she didn’t have the right to tell him that he couldn’t do this, she made an implied threat about what may happen if he continued to push his seat back into this position i.e. because of her very long legs, it would be likely that if he reclined to fast he may feel her knees in his back (causing both him and her pain), and so it would be better if he notified her of when he intended to move his seat back. Difficult people will often try and add steps and stages, creating processes that you have to adhere to, in order for you not to offend them. The goal of this is to dissuade you from even considering acting and behaving in a certain way because it’s not worth the hassle of doing so e.g. if the passenger in front of her had agreed to her request that he tell her every time he moved his seat, he may get to the point where he feels embarrassed to keep telling her he needs to recline his seat, and so stop from doing it. Many difficult people have found that they can exploit other people’s natural politeness, and it was obvious that this is what she was trying to do. Unfortunately for her she was dealing with someone who didn’t feel the need to be polite, and who informed her that this was her problem not his, and she would have to deal with it. Difficult people have an extremely hard time when people call them out. In that precise moment when the passenger in front of her told her that this was her issue not his, she realized she had lost control of having any influence over the situation and would need to take a different course of action if she would be able to exert any power and control over her environment. It is likely that she’d had previous successes with her “long leg” argument, and that out of politeness people had stopped reclining their seats back etc. It may be that this was the first experience she’d had of someone directly telling her that they weren’t going to do what she requested. Rather than accepting the situation she invested in the apparent injustice of it, and decided to follow a path of escalation; one that she hoped would gather supporters to her cause e.g. other passengers and airline crew. To do this, every time the seat in front of her moved, she’d bring her knees up into it, and make a loud exclamation about how her knees had been hit, on one occasion alerting everyone to the fact that the passenger in front of her had drawn blood. If the cabin staff had decided not to intervene at that stage, I think her injuries would have escalated further and further until they invoked a “heart attack” or some other event that would have been impossible to ignore. Once she had the attention of a stewardess (a higher authority) who could arbitrate in the situation, she tried to make two points to get everybody on her side: she was polite and her request was reasonable. Difficult people often justify their unreasonable requests and demands by presenting them in a polite way i.e. it doesn’t matter what you ask of somebody, as long as you ask them politely they’re obliged to acquiesce to your demands; it would be impolite not to do so. In her book politeness was a synonym for reason. The stewardess explained to her that the person in front was entitled to recline his seat back fully. Although this was her actual issue, she argued it wasn’t and that she’d only asked him to inform her – because of her long legs – whenever he reclined his seat. She also informed anyone listening that she did this same flight 10 times a year, and so she knew what to expect on a long haul flight etc. The implication being, that the passenger in front wasn’t as seasoned a traveler as her, and so may not understand the “unwritten” rules and conventions of flying e.g. although the seats do recline fully, it’s accepted practice not to do this etc. Of course the passenger in front continued to adjust his seat, reclining it etc. which eventually resulted her in an act of frustration slamming the back of it with both hands and shouting obscenities at the man in front. Was the passenger entitled to keep adjusting and reclining his seat? Absolutely. Was he pushing his agenda and entitlement to do so? Absolutely. Both parties had invested too much into the conflict to back down. After another incident of chair slamming and obscenities the passenger in front demanded that the lady behind him be re-seated (something that was the only practical solution to the situation that had now developed).      However, to accept being reseated, in her eyes meant that she had lost this extremely territorial conflict. The dispute had developed into one where she wouldn’t let him have the space his reclined chair took, even if it meant she got a better seat; The 4 inches of space his seat moved back into was hers, and she wasn’t going to give that up, in fact she’d rather contest and fight over that precise space, than be guaranteed “extra space” somewhere else. It was not just about her having space taken away, it was also about denying him that space. She wasn’t going to move – he should. If this seems extremely petty, you’d be right. But her motivation was about getting back something she’d lost rather than bettering her cause, and unfortunately this is human nature, and one that drives many, many human conflicts e.g. if someone loses for example status, they will work 2-3 times harder to regain their loss, than they would to improve their position had they not lost it. Fortunately, on a 15 hour flight, the opportunity to sleep can give people a face saving way out of the conflict, and this is eventually what both parties ended up doing. Could the passenger in front have avoided a confrontation? Quite easily. He could have played the difficult person’s game; agreeing to inform her each and every time he adjusted his seat – she’d set the ground rules and he could have adhered to them, making sure they were more of an inconvenience to her than to him. However, that would have involved putting his ego in check, and not rising to her implied threat. Could the airline staff have been more effective? They could have dealt with it at the first instance, and not let it escalate. They had spare seats and insisting on moving the woman, would have prevented her from raising further complaints about other passengers without making herself appear completely unreasonable. However, that would have taken a level of confrontation the airline staff seemed uncomfortable to pursue, which begs the serious question of at what stage/escalation would they have forced someone to move seats.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=250 Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=249 This blog article is about different types of kidnappings, and how we can determine if we are at risk from them i.e. how to make a risk assessment around kidnappings etc. This article is prompted by a seminar I conducted yesterday, around armed abductions. The first thing we must do if we are to ascertain whether we are at risk or not, or what the level of risk is, is to make a risk assessment. There are three things we need to look at in order to do this: assets, threats and vulnerabilities. An asset is something, which we value, and want to protect from potential threats; it maybe an object such as a car, building or laptop, it may be information (possibly contained on a laptop), or a person, such as ourselves. In kidnapping scenarios, we may neglect to consider certain assets, and so not put in place any measures to protect and secure them e.g. If you are on business in a foreign country, and are the victim of an express kidnapping, where you are taken to ATM’s and forced to withdraw money etc. you may not consider that the company data you have on your laptop, is an asset that could be at risk – one of your kidnappers forces you to login to your computer, so that they can access personal information about you, such as reading your emails, and in the process find company data that if leaked would give your company’s competitors an advantage etc. Making a comprehensive inventory of your assets is part of your risk assessment. One of the other things you need to consider when making such a risk assessment are those things which are threats to your assets. In this case it is the different types of kidnapping there are, and how they relate to you i.e. what type of threat are they to you (this is where you conduct a threat assessment). There are various types of kidnapping, and how they relate to you may change according to geography e.g. in one country you may be a desirable target for a particular type of kidnapping, and in another not. In the US, you may be seen as someone with not enough financial resources to pay a significant ransom, however as soon as you set foot in South America, parts of Africa, that perception may change. The level of threat, may change based on your geography. If you are a successful business person, with a high net worth, who may have your own security detail, you may be targeted whether you are in the US or abroad; it may be that your kidnappers take advantage of a business trip you take to South America, however in this instance your geography has not changed/altered the threat, but instead has exploited a potential vulnerability e.g. your security detail is not familiar with the environment in which they are working etc. Understanding vulnerabilities that a threat can exploit either deliberately or inadvertently is the third part of your risk assessment. If you recognize that a kidnapper could gain access to the company information on your laptop, you can look at ways to correct this vulnerability. You may at first think of encrypting such data, so the person trying to gain access to it needs a specific password to unlock it etc. This would work, if your laptop was stolen, however it wouldn’t work if a kidnapper put a gun to your head and told you to unlock a particular file/directory or they would shoot you. In this situation the data is still vulnerable. If you hid this data on an encrypted partition of your hard drive, which was not easily identifiable to anyone who didn’t know the partition existed you have dealt with this vulnerability. If you leave your house at the same time every day, taking the same route to work etc. your predictable routine, makes you vulnerable to anyone who may want to kidnap you. It is worth pointing out that in a “Tiger Kidnapping”, you are not the person of value, but are a bargaining chip to leverage somebody else to commit a criminal activity e.g. your partner may have the access codes to a safe, and you are kidnapped, in order to force them to give up those codes to your kidnappers etc. If your kidnappers know your routine you will be an easy target for them. If you are targeted for this or a similar kidnapping, your chance to identify that you have been selected is by picking up on your kidnapper’s surveillance of you – sometimes this is crude, sometimes it can be relatively sophisticated and difficult to identify. If you leave your house at the same time each morning, it is easy for a car to follow you, and determine the route you take – it is also relatively easy for you to identify this. However, if a car follows you for a few turns, and then another takes over for a few more, and another after that etc. you will probably not pick up on these change-overs, and fail to realize that you have been followed. It is unlikely that a kidnapper would put direct these resources to the target of a basic kidnapping, however if the potential rewards and gains were big enough they may well do so. If you kept changing your route to work, it would be extremely difficult for each car to know where to wait and take over from the one that was following you. It can be difficult, and sometimes impossible to reduce threats, however it is always possible to manage vulnerabilities. Risk, is basically the intersection of assets, threats and vulnerabilities. If there are no threats, there is no risk, if there are no vulnerabilities there is no risk etc. if we can manage our vulnerabilities we can reduce risk. If we our realistic in our threat assessments, we can identify what we are at risk from e.g. if we are not a prominent political figure, it is unlikely that we will be at risk of a “political” kidnapping, where we are taken to either produce political change, or force political/terrorist prisoners to be released etc. By understanding threats and vulnerabilities, we can start to reduce risk. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=249 Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=248 At our school, we don’t simply teach techniques, we teach solutions to situations. This means explaining the dynamics of violent interactions, the methods and motivations behind assaults, as well as explaining how situations develop and change based on a Target’s behaviors and actions etc. This means talking about personal safety/self-protection; how to predict, prevent, identify and avoid violence, along with what, and what not to do, when dealing with aggressive and violent individuals. The start of the year has been a very busy one, and I’ve found myself doing a lot of personal safety “myth busting” for want of a better term. This blog article looks at five pieces of advice or rules that people have been lead to believe will keep them safe, that either don’t deliver on that, or in fact put them in more danger. 1 – “Don’t Run Wearing Earbuds or Headphones.” When I talk about situational awareness, people will often cite this “rule” as an example of something people do, which prevents them from being situationally aware. The problem with this piece of advice is that it implies that by not wearing earbuds/headphones you will automatically be able to identify potential dangers and harmful intent in your environment, which simply isn’t the case. If you don’t know what danger looks like, you won’t be able to identify it, whether you are wearing headphones or not. This is the major problem with many personal safety rules, that they tell you what not to do, rather than what you should be doing, and imply that by not doing something you will automatically be safer. I have seen people running without headphones who are completely oblivious to their environment and what’s happening in it; these individuals have no more awareness, than their counterparts who are running with earbuds in. Not doing something, doesn’t by default make you safe; teaching people what are, and how to identify potential threats along with reducing personal vulnerabilities when running, does. 2 – “Never Walk Alone at Night, Always Walk with A Friend or in A Group.” This is a better piece of advice than the rule about not wearing earbuds when running, as it at least prescribes you an action/something to do. It is also a good general piece of advice, however there are situations where being with someone else doesn’t necessarily make you safer, and blindly trusting this rule/piece of advice will lull you into a false sense of security. If you are a woman walking alone late at night, you will be a potential target for any sexual predators who are operating in the area. A rapist will generally be looking for a single victim, and will find it easier to target someone who is on their own. On the other hand, a pair of armed muggers, will get potentially double their pay out if they target two people, rather than one. Walking with a friend may protect you from one type of predator whilst at the same time attracting another. You still need to be aware of what is going on in your environment whether you are on your own, in a pair, or are part of a group; also, don’t rely on others in your group to identify danger on your behalf. 3 – “If Confronted by A Mugger, Throw Your Wallet Away from You.” This is an extremely dangerous piece of advice- at first glance it may seem like a good way of getting a mugger away from you- but it isn’t realistic when we look at the locations and situations where muggings take place, and the motivations of the mugger. Firstly, to be able to throw your wallet away from you, assumes that muggings take place in deserted areas where there is the space to throw a wallet, without other people either walking over it or witnessing what you are doing. If you are mugged in a well-trafficked transit station or parking lot, neither one of these conditions apply. Muggers generally don’t select deserted locations, as there are few, if any, people to rob, and prefer to choose locations which see a good supply of potential victims. Imagine you are on an escalator, and somebody walks up, moves behind you, puts a knife at your back and demands your wallet (it is unlikely that anyone near you will either see or hear what is going on). Where are you going to throw it? This piece of advice is not borne out of reality but from someone who is well intentioned and trying to find a logical solution to a problem/situation they don’t understand. Another good reason not to throw your wallet away from you when a mugger asks for it, is that you have failed to comply with their demand. Although their primary motive is to acquire your wallet, all violent incidents involve secondary motives which include power, anger and control. Your action of throwing the wallet is likely to bring these secondary motives to the fore and see you either stabbed or shot. You don’t need to throw your wallet to get a mugger to move away from you, in 99% of cases, handing it to them will achieve this. 4 – “If You Need Assistance Don’t Shout “Help”, Yell “Fire” Instead” – This piece of advice is outdated by about 500 years, and creates a dangerous way of thinking about bystander intervention. The thought behind this piece of advice is that people are more likely to respond to a fire than a person’s cry for help. The idea for shouting fire rather than help when attacked, was formulated in 16th century London. London at the time consisted of wooden houses and dwellings that were located very close together. The threat and danger from fire was a constant one, so if somebody yelled fire, everybody who heard it would come on to the streets to try and put it out as quickly as possible before it spread to their house i.e. they had a vested interest in responding to the person shouting, therefore if a person being attacked shouted fire they were likely to get a greater response than if they made a cry for help. This isn’t the case in modern society, where fire is not the threat/danger it once was, so there is little reason to shout “fire”, rather than “help”. The real danger of this piece of advice is that it suggests should you cry either “help” or “fire”, people will come to your assistance; unfortunately, this has been proven time and time again not to happen, with bystanders and third parties being extremely reluctant to come to others’ aid and assistance. If your strategy for surviving a violent altercation is to rely on others to intervene on your behalf, you may want to think about revising it. 5 – “If You Feel Scared and Need a Weapon, Put Your Keys Between Your Fingers to Form an Improvised ‘Knuckle Duster’” – This is an old chestnut, that I heard as a kid, and held with me into my teens and twenties, before I properly understood how improvised weapons actually work. The good part about this piece of advice, is that if you are looking to use your keys as a weapon, you have accepted that you are in a potentially dangerous situation; many people when faced with a potential threat or danger get caught in a state of denial, and argue themselves out of doing anything on the basis that they are either over-reacting, or being stupid. If you find yourself going for your keys, you have at least recognized the potential for being the target of a violent assault. My problem is not using your keys as a weapon, but how to use them. In Krav Maga, we use a categorization system, to identify improvised weapons, and that categorization system informs us of how they should be used. The system teaches us to look for objects that resemble actual weapons e.g. objects that look like a stick, objects that look like a shield, objects that look like a knife, etc. When you look at a key, more than anything, it resembles a knife; it’s sharp and it can cut. This means your keys are best used like a knife e.g. hold one between your thumb and forefinger and use it to cut with, etc. The reason not to use them as a Knuckle Duster as they don’t resemble any impact weapon – a knuckle duster is used to deliver concussive force, where a knife is designed to cut and slash. There are a lot of people with good intentions and good ideas offering advice on personal safety and self-defense, who unfortunately lack the qualifications and/or experience to give sound advice. In lieu of an understanding of what real life violence looks like, they try and apply logic to situations they don’t really understand, and these rules and pieces of advice unfortunately get repeated and repeated until they are accepted as expert opinion – even though no expert ever formulated them. If you want to truly be safe, you need to educate yourself as to what violent situations actually look like, and formulate your responses based on this understanding. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=248 Sun, 07 Feb 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=247 Krav Maga is a not a particular “style” of self-defense, but an approach/method of fighting based on certain principles and ideas. There are schools, systems and instructors that try and argue that only their interpretation of these concepts and principles, makes theirs the “true” and “authentic” Krav Maga, however this is simply not the case, and there are many instructors and Krav Maga systems that adhere to the principles laid down. However, a dogmatic, and rigid interpretation of Krav Maga principles, can be detrimental, when you take your Krav Maga out of the training arena and/or dojo, and try and apply it in real-life situations and scenarios – it is often evident, which instructors lack real world experience, when they only talk about one way of dealing with a situation, and instruct their students to only act in a certain way. Sometimes what is presented as a principle is actually a heuristic; a good rule of thumb – it is a good starting point, that allows you to think and act quickly, but not necessarily a conclusive and definitive way of working. A good example of this is the Krav Maga principle, which I would argue is a heuristic, and a good one: if the attack is life threatening attack the attack, if it is non-life threatening, attack the attacker. What this translates to is, if someone is applying a life-threatening attack, such as a choke or strangulation, your immediate response should be to deal with that attack, and clear the choke etc. rather than try and strike, hit, kick etc. your attacker; basically you don’t have the time to do this, before the choke starts taking effect, therefore you should deal with that immediately. Absolutely, no argument there. However, conversely the principle/heuristic also states, that if it is a non-life threatening attack, such as a clothing or wrist grab, you should ignore the grab, and attack your attacker. As a general rule of thumb, it’s a good idea and solid concept, but as a principle that should be doggedly adhered to, I would question whether it is always the best approach to take, or even an effective one in all situations. Let’s say somebody in a bar grabs your lapels, your shirt etc. we can all agree this is a non-life threatening attack. A dogged and rigid adherence to the principle would suggest that your response should be to immediately start attacking your assailant. However, having done bar security for a number of years, I know that if the person who grabbed you is a member of a group, and those other members see you attacking their friend, you have now escalated the situation to one involving multiple assailants i.e. you may have made the situation ten times worse for yourself. This is the reality of violence, and your solutions have to take in to account such factors. Maybe, it would be better to break their grip, and disengage, or apply a subtle and discrete, pain compliance hold, that wouldn’t be noticeable to others, and/or cause the person you are dealing with to feel like they have lost face with those around them i.e. de-escalate rather than escalate the situation. May attacking them be the best solution, sometimes yes, but not in every instance. One of the quotes I hear a lot of instructors blithely state, is the old adage, “Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6” i.e. it’s better to be alive, and go to court to be tried for what you did, than end up dead. I agree with the sentiment, but not how it is interpreted and used; as an excuse to do whatever you want to a person and worry about the consequences afterwards. This is lazy and unrealistic teaching. Let’s say you are at a works function, and you and your co-workers have had a few to drink. Somewhere along the line you and a fellow employee, get into a debate, that gets heated, and turns into an argument. You go to leave, but your co-worker, grabs your lapels, to keep you there. I’ve seen this happen a lot in bars, where one person wants to disengage from a confrontation, and the other one wants to keep them there. In a bar setting, where you have no prior relationship with your assailant, attacking them may be a good solution (though it also might not be), however if you were to take that approach with your co-worker, you may find that you don’t have a job the next day i.e. your employers judge that your response was excessive. It may be that future employers, check up on your references, and find out your reason for being fired, and choose not to offer you employment. The consequences of your actions do matter, and blindly following a “principle”, rather than looking for an effective solution to your situation, may cause you to have to deal with significant ones. There may also be times when attacking your attacker, in a response to a non-life threatening attack isn’t possible. If somebody grabs your lapels/clothing with two hands, they may decide to shake you around like a rag-doll. Because you aren’t stable, and all of your effort is going to staying on your feet, making an effective strike may not be possible – sure you may be able to do this in training, however if you’ve had a few drinks, and/or your dealing with a highly motivated/aggressive attacker, this may simply not be possible. Reality is very different to the training environment. In such an instance, you must first deal with your stability issues, before doing anything else, whether that’s striking, getting your assailant to release their grip etc. Don’t get me wrong I like the idea of attacking an assailant who is applying a non-life threatening attack, and I think it’s a great rule of thumb, but when we look at the reality of violence, it’s not always possible/achievable. Situations determine solutions, not principles or concepts. Principles and concepts can guide us in forming those solutions, but they cannot be adhered to blindly. Rigidity in response is never a good idea, and you must be flexible in the way you deal with violent incidents, rather than determining that you will always respond in one way. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=247 Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=246 On Thursday I was interviewed about certain personal safety issues, one of which were the potential risks and dangers of using car services, such as Uber and Lyft, as opposed to conventional taxi’s and limousine services etc. Although I’ve written a bit about this in a general sense, in this article I’m going to go into a bit more detail, and focus on the city of Boston, where my school is based. A major concern that many people have over using ride services, is that they are not sure that the interview process, and background checks that drivers have to go through are as stringent, and tough enough as those that the City conducts on its Taxi Drivers. It is natural to think, that a firm or company that self-regulates the background checks on its own drivers will set themselves a lower standard than those that a city has for its taxi drivers, however in Boston this does not appear to be the case. In an investigation carried out by a team of Boston Globe reporters in 2015, it was discovered that about 10% of Boston Taxi Drivers who applied to be Uber drivers, failed Uber’s background checks (Uber uses three separate companies to undertake background checks on its drivers). This may not be the case in other US cities, which undertake more extensive background checks, but it would seem that in Boston, the ride sharing companies may be ahead of the City on this. It is also worth pointing out there have been instances where Boston Taxi firm owners have bribed city officials to bypass the checks for certain of its drivers. In one case two owners, Pyotr Vaserman and Semyon Teperman, bribed a taxi clerk with $30 000 to give licenses to 20 drivers who they knew would fail the background check process. When you have low paid individuals (such clerks make around $26 000 a year), managing key parts of the background checking process, you have a vulnerability that can potentially be exploited. The fact that Uber and Lyft, use third parties to conduct such checks, means that it is unlikely to be able to influence the process; also because they are recruiting individuals who they have no personal relationship with, they have no interest in influencing the process for individual drivers. This is also one of the criticisms that ride sharing serviced such as Uber face; that they don’t conduct any face-to-face interviews with their drivers – this is not true of all ride-sharing companies e.g. Lyft, has one of their representatives talk to/interview potential drivers. However, we have to really question the benefits of face-to-face interviews, when it comes to identifying potentially dangerous employees. Think back to the last job interview you had, and try and remember if you were asked any questions regarding any risks you might bring to the company. In most job interviews the sole focus is on your ability to do the job, not whether you potentially have anger issues, and are in fact a ticking time bomb waiting to explode etc. Many interviewers, don’t even check on your references, or give up if it’s too difficult to get hold of them e.g. if you seem like a decent and nice person, there’s no reason to expect that you aren’t etc. Done properly a face-to-face interview can be a great way to find out if a potential employee poses any threats or dangers in the workplace, however most interviewers aren’t thinking in this way and/or lack the ability to ask the right questions. It would be naïve to believe that the interview process that a taxi company employs involves such questions; in most cases they will rely solely on the background check, which in Boston, isn’t as rigorous as that employed by the ride-sharing companies. When we look at the potential opportunities for committing criminal acts that taxi drivers have as opposed to ride-sharing drivers, we can see how technology can be used to lower such risks. Uber, Lyft and other ride sharing companies use an application on the driver’s phone to track their every movement e.g. the routes that they take, the time they spend waiting in any place etc. This is done primarily for fare calculation however it means that the technology is continually observing the location of the vehicle. A taxi driver isn’t under such scrutiny, even if there is a dispatcher involved (and there could be situations where a dispatcher is complicit in a crime). If a taxi driver decides to drive their passenger to a secluded spot in order to sexually assault them, before either abandoning them, or dropping them off at their eventual destination, there is no record of this detour. An Uber or Lyft driver knows that they are being tracked. The passenger also can hit a panic button on their app – something which the driver is aware of – and whilst this may not stop a crime from happening, this tied to the constant tracking of the vehicle means that drivers are well aware of the evidence that is being gathered against them, should they engage in any criminal activities etc. There are a lot of things we forget to consider, where our personal safety is concerned. Whilst our focus may be on the danger we face from a criminal, we must also consider the risk of road traffic accidents. The insurance for bodily harm/injuries that Boston Taxi companies are required to have is around 85% less than the minimum which regular drivers in Massachusetts have to have. If you are injured during a Taxi journey in a Boston Cab, you may have an uphill battle to get adequate compensation. With Lyft and Uber, each ride carries its own insurance. When you consider that most Boston Cab Drivers, are shift workers, who have to work long hours, and often take rests/sleep in their cars, in order to stay on the road for long enough to make enough of a wage, it can be seen that the chances of being involved in an accident are probably greater than if you were driving yourself, or with a driver who does a few hours a day to supplement their income – the profile of the majority of ride sharing drivers. At the end of the day there are no independent statistics about whether taxi services are safer than ride-sharing ones – the police don’t report this information in their crime statistics – however there is a lot that points to the fact that in a city like Boston, you may be safer with a ride sharing driver, whose star rating and rider feedback you can see, before they pick you up; you also know when this will be, to the minute, unlike with a taxi service. Another feature I personally like about ride-sharing services, is that the drivers will let you sit up front, where you have access to the central locking, meaning a driver who may have criminal intent towards you will not be able to keep you locked in their car.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=246 Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=245 If time – as a concept – didn’t exist, everything would happen at once. Sometimes when people practice defenses and techniques against attacks, they try and do everything at once, and in one movement e.g. they try to clock a knife attack, and control the attacker’s weapon arm at the same time, rather than recognizing that what they are actually engaged in, is a process with identifiable steps; all of which are necessary if they are to be successful – the block needs to block the movement of the weapon, the control needs to restrict any further movement of the knife, and once secure a disarm or similar can be performed.  Each stage needs to be completed before the next can be applied. Unfortunately, it is often the case that the goal overrides the process, that the disarm becomes the focus, and the block and control become secondary to this. When this happens the person performing the technique is “panicking” with it – they are trying to reach the conclusion and end the situation, without first performing the steps that would allow them to do this. This doesn’t mean that the process has to be prolonged with many steps and stages, just that each needs to be completed in turn. Another area where I commonly see people “rush” what they are doing is when attempting submissions on the ground. As a Judoka (a practitioner of Judo), I love Newaza/ground-work, and although I generally don’t advise going to the ground, it is an area of combat you should be familiar with, and an environment that you should be relaxed/comfortable working in. There are also situations, where disengaging and getting back up to your feet, isn’t an option, and where submissions can be extremely useful e.g. your fighting in a confined space, such as a car etc. However, if you have not first assumed the correct position, from which to apply a submission, it’s not going to be effective. I see a lot of people, try and apply chokes and arm-locks, when they are in someone’s Guard (the person they are trying to submit, has their legs, scissored and locked, around their waist). When you are in such a position it is almost impossible to try and apply the same techniques that you would when in a Mount position (sitting on top of the person), because the person you are dealing with is able to hold you at bay with their legs, preventing you from getting the leverage you require. However, in the stress of the moment, all the person can see is the opportunity to control/lock the person’s arm or apply a choke, and forget that they are not in any position to make these things effective. There is a process that needs to be applied i.e. position before submission. I see people do the same types of things when sparring e.g. you can throw as many perfect kicks and punches as you want, but if you haven’t first positioned your partner in a disadvantaged position, you won’t enjoy the full effect of them. There is a huge difference between the effect of throwing a front kick against somebody moving in, where the full force of the strike is absorbed, and throwing the same kick against someone who is moving away – where most of the power simply aids/adds to their backwards movement. Unfortunately, this is a step that many people leave out, in the “panic” and rush of throwing the kick. There is a process to throwing a kick or a punch, and the preliminary or first step, is to move the assailant on to it. This week I saw a great example of this in a clip of an MMA fight, which is currently doing the rounds on social media. In it, one of the combatants backs away after taking a body shot, pretending to be hurt and vulnerable. As he backs away, the other fighter thinking he has an opportunity to end the fight rushes in to finish his seemingly injured opponent, only to walk on to a solid punch, that put him down. He was so convinced that the fight was his to finish that he even lowered his guard, leaving his head unprotected. The fighter who demonstrated this gamesmanship, understood that there is a process to a punch, which starts with getting the other person to move in a way that will allow them to receive the full impact of it. Conversely, there is also a process to moving in on an assailant who is backing away – if you rush it, and neglect certain steps you may find yourself walking on to a punch or similar.     In teaching reality-based self-defense, I want to teach people how to end fights quickly. The longer an altercation exists, the more time and opportunities an attacker has to draw a weapon, injure you, or have other third parties join them in their assault. However, you can’t miss steps, and rush your solution; there is a process. If I am dealing with a verbally aggressive individual who I believe may become violent, I have a process that I use: 1. I step back, so they have to move forward if they want to attack, 2. I move off to the side, so they have to turn, in order to attack me, 3. I raise my hands up in a placatory manner so they don’t feel threatened, and at the same time are prevented from making straight strikes and/or grabbing me etc. I have a process, and I complete each step/stage. Now I am ready to either deal with their assault, or launch a pre-emptive attack. Rather than panic and rush to end the incident, I follow a process to ensure I am successful. Next time you are in a class, listen to each and every step, your instructor explains/demonstrate, and complete each one. There is order and a process to what you are learning, and each step is necessary to ensure your success.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=245 Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=244 Anyone who lifts weights understands the concept of specificity; that is, if you want to get stronger arms, you don’t do squats e.g. exercise your legs. This seems a very obvious principle and one that should be applicable in everyday life, however when it comes to self-defense, specificity often gets lost or goes out of the window. A few weeks ago I happened to watch a Krav Maga/Self-Defense instructor, who had a free program teaching teenagers how to survive a school shooting. I’m not going to judge his program as a whole because I understand how the media can portray things unfairly, and the problems of trying to explain the principles and ideas of something that may be quite expansive and comprehensive in a 3 to 5 minute segment etc. In the clip, his students demonstrated some third party gun disarms that are commonly taught on a lot of close protection (bodyguard) courses e.g. disarming from the rear when an individual is pointing a firearm at somebody else. The techniques he taught were valid for the scenarios he presented, however the scenarios he presented were not reflective of active shooter scenarios. They were appropriate for situations where a principle is being threatened, and a member of the close protection team finds themselves or is positioned behind the threat etc., however they are not really appropriate for dealing with an “active” shooter who is moving through a school or office building, not threatening people, but actively firing on them. In this situation, performing the techniques he was demonstrating would be extremely difficult. The lesson to take from this, is that you can’t simply take techniques that are designed to deal with a threat/danger in one environment/situation and blindly apply them to another. Unfortunately, I see this idea of taking something that works in one environment, and applying it to another an awful lot. It is especially prevalent in reality based self-defense instructors taking MMA techniques and incorporating them into their syllabuses. Just because a technique has been proven to work in an MMA setting, doesn’t mean it will by default be applicable in a real-life scenario. It is tempting to look at certain techniques and escapes that are used in the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship), and after seeing their success in that setting, believe that they should be used in real-life situations. However, if you look at the environment that a UFC fight takes place in, it is very, very different to those of real-life situations e.g. the Octagon is 750 square feet of uninterrupted matting- that may have some resemblance of an empty parking lot in the room that people have to maneuver- but has little in common with any other location where violence takes place, etc. To blindly take a technique that requires a large amount of space to make it work, and/or a prolonged period of time with several uninterrupted steps etc. and say it is applicable for real life situations is naïve and dangerous, and shows a great misunderstanding of what real-life violence looks like. I have lost count of the number of 5 to 6 step escapes from Guard, which work well when you have the time to apply them – in a one-on-one combat sport setting, such as an MMA match – but would fail miserably in real-life encounter, where a second person would have the time and opportunity to smash a bottle over your head, as you went through the steps on the ground. Too many times people look at the technique and not the environment; there are good techniques that work well in one situation but are terrible in others. You can’t take a technique that is applicable for a close protection scenario, and say that it directly applies to an active shooter situation, just because you find yourself in the same position relative to the shooter, as their intent and their movement is different. You can’t just take a technique that works well in MMA, and say it is applicable to real life, where the luxury of time and space isn’t afforded to you. Techniques have to be specific to the environments and situations where they will be used. Will a technique work on a moving subway train, on the back seat of a car, on a moving escalator, in a crowded bar? Start with the environment and create the solution based on that, rather than simply looking at what other people are doing in their environments and blindly copy them. Look at the intent behind the situation; what is the assailant’s motivation – is the attacker(s) looking to actually take hostages to bargain with, or to act as a buffer between them and the security forces, as they shoot them one by one? Both involve a shooter(s) with a long barrel weapon but the two situations are very different, and it would be incorrect to treat them as exactly the same, prescribing the same solution. Violence is both simple and complex, and students need to be taught how to understand these complexities in a straightforward and simple manner, whilst techniques and solutions need to be explained and taught in the contexts where they will be used, as well as under the emotional constraints that the persons in them will find themselves under. The threat recognition and decision making processes for one situation may differ to another, and these need to be explained e.g. a close protection scenario is different to an active shooter one etc. Techniques by default are not interchangeable.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=244 Sun, 10 Jan 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=243 Despite the way many people present and teach self-defense, surviving a real-life violent altercation, is less about physical techniques and more about effective decision making i.e. knowing when to act, and knowing when not to. It is an easy trap to fall into; equating technical ability with survivability. The techniques that you learn, are simply tools that you use as part of the solution, they are not the solution itself. Back in the day, when I practiced Judo within the BJA (British Judo Association), there were different types of Black Belt. As well as there being the standard Black Belt, that you reached through a mix of learning/demonstrating technique, and taking part in open-weight Randori/sparring, there was also a coaching Black Belt. This was for those individuals who were competent in knowing techniques, and teaching them, but lacked the skills, the timing and the ability to employ them in Randori/Sparring. They knew the “How” of the technique but not the “When”. If you wanted a technical explanation and demonstration of a technique, these individuals were expert, however when it came to performing the technique/throw against an active opponent in a sparring/Randori setting they were found wanting; their timing was off, and their threat recognition and effective decision making was absent. This is not meant as a criticism of such individuals, as they were often great coaches/instructors and had their place in the BJA, however it demonstrates that there is a difference between knowing and performing a technique in one setting, and not being able to apply it in another. Unfortunately, I see the same issue in Krav Maga and Reality Based Self Defense circles; extremely technically competent instructors who either neglect or are unable to explain, the scenarios in which such techniques should (and should not) be used, and the timing or “when” of how to use them. One very clear example of this comes when instructors teach weapon disarms and controls e.g. they simply explain how to perform a gun disarm, without any explanation about the different reasons a person could be holding a gun to you, when it may be better to acquiesce, how to create and divert attention away from the fact that you are about to perform a disarm, when it may be better to acquiesce to a demand etc. They simply teach that if somebody points a gun to your head, you immediately perform a disarm. This approach is almost as dangerous, as not knowing how to perform a disarm; what if there is a second gunman present, should you still disarm? Without explaining the scenario in which an assault takes place, and the situational components present, and how these effect decision making and timing etc. performing disarms as the immediate default response to a gun being pointed at you is naïve and dangerous. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that decisiveness is important, however deciding and acting without knowing all of the relevant information is not a good survival strategy – hopefully good situational awareness, leading up to such an assault, will already equip you with much of the information you need to make an informed decision – and from a reality based self-defense perspective, this needs to be taught alongside the technical. One of the things you learn through sparring is that to get a technique to work, you not only need to be able to perform your technique well, you need to put your partner in a disadvantaged position, in order for it to be effective e.g. throwing a front kick as your partner moves away is a lot less effective than throwing it as they are moving in, and on to it. Unfortunately, I rarely see this approach, carried through to Krav Maga and self-defense training e.g. a short barreled weapon disarm is performed without first putting the assailant in a disadvantaged position etc. and yet what will make much of a technique effective in real-life is taking the holder’s attention away from the weapon. This can be as simple as asking them open ended questions that they need to process and think about, and you can do this within their “script”, responding to their demands etc. This is simple stuff, yet it often gets neglected. It may be that you can increase your survival chances by getting an aggressor, to position themselves and/or their weapon in such a way that your technique has more impact. In Krav Maga, there is a belief that groin strikes are a silver bullet. In reality, groin strikes can be very hard to make, especially with kicks and knees – in training situations this is often not apparent. In real-life jeans with a low hanging crotch will make such strikes largely ineffective, and people’s natural stances will often mean that the groin is not exposed. One way you can expose the groin, to a kick, is to take a slightly circular step to your left, so that your assailant has to make a similar step to face you, which opens up their groin. Without controlling your aggressor’s movement and putting them in a disadvantageous situation, the groin strike that you’ve practiced studiously on the pads, and against a static opponent is in all likelihood is not going to be effective.   Pre-emptive striking is another area of self-defense, where context is often left out, and only the physical technique explained e.g. I often hear instructors talk about making pre-emptive strikes, without explaining when to make them. For me, a pre-emptive strike or assault should only be made when it is clear that an aggressor is about to make an attack – until this point disengagement and de-escalation should be the preferred strategies. But what are the signals that indicate an individual is about to make an assault? From my own experiences, it is normally when the individual I am dealing with loses verbal control; either going silent or jumbling their words etc. Yes, most violence happens with dialogue, and is preceded by a verbal exchange – is this reflected in your training? We can argue that Krav Maga is better than other systems of self-defense, or that one system of Krav Maga is superior to another etc. however if we are not putting our techniques into the scenarios in which they occur, and teaching our students how to put their aggressors in disadvantaged positions, we are not really increasing their survival chances; and at the end of the day, this is what we should be striving for.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=243 Sun, 03 Jan 2016 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=242 When a terrorist act is committed, such as an active shooter incident, or a bombing, the spotlight immediately turns on those communities from which it is supposed that the terrorist comes, and time and time again the complaint is made that no one from that community is speaking out against terrorism; from which it is then inferred that the members of the community secretly support such acts. At the moment we in the west are living in a world, where all thoughts are focused on Islamic Jihadist terrorism, and the Muslim communities, and Muslims we live next to. I grew up in the UK, which at that time was experiencing bombing campaigns committed by the IRA, and the same complaint was made against Irish communities and individuals i.e. they weren’t doing enough to speak out against terrorism etc. If you identify/identified yourself as an Irish American in the 1970’s and 1980’s I would ask you to consider what you did to speak out against terrorism, and whether not speaking out meant that you supported the killing of men, women and children. Don’t think that I’m trying to advocate for a partitioned Ireland or make a political point. The IRA employed terrorism, and killed people in terrorist acts – that was their goal. Did you speak out against this? Do not get me wrong there are certainly Muslim communities that do support Jihadist Terrorist, just as there were Irish communities that supported the IRA, however it would be wrong and dangerous to target every Muslim as a threat, just because they don’t speak out, or we possibly don’t hear them speaking out. If you talk to just about any Irish person living on the UK mainland in the 1970’s and 1980’s, they will tell you that they experienced a level of isolation, suspicion, and antagonism because being Irish associated them with the IRA. Whilst this experience may not have lead them to become direct supporters of the IRA, it certainly didn’t help make them anymore sympathetic to those being targeted by the IRA – especially when aggressive policing saw the conviction of innocent fellow countrymen etc. Part of any battle against terrorism is winning “hearts and minds”, so that not only do communities that terrorists draw their support from, turn their backs on them, but so that all communities, including the moderates who make up the majority, actively want to denounce and speak out etc. There is a huge difference between addressing an audience who is aggressive, judgmental and demanding a response, to one that wants to listen and hear what is being said. Often we don’t hear what is being said. How many Muslim friends do you have/know? How many Muslims do you work with? Are you able to hear what is being said? I lived and worked in London for a number of years, and rubbed shoulders with, worked with many Muslims, many of whom were devout. I heard them denounce the 7/7 Tube and Bus bombings, and say that these killings were un-Islamic i.e. I heard them speak out. If your only channel to hearing a community speak out is the media, then you are going to be limited to what you hear, the news agencies you listen to, and what they have time for and want to report. Do certain agencies want to give time to Islamic community leaders speak out against terrorism, and do people actually want to hear that? Some do and some don’t. News Agencies are cynical organizations, and just because they don’t put people on the air, to talk about things, doesn’t mean that those individuals aren’t out there. Broaden what you read and watch, and you may start to hear the condemnation of terrorism by community leaders and spokespeople. However, for many people it may be easier to hold to a simple view that all Muslims and Irish are terrorists rather than take the time to do this. In a War on Terrorism, it is easier to have an easily identifiable enemy, than exercise discretion as to who actually constitutes the threat. Oftentimes, community leaders have a reticence to be seen as speaking for others. It is easy to think that there is one, single Islamic community, with one single leader and spokesman. In truth communities are factious, with many different people holding many different views, some may even agree with some of the goals that terrorist groups want to achieve, but completely condemn the methods that they use e.g. there were many in Ireland who wanted to see the North reunified with the South, but did not support terrorist acts to achieve it etc. Because of this breadth and diversity of opinions, some leaders may be reluctant to speak out for fear of isolating part of their community, especially if that part may splinter and leave the mainstream, to side with more extreme groups etc. There is a call by some in the US that all mosques have to be investigated, searched etc. This is to completely misunderstand how an organization such as ISIS operates and recruits – it actively tells those individuals it is targeting, to stay away from the mosques, saying that these moderate institutions have sold out; it doesn’t want those it is trying to recruit to hear a moderate, reasoned message etc. Do not be fooled that footage of a rabid radical Iman in Gaza, urging the youth to go out and stab every Israeli citizen it sees, is representative of what goes on in every mosque. This would be like saying that Westboro Baptist Church services are representative of all church services. Where terrorism is concerned we have to be effective, not right. We need the communities where terrorists are recruited, to be able to openly denounce the actions of extremist groups, and be supportive of the wider community – something that wasn’t achieved in the UK, with many Irish communities. We need members within these communities to feel a responsibility to inform security agencies, about those who they believe pose a threat/danger, and this means not acting in an antagonistic and aggressive manner towards their communities, as this will only isolate them further. This is not a conventional war where direct hostilities apply, even if you as an individual feels it is appropriate. Terrorist organizations recruit based on making people feel isolated and alone. By creating the right environment and giving mainstream media attention to community leaders, we will both hear more people speak out, and convince more. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=242 Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=241 There is a difference between risk and consequence, however many people ignore this when it comes to personal safety. An “Active Shooter” situation/scenario is a high consequence one (you stand a good chance of being shot) but a low risk one i.e. you are unlikely to be involved in one – whatever your imagination and the media may tell you. A mugging is a relatively high risk, but low consequence crime i.e. you are more likely to be targeted, but the consequence is low: you lose your wallet/purse. Unfortunately, it is the dramatic, high consequence incidents that grab our attention, and get us thinking about violence, rather than the types of assault we are more likely to face. It is worth noting that there are high threat, and high consequence assaults that we forget, such as sexual assaults on women i.e. if you are a woman, worrying or focusing on “Active Shooter” incidents is probably the most inefficient use of your time/energy; as you are more likely to be sexually assaulted, and experience a similar or higher rate of trauma as you would if you were involved in an active shooter situation. In saying all of that, much of my own time recently has been spent dealing with individuals who believe that active shooter scenarios are the health and safety issues of the day. Because of this, I would like to spend some time, demonstrating how general personal safety issues can be used to increase your survival chances in an active shooter situation, and also/more importantly protect you from the higher risk situations that you are more likely to face (regardless of whether they are of low or high consequence). The standard advice that is being given to people if they find themselves involved in an active shooter situation is to run, hide then fight. This is good strategic advice, however it doesn’t give any directions on the tactics that are required to be successful. It is akin to the police telling individuals to be more situationally aware, and to look out for suspicious activities etc., after a crime or spate of crimes have been committed e.g. how do you become more situationally aware? What are suspicious activities? This is not to knock the police, or question the advice, rather to illustrate that there is a big difference between telling somebody what to do, and teaching/training them in how to do it. Running away from danger is generally a good survival strategy, but you need to know where you are running to. Simply, following everyone else may not be a good idea; it may be that the shooter(s) is funneling people towards a particular and obvious exit, so that an accomplice can have a mass of people to shoot at. It may be that the people you are following, are working to an out dated and inappropriate survival strategy – when the planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, many people headed up rather than down, as previously when there had been a fire in one of the towers, people had been air-lifted from the roof. When faced with danger, running/disengaging is a great idea; however you need to know where you are running to i.e. you need to have a direction to go in. Good situational awareness that is appropriate for general safety will give you this. If you are concerned with your personal safety, you should be thinking about fire safety, as well as active shooter scenarios. If you are staying in a hotel, you are much more likely to be involved in an evacuation due to fire, than because of an active shooter i.e. fire is a much greater risk, and carries a similar consequence to an active shooter. The same plan for exiting due to fire, will generally work for an active shooter situation. That is, you don’t need a radically different plan. Your plan for exiting a building due to fire, will require little to no modification if you have to exit due to an active shooter. Is it good to know the specifics of fire safety, and the specifics of an active shooter situation? Absolutely. However, if you don’t know where the exit and entry points, such as the fire escapes are, the specifics of the danger are irrelevant. It is no good having specific personal safety plans/ideas, if this is not founded upon a good general safety basis. Awareness of your environment is not specific to active shooter scenarios, it is something you should have all the time. Fire safety may not be sexy or trendy, but it should be something that concerns you as much as an active shooter situation. Hiding is an appropriate survival strategy when involved in an active shooter scenario, but is shouldn’t compromise your ability to fight, if necessary – and this is where a simple piece of advice, such as run, hide, fight, can be interpreted too simplistically. These are not three separate individual choices, but a continuum of ideas, that may flow/run into each other. It is possible to hide in such a way that you are basically putting yourself in a coffin e.g. you can get inside a cabinet, or hide under a desk etc. In these situations, if you are noticed it will be game over for you – you have no ability to defend yourself/attack your assailant. You can also hide in a way that allows you to fight. If you work in an office or school environment there are several cheap ideas that can be implemented to help increase the survival chances of those who have to hide. Fitting the windows with blinds that can block sunlight, so that a room can remain in complete darkness will impair a shooter’s visibility (it may be worth smashing light bulbs if involved in an incident, so that a shooter can’t turn the lights on). Fitting doors with internal locks, that would require training to breach (most gunmen won’t have trained this skill), may cause a shooter to move on to another room etc. Even having something as simple as a door stop that can be wedged under a shut door will slow down a shooter’s entry, and possibly create the space and time for the “fight” component to be effective. The fight component doesn’t have to be sophisticated, and may involve nothing more than rushing the shooter (preferably from the side, as they enter the room), bear hugging them, and possibly the weapon, and taking them to ground etc. Short and long barrel disarming skills are good to have, but in certain situations big, simple, non-technical solutions have their place (especially if you are trying to co-ordinate untrained individuals). Having a strategy, understanding how to tactically employ it, and what to do as a last resort, are the things that will increase your survival chances. If you don’t already possess good situational awareness, including identifying and knowing different escape routes, that can deal with general threats and dangers (including fire), you should forget about trying to train specifically for one type of threat, such as active shooters. Developing general personal safety skills, that can help you notice anything that is out of the ordinary, will allow you to potentially identify muggers and sexual predators, as well as active shooters. Good fire safety training will not only teach you how to disengage from an advancing fire, but also from an active shooter. This type of training may seem ordinary and boring, however it will develop the foundations, which will keep you safe from all manner of threats (most of which are more likely than active shooter scenarios). Don’t equate high consequence situations as being high risk ones.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=241 Sun, 20 Dec 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=240 A few months ago I was interviewed by the Boston Globe about the rise of cyberbullying with children and teenagers. As is often the case with such interviews 90% of what is said and communicated is cut – this is not the fault of the journalist, just the way that news is reported on. In this blog article, I want to look at cyberbullying, and the ways in which children and teenagers, become caught up in it, often not really understanding the role they play in it.  One of the big differences between cyberbullying and regular bullying, is the way that there doesn’t have to be repeated incidents in order for a certain set of actions and behaviors to be regarded as bullying. In our normal definitions of bullying, we look at a “campaign” of events, whereas in cases of cyberbullying we may look at just one because of the longevity and reach that social interactions over the internet have e.g. a derogatory posting to a social media site will last forever, as opposed to a piece of gossip passed between two individuals, also verbal gossip has a limited reach whilst a posting of the same words could reach thousands. Because of this it is often the case that those individuals involved in cyberbullying underestimate both their reach and their effect on their victims.  Because of the way that technology has evolved so rapidly, and been adopted so quickly by younger generations, many of the conventional types and definitions of what bullying is and isn’t don’t really apply anymore e.g. a child in Baltimore can be ridiculed by a child they have never met before and will never meet who lives in Bangkok, Frankfurt or Dublin etc. Because of the global nature of social media, something – such as an offhand comment and a piece of gossip - that may once have been restricted to a small number of people, can now be made accessible to the rest of the world. A bully, can now potentially amass thousands of supporters to their cause/posting, and unlike verbal gossiping where the shelf-life is restricted to the conscious interaction of participants, an online posting will sit there forever, and may be shared and thus multiplied across the internet, so that a permanent record of the bullying exists in multiple places. One action in and of itself can effectively become a campaign of repeated incidents.  In conventional bullying terms, much online bullying is akin to something referred to as “mobbing”. This term was coined in Europe to describe incidents of bullying, where a ringleader (the bully) incites supporters, cohorts, sycophants and copycats to target a specific individual. The group may also include individuals, who don’t even know why they are targeting the particular individual, and are merely attracted to being part of the mob or crowd (something many of us have probably witnessed, by the irrelevant comments that certain posters make on particular social media threads).  Those bullies who incite and engage in mobbing, may not be extroverted types, who lead from the front and make themselves visible, but instead introverts who will gather supporters to engage in adversarial actions and behaviors against the individual they have targeted. They are often selective in who they chose to act on their behalf, selecting “minor” bullies, who they empower – it is often the case that these individuals hope to be elevated in the eyes of the bully, and gain their respect. In this sense the bully gives the lesser bullies the power and authority that they lack in their own lives, and so desperately crave. In doing this the bully, makes these individuals further dependent on them, as they lack the competence on their own to engage and promote the bullying campaign. The great irony of this is that these individuals don’t realize that they are merely puppets being manipulated in roles that have been defined for them by the bully. It is more than probable, given the nature of the ringleaders who instigate mobbing, that they derive an equal satisfaction from the manipulation of the mob, as from the actual bullying of the individual. Both acts help them to deal with their insecurities, by having a group acknowledge them in a leadership role and act on their behalf.  It is often difficult to determine who the ringleader is, especially when they utilize social media, for their activities. An innocuous post by the ringleader, can soon be turned into something else by one of the lesser bullies/followers commenting on it, in a way that they believe will both target an individual and gain respect and authority for them, from the ringleader. This is how the bully gets other to do their work for them, and remove themselves from any direct connection with the bullying – of course those lesser bullies only gained their motivation and direction from the bully, however this is not obvious to anyone reading the thread. This makes it very difficult for bullying incidents of this nature to be attributed and pinned on the originator, in the same way it can be difficult to source the originator of a rumor or piece of gossip that has become widespread.  It is because of these reasons that school authorities have a hard time dealing with this type of cyber-bullying; with a largely unidentifiable instigator and ringleader, it is hard to address who is actually responsible for starting such campaigns. In fact in the case of cyber-bullying the ringleader may not make any posts or comments which are overly aggressive towards their target, and rely solely on others to do this for them, possibly liking a post or simply sharing it; in this way they look much more of a lesser player than the ringleader they are.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=240 Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=239 I was recently contacted by someone in the UK, asking me to write a piece on dog attacks. Firstly, I will caveat this article by saying this isn’t a specialist area of mine, however I will share some of the things those who are expert in the field have taught and shared with me. I will also try and address some of the issues around dealing with aggressive individuals who use their animals as “weapons” – something that the person requesting the blog article mentioned. Firstly, as an animal lover I am in utter contempt of those individuals who train dogs to be aggressive and violent towards other animals and/or humans. I see it as a gross manipulation of an animal’s good character traits, that in short leaves them unfulfilled and unhappy, which makes it an act of cruelty. To take a dog’s instincts around loyalty and protection and to twist these in a way that causes them to become aggressive towards other creatures, is an act of pure evil; and the individuals who engage in these acts should be banned for life from owning any animals. In short, whilst there are breeds etc. which have a propensity towards aloofness, protectiveness and defense, it is in almost all cases bad handling and misunderstanding by the owners which causes dogs to be overly aggressive. This does mean that there are some breeds which need experienced rather than novice owners, and may not be suitable for all social situations etc. A dog may attack when it detects a threat, either to itself, a member of its pack, or to what it regards as its territory. Certain breeds are more territorial than others, and understanding this can help you deal with a dangerous dog e.g. a Rottweiler, which is a very territorial dog, may not pursue you once you move out from what it regards as its space, an Alsatian/German Shepherd on the other hand will chase you to the end of the world. This does not mean that turning and running would be a sensible option, as this can stimulate a dog’s natural chase instinct – dogs have a prey drive, that fast motion can trigger and so moving slowly is a safer/better option. Backing away, slowly and moving away whilst facing an aggressive dog is a much safer way to disengage. If you have OC/Pepper Spray, drawing it in preparation of an attack is a good defensive measure. On a side note to this CS/CN Sprays, which are basically “tear” gases will not be effective against dogs, as they don’t have tear ducts; only pepper spray will work. Obviously for people living in the UK, pepper spray is restricted to law enforcement and security personnel so this isn’t an option. As you back away blade yourself sideways and put your arm out in front of you (make sure that you make a fist, so that the dog can’t get hold of your fingers). Putting your forearm out in front of you does two things. Firstly, it means that this is going to be the first thing that the dog can attack, and although painful, it is better to get bitten on the forearm than fleshy parts of your body, which can be torn, or sensitive areas such as your throat. Secondly, putting your arm out in this way tells the dog that you are trying to protect your space i.e. you are not interested in their territory, and so are not actually a threat to them. At the same time avoid direct eye contact, as you don’t want to be seen as challenging the dog. Try and get a good solid base, as you back away, as the last thing you want to happen in a dog attack is to get dragged to the floor – at that point you really are at the mercy of the dog, and will probably need somebody to pull them off you (I will talk about how to do this effectively later in the article). If you do go to the ground, protect your fleshy parts, by curling up, getting on to your knees and protecting your face, chest and throat. This means not extending any limbs so that the dog has nothing easy for it to latch on to. If the dog does attack your arm, come forward to meet it. Dogs are very powerful when moving forward but aren’t good at moving backwards – if you’ve ever seen a dog try to back up, they’re not the most agile creatures when moving in this direction. Offer your forearm to their jaw, and push it as far back in its mouth as possible – this is where it’s jaw leverage is less, and the bite less powerful. Push your arm back and step in so the dog is forced backwards, on to its hind legs. Resist the temptation to pull your arm away, as this will give the dog the chance to reapply its bite. If it’s wearing a collar, try and grab it with your other hand as this will give you a chance to control its head. Once you have a good grip, push its head down towards the ground, pulling it forward whilst you keep your forearm in its jaw. This is all stuff that is great on paper but truly difficult to apply in a real-life situation with a dog over 40 lbs – there’s a good reason why law enforcement and security agencies use dogs; they’re fast, agile, and they keep going and going, plus their pain tolerance is ridiculous.   If you are dealing with someone who has an aggressive dog, and is using it to intimidate you, your best bet is to try and deal with the individual rather than the dog. After, being contacted to write this article I did some research on the extent of this problem in the UK, and it seems a significant threat in Scotland, North Wales, Merseyside and Teeside, and one that is unfortunately on the rise. It seems there are a number of predominately young men who are training aggressive behaviors in their dogs, and setting them on other people and other animals whilst filming them – the problem has become so great in certain parts of the country that people refuse to walk their dogs, or use the same spaces that these individuals hang out in. It seems that law enforcement and the authorities have been slow to react or seem powerless to deal with the problem. Avoidance of these areas and these individuals is probably the safest way of dealing with them, and not appearing as either a threat or a victim, when near them. Good de-escalation skills are always going to help you. If you have to deal with a dog that is attacking a friend etc. your most effective way of dealing with the danger is to come behind the dog, clamp it with your knees, and use its collar to choke them, either by grabbing it and pushing your knuckles into the side of its neck, or if possible tightening it, so the dog has trouble breathing. Don’t immediately pull the dog away, but wait till it releases its grip. If your choke is ineffective you can reach round and push two fingers into the dog’s throat, forcing a gag reflex – once the bite is released pull it upwards and back. This article is certainly not an exhaustive way on dealing with aggressive and attacking dogs, and it should be recognized that applying the theories contained is not easy, nor without danger, however it is always better to have a plan – along with its possible imperfections – than no plan at all. Even having some idea of what to do, can help you keep calm in a dangerous situation, and when dealing with aggressive dogs, this alone may be your best defense.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=239 Sun, 06 Dec 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=238 Have you ever been attacked by a teenager, or group of teenagers, aged 15 and below? How did you, or would you, respond? When I was at university in the north of England, this was a relatively common occurrence that students, including myself, faced. Dealing with five to eight, aggressive twelve and/or thirteen year olds, may at first seem a laughable proposition, but numbers do count, and can do a lot to negate size and strength; as many students found out to their peril. One individual I knew of, was dragged to the ground, and had to endure a sustained stomping that saw him spend a couple of nights in the hospital (he guessed that the oldest member of the group was no more than 13). He was lucky that they weren’t armed, as dealing with multiple armed attackers when on the ground, regardless of their age, is not a good situation for any individual to be in, whether trained or untrained. It is very easy to dismiss a child/young teen, as not being able to pose a threat to us. After all, we are older, bigger/stronger, more experienced, and occupy a higher place on the social order. Holding to these beliefs can cause us to judge a situation involving older kids and teens, as being a low threat situation, when it is actually the reverse; strength can be negated by numbers and/or weapons, and if you are dealing with an individual or group who don’t respect the social order and your age, you will be at a distinct disadvantage. The gangs of kids who used to attack students at my university, understood that they were attacking educated individuals who believed it was wrong to hit or use physical force against a minor – and who were probably in a state of denial, over kids attacking adults; they just didn’t believe such things happened. These beliefs caused them to underestimate the threat, hesitate, and not react, even when the assault began. A threat, is a threat, is a threat, regardless of age; and where violence occurs, you should see problems rather than people. This is something that many people get confused about. I have had many, many conversations with women who attend our self-defense program, who have said that they couldn’t do this, that or the other to another person, such as biting, eye-gouging, etc. Their problem is that they are seeing their attacker/assailant as a person, not as a problem. This issue often gets compounded, when you start to introduce the idea that they are most likely to be sexually assaulted by a “friend” or someone they know. In such cases, their attacker is someone they don’t believe is capable of acting this way (like a kid attacking an adult) and is somebody who they have some form of relationship with, and who they may even have had close moments with, where they both opened up and talked about personal things and issues. It becomes very difficult in such situations to envisage using extreme violence against these individuals, however in that moment they are not the person you believed you knew, but a problem to be dealt with. Dangerous kids and teens are no different. We often see children as being largely innocent and non-predatory. I would argue that children can be every bit as predatory as adults, and can develop these impulses very early on – adult predators are just a little more socially skilled. Many adult child molesters, start molesting as children (there have been cases of 6 year olds sexually abusing 4 years olds etc.). This may seem strange at first that a prepubescent child, as young as 6, can enjoy sexual gratification before they have really developed sexually, however even young babies can experience physical pleasure by touching their genitalia, they just don’t enjoy an emotional (sexual) pleasure from their actions. A young predatory child can get their emotional pleasure from the power and control they experience from forcing another child to perform physically pleasurable acts on them; acts they know are taboo (which in itself will elicit a certain type of pleasure). Children can and do molest and abuse others i.e. they can be predators. The gangs of kids that roamed the areas surrounding my university campus, enjoyed the power and control they had over their adult victims. They were predators who actively went out to hunt, because they enjoyed the emotional high that their acts of violence gave them. In some ways, kids and teens can be more dangerous than adults. As we mature, we understand more about the potential consequences of our actions. We also understand that violence isn’t like the movies, and that a knife can kill, etc. Kids may not be fully aware of the physical damage and injuries that they are capable of. They may not consider that they are able to generate enough power to break a rib or a nose and/or understand what the potential consequences of doing so might be. I was attacked once by a group of said kids, one of whom was swinging a tree branch of considerable weight at my head. If it had connected, it would have resulted in a serious concussion, with any number of potential consequences (none of which the individual yielding the branch would have been aware of). I am not saying that violent kids, don’t have reasons behind their actions and behaviors or that they are beyond redemption – I believe that social intervention and education can work – however in the moment you face a violent teen or kid, you cannot play the role of social worker, but instead need to deal with the problem you face and treat the threat/danger respectfully e.g. a young teenage mugger with a knife to your stomach demands the same respect as an adult mugger; and you may want to be aware that unlike their adult counter-part they are probably less experienced in such types of robberies, and may have more curiosity about what it’s like to actually cut or stab somebody, etc., as well as potentially wanting to gain what would be valuable bragging rights amongst his/her peers in doing so. From my own experiences of dealing with aggressive kids and teens, they emotionally crumble much quicker than adults, when they see a true display of aggression, and experience a shot of real pain – however you have to be mentally prepared and willing to do this. When violence erupts it is about problems, not people; the people part is dealt with afterwards.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=238 Sun, 29 Nov 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=237 There’s a lot of well-intentioned self-defense instructors out there with seemingly great ideas, and innovative approaches to personal safety – one of these, that has recently got a lot of press and interest, is “High Heel Self-Defense” – teaching women how to fight when in heels. Firstly, if this gets more women to consider taking self-defense classes, because it makes the training seem more relevant to them, I may have my concerns about the content, but I have to recognize that such classes may have a benefit; especially if good predictive and preventative personal safety methods are taught alongside the physical techniques etc. In a world where women’s self-defense training is largely seen as irrelevant and ineffective, I can understand the need to put some “spin” on the subject, to capture the attention of an audience which is largely tired of, and uninterested in personal safety and self-defense. Part of the critique that I have seen for the approach comes from the feeling that those teaching, “High Heel Self Defense”, maybe reaching a section of the population that those teaching a more traditional approach, aren’t able to appeal to – and that seems unfair. High Heel Self-Defense maybe a great marketing tool that gets more women to train, however it may also present women’s self-defense training as gimmicky, laughable and something that overall is a waste of time; something which those of us who teach women’s self-defense fight against all the time. Do I believe fighting in High Heels is a good idea? Not really (I think the arguments of fighting from an unstable base are pretty self-evident)  – may there be situations where women are attacked when wearing heels, and are not able to kick them off? Of course. Unfortunately, the scenarios where women are likely to be attacked when wearing heels, are not the most common ones. This is perhaps my greatest criticism of the approach- that it draws attention away from the more likely and realistic scenarios women are likely to face – just as I have trouble with instructors who always teach women’s self-defense from the perspective of an aggressive stranger, approaching from distance etc. It may be what we imagine attacks on women to look like, but the statistics and reality, just don’t back it up. Yes, it’s easy and uncomplicated to teach, but when we look at reality, women are most likely to be sexually assaulted in their home or somebody else’s, by somebody they know - not by a stranger, approaching from distance – may they be wearing heels? Perhaps. Might a woman in heels, be approached by an aggressive mugger, panhandler etc? Absolutely, but in such situations, where a financial or material object is sought, compliance is normally the best survival option, rather than responding physically. My real concern is not the content, but the perception that High Heel Self Defense gives about the dangers that women actually face; it’s a message/throwback to the 1980’s and 1990’s when there were many archaic ideas about assaults on women. I’d hoped we’d moved on, however ideas such as High Heel Self-Defense seem to demonstrate that we haven’t; it’s even more disappointing that it is being promoted by a woman, in her mid-20s, who seems to have bought in to all the old and outdated ideas concerning women’s self-defense. The reason women’s self-defense has become irrelevant, is because women know that what is taught in self-defense classes doesn’t marry up to the situations they’ve experienced or the situations they are likely to face e.g. overly persistent men who seem not to take no for an answer, or who become aggressive when their advances are rejected; male friends-of-friends, who turn up at their apartment unexpected; somebody at a party who makes inappropriate sexual remarks, etc. As long as we keep telling women that the scenarios they will face involve aggressive individuals approaching at distance, we will be seen to be largely irrelevant, and rightly so; and this will allow gimmicks such as High Heel Self-Defense to gain a foothold, and grab the attention of reporters and journalists; individuals who need to be educated by us in the industry – and we do have the chance to do this. About a year ago, I was approached to do a 5-10-minute piece on women’s self-defense with a female presenter for her TV show. All of the conversations with the producer, beforehand, indicated it was to be a “fun” piece (unfortunately this is how women’s self-defense is often presented by the media). When they came to our school, and asked how we should start the piece, I suggested that I should simply attack the presenter, and we’d film her natural response, and then take it from there. I grabbed her from behind, at full speed and with aggression, and dragged her to the ground – was this reminiscent of the type of attack she’d most likely face? No, however it got across very quickly the idea of the speed and aggression that is present in an assault, and got everybody to focus on the subject matter a lot more seriously, from that moment on. There are some reporters and journalists who are lazy, and will continue to write fluff pieces on women’s self-defense, but there are also those who want to know and understand the truth, and we have an opportunity to educate them, and help them to educate the public. Media perceptions can change, but we need to actively change them – if we don’t we’ll be seeing other gimmicks along the lines of High Heel Self-Defense. Before we reach out through the media, we need to make sure our own programs are in order; are we guilty of presenting an unrealistic impression of what assaults on women look like? Is what we teach relevant to women, or is it based more on what we’re comfortable teaching, and find easier to explain and talk about? Are we still presenting the idea that women are only attacked by strangers approaching them from the front or rear? If we aren’t dealing with realistic situations and scenarios and are simply presenting reality as being what we teach, we are really no different to High Heel Self-Defense; the only difference being we don’t train in heels, and that may actually be quite a small difference, when we look at the content of the program.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=237 Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=236 On Saturday night, I was teaching/talking about Krav Maga at the Jewish Alliance in Rhode Island. This was an interactive session/discussion, and I was asked what you should do if you find yourself as a member of a group, targeted in a mass/spree shooting such as that which happened in Paris the previous night, when terrorists went on the rampage. I also saw over the course of the day many self-defense schools on Facebook and social media urging people to start training in order to protect themselves from being the victim of similar incidents etc. Whenever there is an incident, such as that which happened in Paris, people ask the questions about what they should do, and self-defense schools and systems urge people to start training in order to protect themselves, however most schools and instructors don’t have the knowledge or the training to teach people what they should do in such situations, and don’t really cover these incidents as part of their regular training; and there are many legitimate reasons for this – even though these types of terrorist acts look to be on the rise, you are still more likely to be mugged/robbed than taken hostage, or find yourself part of a group that has been targeted in an active shooter situation etc. and whilst dealing with active shooter situations in theory are quite simple situations to deal with, the situational components “on the ground” can involve some complex decision making and threat/risk analysis, which doesn’t always lead to a successful outcome; something that is hard to sell to people who are looking for simple and straightforward answers and instructions e.g. understandably the group I was presenting to in Rhode Island, just wanted a plan of what to do that would keep them safe if they found themselves in such an incident regardless of the situational and environmental components, and in the time I had I could only give them a quick 5 minute response, which wasn’t able to do full justice to the subject. In saying this I do believe that reality based self-defense training can help you survive such incidents even if your training doesn’t directly touch upon terrorist and/or active shooter scenarios. I don’t believe that you need to practice long barrel weapon disarms in order to increase your survival chances; obviously if you are close enough to the shooter such knowledge is useful and beneficial (and it is something that I cover in my school), however in many instances this will not be the case as you will be too far away – and it would be wrong to think that this knowledge and practice alone would keep you safe or that it is the complete answer to dealing with active shooters.  Any reality based self-defense training should teach you how to raise your situational awareness and threat recognition skills; if you are a self-defense instructor you should not just tell your students to be more aware, you must teach them how to be more aware e.g. what are the signals that indicate a threat or danger etc. Any attacker, whether they are a terrorist, a mugger, or a sexual assailant will want to use the element of surprise i.e. they will want to deny you the time and distance to react and respond. Being able to notice a person’s actions and behaviors that indicate violence will help you respond sooner. If you are some distance away from the threat, recognizing how other people respond to danger and violence will help increase your survival chances, as you want your cues to the presence of danger to come from them, before the actual threat or danger reaches you. Understanding how other people will react will actually give you a clue as to the location of the threat; those nearest will usually react first. Good situational awareness should also include an understanding of your environment, including where the exits and entrances are. It may seem that in an active shooter scenario the only danger is the shooter however there are secondary dangers that may be at play. If everyone stampedes for the main exit and you follow, you may be caught in the crush of people and never make it to the door out. It may be that you get slowly crushed to death because of the mass of people, or you don’t get to the exit before the shooter reaches you. In clubs and bars where the doors open inwards, it doesn’t take too many people pressing/surging forward to prevent the door from being opened. Good situational awareness should allow you to see, or consider other exit points, such as windows and other doors etc. None of this type of training is directly about active shooters, it is simply about good situational awareness that should be trained as part of any reality based self-defense system. Good self-defense training should also stress the importance of threat recognition, and the importance of gathering enough information to make good decisions. In a crowded space where shots are fired, it is not always immediately obvious as to where the shot comes from. If you are close to a wall, you may believe that the echo you hear, is the loudest noise and start moving/running away from it towards the threat/danger. Before responding in such a way, you need to orientate yourself as to where the actual danger is so that you can move away from it rather than towards it. I unfortunately still see some reality based self-defense instructors teach people to react to a threat immediately rather than discern what is actually going on in the situation e.g. if somebody sticks a knife to your throat or a gun to your head they do so for a reason, if they wanted to shoot you they would have done so from a distance, if they wanted to stab or slash you they would have done so without showing you the knife and putting it against you etc. If you immediately respond by trying to disarm them, you may have not picked out their accomplice standing behind them who has another weapon pointed at you etc. By acting you may end up dead, when all your assailant wanted was your wallet. Good self-defense training should train you as to how to quickly assess the situation you are in, before responding/acting. Perhaps the most important skill that good self-defense training can equip you with is decisiveness. Any attacker has already decided what they are going to do, putting you somewhere behind them on the curve. This means you have to quickly commit to a course of action in order to be effective. This is a skill that your self-defense training should equip you with; once you have discerned what and where the threat is you act with full commitment. Self-defense training doesn’t have to directly cover every scenario that you may possibly face, because it can develop universal skills which are appropriate in any dangerous situation. We human beings are extremely creative and can develop solutions to situations as they happen as long as we have the base skills to do so. I am reminded of the firefighter who developed a technique called “back burning” after he was caught in an approaching fire on grassland that was moving faster than he could run. In the moment that he realized he couldn’t out run it, he recognized that be setting fire to the grass around him, it would deprive the oncoming fire of flammable material and he might be able to survive. His solution was successful, and is now taught as a technique to deal with that type of situation. He was able to creatively think in a situation he’d never faced before because of the education and experience he had dealing with others. Good self-defense training should give you the underlying skills to face situations you’ve not experienced or been trained in such as terrorist attacks involving active shooters. Even if an instructor doesn’t have the direct knowledge to teach you what to do in such situations, they can help you develop skills that will increase your survival chances if you ever find yourself involved in such an incident.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=236 Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=235 People often have blind spots concerning personal safety; they recognize a threat in one area, but are blind to the dangers of others. Sometimes the focus is on the obvious, and sometimes on the imagined or less likely. These blind spots may even occur where there is a wealth of information, and media attention – after all, bad things happen to other people, not to us. Imagine that, for whatever reason, you had to move you and your family to a part of town that had a reputation for a high number of break-ins and burglaries. My guess is that one of your considerations in choosing an apartment or house would be how easy would it be for somebody to break into e.g. do the doors and windows look sturdy and substantial enough, do the lower floor windows have bars or grills on them to prevent easy access etc. You might even do some research into what types of properties tend to be targeted, so that you could cross these off your list, and look at other types of housing. Home security is something we take the most basic precautions over; there are few people who don’t look their front door when they leave their house, as we all accept the risk of burglary. If you have to move to a part of town where the risk of burglary increases, it is more than likely that you will invest in some stronger locks, deadbolts, etc. The statistics estimate that around 15% of women in the US have been raped, at one time or another, with nearly 30% experiencing some type of attempted sexual assault. The statistics for women attending university are much higher with around 20 to 25%, reporting a rape or sexual assault. The truth is that young women attending university are much more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than those who are not, and yet few women, or parents, seek personal safety and/or self-defense training prior to attending school. It is not that young women or parents aren’t aware of the problems of sexual assaults on and off campus; the media has done a good job in drawing people’s attention to the problem, yet it still seems that on an individual level, a blind spot exists. Whilst we would do what we can to mitigate the risk of a break-in if we were to move into a high crime neighborhood, we do little to mitigate the risks of sexual assaults, when our daughters and other female family members move to an environment where there is an increased risk of them being raped or sexually assaulted. Our personal levels of “denial” surrounding campus sexual assaults are quite astounding. There are other blind spots that we have around rape and sexual assaults. Most people now understand and accept that women are most likely to be raped by someone they know, in their home or somebody else’s. There are very few individuals who dissent from this. We recently did an online survey, that looked at people’s perceptions of rape and sexual assaults. There were three questions that when combined told an interesting story about how people interpret and apply statistics and knowledge about sexual assaults to themselves. One question we asked was, “Who are you are most likely to be raped and/or sexually assaulted by?” 88% of the 402 people who took the survey, responded correctly by answering, “someone they knew”. The survey also asked them where they were most likely to be raped or sexually assaulted; 68% responded correctly, stating that it was most likely to be in their home or somebody else’s. Later on, we asked about how their assailant was most likely to set up the assault. This time only 52% got the correct answer, responding that their assailant would use some form of dialogue to gain access to them, with 48% believing that they’d suddenly be attacked by assailants who concealed themselves somewhere and jumped out at them, etc. What’s interesting about this is that whilst there was a good understanding about who an assailant was likely to be, and where an assault was likely to take place, there was a disconnect about the nature of such attacks i.e. somebody you know who is in your home is not likely to conceal themselves and jump out on you; they simply don’t have to, as they already have access to you. What this disconnect likely displays is how people perceive attacks occurring, in general, compared with how they see themselves being attacked e.g. yes, most people are likely to be attacked by someone they know, in their home or somebody else’s but that’s not really how I see it happening to me; I’m more likely to be attacked by someone jumping out from behind a bush late at night, as I walk home, etc. This means they have a blind spot; they believe that the statistics apply to others, not to them. The media goes a long way to propagating this idea - that women are most likely to be attacked by a stranger - as they report on the newsworthy rather than on the ordinary (and the ordinary, is the most likely and the most common). Women should be alert late at night, and avoid walking in places which are deserted and offer concealment opportunities for potential assailants, but they shouldn’t think that the statistics don’t apply to their situation e.g. they should have a strategy to deal with their partner’s best friend who turns up at their house unannounced, when they are obviously on their own, etc. The statistics of sexual assault and rape, are largely made up of victims who didn’t think it would happen to them, or who thought their situation was different to others. This doesn’t make them different to us, in fact it makes them exactly like us. Sometimes even when the threat/danger is obvious, we still have a blind spot to it e.g. sexual assaults on college campuses. Part of our personal safety landscape should be made up of making a realistic risk assessment of our lifestyle and environment, and rather than try to convince ourselves that we are somehow an exception to the norm, recognizing that we are in fact very much like everyone else when it comes to being targeted for violence.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=235 Mon, 09 Nov 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=234 “Ignore them and they’ll just go away”, in both one of the best and worst pieces of advice I was given as a bullied kid. It was the best, in that nobody had any better advice or ideas, and the worst because it was completely ineffective. In dealing with conflict, taking the moral high ground, not acknowledging the threat and walking away is rarely an effective route to take. It is basically a form of denial to yourself, and a provocative response to somebody else’s anger and emotion. Sure, it looks good on paper, but disengagement of this nature, involving someone who wants to engage, escalates rather than deescalates the situation. A bully, or angry person requires a response and a recognition of their emotional state, and if you don’t give it e.g. you simply walk away, they are likely to become more aggressive and angry rather than less. When a person becomes angry and aggressive, they feel justified to adopt this emotional state. It may be that something you have done has caused them to become angry, or in the case of the bully something you haven’t done, such as failing to acknowledge in some way the top dog position they feel they somehow deserve (bullies don’t suffer from low self-esteem, quite the opposite, but they are insecure and are frightened by those they see as questioning or challenging them – and failure to acknowledge them as the Alphas they believe they are will cause them to attack). Not only do such people feel justified in their anger, they invest in it, and they want some form of acknowledgment and return on it. Ignoring them, simply doesn’t work because of this. There are two clips, which have been circulating around the internet recently, which clearly demonstrate this. The most recent is of a woman on Boylston Street in Boston, who films herself challenging a man who she believes has been filming her and other women without their knowledge/consent. For several minutes she follows him, demanding that he deletes the film of her, and challenging him to explain why he was taking footage and photographs of women etc. The man’s response is to walk away and ignore her; not acknowledging her presence or what she is saying. As the clock ticks on, she becomes more and more emotional, and more and more invested in her emotional state – her behavior and actions could even be viewed as constituting a case of harassment i.e. she may have been breaking the law herself. Whilst her original goal, may have been to get him to delete the film he took of her, this begins to get lost as she becomes more and more angry/emotional, and by the end of the encounter she is simply caught up in the complete “wrong” and injustice of the situation as she sees it e.g. he should receive some form of punishment, there should be some type of retribution, people shouldn’t be able to do things like this etc. Anger may start out being directed at one specific thing, but as it grows and gains it loses that specificity – especially if the original complaint/injustice is not quickly addressed. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with everything this woman was saying, however the footage demonstrates really well, how trying to ignore an emotional person only increases their anger etc. The second clip is less recent, but involves an entitled college student, who turns up drunk at a university cafeteria, demanding to be served macaroni and cheese. The manager refuses him entry, confronts him and then tries to walk away and ignore him. By the time he tries to disengage and walk away, the drunk college student has invested too much into his emotional state, and is unable to walk away. A situation that should have been ended in the first few minutes, starts to stretch on, with the student becoming more and more emotional, and more and more frustrated at the manager’s lack of acknowledgement at his perceived injustice. It eventually ends with him physically assaulting the manager. Ignoring him, and hoping he’d go away, was not a productive or successful strategy. Believing that angry and aggressive people will simply give up, is an extremely dangerous path to go down. Sometimes a person’s anger may be understandable – as in the case of the woman who believed she was being filmed – and other times it can be clearly out of line, such as in the case of the drunk college student, however both individuals, whether rightly or wrongly, feel justified to act and behave in an aggressive manner, and over the course of the conflict have invested in their emotional state to such a degree, that they don’t know what will satisfy themselves. The specifics of the original dispute have become lost in the confrontation. This is why it is important to try and end conflicts and disputes quickly, whilst there is still a specific issue that can be addressed. By trying to ignore this and walk away, with the hope that the person will give up, is more likely to increase their anger and emotional state than not. Angry people want recognition, and not giving it to them is dangerous. Recognition does not mean that they are “right” or that you “agree” with them, but rather that you are acknowledging their real or perceived injustice; ignoring them does not mean that they will go away.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=234 Sun, 01 Nov 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=233 It is possible to have the strongest punch on the planet, and never be able to land it with any force in a real-life violent encounter; not because it lacks power and/or commitment but because the person who is the intended target has not been positioned so that they receive the full impact of the strike. This is something I see a lot of in sparring; a person believes that they are in a good position to throw a kick or a punch but haven’t checked or taken into account whether the person they are sparring with will be able to evade, block, check or ride the strike. It is not enough for you to be in a good position to throw a strike, your partner has to also be in a disadvantaged position to receive it – if you want it to have maximum effect. I repeat it a lot in regular self-defense classes, as well as in sparring classes, as it applies to both, “Whoever controls the movement of the fight, controls the fight.” For your striking to have maximum effectiveness, you need to be able to position your assailant (or sparring partner), in their least optimal position. In reality based self-defense training, this often gets forgotten and overlooked, as students are simply encouraged to strike their attacker with full power and commitment and “ignore” or not take into account how the individual they are trying to punch or kick is positioned. There are two basic positions you want to try and put an assailant in: either stable or unstable. If you are trying to move your attacker either to push them back, or to throw them, you need to make their structure unstable. If you want them to absorb the full force of a punch or kick, you need to stabilize them, so that none or little of your force/energy is wasted or transferred into movement e.g. if you are delivering a front kick to someone who is moving backwards, because they are unstable, much of your power will be transferred and added to their backwards movement – if the person has transferred their weight forward and is rooted and stable, the full force of the kick will be absorbed by them. When people are in unstable positions, the effect of a strike will be different. If the front kick is used as a counter to someone throwing a roundhouse kick, where they are standing on one leg i.e. in an unstable position, the kick is likely to knock them over; it creates movement, rather than absorption. This can be a difficult concept and idea for people who only practice their striking statically on pads. A lot of people in the Krav Maga and reality based self-defense community practice their striking against a pad-holder who is static; somebody who has already been positioned to absorb the full power of the kicks and punches etc. The result is that the person practicing their strikes feels the full force of them, without learning how to reflect this is a real-life situation, by getting their assailant to be stabilized in a similar manner. Only training statically, means that you will never learn to control another person’s movement, and if you can’t do this you are relying on them to move into position for you, and for you by chance to throw a strike at this exact moment; it may happen for you but only by luck i.e. you get a lucky punch etc. Not only do you have to be able to move people into positions that are disadvantageous to them, so that they are easily moved (if that is your goal), or so that they end up absorbing the full power of your strikes, but you also need to learn how to effectively strike when you are moving i.e. when you are in an unstable position. This flies contrary to the way many people practice their striking; the person holding the pads is stable, the person striking the pads is stable – although this can be a useful way to train striking, it’s not something that reflects the dynamism of a real-life violent encounter, where both parties are moving. If you can only generate power when you are static and stable, you may be found wanting when you find yourself having to strike when moving; either backwards or forwards etc. Striking with movement, and when moving, is an important skillset to have and develop. There are also types of strikes that lend themselves to movement in a way that others don’t, and having a mix of the two will round yourself out as a fighter. To put it simply this skillset of being able to stabilize your opponent when striking, controlling their movement, and striking when moving is something that boxers understand very, very well; it’s their ring-craft. Whilst it can’t be replicated directly for real life encounters, the principles that these fighters use can be absorbed and transferred outside of the ring – a good boxer knows how to setup a punch to have maximum effect, and those of us whose interest is in reality based self-defense would do well to learn from them. We have to recognize that sometimes the effect of our strikes should result in movement rather than absorption, such as when we kick somebody to be able to disengage etc. however the principles are basically the opposite of those we’d use when stabilizing an assailant. There are few moments when you can properly position yourself against a real-life attacker; one of these is in the pre-conflict phase, when you may still be engaged in some form of verbal exchange with your aggressor – most fights and violent encounters occur face-to-face, and are preceded by dialogue. This is the time when you can move yourself out of striking range, but still remain with in talking distance, and move yourself somewhat offline. This means that your assailant has to shift weight and close distance before they can assault you; two things that result in them moving from a stable position, to an unstable one (whilst they move) back to a stable one etc. Ensuring that they have to complete this process, means that you have an opportunity to strike them when moving, or when they sink their weight – and become stable again (after they’ve closed the distance). This is the ring-craft you have to develop for real-life situations. There are obviously situations in the fight where you want to control an aggressor’s movement to walk them on to your strikes but this is a much more “messy” type of situation. Forcing somebody to commit their weight at the initial moment of an attack, is cleaner and ends the confrontation quicker. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=233 Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=232 People will often simplify self-defense to the point where it becomes so simplistic, it’s almost ridiculous. I hear this often when teaching women’s self-defense, where there’s a common misconception that an eye or groin strike will quickly end a fight, or immobilize an attacker, whilst these are useful strikes, they can be difficult to pull off in real-life, dynamic and fast-paced assaults e.g. if you lack the skills and attributes to create time and space to respond with such strikes, and can’t position yourself accordingly, you may not have the opportunity to hit these targets – or possibly with enough force, for them to be effective etc. I also hear a lot from the Combatives community that traditional martial arts have no value because they are too complicated, and are not direct enough; individuals who have obviously never experienced or sparred with a Kyokushin Karateka – the format of a Kyokushin contest may not resemble a street fight, but nobody could accuse this knock-down style of fighting of lacking directness and effectiveness; a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick, and if you can do both well, you have some good tools for dealing with a real-life assault – you just need to be competent at using them in the format of a real-life violent encounter (this means learning another set of skills and attributes), and be prepared for them to not work. The problem that we often face, when looking at simple solutions, is how simple? At what point does the desire for simplicity put us at risk? I would argue that only assuming one outcome to a response we make is too simplistic approach to self-defense e.g. assuming that when you hit an attacker, they will respond in a particular way, such as moving backwards etc. Having responses that only rely on striking can prove to be ineffective, if the attacker is drunk, drugged up, or so adrenalized that they are basically pain resistant. The definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, and if the only tools in your arsenal are striking tools designed to inflict pain, then your simple approach may be bordering on the simplistic – and proved ineffective. It may be that your solutions will work in 80% of the situations you are likely to face, because 80% of the time people will respond in a particular way but if they don’t you need to be able to adapt, change and move on to other solutions. If you fail to recognize this, you may be found wanting when you face that one attacker in five, who doesn’t respond according to the way you drilled and trained. Don’t get me wrong I believe wholeheartedly in striking, and believe it to generally be the first go-to approach that you should adopt when dealing with violence, however you should not assume that it is a catch-all solution. When you hit somebody, they may respond in a number of ways. I have seen numerous clips of instructors, making statements about when you hit somebody, they respond in a particular way, which will set you up to perform a technique. It would be better to say, “if” the person responds in a particular way then it is possible to do a particular combination, follow it up with a certain technique, rather than categorically state, that this is how they will respond. I have hit people who have moved back, who have ducked, who have tried to clinch me, and who have literally stood and laughed at me. Believing that striking someone will always cause somebody to react in a particular manner, even if the strike lands well, is a dangerous assumption to make; you have to be prepared for all the possible responses that you may face. Does this complicate things? Absolutely, but violence can be complicated, and there is no room in reality based self-defense for, “it should have worked”, and, “he didn’t respond how he should have” etc. Looking at the different possible responses somebody may have to being hit, shouldn’t take you into the land of the “what ifs” but it should get you thinking in a more open way about the effects of what you do. Are there ways to improve the effectiveness of your striking, that can teach you when and how to strike more effectively and up your chances of having your strikes result in a particular outcome? Absolutely. This largely involves taking a “Traditional” martial arts approach to your training e.g. breaking down the components of a strike, developing your skills and abilities in each component, and testing them in a dynamic setting. If you have ever taken a traditional Karate class, this is largely the format of the class; you start with the basics (Kihon) and end with sparring (Kumite). At some point to improve on your striking this is the approach you will have to take; break the technique down and test it in a dynamic setting. However things shouldn’t stop there, you should also test your striking in a scenario based fashion, putting in some of the components that may be present in a real-life situation, such as reducing the starting distance between you and your assailant, starting with your back pushed against a wall, being crammed in with other people, standing on an uneven or slippery surface etc. You should also have your aggressor sometimes respond differently to the strikes. Simple is good, but simple will often fail if it becomes simplistic. Striking is a great go-to solution but sometimes it is not enough – it is also a good option to go to when whatever else you are attempting doesn’t seem to be working e.g. a throw, a takedown, a choke or strangulation etc. – and you need to have other solutions available to you. The Combatives Community at some point have to acknowledge that Traditional Martial Arts training methods have a place, if a person’s skills and abilities are to improve. By the same token the Traditional Martial Arts Community needs to recognize that they need to test and train their techniques, in a scenario-based fashion, replicating the environments and conditions in which real-life violence occur. As with everything the truth lies somewhere in the middle.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=232 Sun, 18 Oct 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=231 One of the most common questions I get when teaching self-defense, is the “what if” question. This can be a frustrating question to an instructor who is wanting to keep a class focused, and on-track, with a particular point or technique that they are teaching. However the “what if” question, can give an instructor a great insight, into the mindset of the student who is asking it, and what particular needs that have to be addressed in their training to make them truly effective in a real-life situation. Firstly “what if” questions shouldn’t be discouraged; in fact no student questions should ever be discouraged. I believe people learn best when they understand what they are learning, and the reasons behind it, rather than simply being told what to do without any explanation – and if you do explain the reasons behind a particular solution you are teaching you will get students asking questions, along with the “what if” ones e.g. but what if the gun you’ve just disarmed isn’t loaded? As an instructor you should have asked yourself a lot of these “what if” questions, before you teach or explain a situation or technique, and cover the most pertinent ones in your teaching e.g. what to do after a disarm regardless of whether the gun is loaded or not etc. Covering that point, also covers every point as to whether the firearm is operable or not. One of the most dangerous places a “what if” question comes from, is where the student is looking at every reason why a technique or solution won’t work, and every reason why they shouldn’t perform that technique, and why they would be safer not acting in a situation rather than acting. This tends to happen with novice students and beginners rather than more experienced ones. It is possible to create a million and one reasons not to do something, whether it is doing your laundry, postponing doing a piece of work, or not attempting to disarm somebody of a knife or gun etc. Finding objections to doing something is extremely easy, and as “lazy” human beings we are expert at it. If I had a dollar for everybody who has told me that they believe it isn’t worth their time learning how to defend themselves because there are certain situations that are impossible to deal with e.g. a team of fifteen ISIS supporters, armed to the teeth, stealthily breaking into your house in the middle of night, and then waking you up at gun point etc. I might not be able to retire, but I’d be able to buy myself a top of the range GI. We can always create “what if” scenarios, in which everything we try and do, wouldn’t work or be prevented from working, however the more important question is why does someone want to create such a situation or scenario? I’m all for covering bases but this should be designed to empower me and convince me that I have a workable solution not the other way round. For some people however, if they can “what if” a solution to the point where it doesn’t work, regardless of whether it is realistic or not, they have the excuse not to devote the time and effort to learning what they are being taught. When a beginner starts training their understanding of reality is usually pretty limited, being restricted to news reports, conversations with friends, and although people always deny it when pointed out, depictions of violence on TV shows and in films. This is not a good basis on which to create informed decisions, and ask “what if”, questions. A good example of this is assailants passing weapons from one hand to another, when their weapon hand/arm is controlled. Although I believe any solution should take this possibility into account, in reality few people do pass their weapon from one hand to another (unless they’ve had a certain level of training); most aggressors when attacking with a weapon are so weapon-centric, and in such an emotional state, that they are unable to consider moving the weapon to another hand – I have seen this with knives on more than one occasion; where somebody being attacked has managed to get control of the person’s arm, with both hands, and keep the knife away from them, whilst their attacker never thinks to pass the knife to their free hand etc. A student looking at how somebody might be able to change weapon hands, may ask a valid “what if” concerning this, without realizing that in an actual real-life situation, it is unlikely that when a technique is performed at speed, that puts pressure on the attacker (they are being punched, choked out, thrown etc.), and that deals with a weapon-centric attacker, it is unlikely and improbable that the weapon will be changed from one hand to the other. A demonstration of a technique in a studio, might not convey all of these things, and so the “what if” question although valid in that setting, is not valid for reality. “What if”, questions if they come from the perspective of a person who doesn’t understand reality, and who wants to be given every excuse not to act in a particular situation are a dangerous thing. I always tell students that if they are in a situation where they are asking a lot of “what if” questions, they are more than likely fighting their fear system’s urge and desire for action, rather than just covering bases e.g. if somebody points a gun at you in a mugging scenario, and stays after you have handed over your wallet, there are probably not many “what if” questions to ask, as it is now time to be decisive and act. “What if” questions, when answered from a realistic perspective are great for erasing peripheral doubts, which is turn give students a confidence in the techniques and solutions that they are taught; which should make them more decisive.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=231 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=230 This blog article is in response to a “post” that is going around that is trying to draw a statistical comparison to mass shootings in the US and knife violence in the UK. The term/phrase comparing apples to oranges comes to mind. This short article looks at some of the differences between knife and gun violence in the UK and the US. It is not advocating for either gun or knife control/legislation, but instead looks at why such a comparison is flawed and unhelpful in dealing with either country’s issues. Not all violence is the same; a mugger has different motivations, methods and behaviors to an abductor etc. Different cultures and countries have different problems with violence e.g. the UK has a serious problem with knife violence/crime, the US has a problem with mass shootings etc. The two are not comparable as they are very different, distinct and separate types of violence. Trying to argue that they are the same or comparing them does nothing to actually solving the problem of each e.g. a stabbing targets an individual, a mass shooting targets a group etc. and so both types of violence differ greatly. If you want to try and compare knife and gun crime, you would need to look at incidents where a gun was used against an individual, and incidents where a knife was involved etc. Violence against a group regardless of the weapon, is very different to violence that targets an individual. In this regard the US has to start looking as to the reasons why mass shootings are so prevalent in its culture, and not in others, where gun ownership maybe as high or higher i.e. why do individuals in the US feel the need to act violently towards their own communities and institutions in a way that isn’t replicated in other countries etc. and however people want to play the stats in reality it is hard to argue that mass shootings occur with the same frequency in other countries than they do in the U.S. Other countries, like the UK, have their own issues – such as knife violence – however the US needs to admit that it has a problem with mass shootings (individuals who want to act out violently against their own communities) before it even starts debating about gun control etc. Guns and knives differ greatly both in what they can achieve/accomplish and the way in which they are used. A gun can be deployed at range against multiple targets, the same is not true of a knife, and because of this the types of violence, in which both are used differ greatly. With a gun there can be a level of disconnect between the shooter and their victim, in a way that is impossible with a knife – to stab somebody you have to physically connect with them, making it a much more “personal” type of violence. It is also very hard to turn a knife on yourself after committing a stabbing, and because of the one-on-one nature of knife crime, you are less likely to be in an emotional state to do so. To use a knife takes a different mental state to using a gun. One of the popular myths that I regularly hear, is that the level of knife crime in the UK exists because of the lack of firearms i.e. if people had guns people wouldn’t be victims of knife crime – either people wouldn’t attack them because they feared getting shot, or the gun carrying target would shoot them before they were cut. This argument is flawed in so many regards, and shows a misunderstanding about how real life violence actually occurs. Most stabbings and incidents of violence, in the UK, where knives are involved occur between young people, many of them teenagers; individuals who would not be able to carry a firearm as a deterrent to such violence - under either US law, or previous UK laws. Also when you consider the nature of violent incidents, it is easier to draw a knife, conceal it, and then stab somebody than it is to do the same with a firearm – a small blade can be held in the hand much more discretely than a firearm, this means than an assailant with a knife is much more likely to have it drawn and ready than somebody with a firearm. When we look at action beating reaction, the person with a firearm is at a distinct disadvantage. If we want to fool ourselves into thinking that all violence happens at a range and distance when threats are easily identifiable, yes you will have time to draw a firearm. If we look at reality where attacks happen up close and personal, and with surprise, the person with the weapon already drawn has a distinct advantage. In real life violence the “superiority” of the weapon often counts for little. In short knife violence won’t and can’t be solved by guns. Like mass shootings the underlying reasons as to why people feel the need to carry knives need to be accepted and addressed. So which is worse violence involving a knife or gun? This is often what such posts are trying to imply. Repetitive stab wounds will often cause more trauma and loss of blood than bullet wounds, and are more likely to be accurate in hitting/targeting center of mass – a knife requires less accuracy than a gun to have serious effects. Knives however generally target an individual; you are less likely to be stabbed as a bystander than shot as one. The rate at which a knife can kill is much less than a gun, meaning casualties are going to be fewer etc. but in short knife violence generally targets an individual than members of a group etc. which is the underlying reason why mass shootings and knife violence really can’t be compared. Coming from the UK I have no issue accepting that by and large we are a more violent, and predisposed to violence, culture than the US – that is certainly my personal experience from living in both countries. It is easy to look at the way in which banning firearms worked in reducing mass shootings in the UK, and argue that this should be replicated in the US (something that isn’t practical and won’t happen). It is also easy from the US perspective to argue that the level of knife violence in the UK is as a result of the ban in firearms – something that doesn’t actually prove relevant when you look at the statistics from a demographic perspective (or when you consider a particular country in the UK, such as Scotland where knife violence has always been prevalent, both before and after the firearm ban). In short the UK needs to accept and deal with its problems, and the US needs to do the same. Pointing fingers, judging and trying to compare each other doesn’t help anyone: knife crime and gun crime are different both in their nature and regard to the cultures/countries in which they are committed. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=230 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=229 The first UFC fight took place on November 12th, 1993. That’s nearly 22 years ago. In its original format it looked to pit fighters from different martial arts against each other, regardless of weight category, to determine which the most effective martial art in a fight was. At its inception there were only a few rules, now there are hundreds. In the old days, fighters tended to have trained in one particular style, and supplement their training with that from other systems that specialized in areas that they didn’t (Mixed Martial Arts – MMA), now MMA has almost become a style of its own. In this blog article I want to look at what the past 20 years of the UFC, and the development of MMA, has taught the reality based self-defense (RBSD) community, and how it has influenced the way that RBSD is taught and practiced. Many instructors who teach reality based self-defense have become threatened by the success and popularity of MMA, and have started to use the term in their advertising e.g. MMA for the street, illegal MMA etc. Some have even taken techniques they have seen in MMA matches, added a few gouges, bites and groin strikes and tried to market/sell what they’ve created as reality based self-defense, rather than looking at what actually happens in a real-life confrontation – and yes it is very different to a mixed martial arts fight – and base solutions on this. The Octagon (in which UFC fights take place) is 750 sq ft, of open floor/space, and is 30ft wide. What can occur/happen in this space between 2 combatants isn’t limited by space, obstacles and other people. This means fighters can find themselves in situations and positions that are virtually impossible to recreate in the real world e.g. imagine how different a UFC fight would look if it took place in a moving train carriage, or a crowded bar etc. Imagine how MMA would have evolved if instead of the Octagon its fighters, fought in a moving bus; how different would ground fighting look, when “ground” could mean fighting from your back, after being pushed down on to a row of seats, or how effective low kicks would be in such a confined space, and on a moving vehicle. As reality based self-defense instructors we can admire the fighting skills, of those who compete in MMA, but we would be wrong to assume that techniques used in these fights can be transferred to real-life situations, even if we just take some of the rules away and add some biting, gouging, and groin strikes etc. The environment in which UFC fights take place is designed so that professional fighters can do anything that is physically possible, however in real-life situations, the environments are not so forgiving and may prevent many UFC type techniques from either working or being applicable. I practice/teach Krav Maga, which is a military system of fighting. I have been fortunate enough to have trained with some of the IDF’s top trainers, however I have to acknowledge that the environments they are training for, are very different to those that my students and I are trying to deal with. Military violence is not the same as the social violence, most of us are likely to face. When Dave Ashworth (someone who has served at the highest level) last came to Boston we talked about this. The extreme situations that he faced in both the Middle East and Northern Ireland were far more dramatic and serious than the situations I have faced working door/bar security, and yet the situations I have had to deal with are far more common, numerous and familiar to civilians than the ones he has faced. Can we learn from his experiences, and take away amazing lessons from them? Absolutely. However we have to translate them in order to make them relevant to us. We have to do the same with MMA techniques, and simply adding in “illegal” moves doesn’t cut it, they need to reflect our reality. We need to look to our realities when evolving what we teach rather than simply copying what MMA fighters and military trainers do. One of the positive things that MMA has done for RBSD systems, is to show the importance of sparring as a training tool, and that individuals need to have strong physical skills, being able to punch and strike with power. MMA has knocked squarely on the head that self-defense is just about eye strikes and groin slaps, and that no real skills are necessary. It has always been one of my pet hates, that people involved in reality based self-defense will dismiss sparring as a training tool on the basis that sparring doesn’t resemble or reflect a street fight or real life confrontation. I agree that sparring isn’t an accurate reflection of what happens in reality, however it is a phenomenal tool for getting people to work and operate under pressure, and to experience what it is like to get hit in a controlled and safe manner. When people spar for the first time they soon realize the difference between the shock of getting hit, and the pain of getting hit; that it is the surprise element that is jarring rather than the physical pain – this is a great lesson to learn for reality based self-defense. Yes, the format of a sparring match looks nothing like a real-life assault, however MMA has shown the importance of being able to deal with someone who is coming for you at full tilt. Another thing that MMA has woken the martial arts community up to, is the importance of fitness and conditioning. I believe that reality based self-defense comprises of three components: simple techniques, aggressive mindset and physical fitness. MMA has shown that conditioning plays a large part in a physical confrontation. Those athletes who compete in the UFC train both aerobically and anaerobically, they do cardio work and they lift weights. I have had people argue with me, that the reason I can do a lot of the Judo pick-ups that I like/employ, is because of the amount of weight training I do. To a certain extent they are right, though there is much more technique and subtlety in throwing than they can see. One of the reasons I can get the height on the pick-ups and lifts I do, is because of the resistance training I do. I don’t apologize for that because I train for it; I do speed work as well, but I also do strength training. MMA has shown the need for physical conditioning beyond martial arts practice and that is a great thing. MMA is not reality; two competitors, who are willingly fighting, in a sterile environment, who know their opponents, and will be told when the fight (structured with rules and weight classes) will begin, are not reflecting reality. As those studying reality based self-defense, we need to stop getting caught up in the idea that our techniques should resemble or reflect MMA ones. At the same time we should acknowledge some of the training methods MMA practitioners use are productive and beneficial. It is time for those who teach RBSD to acknowledge the advantage that the skills and conditioning that MMA practitioners have are beneficial and don’t contradict what is required to survive a real life encounter.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=229 Sun, 04 Oct 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=228 I am a big fan of simple solutions to violence, of not over complicating the ways we deal with assaults and threats. However in the reality based self-defense community simplicity, can often become simplistic e.g. an eye strike will solve everything, a slap/strike to the groin will always leave an assailant stunned and disabled etc. The truth? Maybe, but no outcome is ever guaranteed, and to make conclusive statements about the effectiveness of such solutions is dangerous, and leaves students with a false sense of security in the techniques that they are taught. I am a Krav Maga instructor, who teaches eye, throat, and groin strikes however I also acknowledge there are things that the attacker does either deliberately or inadvertently that can result in them having little or no effect, and positions along with environmental factors that can prevent such strikes being made in an effective manner. In this article I want to look at some of the occasions when striking the groin doesn’t yield the expected results that are often taught conclusively and without question in self-defense classes. Firstly, people are very good at naturally and instinctually protecting the groin. Any large movement towards it results in a flinch response that sees the hips being pulled back, and the groin moved away. This means large front kicks that are thrown upwards towards the groin, when square on to the attacker are probably not going to make contact; if the attacker is moving, chances of a kick of this nature being successful increase greatly. If you practice such kicks statically against a partner holding a pad in front of you, in the belief that you will be able to replicate this movement in a real-life scenario, you are training yourself to fail. It may work sometimes, but those times are few. Kicks are relatively slow, and require large movements that cross a person’s peripheral vision and so stimulate a flinch reflex that sees the target being quickly withdrawn. One way of making such kicks more effective, is to make the person move, as you make the kick; this opens up the groin, and because the person is moving, their flinch reflex becomes secondary to their need to stay balance and stable i.e. it’s effectively switched off. It is often easier to use hand strikes and slaps to the groin that work inside a person’s peripheral vision (so not causing a flinch response) and use much smaller and less identifiable movements. The human body has evolved putting its most vulnerable parts in its most protected areas. For groin strikes to be effective they have to move upwards, hitting the testicles from below. A strike that hits them in a forward motion, may be uncomfortable, however it won’t have the same effect as one that comes upwards. This can make the groin a difficult target to strike when on the ground. I hear a lot of people advocating using groin strikes to release somebody who has pulled guard on you - firstly this is a very unlikely position for you to find yourself in, but for the sake of demonstrating the ineffectiveness of groin strikes in certain positions, let’s entertain it…If somebody does pull guard, their legs are wrapped round you; the groin is accessible, but not in a way that allows you to make an upwards strike, as your body restricts you from doing this. This means striking the groin is not the most effective target when in this position. Creating “simplistic” solutions that rely on groin strikes to escape positions, where the groin may be accessible, but not vulnerable, is painting a false picture of reality. One of the most serious restrictions on making effective groin strikes is clothing. If the crotch of somebody’s jeans is low, then striking upwards towards the groin will mean that the clothing will act as a buffer/barrier to your strike, either slowing it down, or preventing it from reaching its target completely (this is also true of strikes made with the hands). This can be hard to appreciate, if you always train in loose fitting training clothes, where the groin is easily reached and targeted, however in real-life clothing, depending on the fit, and the way they are worn, a person’s clothes can mean the groin becomes inaccessible as a target. This can be compounded in ground situations, where the ability to strike in the right manner is impeded. Does all of this mean that we should stop looking at groins strikes as a useful tool? Absolutely not; groin strikes have their place and can be extremely effective. What we have to acknowledge is that they are not a universal solution to every problem, and that sometimes we are not in a position to make them e.g. if somebody is pulling you backwards at speed, it can be extremely difficult to make such a strike, as the target is moving, it is well protected by your assailants moving legs and the clothing around the crotch will be stretched; couple this with the fact that most of your effort will be directed at staying on your feet and the groin becomes a difficult target to reach. Groin strikes, eye strikes etc. should be part of a solution, and not the critical component. No solution to violence should rely on one thing, and redundancy should be built in e.g. if one thing fails it shouldn’t render the solution/technique useless. If you have a solution to violence that depends upon the success of a groin strike, it may be worth revisiting it, and looking at ways in which other movements may be added, so that if clothing – for example - renders the strike useless, the complete solution doesn’t fail. Our solutions should be simple but not simplistic.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=228 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=227 As any Cop will tell you intervening in a domestic dispute is a thankless, usually unproductive and not very rewarding task, however when a person’s safety is compromised it has to be done. As civilians we may witness domestic disputes, and acts of violence perpetrated by one partner against another, and despite us not having a duty to intervene we may feel compelled to do so. This blog article looks at ways to intervene as well as what you can expect, and not expect, to happen. Firstly you should understand what the short term and long term effects of your interaction and intervention will be. When you took to individuals who work in Law Enforcement, you will find that a common reason for most joining the force was the belief that they could make a positive difference in their community. You will also find that one of the things that depresses them the most is that they end up dealing with the same individuals over and over again e.g. they apprehend a petty criminal who is shoplifting to support a drug habit, only to run into him again 6 months later, engaged in the same criminal activities, after he has served a short sentence, gone through a program, completed some community service etc. This is a fairly depressing cycle of events, especially for somebody who took on the job wanting and expecting to make a change. When you intervene in a couple’s row, argument or fight, you should understand that your intervention is unlikely to solve the underlying relationship problems of these individuals; all you can hope to do is ensure a person’s safety in that moment – and it is key to understand how short that “moment” may be. You should also understand that the person you are trying to help may not want or appreciate your input, and may have played a part in creating the situation (this is not to say they are responsible or to blame for being dealt with in an overly aggressive or violent manner – just that the situation you are witnessing may not be as black and white as it first seems). One time walking back to my car with a fellow doorman, we heard loud banging and a woman’s scream somewhere in front of us. We couldn’t see anything but it was obvious that a woman was being assaulted. When we got a little further forward we could see that a man was slamming a woman violently against the glass of a shop doorway. The person I was with was a big guy, and he gently tapped the man on the shoulder and said, ”excuse me sir.” The guy who’d been slamming the woman against the glass, thinking we were police, replied, “Thank god your here can you tell her to give me my keys back.” When he turned round he realized we weren’t police, and what had been an attitude of relief turned to anger. From his shouting at us, and her shouting at him – now that she wasn’t getting slammed against the glass, she had started to resume her complaints against him – we deduced that they were in some form of intimate relationship, that they’d been out drinking at some bar and he’d asked her to keep his house keys in her purse, towards the end of the evening they’d had a row/argument over something, and she was refusing to give him his keys back; having run out of alternative solutions and feeling justified to do so he’d decided he’d get them back through physical force. That was what we’d walked in on. To make matters worse, after a few minutes of trying to convince her to give him the keys and sort the dispute out later, and explain to him that we couldn’t walk off without knowing he wasn’t going to assault her, four of the couple’s friends turned up. Buoyed by numbers we now became the villains of the piece, with the group, including the woman we’d tried to help, starting to act aggressively and violently toward us. That was our moment to back away and disengage, which allowed the new group including the couple to create a new dynamic that meant there wasn’t someone getting their head slammed off the glass. When you intervene you should only do so in a manner and a capacity that you can manage, and you should be prepared to disengage and back away when your own safety is called into question. You should also recognize that the person you are trying to help may turn against you, as it may allow them a way to show support to their partner, and a means of ending the dispute – it doesn’t mean that the relationship is now a healthy one, just that at that moment they are able to find themselves on the same side. You may end up solving the issue in a way that you didn’t intend; our intention was to resolve the dispute however when the couple’s friends turned up, the situation was of one unified group against another and their personal dispute got forgotten. It is very easy in these types of disputes to immediately take the side of the woman, especially if she is the one being assaulted however when dealing with violence it is sometimes necessary to put aside the rights and wrongs of a situation in order to be effective. The guy who was assaulting his partner had a genuine grievance (even though this didn’t justify his actions) that he wanted a resolution to i.e. he wanted his keys back. Sides had already been formed between him and her, and adding weight of numbers to her side would only isolate him further and make it look like his grievance wasn’t relevant. Any effective solution needs to include both partners, and not look like you are taking sides – even if it seems to you that it is very clear cut who is right and who is wrong. Using phrases such as, “is everything all right?” is much more effective than using phrases directed at a particular individuals, such as, “are you alright?” Both parties need to be included in resolving the situation. Recognizing your limitations when you intervene is also key. You are not law enforcement officers and have no powers beyond that of persuasion. It may be very clear that things are not right, despite both parties saying they are, however you only really have one choice, which is to accept this; your only other would be to inform law enforcement. You don’t have the right to force the person you believe is at risk to come with you, as that is kidnapping, even if you believe they would be safer doing so. It has to be that person’s choice. You should also understand that this individual knows their situation much better than you do. Many people believe that women who stay in physically abusive relationships are passive players who are subjected to violence without being able to influence or exert any control over their situation, in fact women who are domestically abused are adept at trying to lessen the amount of abuse they receive and are extremely active in engaging in strategies to reduce the assaults they endure; they understand their situation and have found ways to manage it to some degree. You may think you have the answer/solution to their problem(s), but they have a much better understanding of what will escalate/de-escalate a situation for them. At the end of the day you have to respect this, and if somebody refuses your help, there may be a good reason for them doing so. It is easy to create situations in our minds where we imagine that we intervene in a dispute, only to find out later that the person we tried to make safe was murdered by their partner, and then question if there wasn’t more we could have done. It is easy to focus on worst case scenarios and get eaten up by what ifs, however all we can do is what is possible in that moment. If we can make a person safe in that moment we have done all that was practically possible. If they ask for further help, then yes we can give it to them, but if they don’t we can’t. I have no idea what happened to the women we tried to help, over 20 years ago. I thought about her a lot in the immediate days after the incident e.g. if her partner later punished her for having stranger’s intervene in their dispute, whether they both talked and laughed about us as the losers who had to back away when their friends turned up etc. All I know is that in that situation we couldn’t have done much more, and I’ve got a lot better since at not imagining or asking too many what ifs, and hoping that when the time is right for people to make the long term choices that will change their lives the right people will be there to assist them.               https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=227 Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=226 On Friday I was sent a link to a video that showed students engaged in a drill that involved them making defenses against an attacker with a knife; the attacker and the person defending the knife attacks, were in a circle, and every now and again one of the students in the circle would push the attacker towards the person defending – the attacker was making realistic and frenzied attacks, stabbing and shanking low, and then making high cuts and stabs etc. There was nothing wrong with the drill itself, my issue and concern was that the attacker was a boy who looked to be around the same age, perhaps a little older, as my own son who is 9. The issue of children training with adults in reality based self-defense classes, is becoming more and more prevalent with martial arts school owners who don’t understand what reality based self-defense is, and in mixing these two populations together such schools are doing a huge (and potentially dangerous) disservice to both groups. My first issue with mixing adults and children together is surprisingly not one of safety, but of reality. My reality and the potential dangers and the violence that I am likely to face is very different to a 9 year olds, which is very different to a 15 year olds etc. If I am training individuals of all ages in reality based self-defense I have to train them to deal with their reality, and the situations they are likely to face. If I am teaching all ages together I’m failing in this, and giving each group an unrealistic expectation of what they are likely to experience. This doesn’t even fit with the idea of basic and advanced techniques, it is down to reality e.g. training to deal with multiple assailants is a much harder, and possibly more “advanced” form of training than dealing with individual attackers, however we introduce this form of training to kids and teenagers at a very early stage, as a lot of the aggressive and violent situations they may find themselves in will involve somebody and a group of their friends etc. Different age groups, different realities. This is something that many parents don’t understand. I once had a mother who brought her 14 year old son to try an adult class. The kid was over 6ft and weighed well over 200 lbs. He was confused when I wouldn’t let him join the adult class, citing that in the Tae Kwon Do classes he took, the instructor had him train in the adult class because of his size. In a traditional martial arts class, there is logic and sense to this, however it doesn’t cross over to a reality based self-defense class, where the kid would have been introduced to adult realities that weren’t appropriate to him. There are certain techniques and types of training, which shouldn’t be taught to children – I question the wisdom of having a child make frenzied knife attacks against either adults or other children, whilst a group encourages him/her. The message being sent to the child is an unclear one. Having lived and worked in the UK where knife carrying, and attacks, are prevalent amongst teenagers and sometimes younger, I see a great danger in encouraging, albeit in a training environment, a child to attack somebody else with a knife. When you talk to the kids in the UK about knives, and the dangers of carrying one, they are woefully ignorant of the actual effects and damage that a knife can cause, and don’t have the maturity to understand that when somebody backs away from them they should do the same; “power” in young hands is rarely reigned in. It isn’t just weapons techniques and drills that can be dangerous to teach to children, escapes from strangulations and chokes can be as well. Kids like to show off what they know to other kids, whatever they tell their parents and teachers. If a child wants to show off their ability to escape a strangulation or choke to a group of friends, they have to have somebody in that group choke or strangle them. It may be that the biggest and strongest kid in the group wants to “test” their ability, and so makes sure that they sink the choke in deep, and keep holding until the struggling stops. None of the children involved really understands the danger of chokes and strangulations, and because of this one is unconscious. This is the same with teaching kids arm and wrist locks; if they decide to show these to friends they may end up hurting and injuring them – not because they are malicious but because they lack control (this is especially true if they have learnt these techniques with adults, and have got used to applying them with the force needed to control someone who is bigger and stronger). Putting a child in an adult class is a disservice to the adults in the class. As soon as a child is introduced into an adult group, that group has to change its dynamics and the way it behaves; language has to change, topics of conversation have to change etc. The group’s entire behavior has to change. The way I interact with other adults when my son is present is different to the way I act when he is not. As an adult practitioner I want to train with other adults. In certain situations it may be appropriate for a child to learn certain things that wouldn’t be taught to a child in public classes, and this is the time for private lessons, rather than bringing down the training experience of other adults. Kids are kids, let’s keep is that way. Let’s not introduce them to adult realities. The violence that children experience, is different to adults, and it is impossible to teach reality based self-defense to both at the same time – sure you can teach the same techniques, but this is only a small part of reality based self-defense. Despite all of this, I know instructors will keep mixing adults and children together. It may be because that model works in their traditional or sport martial arts classes, or simply because they don’t want to put on separate programs due to time or financial constraints. They may simply have small classes that they want to pack. The business reasons are endless, the self-defense ones aren’t.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=226 Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=225 If you grew up in the 1980’s and 1990’s you’ll know who Chrissie Hynde is. Now aged 63, Chrissie Hynde, was the hard living/partying female front of the Pretenders, who was known for out-partying many of her male counterparts. As such she became a hero/heroine of the Feminist movement, who saw her as someone whose actions and behaviors broke down stereotypical gender lines and boundaries, and whose outspoken views assisted the debate on gender equality. However in her new autobiography she recalls being gang-raped, and taking full responsibility for what happened to her, as she was high on drugs, and saw all the warning signs e.g. as a lone female she agreed to meet a group of Hells Angels at their deserted clubhouse, having noted that many of the wore “I Heart Rape” badges. This has sparked a huge debate, and garnered her a lot of criticism as she seems to be endorsing victim blaming i.e. the idea that the victim is to blame for their assault, rather than the assailants. Whilst I think the language and terminology that she has used to try and make sense of what happened to her is unfortunate, I think the message about personal safety and responsibility that she is trying to send out, especially to young women, is an important and timely one.  It is true that in the 1970’s and 1980’s there was a culture of victim blaming around victims of sexual assaults, that somehow they had been asking for it because they were provocatively dressed, or even the belief that this was something that women secretly desired. I am not saying that 30 years on we are living in the most enlightened times however we are certainly more aware as a society that these myths are just that myths, and the research on sexual assaults, show that factors such as the clothing of the victim were minor/irrelevant factors in the assault. However there has also been an accompanying shift in the idea that women should be allowed to act and behave how they want, and not expect there to be negative consequences to their actions. The key term is “should be”, and I agree with that. Anyone regardless of their gender, race, creed and color “should be” able to act and behave freely as they want without suffering negative consequences however this doesn’t mean that they “can”. I should be able to feel free to walk into any bar or pub in town and have a drink without fear, yet there will be bars and pubs that as a white Jewish guy I’m better staying away from. Don’t get me wrong I’m not now making the case that there should be a movement created for short, white, Jewish guys to drink in any bar they want, and equate this with the Feminist movement, however the point is that there are things we are probably best not doing, even if we should have the right to do them. Chrissie Hynde said about her rapists, “you can’t f*** around with people who wear I heart rape”, patches. I would love to live in a world where people didn’t profess this sentiment and/or felt the need to advertise it, but I don’t. That’s reality. I would love it if many university fraternities didn’t hold or express predatory desires towards women, and didn’t feel it was acceptable to hang up banners outside their frat houses that said, “Drop your freshman daughter of here…and her mom too.” I can get depressed and outraged at this culture, however it doesn’t make anybody safer, or reduce the chances of someone becoming the victim of a sexual assault. Yes the culture is wrong, and to a greater or lesser extent, it will always be wrong. There will always be Hell’s Angels and similar gangs, as well as fraternities and groups who don’t respect women sexually (or at all), and Chrissie Hynde gets that. It may be hard to accept, and it may seem to diminish some of the progress that the Feminist movement has gained in turns of female equality, but there will always be men, and groups of men, who see rape and sexual assault as acceptable. It is irresponsible to advocate that women should behave and act how they want without accepting that they may be assaulted; this isn’t right or fair but it is realistic. I may argue with some of the things that Ms Hynde thinks will get women targeted but I agree with her general message. Are victims of sexual assault to blame? No. Might they have made bad choices or taken decisions that could have facilitated these assaults? Yes e.g. turning up high as the lone women at a Hell’s Angels clubhouse, when a female companion advised you otherwise. It seems that are society is more concerned with being right than being effective, that because you should be able to, you can. This is a dangerous and unrealistic message to send out to young women. Whilst it may seem to offer them a sense of empowerment, it is also telling them to ignore warning signs, and forget their fears – and some fears are positive, as they keep us from danger. Chrissie Hynde describes an extreme situation, and may be trying to take control of what happened to her, in order to lessen the traumatic effects of her assault, however she acknowledges the bad choices that got her there, and takes ownership of them. Do I believe she was to blame? No. Did she facilitate her assailants? Yes. If young women can understand that just by having the right to act and behave how they want, it doesn’t mean they should, Chrissie Hynde’s message is a positive one.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=225 Sun, 06 Sep 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=224 On Saturday a worker at P.F. Changs in Peabody stabbed a colleague in the back as they worked in the kitchen. The previous week two journalists were shot by an ex-colleague whilst on air in Virginia. Both examples of workplace violence, in two very different work environments – one blue collar, one white collar. Whilst workplace violence resulting in fatalities are statistically rare, they demonstrate that despite our individual best efforts to avoid violence, there are situations where we may be forced to share space with individuals who possess harmful intent towards both us and/or the organizations/groups we belong to. The two incidents of violence cited, illustrate some very different components and motivations, which show how complex and involved the subject of workplace violence is. Both parties involved had a history of failing to deal with their anger issues; Jaquan Huston, the chef who stabbed his co-worker at P.F. Changs was due to start an anger management course in a few days. Vester Lee Flanagan II (Bryce Williams was the on-air name he used), was a reporter who had been fired two years previously, from the station at which his victims worked. He had a work history in the TV industry, which showed that he rarely stayed more than a couple of years at any one station or company – often leaving on bad terms, and suing his former employers, and/or emotionally exploding during termination interviews. If viewed individually each incident could be explained as a one-off, however if viewed collectively, a pattern can be seen. The problem is that when a company hires such an individual they aren’t looking at their resume as reflecting a potential pattern of aggressive and violent incidents but instead look on each change of job from the perspective of the candidate’s professional career e.g. did they change jobs or leave a job because it wasn’t challenging enough or because they wanted to progress their career in another direction, not because they were let go after a couple of years because nobody could or wanted to work with them etc. It’s unlikely if references were checked, before or after interview, that anyone asked questions concerning personal safety issues. More than likely the questions asked related to their ability to perform the job i.e. were they a good reporter, and by some accounts he was. The News Director at San Diego 6, reported that “He was a good on-air performer, a pretty good reporter.” If somebody was looking for a reference concerning his abilities to do the job, that’s not a bad reference to have, and of course that’s what the focus of any job interview is – the ability to do the job. It’s extremely difficult for an employer to get a complete and accurate overview of a prospective employee’s sociability and ability to fit in to a workplace environment; individuals who suffer from anger-management issues may be the greatest and most fun to be with individuals, until something causes them to get angry. It is likely that either Vester Lee Flanagan, or Jaquan Huston presented themselves at interview, in a way that made them seem like the ideal candidates for the job. This inability for information that could be used to predict violence to be passed on from employer to employer, is something that also happens in the school system, and allows for potential school shooters to go through the system unnoticed, even though there are predictive indicators that show that they are emotionally unstable and psychologically volatile. After the Columbine shootings, many teachers referred to incidents, pieces of artwork, and essays that the shooters had written and completed, which had disturbed them and given them cause for concern, during their time at the school. The problem was that when they moved up a year, this information wasn’t passed on to their new teachers – each one was getting a snapshot, rather than a history of their behaviors. After the event, it was easy to collect all the pieces of evidence together and gain a complete picture of these troubled individuals, however each new school year they effectively started with a clean slate. When this is coupled with a strong dose of denial e.g. school shootings happen at other schools not this one etc. any predictors that may be evident are discounted or denied. Schools unlike different employers do have a chance to join the dots and see patterns in a person’s behavior, however this information has to be collected, collated, shared and passed on so that patterns can be identified, and intervention can occur. If references were taken seriously and followed up, and the right questions asked, a similar history could be gleaned by prospective employers, however much of this would rely on other employers doing the same thing (and references having to include the candidates last employer). If when following up on employment references an employer asks about the references that were used for that individual to get their previous job, such information could have the ability to be passed on. If all employers asked questions concerning personal safety, then a person’s character may be better judged. If in an interview a candidate is asked to give examples about the types of situations that anger and upset them, then a clearer picture of their character and behaviors may be gleaned; people with underlying anger issues are usually very quick to give examples and will talk at length about the injustices they have experienced from previous employers. Vester Lee Flanagan, believed whether rightly or wrongly that he was discriminated against for being black. A potential employer who asked him about those things which upset and angered him would probably have been provided with numerous examples of injustices and the way he dealt with them, if only they had added a “personal safety” component to their interview process. Stabbing someone requires an assailant to be in an extreme emotional place as well as perceiving they have no alternatives but to act in this – Huston felt justified in stabbing his victim, telling his mother that he was threatened and ‘did what he had to do’. Asking a candidate to provide examples of what they would do in situations where there were disputes or disagreements, will quickly show which individuals can come up with a number of alternatives that could solve a dispute, and those who fixate on being right and avoiding blame. This section of an interview does not have to be long, but it should take place, if we are to avoid such situations in the future. In both Vester Lee Flanagan and Jaquan Huston’s lives and careers there were signs and signals that these individuals had difficulty dealing with their emotions, however neither of the employers got to see the full picture of this, until it was too late – to what extent they tried is unknown. Would both of these individuals have gone on to commit acts of violence, had their respective companies refused to hire them, possibly/probably, however both companies would have at least taken seriously their responsibilities to create a safe working environment for their employees – and ultimately this is something that every company should do.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=224 Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=223 As part of the seminars Dave Ashworth conducted on Active Shooters he showed some CCTV footage of the Columbine Shootings, in which you could hear both the 911 call, and the shooters talking. Although grainy the footage was both graphic and disturbing. It is sometimes difficult to makes sense of what motivates individuals to engage in such actions, and how they can behave in such a callous manner disregarding an individual’s plea for life and showing utter contempt for a person’s suffering etc. After watching such footage we can come away with a mix of emotions, including depression, anger and anxiety etc. This blog article is aimed at explaining why individuals, without excusing them, engage and are driven to taking life in this manner. Firstly it is worth noting that the majority of school shootings take place in rural rather than urban settings. Whilst at first glance this may seem incidental, it speaks volumes about the environments in which many school shooters grow up. The communities they live in tend to be close knit, with everyone knowing and being involved in everybody else’s business. In such situations, those who find themselves on the “outside”, often feel extremely isolated and misunderstood, as well as feeling judged by the majority who are part of the community. The High School, and often the sports team become the focal point, around which the community centers itself. For a teenager seeking to develop their own identity, this can be an extremely claustrophobic and judgmental environment to grow up in. As individuals find themselves without a place in society, they turn their backs on society’s conventions and rules, and try other places in which to find themselves; exhausted they may turn back and punish the communities that have excluded them. This is no different to the way that many western Islamic extremists become radicalized. Many people living in the west don’t understand why somebody growing up in a country, could end up hating it so much to the point where they would consider going off to join a terrorist organization such as ISIS. However, if you are a Muslim teenager growing up in Boston, and all you hear on the news and in the media is anti-Islamic rhetoric, you are soon going to feel isolated and judged. You are going to try and find/work out if you have a place in a society that seemingly disrespects you. You might conclude from both social and conventional media, that there actually isn’t a place for you as an American Muslim, which may in turn make you look outwards to an organization or group that can explain to you your feelings of anger and frustration, give you a place where you do fit in (even if it is just virtual) and tell you how you should act and behave. The Columbine shooters didn’t fit into any of the social groups in their High School – they weren’t even judged to be suitable to be part of the Goth scene at their school i.e. even the “outcasts” had rejected them; they simply didn’t have a “place” to belong. They were not in a large city where they could have perhaps found other people who would accept them, but rather they were stuck in a society where everybody knew them, and had known them since they were kids, and which wasn’t able to acknowledge them as being part of that society. This is the same situation that many American Muslim teenagers find themselves in, feeling different, judged and not knowing how to fit in. Both groups feel disempowered, disrespected and confused. Such individuals are ripe picking for groups and organizations who can give them direction and the ability to punish those groups who have shunned them. If ISIS had existed at the time of Columbine, there is nothing to say that the shooters would not have been inspired to “join” by the violent imagery, and the message of retribution and punishment, that is promoted by this group. The Columbine shooters found their guidance from video games, music, and their circle of friends. People engage in acts of violence because they feel justified, and because they see no alternatives. In any violent act there are always motives fueled by anger and the need for power and control. The Columbine Shooters were not simply punishing their school by their actions but the entire society in which they had grown up in e.g. everybody who had called them or thought of them as weird, and had not given them a place to express themselves in their community. They realized that they would never fit in, and looked for alternative ways in which to express themselves; finding none they turned to violence, something they felt justified to engage in. Anyone who watches the footage can see/feel their anger and their rage. It may be hard to accept that such anger can stem from an inability to find a place in society, however if we are to effectively prevent teenage Muslims from being radicalized we need to recognize the effects that judgment and isolation can have. In those long, few minutes, the Columbine shooters had the power and control that had always been denied to them. For me one of the most depressing parts of the CCTV footage, is hearing them talk calmly about committing suicide i.e. whether they should pull the trigger on three, or after three. These were individuals who had given up on life completely, not just everybody else’s but theirs as well. They had given up on life long before they planned the shootings. When such a thing occurs society has a time bomb on their hands; violence towards themselves and/or others is inevitable. The Columbine community didn’t consciously create a situation where these teenagers didn’t have a place to fit in. It didn’t deliberately isolate and judge them, and it never warranted the retribution it received. It is worth pointing out that many other kids in similar situations don’t turn to violence however we should recognize that such environments can cause young minds to feel alienated and angry, and that such feelings can lead to violence.          The Columbine shooters may appear to have nothing in common with the US teenagers who are radicalized by extremists, however if we look at the emotions and feelings of both sets, they are very, very similar. There are people who will punish the societies that don’t acknowledge or give them a position to exist in, and if we are to avoid school shootings and other acts of terror, we must look at ways of accommodating such individuals, so that they have both a sense of belonging and commitment to their society rather than feeling isolated and angry towards it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=223 Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=222 We live in a “tips and tricks” society, and this especially true in the media’s approach to personal safety and self-defense; magazines, newspapers and TV media, will often finish a story about an assault, with four or five safety tips, that the listener/viewer is lead to believe will keep them safe, if adopted. The two girls who were recently assaulted in South Boston believed that walking together as a pair, meant that they were safe from being attacked – this may be the case when trying to avoid being targeted by the lone sexual predator, who is looking for a single victim, however a pair of muggers may consider two people a better proposition, as there are two wallets/purses to take, rather than one. Something that is a deterrent to one violent criminal, may not be a deterrent to others. Tips and tricks may work or be applicable in one scenario, but have the opposite effect in others. At this time of year we receive a lot of requests for private lessons from parents who want us to do a couple of hours self-defense training with their daughter who is about to go off to college/university. Although teenagers are growing up faster these days, their attitudes are often more childlike than they were when I was there age; this generation is relying far more on their parents to do things for them, and take responsibility for them than was the case when I was a teenager. This is not to say I or my peers wouldn’t have benefited from personal safety training before we went off to college, as we certainly would have, but rather that today’s generation has become so reliant on their parents, that they have rarely had to think about or consider the consequences of their actions and behaviors from a personal safety perspective. When this is coupled with a parent’s belief – taken from the way the media presents this subject - that personal safety and self-defense training is really just a collection of tips and tricks that can be communicated in a few hours, everybody’s expectations of what they can achieve in that short timeframe, starts to become highly unrealistic. I understand that when parents have to consider a myriad of logistics that go into setting their child up on campus, personal safety can easily get forgotten, however when a woman is more likely to be sexually assaulted if she attends college/university than if she doesn’t, and there is an extremely high dropout rate of those who have been victimized (or who suffer lower grades as a consequence), this really shouldn’t be the case, even if looked at from a purely educational perspective. When the psychological and emotional trauma to the individual is considered, personal safety should perhaps be the first and number one concern of any parent as they help their daughter a particular college/university – the Clery Act requires Campus Police to make public their crime statistics. It is easy to believe that the statistics apply to others, and not to ourselves or people we know, however this is just a form of denial. Personal safety is a mindset, not a collection of tips and tricks, and this mindset cannot be developed overnight. Any “tips and tricks” that are conveyed in this article, should not be seen as something in and of themselves, but as pointers that demonstrate how criminals, assailants and predatory individuals think, behave, and operate. If you feel that after reading some of these pointers you have ticked a box, and have covered some personal safety basis, you have fallen foul of the media’s approach to personal safety, and are a long way from developing an appropriate mindset; one which naturally considers and takes into account the safety consequences of your actions and behaviors. It may be that you don’t want to have to think in this way, or that you believe it’s not necessary to have this particular mindset. If this is the case, you are simply relying on being on the right side of the statistics; everything works until it doesn’t. Many kids who go off to college for the first time, still act and behave as if they are living at home, where campus is just a larger extension of the house they live in, with fewer restrictions, and a greater sense of freedom. They naturally think everyone is like them, and because they wouldn’t do harmful things to others, others won’t do harmful things to them. Some of the most stolen items on campus are not laptops and electronic devices, but textbooks. Textbooks are unlikely to be stolen by criminals from off-campus, and much more likely to be stolen by fellow students. People steal/take what they believe is valuable, and to a student on a fixed and/or low income, textbooks are valuable. Some books required as course reading can range between $100 and $200 – you can buy electronic devices such as tablets and even laptops for less – however books are items we don’t traditionally consider as valuable i.e. when did you last hear of a burglar breaking into a house and foregoing the widescreen TV, in order to empty the bookshelves? A student may understand that they shouldn’t leave their laptop unattended in a public area, such as a common room or library, whilst not thinking that an unattended textbook is actually coveted/valued more. Who steals textbooks? Not career criminals, but fellow students. Not everybody has the same values or works to the same moral code as we do, even if we share the same environment and situation. Personal safety on campus can be a hassle. Who wants to have to lock their dorm room door, and take their key, when they go and take a shower? It’s easier and more convenient to simply leave the door propped open. The first time this is done, there may be a sense of apprehension and doubt, as to whether this is a good idea, but by the end of term it’s become a habit with no consequence. That is until the day, when somebody entering the hall of residence, holds a door open for a stranger who now has free run of the building. This time there is a consequence, as that stranger is patrolling the corridors looking for unlocked or open doors. Not only do you lose your laptop, but perhaps because you didn’t back your work up to the cloud or an external device, that term’s work, and the papers you have due in, in the following weeks. Going to college should be an exciting time, which will end with an academic qualification and some important life experiences. By not thinking about personal safety, and trusting that the statistics apply to others, the outcome may be very different. Personal safety is a mindset, not simply a collection of top tips. If you have concluded that not leaving textbooks unattended, and keeping doors locked is the be all and end all to security on campus, and the point of this article, then at least you have two new “tips” to adopt. However, the risks that young women attending university face, extend far beyond this. Personal safety is a mindset, and so by way of introduction to this mindset, we have created a free six module personal safety course (www.campussafety-seps.com) for women going to college, which can be accessed by clicking here.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=222 Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=221 Dealing with violence is easy. I’ve been told that a lot in my life, especially recently. The first time I was told it was when I was about 8 and being bullied by a kid at my school; a friend informed me that all I had to do was punch the bully in the stomach, and when he bent over knee him in the face. Great advice from someone who had never had to face a kid twice his size before; the advice was well meant, sincere, and I’m sure he believed it was just a simple matter of punching the kid in the stomach, however there were a lot of things that he hadn’t considered, such as, what the bully would be doing (would he give me the opportunity to punch him?), the bullies friends, the crippling fear I always felt etc. It is easy to break solutions down to an, “all you have to do…” mentality, however there are a few issues that have to be dealt with first before this approach becomes effective. Unfortunately most of the people who so readily explain violence in these simplistic terms have never actually dealt with a real-life situation. One simple solution to violence I hear a lot when people are talking about those who have been the subject of violent assaults is, “this wouldn’t have happened if they’d had a gun.” There are even individuals who believe that just because they carry, that in and of itself makes them safe; unfortunately it doesn’t. Firstly, you may still be targeted for a crime, or an assault, because your assailant is unaware that you are carrying, and secondly an experienced criminal will create a situation, where it is unlikely that you have the time and space to draw. If they already have their weapon pulled and pointed, you are only going to escalate the situation if you try and draw; if they have their finger on the trigger, and you go for your weapon, unless you are highly trained, you are probably going to get shot. To deal with such a situation successfully, you need the appropriate threat recognition skills, and the ability to understand the situation e.g. if your situational awareness fails to pick up your primary assailant’s accomplice, you may well successfully deal with the person you are facing, and end up harmed by the person you didn’t see. Unfortunately range time doesn’t prepare you for any of this, as your gun is already out, and you are always facing a visible target. Many people have a belief in the simplicity and effectiveness of techniques e.g. all you have to do is grab the gun, deliver a few punches and disarm. I believe techniques should be simple, however it is not their simplicity which makes them work in real life scenarios, it is the skills and attributes of the person performing them, and real life is very different from the controlled environment of the studio or dojo, where the consequences of poor execution are zero. It is easy to get into a habit of thinking that because a technique is simple, the overall solution to the problem the technique is meant to be solving is simple. If a person points a gun at you, the technique is only one part of the solution to the situation you face e.g. what if when you grab the gun your attacker’s gun they try and retain in, what if they are highly adrenalized or drugged up and your strikes don’t bother them, what if due to your sweaty palms you don’t get a good grip on the gun, what if your attacker’s reaction time is faster than yours, what do you do once you disarm? Whilst we shouldn’t create so many what if’s that we become indecisive and are frozen to the spot (something I did for a long time when being bullied), we should understand that we are in a situation where there are many factors at play, and which need to be considered as part of the solution. Those whose experience is limited to the training room, and Youtube, tend to get tunnel focused on the technique and lose sight of the situation, and the problem (which may be better dealt with using a non-physical solution). Many training methods have one goal, which is to get the student competent at performing techniques as perfectly as possible, and lose sight of what the technique is therefore i.e. to keep the student safe. To this end any other solution that meets this criteria, is a techniques equal, however rarely do these alternative solutions get trained, and because of this, the individual’s solutions to situations become technique-centric e.g. everything becomes about performing a gun disarm, rather than about walking away without getting shot. This approach is flawed, potentially dangerous/lethal, and is based on ego rather than on survival. It is also one that may be appropriate in one setting (military) but not so appropriate or effective in others (civilian/social settings). Many people see military and special forces training as that which represents the highest level, however the scenarios that these operatives are training for are very different than the ones a civilian is training for or likely to expect. In a SF scenario, not disarming probably means you will get shot, in a civilian scenario, involving a mugger demanding your wallet, acquiescing to their demand and not attempting to disarm, will probably mean you won’t get shot. Are methods and approach to dealing with situations should be appropriate for the scenarios we are likely to face and physical techniques should not be the only solutions we train. Our training can also give us the idea that the types of attacks we are likely to face are simple, and the solutions simple. I am still amazed that in the Krav Maga community, the emphasis that is put on learning to deal with two handed chokes to the throat – yes these are easy attacks to deal with, but nobody makes these attacks, certainly not that I or many other instructors I train with, have seen. If instructors create the impression that you are most likely to be attacked by someone utilizing a two-handed throat choke, students will soon get the impression that, “all you need to do when being attacked…” Violence is fast-paced, dynamic and scary, that message needs to be conveyed, and teaching attacks that are easy to deal with, and implying that this is what violence looks like is a false message. We need to understand all the factors at play in a violent situation, the realistic “what ifs”, and address them so that we can get down to making the solutions we need to put in place, both physical and non-physical, as simple as, “punch him in the stomach then knee him in the face.”    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=221 Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=220 On Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, there were four shootings in the Boston area, that left five people dead. That makes up roughly a third of all Boston murders involving firearms, so far this year. It isn’t yet understood if these murders, which happened in three different locations, are related or not, however it does signify a spike in homicides. One of the factors that may be at play is the weather. It is generally accepted, and the crime statistics bear this out; that violent crimes increase in the spring and the summer time, and that temperature can play a part, both by creating social situations which are conducive to crime, as well as by altering individual’s physiological and psychological states. In this blog article, I want to look at how the weather, and temperature in particular, play a part in violent crime, including homicides. Good weather creates more opportunities for crime. When it is hot and the weather is good, people spend more time outdoors, which in turn creates more situations that are conducive to crime. When you couple this with the fact that schools, and universities, are closed over the summer, there is an additional population/demographic that is out in public – and these individuals may find that they have a lot of time on their hands to fill, and also a lot of time that they will be spending in close proximity to other individuals, meaning a likely increase in the number of disputes and arguments - between both members of the group, and other groups they interact with. This increase in the number of people out and about means there are both more potential aggressors, and also more potential victims. This is also true for more low-level crimes such as muggings e.g. there are more people to rob on a sunny day than a rainy one. In the summer, people also tend to stay up later, and drink more, and the relationship between alcohol and violence is a strong one. When you couple over-consumption of alcohol, with the discomfort caused by heat, you have a dangerous cocktail that causes people to be overly aggressive towards each other. There have been many studies that demonstrate how being overly hot causes people to become more aggressive e.g. it has been found that drivers whose cars don’t have air-conditioning, are more likely to become aggressive and use their horn, when the temperature is high, than drivers in air-conditioned vehicles. The more uncomfortable we are, the more aggressive we become, and if we have been uncomfortable for a long period of time, there comes a point where we are likely to break, and resolve some of our aggression and frustration through either angry outbursts, or acts of violence. For most of July, Boston has been experiencing temperatures in the 90’s, with temperatures rarely dropping at night below the 80’s (Fahrenheit). The heat, coupled with the humidity, has both been oppressive and relentless, which in turn has likely lead to general frustration and discomfort, especially for those who don’t have access to air-conditioning. However the evidence seems to suggest, that if it is too hot, people don’t have the energy nor the desire to engage in acts of physical violence – the heat is just too oppressive, making it too much effort to do anything. So for the month of July it is likely through continued discomfort that certain individual’s levels of aggression have been building, and yet it has been too hot for them to engage in acts of violence. This past week to ten days has seen the temperature drop into the mid 80’s and high 70’s, the types of temperature, which seem to be conducive to violent crimes. A 1978 study by Baron and Ransberger, studying group violence such as riots, concluded that collective violence increased in line with temperature up until about 85 degrees. At this point it tailed off. Whilst this study looked at group, rather than individual, violence, it recognizes that there comes a point where people would rather be indoors in front of a fan, or in air conditioning, rather than out in the heat. This is borne out by another study conducted by DeFronzo in 1984, who found that there was no correlation between violence and temperature, when it gets to be 90 or over. It may be that in the Boston shootings on Wednesday/Thursday, the temperature was low enough to bring out both aggressors, and victims. There are certainly other factors at play, such as the relationships between the shooter(s), and their victim(s), the availability and accessibility of their victims, etc. However it may be that the drop in temperature to more comfortable levels influenced the timing of these assaults. Whilst it would be wrong to blame the temperature for the shootings and homicides, and to say that it was due to the heat that these homicides occurred, it is worth considering how the high temperatures of the preceding weeks, may have both built up levels of aggression, and lead to angry interactions with others (due to people being out and about more), whilst the recent drop in temperatures produced a more comfortable environment in which to act. It is probable that there were many other factors at play on Wednesday night/Thursday morning, however the role that the weather plays in such violent crimes has been well studied and documented in the past forty years, and bears our consideration.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=220 Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=219   Two young women were attacked in South Boston, last Saturday at 1 o’clock in the morning. One of them felt a civic duty to write a letter to Fox Boston, so that other women in the area could be aware, that there are two muggers, who are armed with what appears to be a fake gun, operating in that neighborhood. Below is an excerpt of the letter. “We are two young professional women, who love living in Southie.  Our aim is not to spread fear, but to make people, especially young women, aware of the assault and the fact that walking in twos may not deter these males as they are bold and may jump you both.  Both of us took self-defense courses in the past and while helpful, we still did not see or hear these guys until they were on us.  We were lucky and managed to get away with minimal scrapes and some bruises. We want to urge you to be careful and would feel incredibly guilty if we heard it happened again and we did not say anything.  I am sorry we don’t have better descriptions of the males, but they were wearing hoodies; it was dark; and they attacked us from behind.” The young women’s account, demonstrates why self-defense/martial arts training alone should not be relied upon to keep you safe; and that without honing your self-protection skills, you will probably be found wanting, when it comes to dealing with violence. Self-defense is what you do when you’re attacked, self-protection/personal safety includes strategies, tactics and skills, to help you predict, prevent, identify and avoid violence before it occurs. If you don’t have these skills and this knowledge, it is unlikely that an attacker will give you the opportunity to apply and employ the self-defense techniques you have learnt. Self-defense training and the practice of physical techniques alone are not enough; and whilst it may not feel like you are doing much to protect yourself by learning how predatory individuals, such as muggers and rapists, work, in fact, you are doing everything. Actively training your situational awareness may feel like a grind, however without it, you are likely to get caught in a disadvantaged position, where all the odds are against you. This article is not about judging either these women or the self-defense programs they took, but rather demonstrating why it is essential to develop skills beyond the physical. I do a fair amount of work with corporate clients. Many initially contact my company because they want to provide self-defense training to their employees – something I applaud them for. However, when they first contact us, their idea is to put on a seminar where the emphasis is on teaching their employees physical self-defense techniques. I understand this, because they are generally not aware that other forms of personal safety training exists i.e. they believe that physical self-defense training is the best way to ensure their employees stay safe. Some also have the expectation that an hour to 90 minutes will be long enough to not only cover all the essential techniques that a person will need to know, but that they will also be able to develop the necessary skills and mindset to make these techniques work in a real-life situation. Unfortunately, there are many self-defense programs out there that support this idea, and so I don’t blame them for holding this opinion. These two young women seem to have also bought in to this myth; that attending/completing a course would tick the necessary box, and that they would come away with the ability to defend themselves. I’ve never seriously played tennis, but I know it would take me more than a few hours’ practice to prepare me for Wimbledon. I am not sure where the myth started, that a few hours of training in self-defense would be enough to prepare you for dealing with a real-life violent encounter, however it appears from this letter, that this is what the writer expected. Once again, I don’t blame her for holding this view, as we in the self-defense industry are often guilty of perpetuating this myth; we so want people to train, that we simplify what we are training people to do and overcome, so that they aren’t put off (this is one of the reasons I run a free women’s program – so that I can be honest about what real-life violence looks like). In last week’s blog, I wrote about the importance of not creating training situations and scenarios where the only possible outcome for the student is success. If you want your students to “feel” safer this approach works, however if you want them to “be” safer, they need to be put in situations where they are tested, and may fail. People do genuinely learn when they fail. The writer of the letter believes that her self-defense training wasn’t up to the job. I agree with her. It is likely that she was convinced that the course she took was enough, and she probably enjoyed enough successes that she felt she was capable and prepared. Let us just say that she had invested the appropriate amount of time and effort in her training, that she’d been convinced that completing a few hours training wasn’t enough, and she’d dedicated a couple of hours a week for a number of years to practicing techniques and developing physical skills, etc. would she then have been able to defend herself, in this situation? Probably not. She was caught completely unaware, rushed from behind, and taken to the ground by an armed assailant. Even if you’ve trained for such a scenario, action generally beats reaction, and hitting the ground hard often takes time to recover from. However, if you were able to identify the attack, even just a few seconds before it was made, you’d have time to prepare and deal with it, and a different outcome may have been possible, in fact you may even have avoided the assault entirely. I agree with the writer that walking with another person is little/no deterrent to dealing with a pair of armed assailants, however it should also not be taken as an inevitability that either one or both of them would end up being assaulted by these men. This in no way is intended to blame them or make them responsible for being attacked; both had done what they believed and were probably convinced was necessary to avoid becoming a victim. If either one of them had understood that walking down a street at 1 AM held its own risks that needed to be mitigated against, and had been exposed to/learned the processes that predatory individuals engage in, they might have been aware of the individuals that spotted them, carried out surveillance on them, synchronized their movement to them, and then attacked them. This takes training, and the adoption of a certain mindset, to be sure - however the idea that violence is inevitable and unpredictable is a false one, and one that we should dismiss altogether. This fatalistic notion prevents many from engaging in training that would be more than helpful and investing time/effort in learning how to protect oneself. When you get into a car and drive, you are well aware of your personal safety, e.g. you check mirrors before you pull out, you adjust your speed to the traffic, you judge the time you have to either make a light or not, etc. The decisions you take all consider your personal safety and yet when you walk down a street, because the threats and dangers are not so immediate or apparent, you switch off. It seems a strange dichotomy that many people have; that they can imagine the consequences of a car crash, but rarely think about the consequences of being assaulted. Physical self-defense on its own is not enough, we need to adopt personal safety thinking into every aspect of our lives. I am not one who says that you shouldn’t walk down a street at 1 AM in the morning, I just believe that there are safe and unsafe ways to do this, and that with appropriate training it is possible to mitigate the risks you face, and prepare for the possible dangers that may exist. I feel regret that I am part of an industry which presents the idea that a few hours training is enough, that all you need to do is tick a box rather than adopt a mindset, etc. Those of us who teach and deliver training have a responsibility to be realistic, and present a comprehensive approach to personal safety/self-protection and self-defense. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=219 Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=218 I remember a joke I was once told. Not a good one but it makes a good point. A man is watching a group of runners taking part in a road race, when a man comes up to him and says, “Why are they running?” he responds by saying, “Well, the person who comes in first gets ten thousand dollars”, to which the other replies, “So why are the others running?” Winning, success, failing and failure can be confusing concepts for us to get our heads around. These were things that I struggled a lot with in my youth as a competitive Judoka, who was good, but ultimately not good enough to make it as a professional athlete, and are still things that at times, get me confused, depressed, angry and every other emotion under the Sun. What my rational self knows, although my emotional self often finds it hard to accept, is that failing is not only natural but productive and that the process of failing, does not equate to seeing yourself as a failure. Judo is one of the most unforgiving arts/sports on the planet when you first start out; making good throws during randori (“play” sparring), is the exception rather than the rule – however when you get the odd occasion when you make a good, clean throw it is exhilarating. When you take up a martial art such as Judo, you have to accept, that you are going to fail at most of your attempts, and keep going despite this. I have great respect for the true, genuine culture of BJJ, where “tapping out”, is not seen as failing, but as an integral part of the learning process – when I used to train BJJ, you could tell the individuals who would not stick at it, because they didn’t understand this, and if submitted, saw it as failing rather than learning. Such individuals see failing, as equating to them being a failure – something that they can’t accept and need to run away from. I see people’s fear of failing in class all the time; that somehow it will make them appear less in both theirs and the instructor’s eyes – I especially see it when a “higher” belt is practicing with a “lower” belt; ultimately this fear of failing, causes them to fail, as they put effort into all the areas they shouldn’t put effort into, and forget the purpose of the activity they’re engaging in. Fear of failing, also keeps people in their comfort zone, and stops them trying new things, or it may keep them from giving up that which isn’t working to try something different instead e.g. I have seen people in groundwork class, doggedly holding on to a control position, which is obvious that they’ll soon lose; failing to hold on to this position, and being prepared to move on to another position, is about learning how to handle failure and move on, rather than dwell on it – that’s learning rather than failing. Persistence, is really only persistence, if you are learning from it, otherwise it’s just stubbornness. To accept that failing is productive, is to put your ego in check and accept that it is part of the learning process. In the martial arts, and self-defense, it is also about recognizing that skills and attributes that you thought may have been relevant, may not. I remember many “big” guys starting Judo, who were strong and well-muscled, thinking that throwing was similar to lifting, and that their strength would be to their advantage. They would progress quickly through the lower belts, and then stall at the intermediate ones. Because they used their strength to break balance, or simply didn’t break a person’s balance but over powered people instead etc. they’d failed to learn how to properly break a person’s balance using movement and technique. Now they were fighting more skilled Judoka, they found methods didn’t work, and instead of taking the time to go back to basics and relearn, most gave up and left. There are proper ways to do things, and more often than not, they involve failing; substituting these methods just to get something to work i.e. not wanting to fail, will ultimately halt your progress.    Krav Maga is perhaps one of the martial arts, which is most guilty of not recognizing or admitting that failing is a positive process. It prides itself on the fact that it is, “simple and easy” to learn, without saying that although the techniques are uncomplicated (rather than simple), being able to pull them off is a real-life confrontation is far from easy. Because of this instructors shy away from putting their students in a position where they fail, because in their eyes they risk students believing that what they’ve been taught doesn’t work. It’s one of the reasons that I believe that many instructors spend so much time and focus on two-handed chokes, practicing them from all conceivable angles etc. Two-handed chokes are possibly the most unlikely attacks, that anyone will ever face, however they are easy to deal with, and nobody in a class room setting is likely to “fail” at them. Compare this to a push that takes your balance, followed by a swinging punch (a much more likely scenario), which is a much harder attack to deal with, as the individual will be disorientated, surprised etc. Increase the difficulty, by having a student stand with their eyes closed, and be pushed from any direction and you’ll see people fail to make an adequate defense and response. Keep doing it, practicing it, and they’ll learn – but they’ll fail first. Training should mean learning, and learning should result in development, and development is built on failing; it’s a process. The sooner we allow ourselves to fail, and stop revising these failures to in fact be something else, the sooner we will start to take the lessons, apply them and develop. The sooner this lesson is learnt the better. We may not be the guy who wins the race we think we\'re taking part in. That\'s not important, the race we need to win is our race, the one that has our goals and tarhets, and we must be honest participants in it, recognizing when we don\'t take first or even second place, because through failure comes success.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=218 Sun, 26 Jul 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=217 I try not to get caught up in conversations about use of force, and what is and isn’t legal etc. for a few simple reasons. Firstly I’m not a lawyer, so I can only offer my opinions and understandings as a lay person, and if I don’t have expertise in an area, I’d rather let somebody more knowledgeable than myself speak on the subject, and secondly, if you have done everything possible to avoid a physical confrontation, you should not be worrying about the legal consequences of your actions, as you are effectively in a fight for your survival, where doing what is necessary, and being decisive is more important than weighing up the pros and cons of a decision, from a legal perspective; something your assailant is certainly not wasting their time doing. However, when teaching a class today, I was asked if somebody pushes you does it constitute assault, and so I think it is worth spending some time examining what an assault is, along with what can be considered physical abuse – as the two share some similarities. Whenever I look at things from a legal perspective, I try and frame things more from a moral than legal angle i.e. the law represents what we as a society have generally agreed on to be right and acceptable (maybe a little naive, but it helps me to think about violence in this way, rather than from a more analytical viewpoint). One thing many people don’t understand about an assault – and physical abuse – is that there doesn’t have to be actual physical contact. If you are walking along a street, and somebody by their persistent and continual body positioning prevents you from passing, this can be considered as an assault; if they were to restrict your movement, and then hit you, the criminal act they committed would be assault with/and battery. Many women who are physically abused by their partners, may not define what they are experiencing as “physical abuse”. Too often people think of physical abuse, within domestic violence, as actions which result in pain and injury, however physical abuse can take other forms. If a partner prevents you from either entering or exiting a room, then you are being subjected to a form of physical abuse – despite there being no bruises or broken bones etc. It is very easy for us to dismiss actions and behaviors which are actually “assaults” and “abuse”, because they don’t result in actual physical harm. As you can probably now guess, somebody pushing you, definitely constitutes an assault. It is worth understanding this, because it lets you know when you should and shouldn’t act e.g. if somebody is shouting at you but allowing you to move freely, then you are probably not justified in attacking them pre-emptively (or will have a hard time convincing a jury that you were right to do so), however if they don’t let you pass, and prevent you from moving to wherever you want to go, you will have a good argument, as to why you slapped their groin, struck them in the eyes etc. before disengaging, and moving away. However, if you raised your fists, and adopted a “fighting stance”, your assailant may have a good argument, as to why they decided to attack you i.e. you posed an obvious threat to them – this is why I’m a huge advocate of adopting an “Interview” Stance, where your hands are positioned palms out/forward, gesturing that you don’t want any trouble, and that you want your aggressor to stop/back away. In doing so you have not compromised your ability to throw strikes, or defend yourself, but have demonstrated to your aggressor that you are not a threat to them. If you can combine this with backing away, if things do go legal, it is pretty clear who the assailant in the situation is. It is worth remembering that you get convicted for what you say, not what you do; or more importantly what your lawyer says you did. Being able to construct a story that explains your actions is key to being successful legally. If you can demonstrate – and witnesses can testify to this – that you were trying to de-escalate the situation, were in a non-confrontational stance, were trying to back away from it, and were in no way overly aggressive to your attacker, the chances are – unless your assailant has a top flight lawyer, who knows how to work the legal system –a jury will return the correct decision/verdict. However if you have made a statement to the police before you talk to a lawyer, you may jeopardize your chances of doing this. You have a right to remain silent when charged, and if after a violent altercation the police decide to arrest you this is not the time to start talking, you need to consult with a lawyer first. You may believe that the incident you were involved in, obviously demonstrated that you were the victim, but any prosecuting lawyer will attempt to pick this apart, and show that their client was in fact right to act the way they did. A poorly worded or clumsy sentence that you made as part of your statement, can and will be used against you. With all due respect to law enforcement officers, they are not the best legal advisors you can have in such situations. At the end of the day, when the fists start flying, you need to put away any legal considerations, and ignore your internal debate(s) about use of appropriate force etc. These were things to consider in the pre-conflict phase, where you possibly had the time to rationally decide on an appropriate course of action. If you have genuinely attempted to avoid a violent situation, and can explain (or your lawyer can explain), your methodology and the decisions you took systematically, it is unlikely that a Jury will find you guilty of breaking any law. There may be exceptions to this – and everyone has heard of a horror story when an innocent person is found guilty - however these are fewer than people would have you believe, and if you are attacked, your first priority is to survive that situation; legal survival comes afterwards.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=217 Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=216 On July 4th, in a train carriage, ten people watched as a passenger stabbed and kicked another to death (there were apparently 30-40 stab wounds on the victim), without anyone intervening. It would be east to judge these bystanders, for doing just that, standing by, however when we start to break down these situations, we should not be so surprised that nobody intervened, or be so sure that we would if placed in a similar situation.  Firstly, it is worth painting a very clear, and vivid picture of what these bystanders experienced; violence on a level that they had never experienced before, something that the media, can never actually portray, because it is beyond most people’s imagination and comprehension. When an attacker starts to stab someone, they are not looking to simply injure or intimidate them, they are looking to finish them - this is a big difference between stabbing and slashing actions/behaviors. Someone who is repeatedly stabbing somebody 30 to 40 times, is in an emotional state that most people have never witnessed before or believed possible for someone to adopt. Most of us have not witnessed and aggressive, frenzied, emotional assault where it is clear one person is intent on killing another. None of those on the train were emotionally or mentally prepared to accept what they were witnessing. Secondly, their individual survival was not tied to that of the passenger being attacked. Our survival instinct is a strange thing; it is exists to ensure the survival of the species, not the individual. When a herd of Elk are attacked by a pack of wolves, it is every animal for itself i.e. you don’t see all the elk turn on the wolves and force them back through force and weight of numbers, instead they run, and one gets singled out and killed. I am not trying to make a direct parallel, with the actions of a herd of elk and the passengers on the train, but rather to suggest that from a survival perspective, every individual acting on their own, and not intervening was the most appropriate survival strategy. If the assailant had kept turning on members of the group, and it became inevitable that he would have killed them all, then those left would probably have realized that their best survival strategy would be to engage with their attacker. However until, an individual realizes that their only survival strategy is to engage they will usually sit tight and do nothing e.g. the passengers on Flight 93 only engaged with their hijackers, once they had heard what had happened to the two other planes on 9/11, not before. Thirdly, in high stress situations, people get caught in a denial, deliberation and decision loop, initially denying that what they’re seeing is actually happening, or is as bad as it is e.g. maybe the knife isn’t actually going deep enough to cause harm, or that once the victim can receive medical help everything will be okay etc. Once reality hits - and 10-15 frenzied stabs could have occurred in this period – a person goes into a deliberation loop, trying to work out their best course of action (for their own survival), which may involve contemplating trying to intervene, however they will start to weigh up this option against all their others, doing a certain level of cost-benefit analysis e.g. is trying to enlist help a better option than trying to intervene, is directly intervening better than staying out etc. if someone is with friends/family members these individuals will affect a person’s ability to make an effective decision. Once a decision is reached, the person needs to action it. Let’s say that one of the individuals on the train, did decide that they wanted to act and intervene. If this was the case they would be subject to some very strong mental/emotional reactions to this decision. In 2013, Amy Lord, a 24 year old South Boston resident, was abducted and taken to a number of ATMs to make a series of withdraws, before being taken to a secluded area, and then stabbed and burnt to death. What surprised many people that Amy was allowed to get out of her abductors car to go to the ATMs, but never once tried to escape, when she seemingly had the ability to do so. There could be a number of reasons why she never took her chance to run, but I’ll explain one possible one, that will also demonstrate why a person who is not being assaulted will find it very difficult to intervene in an assault. One of the things we do know that happened to Amy Lord, was that she took a vicious beating in her apartment before she was taken to withdraw money. As she was sitting in her assailant’s car, she was not experiencing pain, whilst she was walking to the ATM she was not experiencing pain. Our natural human condition tells us not to do anything to alter this state, even if we know later on, we will experience further pain. One thing Amy Lord knew was that if she didn’t comply there was a good chance she’d experience pain; as long as she was complying she wasn’t – even if eventually she would. This is something that the bystander on the train, would have to overcome; whilst they were not intervening they weren’t experiencing pain. As can be seen, there are a lot of understandable reasons why none of the other ten passengers intervened, and before we pat ourselves on the back and say we’d behave differently, let’s acknowledge that we’ve probably seen minor or less devastating acts of aggression and violence involving others where we haven’t intervened, despite feeling that we perhaps should have. We should not simply assume that because we are witnessing the murder of another individual, that we would easily shake off all of the objections and excuses we made when we talked ourselves out of intervening in these more minor disputes. However let’s say that we have decided that an incident we’re observing, of a similar severity of that in the train carriage, is one that we feel compelled to do something about. Sheer weight of numbers does help, and can decide a lot. If there are others you can recruit to assist you then do so, however be aware that this might not be an option. If the attacker were to hear you as you attempted to organize assistance, you may become the target of violence, before you’ve recruited anyone to your cause. Also be aware that nobody else may want to get involved – for all the reasons listed above. You should also be aware that whilst others may assist you, it will be you who is expected to make the initial assault on them. If there is a group of you, your job/role should be to try and control the knife arm, and restrict the movement of the knife, whilst another tries to make the disarm. This may involve bear hugging your attacker, clinging on to their arm etc. as someone else tries to pull the knife from their hand. You should then attempt to get them to ground face first, and pin them there. In all of this accept that somebody, maybe all/both of you will get cut.  If you are on your own, your best position is to get behind them, and either try to control the arm in order to disarm them, or control the knife whilst they hold it, and use it against them. Understand as well that if you are on a moving train, a lot of your skills will be compromised by the unstable platform you are on. Another solution, is to try and take the attacker out in one move e.g. come up behind him and pull backwards on his head to slam him into the ground – people will often let go of what they are holding as they try to break their fall. For every solution there is, there are a number of problems, and the best way to mitigate these, is to be aggressive, decisive and not hold back anything, because you are now in a fight for your life.    We may want to do what we believe is right, and we may expect others to do what is right e.g. intervene on the behalf of somebody being killed, but the truth of it is, that we are not mentally or emotionally motivated to do so, unless our survival, or someone’s we care about, is at risk. If we want to live in a society where people intervene on our behalf we must take active steps to build it, and take responsibility for actions and behaviors that detract from this goal e.g. next time you cut somebody off in traffic, jump a queue, put your needs above those of somebody else, asks yourself if you really could expect that person to come to your assistance if you needed it. If we want to build a society, which takes a collective approach to responsibility, we need to buy into and invest in that.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=216 Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=215 This Blog Post carries on from last week’s. This wasn’t my intention however something a prospective student said to me after a class, this week continues to demonstrate how some people view self-defense and their right to defend themselves. After a class, I was asked (I am paraphrasing), “I want to learn how to defend myself, so I’ve been watching clips on Youtube to see which system might be best for me, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is either Krav Maga or Aikido, but I’m leaning towards Aikido because I don’t want to hurt anyone.” So firstly, a nod in the right direction, the individual sees the need to defend themselves, and to enact physical solutions, recognizing that some conflicts and confrontations need a physical solution, however they don’t want to hurt the person attacking them etc. This is a noble ideal, and one which I do have a certain amount of time for, though at the end of the day it’s practically unrealistic, and I want to explain to anyone who thinks that you can prevail and survive a violent assault without causing some degree of pain to your attacker, that this is really not possible.  Firstly, I would like to make a strong defense of Aikido, and talk a bit about the history of the system e.g. how it’s practiced and trained now and how it was in pre-war Japan. When I demonstrate techniques in Krav Maga, I don’t do them full force, and if I throw somebody, I choose someone who I know can break-fall, and I give them the time, space and room, to fall safely. When you watch an Aikido demonstration, you are watching just that, a demo, where Uke (the person being thrown, is done so in a manner where they are not hurt. Substitute that individual for one who doesn’t know how to fall, and the soft mats/tatami, for concrete, and suddenly you are not watching an individual being thrown and getting up again, without injury, but a person who is being dropped head first into the concrete. Much of modern day Aikido might be practiced without the intent to harm, however its techniques and movements are very much able to be used for this purpose. I spent about 18 months studying Yoshinkan Aikido (as used by the Japanese Riot Police), and I have been thrown harder in training sessions than I was at National level Judo contests. A person watching an Aikido demo on the internet may be easily fooled in to thinking the idea behind the system is to let the person being thrown get up unhurt, but that was certainly not the intention of the system as it was developed in pre-war Japan – here it was not for demonstration but for the inflicting of pain and injury. In my experience there are really only two ways you can end a fight (once it has started and avoidance is not an option): You can attempt to physically and mechanically take the person out of the fight e.g. break a limb, choke them out, knock them out etc. so they are physically unable to continue, or you can cause them such a degree of continued pain, that they no longer have the emotional stock to continue fighting. Both of these methods involve some level of pain i.e. hurting your attacker. Pain is what prevents them from continuing to assault you, without it they have no reason to stop their assault (unless there is some time constraint that they are working too). From my own experience when people are subjected to continuous, relentless pain, regardless of whether it is injurious or not, they will often back away from the fight. It doesn’t matter if they are still physically capable of fighting, they are unable to emotionally. I understand this well. As a Kid I was bullied, and the worst part was not the physical pain, but what the violence represented; hatred of me as a person. The physical stuff I could take (even though at times it was pretty extreme – I remember being pushed down and stomped on by a group, till my back was just one mass of cuts and bruises, and I had extreme difficulty breathing), it was the emotional component that went with it; that people willingly and actively wanted to do these things to me. The parts of bullying which often get overlooked, are the name calling, the rumors and the gossip mongering, along with the social exclusion – because these don’t result in physical pain or injuries they tend to get overlooked and ignored however as any bullied kid will tell you, these components are the most painful. They represent emotional violence, and it is this which most people are not prepared to deal with; the sheer disbelief of what they are being subjected to. Most street fights end in under 5 seconds, not because one party is unable to continue but because they don’t want to. If you get lucky, really lucky you may knock somebody out with a punch, and if you are both lucky and particularly skilled you may also break a joint, or choke or throw somebody so that they are mechanically unable to continue fighting. These instances are rare. In reality you must meet violence with extreme violence, and inflict the level of pain on your assailant so that they emotionally crumble. Nothing else will stop them. Don’t be fooled that other martial arts take a different approach, they just try and inflict different levels of pain in different ways - Japanese/Okinawan Karate may propose “one punch one kill”, whereas systems such as Wing Chun and Kali, look to overwhelm an aggressor with a multitude of strikes – all have the same goal though. Aikido as it’s practiced may look like nobody is getting hurt when they’re thrown, but in a real-life situation, those throws are designed to inflict heavy falls, and to physically and emotionally break somebody. When you look across the martial arts landscape Krav Maga isn’t that different in its goals and aims, to other fighting systems. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=215 Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=214 Over the years I’ve had many conversations with people who tell me that they don’t believe in violence, and that they don’t believe in the use of physical force etc. Usually these statements are said is a self-congratulatory and judgmental tone that suggests the person purporting these views has somehow come to a higher level of understanding, about how various conflicts and confrontations can be solved, and that there is never a need for a physical solution. I respect everybody’s views and conclusions on all subject matters, however I feel the level of education that such individuals have around real world violence is so poor, unrealistic and out of touch, that they would do well to reconsider their viewpoint and entertain the possibility that there are times when physical force and violence is necessary. If you were to see an animal repeatedly being kicked by someone, would you say something? If after saying what you did the individual kept assaulting it, would you walk away, keep trying to talk to them, or recognize that the only way to stop the animal from experiencing further pain was to intervene physically? Replace the animal, with a baby. At what point would you give up protecting either creature’s right to enjoy a life without being physically punished, and experiencing pain. If you believe that you can argue, debate and convince the individuals that carry out such acts, to change their ways, you have little experience of dealing with entitled predators who act without conscience, and a very elevated view of your own set off negotiation and conflict resolution skills. Don’t think that because you are good at resolving disputes at home and in the workplace that these skills naturally transfer to real-life violent situations; I’ll tell you now that they don’t, what works in the boardroom/office does not work on the streets – these are two very different environments with very different characters. I remember during my academic studies, reading about a sexual predator who would create wounds in small babies and then rape the wound. At the time I couldn’t think of a more violent act (unfortunately I can now, and there is little limit to the methods of causing pain and torment, that I can imagine – and that’s one of the depressing elements about studying violence), however I know that many people who believe that violence can be dealt with through non-physical means, aren’t thinking about and imagining such extreme acts. If such people were to be in the same environment where such a barbarous act was taking place, would they really not forcefully intervene, would they really believe that a good talking to would suffice? I find this very hard to believe, and would question their humanity, if they would stick to a non-physical approach because enacting physical force against another human being is wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about individuals who feel they should intervene on another person’s behalf but don’t feel they have the ability to do so. I am not taking a harsh stance against those who would like to be able to defend themselves against others but are scared and lack the way withal to do this. I am talking about those individuals who believe that fighting, in all its forms, is wrong, that there is never a time when it is justified to use physical force (and I’m excluding lethal force for the sake of this argument) against another. Violence and survival is in our blood. I truly don’t believe we are beings that exist upon a higher plane, where we have dispensed with our animal instincts and have somehow evolved to a higher existence – neither do I believe that there are an elite few who have. We are animals plain and simple, albeit animals who have the ability to understand, make sense of and articulate our emotional state etc. and survival is in our blood. If someone was to hold your head underwater you would naturally fight to try and gain air, because every cell in your body would want you to get air and survive – you might give up sooner than others if you felt resigned to your fate, but your initial response would be to fight for air. It surprises me that those who feel they are somehow above fighting an attacker, who wants to cause them or somebody else harm, doesn’t acknowledge that in this instance they would fight to survive, but if faced with an armed assailant wishing to kill them (or others) would claim that it is wrong to fight. There is a big difference between being scared and not wanting to fight, and trying to claim that somehow we have moved beyond our animal instincts to fight, and to survive. The Nazis killed 5-6 million of my people in a systematic and calculated fashion. The Nazi regime was ended not by negotiation or be compromise or by talking but by force, and extreme violence. Was any of this pleasant, nice or easy? Of course not, but there was no other way. If various parties had not decided to use violence, there would be no Jewish people. There are situations where violence is acceptable, necessary and justified. Will ISIS change its ways because of debate, reasoning and rationale? Only a fool would think so. An ideology that crucifies children, is not operating rationally or intellectually but emotionally. Whilst there may be many ways to prevent, deter and convince individuals not to join the ranks of ISIS, there is only one way to actually finish such an entity, and that is by extreme violence. Just because I believe that there are situations where a violent response is necessary doesn’t mean that I teach or promote this course/route as a first response. Anyone who has trained with me, read my book, watched my videos, read this blog etc. will know how much stock I put in the prediction, prevention and avoidance of violence, how I stress disengagement and acquiescence where appropriate etc. However when it comes to survival, not ego (put your Tapout T-Shirt away), of myself or those I care about, there is only one response and that is extreme violence. If somebody has a response that exists on a higher moral plain than the one I exist on, and believes I am wrong, you are welcome to that opinion, but your DNA will end, and mine will go on, because that is how the survival of the fittest ultimately works. Your arguments and views may exist for this moment but ultimately they are not pervasive. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=214 Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=213 Violence against groups, is in many ways very different, to that which targets individuals e.g. as a member of a group it is extremely difficult to predict, if, when and how you will be targeted. Those attending the prayer meeting at the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, last week, had no way of predicting that they would be the target of a hate crime – they may have recognized that being members of a significant and famous black church (which had been burnt down previously), in the south of the U.S. had risks attached to it, however no member of the prayer group that met last Wednesday would have been able to predict that a gunman would open fire on them, killing nine. When we consider violent acts and assaults that target individuals, such as muggings, street robberies and sexual assaults, there are usually pre-violence indicators, such as a person’s position/movement, the location they are in, or certain things that they will say and do, which will let us know that we are dealing with a dangerous individual. However there are similarities between those who perpetrate acts of violence against groups, and those who target individuals; both feel justified to engage in violence, and can’t see any other alternatives to it. Someone who opens fire on a prayer group, believes that they are justified to do this, and believes that this is the only way that their agenda will be met. Dylan Storm Roof, who the FBI named as the killer, obviously felt that what he did was both right and necessary – reportedly his goal was to start a “Race War” and this was the method he chose to do it by. Apparently he considered an alternative target, a local school, but backed away from it due to its relatively high level of security. Storm probably considered other ways to solve the “Race” issue, as he saw it, but eventually came to the conclusion that he had no alternative but to attack the church. More importantly he felt justified to do this. If you look at the profile of a sex offender, such as a Power Assertive Rapist, you will see a predator who believes he is both entitled and justified to force women to have sex with him, and that he has no alternative or other way in which he can satisfy his sexual desires. Like Dylan Storm Roof, he believes he is justified and entitled to commit his crimes, and that there are no other ways – alternatives- in which their end goals could be met. With every primary motive, their come secondary motives. A rapist may be looking for sexual gratification, but tied up with this are the emotional drivers of power, anger and control. Even a mugger, who at first glance is simply looking for financial gain, is in some part driven by anger, and a need to have and exert power and control. Most muggers, are at the bottom end of the criminal ladder, committing their crimes to support a drug habit – these are not individuals who are happy with their position in life, as they know how society views them, and they recognize that they have little control and influence over the direction of their lives. Muggings are one of the few occasions when they have the chance to displace some of their anger, and exert power and control over somebody. Yes, they want financial reward, however there are other illegal ways they could achieve this yet they have chosen street robberies, and they have done this for a reason. Dylan Storm Roof, may have argued and believed that what he was doing was for the greater good, which gave him his justification for doing what he did, but at the end of the day, he was displacing anger, and exerting power and control (something he had little of in his daily life). He did not commit his crime without emotion, it was after all a hate-crime, which was motivated by anger – as he shot his victims he shouted racial slurs and epithets, demonstrating he wasn’t emotionless in what he did. Roof, was unemployed, High School dropout, didn’t have a driver’s license, and was living alternately in his estranged parent’s homes. This was not somebody who enjoyed any power and control over his life, or anybody else’s; being able to stand before a church group, with a gun, and tell them that they all, “had to go”, would have been one moment in his life, where this wouldn’t be the case. If we want to stand a chance at predicting how and why, people turn to violence, we must sometimes look beyond the initial crime and study the secondary motivators as well as the primary ones. When we look at the secondary motivators, of anger, power and control, we can start to understand how radicalization works, whether it is racial or religious. Those individuals from the West who are joining ISIS, are equally motivated by a sense of anger at their situation, and the need to exert power and control in their lives. These motivators can be shared by the affluent as well as the poor; the sons of the rich become terrorists and suicide bombers as well as those of the poor (though notably not in as great numbers). You can be the member of an affluent family, and still have little or no, power and control in your life. Understanding that even a low level criminal, such as a mugger, is motivated by anger, power and control, gives us clues as to how we must handle are interactions with them. Refusing an armed mugger your wallet etc. is challenging them for the power and control of that situation, as well as challenging somebody who has a good degree of anger that they need to displace. In such a situation, you will get cut or shot. You may believe that your desire to hold on to your wallet is greater than their determination to take it from you, however you are dealing with an angry person who feels justified to take it from you by force, and can’t see any alternative means of supporting their drug habit; they are also angry, and will want to make sure that this moment of power and control is not taken away from them. Was Dylan Storm Roof’s exact crime predictable? No. But that he was intending to commit a race crime against a particular group was. He even talked about it with friends who simply didn’t take him seriously – something which is common with many of these types of mass shootings. Dylan Storm Roof was an angry man, who lacked power and control in his life, whilst not the primary motivators – a hatred of African Americans was – these secondary motivators, were strong drivers in getting himself to the emotional place where he was ready to commit his crime; one which he felt justified to engage in, and which he could see as the only way to achieve the “Race War” that he dreamed was the solution to America’s race “problem” (there were no other alternatives as he saw it). It would be wrong to equate a mugging incident with a hate-crime, such as a mass shooting, however the profiles of the predators who commit them share many similarities, and when predicting and dealing with both types of predators it is worth remembering this. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=213 Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=212 In New Hampshire on Wednesday there was an attempted abduction of a 16 year old girl at a retail outlet. The attack happened at 4:15 pm, in broad daylight, and was thwarted because an employee at the mall overheard the victim’s screams, and investigated their source – something most bystanders and observers fail to do – which in turn ended up scaring the assailant away. The assault was immediately categorized as being “completely random”, which may have been the case, but at the same time might not have been. It is always worth taking a look at real-life incidents, so that we can better understand how predatory individuals operate.  The first thing any predator will do is choose a location. This predator choose an outlet village, and he will have done so for a number of reasons. Most criminals will choose a location that they are familiar with, or if not a location they are exactly familiar with, one that is similar (he may have planned a similar abduction from a mall/shopping center, somewhere near to where he lived, worked or spent leisure time, and then decided to carry out his plan farther away, possibly because he wasn’t confident he could go undetected). What we don’t know is if he had visited this location previously. The fact that he choose an outlet village/mall, and made his assault in broad daylight is not so surprising when you consider the profile of his victim; a teenage girl. The predator would have correctly surmised that a mall is somewhere where teenage girls would go after school, to hang out and shop, before going home. That meant he would have had a window of between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm, to observe and select from the greatest number of potential victims. A shopping mall between these hours, would have been an attractive location, for someone preying on teenage girls. The assault itself happened outside the bathrooms of a food court. The food court would have been an ideal location for a predatory individual to hang around unnoticed and look for potential victims (criminals have to demonstrate “legitimacy” if they are to go undetected). Nobody is going to question why somebody is sitting at a table eating or drinking, or even simply mingling with the crowds and queues, waiting to buy food. A food court is a highly trafficked area, meaning that there is a constant flow of potential victims, and also few people who would stay in that location long enough, to notice somebody else who was spending an extraordinary length of time in that place. If this predator did order food and sit down at a table, he would have probably shown more interest in the people in the food court than he did in his food e.g. his head would have been up, looking around, rather than down, focusing on eating. His victim selection would not have been random. For one, he would be looking for girls who fell within a certain age range. He may also have been looking for someone who was on their own. He would certainly be looking for someone who he believed would comply and not resist. Something he got partly wrong in this case, as although his victim didn’t fight back, she did scream. It may be that he erred in his selection because he felt rushed (he was nervous and emotional), and pressured to carry out the assault, only having a small window of time to commit the abduction (he claimed in court that he had to get back to his dying mother – which could be true, or simply a lie to get leniency from the judge, either of which is possible), or because he was inexperienced in this type of crime. His victim may have given off signals of being overly polite and non-confrontational, maybe moving out of everyone else’s way as she went to the bathroom, rather than having them move out of her way, etc. She may have been looking at the ground as she walked, shuffling or striding rather than walking with a normal stride length, and her overall body motion may not have appeared “fluid” - all things that in a study done in 1981 by Grayson and Stein, were shown to put potential victims on a predator’s radar. One of the things that every assailant needs to do before they make an attack, is to synchronize their movement with their intended victim. This predator would have had a good idea of how long it would take his victim to go to the bathroom; so after waiting a few moments, he would be able to go and position himself outside, close to the time when she would exit. He wouldn’t necessarily have to draw attention to himself by hanging around outside the bathrooms, if he timed his arrival (synchronizing his movement with that of his victim), so that he got there as his victim came out. He may have chosen the bathrooms as the place to commit the assault, because they lacked “natural surveillance” i.e. the people in the food court would be unable to see the attack happening, and possibly because there were several routes he could escape down if discovered, or routes through which he would be easily able to exit with his victim. The location was also more than likely to have left him with only a short distance to travel to get to his car. It may be that he got to the mall early enough to park his car in a convenient spot, so that he would be able to get his victim to the car, without being seen or drawing attention to himself. He had obviously decided at some point it would be unnecessary to use a weapon in this stage of the assault, as he left his guns and knife in the car. It is certain that his victim had a lucky escape. What is not known is the level of “conscious” and “subconscious” planning that went in to the assault. It is obvious that it was something that the predator had fantasized about, and will continue to fantasize about (something that incarceration is only going to allow him to continue doing). It may be that this was his first abduction, it may be that he has committed others that are unknown. What is likely, is that given the chance, he will attempt to do the same or similar again, having learnt from his mistakes in this attempt, and potentially improving his chances of successfully executing his assault. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=212 Mon, 22 Jun 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=211 Although we can act as predators, we are by nature “prey” animals, that is, when we are confronted by a threat or danger, our default behavior is to run, and get to a safe place. This behavior is engrained in our DNA, and has been our species most successful survival strategy – it doesn’t always work at the individual level e.g. people have run away from danger into oncoming traffic etc. but for the species as a whole it has proven to be a pretty effective way of working i.e. if you’re not there it can’t hurt you. When I look at my survival options, the first one I always consider is disengagement – and this is the one I teach to those who train with me. If there is the opportunity to back down and/or back away from danger this should be the first one that everybody considers; it may not appeal to the ego, but it is by far the safest option – if available – to take. There are no “fair” fights, as any assailant will have stacked the odds in their favor, either by having third parties with them, arming themselves with a weapon and/or choosing the time and the location of the assault. So to go into a confrontation thinking that your training puts the odds in your favor, is naive at best; if your training has given you the skills and attributes to level/even the odds, then you are in a good place. It is paramount to remember that the injustice of the situation is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is your survival. The Hebrew bible, says that it is, “better to be a live dog, than a dead lion.” I wonder how many martial arts and self-defense schools, would readily acknowledge, and promote such an idea? Yet, this is what those of us who teach and train reality based self-defense, should be acknowledging both to ourselves, and our students. And not just acknowledging but promoting. Sometimes the goal of our techniques, and approaches to violence, gets lost here. I remember asking a student at a seminar I was conducting, what the point of striking an assailant who was holding a knife was, and their answer was, “to punish them” i.e. to inflict pain as a punishment. With such a mentality/approach, there would never be a moment when disengagement would be an applicable option, because why leave them, when you could punish them some more? When we punch we want to be able to strike as hard as we can, and generate as much concussive force as possible, in order to take an assailant out of the fight, so that we can disengage safely – if we could have disengaged without going through this process, all the better. There have been occasions when new students have questioned why I would hand over a wallet to an armed assailant, as if the point of learning how to deal with armed assailants was to learn how to hold on to $20, and a load of easily cancelled credit cards. I have even had people suggest that there is a monetary amount when they wouldn’t hand over their wallet to an armed assailant, possibly working of the basis that your technical expertise in dealing with such situations, increases in direct proportion to the amount of cash you are carrying. The safest option in such scenarios, is to give whoever it is what they want, putting the rights and wrongs of the offense aside. The reason you train, is when after getting what they want, they don’t disengage – that’s the time to fight. Many people miss disengagement opportunities due to hesitation, because the majority of martial arts and self-defense training is all about engagement e.g. physically dealing with a threat or an attack. If you ever have the question pop into your head, “should I go?” the safest answer is almost always “yes”, and doesn’t really require anymore thought. If you see a group moving towards you, and your instinct is to go/run, then it is probably best to go – whatever your level of training. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=211 Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=210 Last week’s blog article, looked at situational awareness, and the use of the environment both to assist you, as well as creating problems for you etc. In this week’s article I want to take a look at “scanning”, and how this can be used to create a 360 degree understanding of your environment, and those who are in it. Most people see scanning as something that they are actively engaged in e.g. they are looking for people, acting and behaving in a certain way, that may have harmful intent towards them – such as people who are walking aggressively towards them, people who are holding eye contact with them etc. and whilst there are times to actively scan, it shouldn’t be all the time, as this would be extremely exhausting. This means we must develop the skill of passive scanning. Passive scanning is something that “prey” animals such as horses, gazelle and similar, rely on to identify potential danger. Take the example of a gazelle, which can graze in a relaxed manner, whilst being in close proximity to a sleeping lion. The gazelle, passively uses all of its senses to keep it safe; if it hears the lion move it will it will run away, if it sees the lion start to stir from its sleep it will move away. It is not however in a highly adrenalized state consciously analyzing the lion’s movement and behavior. As well as being unnecessary, as there are only a few certain/distinct movements that indicate a lion is waking up, it would also be an extremely stressful/time consuming activity to engage in.   To be successful at passive scanning, you first need to develop an active curiosity about your surroundings. Without this curiosity, your conscious mind will not be drawn to those actions and behaviors which are out of place. Most of us have heard the story of the security professional who guesses that the man wearing the heavy coat on a hot day, must be concealing something, because why else would they be wearing a coat in such weather? The truth is, that the “reasoning” part of the threat identification process, comes after the identification of the threat itself. What first drew the security professional’s eye to the person in question was not the logic of why they’d be wearing a heavy coat in such weather, but that they were dressed differently to those around them; they were out of place, and this piqued their curiosity. After becoming curious, the logic of the coat in relation to the weather was applied, and the threat/danger identified. If you don’t have a sense of curiosity, your passive scan will see your eyes pass people and objects of interest, rather than being drawn to them, and asking the question why. In an age of constant distractions, such as smartphones, and the need to think about so many things at once, it is easy to lose our curiosity about the environment, and those people around us – especially if our day-to-day life is relatively safe. If we aren’t curious about our surroundings and those in it, our eyes will never be drawn to the person who keeps adjusting their clothing, or who is looking furtively about, whilst avoiding eye-contact with others. Equally we won’t notice and question why someone is walking in the opposite direction to everyone else, or why they are waiting at a particular location. If we have a curiosity about our environment, our eyes will be drawn to these things, and we can start to process the reasons why, and apply knowledge, experience and logic to the situation e.g. we can understand that the only reason somebody would be wearing a heavy coat on a hot day would be to conceal something etc. To start developing the ability to passively scan, you must first actively scan on a regular basis, till it becomes a subconscious process. When our eyes are drawn, we need to make a dynamic risk assessment of the situation; determining whether we are in a high risk situation, or one containing unknown risks. If you think/believe that a situation is “low” risk, you have obviously identified a potential threat, and classifying it this way will only lead to you underestimating it, and not treating it with the seriousness it requires. If you can’t identify the exact reason/danger that caused your eye to be drawn, you need to engage in active scanning, that is looking/searching for the things that you know indicate danger and harmful intent. You should also take notice of emotional feedback that your body is giving you, such as if you are adrenalized or not. If you are then the person constantly readjusting their clothing, may be giving off other signals that your fear system has identified as indicating a potential threat, and what might have been explained a way, as someone just wearing uncomfortable clothing, can now be discounted, and the more likely reason that they are about to draw a weapon can be adopted. There are also times when you want to engage in active scanning. If you know that you are passing a particular location, which looks like the perfect ambush site, you should be attempting to get a 360 understanding of what is happening in your environment. This involves scanning the ground, as well as elevating your eye line e.g. a pile of cigarette butts in a particular location give you the knowledge that individuals or a particular individual spends time there, possibly looking for potential victims etc. Don’t restrict your active scanning to what is just at your eye-level. An open upstairs window during cold weather could contain a threat, however remote, such as an active shooter etc. It is worth interspersing your periods of passive surveillance, with periods of active surveillance. Working this way, you will keep your mind in a state of curiosity, and are much more likely to “passively” identify threats and dangers if they happen to be in your environment. One of the biggest inhibitors to our ability to passively scan is our smartphones. If you have been reading this blog article on your phone, in a public place, five minutes has just gone by, when you were not aware or curious about your surroundings and environment. A gazelle, will have raised its head several times in this space of time, using intervals that would allow it to see the lion before it would be able to get to it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=210 Sun, 07 Jun 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=209 When people talk about situational awareness (SA), they normally focus on individuals and people e.g. certain movements, behaviors and actions that identify someone in the environment may have harmful intent, and/or be engaged in a criminal activity. What often gets overlooked when considering what situational awareness is, and how it can be developed, is the physical landscape of the environment, and how this needs to be considered and taken into account, as well as the ways in which it can affect our awareness. One way that an environment can affect our situational awareness is in regard to sound. If you are in an urban setting, comprising of tall brick and glass buildings, it may be difficult to identify where a sound such as a gunshot, or explosion is coming from. This is due to the fact that the sound bounces/echoes off the buildings, meaning it can be difficult to discern where the original noise originated from. Not taking this effect into consideration, could see you moving towards an active shooter rather than away. This is why in such situations it is better to find cover first, and assess the situation from there, than blindly running away from a sound. Part of your situational awareness, should also understand the difference between cover and concealment. Hiding behind a car door, may offer you concealment in an active shooter situation, but it is unlikely to offer you much cover i.e. most car doors won’t stop a bullet. On the other hand getting behind the engine block of the car will afford you good cover. Whilst it is important to know what can afford you cover and concealment in an environment for your own protection, it is also important to understand what objects and places could conceal an attacker; where could somebody be hiding out of sight. If you do have to pass by such places, it is always good to put as much distance between you and them as possible, and be ready to act, if anything in your environment changes. You should also have an understanding of the entry and exit points in your environment e.g. where could you disengage to, and where could other assailants come from etc. As well as points of concealment and entrance/exit points, you should also understand natural bottlenecks, and places where your normal movement could be slowed down, reduced or be restricted. I rarely stand on escalators, and choose to walk up them instead; if you stand on an escalator, it is very easy for somebody to come up behind you, put a knife to your back, and demand your wallet etc. If you think you are adept at dealing with armed assailants in a studio/dojo setting, consider how well you would fare on a moving platform, that isn’t large enough for you to turn on, and is at a different level to the one your assailant is on. This is what real-life violence looks like; situations where an assailant will try and put you at every disadvantage they can. The tops and bottoms of escalators are also prime locations for pickpockets, as when people are getting on and off, they are momentarily distracted – if these criminals are working as a team, they may put two people ahead of you to slow down your movement, so that the one who is behind has a little more time to relieve you of your items. Just as being on an escalator, will restrict your movement, being on a train or a bus will do the same, but with the added benefit of seriously compromising your balance. If you consider that one of the advantages a trained person has over an untrained one, effective movement and power generation are two of the most important; both of which are severely compromised when on a moving platform. You must acknowledge to yourself that a large part of the skillset, which makes you effective as a fighter, have been taken away, or reduced. You should also have an awareness for what objects could be used as barriers to prevent your assailant, or others from getting to you, along with how such objects could be used to inflict pain and injury on your attacker(s). A parked car can be used to put an obstacle between you and your assailant, as well as making a solid surface to strike your attacker with e.g. smashing their head off the hood, roof or windscreen. Along with such objects, you should be able to identify what could be used as an improvised weapon. I have written extensively about improvised weapons before, so I am not going to go into the classification system that I was taught, however I will say, that for any weapon to be truly effective it must be ready to hand, and require little or no processes in order to form it into a weapon e.g. if you think you have time to take your belt off and use it as a weapon, you’re probably working from a very strange idea of what real life violence looks like. Whilst it is important to be able to identify individuals in your environment who possess criminal/harmful intent towards you, you should also be able to calculate how your physical landscape could be used either to your advantage or disadvantage. This too is part of situational awareness. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=209 Sun, 31 May 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=208 I personally believe there are a lot of dangers and pitfalls that come about from knife disarming. One being that in reality it is a lot harder than it looks, or may have been experienced in training. Many Krav Maga instructors will tell you that once you have softened your attacker up with punches etc. disarming becomes quite straightforward. Unfortunately this is a common Krav Maga misconception; once you stop striking, unless you have battered the person into unconsciousness – which is also hard to do - their focus quickly returns to the knife, especially when they feel your other hand move to theirs. Attackers will do everything they can to hold on to their weapon, because they know that once they give it up, in all likelihood it will be used against them; and in all likelihood it will, as the fight doesn’t simply stop because you are now holding the knife. If your assailant comes towards you when you are holding it, you will use it and you would be foolish not to. Because of this I generally advocate, using an assailant’s knife against them whilst they are still holding it – in such a way that your finger prints are not on the knife. This raised some questions in a class at my school, and they were good ones, and worth looking at. I believe that being successful when dealing with violence, is largely down to being decisive. It doesn’t matter what you know, and how good you are, if you are hesitant. Because of this I put a lot of stock in having pre-planned decision trees, and heuristics (simple rules of thumb), that can be applied when dealing with aggressors, so that decisions can be reached quickly, and acted upon immediately. One of my simple decision trees, is that, “if somebody wants something from me they can have it, if somebody wants me I fight.” So if a mugger wants my wallet, they can have it, if an abductor wants me to move then I fight. However in saying that if a mugger doesn’t exit the situation after I have acquiesced to their demand, then I need to fight. The question raised was in relation to this: if after you have handed over your wallet your aggressor stays, and you end up stabbing them with their own knife (not leaving your fingerprints on the knife), should you retrieve your wallet? One of the thoughts behind the question was that since your fingerprints aren’t on the knife (due to the control position you were in), if you retrieve the wallet, with your bank cards and ID in it, there is nothing to tie you to the scene. The other thought was that now you have stabbed your assailant, because they have your driving license or similar, they will be able to find your house, and seek their revenge. The first thing to note about avoiding getting your fingerprints on the knife, is that you are not trying to avoid detection, but rather clearly illustrate who the aggressor in the situation was. It would be naïve to think that in the days of CCTV Cameras (Closed Circuit TV Cameras), and passers-by with cell phones that you would always be able to avoid being spotted or identified. Not having your fingerprints on the blade is more about clearly identifying who the aggressor in the situation was; if you disarm somebody and then stab them, it might be harder to make the case that you didn’t have serious harmful or lethal intent towards your attacker. In reality not having your fingerprints on the knife is a “benefit” of the technique, not the focal point of it. It is also important to be able to tell the story (in reality have your attorney tell the story) of what happened. If you can demonstrate that you acquiesced to the mugger’s demand for your wallet, and only then tried to control the knife, when they didn’t disengage, you have a reasonable reason for using force against them. If after cutting them you try and take your wallet back, your actions look much more malicious, and could always be interpreted in a different way e.g. you handed your wallet over, were overtaken with rage, and decided to teach them a lesson before taking it back. If the wallet stays with them, it is much more believable that any actions you took were only in regard to your personal safety, and were in no way related to your wallet. From a personal safety perspective it is far better to exit a dangerous situation quickly, rather than take the time to find your wallet. In those moments you waste, a third party who was working with your assailant, may have managed to get to you, and/or your assailant may have recovered enough to continue the fight. If you were prepared to hand your wallet over in the first place, don’t risk your safety by trying to retrieve it. Many people have a fear that if they hand over their wallet to a mugger, and it contains their driving license, the mugger will now know where they live. In reality, muggers have chosen their particular crime to get instant cash, they are not by default burglars (who will target a house based on the ease with which they can break in, get the items they want and get away), and there is nothing about the address on your license per se, which gives them this information. By the same token a mugger is not by default a rapist, who will want to gain access to you at your address. Most muggers will discard everything but the cash, as driving licenses and credit cards, implicate them in any crimes they have committed. It is true that a mugger may try and seek revenge for whatever pain and injury you have caused them but most likely they will take out their vengeance on their next victim, rather than take the effort to track you down at your house. That would take a fair degree of time and effort, for somebody who has chosen one of the laziest types of crime, and is more interested in supporting their drug habit. A simple solution though is to separate the cards etc. that are in your wallet. Take your driving license and a credit card out wrap, two $20 bills round them with an elastic band, and keep this slim profile object in another pocket. This way when you hand your wallet over you keep hold of your ID, and have a credit card you can use, whilst your stolen ones are being replaced. Plus, if you need $40 for taxi fare or public transport in order to get home, you have cash to do that.   By handing over your wallet, you are giving your assailant a choice: leave and you won’t harm them, stay and you will. This is not a passive act, it is one of taking control. If they stay then you will use their weapon against them, rather than disarming, and if you cause them serious injury, so be it – you had every reason to believe that they were going to harm you, because they didn’t leave after you acquiesced to their demand. Don’t return for your wallet, but inform the authorities of what happened, and let your attorney, not you construct/tell the story. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=208 Sun, 24 May 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=207 Experience can be a valuable thing however it can also limit and restrict our understanding, and prevent us from being open to the experiences of others along with new ideas etc. It may seem that the most battle-hardened and experienced instructor, is best qualified to talk about violence however this may not in fact be the case. In this blog article, I’m going to try and examine the pros and cons of firsthand experiences of violence, and why and how they need to be combined with others things in order for them to be relevant and applicable to others. There are basically two ways you can end up witnessing and experiencing a lot of violence. One is to grow up or live in a violent community, the other is to perform some form of law enforcement or security role. If violence is experienced when performing as a security professional, some of the relevance for others may be taken away, because of the role that you were fulfilling. There is a big difference between experiencing a confrontation, when you are possibly armed and have backup, than engaging in a conflict where you are unarmed, and alone, with the knowledge that nobody will be coming to assist you. There are of course similarities between the two situations, but the experiences are not directly interchangeable. There may be moments in such confrontations when the individuals involved experience many of the same things e.g. if a security professional has to perform a gun disarm against an aggressive individual, they will be experiencing the same emotions, doubts and concerns as the non-professional. Therefore when we are trying to find ways to make our experiences relevant to others, we must understand what parts of the experience are relevant/applicable and what parts aren’t. Our actual memories of violence may be flawed. When we remember the incidents when we found ourselves in dangerous situations, we’re probably not recalling all the details correctly. In a dynamic, fast paced assault, our brain will not be able to process all the relevant information, it will simply process the seemingly essential information. When we recall these events, our mind will fill in the blanks for us, creating details that seem relevant for the situation. It seems that our brains want to make these experiences as vivid and colorful as possible (this could be so that we take more notice of them, learn from then, and thus increase our chances of surviving further assaults etc. or it could be some form of stress coping mechanism to avoid trauma). One thing many people will report during an assault, is that time slowed down for them. This was for a long time a generally accepted phenomena, however recent research has called this into question, suggesting this is a trick of the mind that occurs when we recall highly stressful and dangerous events. A study by the Baylor College of Medicine, involved subjecting participants to a 150 feet drop into a net – something that would quickly induce an adrenalized and stressful state. As the participants fell they were required to read two numbers off a chronometer that was displaying them at a rate that was impossible to normally read. It was postulated that if time did slow down, which in fact involved the brain’s processing power speeding up, it would be possible for those participating to read the numbers. No one was able to. They were also asked to estimate the number of seconds it talk them to fall. This was then compared to the actual fall rate. It was found that the estimate was on average 36% greater than the actual rate. So whilst our memories of such events have us experiencing time slowing down, this doesn’t seem to occur at the actual time. Perhaps the greatest danger of relying on experience, is that although it is a valuable asset to have it is limited to a sample size of one e.g. how directly relevant are the experiences of a 250 lb muscled man to those of a 120 lb woman? If such an individual only taught according to his experiences, many of his students would not get a realistic picture of what violence would look like for them. It is important for every instructor to try and broaden their understanding of violence, by not solely relying on experience. This involves talking to others, and learning from their experiences and understanding, and looking at what academic research has found to be the case in its studies etc. All of this needs to be combined together if a true picture of what violence looks like for each individual is to be presented.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=207 Sun, 17 May 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=206 I’m a big believer in preemptive strikes and attacks; if violence is inevitable, it is better to be the one who acts first, rather than being the one who responds. In most altercations I’ve been in, witnessed, or been told about, I would guess that in 8 out of 10 cases, it was the person who attacked first who was successful. In this blog article, I want to talk about why preemptive striking is so effective, and why most people are reluctant to engage in it. An important thing to remember about the majority of violent situations, is that they are normally preceded by some form of verbal exchange (often referred to as an “interview”). This is something that should be introduced into all types of reality based self-defense training. Whilst it is important to train ambush and sneak attacks etc. such as rear strangle and other such attacks, we must acknowledge in the majority of cases, these either happen in the midst of a fight by a third party or when you are talking/dealing with a friend/accomplice in front of you – there are also other specific situations when surprise attacks occur, however most assaults are launched after an aggressive verbal barrage, or after a predatory individual has used some form of grooming process to get their victim to comply with their demands. To train realistically, and for reality, we need to practice dealing with individuals in front of us, who are either engaging us in conversation, or shouting, screaming at us etc.   We tend to think that other people are like us; that they can be reasoned with, don’t want to hurt others, and see violence as a last resort. Whilst I wish was the case, there are many people out there who don’t think like that, who believe they are entitled to act aggressively/violently, that violence is often a more effective way to get what they want than trying to reason with somebody etc. This is especially true of somebody who is highly emotional and adrenalized – reason left the building a long time ago. Accepting that the person who we are dealing with has decided that acting violently towards us is justified and acceptable, we must get ourselves to that same mental space immediately. Too many people hesitate to do this hoping that there is still a chance of de-escalating the situation, or that they’ve judged the person incorrectly, and they aren’t actually getting ready to assault them etc. Denial is a very strong emotional/mental state that prevents us from being decisive. Denial, tells us that we’re not experiencing pain “now”, and that we shouldn’t do anything to jeopardize that. If you believe you are dealing with someone who is intent on causing you harm, there really is only one direction, in which you should head: attack first. Many people worry about the legal consequences of being the one who throws the first strike. I’m not a lawyer or an attorney, however one thing I do know about the legalities of a violent confrontation is that the aggressor who is planning to attack you, isn’t thinking too much about the legal consequences of what they’re planning to do – because if they were they wouldn’t do it. To get caught up in all the reasons why you shouldn’t do something e.g. is it legally acceptable, morally acceptable is to fill your mind with peripheral doubts that will cripple you into a state where you are too scared and confused to do anything. One thing that all aggressors have is decisiveness, they are prepared and ready to act. If you are not, it is likely that you will be found wanting when the assault starts. Most legal systems allow you to make preemptive strikes, as long as you can justify why you felt it was necessary to do so; this comes down to your ability, or rather your lawyer/attorney’s ability to tell the story of what actually lead you to take the decision to strike/attack first. Understanding some of the warning signals, that people give off will not only help you tell that story but indicate when you should strike preemptively. There are many, many cues that indicate when somebody is about to attack, however many of them are so subtle that it is almost impossible to pick up on them e.g. when a person becomes adrenalized and ready for conflict, blood will be drawn away from the skin, and the internal organs, in order to oxygenate the larger muscles that will be used in fight/flight, this means that a person’s complexion will lighten. Recognizing this change is almost impossible, especially if you are in dimly lit place, such as a bar or club etc. The easiest way I have found to judge a person’s readiness to attack, is from their speech. There are three things that I have found people usually do in conversation before they attack. The first is going silent. If a person is screaming and shouting and then stops and goes quiet for a few seconds I would be looking to act in that silence. If they jumble up their words as they speak, I know it is time to either back completely away, or make a preemptive assault. The last of the three is something I refer to as repetitive looping. This is where an aggressor simply keeps repeating whatever injustice they believe they have experienced, increasing both the volume and the rate at which they are speaking. This is one of the reasons I ask questions when I am dealing with aggressive individuals as it gives me a chance to understand from the way(s) they respond whether they are getting ready to fight, which will prompt me to act preemptively (or disengage – fight or flight) We may have been conditioned through childhood to not be the kid who threw the first punch. However that was by our parents and teachers who were trying to teach us to resolve our petty disputes and squabbles with words, rather than by physical force. As adults we need to recognize that there are certain situation where the only resolution open to us is violence, and where words and reason aren’t appropriate. If violence is inevitable, we should be the ones striking first, rather than presenting our aggressor with the opportunity to make an assault.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=206 Sun, 10 May 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=205 In my last blog, I talked about how to survive when you were caught in a situation involving civil unrest e.g. protests, demonstrations, riots etc. This blog article will expand on some of the ideas that were introduced, as well as looking at such incidents from a different perspective, such as what to do if you are in a vehicle, or trapped in a building etc. Most people feel safe when they are in a car or similar vehicle, however if you are caught in a traffic pile up, during a protest or demonstration, your car may end up being more of a trap, than a protective coating/layer between you and those around you. An important thing to bear in mind is that because you are in your car, you are not part of the demonstration, which means by default you are not part of the group; and if you aren’t part of the group, you represent opposition to it, and its goals. It doesn’t matter whether you are a sympathizer or an activist, if you are not marching, demonstrating or protesting etc. you are adopting a position of opposition. At the lowest end of the spectrum, protestors may slap or hit your car, because of part of the group moving around you they are empowered to do so, and at the higher end they may decide to tip your car over in order to construct a barrier/obstacle between them, and the police/security forces. It is important to be able to judge, where on the spectrum, the protestors are. As annoying as it may be, to have members of a protest hit and slam your car, your bodywork will take it, and reacting to these low level acts of aggression, will mean that you draw the attention of the entire crowd/group towards you. If things have moved on and the crowd is acting as a group, defending/protecting its members it is probably time to leave the vehicle, as it will be used to protect/advance the group/crowd’s goal regardless of the state of the individuals in the car or van. If your car is not trapped by other vehicles and can move, in most scenarios you should attempt to do so – when stationary try to keep the rear tires of the car in front of you in sight, along with a bit of the road, this should allow you to move around this car if necessary. Try to find out, via social media etc. if there is a possible route that will allow you to exit the situation. If your car is surrounded by people who are starting to act violently towards you, start driving off very slowly, at first simply redirecting them out of the way, and then moving/pushing them out of the way. Your first instinct may be to drive/force your way through as quickly as possible, however this is likely to create casualties, possibly including peaceful protestors who were not trying to cause you harm, as well as uniting the crowd against you. It doesn’t take much to cause a crowd to swarm over a vehicle, and bring it to a stop. If you haven’t enough knowledge and “intelligence” to ensure your full escape/exit, it may be better to stay still with your car, or if things seem to be changing for the worse, exit your vehicle before it becomes a metal trap for you. It goes without saying that if you know that the city you are in is going through a period of civil unrest, driving with a full tank of gas, the central locking on, and having a can of OC/CS Spray at hand (if you need to leave your vehicle and disperse into the crowd, pepper spray is a good way to deal with any protestors who may try to harm you as you are exiting/debussing your vehicle, and you don’t need as much room to spray someone as you would to clear a path with a baton or stick), are all good safety precautions to take – in fact, they are worth following as a personal safety routine e.g. never drive your car, with less than half a tank of gas/petrol. Keep a phone charger in your car. If your phone dies, you will have lost a valuable source of information that would allow you to keep updated with what’s going on. It may be that rather than being in a car, you are in a building, either residential or business. As a general rule of thumb it is usually safer to stay inside, than try and escape through an angry mob and police lines. It is easy to panic and feel the need to simply get away, as fast and as far as you can, however the reality of navigating through an angry mob, and getting past a police line, is a fairly tough proposition, and not one to be taken lightly – if your building is being fire bombed and set alight, obviously evacuation is necessary, however it is often safer to sit tight, than exit into the fray. If you find yourself in a building in a location where a riot or protest is occurring, resist the temptation to look out of the windows. If protestors are smashing windows, and throwing bricks, you don’t want to put yourself in the line of fire. Also you don’t want to become a target of interest for protestor’s missiles. If you are in an office block, it may be safer to move from the ground or first floors, to those of the third or fourth – many looters are both lazy, and want to be in and out of a building in the shortest possible time grabbing whatever they can find/lay their hands on. Few will want to risk becoming “trapped” in the building by security forces, by venturing higher. It is always worth staying on a floor within reach of a fire truck ladder, in case your building gets set ablaze – it is also as a general safety precaution worth knowing where the fire exits are, in case you need to evacuate. If you are trapped in your home, and you are able to move to an upper floor, then defending a staircase from protestors who want to get up to you is an easier proposition than trying to block all ground floor doors, windows and other entry/access points. As a matter of course you should have a shotgun for home defense, and in this instance it can be used to prevent people coming up the stairs to you and your family – it should be loaded first with non-lethal, and then lethal ammunition, so that you can fire shots that will disrupt and deter an assailant before having to potentially kill them; you don’t want the area around your stair well to resemble a martyr’s graveyard unless absolutely necessary, as this could end up turning the attention of the protestors towards you. However If necessary it is worth showing protestors the line that they have crossed, when dealing with you – in the LA Riots of 1992, Korean shopkeepers effectively prevented looting of their premises, and the danger to their lives (after the police and security forces gave up protecting their locations), by demonstrating their willingness to use lethal force.       There comes a time when neither your car, and the building you are in offer you any protection, and may end up becoming a trap, and at this point you must be prepared to evacuate, however until this moment arises, it is usually better to stay put than attempt to navigate and deal with the crowd. At the end of the day, the situation determines the solution you should choose, and the information provided in this article is aimed at helping you decide upon a course of action rather than prescribing one.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=205 Sun, 03 May 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=204 When I present on Travel Security, one of the topics I cover, but often do not go into great detail on, is “Civil Unrest” e.g. what to do if you find yourself in a foreign country, when demonstrations, and riots occur. Generally what we advise is not going to those locations or areas where protests are taking place. However if civil unrest occurs in the city or town where you live – as is playing out in Baltimore at the moment – you may end up finding yourself in the middle of a flash mob. This blog article looks at some of the things you can do to help you come away unscathed. Recognize the warning signs. If you simply walk into a full scale riot, your awareness level is at zero e.g. did you not hear the noise? – The police sirens, the demonstrators chanting/shouting etc. Backing away, and retracing your route to wherever you’ve come from is your safest option - and doing so with a sense of urgency/immediacy will increase your chances of coming away from the situation unhurt, unscathed or inconvenienced (being picked up or contained in a location by the police or security services). If you are in a situation, where an angry mob seems to be developing leave – it’s as simple as that, and it matters little whether you agree with their cause or not; it is not a good idea from a personal safety perspective to be caught up in a “peaceful” protest, that turns into a riot; it is likely that you will either get hurt by a protestor, or by members of the security force employed to contain, manage and break up the riot. Seemingly peaceful protests can go bad, knowing what to look out for is key; if you want to disengage from the situation before it turns bad. Most protests, or demonstrations that end up as an angry destructive mob, are orchestrated by a few individuals or groups – sometimes the way the police act and behave may allow small groups to exploit these events and to turn the crowd into a mob. Be aware of situations where a police presence seems to increase – contrary to popular opinion security services don’t just congregate or build up a presence in an area for no reason; they may do so because they have received intelligence that something is about to kick off, or because the situation resembles previous ones where the end result has been a riot. If police/security forces numbers start to increase, your best bet is to leave the area. Recognize when “groups” are starting to form. Riots and Civil Unrests are rarely caused by random individuals coming together, but when pre-existing small groups draw individuals to them, and then unite. If a situation seems to be developing where groups are forming, think about leaving as quickly as possible. If people stop acting as individuals and start acting as members of a group, leave the situation straight away.    When you exit the crowd/protest go with the flow of traffic, making your way to the sides of the moving mob and look to peel off down a side street, in order to get away. If you move in the opposite direction to the crowd, it will take you longer to make any head way, and it may appear as if you are opposed to the rioters. As you do this stay away from windows and any glass store fronts, as you may end up getting hit by missiles and/or trampled by looters, look to head towards brick buildings that lead on to minor side streets, where you can peel off from the mob (having a good understanding of the area you are in will help you to do this). Rioters normally look to control major roads and intersections, so looking to exit down side streets and minor roads etc. is a good strategy to adopt. Your goal is to break away from the crowd, and not remain part of it. Understand that the security forces will want to contain the crowd, so the sooner you exit the better. Don’t make your exit look too obvious – running will immediately mark you out as somebody who has a reason to leave quickly and will mark you out to both protesters and security forces. Your first response to finding yourself in such a situation, may be to panic, and try and get yourself out of there as fast as possible however you should move as fast as you can, whilst maintaining the general pace/movement of the group. Sometimes moving slower, will allow people to move around you, and slow down your advance into an area where the security forces will be trying to funnel you – often protesters feel that they are in control of where they go, but more often than not it is the security forces, giving the crowd room to move, before gradually closing the group down and containing them, so moving away at the earliest opportunity is always your best tactic. If you are part of a group, stay together. Unless you have been involved (or found yourself) in a march, demonstration or protest, it is hard to explain how easy it is to get separated, or lose somebody in the crush of movement. Holding hands, and linking arms may seem over the top, however it is a simple measure that sees everyone stick together, and doesn’t put you in the unenviable position of having to re-enter the crowd to find somebody. Be aware what the civil unrest is about, rioters/protesters, and people in the crowd may ask you questions and if you can’t answer, and show knowledge about their cause, you will be looked on as somebody outside of the group, which is a dangerous position to occupy. If you find yourself in the middle of a group of protestors/rioters you need to blend in, and appear as if you are one of them. Not understanding “why” you are seemingly part of a group, is a good first step in isolating yourself, and appearing as someone who is opposed to their actions – you don’t want to be seen as someone protesting the protest. Applying or causing sympathy is often a good way to allow protestors who may have a better knowledge of the environment to assist you. Telling a “fellow” protestor that a relative has just died and you need to exit the demonstration (which you were 100% committed to), may cause them to offer help and explain the best and most sensible route to take – in light of the circumstances. Keep up to date with events on social media; protesters and those reporting on events often announce which roads have been closed, and where the flashpoints are that you want to avoid. This coupled with the use of google maps, can be used to find the safest route out – you may also be able to google the protest/unrest to find out why people are marching in the first place (if you were unaware).   Many security professionals advise carrying solutions, such as lemon juice, to soak garments in, so as to act as filters/protection against tear gas, and pepper spray that the security forces may use against rioters/protesters etc. as well as advising that you carry solutions and sprays to help you deal with the effects of these sprays and gases (and these are all things which work). To be honest, if you are thinking of carrying such items, then it is likely that you are looking at putting yourself in harm’s way by visiting the locations where such civil unrest is occurring. Don’t, avoidance is by far your best safety strategy; if you think you need to carry things to counter act security measures the security services may be implementing, then you are heading in the wrong direction, and should avoid those areas. This may be a hard one for people to accept, the police and security services don’t have the time or the resources to register you as an individual, even if it wasn’t your intention to become part of a protest or riot; you are in that location, at that particular time and will be treated accordingly, despite the events/situations that lead you to be there. Understand that if when you explain your situation, officers appear unreceptive, it is because they are dealing with a much larger problem i.e. containing the crowd. Be prepared for a possible long wait, as the crowd is first contained and then dispersed. If you do end up being picked up by the security forces, carrying ID will help expedite any interaction you have with the authorities, and will also look like you are not trying to hide or cover up your identity.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=204 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=203 People are often surprised to hear about violent assaults happening in “broad” daylight, and expect violent encounters to be restricted to out of the way/deserted places, late at night etc. There are several reasons why assaults happen in well-trafficked places, during daylight, and the purpose of this blog article is to examine some of them. I break violent encounters down in to two types: pre-meditated acts, where the assailant has planned to use aggression, the threat of violence or violence itself to accomplish a pre-defined goal e.g. a mugger, who has planned to approach you and stick a knife to your stomach, in order to get you to hand over your wallet, and spontaneous acts of violence, where an individual has become aggressive and potentially violent based on your actions and behaviors, whether real or perceived; you spill your drink, over somebody – or they think you spilt your drink over them – and they become aggressive and violent because of this. Criminals who engage in pre-meditated assaults, also will commit violent acts, in plain sight. Even though “natural surveillance” is a great deterrent, it is not an absolute one. A busy, fast moving road, may have plenty of “eyes” that can potentially see what is going on, at the sides of the road, and the sidewalks/pavement that runs alongside it, however many drivers may be totally focused on the traffic around them, and not notice what is happening in plain sight of them (it is often passengers that notice such events). Also in fast moving traffic, people don’t get the time to study and assess, what is actually going on e.g. a quick glance at a physical altercation, as a person drives by, might not present them with enough information, to identify what they saw as an act of violence – they may explain what they saw away, as some friends “mucking about”. Denial, is a state of mind that allows us to not have to face the realities of what we both see and may experience - At a corporate seminar I conducted a few years back, a woman told me of how she had been mugged by two men, as her next door neighbors, stood and watched through their living room window. When she later quizzed them as to why they didn’t call the police or intervene, they told her that they though the two men were friends of hers, and that they were all just joking around. Denial is a strong thing, and nobody wants to make a wrong call and embarrass themselves – criminals understand this, and know that bystanders rarely act and intervene, when they see a crime or assault being committed. The bystander effect, sometimes referred to as the “Genovese Syndrome”, after the murder of Kitty Genovese, in Queens 1964, is a well-documented and studied phenomena (ironically the actual incident involving Kitty Genovese is actually a poor example of said phenomena). The basic idea, behind the Genovese Syndrome, is that the more people there are who witness a crime/assault, the less likely someone will intervene and act. This is because everyone witnessing the event passes on the responsibility for intervening to the other individuals who have seen the incident. A busy road, with many individuals witnessing an assault, may mean that each person seeing the incidents believes that somebody else has reported it etc. Natural Surveillance, is most effective, as a deterrent towards criminal activity, if the criminal believes that those who see the crime/assault being committed will act in some way, either directly intervening, drawing attention to what is happening (either directly by shouting, or by informing security and law enforcement), or gathering evidence that could potentially be used against them e.g. cell phone footage. This is why when redesigning community housing projects to have better “natural surveillance”, part of the redesign, involves the creation of small communities who are likely to be active in maintain and promoting safety. Most violent criminals have a history of acting violently, and understand fully what they can and cannot get away with; they understand that most incidents they are involved in occur in under 5 seconds, and so a bystander’s time to act and respond in order to be effective is extremely limited. Natural Surveillance is generally far effective where a criminal has to spend a longer time committing a crime, such as breaking into a home, or carrying out surveillance, on a car in a parking lot, waiting for the owner to return, or if they are working a series of crimes in a location – a mugger hanging around a parking lot, looking for multiple victims etc. In spontaneous acts of violence, people become emotional and aggressive, because they don’t have any particular outcomes in mind, other than acting violently, that would satisfy them (part of the de-escalation and conflict resolution model, involves getting them to an emotional state, where they can consider alternative, non-physical, outcomes). When somebody is in, such an emotional state, seeing no other way to right the injustice(s) committed against them, such as having a drink spilt over them, they care little for what is going on around them; their whole being is committed to righting the wrong. It doesn’t matter who is around, the location, or what time of day it is, in their mind violence is necessary. In fact if other people witnessed the injustice, they might feel a greater need to exact retribution. If we fool ourselves into thinking that we will only be assaulted, late at night, in unpopulated areas, we are extremely mistaken, and have an unrealistic view of how violence is committed. Accepting the possibility that we might be assaulted on a sunny day, in plain sight, is something we have to acknowledge, and so not let our levels of awareness drop, when we are in such situations. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=203 Sun, 26 Apr 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=202 Tomorrow in Boston, the 119th Boston Marathon, takes place. Two years ago, the Finish Line was the target of a terrorist attack, which saw 3 people killed, and injured at least 264. With Dzhokhar Tsarnaev awaiting sentencing, having been found guilty on all charges – the Marathon Bombings are extremely fresh in everybody’s mind. It is worth remembering that it is almost impossible for an individual to predict violence which targets the group they are part of e.g. nobody who attended the Boston Marathon in 2013, could have predicted that an act of terrorism would take place. Violence and criminal acts which target people as individuals, however, are largely predictable. By not focusing on or looking out for specific crimes, but instead raising our general levels of awareness, we will be able to not only identify those individuals who target us for muggings and pickpocketing etc., but also potentially identify other actions and behaviors, which may represent harmful intent towards the group we are part of (we can then communicate this to the relevant authorities). To have an awareness surrounding our safety in crowds, we must have an understanding of the ways in which criminals conduct themselves and commit their crimes. In this blog, I want to look at the types of criminal activities that can occur when you are part of a crowd. One thing to understand about your personal level of situational awareness, when you are in a crowd, is that it will by default drop/be reduced. When we are alone, we are solely responsible for our own safety, and so maintain a higher level of vigilance than when we are in a crowd; as we transfer some of the responsibility for identifying danger to those around us. If you are going to the Boston Marathon, or similar event, as part of a group, assume the role of responsibility for the group’s safety, as this will naturally elevate your own levels of awareness. If you go on your own, then assume that you are the watchdog for the people around you. This is not to say you are personally responsible for everyone’s safety, but that you will stay vigilant on their behalf. Rather than try and identify “people” who may fit a profile that meets your ideas of what a criminal looks like, look for actions and behaviors that are out of place for an event like a Marathon. Take a glance around every now and again, to see who is more interested in members of the crowd, than in the Marathon itself. If somebody is there to watch the runners, their eyes should be – for the most part – looking straight ahead at those racing, not at people or their possessions. Identify those who are not acting similarly to other members of the crowd.         Many pickpockets will take advantage of the fact that the majority of the crowd will be stationary and looking straight ahead. They will also know that in a tight knit crowd, people will expect and accept some degree of jostling and being bumped into, etc. This allows pickpockets to mingle unobserved, and get easy access to any bag that someone is carrying behind them or to their side. A dipper/pickpocket, can easily move behind someone, put a coat over one arm, and use it to cover both the target’s bag, and their other arm, whilst they open it up, and feel inside for anything that might be of value. By carrying all valuables in your front pockets, and making sure any bag you have with you is to your front, you will reduce the risk of being targeted considerably (consider not taking a bag with you, as this will be one less thing for the security services to deal with, in terms of either checking it and/or taking note of what you do with it, etc. This will allow them to focus resources on other areas). Be aware of pairs and groups that stand, talking amongst themselves, behind the crowd. There is little reason for such groups to stand around in this fashion, for much more than a few seconds. Pickpockets and Muggers (as well as terrorists), often operate in groups, and will congregate to discuss potential targets/victims, and the best way of accessing them. Knowing that most people will be looking at the event rather than having a 360 degree view around them, they will often feel fairly confident that they are acting unobserved. Criminals are also aware that the transit networks will be full of individuals who are preoccupied with getting to and from the Marathon. It may seem improbable that you will be mugged in such public spaces, where there are many bystanders; however a skilled mugger will know how to use your body and theirs to obscure from those around you that they have a knife stuck to you; as they demand your wallet and/or other possessions. They also know, that even if someone does see what is happening, they are highly unlikely to get involved, or even highlight what is going on. Lastly (and this is not about identifying criminal activity but about being a good citizen), respect and obey any request made by a law enforcement official. This is not the day to be arguing or debating the rights and wrongs of what you are being asked to do. Identifying criminal activity at such a large event is a difficult task, and even if there is no “logical” reason as you can see it for being asked to move to another location, or having a bag or item of clothing checked, every moment you engage in debate, and don’t comply, is a security resource that you are using up, which could be allocated better elsewhere. It is easy to focus on worst case scenarios, such as another act of terrorism, however you are much more likely to be the victim of a lower level crime, such as being pickpocketed or mugged. By upping your general levels of awareness, rather than focusing on specific ones, you are much more likely to prevent yourself from becoming a victim of any crime you may face.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=202 Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=201 It’s a relatively long time since I’ve been involved in a violent confrontation, and I’m also not a great fan of martial arts instructors “war” stories, however if lessons can be learnt from mistakes, then I thinks there’s a benefit to telling them. My first caveat, is that when real-life violence does kick off, it’s a mess, and what I’m recalling, is my remembrance of the event, so things might have actually happened somewhat differently. So this happened, on one of the first nice days that we’ve had in Massachusetts. As luck would have it, my car had broken down on me, and wouldn’t start. I called AAA, and they couldn’t start it. Since it was a Sunday, and none of the garages I’ve used before were open, I decided to not have it towed, but leave it where it was, as it was perfectly safe, and about 500 yards from a Nissan dealership. I’d resolved to sort it out the next day. I mention this, because it put me on foot, and also meant I was mentally preoccupied, thinking about the car. I had decided to head to a Starbucks and do some work for a bit, so I grabbed my laptop case, and started to walk. As I was walking there, I noticed two guys sitting on a bench, but they were a long way off. Whilst they were still a good distance away, they got up, and started walking in my direction. Due to the distance between us, when this happened, it wasn’t particularly obvious whether they’d got up, in relation to my movement, or if they had moved because they needed to be somewhere else, or because they were just ready to start walking again. If I’d have been a bit more aware, I might have picked up on them talking, turning their heads towards me, turning back into talk, and then turning to look etc. before getting up and walking towards me. Having identified individuals in my environment, I should have taken a closer note at what they were interested in, and what they were looking at/observing. In hindsight, it’s obvious that they must have spent some time watching me, and discussing, however briefly, what they were going to do before moving towards me. A good lesson in always being aware, whatever other issues in life you have to deal with. The first movement I was aware of that caught my attention, was when the two of them started to separate, and spread out a little, whilst the one on the right started to move closer towards me, asking if I had the time (I was carrying my bag over my right shoulder). This is often referred to as “fanning out”, where multiple assailants, spread themselves across your path, and attempt to move to your sides. I was also suspicious of two people in this day and age not having a mobile phone between them, and needing someone to tell them the time. In retrospect this should have been the moment I tried to line them up properly, as there was a huge expanse of grass to my right which would have given me the room to do this, but my ego wasn’t letting me back away to do this, so I moved more to my right, and took a small step back, to try and create some distance, and also see who moved first to fill that space. As I did this I apologized, for not having the time – after all I’m British, and politeness is in my blood, and I do that as default. It was the one on my right who moved closer, the one on the left actually moved a bit further away, and to the side of me. Those two movements, snapped me out of any state of denial I was in, and I knew they either wanted something from me, or were just intent of giving me a beating etc. I’d decided then that my best chance was to act pre-emptively, and that I’d be best going for the guy on the right, as he seemed to be the main aggressor/instigator. I let him come closer, waiting for him to come into range (I’d had my hands up in my Interview Stance, from the moment the first question was asked), and was ready to throw the hardest rear punch I could, when at that moment the guy on my left said something to me. It was a real rookie mistake; as I turned to look at him, the guy on my right lunged in for the laptop case on my shoulder. The rest is pretty blurry, but I remember throwing in some form of Hammer-Fist with my left (which felt very clunky, demonstrating that I need to get more comfortable generating power with my left) and moving with the pull of the bag towards the person, unfortunately for me, my right arm was all tangled up in the bag and I couldn’t free it, but the person I was hitting was backing away, and covering – the bag had now dropped to the floor. I was aware that the second person was coming up from behind me, and turned. I made some form of blocking action, but it wasn’t fully formed, and I ended up getting hit hard on the side of my head – I have a mouse on my temple where he connected. As I was turning I managed to connect pretty solidly with my right, and I just remember pushing him backwards with one hand, and punching him several times, before he too backed off. As I turned to see what the other person was up to, he was bending down to pick up the bag. I should have left it, but instead I just charged into him (I may well have thrown a knee towards him, because although it’s not bruised it hurts like hell), and knocked him backwards – I then picked up my bag and ran, in the direction they’d just come from. This all probably lasted 5 seconds top. My biggest mistake from a confrontational perspective, was not lining them up from the start, and it was ego that prevented me from doing so – I should have just stepped on to the grass, and then moved to pre-emptively hit the nearest person to me. But I was reluctant to back away, which I would have had to do, to move them into line. As a consequence, I ended up getting stuck in the middle. I’m not aware of getting hit by the person who went to grab my bag; he was too intent on trying to pull it, and only let go, when I started hitting him (showing extreme aggression, will often take the fight out of a person). If I hadn’t been in the middle, I wouldn’t have ended up getting hit from the guy behind me, and he landed a really solid strike, which I’m still feeling the effects of now. However once he started to get punched, he backed away. Neither one of them wanted to actually fight, that much is pretty obvious, and both backed away as soon things didn’t go their way – in that respect I was extremely lucky, because if they had been committed to their cause, it would have most likely been a very different ending.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=201 Mon, 13 Apr 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=200 You can’t simply create reality in training; unless as a “surprise” element, you invited a street gang in to attack your students, without warning – and then you’d only be creating a certain type of reality, as this wouldn’t resemble every potential situation a person might face etc. To train for reality, you need to put several components together, sometimes training and developing them individually, and sometime blurring the lines between them, and combining them. A short (but not exhaustive list) is offered below: Techniques & Technical Development Skills & Attributes Physical Fitness & Aggression Training Threat Recognition & Decision Making Situational Training There is probably no more contentious area in the reality based self-defense world than the discussion over techniques i.e. what will or won’t work on the streets etc. and yet to my mind this is perhaps the least important of the five components I’ve listed. I have heard so many times people from one system or another make loud proclamations, about why one technique or another taught by another system/program will not work. What most of these individuals fail to realize, that it is the physical skills and athletic attributes that an individual has who practices this technique, which makes it work for them. Can a high kick work in a real-life confrontation? If you have the skills and attributes to make it work, of course. I personally don’t have those skills, and have better developed skills in other areas, so high kicks are definitely not my first option, but it is not for me to proclaim that these techniques don’t work. Certain weapon disarms, might at first glance, seem crazy and illogical to me, but then my initial position is could I do that, not could another person with the appropriate skill set and training, pull it off? Don’t get me wrong, I do believe there are techniques, which stand a better chance of working than others when operating under high stress and adrenaline, but what makes a technique really work, is the skills and attributes of the person performing it. I teach Krav Maga. Krav Maga techniques by and large try not to rely too much on the development of skills and attributes in order to get them to work i.e. they’re largely simple (but not simplistic), and rely on innate skills, such as the flinch reflex, grabbing/clasping arms and hand that grab the throat and neck etc. rather than skills which must be developed. As an entry point, and a quick grab at some “easy” solutions to dealing with attacks, this approach is fine, however to improve a person’s chances of getting these techniques to actually work in a real-life confrontation, a person’s skills must be developed. Blocking, circular strikes (such as swinging punches, wide arcing slashes etc.) using a flinch response is largely effective, but if an individual’s movement skills, control of range and reaction time can be developed, its likely success rate will improve dramatically. Many people judge their progression through a martial arts or self-defense system by what they know, rather than what they can do. To the annoyance of many reality based self-defense instructors, I will add that the best methods to develop skills and attributes, usually come from “sport” and “traditional” martial arts. I use a lot of range control drills that are taken from western boxing, and a lot of power development drills and methods from the traditional martial arts. This doesn’t mean I am teaching MMA (Mixed Martial Arts), but that I am using methods and approaches to develop certain skills that will enhance an individual’s ability to make their Krav Maga techniques more effective e.g. want to punch harder? Look at the training methods boxers and Karatekas use to develop this skill. Some of the skills than may need to be developed, will be determined by the realities that a person is likely to face. A large number of bar fights, start with a heavy push before a punch is thrown, putting techniques aside, is a person can’t regain balance, and stability after being pushed, it doesn’t matter how technically competent they are. Recovering from a push, when surprised, may be a particular and specific skill that somebody training for reality may have to develop. I combine physical fitness and aggression training together, despite them really being two separate sets of attributes, as they offer a good demonstration how different components can be combined. Giving someone a good physical workout, and taking them to fatigue, and then practicing a technique, develops several things. Firstly the person training is improving their fitness (having the gas in the tank, is required even if you have all the appropriate skills and techniques), which is extremely important when looking at the things you need to survive a real-life violent encounter, however they are also getting to train a technique when fatigued, which is also important. When the effects of adrenaline starts to wear off, a person will start to feel, tired, exhausted, weak and generally fatigued, however if they are in the middle of a fight, they can’t just give up. This is where sheer will power and an aggressive mindset, really come into their own. Developing a “Never Give Up” attitude is an extremely important attribute to have, especially when you consider that most fights end because one person, although physically capable of continuing, emotionally crumbles and gives up. Perhaps the most underestimated skills needed for real-life confrontations is threat recognition and decision making. When you train in a combat sport, the different number of threats you have to recognize is limited by the rules. Boxing is a good example of this, as there are a limited number of potential punches you can face – what makes boxing challenging is the high skill levels, behind those few techniques/threats, and the way that different punches are set up, however a boxer knows that they don’t have to worry about somebody being behind them with a knife etc. In a real life confrontation the potential number of threats is infinite, and so being able to quickly assess the dangers that a situation has, and act accordingly becomes a skill that needs to have more time devoted to it, than in martial arts and fighting systems, where the rules of engagement are stricter and more defined. Coupled in with threat recognition and decision making is situational training i.e. learning how to understand what is happening in a situation, what pre-violence indicators are present and different strategies and tactics for either avoiding violence, or improving your chances of dealing with it. This type of training includes, use of the environment, improvised weapons, the ability to identify entry, exit and hiding points etc. In some ways, this is the equivalent of ring-craft, in a combat sport except that the number of variables is much, much higher. Situational training, can be used to help develop threat recognition and decision making skills through the use of scenario-based training etc. At the end of the day, you can’t fully recreate reality, but you can safely train, the various dimensions of a real-life confrontation independently, and put together training drills and scenarios that combine them. Shock and surprise, and recovery from them, can be trained without somebody having to be punched in the face, when they get it wrong and fail to react/respond to an attack. Recovery from being punched in the face, can be trained in sparring, more safely, when a person is both prepared and expecting it i.e. the surprise element has been reduced etc. By splitting the various components of a real-life confrontation out, training them, and then combining different elements, it is possible to get to a point where reality is represented, as close as is possible, in your training. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=200 Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=199 Whether it’s sparring, rolling or fighting games, we all have our own personal favorites, whether it’s the techniques we use, or the game-plan we adopt. There are those people, who prefer to come crashing out of the gate at 100 mph, and those who’d rather sit back, observe, and work off the counter etc. Neither approach, is better than the other – they are just different. The problem is, that if we only ever practice the one approach, however well suited it is for us and how effective we are at making it work, we are limiting our own development, and progression. This is something that animals understand well. If you observe a litter of puppies wrestle and play, the alpha pup, doesn’t just assume the dominant role in a play fight, but will also act submissively, and allow the rest of the litter to dominate him/her. Dogs understand that even if they are the alpha, in their pack, they may at some point come across another dog, who is bigger, stronger and more aggressive than them, and it would be good to have had some practice and experience of how to act and behave, when this is the case. If they’d only ever practiced play fighting from the one perspective i.e. being the dominant dog, then they may find, that they are unprepared and inexperienced to deal with this “new” situation, where they are the weaker party. When pups play fight, their games, equip them for survival, and so they forget their place in the pecking order and “fight” from all roles/positions. This is a good example/training method for us to follow. There are times even an alpha dog knows that it has to employ a different approach to its normal, default one, and we should be able to do the same. However big or fast we are, there will be someone out there who is bigger and faster, and who can match and exceed our natural skills and attributes. Whilst it is good to play to your strengths, if somebody can nullify them because they are their strengths also, it may be wiser and more appropriate to adopt a different game-plan. If you’ve never done this in training before, you are going to find yourself on unfamiliar territory, and trying out ideas that you’ve never tested before – this is not a good survival strategy. If you’d adopted the “training” approach that young dogs and puppies take, you’d be better prepared to deal with the situation you now face. When you train you need to play different roles, and put yourself in positions, you wouldn’t normally allow yourself to be found in e.g. if you always avoid training at close range, and prefer to keep your opponent at distance, then sometimes you need to come in, and practice working from this range etc. This way of training means you need to put your ego aside, and recognize that not everything you are going to do will immediately work for you. However the long-term gains/effects are definitely worth it. As a Judoka, I had very strong pins and hold downs (Osae-Komi), and my default strategy when going to ground would be to work to get a scarf-hold, and pin my opponent down for 30 seconds. It was a very effective strategy for me. The problem was, that I was so focused on this approach, that I missed submission opportunities (Kansetsu/Shime-Waza), that would have finished the fight sooner (and required less exertion), and other pins/holds that I could have established much earlier on. For a period, in my training, I deliberately gave up on using Kesagatamae (Scarf Hold), and tried everything else instead. The result was that I started to see opportunities that before I’d have passed up on, in order to get to my favored hold. Until you start training from a different perspective, all that you will see, is what you’ve seen before. In retrospect I would have benefited from a more balanced approach, that saw me still practice what obviously worked for me, but then that is the ignorance/stupidity of youth. If you always practice your ground fighting from your back, start practicing a top game and vice versa. If in sparring you’re the guy who only ever goes forward, try putting some lateral movement in there. Broadening your approach, will get you ahead much quicker, and increase your skills and attributes, much more effectively that simply doggedly pushing your existing approach forward. This is not to say, you should give up on that which works, but rather expand your approach, so that you can become more versatile and adaptable, whilst developing a new appreciation and perspective on your existing game-plan and methodology. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=199 Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=198 One of the most often asked questions when I am teaching striking is, “what are you aiming for?” Sometimes the question is aimed at trying to understand if a specific point is being targeted, such as when punching to the face; should you look to hit the nose, the chin etc. and sometimes it is more general e.g. upper torso, lower torso etc. As a martial artist, I like to think and believe, that I don’t just make attacks, but rather I target specific areas etc. However as somebody who teaches reality based self-defense, I have to acknowledge that aiming for and striking specific targets, is largely impossible, unless they represent specific body parts. Krav Maga, often gets mistaken, for a system that is defined and based largely on groin strikes. From my own experience the groin can be a difficult target to get e.g. people tend to pull their hips back whenever a strike is made to this region, clothing such as pants with a low crotch can end up protecting the groin, and people rarely stand or move with their legs far enough apart for the target to be exposed etc. I remember the days when women’s self-defense, largely comprised of making knee strikes to the groin, ignoring the fact that the target was well protected and hard to find, and that such an attack couldn’t be made if the footwear (such as shoes with heels), and clothing (tight skirts and jeans) didn’t facilitate such movements. Overly focusing on a significant target can see our game-plan fall apart, when the situation doesn’t allow us access to it. In real life situations, large striking surfaces, and large target areas, make for the biggest bang for your buck attacks e.g. Roundhouse kicks which use the shin, against an assailant’s upper or lower legs will rarely miss. The same is true of forearm strikes to the neck. Neither of these strikes needs to be 100% accurate, and both will largely be effective regardless of the way an attacker moves or responds. As a general approach, determining the weapons you will use, will be more effective than deciding upon the targets you will attack – once the weapons have been chosen the targets naturally define themselves. In terms of delivering both powerful and concussive strikes, utilizing elbow, knee and head strikes, is likely to yield the greatest results; an elbow strike, a knee strike or a head-butt is likely to be a more effective fight finisher, than a punch, kick or eye strike etc. This means from a fight strategy point of view it is best to move to a range where such strikes can be thrown, than attempting to throw finely tuned/precision strikes against specific targets. Choosing weapons, and moving to the correct range to use them is your most effective strategy – an elbow or knee strike to either the head or body, will yield a result regardless of the target that was first selected. After choosing weapons, you must move to the range where they are best deployed – moving forward and at your assailant will mean that your weapons such as elbows and knees, will largely be decided for you. When I look back to real life encounters I’ve been in and experienced, I honestly can’t remember aiming for specific targets such as the temple, chin or nose, I just remember hitting the “oval” object which was located above the neck. Just as you are trained to aim for center of mass when shooting, when striking I always followed the same idea – if you aim for center, the chances of missing decrease. If you punch to the center of the face, chances are you won’t miss either. If you are training for reality, forget pressure points and target areas, and instead look to move to the range(s) where your tools/weapons, can employ the most damage regardless of the specific targets offered them. Basically this means getting in close when assaulted. Using strikes which are effective at multiple ranges, to get there, such as hammer-fists, and forearm strikes, which will allow you to connect with something, whether it is the fist or the forearm, as you close the distance. Once in range, your weapons will be decided for you, and as a consequence your targets. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=198 Sun, 29 Mar 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=197 I rarely write about violence within relationships, and relationship abuse, as it is an emotive subject for many people. However on Saturday in our free women’s class, we had a group of girls come from one of the High Schools, in Boston, and it reminded me of the fact that violence towards young women, by boyfriends and partners, is becoming looked on as something which is more and more normal and something which should be expected by young women involved in dating and/or intimate relationships. Violence and abuse within relationships can be categorized into 5 different types: Psychological Emotional Physical Sexual Financial Psychological abuse, involves threats, both implicit and explicit, which may be made in direct or indirect ways. Sometimes the threats will start off being delivered in a jokey and humorous fashion, as if they’re not real, with the abuser eventually making good on them. They may even make the accusation that their partner/girlfriend never takes what they say seriously. Psychological abuse is designed to make the person be afraid of their partner/boyfriend. Emotional abuse, plays on a person’s self-esteem and self-worth. Abusers will use lines like, “you’re so lucky to have me, nobody else would love somebody as fat or as ugly as you.” By chipping away at their partner’s self-esteem, their partner begins to feel that they are lucky to with the abuser, and that this may be the only time/way they will ever be in a relationship. Abusers may also use threats against themselves to emotionally victimize their partner/girlfriend e.g. “if you ever leave me, I’ll kill myself.” Statements like this make abused partners feel responsible for their abuser, and starts to get them to change their actions and behaviors so that they start doing everything in their partner’s best interest. Emotional abuse is designed to make the person being victimized feel that they are both lucky to be in a relationship with their abuser, and that they are solely responsible for the success and happiness of the relationship. Emotional abuse can also involve criticizing the way that a partner/girlfriend dresses e.g. “you look like a whore wearing that dress/skirt.” Many women who are being physically abused, often don’t recognize that this is what is happening to them. If a partner/boyfriend, blocks your way to keep you in a room, it’s a form of physical abuse – it may not leave a bruise or a scar, but it is physical abuse. Partners who constantly snatch things, knock/spill things over their partner, restrict and block their partners movements are engaging in physical abuse. Often this type of physical abuse, precedes (and can be used as a predictor) for the violent abuse that does leave the person whose been victimized, hurt and injured. Sexual abuse, can be as simple an act, as a partner refusing to recognize their partner’s sexual choices (and freedom), by not wearing a condom. It can also include pressurizing their partner, to engage in sexual acts they are uncomfortable with, and sending naked selfies etc. By the using emotional abuse that chips away at their partner’s self-esteem, it may be that their partner/girlfriend feels that going along with such demands is the only way that they will be able to stay in the relationship. An abuser may also make threats such as, “if you won’t do this for me, I’ll find someone who will.” Financial abuse, can be as basic as forcing the partner to pay for dates and meals, and borrowing money that the abuser will never give back. It can also involve criticizing the spending choices that an individual makes, such as the amount spend on a pair of shoes etc. The abusers goal is to initially control their partner’s spending choices, and eventually their money directly. Women, regardless of the commitment level they have to the relationship, should remain financially independent from their partner – this means if they want to leave a relationship they have the choice to do so. Many women in abusive relationships find it almost impossible to leave their partner because they have no means of financially supporting themselves – this is especially true if they have children that they would have to support. Few cases of abuse, start with the abuser revealing themselves for who they are. In fact most abusers start relationships appearing to be the perfect partner, being overly generous to the point of embarrassment and talking seriously and with conviction about their long term plans for the relationship. Gradually they will isolate their partner, from their friends and family, arguing that they and the relationship, should meet all of their partner’s needs. Through emotional abuse, they may force their partner to change the way they dress and look e.g. “you’re not wearing that, you look like a hooker.” They may start to put pressure on them to engage in sexual acts/practices, that they are not comfortable with – this is more about exerting control over their partner, than about sexual gratification. Abuse most often happens, step by step, with the victim treating each step as normal, as they edge ever closer to disaster. Individuals in abusive relationships, are continually revising their base-lines of what a normal relationship looks like, and this is why it is difficult for those in abusive relationships, to recognize that they are. Each step along the path to abuse, has caused them to revise what they thought was normal, and so they never really get an idea of how far from normal they’ve come. Abuse should be recognized and identified for what it is. It can be difficult for an individual to admit to themselves that they are in an abusive relationship, especially when they have feelings towards their partner, but recognizing abuse and calling it for what it is, at the earliest opportunity, is the most effective way to deal with it.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=197 Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=196 As optimistic individuals we often expect or believe our lives will follow the “happy path”, the route where everything goes to plan, and as expected. We also bring this optimism to our self-defense and martial arts training; that we will be successful in every conflict we have to engage in – after all we don’t train to fail. However reality, often doesn’t follow the happy path, exactly, if at all. If it did we wouldn’t need to think or care about self-defense in the first place. The reason we train and practice, is because we understand that despite all our personal safety and self-protection planning, bad things can still happen to us, and we need to be prepared to deal with them. We should also understand that, a fight/conflict, might not go in our favor, and that we might be shot, stabbed, concussed or severely injured as we fight to defend ourselves (and possibly others). If you haven’t given much thought to what happens after the fight, in the post-conflict phase of combat, you need to start seriously thinking about this e.g. how would you cope both physically and emotionally. I believe everybody, involved in reality based self-defense should know how to decock a firearm and make it safe. I think it is a personal choice, whether to learn how to use a firearm tactically for self-defense purposes however if you are practicing a system that teaches gun disarming, you should at least know how not to become a danger to those around you, after you have successfully disarmed, and dealt with an assailant. The gun can be used as a blunt, impact tool to deliver concussive force, and does not by default have to be used as a firearm, but making it safe after the incident, so that you or anybody else in your environment isn’t endangered by it should be a skill you possess. This should be done before you walk into a police station with it – it is rarely safe to stay at the scene of an assault and wait for a police officer to come to you and relieve you of the weapon. Perhaps one of the most important post-conflict skills you require is that of first-aid; without being over-dramatic this really could be the difference between life and death for you or someone else who was involved in the conflict. To believe that you will enter a fight where a weapon is involved, and not come out with some form of injury is naive at best. Your intention should not to get shot, stabbed or hit with a weapon, but it is not always possible to stay on the “happy path”, especially against an adrenalized and committed attacker, who wants to cause you serious harm. Being able to identify different injuries, their severity and their consequences, is a key survival and self-defense skill. Self-treating injuries without the correct information, can make them worse. This training should go beyond basic Red Cross type first aid and CPR, which you should have by default – imagine not taking the time to do a 4 hour CPR course and losing a friend or family member to a heart attack or similar, where you could have saved them. There are courses out there, which teach you how to deal with knife wounds and gun shots along with the other types of injuries you may experience, and if you are serious about your self-defense training, you should look into such courses and training (talk to your instructor about putting an event on at your school). You should also start to think about how you will respond emotionally after an assault – if you have taken a serious beating in the process, it may take you some time to get over this both psychologically and emotionally (especially if your assailant was somebody you knew and trusted, such as someone who was a friend or family member – this does happen). Trauma occurs, when we are placed in high stress/emotional situations which we feel we are unable to exert any control or influence over. As social creatures, this causes us to feel ashamed and embarrassed. This is especially true if we feel and believe we should have been able to control events, due to our training. In some instances we look for reasons as to why the incident occurred, and self-blame, so that we can lessen our feelings of shame by transferring them into guilt (guilt is a form of personal/private shame, which is more tolerable to us than public shame). If we can find a reason as to why something we did, caused us to be assaulted, we gain back some control of the incident. This process is prevalent in many sexual assaults, where the victim (both adult and child) blames themselves for what happened e.g. it was because of what they were wearing, the way their actions and behaviors gave off certain signals to their attackers/abusers etc. By doing this a victim may adopt a view that they somehow deserved the assault, and that it is somehow their destiny to be assaulted again. In doing this they can adopt a victim profile that attracts predatory individuals and so self-fulfill their prophecy. If you are somebody who only looks down the “happy path” and believes you will always be successful in a real-life conflict, you are in a state of denial, that may be as strong as that of someone who believes they’ll never be assaulted at all – and you both might get lucky. Far better to prepare yourself, and accept that you may have to deal, psychologically, emotionally and physically with a different post-conflict situation. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=196 Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=195 Sometimes we prevent ourselves from being effective because we are blinded by the obvious. Last week, I conducted a short seminar on offensive knife fighting, teaching a simple combative approach to using a knife – my belief is that if you are able to disarm someone of a weapon you should know how to use it/or at the least make it safe. If you decide, and are able, to take a knife away from someone, you should have some idea – even at just a basic level - about how to use it; a weapon in your hand which you are uncomfortable using, or don’t know how to use, is a hindrance rather than an enabler. A key decider in any conflict is decisiveness, and unfamiliarity with a technique or a weapon will cause hesitation rather than action. It is easy to look on a knife, as simply comprising of a blade which you can cut and stab with, and whilst this is the primary strength of such a weapon, it is not limited to these actions – there is also, the hilt and the handle which can be used to inflict, pain, damage and control upon an assailant; the butt of the handle can be used as a solid, impact weapon, to deliver concussive force to an attacker – however if we only see the knife as a cutting, slashing and stabbing tool, we become blinded by the obvious strengths of the weapon and miss out on the other ways it can be used. In reality based conflicts the knife is a close range tool/weapon, but in very close ranges the length of the blade may actually become a hindrance, and the weapon may be more effective if forceful strikes, with the base of the handle are made, which can set up cuts and stabs (the primary manner in which a knife should be used). Here is a clip from the seminar demonstrating its use in this way: click here to view It would be easy to dismiss the effectiveness of using the knife in such a manner, however if you study the evolution of trench knives, during the first world war, where combat in confined spaces was a prevalent feature, you will see that simple knives, started to have hand guards, and “knuckle dusters” fitted/added to them, so that the knife wasn’t restricted to being just a cutting tool, but modified and enhanced in order to be an effective impact weapon as well – it may be quicker to incapacitate an assailant with concussive force, than by stabbing/cutting them. Necessity is the mother of invention, and in close combat, a weapon needs to take on all the forms, in which it can to be used – a knife can’t just be an edged weapon, it needs to be an impact tool as well; the same goes for side-arms – there are situations where a pistol or revolver is better used as an impact weapon than a ballistic one. Unfortunately, if you only train your firearm in one dimension, you may fail to develop the creativity that is needed to employ it in others e.g. if you only practices shooting with your sidearm, that is the only way that you will use it (you will become like the early UFC fighters who never believed they’d be taken to ground, and so need to know how to fight in this different dimension). If you only ever use a knife as an edged weapon, or a gun as a firearm, you will not view what you have in your hand as a tool that can possibly be utilized in other more effective ways. It is sometimes worth looking back at history, and seeing the ways different fighting implements were developed and evolved, and seeing whether the situations they were employed in are relevant to the ones we are likely to face. If combatants in the trenches, realized the need to evolve their edged weapons to be able to be used as impact weapons as well, when engaging in close combat, we should maybe take a look at their experiences/situations and judge if they are relevant to us; the most effective way to use a knife in a trench probably corresponds very well to the way a knife should be used when you are in similar confined spaces, such as bathroom stalls or pushed up against a wall etc. Using the butt of the knife, starts to become effective, as does using a firearm as an impact weapon etc. Rather than limiting your thinking to the obvious, you should think and consider the complete properties of what you have in your hand, and not limit your thinking to its obvious use. Look back in history, and see how others, changed a weapons obvious and natural use, so as to make it effective in real-life situations e.g. the trench knife with its adapted guard so it could be used as an impact weapon, was born out of necessity. We can learn from such experiences. Adapt and open up your thinking beyond the contexts in which you train, so you can envisage multiple ways in which you can use the various techniques you train in.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=195 Sun, 08 Mar 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=194 Violence is a process; in most instances, an assailant has to, determine a motive, become emotionally ready to make an assault, and position themselves physically to do so. This process can off course take place in seconds, but it is a process nonetheless, and it takes place in time. How we experience and recognize this process also happens a long a timeline, and how quickly we recognize a potential threat depends upon our level(s) of situational awareness. The late Jeff Cooper, created a color code system of “Situational Awareness” that has long been taught to police officers, civilian and military personnel as well as civilians. His system identifies four main categories/levels of alertness (it is worth noting that this was originally developed in relation to firearms usage). The first code he identifies is code white, where an individual is completely switched off and unaware – most times we are naturally in code white is when we are either asleep, or so engrossed in a particular activity, that we have switched off almost all of our senses, so that any change in our environment will go undetected e.g. if you walk with headphones on, or talking on your mobile phone, your focus will be switched from what is going on in your surroundings, to what you are listening to, or whom you are in conversation with. In Code Yellow, you are not anticipating a threat, but aware that it is possible for one to present itself, regardless of the environment you are in – even in the relative safety of your own home you should be in code Yellow e.g. you are able to pick up on any strange noises that might occur. In code Orange you have identified a potential threat, not necessarily a real one, but something that could possibly signify harmful intent towards you – something worse investigating. In Code Red, you know the threat is real and has to be dealt with.   Firstly, it is worth noting, that most of us are not police officers or security personnel, and so are by default in different situations to these individuals and engage with our environment differently e.g. we are not actively looking out for criminal behavior etc. but simply going about our daily business. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a level of awareness about what is going on in our environment but that is more on the subconscious level, than on the conscious – that is we should be aware enough to identify other people’s emotional shifts and movements, but this comes more from our fear system, identifying these threats and dangers for us, and then alerting us by means of adrenalizing us, than from us actively enquiring about them, and thus identifying them. As civilians, we naturally slip into Code White, from time to time e.g. if you are working on something as part of your job, which requires your full concentration, you will be default slip into a code white state – however your workplace is probably generally a safe place, and there is little risk when this happens. When you leave work however it would be advisable, to free up some of your mental bandwidth, so that you can properly interact with your environment i.e. move to code Yellow. Maybe as you pass somebody, they start to follow you, and your fear system identifies the person’s movement synchronizing to yours, as being a potential threat. To alert you to the possible danger, it adrenalizes you, shifting your emotional state. Before this you were in one what we refer to on the “Timeline of Violence” as being in a Non-Conflict state (there was nothing in your landscape that indicated a threat or danger), however you have moved along the timeline, into the Conflict-Aware stage; you have also shifted from Code Yellow to Code Orange – there is something worth you actively investigating i.e. what are the intentions of the person behind you? In this phase and at this stage you don’t know if the person’s movement directly relates to you; it could be simply coincidence that they choose to start walking as you passed them. As you make your dynamic risk assessment, you should determine whether their behaviors and actions represent a high risk, or an unknown risk (as you are in Code Orange, it would be wrong to assume their actions as being “low” risk – that will only serve for you to lower your guard at a time when you should be actively determining what their intentions are). You may decide to alter your direction, crossing the road, and re-crossing it, or possibly taking a detour, such as turning right on to a street, turning left, and then turning right again to bring you back out on to your original street (a detour nobody would make unless they were following you). As you do this the person behind you aggressively shouts after you, “Stop! I need to talk to you!” at this point their movement and their behavior, indicates that they have harmful intent towards you, and you enter the Pre-Conflict phase. The Pre-Conflict Phase differs from the Conflict Aware Phase, in that you now know the threat/danger you were aware of is definitely directed at you. You have also moved from Code Orange to Code Red – your mental shift should be that the person is not a potential threat, but a potential target. It maybe that you are able to de-escalate or disengage from the situation, without physical action, however you are now actively prepared, and planning to move to the Conflict phase on the Timeline.    Jeff Cooper’s color code system is great way to understand how we mentally move gears both up and down (we should know when not to be in heightened emotional states, as well as when we should), depending on the environments we are in, and the behaviors and actions of those within them. When we place them on the Timeline of Violence, they tell us how we should be thinking and what we should be doing in terms of threat identification and decision making. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=194 Sun, 01 Mar 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=193 A gazelle can graze within 10 to 20 yards of a sleeping/resting lion quite safely. If there is good grass to graze on, it will move to that patch, despite being in such close proximity to its number one predator. It is empowered to do so, because it understands the reality of the potential threats and dangers it faces, and what each one actually looks like; a sleeping/resting lion is not a danger. When we think about situational awareness, we immediately think of our ability to identify those individuals in our environment who have harmful intent towards us, and forget that good situational awareness will allow us to avoid becoming adrenalized and fearful, at individuals, actions and behaviors which pose no danger to us; like the gazelle with the sleeping lion i.e. it can graze in a perfectly relaxed state. When are fear system kicks in, and we become adrenalized, there is a cost; adrenaline raises both our heart rate, and our blood pressure. Our fear system also triggers a release of cortisol, which affects our immune system, and alters our digestive processes. If we are constantly finding ourselves reacting to actions and behaviors, which are by their very nature non-harmful, but that we interpret as signaling danger, we are not only going to find ourselves in a constant state of anxiety (which is not good for our mental health), we are also going to experience long-term health risks, such as digestive problems, heart issues, weight gain etc. Understanding what isn’t a threat, is as important as recognizing what is. Oftentimes, people don’t want to consider personal safety and security, as they see it as adding restrictions to their lives; that they can’t do certain things they enjoy, because there is a risk of danger. Sometimes they will even disregard their own personal safety completely, and make the case to themselves (and possibly others), that it is the assailant who is to blame for an assault, so they shouldn’t have to think about their safety – why should they alter the way they live their life, just because someone else isn’t able to control their violent and/or sexual urges? That isn’t fair. But having an understanding of what is safe and not safe, and a realistic view of what violence is and when and where it occurs etc. is liberating. If you were suddenly dropped in the Serengeti, next to the gazelle, you would have every right to be terrified; you are in an environment you don’t understand – and your first thoughts would probably be concerning your personal safety, which would be understandable. You don’t understand lions, like the gazelle does. You don’t really know and/or understand the difference between a lion that is about to hunt, and one that is resting etc. You probably wouldn’t be able to give much mental bandwidth, to appreciating the scenery, and the diverse display of flora and fauna because you’d basically be scared out of your wits, with every movement, and noise causing you to jump and flinch etc. However if you spent a few years, researching the behaviors of the different animals you might encounter, and watching them with someone who had experience of living and interacting in such an environment, you’d be a lot less jumpy, and you’d be able to ignore and discount certain actions and behaviors of the different animals you’d encounter, and make responses which would keep you safe etc. Your experience would be a positive and benefical on, rather than a restrictive and debilitating one. The problem is, most of us don’t really try to understand the environment we live in, because by and large it is a safe one – we are not as likely to be killed as the gazelle is – and so we don’t need to be as aware of our surroundings, as an animal living in such close proximity to its predators. Unfortunately there are human predators, who live and operate alongside us, and want to cause us harm, and those who we assume to be predators due to media depictions and our overactive imaginations etc. By gaining a proper understanding of what danger looks like, we can truly enjoy life to its full, when danger isn’t present and disengage ourselves from it when it is, just like the gazelle.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=193 Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=192 It still amazes me that the media’s representation of what women’s self-defense is, hasn’t moved on much since the late 1980’s,and early 1990’s, where simple solutions such as kneeing an attacker in the groin, and shouting as loud as you can are the norm; the belief that it is possible to learn a few tricks in order to “feel” safer, and be more confident when walking about – whilst ignoring the fact that women are more likely to be raped, and sexually assaulted in their own homes (or those of others) by someone they know. The media, and many martial arts schools, persist with the idea that the point of women’s self-defense training, is to make those who attend courses and classes, “feel” more safe and confident, rather than actually “be” safer and more prepared to deal with violence. I completely believe in the idea of aggression training, and assertiveness, and the teaching of simple techniques, however the training methods that are used, rarely reflect reality e.g. attackers and assailants are presented, coming at their target from distance – either directly from the front or directly behind, rarely if ever are drills and scenarios presented, where the attacker is sitting next to their victim on a couch or bed; and where time and distance are completely denied. Attacks on the ground, are practiced, and taught, as if the victim is on a hard surface, and has all the room in the world to move; this really doesn’t replicate real world situations, where a sexual assailant may make their assault, on the back seat of a car, or in a room crowded with furniture. There is also a naïve belief that women’s self-defense can be taught in a matter of a few hours – which persists not just in the eyes of the media, who often want a self-defense instructor to come on their show, and show a few moves so women now “know”, what to do when attacked (and inevitably will “feel” safer), but also in the eyes of the public; every year a few weeks before college, I have many requests from parents for private lessons for their daughters, who they want to be taught how to handle and survive a violent assault – I’m betting that few tennis coaches get called up, and asked to train someone to play competitive tennis at the highest level, in just a few hours, yet the myth persists that a few tricks, and a couple of techniques will suffice. The goal with women’s self-defense, seems to be to make everybody “feel” safer, and present a simple picture of violence, that in no way mirrors reality. Real life violence is scary, and sexual assaults are life-changing experiences, that some people never get over, and yet the martial arts and self-defense industry, aided by the media, perpetuates the myths, that attackers are always strangers, that they come at you from distance, when the truth is that sexual predators are skilled social players, who are able to create awkward situations, convince us that they are trustworthy, and even invest in them as people – before they then make their assault, with their victims only actually realizing that they are being attacked (having first gone into denial – why would my boyfriend’s best friend be doing this to me?) at some point during the assault. But this is not a comfortable story to tell, and as the media keeps presenting to us, the goal of women’s self-defense is not to make women be safer, it’s to make them feel safer. Personally, I feel this is a patronizing and condescending view, as it relegates women’s self-defense to being something that is a “nice to have”, rather than a necessary and essential life skill. Women deserve to be told the realities that they face, and not have the media present a skewed or false picture. Women’s self-defense should not be relegated, to the teaching of a few techniques, backed up with aggression and assertiveness training, despite this being an important component that should be included in any training program. Rather accurate, and realistic depictions of assaults on women need to be explained and trained in the contexts where they occur, with attacker’s being friends, acquaintances, work colleagues and the like etc. with the methods and processes they employ described and explained. Learning to predict, identify and avoid violence, are perhaps the most important self-defense skills that women can learn, as this will prevent the majority of assaults from occurring, yet the media shies away from presenting these skills, or when it does reducing them to the top 10 safety tips for women etc. Tips that any sexual predator will find a way to address, and find a way round. The media (and many martial arts/self-defense schools) needs to take the time in its reporting, and stop reducing women’s self-defense to being little more than a confidence booster, and start to describe and explain what real-world violence actually looks like – and not what is just easy to teach and explain. Techniques and aggression training, all have their part, but accurate and realistic scenarios need to be worked through, rather than ones which just suit the instructor’s training methods; this includes accurately reflecting both the physical environments and social settings that women are likely to be assaulted in. Feeling safe, is not the same as being safe, and the media would be well to remember this when covering the subject of women’s self-defense. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=192 Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=191 Have you ever been involved in a conversation or interaction, when you knew you were being conned, and yet still continued to listen, and remain involved, rather than walking away? You’re not alone; and the longer you stay involved with whoever it is you are dealing with, the more likely you are to comply with the con. When we invest something, whether it is simply time, we are often unable to admit to ourselves, that we must sometimes walk away, receiving no return on our investment – if we listen to a long winded story by some stranger, about how they need 10 dollars to buy a train ticket in order to see a sickly relative, it may be hard for us to walk away, without first handing over the money. The fact that we’ve stood there and listened, investing in the story, can make it hard for us to walk away, without concluding the interaction by handing over the money (knowing that it won’t be spent on a train ticket). We may convince ourselves that there is a possibility that the story is true, and if it is we’ve done the right thing (because human beings are inherently optimistic creatures), but at the end of the day, deep down, we know we were conned, and in fact knew it at the time. When the cost of the con is only a few dollars, the consequences of complying are small, however if it is someone trying to convince us to let them into our home, or look after our children, the eventual price to pay, may be much greater. One of the reasons we keep investing in a story or con, is because we don’t want to admit to ourselves and the con-artist and predator, that we didn’t spot what was happening to us sooner; pride and embarrassment, hold us back from acknowledging that we didn’t spot what was happening to us earlier. Basically we feel ashamed at not detecting that we were being played sooner, and are not sure how to, extricate ourselves from this socially awkward situation, without admitting that the person we were dealing with had fooled us – even if it was only up to a point. Human beings avoid shame at all costs; shame is a form of public guilt. Many people will continue to play out the con, because they don’t want to have to admit to others, even if it is the person perpetrating the con, that they’ve been conned – better to end it with that person, the only other one who knew what was happening, walking away, without anything being mentioned. One of the other reasons we may avoid calling someone on a con, is that we avoid confrontations at all cost, preferring to acquiesce to demands that are not in our best interest, rather than confront somebody on something, and create a socially awkward situation, that we’re unable to handle. If we’ve invested some time – and possibly money – in to the con, our natural optimism, may convince us that it may not be worth confronting the person, as if their intentions are good, then we’ve soured the process. I once invested, and kept investing in a business venture, without questioning the person who I was investing into, because the eventual outcome, which seemed attainable at the outcome, still had a chance of coming true (and I didn\'t want to lose what I\'d already invested); my initial investments, my optimism, and my unwillingness to confront (as it would have soured the relationship), prevented me from acknowledging what was happening – fortunately all I lost in the deal was money, which over time can be regained/replaced. However if somebody is playing the con for you as an individual the consequences can be much more dire. Certain predators, will play a long game with you. A supposed friend, who is a sexual assailant, may get you to invest in the friendship, so that you put aside your doubts around an evening out, a trip/day away etc. You don’t want to express your doubts, because you have invested in that friendship – and hopefully what you fear won’t happen. If you are in an abusive relationship, whether it’s psychological, emotional, sexual or physical abuse etc. it may be hard to walk away from something you have invested so heavily in, even if you know the eventual outcome is not a good one – and with an optimistic outlook you can convince yourself that this is not the case. If you believe you are being played, walk away at the moment you recognize it – nobody recognizes the con right at the start, and there is no reason to feel embarrassed at failing to do so. The longer you stay engaged the harder it is to walk away, even if all you have done is to invest time.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=191 Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=190 I’ve written about de-escalation before however some good questions arose, when we worked through various scenarios, in our women’s self-defense/self-protection class today. One of the things I like to get people to first address in any scenario we place them in, is whether they are dealing with a pre-meditated situation or a spontaneous one – pre-meditated situations involve predatory individuals who have planned and orchestrated their assaults (such as muggers, rapists etc.) whereas spontaneous ones occur, when an individual has become aggressive and angry due to your behaviors and actions (spilling a drink over them, taking a parking spot etc.) whether real or perceived. When setting up scenarios it is important to distinguish between the two as predatory individuals almost always set up their assault through dialogue, and the creation of socially awkward situations, which places them in close proximity to us, where it is almost impossible to back away and create space, before they make their assault e.g. most sexual assaults on women are committed not by strangers, but by friends and acquaintances who have already gained a certain level of trust and so are able to make their assaults, in situations where they are already standing or sitting close to their victim – standard assertiveness training simply doesn’t cut it in such situations e.g. it is hard to tell somebody to get back etc. when they have created a situation where they are sitting next to you etc. It is really only spontaneous situations, where the aggressor has no definite agenda – such as mugging or raping you – where de-escalation is appropriate. One of the things we talked about concerning de-escalation, was around apologizing for an action or behavior, and whether this would be taken as a weakness (encouraging further aggression and violence) or not. There are a few cultural aspects to this. In the UK, where I come from, apologizing and saying sorry is a default response to almost every action and behavior you make, whether it causes someone harm, inconvenience or not etc. In the U.S. I have found, on the East Coast for certain, that nobody expects you to apologize for something you have done and expect you to respond to them aggressively, and as a result don’t here it when you do; because it’s so unexpected it’s not processed. This is of course a generalization, however it raises an important cultural point; that if people are used to disputes where people rarely apologize but instead argue their case, they may not pick up on an apology when it is made, or instead interpret it in an aggressive way. If culturally, it is expected that an apology is made, then not making one will be seen as an aggressive statement. There are also many different ways to say sorry and apologize. You can do it positively, subserviently and aggressively etc. Once in London when I was on the tube, a woman knocked her bag into me, when I had a dislocated shoulder – when she did it I winced/grimaced, and noticing the look on my face which she interpreted as being confrontational, rather than as somebody in pain, started to “posture” back to me, apologizing in an aggressive manner, and justifying/arguing why it was my fault that she knocked her back into me. Such an apology really doesn’t mean much, and against a highly adrenalized and emotional individual would only escalate the situation. I have also seen individuals apologize in such a subservient and scared fashion that they have encouraged their aggressor to continue their verbal onslaught as they realized that the person they were dealing with was so scared of confrontation, that they’d never be challenged. There’s also a third/middle way, where you apologize, in a confident manner, accept responsibility for your actions and help your aggressor find non-violent solutions to the situation.   Whilst an apology may be necessary, it will achieve little, unless it is accompanied by some dialogue that allows the aggressor to consider non-violent solutions to the situation. If this isn’t feasible, then this is where the assertive posture and dialogue starts to come in, and not before e.g. shouting at a person who you have just spilt a drink over, to get back, is really adding insult to injury – if they aren’t able to formulate a non-physical solution, with your aid, than such an assertive response may then be applicable. Saying sorry, is rarely enough, as an injured party is looking to achieve some sort of solution, rather than just having you acknowledge their situation. They are looking for an outcome not merely acknowledgment, or trying to ignore them – aggressive people don’t simply go away, they need to be presented with an alternative to violence rather than being ignored. There are the times to say sorry and apologize, there are the times when it is more productive to skip this and move on to other ways of de-escalating and diffusing the situation, but it is certainly true that saying sorry isn’t enough. A predatory individual doesn’t care about your response unless it is to acquiesce to their demands, and a person who has become aggressive due to your actions whether real or perceived is unlikely to be looking for non-confrontational signals, which means apologizing will rarely increase your chances of being assaulted in spontaneous instances of aggression and violence.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=190 Sun, 01 Feb 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=189 This week, I had the pleasure of training a group of UK Journalists who had come over to Boston in order to promote the release of the film, “The Equalizer” – for those who don’t know, or haven’t seen the movie, its set in Boston. As part of their trip, which involved going to various set locations etc. we provided them with some Krav Maga training, demonstrating how real-life violence differs from cinematic violence, as well as some of the similarities. In this blog article I will lay out some of the points we discussed and covered in these sessions. Firstly the point of a movie is to entertain, and when looking at any fight scene, this has to be remembered above all else. In an action movie, such as the Equalizer, the fight scenes will be a relatively large part of the film, meaning that the fights will have to last for several minutes, rather than seconds. In real-life confrontations, fights can typically be counted in seconds rather than minutes – something which also makes real-life violence very different to combat sports, such as MMA, where for entertainment purposes, fighters are matched by weight etc. and rules set to allow the possibility of the fight continuing for a decent length of time. Movies and Combat Sports are forms of entertainment and if the fights only lasted a few seconds, like they tend to in reality, nobody would be interested in watching them for very long. When we consider that the purpose of a film, is to entertain, we must accept that real-life may have to be adapted to fit the camera work. A good example of this are shots where a person is standing holding their gun close to their face – this type of shot was first done in the 1930’s as a way of getting the actor’s face and the fact that they had a weapon in a close-up shot. Even an untrained individual wouldn’t hold a gun like this, however it works well cinematically. This often means that in movies, techniques such as disarms are miniaturized, with a lot of the real-life larger movements that are necessary to make a technique work, so that everything remains in the one frame. What this can result in, is that real-life effective techniques make their way on to set, but are then altered, by removing their larger movements so that the camera doesn’t have to keep moving, to keep up with what is going on. In a fight scene, you want to see techniques; this means adequate space and distance must be kept between those fighting. I can’t think of an action movie, where I’ve seen two individuals end up crashing into each other, wrapped in a clinch, where their hands can’t be seen. In a choreographed fight scene, the fight needs to be kept “clean” to a certain extent, where punches and kicks can be seen to be thrown etc. I remember talking to a Cable TV Sports Director, who had come to cover the UK Judo Nationals, for his channel. They filmed for two days of the tournament, and at the end I asked him if he had enough footage to do an hour show or something similar. He told me he had at max 15 minutes worth of footage, maybe less; all they’d been trying to capture, were the big spectacular throws, none of the smaller trips and sweeps etc. If it wasn’t a clean throw, they weren’t interested – they were in the business of entertainment, they didn’t want to show the scrappy, unclear moments, which are a large part of a Judo match, and it is the same with the movies. The actual scuffles, and clinches of real-life fights don’t have a place in action films, they’re just too messy, and unclear for an audience to make sense of. There are areas of the movies that we could learn from as practitioners of reality based self-defense systems. Two areas in which we would do well to replicate the movies in, is the use of the environment and improvised weapons. In many action movies, it is not uncommon to see people being thrown into walls, having their heads hit off tables etc. For those of us who don’t do some form of scenario based training, and limit ourselves to the mats, we may become blind to the opportunities that the environment allows. Your fist is a much weaker striking surface to a wall, or the hood of your car, and it makes more sense to use these to cause impact if they are available in your environment. If you have to fight, you should look to arm yourself; lose any idea of a noble and equal fight where you and another adversary fight it out on even terms – the movies have it right in this regard, your attacker will always have the advantage, and the odds will be against you. Arming yourself should be one of your goals, whether it is before or during the fight. Understanding how to improvise weapons is a real-life combat skill you should learn to acquire. Enjoy an action movie for what it is, and don’t get caught up questioning techniques etc. They are there to entertain – and much of what you will see, comes from the real-world, it’s just been adapted and modified so it is clear and understandable within the frame of a shot. At the same time take away some of the ideas, such as use of the environment, improvised weapons and the use of dialogue - don’t copy movie lines and apply them to real-life scenarios, but understand that most physical confrontations are preceded by some form of interview or verbal altercation. Every experience can be an education for us, if we accept it for what it is.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=189 Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=188 Criminals choose their particular crimes for a variety of reasons e.g. a mugger needs quick cash and isn’t afraid of confrontation, the pickpocket also needs quick cash but wants to avoid any confrontation, shoplifters usually steal to order and have the promise of cash and believe there is less of a chance of getting caught or being confronted that pick pocketing or mugging etc. Mugging, pick-pocketing and shop lifting are generally low-level crimes committed by people looking to make quick but relatively small sums of money, that probably goes towards supporting a drug habit. Burglars are regarded somewhat higher on the criminal pecking order, and will look to gain more financially than the previously listed predators, however they will have to know somebody who can fence the goods for them, be prepared to haggle over the price they receive for their stolen goods and possibly wait for a time after the burglary to receive cash for their products – this might mean that they need to be able to store them for a period of time e.g. till they can set up the meeting with their fence and/or ensure they get the right price for the items that have been stolen. This tells you something about the character of the average burglar e.g. they are organized, tapped into the criminal network, are generally non-confrontational, and are able to delay gratification (unlike a mugger, committing street robberies to support a drug habit, who needs money immediately). Most burglars select their targets on a more casual basis than other predators, in that rather than actively looking to select homes, they tend to notice things that draw their attention, as they go about their day-to-day business. A burglar will be very well aware, of your movements, even when you are not. They will notice things such as the times of day, when your driveway is free of any cars – a good indication that nobody is home; occupancy being the most common deterrent for burglars, with dogs coming in as a close second – even if you don’t have a dog, putting a water bowl out on your front porch may act as an adequate deterrent. Most burglaries happen during the day, when the homeowners are out at work, creating the appearance of occupancy is a good way to get a burglar to move on to the next property on their list (most burglars will line up 3 or 4 different houses, and move on from their first choice if the conditions don’t look favorable). Simple things which give an appearance of occupancy can be TV’s and radios playing in different rooms of the house – if you come home late (a fact known by the absence of a car on your driveway), using timers to switch on lights can give the illusion of somebody being home. Every window and door is a potential entry point for a criminal, and if those entry points are obscured by hedging and or fencing, so that they are not in anybody’s potential sight lines then a burglar will be able to gain access through them unseen – a car on your driveway, may also prevent neighbors and passers-by from observing somebody trying to break into your home. If you can try and get all the access points to your home visible to others then you will go a long way to avoiding being targeted. Be aware that access points that don’t lead directly into your house, such as basement and garage doors, are also access points – if somebody can get into your basement then they will be unobserved as they attempt to get into your actual house (this might be made easier if you don’t look the doors adjoining your basement and/or garage etc.) Do not think that burglars are simply attracted to well-kept and well maintained properties, they will also target properties that look run down, and are shabby, with peeling paintwork, and overgrown and cluttered yards – one reason for this is that they may assume that somebody who has let their house get into such a state has little sense of self-worth and respect, and will therefore be an easier person to deal with if they disturb them as they go about their business. Another thing to be aware of, is that if you are burgled you may likely be burgled again, several weeks later. A burglar will know that you will replace the goods they stole – with similar or better – and will know roughly how long the insurance company will take to pay out. Many people will not improve their security in the interim and find themselves burgled again. If your house has been targeted once, assume it will be again, and do something to improve its security weaknesses. Your house doesn’t have to be a fortress it just needs to be a harder target than next door.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=188 Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=187 I was asked a question at a book signing last night, “Could anybody in the Charlie Hebdo Offices have done anything against the terrorists, who went on a rampage shooting?” For those who are unaware, Islamic Extremists, murdered 12 workers at the satirical publications office in Paris, in “revenge” for publishing unflattering depictions of the prophet Muhammad. Without turning this blog into an article on terrorism and Islamic extremism, I would urge a note of caution to those people who suggest that if the news agencies and magazines etc. would stop publishing articles that extremists find offensive, such attacks would stop; ISIL/ISIS in the middle east, has been killing innocents who have done nothing overtly offensive towards them, other than existing e.g. they tried to wipe out the Yazidi community, simply because they were offensive to their world view, rather than because of anything they had actually done. You don’t have to do anything to enrage Islamic Extremists, and put yourself at risk, you just have to be a member of a group whose existence they deem as unacceptable i.e. non Islamic Extremists. Neville Chamberlain, declared that he had secured “peace in our time”, when he negotiated and gave in to Hitler’s demands, yet he was dealing with an individual who had a particular world view that he was working to, and such acquiescence was seen as capitulation and weakness – and at the end of the day irrelevant to the goals that Hitler was working to. Not publishing cartoons and articles that extremists will take offense at, will not stop them from being extremists, or from targeting other groups of innocents whose existence they take offense at. The first thing to note about acts of terrorism, is that they are almost impossible to exactly predict. A worker going into the Charlie Hebdo offices that day, had no ability to predict that, a terrorist attack would occur that day, just as anyone going to work in the twin towers on 9/11, was able to predict that two planes would crash into their workplace. Violence that is directed towards groups, rather than individuals, is largely unpredictable – the only people who might have any knowledge concerning the timing of such an attack are the security forces, and in most cases they have a rough idea of the time period rather than any exact information. In November 2011 the offices at Charlie Hebdo were firebombed, the day after it named the Prophet Muhammad its editor-in-chief, in a satirical gesture. The attack was fairly unsophisticated – a single Molotov Cocktail/petrol bomb, that was thrown through the window – though extremely destructive. This may have well convinced those who worked on the paper that their greatest threat was from disgruntled individuals working alone, rather than from actual terrorist groups. No one was hurt in the incident, and this may have given people the impression that such an attack represented the worst that could have happened to them, rather than imagining something more serious. At the very least it should have identified to those working there that they had appeared on somebody or some group’s radar. It is human nature to move on and forget rather than dwell on what might have happened. It is easy to quickly discount and dismiss the out of the ordinary events and occurrences in our own lives, such as the garage door that has obviously been tried, the strange interaction with somebody who called at our house etc. without recognizing that our house is being targeted for a burglary – maybe not in the next few weeks, but somebody has identified it as a potential target (and if one person has, others may have done so as well). You increase your survival options drastically if you accept that you are at risk in your workplace. The 9/11 inquiry demonstrated that those individuals who had practiced evacuating their offices in the event of a fire i.e. had practiced fire drills, were more likely to have left their desks, and started making their way to the ground, than those who had yet to take part in such a drill. Knowing when and how to evacuate the building you work in, regardless of the nature of the threat you face, will mean that you will be more decisive, act quicker, and stand a better chance of getting out of a dangerous environment than if you’ve never practiced or worked through such an evacuation. Whatever environment you are in, whether it is your workplace, a shopping mall, or transit station you frequent, understand the different routes you could take to exit it. Try and have multiple routes available to you. Disengagement at the first opportunity may be what saves you; accepting that your workplace can be an “at risk” environment (even if it has no history of fire, terrorism and violence etc.) is a positive step to take. It is better to trust in evacuation than firepower, as the guy with the bigger gun usually wins – dealing with offensive automatic firepower from a long barreled weapon, whilst using a handgun defensively, does not put you at good odds; knowing how to take cover, hide your exit route and escape, is much more likely to be a successful option. Are you at risk in your workplace? Yes. It may be more likely from fire rather than from a terrorist attack, or a disgruntled worker who has “gone postal”, but the risk remains. Disengagement rather than engagement is a far better strategy to take, and is a solution to more than just one type of threat/danger. Were such options available to the workers in the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, that I don’t know (and in truth under high stress and duress would anybody be expected to follow such a course of action? Probably not) however one thing we can do in our own environments is to plan methods and ways to exit our buildings, so in the event of an assault or similar we have a plan to get out.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=187 Sun, 11 Jan 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=186 There are no such thing, as a dirty fight. The fact that another individual has forced you to have to engage in a physical confrontation, is a dirty thing, which gives you carte blanche, to deal with them in any way that ensures your survival – every target is game e.g. eyes, throat, groin, hair etc. and every tool or weapon is acceptable, whether it’s the bottle you’ve picked off the floor, or your teeth. The more destructive you are, the better; your job is to convince the person you are dealing with that they’re unable to do to you whatever it was they wanted to do e.g. rape, sexually assault you or punch you to unconsciousness. I was once questioned in class, as to whether when I put my thumbs in another person’s eyes, I push just “enough” to cause them to release their hold/grip of me. In a real-life confrontation, judging what is just enough isn’t feasible (many people get confused with the legal ins and outs of this – at the end of the day what happens in reality is very different to what gets debated at leisure in a court of law), you have to work to the limit/extreme – spitting, eye gouging and biting are all efficient and effective tools to use, and you need to have them in your arsenal. I used to occasionally teach (on behalf of another instructor) a group of Polish doormen, who were a very tough set of guys, who had good solid martial arts backgrounds, and were also gym nuts who weighed in at around 250 lbs of solid muscle. In one session, one of them grabbed me in a bear hug, and just held me. His grip was so tight that I couldn’t even move my hands to strike his groin – if you are a practitioner who believes that is always possible to reach the groin, eyes or other vulnerable spot etc. whilst this is more often or not the case, it is not always (also if the crotch of the jeans is hanging low, striking the groin isn’t always effective). My only attacking option, was to bite him; as soon as my teeth closed on his chest, his grip released. Most people’s default response to being bitten is to try and pull away. In terms of creating space, biting is one of the fastest ways to achieve this end. It also sends a clear message to your attacker(s) of where your head is and what you are prepared to do – and if it is more low down and dirty, than what they were prepared to do, or what they thought the fight would look like, you’ve just scored a great psychological blow. In the dojo or training environment, we often train not to be “that guy”; our goal is not to cause pain with every grab and touch we make – if we are training many repetitions of the technique we don’t want to injure our training partner (and this is a good thing – if every time we practice a technique our partner gets hurt, they will start altering the way they “attack”, in order to protect themselves, and their attack will soon be unrealistic). However in reality, every time we touch somebody we should be causing them pain; we should be that guy who drags the elbow across our face when we’re on the ground, we should be the person who throws in the liver shots when we’re in the clinch, we should be grabbing and ripping flesh, and raking the eyes at every opportunity. We should look at how we can make our studio techniques dirtier and rougher; in training when I bridge somebody from mount, I push there ribcage, on the street I garb their love handles, and try to rip their flesh from them as I bridge etc. My escape from this position, is not just an escape it’s an opportunity to cause pain. You should also look to train when somebody is causing you pain and discomfort (not every session – but it should be part of your training). If you don’t practice gun disarming, when somebody is striking you with the gun as they make their threat, jabbing it into your forehead, you may find yourself being unable to perform your standard disarms if this occurs in a real-life situation. Just as you should think about, your “dirty” fighting options, you should be prepared to deal with an aggressor who’s handling the situation in the same way. As you train such “dirty fighting” techniques, don’t become solely reliant on them – there will always be a pain resistant assailant who simply doesn’t care – you still need to develop solid fighting skills, abilities, and attributes that will enable you to deal with those attackers who don’t respond to your thumbs in their eyes etc. The Krav Maga and Reality Based Self Defense community is full of instructors and students who believe groin strikes are a silver bullet, they are generally effective, but there are times when they aren’t; if the only solution you have to escape a hold or control is based on pain, then recognize you might find yourself in a situation, where your technique/solution is not effective. If you already have an effective solution and add pain to it, then you have a much better chance of success.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=186 Sun, 04 Jan 2015 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=185 One of the five situational components is location – the place where the assault happens – and replicating location in the studio and dojo can be extremely difficult; as by nature the mat space or training area is relatively large and expansive, whereas in reality, most of the places where you will be assaulted or surrounded by obstacles, and barriers and by nature confined. The term “Street Fighting” is largely a misnomer, and certainly not a synonym for reality based self-defense, as the “street” is only one of many locations including, homes, bars, pubs etc. where real-life violence can occur – and in many instances the street is bordered by cars, shop fronts and litter bins, which restrict the actual space where an assault can occur. You can train every dimension of a fight, be it standup, grappling or ground, and yet until you restrict space and movement, you are not really replicating reality. Groundwork is a great example of this. Many women’s self-defense programs will stress the importance of knowing how to defend and fight when taken to ground, however most of these programs are taught in a studio where there is at least 1000 sq ft of mats/ground to roll around on. Women are most likely to be sexually assaulted in their homes, or somebody else’s, where there is furniture etc. which dramatically reduces the space available to move in. If a woman is sitting on a couch or bed, next to a sexual assailant who pins her down, how effective is her ground game going to be? She will certainly be fighting with her back to the ground, but the “ground” is now a sofa, or a bed, or possibly the backseat of a car etc. Such surfaces will have an element of \"give\" in them e.g they arem\'t necessarily solid surfaces to push off from e.g. try bridging when pinned down on a soft mattress etc. Any reality based self-defense system should include a ground component, but it should also train “ground” fighting in confined spaces, as this is often the reality of the environment/location. If you believe you have a good ground game, take a moment to think how you would apply your skills and knowledge to being pinned down on the back seat of a car; take a moment to think of what techniques and components of your ground game you’d be able to perform and function with, in this environment e.g. most of your armbars would have to go. If you need more space than a coffin to get your ground game to work, you may need to spend some time reviewing it, in order to have an effective system of self-defense. The same goes of your stand up game. You may be someone who excels at sparring, where you are given a relatively large and open space to work in, but when your back is pushed up against a wall, how well do you perform? Give me the room to engage my hips, and I can deliver strikes and punches with power, pin my hips to the wall, and all I’m left with is arm strength/power. Whoever decided to add the cage component to MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fights, understood something about reality i.e. that fighters must be able to fight when they are pressed/trapped against a wall, and not just when they are able to move freely. It is also important to know how to use the environment/location to your advantage – a wall, a steering wheel, a table etc. can all be used to inflict pain and trauma to your aggressor. Experienced assailants are very skilled at taking space away from you, whether when on the ground, which includes beds, chairs, sofas etc. or when standing. However great a fighter you believe you to be in these dimensions, start to back yourself into corners, press yourself against walls etc. and train from there. Understand what will work in a confined space and understand what won’t. This is reality based self-defense. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=185 Sun, 28 Dec 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=184 There have been several reports of alleged sexual assaults committed by drivers of the taxi service Uber. Whilst is would be easy to single out Uber, and other car sharing services as being single handedly guilty for providing sexual predators with an easy mechanism for gaining potential victims, many licensed drivers (as well as unlicensed) have raped, and assaulted their passengers. Others have been involved in setting up muggings, extortions and the like. This blog article looks at preventative measures we can take when hiring taxis and driver services etc. It is much better to avoid and prevent an incident, than have to deal with one. Fighting in a confined space, such as a car, where the driver has put on the central locking, or where they have driven you to a location where there are third parties – possibly armed – who can assist them, severely affects your survival chances. When a car or taxi service picks you up, they know little or nothing about you; this may be different if you book them through a hotel you are staying at, where the staff (if they have criminal connections) have the current length of your stay to observe you, and inform any car service they are colluding with – which is why it is often better booking cars/taxis yourself when you stay in such establishments. This means that the driver has to assess who you are, and whether you are suitable victim material very quickly. Often it is enough just to put a few doubts in their mind, as to whether you actually are a victim or not. One of the easiest ways to do this is to show that you have a level of awareness regarding your journey. When I get a taxi to my house from either the airport or downtown, I know there are several routes that my driver can take – and different exits off the highway. I will either ask, or tell my driver which one they should use. They now know that if they deviate from this route, either to bump up the fare, or in order to commit another crime, I will be aware of this, and will not be completely surprised by their behaviors and actions. Because they know I will be aware of any deviations they may take they can expect that I would enact certain other security measures, such as texting fiends or calling 911, should I become suspicious. Predators want easy victims, not people who make life difficult for them. Question your driver about their route, and let them know you are familiar with the journey and route they should take. If you are in an unfamiliar area, where you don’t know the route a driver should take, you can use google maps on your phone, to map out the route beforehand, so that you don’t appear unfamiliar with the environment you are in. You can also set the route, and follow it once you are in the car, if your driver makes a turn, that doesn’t make sense, you can question them on it. Use your phone to photograph the registration plate of the car that picks you up – text or email this to a friend. You can inform the driver that you do this as standard practice. If you need to inform somebody that your driver is going off route, they have information about the vehicle that they can give to police. The police now know the car they are looking for – even if the car is stolen, the police now know what – rather than who – they are looking for, which is likely to lead to a quicker identification. If you can couple this by giving a friend, your location/street name (by using google maps to track your journey) at the point you become suspicious of your drivers activities, then the police will have a much easier time locating the vehicle you are in. An assailant is limited in the attacks they can make when driving – this is the time to try and assess the threat level, and start responding. Many predators, especially sexual, will line up their victims; they will not be emotionally ready to attack the first person they come across, but will need time to work themselves up and fantasize about the assault. It is often the case that a sexual assailant will attack, when they feel that the clock is running against them. A driver will probably not assault their first passenger, as the driver is not yet ready/confident enough to initiate an attack – later on in the evening this may have changed. By 1 AM in the morning, they may feel the clock is running out and they have to act. They may also assume/recognize that somebody using a car service at this time of night may well have had too many to drink and will be tired – so their guard will be down (waking/sobering yourself up and appearing in control at this moment is a good way to demonstrate this is not the case). Scheduling your evening out to start earlier rather than later, so that it will therefore finish earlier, is a good way to reduce your risk of being assaulted. If you are one of the “earlier” passengers who feels that your driver is acting/behaving strange, and that their conversation unsettles you, it may be worth informing the car service of this. A sexual predator building themselves up for an actual assault, will often “dry run” the build up to the assault on other individuals, before they execute it for real.  As to whether Uber and other similar car services are riskier than licensed cabs, it’s a difficult one to call. Uber don’t do face-to-face interviews so it is easier for a socially awkward, and non-confident predator to get “hired” – also the more steps and processes a criminal will have to go through the more likely they are to be deterred, if there is a simpler more anonymous route this is the one they are more likely to take. With a licensed taxi firm, there is usually a dispatcher/controller involved, and so the driver is subject to some form of monitoring, and may be required to interact with another person. Also the construction of the taxi, sees a barrier between you and the driver – this means for them to get to you they have to get out of the car, and open a passenger door – which means a potential escape route is provided. In a regular car, an assailant can climb from the front to the back, without having to open a door, and if they keep the central locking on (or have child locked the back door), then the only way out is by climbing into the front – there is a lot of merit, not just for this reason, to sitting in the front passenger seat where possible. As with any predator, not appearing like a potential victim, is one of your best defenses. Appearing to be in control of yourself and your environment is a good way of convincing any potential assailant, that they are better looking for another victim because you’re not it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=184 Sun, 21 Dec 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=183 I have had several students of different self-defense systems and martial arts, as well as Krav Maga, walk through my doors and inform me that their old instructor had the power to end the fight with just one devastating blow – the most important thing to acknowledge here is that the instructor/teacher may never have said this, and it is the student’s interpretation and understanding which is being communicated. Once whilst I was away training in Israel, a prospective student who’d never met me came into my school, and informed the instructor who was standing in, that I was physically capable of wrestling bulls to the ground – photo’s on the internet obviously made me look a lot taller than I am, as I’m not sure I have the height to pat a bull on the head, let alone grab both of its horns…and that’s before we get into the issue of it running full speed into me. However I digress. This blog article is about the validity of one strike, finishing blows, and whether they exist in the real world. My first observation on striking from a real world perspective, is that I’ve rarely seen one punch or strike connect in the right place and with enough force, to physically prevent the person hit from continuing. I’ve seen many people dazed and hurt, but few actual knockouts; and it is often difficult to tell whether it’s a true knockout, or someone claiming/pretending it is in the hope that their assailant will back away, or that somebody will intervene on their behalf – normally the door staff/security. That is not to say that knockouts don’t occur, but contrary to the number of Youtube posts, which display them, they are less common than you would think (the reason they get put on Youtube is because they are extrodinary, not because they represent the mundane and the ordinary). In my experience – and that is something which by its very nature is limited – most people back away from a fight, go fetal etc. because they’re not used to the pain or the stunning effect of a punch, rather than because they have been “shutdown” in any way.    The Human Body is capable of enduring an unimaginable amount of pain, before it has to quit. From an emotional perspective however, it is happy to quit at the first opportunity it’s given. One of the reasons we’ve become the dominant species on the planet is that we avoid pain and effort wherever it is possible; we don’t like to put up with any form of discomfort, and look to find ways to avoid this at all cost. When a person who has never endured real pain before is hit/punched, they will often emotionally shutdown; they’ve had enough already. If they continue to receive pain, the idea of backing away and giving up on the confrontation will usually increase. Do not become too overconfident in your ability to manage and not react to pain, because you spar with 14 oz gloves on – getting punched bare knuckle is another type of experience – however the fact that you have been hit before will certainly put you in a better position to deal with it. You may be lucky, and find the knockout blow that ends the fight, however it is unlikely, and whilst you should strike/punch as if blow is intended to end the fight, you should not be expecting one particular strike/punch to do so. Throwing multiple strikes in quick succession is much more likely to overwhelm an assailant, and force them to quit, than landing one singular blow in the right spot (if you get lucky great, if you don’t keep fighting). The more powerful each strike the more likely a person will emotionally crumble – so we are not talking about multiple ineffectual strikes, but ones delivered with enough power to the right targets. One thing to bear in mind, is that if you keep assaulting a person, and they see no way of escape, or the assault ending, you may cause them to fight back with more vigor, determination and aggression – a cornered prey animal such as a rabbit, will fight with extreme aggression against better equipped predators if it believes that is its only option. Sun Tsu talks about this in his famous book, “The Art of War”, and warns generals about forcing their opponents, on to what he refers as, “Killing Ground” – this is ground where an army has no chance of either escape or surrender, and whose only option is to fight for survival. In such situations Sun Tsu warns that it will take five men, to take one of the enemy. He warns that if someone is cornered like this, they will take the greatest risks and be at their most dangerous. Geographically, Israel is positioned on a “Killing Ground”; surrounded by hostile neighbors whose political rhetoric and statements of aggression which leave little to the imagination, and with the sea on one of its sides, Israel really only one choice when threatened and attacked – and history has shown that it has taken more than five men, to every one when Israel has been at war. risky things often work in reality, because the other person isn’t expecting it – especially when they are in a dominant and seemingly controllable position e.g. you might not expect the person you are pounding on the floor, to bite your finger, when you put your hand on their face to steady yourself, or to pull a knife rather than protect their head from your punches etc. We often talk about the dangers of going to ground in limiting our ability to escape and disengage, but it also limits that of our assailant, especially if we take a dominant control position. If we remind ourselves that punching somebody into unconsciousness is a difficult proposition, then we have simply put our attacker on to “Killing Ground”, where at some point he will come to the realization, that emotionally crumbling isn’t an option, and he has one choice but to fight back. This will be the same if he understands that your intention is to break a limb, or choke him out. Putting your assailant in a cul-de-sac, where he has only one choice, which is to fight for survival, may not be an effective strategy in many situations – giving them an out, and a means to disengage may be safer. If you manage to knock somebody to the floor, or beat someone down so that they are visibly shaken, and clearly don’t want to continue the fight, giving both of you the option to disengage may be the more effective route to go. Being able to determine, when your attacker has had enough can be a difficult call to make, especially when adrenalized, and finding yourself tunnel-visioned with your eyes only focusing on your primary attacker (a good reason to scan). Attacking with unlimited ferocity, throwing multiple strikes – not expecting a singular knockout blow – and monitoring your assailant’s response(s), is perhaps your most effective way of dealing with many acts/incidents of aggression. There are times of course when you’re only goal should be to truly render your opponent physically, rather than just emotionally, incapable of continuing the fight but these situations tend to be specific, worst case scenarios, rather than the more common ones that your average person is likely to face.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=183 Sun, 14 Dec 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=182 One of the most often asked questions I get, surrounding the self-defense techniques I teach is, “Is that legal?” I’m going to caveat my response(s) to this question by first saying I am neither a lawyer nor an LEO (Law Enforcement Officer); I would also state that an LEO’s situation is very different, both from a personal safety perspective and a legal one – I have a huge amount of sympathy for the police, when it comes to protecting themselves from harm and danger because the responsibilities and accountability they have surrounding this, is often much more complicated than that enjoyed by an ordinary citizen. When you, as an ordinary member of the public, find yourself threatened and in danger your situation is very different to that of a police officer or security operative. In most cases you have the option of walking away, and disengagement, something that somebody trying to enforce the law, or a set of rules and conduct (in a bar or club etc.) doesn’t have. It is this option of walking away, which does a lot to set the context of how you respond to a threat or assault – and when it comes to arguing/debating the rights or wrongs of your behavior and actions context is everything; from both a moral and legal perspective. Walking away from a fight takes balls, big balls – it is rarely the coward’s way out; it is often easier to convince yourself to fight than it does to walk away. Walking away sucks – it really sucks. I still relive situations where I had the option to enact a physical solution, and didn’t; and could have probably justified and argued to myself that I was morally – and possibly legally – entitled to do so. In truth though I really wasn’t, as I had the option to disengage and walk away. In such situations violence is a choice, and when it becomes a choice, it’s hard to argue that right is on your side. When violence is forced upon you it’s another matter. From a civilian perspective I am not a great believer in “use of force continuums”, the law may state that you should do enough to nullify the assault/attack that you face, but in truth measuring a response when you are facing an adrenalized, aggressor is extremely difficult; when the shit hits the fan, you rarely have time to measure just how much shit has actually hit it – without stretching the analogy, a fight is a shit show. This is why it is important to set the context of the fight beforehand e.g. if you present reasonable solutions and alternatives to an aggressor, and do so in a non-threatening manner, if they fail to listen and accept these solutions then you have the moral authority (and in most cases the legal authority) to do whatever you need to do to protect yourself. If you tried to walk away, either figuratively or literally, and were prevented from doing so, you have a right to deal with the situation physically; whether pre-emptively or responsively. There shouldn’t be a question in your head whether you should do so – your aggressor will not be asking such questions. You must be honest with yourself, as to whether you have the option of walking away. The majority of incidents I have witnessed, certainly concerning male-on-male violence, have been simple matters of ego, where both parties just couldn’t let themselves not have the last word, or make sure the other person knew they weren’t going to back down etc. All matters of ego. When trying to judge what an appropriate level of force would be in such situations, it is a difficult one to debate, as both parties probably had countless opportunities during the encounter, to simply back away. Contrast this with an abduction scenario, where a person is being dragged into a car – in such a situation do they really have the situation to walk away? I like using heuristics i.e. simple rules that can guide decision making. One simple one to use when deciding whether to use force (and how much) is, “Can I walk away?” If you can, do, if you can’t fight. As to how much force you should use – as much as is necessary to finish the fight in the shortest time. Don’t look to dissuade an assailant from continuing the fight, but rather look to finish them and prevent them from being able to continue their assault. Is what you are doing legal? In this moment who cares – that can be debated by an attorney; you didn’t have an option not to fight, and so you must now fight without taking chances, or having regard for your assailant – they made the choice. There is only one way to deal with violence and that is with extreme violence.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=182 Sun, 07 Dec 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=181 One of the supposed easy to spot pre-violence indicators, is a person’s body language. In fact there have been countless books written on reading a person’s body language, whether to tell if they’re angry, sad, lying etc. Most of these books (and articles) have been written by FBI profilers and criminals interviewers etc. who have the luxury of observing the individuals they are questioning, on their own turf, in interview scenarios; where they control the time and pace of their interaction with the person whose motives, behaviors and actions they are trying to ascertain. Whilst they’re observations and conclusions surrounding body language and non-verbal cues are probably true and accurate, it would be wrong to believe that it is a simple job of translating these signals into real life, dynamic scenarios. One of the funny things with interpreting body language, is that you probably already know a person’s intentions towards you if they are violent, without having to resort to checking off a list of body actions/behaviors. I remember being taught how to fold a map correctly, so that the enemy wouldn’t know where you were, or where you were trying to get to by the folds in the map – if you folded the map to look at a particular area then it would be obvious where you were, or trying to get to etc. I was also told never to put a finger on a map, as the dirt/sweat on your finger might leave a mark. I remember being very impressed at the thought that went into all of this, and then coming to the realization that if you were caught by the enemy, they obviously knew where you were, and didn’t really need to examine the creases and marks on your map to ascertain your location. It is normally very obvious when someone has harmful intent towards you, and interpreting specific signals is not really necessary. Where an understanding of a person’s body language can be useful, is where somebody is hiding/disguising their violent/criminal intent towards us, and this is really something that is specific to certain types of violence e.g. the rapist who wants to convince a potential victim to leave the bar with them, the mugger who is trying to talk their victim into following them to a particular destination etc. Most of the time it will be verbal, rather than non-verbal cues that will alert us to their true intentions however there are certain non-verbal behaviors/actions that can help us gain a better overall picture of a person’s real motives. It is usually pointless to try and examine facial expressions. This is because we see and interpret the world according to our emotional state e.g. if we are happy, we see other people as being happy whether they are sad or angry etc. A tight, forced grin, with the lips drawn back, which is a sign of aggression, will be interpreted as a happy smile, if the person viewing the face is in a positive/happy emotional state – if this is the case they have failed to pick up on the other signals that their aggressor is giving off, and are therefore so unaware of their predicament that they won’t be on the lookout for any particular pieces of body language. This really means that an individual’s body language can only be used as a means of confirming what you probably know already. One of the things I always looked for when dealing with individuals who might become violent was an overall sense of anticipation, preparation and deliberation i.e. they were waiting or looking for something to happen e.g. people who were carrying weapons would often check the weapon, and make sure that any clothing that might restrict their draw would be clear – if somebody was constantly checking, patting down their pockets then it would be a good idea to either stay clear or apprehend them before they were able to escalate the situation. If somebody didn’t seem comfortable in the moment, then it was likely that they were planning or expecting something in the future – rarely good or positive. It is this overall sense of body language that I believe is more valuable than specific pieces relating to whether a person’s toes are pointing in or out, if they’re exposing their crotch/groin etc. These are things that may help an interviewer in a controlled environment etc. but are of little use to somebody interpreting a real time, dynamic situation that may well end in violence. Having a sense of whether a person is comfortable and easy in their present situation is a much better indicator of whether they have nefarious intentions towards you.        Looking for specific non-verbal signals is a dangerous way to ensure your personal safety. Looking for verbal cues, and coupling them with a person’s body language is a much more productive approach. In saying this, most times interpreting a person’s demeanor and behavior only occurs when you hold suspicions about them, which means at the very end of the day, trusting your gut is your first and best line of defense.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=181 Sun, 30 Nov 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=180 As we approach Thanksgiving and Black Friday, we start to see Xmas and Holiday shopping start up in earnest. The increase of shoppers on the streets, in malls and parking lots, also increases the number of potential victims for muggers and other financial predators, especially when many of these victims are harried parents, trying to get their shopping done in the shortest possible time. In this article I want to talk about some of the ways in which you can reduce the risk of becoming a victim of crime when shopping at this time of year. The following statement might at first sound somewhat alarmist; people are watching you. There are few parking lots, and shopping malls, where there aren’t any financial predators or criminal opportunists looking out for potential victims. This is not to say that you are always in a state of high risk and constant danger, as several things have to come together to facilitate an actual crime, but rather that you should be aware that there are those in these environment who are looking to take advantage of any mistake you make e.g. if you forget to lock your car door in the parking lot, there is a good chance that else somebody will observe that – it doesn’t take much to recognize someone who turns away from their car without putting their key in the lock, and doesn’t use the remote lock on their key fob either i.e. the horn doesn’t go and the lights don’t flash etc. It may be at the start of your shopping trip you are much more clued into your security and personal safety, but if you return to your car loaded down with bags in order to drop them off, before you continue your shopping spree, you may easily forget to lock your car. Also be aware that if you do use your car as a storage facility like this, any criminal in the environment will know that there are valuable items in your car – it may be a hassle but driving to another parking spot in the same lot may be enough to fool any potential criminals that you have actually left, and are therefore no longer a potential target (few if any criminals will actually memorize a registration plate and go looking for a particular car) – if you do this make sure your bags are in the trunk and are not visible to anyone passing by your car. It is often safer to park your car, near the exit and entrance ways to the parking lot. These areas usually enjoy the best natural surveillance, as there should be – especially at this time of year – constant traffic moving in and out of the lot, meaning that there will be a lot of eyes on your car, and less opportunities for a criminal who may be trying to target you or your vehicle from going unseen. Understand as well that different spaces have different norms and levels around personal space. In a crowded mall, it is acceptable for a person to be within a few feet of you (or possibly less), in a parking lot, this distance expands, and generally no person has any reason to be within 10 feet of you. When we change environments, it can take some time for our awareness around personal space to adjust; what may be an acceptable personal distance in a mall, may not be an acceptable distance in a parking lot even though only a few seconds have passed. Be aware of individuals who are not keeping an acceptable distance between them and you; if necessary change your route/direction, and see how they adjust theirs. If there is some form of synchronization of movement, try and head back towards an area where there is a lot of people, and possibly security, than trying to rush to your car. When you do head to your car, have your keys ready. It’s a good idea before you leave a mall or shopping outlet etc. to adjust your bags, and have your keys out, so that when you get to your car, you can transfer everything quickly, get in and put the central locking on – and immediately start the engine. Parking lots are not places to check and send text messages etc. The shorter the amount of time you have to spend in them the better. If you are going straight home, consider if it is quicker to put your shopping on the back seat, rather than using the trunk. If you are spending a long time at a shopping mall, try and take regular breaks. It is very hard to ascertain if someone is watching/observing you if you are constantly engaged in an activity such as shopping. Sitting down somewhere and having a coffee, will allow you the time to relax, and observe those who may be engaged in some sort of surveillance of you. Take a moment to think back if anyone seemed to have an unnatural interest in what you were doing – if you can’t recall anyone that’s fine, but going through this process will help keep your awareness up, without getting you adrenalized and panicked. Something which will actually lower your effective awareness. Whilst shopping malls do see their fair share of muggings, you are more likely to be targeted in the parking lot as you leave – stopping for coffee or similar immediately before you leave, is a good chance for you to readjust your bags, get your car keys ready, and move to a more alert mode. As any security operative will tell you; there is no substitute for planning, and thinking about a shopping trip from a personal safety perspective will go a long way to keeping you safe.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=180 Sun, 23 Nov 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=179 If you are reading this article my guess is that you’ve already bought into the idea that the world we live in contains violence, and that it is a good idea to know how to deal with it, should you find yourself in a potentially dangerous and threatening situation. However there are many people out there who either don’t believe that they are at risk of being assaulted, and/or if they are there is probably nothing they can do to identify, prevent and avoid the attack and/or physically deal with it if they are assaulted. If you are trying to convince someone of this viewpoint to start training, many of your arguments will probably have fallen on deaf ears – you may even have been labelled paranoid, reactionary and ridiculous by those you try and convince. In this article I would like to lay out some arguments that can be used to convince those who don’t want to learn how to protect themselves, that it might be time to start thinking about doing so. Argument One: The most common types of aggressive and violent acts, are low-level, simple incidents that can largely be dealt with by non-physical solutions, rather than the worst case scenarios that people tend to fixate on. When the media reports on a home invasion, where a 300 pound Behemoth, storms into a house where there is a mother and child and systematically starts assaulting the mother, as they conduct a robbery, the question on everyone’s lips, is what could she possibly do that would have worked against such an assailant? The conclusion: nothing, and therefore it would be a waste of time to try and learn a self-defense system or martial art because it would be largely ineffective in such a situation. It’s a good argument, and one that is very difficult to counter, however the situation described is an extreme one; it’s a worst case scenario. Being mugged in a parking lot is much more common, having an aggressive stranger in a bar shout at you and push you is much more likely, finding yourself facing an individual or group who you have somehow “disrespected” is a much more common occurrence etc. but these are not the situations that the news and media report on, and so they are often not the situations that people think about. If you find yourself trying to present to people solutions for worst case scenarios, try and turn their attention away from these, and get them to consider that there are a lot of very simple solutions for the more common types of violence that they are likely to face, and that the consequences of not knowing how to act and behave in them can be equally as serious, as those faced in a worst case scenario e.g. an armed mugger can stab and/or shoot you if you don’t know how to behave and deal with the situation. Argument Two: Personal safety is just formalized common sense. This is probably one of the biggest and laziest self lies that people tell themselves to both avoid thinking about the danger and threats that are out there, and to convince themselves that they don’t need to be trained in personal safety and/or self-defense. Every sexual predator out there, whether targeting men, women or children knows what our common sense dictates, knows how we will act in a situation, knows how to get us to trust them etc. You may believe you are a good judge of character, that everyone else who has been sexually assaulted and raped somehow lacked your common sense and wasn’t as street savvy as you – the truth is, they were just like you, and they met a skilled social predator who was able to use their ideas about how violent situations occur and develop against them. If you are still of the opinion that strangers who try and get you into your car pull up beside you, and offer you a ride etc. you are thinking back to when you were a six year old, and your parents warned you about men in white vans trawling your neighborhood. As an adult the strangers likely to try and get you into their cars will do so in much more subtle and sophisticated ways – ways which will bypass and use your common sense. Argument Three: Lifestyle prevents risk. Many older people look back on their teenage years and their early twenties, recognizing that there were times when they were at risk, and were perhaps lucky, and then contrast it with their present lifestyle e.g. they no longer stay out late at night, they don’t frequent certain bars and clubs anymore etc. Because of this they believe that there is no longer any risk in their life that having a good job and living in the suburbs etc. means that there lifestyle is one which doesn’t puts them into contact with dangerous people. Dangerous people prey on people who believe they are not at risk because they’re the easiest and most compliant victims. You don’t have to go to them they will come to you; they will frequent the shopping malls you go to, the parking lost where you park your car, the transit stops you use on your way to work etc. If you go where there are people, predatory individuals will be there with them. It should be remembered that the crimes and acts of violence they commit are usually low-level ones, but lifestyle will not preclude you from being targeted – in fact quite the opposite. These are three arguments I have had the most success with when people argue with me against the need for personal safety and self-defense training. Try not to be dragged into a debate on worst case scenarios and how you would handle them (the martial artist in all of us wants to…) but instead present a realistic and non-hysterical picture of what everyday violence actually looks like. Don’t buy the idea that personal safety is just common sense – predatory individuals can play us like cheap violins if we behave and act with just common sense (plus we often make exceptions for ourselves where common sense is concerned). Yes, your lifestyle now may be less riskier than what it was, but in and of itself it is no defense. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=179 Sun, 16 Nov 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=178 One of the things which is very in vogue at the moment is the use of technology for self-defense and personal safety. The market in recent months has been flooded with phone apps that alert friends, family and even the police, when you are in danger (providing you know when you are), with your location, using GPS. Similar technology has been produced and fitted into jewellery, and clothing, working on the same premise; you identify a threat, you press a button, and friends and family members etc. receive details via an app on their mobile phone as to where you are, and in some cases they can even listen in to what’s happening. Whilst all of this may seem like useful technology to have and use, the real question is, how effective is it, and is it detrimental to use it? There ae two pieces of personal safety advice that we received as very young children. These were: don’t get into cars with strangers, and always tell a parent where you were going. These apps, which can provide our location to others, emotionally resonates with the personal safety advice we were given as children; always tell an adult where you are going and where you will be. Technology that allows us to tell others where we are, automatically makes us feel safe, as it reminds us of a time, when as long as Mum and Dad knew where we were they could come and rescue us. The problem is, that our parents gave us that advice because they wanted to give us a sense of freedom, whilst maintaining a level of control. At the end of the day, if you as a 12 year old were abducted from a shopping mall, the fact that your parents knew you were there was inconsequential when it came to preventing the crime. Knowing where people are makes everybody involved feel safer, however it’s not effective when it comes to preventing assaults and abductions etc. Undoubtedly technology that allows us to notify people where we are and that we are in trouble will make us feel safer however just because we feel safe doesn’t mean we are. There are a number of reasons why this technology has a very limited use from a personal safety perspective; to say it is completely useless would be unfair, as it does have some very, very limited practical applications. One reason it is generally ineffective is the speed at which most assaults occur; something which many people are unaware off, or grossly underestimate. In 1982 a woman was raped on a New York Subway train, between two stops. The entire assault was completed within 7 seconds. The rapist was already aroused when he started the assault, and it took him only a few seconds to move behind the woman (who was standing, holding on to a pole), lift her skirt up, pull her pants down and penetrate her, and only a more to ejaculate and move away. There were also people present who failed to see the assault, or who did see it and didn’t want to get involved. Whilst such assaults are rare, two things from the account are evident: firstly, the assault occurred very quickly, and was over in a matter of seconds, secondly if anybody did see what was going on, they either decided not to get involved, or explained the incident away to themselves e.g. that both parties knew each other and it was consensual – they denied it for what it was. This is the problem that such apps have to deal with. If you find yourself in a threatening situation, and have the presence of mind to use an app to alert a circle of friends, they may only have a few seconds to act – if they are in the same environment as you, such as in a club or bar, they may be able to get to you in time, however at any greater distance it is unlikely that they stand any chance of reaching you or notifying law enforcement and security agencies to the fact that you are in danger. Also, it is likely that they will go throw a period of deliberating what to do when they see the alarm go off on their phone; they may well debate with themselves (and others) if the app has gone off by accident, or whether you’re over-reacting, they may also assume that somebody else will be receiving this alert as well and that they can let them take responsibility for dealing with it – something that is referred to as the “Genovese Syndrome”. It really doesn’t matter how reliable the people the app contacts are, they will initially not believe it and then find themselves wondering what to do, and having to convince themselves to do it – this is our shared human condition when dealing with high stress events. There is then the question of the person using the app being able to recognize the threat/danger earlier enough on, so that they can alert people. If we believe that all violence happens when we are walking alone at night then we might convince ourselves that we’ll be able to recognize the danger soon enough however, how many times has the hair on the back of your neck gone up, and you’ve felt that somebody’s following you? And how many times have you told yourself not to be so paranoid and stupid? When we first identify threats we experience denial; a simple emotional coping mechanism that allows us to feel safe and less stressed. Even if you have a piece of technology in your hand, ready to alert the world to danger, you may be assaulted before you have the time to use it, because you’ve explained away the danger to yourself; just as the people who receive the alert are likely to do. The majority of sexual assaults against women are conducted by acquaintances – are you likely to have your phone and app open when communicating with them? Probably not. The creators of these applications have not studied the reality of violence, they have just created something that will work in their “world” of what violence looks like. In all of this the larger question remains unanswered: what are you doing about your personal safety when you rely on an app or piece of technology to tell others you are in danger? Basically nothing, and this is the real danger of relying on technology to keep you safe; you remove your own responsibility for personal safety, and place it on to someone else. You’ve ticked a box that says you are now safe, and then you switch off. These apps, are no different to the rape alarms and whistles, which nobody carries anymore; there were too many false alarms, nobody came when they were used (people “mistook” or explained away the rape alarms as car alarms) etc. Just because the technology has become more sophisticated it doesn’t mean the idea itself has improved. Will there be success stories surrounding this type of technology? Of course there will as these stories will always be newsworthy, however the number of people who relied on these apps to keep them safe and were still assaulted will never be reported on – and that will be the far larger number.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=178 Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=177 In every aggressive or violent interaction you have, there will always be a primary motive, possibly a secondary motive and a host of underlying motives – whether the act of aggression is one of demonstrating dominance over you, or trying to take possessions from you. When we talk of primary and secondary motives, we are referring to situations where a predatory individual engages in one type of crime, such as a mugging or burglary (crimes aimed at gaining resources), which then turns into a sexual assault or rape (crime of dominance) i.e. the predator is primarily motivated to commit one crime, but if the opportunity to commit another occurs then they will take this. Underlying motives are ones which help fuel the primary and secondary motives e.g. anger, control, power etc. In certain acts of violence such as muggings, and sexual assaults the goal and motivation to commit the crime are usually understood by both parties e.g. somebody wants to mug you, it is clear what they want, and how they are motivated etc. However we may also experience acts of aggression, both at a high and a low level, where a person’s motivation may not be so obvious e.g. the person who refuses to move out of our way when we are trying to get on/off a bus or train etc. or the person who seems to take extreme offense at our very presence in a bar or club, and is trying to drive the situation so that they have a “legitimate” reason to become physically violent towards us. Such situations, can often appear extremely confusing to us, because in neither one does the person acting aggressively seem to get anything out of the situation – yet they must, or they wouldn’t engage in such behaviors. This is where understanding that it may be the underlying motives, which cause a person to act aggressively. Part of our human condition, sees us wanting to exert control over the situations we find ourselves in – in many cases the rules of society and employment, will naturally restrict our ability to do this e.g. at the end of the day you have to do what your boss tells you, or you get fired. As social animals, we buy into this idea because it yields rewards (such as a paycheck), but it is not in our nature as animals to automatically hand over control, to others in such an automatic fashion. If somebody feels that they have given up large elements of control in their life, they will often take advantage of ambiguous situations, where no formal rules of behavior exist, and exert their desire to control their environment in these i.e. their work, social, family lives see them have little opportunity to influence or control their life, so they engage in small acts of control and dominance in other settings to compensate. If somebody has perceived that they’ve experience a loss of status in any one of the groups and environments they operate in, they will also look to exert control in other areas of their life, that they may not otherwise be motivated to do so e.g. if they are passed over for a promotion, they felt was due to them, in the work environment, they may try and up their status in the eyes of their peers in other groups they interact with – such as their drinking buddies; they may act more aggressively within the group to force a higher position in the pecking order, and/or act aggressively/violently towards, someone outside of the group, so they reinforce/extend their position as a group member. Studies have show that people will largely put double the effort to regain status than they will to try and simply improve status. The mistake we make is that we often separate the groups, and the hierarchies, believing that someone who suffers a loss of status in a work setting, will only try and readdress that loss in that particular setting, rather than in their social, familial and other environments. If we have been chosen as the victim/target of such aggression, we may find ourselves initially confused as to why we, rather than somebody else has been picked on – we basically fitted the profile of somebody they believed they could dominate, and whose domination would be respected by the group they were with etc. To regain this perceived loss of status, the individual involved, will have to find a way to justify both to themselves and the group, that they had the right to act violently, and they weren’t simply engaging in aggression and violence for its own sake. Simple lines such as, “Are you looking at me?”, “What’s your problem?” etc.is about projecting the “challenge” on to you, and away from them; making you the instigator of the aggression, which then justifies their right to become aggressive and violent towards you. These type of questions are scripted out, and we often fall into the trap, of answering them in a way that facilitates and promotes violence, rather than one that deflects, distracts and de-escalates the emotion within the situation. One way we do this is by denial e.g. we tell the person that we’re dealing with that, no we weren’t looking at them – which then sets them up nicely for the next line, which might be, “Are you calling me a liar?” etc. Our goal should be to answer in a way that prevents an aggressor from continuing with their script e.g. “Hey I’m sorry, I guess I was, I haven’t got my contact lenses in, so I can’t actually focus and see people at that distance, so sometimes when I’m just looking in a general direction, it may seem like I’m looking at one person; my bad, sorry.” – a line such as this acknowledges their “interpretation” of the situation, without giving them the “justification” to become violent. It might not always be clear what an aggressor’s motivation is when they begin to act aggressively, and they may not consciously understand why they feel the need to become violent, and this is when the underlying motives surrounding violence start to become more important. If we also recognize that the “scripts” that are used in such situations, are largely hard-wired into our DNA, we can interrupt the process, by taking the situation in a totally new and different direction.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=177 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=176 One of the questions I get asked a lot, concerns carrying a knife for defensive purposes; something I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand I agree with the argument that you shouldn’t go into a confrontation putting yourself in a disadvantaged position, and as your assailant is probably carrying a weapon – such as a knife - you should too. At the same time though, I see many arguments, against carrying a knife, which I am going to present in this article – and hopefully present where knife carry for civilians might be appropriate. At the end of the day, personal safety and protection is personal, and whether to carry a knife or not is a question of individual/personal choice.    Many people believe that pulling a weapon in an aggressive situation, is a show of force that acts as a deterrent, convincing an aggressor that it is in their best interests to back off. This may be true in some instances but it is certainly not universal. I have seen on more than one occasion, the sudden presence of a weapon, escalating the situation, and being the trigger that moved the dispute/argument/disagreement from a verbal confrontation into a physical one. We also know that many criminals have rushed police who were pointing firearms at them, so there are certainly those individuals out there who will take their chances against an individual who is better armed than them, however great the initial odds may seem stacked against them. The other thing to note about deterrents, is that your deterrent must be the “winning hand” to be truly effective e.g. if you pull a knife, and in response your aggressor draws a firearm, your upping the ante of the situation, didn’t give you the winning hand, and has in fact put you in a disadvantaged position. If you do, or are thinking about, carrying a knife how are you intending to be effective with it? As discussed previously, presenting a weapon to an aggressor as a deterrent can’t be relied upon as a means of avoiding a physical confrontation, so how in a physical conflict are you intending to use the knife? A friend of mine who worked for the Metropolitan Police Forensics Department, told me many years ago, that from the Met’s findings the average number of stab and slash wounds that caused a fatality were 32. Obviously this is an average, and in some cases it only took 2 or 3 etc. but it helps demonstrates that stabbing somebody isn’t an immediate fight finisher. I have been with people who didn’t even realize they were stabbed till several moments after the fight/conflict had ended. Is your intention if attacked to keep stabbing the person till they back away, or till they are unconscious, or are you looking to try and use your weapon to help you escape and disengage? Having a realistic understanding of your weapon’s capabilities and limitations, should be one of your first considerations when choosing what to carry e.g. hitting somebody over the head forcibly with a blunt object (such as a flashlight) may stop a person faster than cutting or stabbing them. One of the considerations to make when carrying any weapon is when to draw it; what are the triggers that will cause you to pull it? Is it a person’s actions or behaviors, is it down to situational components e.g. the presence of multiple assailants, or due to the position(s) you find yourself in, such as when you are on the ground, when your unarmed defenses are failing etc. Being decisive is a fundamental fighting/self-defense skill, and not knowing when to draw your weapon, could cause you to hesitate and fail. The situations when you envisage pulling your weapon, may also influence how you carry it e.g. if you are only going to use a knife when you are on the ground, and possibly on your back, carrying it in a rear pocket would be inadvisable – you may also have to adapt the way that you fight on the ground, so that you are able to access it. Your weapon should not be an abstract component, in your self-defense strategy but fit in with all the other pieces, such as your prevention and avoidance piece, your de-escalation piece, your unarmed piece etc. If you choose to carry a knife how and where will it fit in with all your other pieces? I try not to think too much about the legal system when designing my self-defense strategies, as when the time to fight for survival comes, there should be no limits imposed, however when weighing up the effectiveness of a particular weapon, the situations when it would be appropriate to use etc. it is worth taking a moment to consider how society – as represented by the legal system – views the choices we make. If we consider OC/CS and other Sprays, the general opinion seems to be that these are primarily defensive tools, as there are rarely any long term consequences (the person affected is normally back to normal in 20-30 minutes etc.), and the outcome(s)/effect(s) of spraying someone are known. Sticks and Batons fall into a similar category – it is possible to choose targets, and affect them at range. There is of course the possibility to use a stick to cause serious trauma to the head, and inflict serious damage to the limbs and body. Both Sprays and Sticks can be used at range, and in a way to cause limited damage and trauma – this is why law enforcement uses them (if you are to use one of these tools you have a good point of reference from a legal perspective to have them viewed as non-lethal weapons). Knives are used differently, they are not used just to cause pain but to cut and destroy tissue, and cause blood loss regardless of the part of the body which is targeted – they are also generally used at close range, rather than at distance. This makes it hard to argue that they are by nature a defensive tool, in the same way that a spray, stick or flashlight could be represented as. This is not to say that a knife couldn’t be used in a defensive capacity or manner just that inherently it would be difficult to argue that it is anything but an offensive weapon. Don’t get me wrong, I believe knives have a place in individual’s self-defense and personal protection strategies. I do believe they have their uses e.g. one of the quickest ways to get somebody to release you from a strangle or choke is to stab them repeatedly in the leg, and groin area etc. but their carry and use, need to be thought about clearly and sensibly. Simply carrying a knife because it gives you an “advantage” is not really a good reason, unless you know what that advantage is and where it can be leveraged. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=176 Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=175 Most people start learning a martial art in order to be able to protect and defend themselves, some also want to learn how to defend partners, family members, children and possibly friends. When we imagine violent scenarios, we often do so from the perspective of being on our own; with no one to either help us, or be responsible for. However if we take a look at our lifestyles, it may be that the times we are alone are actually less than those when we are with somebody else e.g. if you are a parent, or caregiver, you might spend the majority of your time with children etc. if you also consider the situations where you may be at a greater risk of violence, such as drinking and socializing late at night, it may be that you are rarely alone, and will have your friends and/or your partner present. If you want to be able to protect another individual, the first thing you have to do is to get them to buy into this idea. My son now recognizes that it is a good idea for me to hold his hand, when in parking lots and crossing the road; this wasn’t always the case, and in the early days I had to wrestle with his squirming hand as he tried to break free of my hand. If somebody is unable to see the potential dangers and threats that they may be exposed to, they will not see the need to be protected. This is often where we go wrong, as we highlight the most extreme and worst case scenarios we can imagine, literally trying to scare the other person into feeling the need to be protected. My son at the time had never seen, or known of a child who had been hit by a car, and would have been unable to imagine or conceive of what such an incident would look like, he had however fallen over and hurt himself – it was that which convinced him to buy into the idea of holding my hand when we crossed the road; in case a car came and we had to speed up and he stumbled and fell. Explaining and describing extreme situations to people who have never experienced violence, will either lead to them being paralyzed with fear and/or not truly believing that you have the ability to protect them. Everyone can imagine a mugging scenario, or one where they accidentally spill somebody’s drink over them etc. and using these examples will probably be more productive, in getting the person you wish to protect to buy in, than using one involving gangs and abductions etc. In personal safety planning is everything; acknowledging, assessing risk and planning how to both avoid and handle it should occur is key. When another person is involved planning becomes even more important, along with the ability to condense a plan down into its simplest and most base form, so that they are able to follow and employ it when under stress and duress. You may feel you have the faculties to make difficult decisions when under duress, however the person you are instructing should not have to make any decisions, they should just know how to act, and what to do; their job is to simply follow instruction, whether that is to stay back, call the police, find and inform someone who may be responsible for security etc. It may also be informing them how to act and behave in a situation, such as handing over money, wallet, possessions to an armed mugger etc. It does you little good in adverting a physical confrontation if you hand over your wallet, and the person with you doesn’t. Your instruction, should also be realistic, that is you want people to be able to act upon it. Telling a small child to run and leave you in the event of a violent confrontation is probably unrealistic, as they will feel safer being with you, rather than away – even if this is not the case. In my experience people work best with a defined goal e.g. telling a person just to run is not going to be as effective as telling them to run to a particular place, or find a particular person etc. Just as we have to battle with accepting that we are in danger, and getting out of a state of denial, so will the person you are with. Keep your plans simple and realistic, and communicate them in a non-sensational, matter of fact way. If this involves children, be aware of the language you use, as you don’t want to alarm or scare them – at the same time you want to let them know that danger, however unlikely, does exist, and with a good plan you will be able to keep them safe.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=175 Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=174 In last week’s blog, I looked at two common issues that occur when people are learning how to punch correctly when striking with the rear hand e.g. flaring the elbow out and lifting the back foot of the ground. These are issues we may be aware of, that we have but to fix them we need to understand why we make these errors. In this week’s blog, I want to address issues surrounding general “lack of power” when striking with the rear hand, and some of the issues that people have in forming a correct fist. One of the problems people often have when learning to punch for the first time, is trying too hard. At first it would seem that putting maximum effort into a punch, would yield the maximum return however I believe there is a big difference between intent and effort. When you strike it should be with maximum intent but the actual effort, should be that which is efficient. My background is in Judo. When you first learn to try and throw somebody, you usually do it in the most inefficient manner, pulling or pushing the person you are attempting to throw with all your might, and trying to lift them upwards, rather than simply taking their balance through added/extended movements, to their own larger movements; as you get better, your throwing starts to take advantage of your opponent’s movement(s) and your throws become effortless. Striking is no different. Power comes through speed, and speed is made possible when the body is relaxed. The problem is that when we tense our muscles, we “feel” them, when we relax them we don’t. If we can feel our muscles working it seems obvious to us that we must be employing them, and that must mean we are punching as “hard” as we can. A good power punch, like a good throw, should feel effortless – and that requires us to be relaxed. This is one of the reasons that the hands shouldn’t be clenched into fists, when in a “Guard Position” and/or at the start of the punch; as this ends up tightening the muscles of the forearm, and bicep - muscles which are used to contract rather than extend the arm. The Bicep, and forearm muscles are used to grip, and pull things towards us, the opposite of what we are actually trying to do when punching i.e. extending the arm – and fist – towards the target. If these muscles are tensed, then they are effectively fighting against the punch. The Tricep muscles (the ones at the back of the arm), are used to extend and straighten the arm during the punch, and these large muscles should only be felt working if you are pushing against something that offers resistance. This is not the case when striking, when the arm is extending without resistance. If you feel your arms working i.e. the muscles tightening, then you need to relax, as you are inhibiting the motion of the arm. You should be aiming to land your punch behind the target, driving through it. Because you are/should be delivering power into the target, your relatively weak fist has to be tightened, to make sure it is both a solid striking tool, and that the fragile bones of the hand are protected and don’t get broken. When you strike you should aim to hit the target, with your largest knuckle, and rotate the Fist anti-clockwise, around this point, to bring the second knuckle into line with it. The thumb should be positioned under these two knuckles to add support. When viewed from the side, the knuckles of the hand/fist should be in line with the top of the wrist, neither pointing up (which would mean the “knuckles” of the fingers would connect) or down which would mean the wrist/hand could be bent inwards. The Fist should strike straight into the target, drive through it, and be pulled straight back. It should not “scuff” the target, either upwards, sideways or downward but hit the target square on. The longer your fist drives, and pushes through the target, the more the force of the punch is spread out; your punch should hit the target, deliver the force, and be removed in the shortest possible time – you don’t want to waste power pushing the target, rather you want it to absorb your power in a single moment. If when you are working the focus mitts or other pads, and you find they are not being knocked back at speed, in a snappy fashion, but instead are being pushed back, your punch is lacking recoil. As fast as you throw the punch, once it has reached the end of its journey it should be pulled back with equal speed. Try to not get into the habit of just pulling the arm back, but rather look to pull the hip back, which in turn pulls the arm back. This makes the recoil faster, and also sets the hips back into a neutral position, allowing for other strikes to be thrown. Just as the body drove the punch forward, so it should pull the arm back. In conclusion relax, and aim to throw your punches with speed (if you can feel the muscles of your arms as you throw the punch, you are more than likely tensing them). Your fist should strike with the top two largest knuckles, with the top knuckle being the one, which you want to visualize hitting first, with the second one coming to “join” it. Strike through the target, and then pull the body back, which will in turn pull the arm. In all your movements use efficiency rather than effort.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=174 Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=173 Punching with power is really your “bread and butter” when it comes to fighting/self-defense. Being able to hit hard, deliver concussive force, and cause your aggressor extreme pain is probably the quickest way to force them out of the fight either emotionally and/or physically. This is one of the reasons that we practice striking, movement and relative body positioning in class so much i.e. we want to strike not only from an advantageous position, but also one where our aggressor/opponent is in a disadvantageous one – this is where we have maximal effect. This article is the first in two, where I want to look at common errors when striking, why they occur and how to fix them. The two issues I want to address in this piece are: elbows flaring/lifting out/up when striking, and the back foot lifting up when striking with the rear hand. Elbows flaring outside of the body is one of the most common issues I see with people learning to punch for the first time, and something that even experienced martial artists do, when tired and exhausted – sometimes adding a “swinging” motion to their strike, at the expense of the linear, forward motion that should power the punch. To utilize the full power of the forward momentum of the body, and the turning of the back/hips, the arm needs to travel in a direct, straight line, with the arm extending at the elbow, keeping the fist, elbow and shoulder aligned. For most of the journey of the punch, the elbow should be pointed towards the ground, and only turns outwards when the fist rotates from a vertical to horizontal position, towards the end of the strike. If the elbow flares out not only is power lost, but the punch becomes easier for an aggressor to detect because the silhouette of the torso changes i.e. your shape breaks. One common reason for the elbow lifting is that the fist turns over to early in the strike. If you hold your arms vertical in a “guard” position, and make a fist, with the knuckles pointing up, and then try and turn/rotate them to point forward, you will feel that your elbow will start to lift. For the wrist to rotate in the strike, and take advantage of the shoulder muscles, the elbow needs to turn outwards. If you do this before the arm is about 80% extended, the elbow will flare, and power will be lost. Another reason the elbows can flare, is down to a person’s fighting stance having the arms not held vertically but at an angle, where the elbows are positioned outside of the body, rather that tucked/positioned by the sides of the ribcage. If your elbows are already flared before the strike starts, they will stay flared throughout the strike. Another common issue I see, is the back foot leaving the ground, or having no weight placed on it, when a rear strike/punch is thrown. Both legs should be active at all times, for a variety of reasons, and this means keeping them not only in contact with the floor, but with an element of weight on them, so that they can be used if necessary – if you literally end up with all your weight on your forward foot, you are punching on one leg, and the other has little use other than as a counterbalance to keep you upright. If there is no weight on the back leg, it is impossible for the hip to turn/push forward, and extremely difficult to employ the back muscles in the strike. All the strike really comprises of is the body’s forward momentum. One of the reasons why the back foot may lift, is a desire to put “all” of the body’s weight into the strike, literally throwing everything into the strike. When I talk about being “committed” to the strike, I refer to committing all the different components of a strike, as one; not about one part overriding all the others. With a rear strike, an absolute maximum of 70% bodyweight should be on the front foot, and the head, should sit over the shoulders, and the shoulders over the hips, so that the torso is upright for the back muscles to turn it, which in turn allows for the arm to travel further, and for the hip of the rear arm to drive it forward. If you are leaning forward, and standing on one leg this is almost impossible to do. A quick remedy for this, and one that will add more power to your strike is to sink the hips, as this will force weight to be pushed into the legs and feet – despite having weight on both feet, they should also feel active, and light: heavy hips, light feet. Staying upright will also put weight back into the rear foot, if you find you have a tendency to lean forward when you punch (leaning forward often comes from the punch leading the body, rather than the body driving the arm forward). Whilst you want to put everything you can into the punch, you want to do so whilst staying balanced, and able to move. A good check for this is to see how quickly you are able to move after you have thrown a combination. If you find that you have to do a lot of re-setting of weight, before you can move, you are probably over-committing your bodyweight to the strike. Next week’s article will look at punches which push rather than drive, and how to get “snap” into your striking.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=173 Sun, 12 Oct 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=172 October is National Bullying Prevention month, and so I thought it appropriate to write a blog piece on bullying. Rather than look at school bullying, I want to take a look at adult bullying, with a focus on the workplace, as this is an area, which often gets overlooked, yet the bullying actions and behaviors of adults can be as equally vicious, aggressive and damaging as that perpetrated by children.  Who Bullies? A popular misconception about bullies, is that they are individuals who suffer from low self-esteem. This is often said to victims, to make them feel better about themselves; that it is the bully who has the problems and issues not them (this of course doesn\'t help the victim but it makes the person dealing with the problem, feel that they have in some way helped, and made things better). Bullies don\'t suffer from low self-esteem, they actually have very high levels of self-esteem, however they lack confidence in it, and question themselves over it constantly, needing to prove to others that they are in fact the \"top dog\", and all round amazing individual that they see themselves as. In a workplace setting, an individual may believe that they are the most talented and gifted person in the building, and yet are baffled that nobody else seems to think this or recognize them as such. This causes them to question the way they see themselves, and so they engage in bullying activities to demonstrate their dominance and superiority in that particular environment. Bullies are basically insecure people who suffer from a larger than average ego, along with high self-esteem.   In the workplace, bullying sometimes though rarely manifests itself in a direct physical way, though there may be threats of violence and acts of intimidation that would lead the victim to believe they are at risk. But bullying doesn\'t have to be physical, and this is where many of the damaging social and emotional acts the bully (and their group) engage in get overlooked. Gossiping, rumor mongering and the spreading of lies and falsehoods are also acts of bullying, if the intention is to cause the larger workplace group to try and shun and exclude the victim, from conversation, social events and the like etc. In many cases the bully is able to surround himself/herself with a group of individuals who are looking for a way to enjoy a higher level of status within the environment and they will help an assist them in the spreading of these rumors. This starts to create a \"them and us\" atmosphere in the workplace, with the bully and their group attempting to set the workplace \"rules\", defining who are acceptable individuals and who are unacceptable.  In any environment where bullies operate, the most important players (including school bullying situations) are the \"bystanders\", those that watch the individual being bullied don\'t take part and feel uncomfortable at what they have witnessed. It is this group (which are usually in the majority number wise), if they are vocal and active that can often change the culture of the workplace, and demonstrate that the larger group doesn\'t accept or tolerate the bully (and their groups) behavior e.g. gossip and rumor mongering can be cut dead if nobody repeats the lie, social exclusion is impossible if the larger group includes the victim etc. Bullies, and those they attract around them rarely change, but the larger group can help create and define an environment in which they, their behaviors and actions aren\'t accepted and tolerated.  One advantage an adult victim of bullying in the workplace often (but not always) has, is the opportunity to leave. If a workplace is toxic, because of the activities of one or a few individuals, the most obvious thing to do is leave. Is it fair? No, but is it practical and effective? Yes. Whilst we might hope that the larger group or a supervisor or manager might sort the situation out, this will not always be the case. Confronting the bully may have a short term effect, however in the long term, the \"challenge\" will be seen as a questioning of the bully\'s status, and is likely to lead to further, and more extreme forms of bullying in the future. If there is an opportunity to leave an environment where such activities and behaviors are tolerated and accepted then that is usually the best course of action to take.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=172 Sun, 05 Oct 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=171 This blog is prompted by an incident that occurred in Saugus, Massachusetts (a town just a few miles away from where my Krav Maga school is located), where two men (one underage), and a female sexually assaulted a 16 year old girl. Whilst the majority of sexual assaults and rapes are conducted by men, there are women who engage is such crimes, against both sexes (male and female), as well as against adolescents and children. In many cases the media and the legal system, as well as society, has a bias in not treating sexual assaults by women, as seriously as they do those committed by men e.g. a female teacher who sleeps with underage male students, is not looked on or judged as a sexual predator in the same way that a male teacher who has sex with underage girls is etc. This blog touches on some of the ways, and the roles that women play in sexual assaults both against adults as well as minors. Women may be accomplices to male sexual assaults for a number of reasons. They may be equal perpetrators or even the primary assailant/motivator, using a male friend or accomplice to assist them in the assault. There are female sadists, as well as male sadists, who get sexual excitement from the pain of others – either male or female. Just as certain male rapists, derive motivation for their assaults due to having been emasculated by a dominant female in their past (they see the assault on unknown victims, as a means of gaining back the power and control – dominance – that was denied to them in the past), there are women who have a similar level of anger towards women in general and are motivated in the same way; they want to exert control and dominance over other women. If they can team up with either an easily lead male, or a male who shares a similar desire to sexually dominate other women, then they will have an accomplice who can help them in their assaults. They may also be aware that even if they are the primary motivator of the assault, the legal system is more likely to judge their male counterpart to be the instigator and primary assailant, rather than them. Women may become accomplices to gain attention, power and status, either from an individual or from a group. In many gangs, where girls are routinely, sexually abused by male gang members (gangbangs, trains etc.), a female member can sometimes gain status and exemptions if she orchestrates and sets up the assaults – this may be a way to avoid becoming a victim herself, using the sexual management of the other female members as a way to give herself a different type of value to the gang. Some women will reluctantly acquiesce to the sexual demands of an individual or partner who they may be scared of, or want to please, and end up becoming an accomplice to their sexual assaults of women and even children, even though this wasn’t really there intent. Sometimes this “learnt” behavior becomes their default sexual motivator e.g. they now get a sexual thrill from assaulting other women and/or children.       Pedophiles by and large are male, however there are female child molesters. One of the ways female pedophiles tend to differ from their male counterparts, is that they have a tendency to focus on individual victims, rather than build up large networks of victims – though in cases of incest a father may focus just on their own children. Whilst sadistic females, who sexually abuse children do exist, many female pedophiles developed their sexual deviance, whilst engaging in acts of pedophilia with a male counterpart; that which they may have first been reluctant to engage in and do, now becomes their sexual norm/default. People are able to change and modify their sexual desires, which is often witnessed in male prisoners who have been incarcerated for sexual crimes, where over the course of time, the demographic that they used to prey upon changes e.g. they may have originally been attracted to women aged 18-22, but over a period of time, the age reduces till they become attracted to girls aged 8-12, and over a further period of time, their attraction changes to boys in this age group. This is not true of all rapists and sexual offenders, however it does demonstrate that sexual desire can be subject to change, and whilst there are women who did not start out with an “inherent” desire to sexually abuse children, through being exposed to such acts, may start to develop a sexual attraction for minors. There are of course cases of women sexually assaulting other women, independently without a male accomplice; there are lesbian rapists, who for a variety of motives choose to assault other women and there are also women, who sexually assault men – while some might argue that such assaults are not possible, because for male sexual arousal to occur the individual has to be “willing”, it is worth pointing out that pedophiles are able to get their male victims to respond physically, even if they are emotionally and sexually unwilling to engage in the acts demanded of them. It is also worth noting that for a sexual assault to occur, there doesn’t even have to be arousal – the assault just has to be sexual in nature. Whilst male sexual assailants by far make up the larger group and number, it would be wrong to think that there aren’t female sexual predators as well, along with women who will act as accomplices for a variety of reasons – fear, status, attention etc. It is not clear in the case of the Saugus Assault (mentioned at the start of this article), what role the female assailant played, and what her motivations were, however it is worth accepting that she could have been played an equal part in the assault as the man and the boy who were there.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=171 Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=170 The law in Massachusetts changed in 2014, to allow persons over the age of 18, to purchase and carry pepper and other defensive sprays, without having to have an FID card (Firearm Identification Card). This gives women over the age of 18, the opportunity to carry pepper spray without having to go through an application process, or complete any paperwork. This article, aims to explain how, where and when the use of pepper spray is appropriate and effective, along with situations where it is probably not applicable to use. This article will also explain the different types of spray, and the pros and cons of each – and in what situations one type may be more effective than another. The first thing to note is that not all defensive sprays are the same. There are basically two types: OC sprays (Oleoresin Capsicum) which are derived/extracted from different types of pepper, and are referred to as “Pepper” sprays, and CS/CN Sprays, which comprise of a man made, non-organic chemical, 2-chlorobenzalmalononitril, which is known as “Tear Gas” (MACE, is a type of CS/CN Spray). The two are not the same, and although they have similar effects, there are major differences as well. Pepper spray (OC) is an inflammatory agent i.e. it inflames tissue – it causes the eyes to shut immediately (if the eyes do stay open the capillaries will dilate causing temporary blindness), and causes the tissue of the nose and throat to swell effecting breathing. CS Spray (of which MACE is a type), is an irritant – it causes stinging and discomfort (to which some people are, and/or can become immune to). As an irritant it causes the eyes to tear/water but not to close, and it can cause coughing and breathing difficulties. Another big difference between the two, is that CS/CN Sprays can take 5 seconds or longer, to have an effect, whereas Pepper or OC Spray is effective immediately. 5 Seconds may not seem a long time, however you should consider that the average attacker will be able to run 30 yards in that time, and it is unlikely that any assailant you face will be that far away. Using something that is instantaneously effective is a much safer way to go. Unless you have been sprayed with pepper spray, it is easy to underestimate its effects. When sprayed a person will instantaneously be blinded, their breathing will be affected to the point where they feel the equivalent of an asthma attack. At the same time their face (or whatever skin comes in to contact with the spray) will burn. When you choose a spray you should look at its SHU (Scoville Heat Units) value; this will determine how hot it is. A Jalepeno pepper has an SHU value of anywhere between 3500 and 10000, most pepper sprays have a SHU value of between 3 to 5 million. This means that on average you are basically rubbing 300-1000 of the hottest peppers, into somebody’s eyes and face. From a self-defense perspective this is both effective from a sheer pain perspective, as well as from closing the eyes, and effecting the breathing. The percentage value on the spray e.g. 5 to 15 %, is less important than the SHU value. A can of pepper spray contains three things: the propellant (that which forces the spray out of the canister), a carrier (either water or oil based), and the active ingredient itself – the pepper. The percentage value simply refers to how much of the carrier and the active agent, is the pepper itself. A spray with a value of 5% or more should be sufficient. Carrying a spray (or any other weapon for that matter) however effective will not be of much use unless it is ready to hand, and there may be situations that you find yourself in where you don’t have easy access to it. If you are at a party, a social gathering, or with a friend or acquaintance in your house or somebody else’s it is unlikely that you will have your spray within easy reach. If a situation is not overtly threatening you probably won’t have your spray with you, and in reality it is these situations, which are mostly like to contain danger/risk e.g. most women are likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know in their home or somebody else’s. This should not deter you from carrying pepper spray, it is just to point out that it is not a replacement for following personal safety protocols. The situations where pepper spray is an effective tool are largely those when you are threatened by a stranger e.g. dealing with aggressive/dangerous individuals in parking lots, on the street, when you are in your car, when you are answering your door etc. There are four different types of spray: foggers/cones, streams, gels and foams. If you have to default to one type, you should probably get a fogger/cone. These type of sprays, spray out a conical fine mist, and don’t require much accuracy i.e. point it in the rough direction of an aggressor and depress the trigger. Streams require a bit more accuracy; you have to aim and make sure that it connects with your assailant’s face – with the cone/fogger because it mists, anyone coming towards you through it, is going to make contact with it and inhale it. Gels and Foams work well, when your assailant is close to you, however your real aim of using the spray is to deal with attackers at a distance - having a gel or foam, in your car might be a good way of dealing with aggressive individuals who approach you in it. The one disadvantage the cone/fogger has, is that strong winds can affect the way it disperses i.e. because it creates a fine mist. However the advantages that the other sprays have are largely effected by distance; they either need to be fired accurately which makes them more useful at closer ranges, or actually can’t be fired from great distances e.g. foam and gels. When you consider this, a fogger/cone at close range won’t really be affected by the weather and is therefore at least equal to these other types. When you purchase your spray you should test it. You should also do this roughly every 6 months. The last thing you want is a spray that doesn’t work, when you most need it. The easiest way to test it, is to go outside on a non-windy day, and spray a small amount. Then direct your head towards it and breathe in. If it causes you to cough etc. it is probably still good. If not replace it. Pepper spray is a great tool to add to your self-defense/personal safety arsenal, however it will be largely ineffective if you are unable to recognize threats, and identify dangerous people before they get to close to you, and so you should not believe that carrying spray in and of itself will keep you safe.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=170 Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=169 There is nothing technically difficult about using OC/CS Spray i.e. you literally point it at somebody\'s face and spray. Because of this, many people feel safe and secure because they own and carry a canister of pepper spray or Mace etc. The same is true of many firearms owners; you have a gun and by default this means your safe. A firearm, in many ways is an equally simple weapon as OC/CS Spray e.g. take the safety off, point, and pull the trigger. The sophistication of both tools comes not from their mechanical deployment, but from everything that has to happen in order for them to be correctly deployed and used e.g. if you aren\'t able to create the time and space to draw either weapon, the fact that you carry either one or both of them will be of little consequence. A can of OC Spray at the bottom of a bag, or a gun that can\'t be drawn when under stress and duress, creates a false sense of security, that is more of a liability than a security asset.  To be able to utilize either tool, you need to be able to effectively recognize a threat or danger early enough in the process of an assault - and to judge the appropriate level of response. This is one of the great benefits to carrying pepper spray, even if you also carry a firearm; it\'s a non-lethal tool that is applicable in situations where the use of lethal force may not be appropriate - which is why law enforcement and security will often carry both weapons. Because OC/CS Spray is a less than lethal option, a carrier should have little or no hesitation in using it i.e. the effects last for about 30 minutes and after that the person sprayed can go about their daily business. Making a judgment call as to whether you are entitled to shoot somebody, and whether you are prepared to live with the consequences of your actions, may cause you to hesitate in a situation, where your life was at risk and you should have acted decisively.  If you are unable to protect the space around you to a depth of 3 feet, it is unlikely that you will have the time to get to any weapon - unless you have practiced this under duress, and are able to create time and space within a physical altercation. The further back/away you are from your assailant, when the assault begins the greater the chance of successfully deploying your weapon. The sooner you recognize a threat, the more distance you will be able to keep between you and your attacker, and the greater your survival chances will be. It isn\'t enough just to carry pepper spray, you must be able to recognize danger early enough on, to give yourself a chance to deploy it.  At first glance, all sprays may seem to be the same however there are many different types, ranging from gels, to streams, to foam etc. There are also differences between the percentage values, the SHU values, and the carrier - whether it is oil or water based etc. All of these things make a difference, both in the effectiveness of the spray, and the way in which it should be used. As with any weapon you carry you should be familiar with its working and the effectiveness of it e.g. what\'s the capabilities of a small frame revolver, over a hand cannon etc. Just picking up a can of pepper spray, and believing that\'s the end of your thought process, and you have somehow ticked a personal safety box, is naïve. You should be familiarizing yourself with it, and ensuring/testing that it stays active. Any weapon you carry needs to fit in to an overall self-defense strategy and not be seen as an isolated tool or solution.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=169 Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=168 Personal Safety takes effort and requires change, which is why many people neglect it; they would rather stay in a state of denial, believing it won\'t happen to them, or cripple themselves with worst case scenarios, that although are highly improbable are almost impossible to solve. In last weeks blog I talked about dropping my kid off at school (it was his first day), and the way the school run is an opportunity to demonstrate to those that may be watching, that our children are not soft  targets; that someone is watching them and are involved in their lives. In this weeks blog, I\'m going to look at CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, as schools give us many good and bad examples how their layout and environment both prevent and facilitate crime, and how we can take lessons from this, to apply to our own environments, such as home and work settings.  My son\'s school, has a parking lot at the front where teachers and other staff members can park their cars. The principals parking position is clearly marked. Being the principal of any school, sets you up for potential conflict, with parents, former students, and other people associated with the school. Whilst having a designated parking spot is a privilege, and may be necessary for the smooth running of the school e.g. you don\'t want the head of the school, to have to search for a spot to park etc. it is a risk advertising to all and sundry that this is where the principal parks, and this is their car. Any person who has any form of grudge against the school, or the individual, knows where they will be heading at the end of the day and/or can tamper with their car e.g. cutting the brake lines.  A while back we started filming a \"Home Invasion\" and \"Home Security\" DVD, with Dave Ashworth (a security specialist/expert). It was a simple project, where he wandered round a friend of ours house, and basically pointed out, where and how he\'d be able to break in, and how quickly he\'d be able to navigate his way through the house once inside (He also showed how using the natural layout of the house, how a person could restrict and slow down somebody\'s entry and movement during a home invasion). Something he pointed out was that the house had doors which were labelled and named e.g. the bathroom had a sign on it saying \"bathroom\", children\'s bedrooms had doors with their names on etc. His point was that, an intruder would know which rooms to exclude and which ones would be of interest etc. In a home invasion or similar time is of the essence; causing an invader to hesitate, or have to check a room could gain vital seconds for people to either evacuate or get to a safe room or more defensible position. Signage is important to direct people but it can also compromise security; a balance has to be reached e.g. is it necessary to have a sign saying bathroom, when this gives an assailant/invader a room they can check off their list of ones to search.  It is great to have your child\'s picture, with their name, put up on display outside their classroom, however if you have an emotionally volatile estranged partner, advertising that your child is \"near\" to this picture, is not in your child\'s best interest i.e. it will make it easy for them to locate your child for an abduction/hostage scenario - although such instances are rare, if you believe your child is at risk, you should request such pictures be removed etc.     The canteen/dining area of my son\'s school, is right next to the entrance. Whilst it can be used as a large room to move kids into when they first enter the school, and acts as a great \"holding pen\", it also means that anyone wanting to engage in a mass/spree shooting, has little distance to travel before they get to a large number of potential victims - should they choose a time when they know large numbers of children will be gathered in this location e.g. at lunch time. If you have a choice as to which rooms you should use as bedrooms in an apartment, house or condo, choosing rooms as far away from the main entrance will increase your personal safety.   There is a Chinese proverb that goes along the lines of, \"the rabbit builds a burrow with many exits\" i.e. don\'t ever restrict yourself to having just one escape route. Look at the layout of the furniture in your house, and see if there are any enclosed areas in which you could be trapped, or your movement restricted etc. Understand what pieces of furniture could be used as barriers and obstacles to slow a person/attacker down etc. If you have areas in your home where you could be \"trapped\" look at opening them up, so this wouldn\'t be possible.  CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, is not looking to create \"Home Alone\" scenarios, involving complex traps etc. but how you can use and adapt the environment around you to prevent certain crimes and assaults. It may be an effort to change the way we lead our lives, such as removing the principals parking spot notice, and replacing it with a number that the teaching staff understand to be exclusiatory but from a safety perspective it makes sense to do. Ypu should look to control your environment and use it to protect you rather than facilatate crimes and assaults against you.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=168 Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=167 Sometimes blog posts are extremely personal. This is one of them. I am writing this whilst my son pretends that this is bedtime and he is getting ready to fall asleep, though really he is just reading a book and laughing, at the bad jokes in it (I have read parts of the book and the jokes are bad). Tomorrow I will take him to school, for the first day of a new term. We have a routine: I walk with him till we get to the school, and then he walks the length of the building on his own, till he enters. I didn\'t have a happy time at school early on, as I was bullied, so watching him make that walk alone is always somewhat personally painful. Tomorrow, I start doing the school run again (Summer Holidays are over).  However I also understand that I am not the only one watching him, and that is one of the reasons I stay. Predatory individuals whether they are burglars or pedophiles are far more aware of our actions, behaviors and movements than we are e.g. a burglar working your neighborhood will be very aware of the times that your car is on your driveway and when it is not. Pedophiles, are similarly observant, noticing when you are texting on your phone instead of watching your child, and when you turn and walk away before you confirm your child has actually entered the school doors etc. These are things I have seen many parents do, and I understand it - we are all busy, hurried, and stressed, wanting to complete tasks, so that we can move on to the next one; the school run, is just one of these, and we want it over as quickly as  possible, so we can move on - I\'ve been there.  The school run, though is a statement about who you are and how your family operates. If anyone is watching my son with predatory interest, he knows there is someone who cares enough to make sure that their child enters the school when they could have left a bit earlier, entrusting their child\'s safety to the teachers and staff who patrol the front of the school. Pedophiles look for an in, and a big one of these is an indication that a parent is distracted or harried - the school run gives an indication of this (it doesn\'t have to be true, but rushing off after dropping your child off, sends this message to such observers). Believe me, I have a thousand things I need to do, before, during and after the school run however nobody needs to know this.  I also often hear parents when they drop their children off, tell them to do what their teachers tell them. Pedophiles are attracted to industries and jobs that give them access to children e.g. schools, churches, sports teams etc. This doesn\'t mean we should believe every adult who is interested in working with children is a pedophile, rather we should recognize that pedophiles will be attracted to such professions and groups. Telling our kids to do what people in positions of responsibility say, sets a dangerous precedent i.e. they may do things that may not be in their best interest. If we instruct our children to what is wrong e.g. being touched in the places your bathing suit covers is wrong, we can communicate personal safety advice to our children without spooking them.  Does your child have a good, \"this is what I did last summer\" essay to write. Don\'t get me wrong, it doesn\'t have to be spectacular, but does it contain stories that involve adults who were obviously involved and concerned about a child\'s safety e.g. will it be about an unsupervised sleepover, or about a family trip etc. Predatory individuals examine everything, when they are looking for potential victims, and any signal of disinterest, and/or lack of concern, will put your child on their radar.   We can\'t make ours and our child\'s lives bullet proof, but we can present an image to any onlooker that show we care, and that we are involved in our children\'s lives. We can give them real experiences that they can recall with enjoyment, and not require others to fulfill such experiences for them. Kids are very understanding of parents situations etc. and will brag and boast about them, and the way they were involved in their upbringing/experiences at any given opportunity e.g. a 1 hour fishing trip, will be recalled and communicated as if it were a week long expedition etc. If you give your kids these experiences and promote yourself as an observant parent, there are few pedophiles will target them, or be able to groom them - simple parenting is as close to bullet proof child protection as you will get.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=167 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=166 There are few people today who don\'t have a cell phone - one of the reasons you should be suspicious if anyone ever asks you for the time - and yet often the way we use them, severely compromises our personal safety. Below are answers to some of the questions that I get asked at seminars and training events, concerning mobile phones, along with observations I have made regarding cell phone use.  One of the biggest misconceptions that people have about being on the phone, is that they won\'t be targeted by predatory individuals, because the person on the other end of the line knows where they are, and so should they be assaulted can call the police, . In real life, violence happens extremely fast, and to believe that the person you are talking to, will be decisive enough to immediately hang up on you (in the event of an attack), phone 911, and then that the police will be able to get to your precise location before the assault is over, is extremely unlikely. A person on a phone is a distracted person, who is less likely to notice and/or question things and people that are out of place in their environment. Violent criminals know that their assaults take seconds, and that the best victim is an unaware one. Also, if your phone is an expensive one, you are advertising yourself to be someone who has things - even if it is just the phone - worth taking.  A \"tactic\" I have heard some people say they employ, when they believe that somebody in their environment has targeted them, is to pretend they have just received a call, so that whoever has shown an interest in them will not be able to engage them in conversation, as they are already talking to somebody else. If we are honest, we probably don\'t really believe that muggers and rapists etc. are so polite that they won\'t confront us because we are on a phone call with somebody else; and if we are totally honest we should probably admit that this \"tactic\", is akin to an ostrich putting its head in the sand i.e. if we just close our eyes the person will no longer be there. When we engage in such acts we give a clear signal to any predator that we are trying to avoid an interaction and a potential conflict with them at any cost i.e. we are behaving like a victim. We do not want to appear challenging to those individuals who have targeted us as potential victims, but neither do we want to confirm to them that we have matched their profile.  One of the things I notice a lot in parking lots, is the way that many shoppers immediately after loading their car, sit in the driver\'s seat and check texts and messages before putting on their seat belt and/or starting their engine - my guess is that they haven\'t even bothered to put the central locking on. As I have written before parking lots are popular locations for a variety of criminals, and are not a good place to be hanging around in, especially with your head down looking at a screen. If there are potentially important messages to respond to these are best done in the store, rather than in your car.  Mobile phones can enhance your safety e.g. if you have the phone number of a reputable and trusted 24 hour taxi cab company etc. however they can also be a distraction that takes our attention away from what is going on in our environment. Whilst it may be comforting to talk to a friend or a family member whilst you are in a potentially frightening situation, such as walking home late at night, they will be pretty ineffective in helping you, should you be attacked - relying on someone else to ensure your survival is also not a good mental state to be in. At the end of the day, no predatory individual will cross you off their victim selection list because you are on the phone, and this in itself is a good enough reason to avoid being on it, when your attention is required elsewhere.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=166 Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=165 As a 42 year old man, it is both strange and amusing to me, to be writing a blog article, giving dating advice, however after some of the conversations I had over the weekend during/after our women\'s self-defense class, I feel this is good a time as any to talk about dating from a personal safety perspective (especially as it coincides with our Annual Campus Safety Seminar, aimed at young women going off to university for the first time).  There\'s much been written about dating safety, all of which we have to acknowledge, has been read by the predatory individuals who it\'s aimed at dealing with - this is always a problem when publicizing personal safety advice. Every sexual predator, knows that their \"date\", will have arranged to meet in a well-lit place, and told somebody where they\'ll be and what time they will be leaving etc. These are all good precautions to take, however they shouldn\'t be looked on as conclusive - a date can always \"convince\" you to stay out later than you planned, and any predator is unlikely to attempt an assault so early on - they will take their time to assess a target\'s vulnerability level, and test how likely they are to acquiesce to any demands made of them without resisting. For the predator a date is simply an interview, where they check the suitability of the person they are interviewing.  When going on a date for the first time, you are best choosing a weeknight. This gives you a good excuse not to drink too much, as you can always make the argument, that you have work or school tomorrow morning; something, which is harder to do if you go out on a Friday or Saturday night. It\'s also an opportunity to see if your date, tries to pressurize you into drinking heavily, or whether they respect your choice/decision - if somebody doesn\'t listen to you on this then it could be that they are pushing a particular agenda that isn\'t in your best interest. Going out on a weeknight, also gives you an easy opportunity to end the evening early, if either the date doesn\'t measure up, or if you develop concerns regarding their intentions and your safety. It\'s hard to make a case for going home \"early\" on a Friday, or Saturday, as it\'s obvious that you planned to have your evening free to go on the date e.g. who doesn\'t go out on a Friday or Saturday Night and not stay till last orders?  Try and set the date to be an event you can easily walk away from. Arranging to meet for a meal, or to go to the movies etc. means that you have to really stay to the end. Meeting for a drink, or for coffee, means that you can allocate time to the date incrementally i.e. one drink at a time. If things aren\'t going well either socially or from a personal safety perspective, you aren\'t obligated to stay any longer than you want or have to. If things go well, you can always extend the time, though it would be wise to have an end time in your mind and stick to it, regardless of how well the date might seem to be going.  Sort out in your head, what information you are comfortable with letting your date have access to and what information you don\'t want out there - telling someone where you work, may seem an easy and natural conversation piece however if you later decide you never want to see the person again, and they decide otherwise, then they know where to find you - and from there can find out other things about you, such as how you get to work etc. Setting the date to be naturally short, will take some of the pressure of you - if you go out for dinner, you may find that you end up talking more about yourself than you\'d like just to fill up the conversation and avoid awkward silences.  Always have a \"legitimate\" reason to leave. At the start of the date, tell the individual, something that you can use to get you out of there quickly. Informing them that your sister\'s children are ill, and you might have to go and help look after them if called, is a good type of excuse to use. It\'s one that its difficult for a person to argue with, especially when you put it out there at the start of the date. Any excuse which makes you responsible to somebody else will work. You can always add an apology to this if necessary. How your date responds will also give you an idea about who they are as an individual. If you\'ve gone out on a weeknight, you should be able to end the date without feeling guilty for spoiling somebody\'s weekend etc.  It goes without saying to use alternative communication methods, than your regular ones e.g. having a different phone number that you use/give to dates (and can afford to get rid of if necessary), is far more preferable than having to get rid of your mobile phone because you don\'t want this person to ever call you again. There are many services and apps that are free (such a Google Voice), that will give you a number you can use, and if necessary discard. The same too for email.  At the end of the day, you should remember that the person you are meeting with is a stranger. Run with the definition of a stranger being someone who you don\'t have experience of their actions and behaviors, in a particular setting, and it\'ll be difficult for them - if they don\'t respect your personal safety - to get you to behave in a way that compromises it. Most people you will meet are not predators and don\'t want to harm you, however unfortunately we must continue to take safety precautions with everyone we meet, because there are those individuals out there who have the ability to cause us pain and harm.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=165 Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=164 Aggressive and violent incidents are fast paced affairs (once you find yourself involved in one - through prediction and early identification, most can be avoided). When we find ourselves in such situations, our first response, after denial and disbelief, in to ask \"what should I do?\" One of the things that often separates us from predatory individuals (muggers, robbers, sexual assailants etc.)is that they have a plan, however loose, and we don\'t. One of the issues that many self-defense and martial arts practitioners have regarding real world violence, is that they confuse techniques with plan. Knowing how to perform a knife disarm, against a mugger, is not a plan, it is a technique; one moment along a timeline. A technique should not be confused with understanding how to handle a situation e.g. a plan would involve, what to do after the disarm, what to do if there is more than one person, what to do if the threat occurs in an enclosed place, such as a bank lobby or an elevator etc. knowing how to perform a weapon disarm is not a plan.  If you talk to anyone involved in security or military operations, and ask them what the most important phase of the operation is, they will tell you planning. Yes, we all know that once a situation kicks off, a plan can go awry, and much of the success will be down to the individuals involved being able to adapt and improvise to the situation - however much of this involves the experience of implementing former plans in similar situations etc. Having plans that can be adapted to different situations should be in every person\'s personal safety and self-protection toolbox.  To be effective a plan, needs to be simple and efficient, with few if any caveats. It also has to be fluid and adaptable. In violent situations, a plan, should be there to guide a response, rather than as a substitute for actual thinking; there will always be factors in the situations, which need to be taken into account e.g. in a certain situation we may normally plan to comply with an aggressor\'s demand, such as handing over our wallet to a mugger pointing a gun at our head (that would be our plan) however if our assailant is drugged up, shaking, and has their finger on the trigger, we may be better to alter/change the plan and attempt a disarm - before they inadvertently or deliberately pull the trigger. Our plans have to be fluid, and adaptable to pertinent to information, the situation provides us with.  The way to build such plans is to use heuristics. A heuristic, is a \"rule of thumb\", based on experience. A heuristic that could be used to deal with a mugging scenario could be, \"comply with the demand, and only attempt a physical solution, should they remain at the scene, after you have complied.\" This is a good rule of thumb to follow, and it is based on experience - US crime statistics show that physical injury occurs rarely after compliance, compared with those who either refuse to comply or fight back. However the statistics, don\'t say that physical injury never occurs, and so we must be flexible in our  application of the heuristic, and acknowledge that it is their to guide and speed up our decision making process rather than replace it.  To create effective heuristics, we must build effective models of violence, that are based on a correct understanding of how violence occurs. If we believe that muggers will always stab, cut or shoot their victims whether they comply or not, our heuristic would probably be, \"as soon as someone threatens you with a knife or gun, attempt a physical solution.\" The statistics, show this is not the safest or most advisable strategy, and compliance in most cases would be a better first option. If are starting assumptions are incorrect, and our models poorly built, then are heuristics will be ineffective and we are likely to make poor decisions.  In personal security and personal safety, planning is everything. We should equip ourselves with the facts, and build heuristics/rules of thumb that can guide our decision making.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=164 Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=163 Many people when they come to take “self-defense” classes, do so believing that they will be taught a few tricks and techniques that will allow them to disengage /escape from a violent altercation without them getting hurt, or having to hurt another individual(s). Few come with an understanding, that the only way to deal with violence is to become violent – even if this is only to create enough of a disturbance/disruption that will create for them the time and space to disengage. Many people when they practice striking in class, hitting and punching the pads with as much force as they can generate, don’t make a conscious connection that what they are training to do is hit another person full force, causing them pain, damage and possible injury. Striking drills using pads should not simply be a physical/athletic exercise but an emotional one as well, where the person training their punching/kicking etc. visualizes and considers the impact of their strikes on another human being. The majority of us are not psychopaths and by default have a natural level of care and concern for others, even when they are being aggressive towards us. Unfortunately this reticence to inflict damage on another can put us at a serious disadvantage when we are dealing with someone whose heightened emotional state and/or predatory nature means that they don’t share this same reservation. Many people believe that because they have experience of throwing punches in sparring, they will not hesitate when put in a real-life situation; this is often not the case. Wearing a boxing glove, or other type of protective mitt, means that you have experience of throwing punches in a “safe” way, and may well hesitate when you realize that you are about to throw a punch with an ungloved fist that has the goal of causing as much pain and trauma to your aggressor as you can. In many instances people are more comfortable with taking a punch than throwing one. Somewhere along the line, in our training, we must accept that what we are training to do is cause physical harm to others, whether it is by punching and kicking them as hard as we can, throwing them to the ground at full force/speed, or by breaking their limbs etc. None of these things are pleasant (or should be pleasant) to consider, and visualize e.g. close your eyes and think about throwing the most powerful rear-handed punch you could into somebody’s face – imagine how it would feel, what it would look like etc. For most untrained people, and for many trained, there will be some level of revulsion; just as there often is when considering forcibly pushing thumbs into a person’s eyes (as far as they can go). Visualize biting somebody’s nose and trying to rip it from their face. These are things that we may one day have to do in order to survive a situation, and we should in such incidents have little or no hesitation in doing them; biting, ripping and gouging should be things that we are morally comfortable doing. In a fight there is not the room to be the “better” person than your attacker – trying to will seriously impede your survival chances. Holding back some power from a punch because you don’t want to cause serious physical trauma to another individual will limit you. This is not about talking big but about seriously considering your ability to become violent towards another person, and removing any self-imposed limits that you may have, regarding the use of violence. Next time you throw punches against a pad-holder, understand what you are actually training to do; that this is not sport, a technical exercise etc. but the practice and education of how to cause maximum pain and trauma to an assailant.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=163 Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=162 We all have ideas concerning violence. What it looks like, where it happens and who instigates it etc. Some of these ideas are based on personal experiences, some on anecdotes, others on media reports and others on simple gut feelings etc. When we fuse these ideas together we create what are called “Models of Violence”, which we try and use to help us predict, identify and avoid violence. For us to be effective in our self-protection and personal safety efforts we need to test these models against six criteria: objectivity, thoroughness, accuracy, timeliness, usability and relevance. We should try and avoid distortion and bias in our self-defense and personal safety training. If someone has invested 3 years Krav Maga training on how to deal with two handed, front chokes, it will be difficult for them to accept that this isn’t what the majority of violent situations looks like. If we have created training environments and patterns that don’t reflect reality, but rather our personal preferences for training then we are not being objective. If we have convinced ourselves that sparring is an accurate reflection of what actually happens in a violent altercation then we have a distorted view of what real-life violence actually looks like. When we build our models we must be objective, and not try and build them to unfounded, preconceived ideas of what we would like to believe violence looks like. Many people pick up on personal safety tips, and subconsciously build their models around these e.g. if you are being mugged, throw your wallet on the ground away from you – this immediately suggests, that you will be mugged when there are no other people around. Because this safety tips, seems to make sense, and we want it to be able to work, we imagine the scenarios where it will work and make real-life violence conform to this notion. This is not being objective. Thoroughness. Any information we use to base our ideas of what violence needs to be thorough. This is where the media can seriously distort our idea of what violence looks like. If we are presented with, or only pick up on half a media report of a violent incident, our understanding is not thorough. One of the situational components that often gets lost in media reports is the relationship that a victim has with their attacker(s). The media gets its most “news” out of a violent event that appears random e.g. a random abduction. The truth is that many victims of violence do actually know their assailant, yet this is often not reported on because it is an unknown factor at the time of the initial report. Only understanding half a story does not give us a thorough understanding of violence. If the reports are also inaccurate due to a reporter’s lack of objectivity or lack of awareness of all the facts then our models will be flawed. Sometimes the most inaccurate information we receive is from people who have experienced violence, and either recall events incorrectly because of the stress of the situation, or re-write how an incident occurred to either absolve themselves of blame, to help them cope emotionally, or to make themselves out to be the hero of the hour. I have heard many accounts of violence where people involved are able to recall the exact number of strikes they threw, their assailant’s reaction to each one etc. In a highly stressful and emotional encounter, many details are lost and the whole event presented us might not actually be accurate. Information can become outdated. The situations that our parents tried to protect ourselves from when we were children may not be applicable now. We were all probably told as children not to get into cars with strangers, with our parents trying to protect ourselves from the stranger who would be driving round, asking kids if they wanted to get in and come and see some puppies etc. This is probably not the type of situation we have to face as an adult, and if we believe that this situation is what, “not getting into a car with a stranger”, looks like, we will not recognize the situations as an adult that we might be faced with. Before 9/11 there was a fairly standard pattern for hijacking a plane e.g. hijackers force the plane to land and make their demands; after 9/11 we cannot be so sure that this is the model a hijack team will work to. Our information must be usable. It is interesting to know why an individual develops violent tendencies and/or why they chose mugging people instead of burglary etc. but is this information usable? Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. It is interesting to know that serial killers usually have a history of bedwetting, killing animals and starting fires but these facts don’t help anyone when they are dealing with such an individual. In fact such information can cause overload and noise. However understanding why a burglar chooses that crime, instead of mugging tells you a lot about their general lack of propensity for violence. We must separate what is simply “interesting” from what is “usable” when building our models to get rid of unwanted noise. Relevance is key. We must be able to apply what is relevant to a situation. This is linked in with usability. Irrelevant information will simply cloud our judgment and slow down our decision making abilities. Not everything is relevant in a situation. In a mugging scenario, there is only one question we really need to ask; if after we hand over the wallet or purse is the assailant likely to still stab or shoot us? The information we require is that which enables us to answer the question. If it can’t help us answer that it is irrelevant. Whatever your understanding of violence test your ideas and beliefs of what violence looks like against these criteria, and see if they hold up. If not start re-examining and rebuilding your models.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=162 Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=161 At times we can be so \"security\" focused that we ignore and/or forget to consider, the other threats and dangers that affect our lives. In certain instances, we can choose to implement actions based on improving our safety from certain threats such as violence, that compromise our safety from more prevalent and likely dangers e.g. putting a myriad of security locks on our doors and windows to prevent break-ins and home invasions is all well and good, however if these precautions slow down our ability to exit our home in the event of a fire, or even an assault by someone we have \"willingly\"  let in to our house, they have done little to ensure our complete and total safety - if we are able to protect ourselves from violent individuals but die in a house-fire what was the point?  If all of our risk-assessments are based on worst case scenarios, rather than on the most likely, we will probably implement solutions that affect our overall safety. Many operatives in high risk situations will not wear the seat belt in their car- speed of exit and debussing trumps the need for safety from collisions involving other drivers etc. However in a civilian context, we are much more likely to be involved in a crash than we are to have to deal with a car-jacking or hostage/abduction scenario. It may feel glamorous and sexy, not to wear a seat belt, in order to be able to deal with violent criminals however if you are more likely to be involved in a vehicular collision, your choice is a bad one.  It is all well and good to have windows and doors that prevent easy access to your home or workplace, however if they are difficult to open from the inside and restrict your ability to exit in the event of an emergency, you may be doing yourself a disservice. You may feel safer in a hotel room, when staying in a third world country, that is many floors above street level - which could make it more difficult for somebody to break-in to your room etc. however if the local fire department (if there is one) doesn\'t possess ladders that can reach your floor, in the event of a fire, you may end up finding yourself cut-off.     I recently had a conversation with a friend who asked me which train carriage I took when taking public transport. Part of their argument involved being able to exit the station quickly in the event of certain emergencies - therefore they sat in either the front or end carriage. Whilst there was an element of logic to what they were saying, and in the context of the threats and dangers they perceived it made sense however the end carriages normally act as a \"crumple\" zone in the event of a crash or derailment.   When making risk-assessments, we should look at all risks and dangers including the most likely and the most devastating. If I know that a gang of muggers who board a train carriage are unlikely to harm me if I comply with their demands, and yet an end carriage is likely to be a metal coffin for me, I should assess my risk not just on likelihood but also on outcome and the level of control I have within such situations. I can never mitigate all risks, but I can normally protect myself from the most likely, and the most likely with the worst potential outcomes. When we look at personal safety, we should consider all threats and dangers, not just those involving violence.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=161 Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=160 I have written about the importance of visualization as a training tool before, and how to practice it e.g. first viewing yourself as a third party, and then visualizing the situation through your eyes etc. To re-cap, I believe visualization is a key training tool for a number of reasons. Firstly because it’s a great way to practice what you do in the dojo/studio, when you’re not there; most people can dedicate 2-3 hours training a week, and by practicing visualization of their techniques for say a combined 15 minutes a day, they can add an extra hour or two to their training, whilst keeping everything they learn to the forefront of their mind. Secondly, visualization allows you to take your training out of the dojo and into the real world – etc the world where violence actually occurs. As much as we can replicate aggression, emotional state and the stress of real world violence in the dojo we have to recognize the limitations of our training as well. Firstly, we know that we are in a training environment – there may be moments we forget this, and that is the aim – and we know we have the option to stop if necessary, and that there is a level of safety that is adhered to e.g. we know the ultimate outcome of the situations we are placed in. Secondly, we know our assailants; this can also sometimes heighten the stress, if we are dealing with someone who lacks control and is somewhat erratic in their movement however we enjoy a level of predictability because of this. Because of this there is a level of familiarity to our training. Visualization can knock this on its head. When I visualize situations, I try and stick to familiar locations e.g. those that I find myself in frequently. There is a level of routine in my life that sees me go certain places; sometimes in my car, sometimes on public transport and sometimes on foot. These are the environments that I use, as these are the ones I am most likely to be assaulted in. Visualizing with these locations also helps me up my awareness levels, and tunes my state of mind in to the possibility of being attacked, when I am in them. When I visualize a potential attack, I try and keep it as realistic as possible e.g. when I’m at the supermarket, I don’t visualize myself doing long-barrel weapon disarms (in a home invasion scenario maybe) but rather dealing with muggers, Car-Jackers etc. who may be armed with knives, short-barreled weapons etc. or unarmed. I also visualize myself in the clothes I’ll be wearing e.g. not full battle-dress, but shorts and sandals or sneakers (footwear is key in what you can and can’t do). I also change the motive behind the attacks and threats, even if I don’t have the aggressors in my head verbalize the exact reason why they may be abducting me etc. The reason I do this, is because I don’t want to limit myself to the types of violence I may have to deal with. If somebody demands your wallet, their motive is clear, if your assailant(s) want to move you from one location to another it could be for a number of reasons, ranging from sexual assault to some form of punishment beating etc. Adding motive into your visualization practice, will not only help you identify the most likely types of threats and attacks you will face but will also allow you to consider the unexpected as well. Rather than just imagine the attack, I will visualize the entire build-up to the assault, from the way a person(s) selected me, to the way them move with me and approach me. I do this both from the viewpoint of bystander and from how I would see and experience it first-hand. I will first practice/visualize the attack and my response (including how I managed the post-conflict phase), and then I will consider ways I could have used the environment, how I could have possibly resolved the conflict etc. without a physical solution. All of this helps heighten my awareness when in such situations and dictates how I should act and behave when in them to prevent and avoid violence. In every situation I visualize I am successful, so I plan the process before I visualize it. This practice/method should not involve you making it up as you go along, but rather thinking of a scenario, building the steps and then playing them out. It is sometimes worth doing this as a paper and pen exercise, as you will start to get a better appreciation of how violence actually occurs e.g. if you are visualizing a baseball bat attack and defense, you have to have found a way for your attacker to have a baseball bat in their hand; where did they get it from. This allows you to understand how and where different types of assault take place and gives you a context for assaults. By thinking of scenarios and working them out in your mind, you will be in a better state of mind should you find yourself in them, and more situationally aware and able to avoid and prevent them in the first place.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=160 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=159 When I teach self-protection/personal safety I do so from a situational perspective, identifying five situational components that define a situation. These are: location (where does the incident occur e.g. on the street, in a parking lot, in your home etc.), relationship e.g. is the assailant a stranger, an acquaintance, a family member etc. The assailant’s motive – do they want money, to sexually assault you? Etc. Your state of mind/level of preparedness and those third parties who are with you (friends, acquaintances, family members such as children etc.) Whenever I do scenario based training these are the factors/components I change e.g. the same “situation” or scenario but in a different location, or with an assailant who has a different motive etc. The two variables/components that are most interconnected are location and relationship. If an assault is committed by a stranger, location is more important than the relationship the attacker has with the victim. In my time teaching self-defense I have seen many people over-estimate the importance of location e.g. when someone of a certain demographic and socio-economic class is abducted from their home and killed, everyone who shares similar traits such as age and gender, and who lives in the same area, automatically assumes that they are at a similar risk and it was simply by chance and luck that it wasn’t them who was abducted. This is not automatically the case; if the assailant and the victim had a prior relationship, then the locational component becomes less important; it is just the place where the assault “happens”. However where stranger violence occurs, location becomes a defining factor. A location has certain attributes that make it a place of choice for violence to occur. It has to have, what are referred to as “Crime Attractors” e.g. what brings a violent criminal to a particular location. A mugger is going to be attracted to an area which has a good supply of “Cash Rich” victims (forget deserted alleyways etc. these places by definition are deserted and have no potential victims in them), such as ATM’s, Shopping Malls, Parking Lots etc. However there may well be locations that although attractive to certain criminals, have a number of “Crime Preventers”, which dissuade them from operating in these seemingly attractive locations. A certain shopping mall, may at first glance appear to be an area which supplies a good number of potential victims, however if it enjoys a good CCTV (Closed Circuit TV) system, then a mugger may decide that the risk of getting caught is too great and may choose to find another more suitable  location. As well as there being “Crime Preventers” there are also “Crime Promoters”. Certain locations may have factors in them, which promote crime. An “attractive” area that has certain features will “score” higher on a predator’s radar than other attractive areas. One of the main things a criminal looks for is the numeracy of escape routes e.g. burglars are much more likely to break in to a corner house, which is located on two roads, than a house in a cul-de-sac where there is only one way in and out. Muggers work to a similar protocol, choosing locations with a variety of escape routes. Muggers will also look for areas, where people either have to slow down and/or stop – such as crossing points across a road. Basically, you are more at risk when you are stationary, than when you are moving. Areas which enjoy natural surveillance are also less likely to be crime hotspots than those which don’t; a car parked in a parking lot near the entrance, where there is a lot of traffic is less likely to be broken into, than one parked in a more remote spot – even if it is better lit. Many of a city’s crime hotspots are located in its less affluent districts, and there are a variety of reasons. Most street crime such as muggings and robberies, are committed by those individuals looking for immediate cash, not credit cards, jewelry etc. These items need to be converted into cash and this requires both time, and access to a criminal network, something that most muggers lack – especially if they are committing robberies in order to support a drug habit. Poorer neighborhoods are likely to contain people with bad or no credit, who don’t use credit or debit cards, but do most of their transactions in cash. A mugger targeting such individuals may get more cash of a person who deals exclusively with this form of exchange, than a more affluent person who uses cash less frequently. If you are in a location where there are “Check Cashing” businesses, pawn shops and similar, you are in an area where people are more likely to use cash than credit cards, and this makes it a more attractive area to muggers than a more affluent district. If you couple this with the lack of “crime preventers” e.g. a more affluent area or town is more likely to be able to afford more and better policing/security, such places become more attractive to muggers etc.      We don’t always have control over the places we find ourselves in e.g. we may live in an area that suffers from high crime rates, or work in one etc. We cannot always avoid being in areas that are attractive to certain criminals however when we understand those things which promote crime and those which prevent it, we may be able to adjust our behavior and the routes we chose to take when moving through such locations. We may take practical measures, such as timing the moment we get to intersections so as to be able to immediately cross because the traffic has stopped, than have to wait at the junction for an opportunity. These might not be steps we take in all locations but just in the ones we understand have a higher threat level. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=159 Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=158 There are many people who believe that simply spending time in a gym, regardless of the amount and level of exercise they do, will get them fit. They come with little or no idea of what they are going to do for the hour they have allotted as their training time, and so spend most of it wandering aimlessly around. They then wonder after a few weeks, why they\'re not getting fitter, not losing weight etc. Their training lacks real intent. The same is often true of martial arts and self-defense training; students attend classes with the hope (not the goal) of getting better, but they lack intent - this is often the fault of the instructor who fails to explain to them \"why\" they are training, and \"how\" they must train. The student has shown the initiative to recognize they need and want the training, but they may not have formalized in their mind the exact reason(s) why - it is the job of the instructor to help them understand these reasons.  In my time teaching martial arts and self-defense, I have come to recognize four levels of intent, concerning violence:    It will never happen to me   It might happen to me  It could, it is likely to happen to me  It will happen to me   Despite all the evidence to the contrary there are still those people who believe they will never be the target or victim of violence. They are either id denial, or are paralyzed by their lack of faith in their abilities, even with training, to be able to deal with an aggressor. Sometimes they are caught between the jaws of both. When you talk to them about scenarios, they might face, they will tell you that their lifestyle precludes them from such violence, or that there is nothing anybody can do; everything is an impossible, worst case scenario. They trust in their good sense and judgment not realizing that every predator knows what \"good sense\" and \"judgment\" is, and how to use it against them. They are potentially easy prey. These people never walk through the doors of a self-defense or martial arts school.  There are some who think it might happen to them; it\'s unlikely but there\'s a chance. These are the individuals who trust in \"tricks\" and techniques. They don\'t want to, or don\'t see the need to spend time developing the skills and attributes that will save them. Show them what to do, and somehow they will be able to do it. These are the individuals who know months in advance they are going to visit a hostile and dangerous country, and show up a week before they go, to learn what they must do. They do not take violence seriously. It might happen but they believe there is little chance of it. These individuals rarely stay long in a school - they are only one-step removed from denial.  Those that acknowledge violence could happen to them, that in many ways they are equally at risk as everyone else, do not deny the possibility, but instead see and imagine the possibility, and they want to know what to do. These individuals already have a level of awareness and have a knowledge of what could happen to them, and have taken the decision to empower themselves. Intent though, lies on a spectrum, and they may at times fluctuate from training with the intent that it could happen to them, to an intent level where it \"might\". Sometimes they are switched on to training sometimes they are switched off. There are times when their training is real to them, and times when it is imagined. We must train with an urgency and a zeal, that what we are learning could safe our life, or the lives of others. When I do medical training I take it seriously; I revise in my head basic CPR, as I don\'t want to be in the position that should someone need resuscitating I can\'t do it - my lack of knowledge, of seriousness when I learnt will have cost them their life. Likewise, I don\'t want to train against knife and gun etc. half-heartedly and without seriousness and energy because if I train this way, it could cost me my life - it is worth taking a moment to realize why we train: survival.  The highest level of intent to train with is, \"it will happen to me\". If we train each session with the belief that the moment we walk out of our school or dojo, we will be attacked, we will train with a new found dedication and zeal. We don\'t want to develop paranoia in our training but we want to train with the commitment of someone who believes that violence is inevitable, as if each attack and threat we practice against in training reflects a real-life situation we must deal with. As we leave the dojo/school we should change the direction of our intent away from the physical, and consciously adopt self-protection and personal safety protocols, until they become second nature. In doing this, not only will we up our skills and techniques but we will also get in touch with another side of ourselves; the one that understand what survival actually means.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=158 Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=157 Somebody once sent me a link to a forum post where I\'d been mentioned. Though I like the idea of forums i.e. an arena in which to share knowledge and ideas, they unfortunately tend to be inhabited by opinionated individuals, who like to make unsubstantiated declarations about instructors, techniques and systems (that they\'ve never experienced or practiced). The post I\'d been informed about was actually fairly accurate and well measured, and contained a strange criticism; that I\'d trained with a lot of different Israeli instructors and trainers. I guess the writer was making the argument, that I should have found one teacher/instructor and set myself on the course of learning all they had to offer, before looking at other approaches and systems. It\'s a fair comment, and a valid point. However I disagree with it.   Many martial arts instructors try and preach the message, that they are the only person that their students should train with and listen to (don\'t reda books, don\'t watch DVD\'s, don\'t train with anyone else ever etc), and it comes not from a desire to see their students progress but from a fear of losing them to somebody else or opening up the possibility of their students questioning them about their approach, and the solutions they suggest/provide. Self-Defense is a creative process. I believe this wholeheartedly, and to be creative you need to be exposed to new ideas and ways of doing things. These will help you gain new perspectives on the things you already know, and allow you to see other ways to deal with situations/problems. There is nothing wrong in disagreeing with another instructors approach or techniques etc. however this should be the result of questioning and testing your own approach.  I have trained with many different Israeli Martial Artists and Krav Maga Instructors, and am glad that I did so; some of my instructors encouraged me to do so. Every instructor had an approach that they emphasized, whether it was to disengage, control or finish the aggressor etc. and each one of these angles and perspectives allowed me to understand the benefits and risks of these different approaches. Although many would say that you should \"always\" do this, and were quite dogmatic about whatever it was they were instructing me to do, I was always able to caveat \"always\" to be restricted to certain types of scenarios, where certain situational components were at play. being exposed to different ideas, gave me the ability to be more flexible in determining effective solutions to problems.  Experience by it\'s own nature, is restricted to that of the individual. One instructor can tell you about their experiences however that doesn\'t mean that by default they apply to you. If your instructor is a 220 lb phenomenal athlete, and you are not, you need to judge whether their experiences of violence are directly applicable to you, and/or what they teach you is appropriate for you. If you can place their experiences in a landscape of others, you will be better able to understand where and how what they\'re teaching is appropriate for you. As the saying goes, \"there is more than one way to skin a cat\", and the same is true of dealing with violence - nobody has the monopoly on either experiences and/or ideas (forums should be one area, where these can be discussed in a non-partisan way).  This is one of the reasons I continue to bring some of the world\'s best martial artists, self defense and security experts to conduct seminars at my school. Just as I went out and trained with a variety of instructors, I believe in giving the same opportunity to my students. This approach I believe helps them become individuals who have a better understanding of violence, and allows them to have a variety of appropriate solutions to a lot of different situations. Training with other instructors will only increase your perspectives on violence, and allow you to see the solutions you already know, in their correct contexts and introduce you to others you may never have though about. The one thing we all have in common, whether we teach martial arts and/or practice martial arts is that we never stop being students and learning.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=157 Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=156 I sometimes feel that the self-defense message of “Don’t be a Victim”, gets interpreted as, “Be Assertive” i.e. stand up for yourself etc. The two are not necessarily synonymous. There are many ways you can avoid becoming a victim, with assertive action being only one solution/way – and not always an effective one. In many ways, it is up to the individual – not everyone else – to decide what constitutes being a victim e.g. is the person who hands over their wallet to a mugger as part of a predetermined plan, really a victim, if their action leads to their desired and planned outcome; they don’t get stabbed or shot? In such an instance they have exacted a plan which allowed them to control the situation, rather than be an idle player or a “victim” in it. Whilst there may be individuals who take up self-defense and the martial arts because they don’t want to have to hand over their wallet to an armed assailant, as they see such actions/compliance as making them a victim. They are confusing becoming a victim with a lack of assertiveness. Don’t get me wrong there are times to be assertive, however “standing up” to an armed assailant(s) by default isn’t the most effective solution to a mugging or robbery. Being overly assertive is also a good way to draw attention to yourself, something that some schools of thought might promote as a means of demonstrating to any predatory individuals that you are not a victim/someone to be messed with. However, whatever the primary motivation an assailant has e.g. money, sex, valuables etc. there are many secondary motives wrapped up in violent assaults, including: anger, power and control. Putting yourself out there on a predators radar by acting/behaving overly assertive may encourage rather than discourage them from selecting you as a potential victim e.g. if a mugger, who has little or nothing to show for their life, identifies an individual who seems confident, assertive and full of themselves, they may target them so that they can enjoy a degree of power and control – normally lacking in their life - and work out some of the anger issues that they may have. Far better, not to be noticed at all, than be seen as either a “victim”, a “badass” or an “overly confident/assertive” individual. If you can’t be seen you can’t be targeted. Nobody likes to be told what to do, and being overly assertive can lead you to do just this. By “standing up” for yourself, you may end up giving someone no alternative but to physically engage with you. We should remember that we are not always dealing with people who are either operating rationally, or working to the same reality we are. In my world chairs/seating in a bar/pub is determined on a first come, first served basis. For somebody who has been drinking in that bar for 20 years, seating may be allocated according to where they and the other regulars, always sit when they drink there. This could mean that I end up sitting in someone else’s chair, even if the pub is almost empty. If said person turns up and tells me I am sitting in their seat, I may determine that I need to be assertive with them, and explain my position. Unfortunately, what I must realize is that they’re not interested in hearing my side of the story, they just want to sit in the seat they’ve always sat in. Being assertive is not going to get me anywhere in this type of situation. Assertiveness is often tied and wrapped up with ego e.g. nobody should be allowed to say things like that to you, act that way towards you etc. I agree that people shouldn’t be allowed to treat people a certain way, such as sticking a knife in your stomach and demanding your wallet. However if you find yourself in such a situation, and your first concern is to be right and assert yourself, my guess is you’ll get stabbed; not an effective solution. Assertiveness can work if it involves setting sensible and workable boundaries for low level type confrontations however it fails miserably when dealing with highly emotional individuals, those who don’t share our understanding of reality and when dealing with those who are working to a criminal plan. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=156 Sun, 08 Jun 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=155 Dogs & Self Protection (Gershon Ben Keren - Sun 1st Jun) If you own a dog, you have not only a loyal, personal friend but have also invested in one of the world’s most sophisticated security systems. After occupancy, a dog is the biggest deterrent to any would be burglar, and as an early warning alert system is second to none. One of the main reasons a dog is so effective at security is that it cares about you - unlike an alarm or other piece of technology - and because of this it will work and give 110% to keep you safe. However there are also many other reasons why dogs are so effective at ensuring our safety, and it is worth examining a few of these reasons/characteristics, so that we can adopt and emulate them. I have always been a believer in learning from the best, and there are few better at threat detection, recognition and response than dogs. Forgetting a dog’s superior sense of smell and hearing, dogs have one major personality trait that we once had many, many generations ago but have since lost, and that is curiosity – thousands of years ago when we weren’t able to take security for granted (due to constant threats from wild animals and other humans) we were a much more curious species (modern and relatively safe living has robbed us of this). If a dog hears a sound, it wants to know what that sound is; it’s curious about it. Lacking reason, it doesn’t try and explain the sound away, but instead investigates the cause of the sound; and it’s not happy until it’s done so. Dogs are curious about their environment and don’t accept unknowns. If I am walking down the street, and I hear footsteps behind me, I should be curious about them, and I should make a dynamic risk assessment concerning them - determining whether I am in a situation concerning a high risk (maybe multiple footsteps running heavily towards me), or one containing an unknown risk i.e. I have yet to determine the significance of the footsteps. There is no such thing as a low risk situation, as to think like this would cause us to drop our guard. Rather we should be like a dog and not accept the unknown(s) but try and ascertain what the meaning behind the footsteps is, and any potential harm to us they may signify. Dogs never discount threats simply because the last time they picked up on the same thing or something similar it didn’t end up being a threat or danger. Many years ago, when I was walking my dog one night in the park, he stood still and looked off into the distance. Something had grabbed his attention. He stood and watched what was moving before him until he worked out what it was; a black bin liner blowing in the wind. Once he’d figured out the movement he’d been attracted to/was curious about, he decided there was nothing to be concerned about and stood down. However this didn’t stop him repeating the same process when we passed by the same spot a second time. The movement of the bag still arrested him, and forced his curiosity. We educate ourselves badly concerning our past experiences of potential danger. The more times we hear footsteps behind us, make no response, and nothing bad happens to us, the more convinced we become that not making a response is the correct thing to do. Dogs don’t do this, they’ll treat the same threat in the same way, over and over again, regardless of the end result, not because they’re stupid and unable to learn, but because they understand that one time out of a million the movement they’ve identified may indicate a real danger, and they don’t want to endure the consequences of this. It pays to be curious, even when you think you are familiar with a situation/experience. When a dog decides to attack, it does so decisively, with no doubts in its mind. It doesn’t question itself about acting, rather it understands that this is the only effective option left to it, and so it must act on it with full commitment. Why do we fear being attacked by a dog? Because we know once it attacks it won’t stop, give up or be taken out of the fight. Unless they are mechanically unable to do so a dog will keep fighting. If a dog is conscious and can move it will carry on. Could you say the same for yourself, or would the potential pain, and emotional stress cause you to give up? Dogs are totally committed to their cause, and are fearless- they act without regard for their own safety when they go to defend their owners/pack members. How committed are you to defending yourself? You should be every bit as committed as an attacking dog. My dog sleeps by my side and is ever vigilant. I acknowledge his vigilance and respond to it. If he gets spooked and wants to stand looking out of my window, growling, at 2 AM, I’ll acknowledge his concern, for the potential threat he’s identified and praise him for it – even though it is inconvenient at that time in the morning. If I stop doing this, he may stop responding to the noises and movements that he’d normally be curious about, and on one occasion the threat might actually be real. There may well be a time when you tell yourself that the footsteps behind you mean nothing that you are just imagining it, being stupid and paranoid, and that could be the time that the footsteps precede an assault. If you’ve detected a potential threat, you should get into the habit of investigating it, rather than denying or discounting it. We can learn a lot from dogs. We can be more curious about our environment, we can keep responding to those things which grab our attention but result in no consequence, by continuing to recognize them as potential threats. We can also promise ourselves to be more committed, determined and decisive when we have to act. Don’t just rely on your dog, if you have one, but learn to be more like them.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=155 Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=154 Most of us, including myself, have never been involved in an accident at sea; however I’m fairly sure what I’d do if I was, or at least if land was in sight: I’d swim. I’m a pretty good/strong swimmer, and I’ve swam all my life. However in most disasters at sea, trying to swim to land, or swim at all would be the worst thing I could do. The issue is that 95% of my swimming experiences have been in swimming pools, where the temperature is regulated, there are no currents, and land is always a predictable distance away i.e. I can calculate the energy required to make it to the side. Even though I have what seems an obvious survival skill, when in water, it is not always the most appropriate solution for every situation I find myself in. If I’m in a boat 4 miles from shore, that goes down – especially at night – the chances that I’d be able to make sense of the coast line (it’s not just getting to land, it has to be a piece of land I can actually get on to) is low, the chances that I’d get lucky with the currents is low, and the chances I’d exhaust myself and get hypothermia are high. Having a skill, strategy, or method that has been demonstrated in one environment doesn’t mean it’s an effective solution for every situation. My much better survival strategy in such a disaster is to grab something that floats, and hang on to it conserving my energy. A person who doesn’t know how to swim, may adopt this strategy much quicker than I would. Young children are often better at surviving wilderness situations than adults. Adults have an understanding that there is a world beyond the horizon; that there is something to get to farther than they can see. Young children don’t; their world ends at the horizon. This means that they don’t madly run forward hoping to get to something they can’t yet see, meaning they conserve vital energy. They also tend to eat when they’re hungry, drink when they’re thirsty and sleep when they’re tired, all sensible things to do that adults often forget in their hurry, not to solve the immediate problem (hunger, thirst or tiredness) but to solve the greater problem; getting to whatever destination they’re heading to. I see people in training follow the same path, especially when performing weapon disarms. The first/immediate issue when dealing with a threat by an armed assailant (as opposed to an attack, where they have already demonstrated their intent to use the weapon), is to give the assailant every reason not to use the weapon, to let them feel they are in control of the situation, and whatever demands they have of you – even if you have no intention of acquiescing to them – will be met. A person who shows you a weapon, deliberately letting you see it, either has an alternative option in mind to using it, or is not yet in the emotional place to do so. Putting your hands up and demonstrating that they are in “control” of the situation is an obvious way to do this; in almost all situations barring an assassination attempt. It is also a good way to prepare to disarm. Somebody who is untrained may not see disarming as an option and so acquiesce to the assailant’s demands, if this involves handing over a laptop or wallet etc. this is probably their best survival option. Someone who know how to disarm may unfortunately consider the disarm before they consider acquiescence – they are the individual who tries to swim to shore before considering other “safer” and more “realistic” options (are their times to disarm? Absolutely, but every time?). The person who rushes the disarm before trying to make themselves safe, is like the person lost in the woods who is rushing the situation before meeting their immediate needs. Putting the hands up and slowing the situation down, so that you are more likely to succeed, rather than rushing ahead is a much better way to go. Are there times to perform “immediate” disarms? Of course there are, just as there are times to swim to shore, rather than simply look to float, however just because we can perform a disarm doesn’t mean we should – the situation determines the solution, and we should have a realistic understanding of the situations and environments we find ourselves in rather than simply believing and trusting in a skill we have to work in all situations.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=154 Sat, 24 May 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=153 There are many people who don’t believe that self-defense training is effective, worthwhile or productive. I am sometimes asked when I demonstrate/teach techniques, if they would really work e.g. “I know it would work against my training partner, but what if I’m facing a 320 pound, psychopath, who’s impervious to pain?” It’s a good point; in that scenario there are more things that won’t work than will – it also stresses the importance of threat identification, prediction and avoidance, so you never find yourself in such a situation. The problem with this worst case scenario thinking is that it leads us to be fatalistic in our approach to self-defense and personal safety, as well as disempowering us rather than empowering us to believe we are able to control the outcome of the various scenarios we may have to face. When somebody makes the point about the 320 pound behemoth and whether a particular technique will work or not, I usually ask them to look around the training area and pick out which individuals in the class match their imagined foe in regards to stature and size – a class of 20 practitioners will largely represent the cross-section of physical attributes, such as height, weight and size, that exist in the real world. Yes, there are individuals in the world who are abnormally large and strong, yet the criminally violent community is not made up of a larger than average share of these individuals (what distinguishes them from the rest of society is not their size but their propensity for violence). Believing that we will always be facing large and pain resistant individuals is a false proposition – we still need to know how to deal with them but they are not our most likely assailant. We can easily talk ourselves out of the need to learn weapon disarms, because who could successfully disarm a gang of assailants who are pointing multiple firearms at us. I agree. It is hard enough to disarm one person, let alone two or three. Yet what is the likelihood that you will ever find yourself in such a situation, and does this invalidate learning to deal with the more likely scenario of facing a lone mugger/abductor/criminal with a firearm? It is all too easy to create scenarios in which it is impossible to succeed, and thereby conclude that learning to deal with any situation is a waste of time. Unfortunately we have a tendency to fixate on the dramatic, however unlikely, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing we could do when forced to deal with it – it is then an easy step to take to convince ourselves that all training is pointless . If an organized gang on trained criminals were to break into my house, getting past every security piece I have, and were then able to tie and handcuff me to a chair and give me a prolonged beating, you’d have every right to ask me, “so what would you do now?” you’d also have every right to question my solution, as being potentially unrealistic and ineffective – and in such a scenario you’d probably be right. But how likely is it that such a gang would target me, how likely is it that every security process, procedure and device I had in place was so easily bypassed, and why do I have to end up tied to a chair? Yes it’s a worst case scenario, but if I fixate on it, I will either conclude that all security is a waste of time, or waste a lot of effort and time designing preventative measures to a situation that is unlikely to happen – as well as wasting resources (time, effort and potentially money) that could have been applied to those situations that are much more likely and common. It is all too easy to say a technique won’t work because of this and that and a whole line of “what ifs”. All techniques can be made to fail e.g. a punch won’t work if a person is too far away etc. We need to stop imagining the worst and looking at the most likely and probable, and then discerning if those are situations that we believe are possible to deal with. We can worry about facing the giant, who is impervious to pain, and physical punishment, or we can accept that most people will react to an eye being poked, a finger being bent etc. You have the choice to fixate on the worst case, or the opportunity to accept the most likely case etc. If you don’t believe you can have a physical solution to your worst case, then you should look at putting preventative measures in place to ensure you avoid facing it in the first place - this is why self-protection and personal safety training should not be ignored. At the very least understand you have the ability to control the situations you face and the various potential outcomes available e.g. there are few defenses that work better than not being there in the first place. One of the strange/weird psychological tricks we play on ourselves is to imagine a worst case scenario, realize/understand that we have no solution to it (or that any solution we may have is far-fetched or unrealistic), and then at the same time rationalize that it is unlikely to happen to us i.e. we combine our worst case scenario with the denial of it. This is a crippling combination, which causes us to respond to the “feeling” of a worst case scenario, by denying its likelihood and probability. This is one of the most common ways in which we talk ourselves out of taking self-defense training e.g. to believe we could do nothing if someone assaults us (a worst case scenario), yet at the same time making the assumption that no one will assault us (denial) is the quickest way to adopt a victim’s mentality. Comprehensive self-defense training should include making risk assessments of our lives and life styles and understanding where we are at risk, and what we can do to mitigate these risks, whilst preparing ourselves for the most likely scenarios we will face e.g. it might be fun and informative to train gun disarms whilst on our knees as we are about to be executed however if you are a middle class, suburban housewife is this where a large part of your training and effort should go? Bringing worst case scenarios into our training, and practicing techniques that are relatively difficult to accomplish, will cause more people to question the point of their training than empower them in it          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=153 Sun, 18 May 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=152 For many instructors and students weapon disarming, is seen as the pinnacle of self-defense training, yet it is often practiced without any real understanding of the various factors which are at play in a violent situation where a weapon is involved. In the self-defense world we often operate from the mistaken belief that once we have disarmed an assailant of their primary weapon, they cease to be an aggressor anymore, and/or respect our position of being the weapon holder and themselves the target/victim – a position/role we obviously didn’t adopt when we were the one with the weapon pointed at us; it could be a major misjudgment to believe that an assailant won’t try and retrieve his/her weapon. Where firearm disarms are concerned, we seem to naturally assume that the person we have just disarmed, will naturally be subservient and comply with our requests/demands after the disarm – this is often coupled with a mistaken belief that just because we are in possession of a firearm we are naturally in the superior/dominant position. Dominance only exists where another accepts it, and not everyone will accept that because you hold a firearm you are in a dominant position. I often see self-defense instructors “tap and rack” a firearm after performing a disarm - although I used to teach this, I believe it is a dangerous and incorrect protocol to follow. Living and working in the UK, I learnt to accept that although firearms are prevalent, ammunition is not. Not every gun that is used in a criminal act is loaded. The UK enacted a firearm ban in the late 1980’s, that saw many guns being deactivated, which later in the 1990’s and 2000’s saw them being reactivated and brought back into circulation. However because there was no legal firearm’s trade in the UK etc. ammunition was and is in short supply. Many guns that were and are used in crime, are not loaded, or in certain cases loaded with the wrong caliber ammunition. In the UK disarming a weapon and believing/trusting it could be used as a ballistic weapon would be a dangerous position to take. What this goes to illustrate is that even in countries where owning a firearm is legal there is no guarantee that it is loaded, even when it is pointed at you – if you are relying on its ability to protect you as a firearm, once you have disarmed an assailant, you may be pointing it at the one person who knows what its true capabilities are. If an assailant has a secondary weapon such as a knife, they may well pull it and attack you, whilst you stand there repeatedly pulling the trigger of an unloaded weapon. Most Krav Maga disarms involve grabbing the barrel of the weapon. In most cases if the firearm in question is a semi-automatic, holding the barrel, when an assailant pulls the trigger will prevent the slide from moving, and in turn prevent the bullet’s casing from being ejected and so jamming the weapon. This jam will have to be cleared in order to make the weapon operational. Trying to clear a jammed weapon under stress and duress is a difficult operation for an individual, especially one who is relatively untrained, to perform. Just because an assailant has been disarmed of their weapon doesn’t mean they cease to be an attacker. The time and distance to clear a potential weapon jam is huge if you are dealing with someone who is extremely aggressive and committed to causing you harm. When you do disarm someone of a firearm, you equip yourself with a heavy solid striking object which is capable of delivering extreme concussive force, whether it is loaded or jammed. Repeatedly hitting someone with this object will put them out of commission – this is the first thing you should do when disarming them of such a weapon; use it to turn off their lights, don’t use it in a capacity where it could turn out to fail or let you down e.g. it’s unloaded or jammed. Just because you are proficient at using a firearm, don’t presume somebody else’s weapon is operational – if you do carry your own weapon, de-cock the assailant’s, discard it, and pull your own.        Most of us will have few moral restrictions in striking someone with their own weapon to knock them out however we might hesitate and shy away from shooting someone, even if we believed that was their intention towards us. Using another person’s firearm to deliver concussive force, means we don’t rely on the weapon or the individuals fear at us having the weapon. To be honest, even if you shoot someone center of mass, they may still keep on coming (this is not as uncommon as you may think, especially if highly motivated, aggressive and adrenalized - Ibragim Todashev, one of those suspected of being involved in the 2014 Boston Marathon Bombing quickly recovered from being shot several times by an FBI agent to launch a second attack), and if they are armed with a knife they may still be able to stab and kill you before they succumb to their own injuries. If you use the firearm to concussively knock them out, you need never have to experience the level, force or degree of their intent. Disarm somebody of a firearm, use it to knock them out and the fight can be finished there. If you truly believe in your marksmanship under pressure, shooting for the hip may mechanically disable a person and prevent them from moving towards you – a tactic used against suicide bombers who are intending to blow themselves up. For most of the situations we are likely to find ourselves in time and distance will be restricted, and our environment may not afford us the luxury of an easy disengagement where we can either get to our own weapon or use our assailant’s as a firearm (even if it is loaded and isn’t jammed, and is a make/model we are familiar with). Having a default response of using a firearm as an impact weapon, when at close range – this can be extended to your own weapon, and doesn’t have to only be restricted to firearms you have disarmed – is a much simpler, more reliable, and effective use of the weapon than trusting it as a firearm.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=152 Sun, 11 May 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=151 It always amazes me the looks I sometimes get when I say that personal safety, is a personal responsibility. There are some individuals who make the argument, that they have a right to be safe, a right not to be assaulted/attacked and so their own safety should not be their responsibility, and that predatory individuals should take the responsibility for not attacking them etc. To an extent I agree. Every individual should have the right to go about their business without having to worry about their safety, however this has never been a realistic proposition, and at the end of the day, personal safety has to be ensured by the individual, and not by anyone else, including society and those that enforce society\'s rule of law. Humans, 10 000 years ago would not have wasted their time arguing that they have a right not to be attacked by wild animals, or others humans, and would have put their efforts into ensuring that they never put themselves into a position where such attacks or assaults should occur, rather than wasting their time arguing about the injustices of having to consider their own safety from wild animals and aggressive humans. Just because modern society has afforded us with an environment where being assaulted is not a regular occurrence , doesn\'t mean we shouldn\'t consider all our actions and behaviors with regard to our own safety.  In Maslow\'s Hierarchy of needs, personal safety, is on the level above: breathing, eating and sleeping, and below friendship etc. Safety, is the next need above basic existence/functioning and the one below that of social functioning. It is strange that we never question our need for food and social interaction, yet regularly neglect a basic need such as safety, which sits between the two of them. It also seems strange to me, that many individuals pass the meeting of this need on to others e.g. society, whereas they wouldn\'t expect for society to be responsible for feeding them and finding them friends etc. things they would see as being their own responsibility. If you have ever been assaulted, and had to dealt with the emotional and physical consequences of being attacked, you will soon realize the intimacy of violence, and realize that society - whatever that is - has little or no concern for your personal safety, and the only person who really cares about it is you. Violence is never \"fair\", and having to take account of your own safety, in regards to the things that you do, may not seem fair, but it is reality. Haim Zut, one of Imi Lichtenfelds, first Krav Maga students, often says, if you are attacked once in twenty years, you will have wished you had been training for twenty years. Forget all the big talk in the martial arts and self-defense communities, even when you successfully physically defend yourself, you will not be joyful and exuberant, rather you will be depressed and disappointed that you will have been called upon to act this way.    I have found that people who argue against or resent the idea, that personal safety is a personal responsibility have an unrealistic view regarding third parties who will intervene on their behalf. If you are expecting  others to come to your rescue if assaulted, you are in for a rude awakening. At a recent corporate seminar I gave, I was asked if it was better to yell \"fire\" than \"help\", if you are being assaulted, as more bystanders and third parties are likely to engage if they believe there is a fire than if someone needs help. The martial arts community propagates a lot of unsubstantiated myths and old wives tales e.g. the majority of fights go to the ground, high kicks don\'t work on the street, if mugged throw your wallet on the ground away from you etc. In my book, make a statement, prove it, show me the empirical research that backs up a statement, such as the majority of street fights go to the ground. The \"Just Yell Fire\" argument comes from 17th Century London, and has no modern day equivalent. London in the 17th Century, was made up of close together houses, where fire could quickly spread from one house to another, and from street to street. The idea was that if you were being attacked, yelling/screaming fire would alert a homeowner to the fact that they could lose their home to a fire if they didn\'t take some practical measure e.g. going out on the street and helping to put it out. If a person has a vested interested in getting involved they may well do so. In today\'s society, where houses and buildings are not so closely linked, yelling fire may not provoke the same response. Relying on others for your personal safety may not be a good strategy.  Considering your personal safety, is an inconvenience, and it may prevent you from engaging in actions, practices and behaviors that you may want to do e.g. going to a house party in a bad part of town may seem fun, but it may raise certain personal safety questions. However believing that your own safety should be handed over to someone else is a very dangerous step to take. As inconvenient as it is, we should consider everything we do in regards to our own safety.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=151 Sun, 04 May 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=150 When I talk about muggers and other financial predators, in our women's self-defense course, one of the locations for muggings that gets brought up is that of parking lots (along with Transit Stops these locations, seem a favored place for street robberies and the like). This article will focus on the types of crimes that makes parking lots a suitable location for a variety of predators to work in.  Predators will always go where their chosen prey are. A mugger needs a plentiful supply of potential victims who are carrying cash. Few muggers want credit cards etc. as it takes time to transfer these items into cash, and most street robberies take place in order to support a drug habit, where being able to get the next fix is the most pressing order of the day. It is a good assumption to make that somebody visiting or having just visited a shopping mall or supermarket is carrying some cash - with the advent of cash-back at most tills, even somebody who enters a store without cash is probably going to take advantage of this service, even if it is just to have some cash e.g. $20 about their person. Depending on a users particular drug of choice, $20 will get him/her their next fix - or will go a long way to.     As diurnal (daytime), social creatures we often feel at our safest during the day, in public places, where there are other people around us. This can cause us to have a false sense of security e.g. we are relying on others to spot danger for us, and potentially intervene on our behalf if we are threatened or assaulted. Both incorrect and dangerous assumptions to hold to. Rows of cars, impede vision, and allow predators to move virtually unseen. They also can act as bottlenecks, in which we can be trapped or have our movement restricted e.g. if we are moved/forced between two parked cars. To try and prevent this happening, we should park in areas that enjoy natural surveillance i.e. places near to where there is a large amount of traffic, either in vehicles, such as by the entrance to the parking lot (cars coming and going), by the store-front, or even next to one of the areas where people leave their shopping carts. In these locations, predators will find it difficult to work unseen.    Predatory individuals also know how pre-occupied we can become locating our car; even using the remote unlock to find it (opening it and giving any predator access to one of the safest places we have in that environment). The fact that we our so focused on finding where we parked, means that we fail to observe other individuals in the environment, who we would be well to take a look at. When you look for your car and find it, rather than go straight to it, develop a habit of taking a second look around to see who is around you, and taking notice of your actions. Once you get to the car, try not to load shopping in with your back fully turned - if possible use the back seat to put goods on; this allows you to open the car door and have it blocking your back, whilst you load up (if you reverse into a space where there is a wall/barrier behind you - you can create a small enclosed area when you open a door). As soon as you are in the drivers seat put on the central locking.    Don't think predators are just interested in what you are doing when you leave the mall or supermarket, they may well be observing you as you park your car, and enter the store/mall. If you have the habit of parking your car, and then putting your laptop or other valuables in the trunk/boot, understand that this may well be observed, and will send a signal to anyone watching that you have valuable items in your car. A predator may well wait till you return and force you to unlock the trunk, or do it themselves if you have remotely unlocked your car in order to find it.    There are no locations we shouldn't be aware in, and as open and visible (and therefore "safe") parking lots may seem, the number of cars and other vehicles in them give predators places to hide, and "alleyways" that they can use to restrict and prevent movement. Parking in areas which enjoy natural surveillance, and making sure that one of your habits, after locating your car, is to scan your environment before making your way to it, will go a long way in helping prevent you becoming a victim.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=150 Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=274 Last month, I mentioned in an article, that there several ways that you can respond, when dealing with violence. In this article, I would like to elaborate on them, as there is often confusion within the martial arts and reality based self-defense communities, about what these responses are, and how they operate. When face with an aggressor(s) there are five ways you can respond: Reason Posturing Submission Fight Flight There is a sixth, involuntary response, which is, Freeze. However, this is an involuntary response, and is not a conscious response. Although, the Fight and Flight responses, can sometimes be involuntary, and initiated by our subconscious fear system e.g. we see a bear and we immediately start running (and only then have the conscious understanding/realization of our situation) etc. more often than not, when dealing with social violence, that develops along a timeline, the flight and fight response, is a conscious rather than instinctual one. In most types of human violence, the initial interaction, is made up of some form of verbal exchange rather than an actual assault; this may be to disarm us and/or for an assailant to emotionally prepare themselves, and build themselves up, before they make a physical attack etc. this means, that we have to consciously stimulate a flight or fight response, rather than rely on our fear system to do so. We may feel a certain pull in one of these two directions, this would make our fight and flight responses, in most situations instinctual rather than instinctive i.e. the urge to respond in one of these ways is derived from our instinct, instead of driven by it – this may seem like a matter of semantics, however there is a crucial difference between an urge to respond, and a natural reaction/response. We clearly see our fight and flight response kick in, when the threat or danger, does not come from another human e.g. immediately running when we hear loud noises, such as gunfire, or are confronted by a wild animal etc. It should also be noted that when our flight response, instinctively kicks in, it has only one goal: to get away from the danger – it is not trying to get us to safety. This could mean that it causes us to run away from gunfire, into a road with on-coming traffic etc. Our fear instinct, and responses are designed to work in the majority of cases (they are there to ensure the survival of the species, not always the individual). If running away from a threat works 9 times out of 10, then it’s a pretty good survival response. If it had to be changed, to running to safety, so many factors would come into play, so much information about the environment, would need to be processed that the response time would increase so much, that the success ratio may fall to something like 3 in 10; not good for the species or the individual. A quick response is required in more instances than a slower, “better” response. In most social species e.g. humans, dogs, wolves, elks etc. most conflicts are not resolved through fighting. Most packs, herds and groups, survive largely by strength of numbers. Using fighting as a means of resolving disputes, could cost the collective dearly e.g. a significant contributor to the groups well-being could be injured (or even killed) and no longer be able to participate in the groups survival – if two dogs in a wolf pack, consisting of eight members fought, and were both injured to such an extent that they were unable to hunt with the pack, the pack’s hunting ability would be down 25%, reducing the groups survival chances significantly. In most social conflicts, matters are resolved through acts of posturing, and submission i.e. one party demonstrates their physical superiority, and the other either postures back (escalating the conflict), or acts in a submissive fashion, such as cowering, apologizing, retracting a challenge/insult they may have made etc. More human conflicts are resolved this way, than we may realize; most people don’t want to fight, and will tend to escalate situations only when/if their judgment is impaired by alcohol or drugs, or if there are other people present – there is a fear of losing face, and a possible social standing. One of the important things to understand about the way in which posture and submission work, is that they operate hand-in-hand; when somebody is posturing, they will recognize when a person is responding in a submissive manner – through both their body language and what they are saying. In a wolf pack, when there is a dispute between two dogs, both will normally posture, until one rolls over on its back, and shows the other its throat; this ends the conflict. In my time working door, I’ve seen many occasions where during an aggressive exchange, one person will suddenly offer their hand out, and apologize. In almost all cases I’ve witnessed, the other person will immediately cool their jets, and shake hands. This is normally accompanied by a state of relief, with both parties acting amazed at the exchange they just had. I have also witnessed situations, where drink has impaired this process, and both parties have rapidly moved into fight mode. It should be noted that acting in a submissive manner, is not part of the de-escalation process, as in some cases, submission can be seen as a weakness, and encourage violence. Rather, responding submissively, should be seen as an act of conflict resolution, that can work when an aggressor isn’t overly emotional, and does not have any predisposition or premeditation to act violently – this is why de-escalation, should be attempted before submission. Where aggression and violence are concerned, reason has little place, and in fact can make matters worse. I once witnessed a middle aged man, try to explain to somebody younger, and obviously more aggressive in nature, why he couldn’t have knocked into him, and spilt his drink. The younger man, had little time to listen to “reason”, all he knew was that somebody had knocked his drink over him, and that in his mind he was justified in acting violently, and wasn’t able to think of any other suitable alternatives to this. Emotional people rarely, if ever, respond well to reason. Understanding how social violence works is extremely important, as it allows us to respond appropriately. There are situations, where posturing may work as a deterrence, and times where it may be disastrous. There may be times when we instinctively run or fight, however we should recognize that if we aren’t doing these things, then we will have to make a conscious decision to do so. Thinking about and visualizing the types of incident where these responses are appropriate, will allow us to create effective, pre-built decision trees, that we can employ when we face these types of danger. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=274 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=149 If we understand that every time we fight, we fight, we are fighting for survival, all options should be on the table - including the use of weapons (if we are not fighting for survival, then we have to question why we are fighting). If we also understand, that the types of individuals who are likely to be questioning our right to exist, will be carrying some form of weapon, it would be extremely naive of enter a conflict unarmed.   There may be a number of reasons why we choose not to carry a weapon; it could be that the state or country we are in does not permit us to carry one (we may have a legal right to carry a weapon where we live/reside however that right may not be granted to us when we have to travel), or that it is not really appropriate for the situation we are in e.g. a bar/restaurant or place of work etc. may not allow us on their premises when armed. This is where we should be prepared, if necessary, to improvise a weapon.   There are three types or categories of improvised weapons: Weapons of Carry Weapons of Opportunity Environmental Advantages  Weapons of Carry  These are things found about your person e.g. mobile phone, keys, belt, jacket, briefcase/computer bag, loose change, pens etc. We could also choose to carry items, that can be used as weapons, however to be considered as an improvised weapon they must have a primary purpose that is non-combative e.g. a "Maglite" torch is primarily a torch, even though it can be used as a short stick, or a small striking object. There are also objects such as pens and torches that have "tactical" equivalent e.g. tactical flashlight, tactical pens. Here we must consider, whether a tactical flashlight is primarily a weapon that can be used as a flashlight, or a flashlight that can be used as a weapon. This can be an important factor if the conflict/assault ever goes to court, and the question of whether you were prepared and armed (tactical pen/flashlight), versus unprepared and unarmed e.g. Maglite torch, ballpoint pen etc. gets brought up.   There may also be objects we carry as part of our jobs, which can be used combatively e.g. a clipboard if we are working in a hospital etc. If we have a legitimate reason to be carrying such a "tool", then it is quite a straightforward, explanation as to why we used it to defend ourselves i.e. we had it in our hands when we were assaulted. There may be objects that we will have in our hands, due to other situations that we find ourselves in e.g. if we are in a bar and we are holding a bottle we can use this as a weapon, if we are on a train/bus reading a book, we can use this as a weapon etc.  Whatever weapon we carry, whether improvised or designed as a weapon e.g. knife, baton, gun etc. it must be accessible and ready to use. If you can't get to it, it's of no use to you. So anything you carry about your person as a tactical/defensive too has to be easily deployed. An assailant will always deny you time and distance, so the quicker you can get your chosen weapon into your hand the better.   You may have a magazine in your hand but if you have no time to roll it up it won't serve you well as a stick like weapon. A Newspaper can be folded into a brick like object but this takes time, and you may not be able to do it surreptitiously, and or quickly enough - it can however be easily deployed as a distracting weapon, or put over the person's face as a "mask".  Fashioned Weapons  Fashioned Weapons are those that need some degree of "assembly" before use - and are therefore not necessarily the most accessible. A mobile phone can be picked up and smashed into somebody's face, whilst filling a condom with coins and using it as a long range schlock will take time.  Fashioned weapons also show a degree of intent, and understanding of the potential consequences of what they are capable of. If I fold a newspaper into a "brick" and use it to break somebody's nose, then I can hardly say in a court of law, that I just happened to have it in my hand in that form when I was attacked. If I break a bottle, to have a "cutting"/"stabbing" weapon, I have fashioned it i.e. I have changed its form. If I use it as an impact weapon, whilst it is still intact, I can argue/claim that it just happened to be in my hand at the time of the assault.   There might be times when it is necessary to change the form of an already available weapon e.g. slashing a broken bottle in wide arcs may help me keep multiple assailants away, while I disengage, whereas using it as an impact/striking weapon may mean I have to get closer to my assailants.   Weapons of Opportunity  These are things which are found in your environment e.g. fire extinguishers, chairs, ash trays, car radio antennae, pool/snooker cues etc.  These items should be benign i.e. they should not be recognizable to your assailant as a weapon; something that could be used against you. It is also something that should be easily accessible - you don't want to have to spend several seconds getting to a weapon, especially if it may alert an assailant(s) to the fact that there is something they could use against you. To help recognize objects in your environment that could be used, we need to have a method of categorizing them so that we can understand how they can be used.   The system that was first taught to me, is one that the IKMF use. It was taught to me by Eyal Yanilov during an instructor course I was on, many years ago, however I believe it should be Avi Moyal (the now head of the IKMF) who should be credited with it. The system recognizes six basic categories:     Objects like Sticks (Makel) - Snooker Cues, Brooms, Golf Clubs  Objects like Shield (Magen) - Bags, Clipboards, Chairs, Trash Can Lids, Toilet Seats  Objects like Knife (Sakkin) - Keys, Screwdrivers, Pens/Pencils  Objects like Rock (Even) - Snooker Balls, Water Bottles, Bottles  Objects like Chain (Hevel) - Belts, Dog Leads, Wires, Cables, Radio Antennae  Small Objects (Ktanim) - Projectiles, Coins    Being able to put objects into these categories helps you determine how they should be used e.g. a key is more like a knife, and should be used like a knife, to cut and stab, rather than to insert between the fingers to make a knuckle duster - which is really an impact weapon. Some objects share properties e.g. a chair is a shield, but it also have four legs, which can be used like sticks.  In the "Small Objects" category, I would include sprays and liquids e.g. you can empty an oil based propellant like WD40 into somebody's face, and/or throw a cup of coffee over a person.  I would potentially add a sub category into this system, under "Objects like chains" which would be clothing i.e. flexible weapons that the other person is clothed/dressed in. Using a person's clothing to strangle/choke them, and direct them is extremely effective.   Weapon vs Weapon  Is a chair better than a screwdriver, or a golf-club better than a belt etc? Situations determine solutions. If dealing with a singular assailant a hard-object that can knock somebody out and cause concussive force may be preferable to a knife like object, which although may be painful and even deadly may not get such a quick result - an attacker may take a long time to bleed out whereas a knock out is instantaneous. Flexible and long weapons may be better for keeping multiple assailants at range, and shield like objects for protecting yourself against an assailant armed with a knife.  It may be easier to explain in a court of law, what you did, if your aggressor's face isn't all mangled and cut-up (a jury may be more sympathetic towards you), which may be a consequence of you using a knife like object. The general public can be squeamish where blood is concerned, and may feel sympathy for an assailant whose face is permanently scarred, and as a consequence judge you to have used excessive force, even if this wasn't the case.  Structural Integrity  A weapon must have structural integrity, either in itself or in the way that it is used e.g. a water bottle which you can't close your grip around, will probably slip out of your hand if you strike somebody with its base, however if you ram it into somebody's face, using your hand to push it, it will have structural integrity. A magazine although strong after several stabs/strikes may start to lose its integrity, and may have to be ditched in favor of open/empty hands.  Environmental Advantage  It is also possible to use hard surfaces, such as walls, and the floor to inflict pain and damage on an aggressor. As one of my Judo coaches used to say, whenever someone questioned him as to the validity and effectiveness of Judo as a self-defense system, "Nothing hits harder than concrete." Using solid objects, such as urinals, sinks, tables, counter-tops and walls to slam your assailant's head into etc. will give you a very solid striking surface to work with.  Your environment can always be used defensively too i.e. you can use a car or other vehicle as a barrier/obstacle to put between you and your aggressor.  However more important than tool and environment recognition is your Mindset.  Mindset  Do you have the mindset to stab somebody? If you haven't, don't pick up a knife like object. Be honest with yourself. Could you get, close up and personal, with somebody and ram a screwdriver into their leg? Understand the force you would have to generate to do this, what it would feel like and then visualize yourself doing it. Also what type of situation/altercation would warrant you doing this - not legally, but morally (when you looked back at the situation a few years later would you have judged yourself to be excessive). If somebody took your wallet, would that necessitate it? If somebody tried to abduct you? Be clear when you would draw a weapon, and when you would use it - if you draw it you should be prepared to use it.  If you are fighting for survival, all things should be on the table, and you should be prepared to do anything and use anything in order to achieve this. If you're not fighting for survival though you have to question why are you fighting?    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=149 Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=148 Our society is one where we want to be given the answers, rather than be taught to figure out the solution for ourselves. Personal safety is the same. People either want a list of rules to follow (which they'll conveniently ignore when they’re too inconvenient to follow) or will convince themselves that personal safety is nothing more than formalized common sense. There are five main reasons why following rules or relying on common sense are not reliable methods to keep us safe. These are:   Our rules are based on situations that aren't realistic Rules designed to work in one situation, can end up conflicting with other rules designed for other situations Predatory individuals know our "safety rules" and will use them against us Folowing a rule, may make us believe we are doing the right thing and so cause us to miss the "real" threat/danger We don't follow the rules we set for ourselves   At root, we as individuals have become so far removed from real life violence, that we don’t actually know what it looks like. The rules we create our based on situations that we imagine we might have to deal with, not ones that are likely to happen e.g. we plan to protect ourselves against muggings in deserted, dark alleyways not in crowded shopping malls. To develop effective self-protection strategies, we must start to understand the situational components of violence, and how these will shape our risk assessments and our responses to violence. There are five basic situational components that should be considered, when trying to understand how dangerous situations can be identified, predicted and avoided. These are:   Location/Environment Relationship to the Assailant Assailant’s Motive State of Mind/Preparedness Third Parties with You   Relationship and Location are two, very interconnected situational components. We often imagine violence only being committed against us by strangers, but many assaults (especially against women) are carried out by people who the target/victim knows; either as a friend, friend of friend, associate or co-worker etc. In these types of attack, it is more likely that an assault will happen in a very familiar location, such as the person’s home, somebody else’s home or a local bar/pub where they regularly drink etc. Where the assailant is a stranger, assaults are more likely to happen in more public settings, which are dictated by the attacker/predators familiarity with the location rather than the victims. When we understand a person’s motive, we are better able to make an assessment of the likelihood of them using violence as a means to accomplish their goals. I initially try to assess, whether a criminal is “object-orientated” or “person-orientated” i.e. do they want objects/things I possess, or do they want me. A burglar, is certainly Object-Orientated, as well as “Non Interactive” (meaning they want to avoid interactions/conflicts – which is why most burglaries happen during the day when people are out of their homes), whereas a mugger although primarily “Object Orientated”, chooses an “Interactive” method in order to commit their crime i.e. they have to engage with us. Someone who wishes to abduct us for a sexual assault is “Person Orientated”, and has already planned to assault us and cause us harm. We can plot these on a spectrum, which demonstrates how likely an individual is to use physical force against us. Our state of mind and level of preparedness takes two forms. Firstly are we accepting or denying the possibility of being assaulted? If we are in a state of denial, believing that we will never be a target of violence, we are much more likely to be in a state of shock (and “Freeze”) than if we had accepted and come to terms with the fact that violence can happen to anyone. If we believed that our common sense was what was keeping us safe, we might spend a large part of the assault, wondering and questioning why we are being attacked. There is also a level of preparedness within the assault itself i.e. were we able to recognize that we’d been selected as a victim a few minutes before the assailant was able to carry out the assault – did we have the time/were we able to get to a weapon of choice, physically position ourselves, use the environment etc. We might be adept at protecting ourselves but are we able to protect those who are with us? What do you do if you have your 6 years old daughter with you? What do you do if a predator targets your child not you? Do you have the skills and the technical knowledge to protect both of you, along with a way of communicating/explaining to your child after the event in the post-conflict phase what happened and why you did what you did – you don’t want this to be a traumatizing experience that affects them for the rest of their lives. The third parties who are with you may be friends. If you’ve been talking yourself up about your fighting skills, and/or making public threats and promises about what you would do if somebody acted and behaved in a certain way etc. you may feel the pressure to fight, when there really is no need to. My favorite quote at the moment is one of Dr Gavriel Schneider’s, “You fight for one of two reasons: ego or survival.” In my opinion fighting for ego is something we should have left behind us as we grew up and exited childhood; the stakes of violence are really just too high. Understanding violence from a situational perspective will allow us to make realistic risk assessments of the situations we are likely/might face, and form effective and appropriate solutions to dealing with them.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=148 Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=147 I first started working door/nightclub security when I was 18. I was a student, and a guy at the Judo club I used to train at got me the job. I'd never thought about doing security work before but the need for money - and it was paid in cash - convinced me that this was an "easy" job to do that didn't conflict with my university/course work. My first job was at a club called the Golden Monkey, which was burnt down (arson) a few years after I started working this job. I mention this only to give you a rough idea of the types of place(s) I initially started working at.  In those days all I had was my Judo skills and training (no Krav Maga etc), and Judo isn't in and of itself a great system of self-defense; it teaches you how to throw, takedown and control people whilst standing and on the ground, but it doesn't have a blocking or striking system - and whilst traditionalists may disagree with me, I believe the one self-defense kata the system contains is so basic and specific that it is effectively useless, from a self-defense perspective. However, in saying this, Judo does  teach a student some very effective fighting skills, along with its throws and takedowns e.g. how to use clothing, how to keep a level head when being thrown around, how to stay on your feet at all costs etc. One of the key skills that Judo taught me for security work was the importance of using clothing as a weapon.  I remember, all too vividly, my first one-on-one conflict, that saw me being rescued by two larger colleagues, and realizing that unless someone had a jacket or coat on I was next to useless. That experience taught me that the first thing I should do when asking someone to leave the premises was to hand them their coat/jacket - this was the North of England where having a "Cloakroom" established a place as being a cut above the rest - even if the bathroom floors were permanently coated in vomit. A drunk person with a coat on was easy pickings; my success rate in dealing with unruly patrons rose considerably when I handed them their coat and could use their clothing to control them (it also marked me out as a polite and basically a good guy - which meant I avoided many potential conflicts).    Many martial artists/self-defense practitioners feel "invaded" if their clothing is grabbed or see it as a "dirty" tactic i.e. this doesn't measure up to the way they practice. If I was to organize violence on a timeline I would say that most fights are precede by some form of verbal interaction, the next by pushing and grabbing, and the next by actual an actual assault e.g. punching and kicking etc. If you don't know how to handle/deal with clothing grabs, you will have to escalate a dispute, where somebody grabs you (and sometimes they regret doing this as soon as they've done it) to an all out fight very quickly i.e. simply hit them when they grab you; as you won't have any other options - and if they have friends with them, or they're a work colleague or family member who has simply had a few too many to drink, this may not be the best/most effective option available to you.              One of the great principles Judo taught me was the idea of "who controls who". We immediately think that when someone grabs us they are taking control. Not true. When somebody grabs me either one hand or two-handed, it tell me they aren't ready to attack, and/or that they're setting up an attack but not actually making one e.g. a person who grabs me with one hand may use the other to punch me, somebody who grabs me with two may try and head-butt me etc. The grab is either to intimidate me or facilitate an attack, in and of itself it will cause me no harm. When somebody grabs me they join to me; when I move they move etc. I actually control them. If they are holding me and I step back they have to follow my movement or let go i.e. I control them.    Learning how to move with someone who grabs you is a key self-defense/fighting skill. It's one of the reasons that training in a GI will improve your combat skills. However simply understanding that when somebody grabs you, you can control that person will allow you to switch your mindset from prey to predator in the shortest amount of time. The class on Saturday hopefully brought out some of these ideas.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=147 Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=146 I've written about "Combatives" before however having just run a Krav Maga Yashir Combatives Instructor Program, I think it's worthwhile taking a moment to explain how this program fits into the Krav Maga Yashir system as a whole and explain the differences between martial arts, self-defense and combatives as I see them.  In a real-life conflict you are not there to demonstrate the breadth and depth of your knowledge. You might know several solutions to a "Clinch" e.g. how to duck under and apply a standing triangle choke, how to turn and throw, how to strike effectively with the knees etc. These are all valid solutions, and at some stage in a martial artist's career should be known and understood, if they want to have a comprehensive understanding of what works best when however there is also a technically simpler approach to dealing with clinch that will work 80% - 90% of the time - possibly not against a trained/experienced technical fighter but against most people, most of the time, and that is to reach round, push on the assailant's nose and start striking them. This is basically the combatives approach: choose a simple, high success rate solution that will work most of the time, and is powered more by aggression than technical skills.    The "martial arts" trains fighting skills e.g. true/maximum power generation, balance, co-ordination, range control, relative positioning etc. The true value of the martial arts for me, are not so much the techniques that they contain, though every art/system contains highly effective self-defense/fighting techniques, but the skills that come from their methods of training. There are few better people to talk about balance as a Judoka, or stability as a Karateka, or conditioning as a Muay Thai practitioner etc. However their arts take time to learn, skills take time to develop. Combatives offers a short-cut, it bypasses the need for such skills, and rather relies on aggression, determintaion and single-mindedness - along with fitness - to be successful (skills the martial arts also have to develop in a student if they are to be effective).    But Combatives training is not a true short-cut; it gives people something immediate and that is good for now. If a person is to truly progress, and become a well-rounded fighter, with the necessary skills to meet combatants of all levels and abilities, they will need to start developing some of the fighting skills that their martial arts counterparts have. One of the things that some people on the instructor course were confused/surprised at, was that there was no sparring in our combatives program (which is not true of our regular Krav Maga Yashir program). The reason for this is that the mindset and situational factors for sparring are very different to those of real-life confrontations. For one sparring is consensual, both parties have agreed to the "conflict", and secondly each participant presents opportunities for the other e.g. sometimes they don't attack but wait. In a real-life conflict it is usually non-consensual (one person doesn't really want to fight) and nobody really holds back from attacking. Combatives teaches the practitioner to simply assault the person attacking them, with full aggression, full force and repeatedly.    Is there a value to "martial arts" style training? Absolutely. For a student to progress their fighting skills and to understand solutions that will solve the other situations that combatives techniques are not best suited for, they need to broaden their approach to self-defense training. It is not always the best solution when someone grabs your lapel, wrist or clothing to smash them into a million pieces; escaping the hold/grab, controlling the person etc. may be better solutions to the situation. Will repeatedly hitting and striking the person grabbing you work? Of course, and that is the point of combatives, not to provide the best solution to every situation, but a solution that is effective.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=146 Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=145 If there is one skill/attribute that is essential for surviving a real-life assault it is decisiveness. It is also the one key element that can make the difference when you are dealing with someone athletically superior to you. Many people wonder how out-of-shape, older cops and law enforcement operatives are able to overcome, faster, younger, stronger and more athletically gifted criminals. The answer is decisiveness; they don't wait to act - they act before the other person, or at the very first movement, behavior or action a person makes, that indicates that they want to cause them harm. There is the idiom, "the quick and the dead." We often take this to refer to athleticism, whereas I believe it should be interpreted as decisiveness, separating those who survive from those who don't.   As I have gotten older, my hand speed has slowed down somewhat, however I probably block strikes faster now, than I did in my twenties. This is due to the fact, that through training etc. I start my block much sooner than I used to. Having more experience of what someone throwing a punch looks like, means I can identify the setting up of the strike much sooner, and start my blocking movement earlier, thus moving away from the strike sooner, and getting my hand to the arm faster. Good threat recognition/identification along with an understanding of pre-violence indicators, allows you to start working that much sooner. If you can recognize when somebody synchronizes their movement to yours e.g. they start to approach you, follow you, intercept you etc. you can start responding to the threat/danger that much sooner.    Denial and Uncertainty are the two biggest enemies of decisiveness. Denial comes in many forms. There can be the denial that prevents someone from identifying the real risks and threats that they may one day encounter. The past is a generally good predictor of the future, however it is not absolute i.e. just because you have never been threatened or assaulted before, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Bad things don't just happen to other people they can happen to us as well. In studies, it has been shown that when people are given the statistic that the average American lives to be 87,and then asked to estimate, guess how long they will live to, almost everybody gives an answer well in excess of 87 years. Even when people are given the facts, they'll still deny that those facts apply to them.     Another lesser form of denial, that I see in training, is the type where a student practicing a gun disarm or other technique does so accepting the possibility that they may one day face such a situation but are unlikely to do so. This lessens the effectiveness of their training, as they never expect to have to put what they have learnt in to practice - they are training with the intent that what they are learning is useful knowledge and skills to have but they never expect to have to do it for real. Every time a student trains, they should do so with the intent and understanding that the moment they walk out of the dojo/studio they WILL be assaulted. This form of denial is one of the things that leads students into uncertainty of  action.    Being able to recognize threats/dangers early and know that they must be dealt with quickly and at the earliest opportunity breeds decisiveness.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=145 Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=144 There are a lot of martial arts myths and folklore that get taken as facts e.g. 95% of fights go to the ground, high kicks don’t work on the street etc. I’m not sure who comes up with these facts and statistics but they soon get treated as facts without questioning. Do 95% of fights go to the ground? I’m not actually in a statistical position to refute it, but neither are the persons/individuals who blithely make such statements. If you are a BJJ/Judoka who is skilled on the ground, it may be that you choose to take 95% of your fights to the ground, however that doesn’t mean it is true for everybody else or fights in general. Whatever the number of fights that do go to the ground the majority certainly start from a standing position, and so there are a number of ways that you might find yourself on the ground: 1. You trip or fall (maybe whilst attempting a throw or takedown), 2. Your assailant trips/falls and drags you to the ground with them, 3. You deliberately go to ground with an assailant, and/or 4. Your assailant deliberately takes you to ground. Environment plays a large part in you tripping/falling. If you are attacked whilst on a train, a moving platform where keeping balanced is difficult, the chances of you falling over are greater than if you are in a pub/club etc. If you’ve been drinking, then once again the chances of you falling over increase. The same can be said if you’re getting up from a chair, or out of a car etc. When you are in the process of getting a “base” you are vulnerable to being taken to ground. If you do fall, what are the chances that your attacker, will give up a standing position/advantage to follow you down to the ground? From my own experiences – and I accept that experience by nature is limited – pretty rare. If an assailant we were dealing with fell over and went to ground, would we follow them, or would we stay standing where we could kick, stomp and punch them, without them being able to return the compliment? There are situations where you may clinch up and your aggressor falls pulling you down but in a real fight that may involves knives and third parties do you want to spend time searching for chokes and armbars or get back to your feet? The first lessons of groundwork, from a reality based self-defense perspective should involve how to go to ground safely, how to defend yourself against standing aggressor’s and how to separate yourself from someone when on the ground in order to get back to standing. Are there times when you might willingly go to ground? Certainly. If you are losing a fight badly when standing, and you have no chance to disengage, and/or get an improvised – or get to your own – weapon then it might make good sense to take your assailant to ground, and finish the conflict there, however as a general strategy for survival you want to remain on your feet and if you do go to ground you want to try and get back to standing ASAP.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=144 Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=143 When practicing gun disarming, students often back away from their "aggressor", holding/aiming the gun at them as if the roles have been reversed - strangely this rarely happens with knife disarms i.e. there seems to be an assumption with firearm disarms that the defender is prepared to use this weapon, but not prepared to use a knife, and that the assailant will "respect" the gun but possibly not respect the knife.  There are basically three ways a person can neutralize a weapon's threat: 1. act combatively, "disregarding" the weapon and attacking the assailant to neutralize them as the threat, 2. disarm them, so that they no longer have a weapon to use (they themselves may still remain a threat) and 3. control the weapon and use it against them whilst they are still holding it. We often hold to a magical belief that once we disarm somebody they no longer represent a threat to us, however we should remember that if do disarm a weapon from somebody, we've demonstrated that we weren't completely intimidated by the weapon, and we probably shouldn't assume that our assailant will be. Disengaging whilst training a weapon on somebody may look good in the dojo/studio but it might not be the correct solution in a real-life situation e.g. the person may not be intimidated by the weapon, they may panic etc. and we will be forced to use the weapon against them (whether it is knife or gun) - the mindset to do this is rarely discussed, or played out in training scenarios.     Ending a drill, with the disarmed person not making a next move is only one possible outcome to a situation involving a firearm (or other weapon) - there is nothing to say they aren't armed with another weapon, or know something about their weapon which makes it inoperable etc. They may also simply question the person's ability to use it, not believing that they will pull the trigger etc. If a person does disarm somebody of a weapon they should have the basic competency to use it, whether it is a knife, stick or gun.    We should also be aware of the limitations of any weapon we are holding - whether w have armed ourselves before the conflict, or have disarmed somebody during it. We often hold to a magical belief that putting a bullet in someone will automatically drop and stop them. This may be the case if you are trying to mechanically disable them e.g. shooting at the hip so they are no longer able to use this joint and move (which requires great marksmanship, especially whilst under duress), however if you are simply trying to fill a body with lead, an adrenalized or drugged up assailant may keep coming. At close range they may be on top of you before blood loss etc. takes effect. If they're armed with another weapon, such as a knife, you may be involved in a knife fight, even though you've managed to get a shot off.          The weapon itself may not even be loaded or functional. The only person aware of this is the weapon's owner. Relying fully on the weapon for your defense may be an unwise move. If you're not familiar with that particular model of firearm, then you may have difficulty using it when under high stress and emotion. The one thing you do know about a firearm is that it is a solid piece of metal that is capable of concussing a person; using it as a striking implement, especially at close range may be more effective than relying on it as a ballistic weapon.    Trying to understand violence simply from our perspective, experiences and understanding is a dangerous way to go. If we were forced to pull a firearm on somebody and they disarmed us, would we be passive, or would we attempt to get the weapon back? Would we trust the person who disarmed us, not to pull the trigger? Probably not, but at the very least we would consider trying to retrieve our weapon - we should build into our training scenarios the possibility that an assailant would try and do the same. We should also put into our training the possibility that the weapon we carry, or the one that we disarm is/becomes inoperable. Violence rarely follows the "Happy Path".      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=143 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=142 This week's blog is the product of a discussion that was had in a women's self-defense class I was teaching yesterday. This particular discussion, although it ends up happening most times in women's classes - maybe because they're not scared to start it - is really a non-gender specific one i.e. when do you become physical/violent in a situation that is progressing in its level and the intensity of its aggressiveness?  The first thing I would caveat, is that all situations are different and there is not one solution that is the best for all; sometimes presenting alternatives to violence will work (one of the reasons individuals become violent is that they see no other alternative to violent actions), sometimes posturing and standing your ground will work, sometimes acting submissively will be effective, other times disengagement/backing away may be a good solution, as may pre-emptively assaulting the person who is threatening you. The first thing to note, is that I don't believe violence is a last resort, I see it as an option on the table at all times, and one that can always be considered.    Violence/Physical action should never be seen as the "last resort", especially when you are dealing with an individual/aggressor who clearly appears to be considering physical force as a way to accomplish whatever it is they're trying to accomplish - and this really was the crux of the debate. In a mugging or abduction scenario the outcome/goal the aggressor want to achieve is very clear and obvious: they want your wallet, or they want you. The situations that were being presented yesterday were ones where an individual decides they don't want to move out of a doorway, or your way to let you pass, not because they have any definable or obvious goal in mind but because they simply want to demonstrate dominance over you.    The issue here is that individuals who set out on an aggressive path, without an obvious goal, force themselves to up the ante in order to preserve their position of dominance. It is one of the dangers that comes from trash-talking, and that demonstrates an inability to control the direction of a situation. If someone stands in your way and refuses to let you pass, they are severely limiting the options that both you and they have that could resolve the situation in a non physical manner. You have 5 ways in which you can respond to such an aggressor: you can reason with them, posture to them, act submissively towards them, run away from them or attack them.    It is unlikely that you can reason with them, and the more you try the more you will convince them that they have the upper hand, and that you lack the ability to change the situation. You can try and posture to them - they may back down, they may not. You could act submissively however this is probably the response that they are trying to achieve, and may keep pushing it. You can disengage - which may well be a good option, or you can pre-emptively strike them. If you are looking for effective solutions, fight or flight are the only one which have predictable outcomes, and that can deal with that situation. Posturing may provoke a fight - and you have given your aggressor a warning that you may become violent, giving them time to prepare (why trash-talking demonstrates a real misunderstanding of how effective self-defense works), and reasoning with them or acting submissively will only encourage them.    In these situations physical violence has to be on the table as an effective solution, with a known and predictable outcome. It may not be the "best" solution, it may transpire that the person does move after you act aggressively towards them (it's also possible that they become more aggressive towards you). You may get lucky reasoning with them, but it's not an assured outcome. I am not advocating that we go around assaulting everyone who gets in our way but that we should know how to behave and act when we are facing an individual who is upping the ante. If someone is intent on a path of verbal dominance and or trash talking and is painting themselves into a corner, by taking away non-violent options that may have been available to them, talking time is over.    We all want to avoid having to become violent however when we are faced with an aggressor whose actions and behaviors tell us there is only one direction they are heading in, and violence is definitely not their last resort, neither should it be ours. It should also be noted that violence can be of the "stun and run" variety e.g. a quick strike to the groin, and a shoulder barge past can be enough to deal with the "aggressor in the doorway" who blocks your path.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=142 Sun, 02 Mar 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=141 By nature we’re all optimists. If you tell people that the average life expectancy is 87, and then ask them how long they’ll think they live, they’ll normally give you an answer of 93, 95 etc. The statistics never apply to us, just to everyone else. Millions of people play the lottery. Why? Because somebody has to win. The odds and the chances don’t matter; somebody has to win and that somebody could be me. When it comes to violence however, we don’t think/believe it could be us, we’re always sure it will be somebody else: good things happen to us, bad things happen to everyone else. We might win the lottery, but the statistically more likely chance of us being selected as a victim doesn’t apply to us, that’s for everyone else.    The only people who expect to be assaulted, are those who have a history of being assaulted: those who have had the myth that it won’t happen to them be proved incorrect. It is a sad truth that people only perceive their vulnerability and accept the possibility of being targeted once it has happened. As a child who was bullied for a number of years, I was never in any doubt that I could experience violence at any moment, and that truth has never left me – I’m not the terrified individual who believes being a victim is inevitable, that changed when I was 12 years old, but I understand that I can be targeted as a victim, and that there are individuals out there who may want to cause me harm. My own experiences also tell me how life-defining being the victim of violence can be, and that I don’t want to re-experience those feelings and emotions again. I am optimistic that I will not be the victim of violence again; not because I now understand how to physically defend myself but because I understand the profile and the methods of predatory individuals and how to identify violence before it occurs. When people ask me if I’ve ever had to use the skills I’ve learnt I can honestly say that I use them every day – not that I have to physically defend myself on a daily basis but that I put preventative measures in place that keep me safe, even if this is just waiting a moment before I exit my car to make sure I have a 360 degree view of my environment. I do this every time I get out of my car despite the fact I have never been assaulted getting in to or out of a vehicle. I recognize that experience can also be a limiting factor as well as an enabling one. Just because you’ve never been assaulted doesn’t mean you can’t/won’t be. We all come up with self-congratulatory solutions to violence that we believe will keep ourselves safe, but are not based on anything concrete or real i.e. if I behave in a certain way a person will ignore me/pass me by. Most of the time these “assumptions” are based on the ways we would act and behave if we were playing the role of the predator e.g. we would not target someone on a cell phone (they’re talking to someone who knows where they are), we would not try and snatch a handbag from someone who had it slung across their body, as it would be difficult for us to take/snatch the bag (a sturdy knife that could be used to cut the strap and the victim would quickly solve that problem), if someone we were mugging threw their wallet on the floor we\'d leave them to goand get it etc. These are all issues/problems that we as law-abiding don’t know how to overcome however they’re not ones that predatory individuals care about. We may believe we live safe lives and have safe habits, however there are individuals out there who care little for how we think or what we believe. We can all be targeted as potential victims and we should accept that, assume responsibility for changing it, and recognize that just as we could win the lottery so we could become the victim of a violent crime. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=141 Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=140 We all follow \"rules\" that we believe will keep us safe, however these rules are built with certain scenarios in mind. When predatory individuals, change these scenarios and situations our rules fall by the wayside, as we never imagined them being applicable to the exact or particular situation we face. We all believe that it is a bad idea to get into a strangers car, and might even state that we never would, however many people who have held to this rule have (and will), sometimes with no dire consequence, and other times with very devastating ones.  When we create a \"rule\", we frame it i.e. we have a particular scenario/situation in mind. When we create a rule such as, \"never get into a stranger\'s car\", we do so, with a situation in mind where we\'re walking on the sidewalk/pavement and a car pulls up, and a stranger asks/demands that we get in. Of course we wouldn\'t do this, however we may quite willingly get in to a stranger\'s car, if we’re with a friend and someone they know pulls up and asks us if we want a ride. We will willingly get into a stranger\'s car if someone we trust says it is ok for us to do so - rarely do we question other people\'s judgments concerning our safety, and yet many times it would be wise for us to do so. Just because someone else knows this \"stranger\" doesn\'t mean they\'re not a stranger to us.  Predator\'s are very skilled at getting us to believe that our rules don\'t apply to them. A predator on an internet/blind date that is going well, may suggest to the person that they\'re dining with that after the meal they continue the \"date\" at a bar they know. Once in the parking lot they may suggest that it makes more sense to take one car, and that they\'ll act as designated driver - a nice touch that shows them to be \"safe\" and responsible. They may even add, \"Don\'t worry nothing\'s going to happen\", an unsolicited promise, that they know their Date will be too polite to question. Is a person that you\'ve met a few hours before, still a stranger? I\'d argue yes, I know a predator would have you believe otherwise.  One Rapist\'s MO (Modus Operandi), was to rear-end lone female drivers in remote settings. They knew this was a sure way to get someone to stop and exit their vehicle; our inbuilt and default behavior when engaged in a car accident is to get out and inspect the damage - something that could be practically done later and in a more populated location, however that isn\'t how we\'re programmed to act. Once out of their car, obviously visibly and emotionally shaken he would offer for them to sit in the passenger seat of his car to have a drink of water and fill out the necessary paperwork - what happened next is unfortunately too predictable and obvious. I\'m sure  all of this particular sexual predator\'s victims would have sworn blind that they\'d never have got in to a stranger\'s car. However I also believe that they all envisaged their rule applying to a very different situation than the one they found themselves in. This is not to \"blame\" anyone but to demonstrate that \"rules\" are ineffectual in keeping us safe.  At a seminar I conducted today, one female attendee, mentioned how many women\'s magazines publish a list of \"safety tips\" after there has been an assault or attack on women that has grabbed the media\'s attention (these are never the assaults that happen every day to women in their own homes by the people they know - these \"complicated\" stories never make the front pages, although they are the most common and alarming). Just as the people who wish to avoid being victims devour these lists, so do the predators who want to understand how they can circumvent these rules in order to gain access to new victims.           If we want to stay safe we have to stop taking the \"easy\" route and believing that our common sense will prevail. It won\'t. Every hard and fast rule we believe we will stick too, we\'ll break, and every predator will learn how overcome. Only by learning how predatory individuals operate and work will we be able identify their processes and step away from them. Next time you tell yourself, \"I\'d never let a stranger into my house\", think of the situations and occasions you would, and then tell yourself rules simply don\'t work to keep you safe.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=140 Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=139 Most of us feel our safest when we are in crowds, and our most at risk when alone. The nightmare scenarios we all fear, usually involve us being followed or approached at night, in a deserted location, when nobody else is around. We often work to the assumption that predatory and other individuals wouldn\'t threaten and assault us when others are there because there would be witnesses to the offense - unfortunately predators and highly emotional/angry individuals don\'t have the legal consequences at the forefront of their mind. Having done door security for a number of years I\'ve seen plenty of attacks that have been made when other people have been present, and I have also seen many individuals feel socially pressured to initiate an assault because other people were present.   It always amazes me the number of people who engage in trash talking as a way of life: saying what they will or should do to certain groups of people, without directly engaging with them etc. Maturing to the point where you don\'t express your anger through threats and intimidation is a big part of self-protection and personal safety. If somebody keeps saying what they want to do, somebody will eventually call them on it. The playground/schoolyard can always be extended to adult situations and it is wise to leave all options of conflict resolution open rather than painitng yourself into a corner where your peers accept and anticipate one.   In crowds we can actually lower our own awareness. As a social creature, human beings, will rely on others to spot danger for them. The more eyes there are to look out for danger, the less individual responsibility we feel to look out for it ourselves and as a result we switch off. If we also work with \"Models of Violence\" that suggest that violence doesn\'t occur in crowded places, we may enter a situation or place with our awareness levels turned down to zero. Muggings and street robberies occur in crowded shopping malls, busy parking lots and transit stops, all the time. Financial predators go where the prey is; they want a rich selection of their particular prey i.e. people with money, and busy crowded places give them this. We need to be equally aware when in a crowd as when on our own.  Most of us are aware of the \"Bystander Effect\", yet we don\'t believe that it would happen to us. The Bystander Effect was first picked up on in 1968, when two psychologists, Darley and Latane, who were interested in why neighbors didn\'t fully intervene to prevent the murder of Kitty Genovese (the \"Bystander Effect\" is also referred to as \"Genovese Syndrome\"), who was repeatedly stabbed to death in plain sight of a number of people. Through a series of laboratory experiments, where the two social psychologists, replicated crisis situations where crowds were present, they found that the greater the number of people present the less likely anyone was to act on behalf of the victim. One of the reasons for this is a diffusion of responsibility - where each bystander convinces themselves that it is the responsibility of the others to intervene and act, or they believe the others have already acted in some way. It would be naïve and dangerous to believe that anyone would step in and help us if we were in trouble - unless perhaps they were friends or people who know us. Darley and Latane\'s study indicated that the more information bystanders had about a victim, the more likely they were to intervene.  Being in a crowd, or being surrounded by people does not increase your survival opportunities/potential. Recognizing how it may detract does. Next time you are in a crowded place understand that you are still at risk and that you must act accordingly.        https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=139 Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=138 The Dojo/Studio can never fully replicate real-life violence, and neither should it, however to comprehensively train yourself to handle and survive a real-life encounter, you must train all the aspects, components and dimensions that are present in a violent incident – and these aren’t just the physical ones; these include: threat recognition and identification (these are not the same thing – we can be alerted and recognize a threat, before we identify what it actually is), control of the adrenal response, effective decision making along with pain management and the appropriate physical responses. It is impossible to develop all of these skills through one method of training. Just as we have different pieces of equipment to build our physical skills, such as focus mitts for speed, kick shields for power etc. so we need different training methods to help build our skillsets in these different dimensions. Real life violence, rarely just happens, there are predictable steps that have to occur before somebody assaults you e.g. such as them synchronizing their movement to you, this – and others - should be replicated in your training. If you simply train techniques and movements “dry”, without setting the context of the assault beforehand, you will be training something that is largely restricted to the dojo/studio, and will lack effectiveness out in the real world. If you are training weapon controls and disarms, part of your training should be to recognize the movements that a person is required to make in order to draw, and make operational, their weapon. It is necessary if training techniques to spoil knife draws to train against both fixed and folding blades – a folding knife takes longer to deploy than a fixed one. It is also necessary to train such techniques within the “midst” of the conflict, not just at the beginning. The fact that when a person goes to draw a weapon, you have no idea of what type of weapon you will be dealing with, reinforces the fact that weapon defenses should be interchangeable and work regardless of the type of weapon it is: gun, knife, baton etc. Adrenal control is a key element of reality based training. Repetitively subjecting yourself to situations where you associate the adrenaline in a negative way, will not enhance your ability to cope when adrenalized. Sparring is a great tool, for developing certain types of threat recognition and identification, however if someone is in constant “survival” mode during a sparring match and is terrified during the experience, all of that will be lost. Not only will a person not receive any benefit from this type of training, they will also associate being adrenalized in a negative way. The Amygdala, the part of the brain, that stores all our past experiences of threats and dangers, and is also the first area to be activated when new threats and dangers are perceived. If its past remembrances are all negative, and ended in disaster, then when a new threat is recognized it can result in an emotional response that is not in line with the actual threat – the Amygdala can basically hijack our emotional response sending us into panic or shock, meaning that we’re unable to respond effectively. Adrenal training must be done in a responsible and effective manner, teaching people to manage fear and be successful in doing so. Pain Management is an important part of training, however if training to manage pain is associated solely with fear then this type of training will be detrimental to a person’s overall survival. There are those who suck pain up and those who back away and crumble because of it; through conditioning the brain can learn how to block certain types of pain out, and work through them – this is a key skill in a fight because the possibility of blocking every strike or punch is unlikely; something will hit. Being able to continue and work despite this is essential. I have always placed skills above techniques when dealing with real-world violence. There are many martial artists who are great athletes, who can replicate what they have been shown within the environment in which they learnt it, but to be able to translate it into different emotional and environmental settings requires additional training that many neglect. Realistic self-defense training has to train all dimensions and components of a fight, not just the physical ones. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=138 Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=137 In last week’s blog piece, I talked about the broad differences between school shootings in urban settings and those in suburban, and rural ones i.e. urban shootings usually involve one individual targeting another, whereas suburban/rural shootings usually involve two or more shooters who target fellow students and teachers in a seemingly random and indiscriminate manner. The main difference between the two is that in one a particular individual is targeted and in the other the school as an institution is targeted. This means the Pre-Violence Indicators (PVI’s) are very different, and different predictive methods need to be employed in order to identify such shootings (and shooters) before they occur. The profile of the shooters is very different between those that bring a gun to school to shoot a specific individual, and those that organize a rampage type shooting. Rampage shooters, tend not to appear on the school’s radar as students who are perpetually in trouble, or have major discipline issues. Rampage shooters tend to largely behave themselves as far as normal school rules go – they tend to be talkers rather than actors. In Urban settings, the shooters either are the known protagonists of violence, or the constant/perpetual victims of these protagonists (if it is a shooting between rival gang members then obvious PVI’s – Pre-Violence Indicators – exist). A Gun is a great equalizer, as it can be fired at a distance where the individual shooting it can remain safe from their target. If used at close range it is a natural intimidator, which few people would attempt to disarm someone of – especially if they don’t believe the person would actually use it (Denial i.e. “This Can’t Be Happening To Me”, is the first response we have when exposed to danger, when we finally come out of this state we are often frozen by fear, and paralyzed to act). School Shootings whether they are aimed to dispatch one particular victim or many, are committed by individuals who want to equalize things. Shootings are committed by individuals who want some form of revenge e.g. for years of bullying, for not being given the social status and recognition that they feel they deserve. In Urban shootings that target a particular individual, there will largely be a single event that triggers their decision to bring a gun to school – normally the next day; in Rampage shootings the plan is normally hatched over a period of time, when an offhand suggestion starts to be considered as a serious option. People become violent, when they feel they have run out of other options. If a student has been barred from all of the school’s social groups, and feels that they have not been noticed or recognized for who they are bringing a gun to school is a very effective way of gaining attention – and revenge. Unfortunately, most teachers, don’t have the expectation that a student will resort to such violent means, as a school shooting, and so dismiss many of the indications that might suggest a person is heading down this route. This is not to blame any teacher for “missing” the signs because unless you are considering and looking at what the signs may be pointing towards they will not be significant. Many school shooters, expressed their desire to take revenge, and elevate themselves to prominent positions in the school’s social hierarchy through creative writing projects they were given. Just because a student writes a violent essay doesn’t mean they will become a shooter, however if they are lacking a social support structure within the school, and tend to bond with similar individuals whose writing also starts to reflect such thinking and desire, then a teacher should probably take a step back and look at where things might be heading. High School Teachers are in a very tough position to identify individuals who are deeply troubled yet aren’t really troublesome to be identified through the schools normal disciplinary procedures. Teachers who only see a student for a particular subject will only get a small picture and idea of where a student’s mind is at, and unless there is formal and/or informal communication between teachers, and the dots joined up a complete picture will not be gained. Most shooters, whether targeting individuals or the school have in their past (or present) suffered some form of bullying. Bullying should not be restricted to merely physical actions, because making up stories about a person, spreading false rumors etc. are also forms of bullying – and ones that unfortunately we often take less seriously. Teachers and students need to play a part in adopting a zero-tolerance approach to these activities, rather than simply telling a victim to smile and ignore their antagonists. Whilst a bulled student may be smiling, they can be burning with rage inside, both at those giving them the ineffectual advice (the teachers representing the school) and at the person(s) doing the bullying. Creating a safe environment should be the number one priority of any institution, however this often gets overlooked if the events that go on don’t stop the institution as an institution functioning. If a school is able to educate its students then it will see itself as meeting its over-arching goal. Institutions can often get so lost in their primary goal(s) that they fail to recognize potential problems however unlikely, they fail to consider what could happen and so miss the signals. Understanding the potential for violence, however extreme, needs to be considered.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=137 Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=136 When we hear the phrase, “school shooting”, our minds nearly always call up “Rampage” incidents such as Columbine etc. where one or more teenagers/children, armed with an assortment of firearms engage in a shooting spree, against fellow students and teachers. There are however other incidents of school shootings, where an individual, brings a firearm to school, with an individual, and specific target in mind i.e. a particular student or teacher. These two different types of school shooting tend to occur in very different social settings, and have very different motivators. This blog article is the first of two pieces looking at school shootings. In this piece I want to look at the different social conditions that surround these two very different types of violence, and next week I want to look at the pre-violence indicators (PVI’s), that can help us to predict such events. There are big differences between “Rampage” shootings, and “Assassination” type shootings. Assassination style shootings target an individual, Rampage shootings target a group i.e. members of the school. Where an individual is targeted for assassination, the school is really just a common location, which the individuals involved (victim and aggressor) share and interact in. In Rampage shootings the school as an institution is important and significant – this is often true of workplace rampage shootings as well; the company as an institution is targeted, not just the individuals who belong to it. Understanding that the school as an institution is targeted in Rampage shootings helps to explain why this type of violence tends to occur in rural and suburban communities, rather than in urban ones. In rural/suburban communities the school plays a very significant role in the community, and in some senses tends to define it e.g. the town/community supports the school football and sports team, as a local team, uses the schools facilities for social and community events etc. In urban, city settings there is more overlap between communities and various schools; there are more schools closer together, meaning that children and adults may interact across and between schools e.g. an after-school club/program may contain children from many different schools, not just the one, and children may belong to sports teams and engage in other activities that have little or nothing to do with a particular school. In Urban settings the school tends not to represent a child’s entire social landscape, and/or define their place and role within the community. A rural community and school can be extremely “Claustrophobic” for certain teenagers and children. If a child/teenager is a star of the school football/sports team than they will be known and enjoy celebrity status throughout that community – everybody will know them. Conversely if a child is seen as a troublemaker or an outcast in a school setting, everybody in the community will know them and define them as this in every other setting. In urban settings, a child can enjoy and have many different roles. At school they may be seen as disruptive, whereas at their after school program they may be seen as productive and attentive; on their sports team they may also enjoy a different relationship with adults in positions of authority as well as their peers, to that which they experience in the school setting. In rural communities a child/teenager who is labelled, carries that label with them in every activity they engage in – the same is not so true in urban settings, where a child can have many labels as well as the opportunity to “reinvent” themselves in different activities/settings. Another thing which tends to separate Rampage shootings from Assassination style shootings is the length of time spent planning the event. Assassination shootings tend to be more spontaneous in nature, with only a short period of time between making the decision to shoot someone and the actual attempt e.g. there is an argument with a teacher one day, and the next day the student brings in a gun to shoot them. With Rampage shootings, planning the event is an integral part of the process; a primary motivation of many rampage shootings is the shooters demonstrating they are significant and important individuals that the school/community never took the time/effort to recognize as such. In planning a Rampage shooting those involved, get to spend time “enjoying” the justice they are about to inflict, and the fact that nobody knows what they are up to. This is all part of the process of a Rampage shooting. It also marks out another significant difference between Rampage and Assassination type school shootings. Assassination shootings are normally committed by a lone individual, Rampage shootings, though not exclusively, are committed by two or more individuals. Talking about, justifying and planning the event is an extremely significant and important part of the act – this is also one of the things which can sometimes allow us to predict beforehand that a rampage shooting is about to take place; especially if those involved start to lay down heavy hints and disguised threats to their prospective victims. In next week’s article, I will attempt to enlarge on such predictors (Pre-Violence Indicators), and talk about what the school, the community, the parents and the students should actively look out for and the actions and behaviors they should take seriously in order to help predict the possibility and likelihood of having these different types of violence occur in their schools.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=136 Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=135 The New Year always brings an “interesting” group of students to the school. There are those that have no previous martial arts experience, and then those who believe they have something to show and demonstrate to the people they train with. I continue to train in the martial arts, and my attitude has (and always will be), one where I just want to genuinely learn – I recognize that different systems take a different approach to self-defense and fighting, and that this approach can be valid even if it differs from my own. I have trained with enough organizations/associations in Israel to understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat etc. Different units, have different goals/objectives and train differently to achieve different aims; what makes “Krav Maga”, Krav Maga is that the concepts and principles that the approaches share are common and consistent. The other thing, which is a defining feature in Israel (and in modern military training), is that everyone trains to succeed. It is easy to cause a training partner to fail i.e. you know what they are about to do, and so can easily thwart and prevent them from achieving their objective. Unfortunately, this doesn’t give anyone a lesson in reality, just a lesson in how to deal with a person who knows what you are about to do. If violence/fighting was so predictable nobody would ever overcome anybody. Whenever I witness people who don’t get it, deliberately obstructing another person’s training opportunity I am always glad that I have had a traditional martial arts upbringing. Judo, relies on a person being taken out of balance – if this doesn’t happen, Judo doesn’t work; it is as simple as that. When you practice Judo, you allow your partner to take you off balance; it isn’t a competition, you recognize that you have to aid/assist your partner in order for them to practice their technique - and succeed. When you spar, you resist and prevent them but in training you give them the “assistance”, that would be naturally provided in a dynamic setting. There is a time to test the effectiveness of what you have learnt, and a time to practice and master that which you are learning.  It is very easy to detect the individuals who only have a “head” knowledge of violence because they don’t understand the dynamism of movement that is prevalent and a defining feature of real life violence. When they practice they deny it, and refuse to acquiesce to it, and will not allow their training partner to experience it. All fights involve movement, and when movement is added, certain things are possible, and certain things aren\'t e.g. if I am throwing you, you are not in a position to hit me, as you are out of balance etc. There is a reason that humility is a foundation stone of the martial arts – it exists to allow an open and realistic training experience, between practitioners who have to admit that training is not a complete reflection of real-life, and that real-life can never be truly replicated in training. When/as you train with someone, whether new or experienced, understand that part of your job is to play a “role”. If you are training a throw or takedown, you will have to act and behave in the way that someone attacking another, where such a technique/defense would be appropriate, would behave, by committing their weight and momentum to the attack etc. It is easy, but unrealistic, to throw punches where the body’s weight doesn’t move forward, just as it is easy to stiffen the arm of a hand holding a gun or a knife – all unrealistic responses, but ones that any person can make if they want to \"prevent\" somebody from enjoying a training experience. We can’t prevent people behaving as idiots,even if in their world they believe they are adding to everybody\'s actual expereience (anyone who steps on to the mats, should be open to learning), however well “supposedly” trained they are in other systems. However we can make sure that we don’t emulate them in our own training. All Krav Maga systems talk about “Open” and “Closed” drills and we should make sure that our behaviors, actions and responses in training are appropriate to each. In a \"Closed\" drill there is a defined outcome and both partners should work to achive that, in an open drill there is no defined outcome and so there is much more of an \"anything goes\" approach to this style of training. There are times to let your partner achieve and times times to make them work to get a result – make sure you have the maturity and the training to recognize and understand both.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=135 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=134 One of the first assumptions I used to make when working door security, was that the longer an aggressive or violent incident went on the more likely I was to be dealing with more than one aggressors or attackers. Most people visit pubs and clubs as part of a group, and so the chances are that when you have to deal with one individual, you end up having to deal with the group; you also have the added issue of the person you are dealing with having to act in a way that is consistent with how he/she believes the group think they should – I have dealt with people who were quite reasonable till their friends arrived on the scene and they felt they had a duty to perform to their new audience. In most situations if there were enough people working the door, you would attempt to separate the individual from the group so you could talk to them in a more private manner and allow them to follow their own initiative rather than having them feel the pressure of having to play a role, or act in a way that pleased the group. Being able to de-escalate a situation involving potential multiple assailants is preferable to having to deal with them physically – in any fight you should accept the possibility of getting hit as no blocking system is perfect, in ones involving more than one attacker you should expect to get hit. At the earliest stages of an altercation you should attempt to line your assailants up; that is you should put one attacker between you and the other(s), so you only have to deal with one person. If you are still in the pre-conflict phase, where the confrontation is a verbally aggressive one and nothing physical has happened, the person you are dealing with will have their back to their friends. This prevents them getting any “feedback” from the group, as to how they should act, and can give them a feeling of isolation; that they are on their own. Some people are comfortable being in this position, at the head of the group, most are not. If the person you are dealing with seems confident at the front, then you are probably dealing with the group’s natural leader. If the person appears unsure and hesitant then they are not. Being able to identify who will be the “active” participants in a fight is key to surviving multiple attacker scenarios; there will always be some individuals in the group who don’t want to fight, and these individuals should be placed lower on the list of people you may have to deal with. If you believe a physical conflict is inevitable act pre-emptively; it is far better to reduce the number of assailants early and send a clear message that you are more prepared, and more ready to fight than the group. This may aid in lowering the number of “active” participants, as those who may have been on the fringes of getting involved may back away when they see a clear demonstration of violence, and realize that they too could get hurt. If you can get yourself something to use as a weapon do so. Showing your level of intent is key in dealing with groups. People rarely get taken out of fights due to injury and the inability to fight, the majority take themselves away from the fight because they are emotionally unprepared for it e.g. the pain they receive is so unexpected they back away. If you can demonstrate to the group that if members get involve they will get hurt, you will have a large number who will not be keen to get involved. Biting somebody’s nose and holding on will give a good demonstration to the group about where your mind is at, and a good deterrent to them getting involved. There are always some people who will get involved. In most instances these are the ones who you should concentrate your efforts on, and preferably one at a time (this is where the skill of lining attackers up comes in). The longer a fight continues the more likely you are to tire and become overwhelmed, and the more likely it is that those who were on the periphery of getting involved feel compelled to join in. The quicker you can dispatch the key players, the less likely this is to happen. Because you don’t have a lot of time to deal with each assailant, strikes should be concentrated to vulnerable areas, such as the groin and eyes where a poor strike can have maximum impact, or to using tools such as knees and elbows, which are most likely to deliver maximum pain and damage. Your most basic “catch all” goal should be to take out one assailant at a time, starting with the most active – the one who wants to get involved the most. You will have to fight this person anyway, so it is best to deal with them first if you can (this may not be possible due to your relative body positioning with the rest of the group but this should be your basic strategy). In any fight, to survive, you have to become the attacker, and whilst you have to defend, you must demonstrate to the group that it is you attacking them not the other way round. A fight is a dynamic thing, and should always involve movement. In multiple assailant scenarios, you should be constantly moving and fighting, lining up assailants, taking each one out in turn (rather than simply sharing your violence equally between them), and looking to use the environment to your advantage. Training to deal with multiple assailants should be a skill introduced from day one, and more importantly one which is taught in Kids and Teens self-defense classes, as these individuals are more susceptible to group aggression and violence, in the form of gangs and bullying.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=134 Sun, 05 Jan 2014 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=133 A fight can have many dimensions to it e.g. a standup fist fight can go to ground, or in the middle of a clinch or grappling phase a knife can get pulled etc. Whilst there is a purpose to teaching ground fighting/survival as being something that starts and remains on the ground, just as there are good reasons to teach standup fighting without grappling and groundwork, at some point the transitions between these dimensions need to be taught. One of the most important transitions to train in reality based self-defense is when a weapon is introduced to the fight; as this demonstrates a development/evolution in an assailant’s harmful intent towards you, as well as increasing the risk of serious injuries/death. Unless you are involved in a gang-fight, where all participants start with their weapons drawn, or are subjected to some form of ambush where an assailant has identified you as a target, and approached you with their weapon in hand, an aggressor will have to draw and deploy their weapon e.g. if you are involved in an aggressive altercation in a bar, your aggressor will have to pull their knife/gun from wherever they are carrying it. If you are involved in a seemingly “unarmed” fight – and you should never assume that this is the case – where your assailant hasn’t had time to pull their weapon, you must understand that if they are carrying one, they will probably attempt to draw it during the unarmed phase of the conflict. One question you need to ask yourself about your training is, do you train to deal with weapons being pulled at the start of the conflict or during it? Or, do you train all your weapon disarms and controls from the perspective that the weapon has already been drawn and positioned?    If you are teaching self-defense from a reality based perspective, you need to train, according to the various “story lines” that violence follows e.g. if you train a knife control/disarm to the threat of having a knife at your throat, you must look at the preceding steps, which needed to take place before the knife was placed there; the person needed to synchronize their movement to yours, draw their weapon, and then place it against your throat etc. Could any of these preceding steps been prevented? Could you have prevented the person moving to a position where they were able to make the threat? Could you have spoilt the “draw” and controlled/disarmed the weapon before it was placed at your throat? It is not realistic to simply train a disarm/control at the very last part of the process, instead we should be looking to interrupt the process at the earliest opportunity and if possible put preventative measures in place that would stop the process from starting in the first place. The gap between what schools teach as reality based self-defense, and what security companies teach to those entering the security field professionally is often a night and day difference. The amount of time dedicated, in close protection training, to spoiling the draw and preventing a potential assailant from deploying their weapon is far more than almost any reality based self-defense school will spend teaching this skill. Rather most schools, will teach their students how to deal with the worst case scenario – of the weapon being “live” – rather than looking at how such a situation could be prevented. Teaching self-defense in clinically divided dimensions doesn’t reflect reality. In real life situations dimensions merge; arguments become fights, unarmed fights become armed fights, armed and unarmed fights go to the ground etc. One of Imi Lichtenfeld’s core concepts of Krav Maga was be prepared for anything, and yet often Krav Maga training doesn’t reflect this, instead it neatly packages each dimension (knife, gun, ground, grappling etc.) into its individual training session/part and doesn’t look at the transitions between them. In this way the student is given a false idea as to what a real-life violent altercation looks like, and doesn’t get to train in the dynamic fashion that is necessary if they are to be prepared to survive in reality. Next time you train a defense against a knife or gun threat, consider what could have been done to prevent yourself from finding yourself in such a situation. Is it realistic to assume the person simply walked up to you and placed the weapon where they did? Would they have had to engage you in conversation first in order to get close to you, and then pulled the weapon etc? This is understanding your training from the perspective of reality, rather than just simply learning a technique to deal with the worst case scenario.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=133 Sun, 29 Dec 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=132 Over the years of teaching, I’ve had students tell me of their real-life altercations, and how they used what they learnt in class to survive an assault; some are made up (or so it would seem), some are exaggerated and others are the real deal. I normally discount accounts that contain too many details e.g. I threw a left elbow, then a right knee, and I noticed that his weight was on the left leg, so I swept it etc. as recalling exactly what happened, to the minutest detail is an extraordinary feat, after having been involved in such and emotional and high stress situation. I also harbor suspicions when somebody appears to be the invincible hero in a setting, blocking every punch, dispatching every assailant with ease etc. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen however it is extremely unlikely that a person in a fight doesn’t get hit, doesn’t get cut, unless they’re the person who started the fight. The accounts I listen to and take notice of, are the ones that have lessons I can learn from, the ones that are told with an element of surprise; that what they did worked, and that they were ultimately successful – a voice that conveys that the person wasn’t possibly expecting to succeed tells me that the person dealing with the assault, is an ordinary person who recognized the extreme danger they were in, and the odds that were stacked against them – and that they overcame them. One of my students survived a knife attack last week, and the incident contains a few important lessons we can all learn from. The line in his account which stands out to me was, “when I saw the knife coming towards me, I knew I had to make a decision, I could either wait for it or I could act.” I paraphrase but the key element in the line was making the decision to act. The first thing to understand is that how we recall an event is very different to what happens in the event. The drawing of a knife, and the shanking of it are extremely fast movements that are somewhat faster than our conscious decision making process, where we have to first come through denial  (this isn’t happening to me), deliberation (what should I do), decision (I should do this particular course of action) and then act. The student involved had made the decision to act over a year ago, when he decided to start training. It wouldn’t have mattered in one sense if it was Krav Maga, Karate or another martial art/self-defense system, this student decided he wasn’t going to be a victim, and he was going to do something to ensure that: the decision to act if assaulted was made over a year before he faced this armed assailant. When somebody comes to our school to train for the first time, they have my utmost respect. To think about the possible consequences of an assault and wanting to be able to handle and survive it, demonstrates that this person understands the world around them, that they are in touch with reality, and they accept that reality: they aren’t in denial. I understand when people don’t commit to training. Training requires commitment and effort, and sometimes it is easier to go back to denial. Sometimes people see the odds against them as so overwhelming – knives move to fast, it would be impossible to block one, let alone control one (this is why it is good to share the accounts of those who have been successful – it allows us to lose our doubts and have confidence in what we are taught). Those who continue and commit to training, are an elite group; they are the people who understand reality, accept their place in it, the odds that they have to overcome, and despite all of this believe that they can do it. Next time you are on the mats training, look at the person you are partnered with and understand why they are there, and at the same time commit to the reasons that first made you want to train. When you stand in line at the start of class, look around you and understand that the person in front, to the back or side of you could have survived an armed assault, or go on to survive one. Understand that this person could be you.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=132 Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=131 The Importance of “Secrets” On Saturday I taught Module 1 of the SEPS Women’s Self Defense Program, which focused on rape and sexual assaults. Although it wasn’t my intention to talk about the ways that Sexual Predators, keep their victims from telling people what has happened to them, the discussion section of the module resulted in me explaining some of the methods that they use. I used the example of a victim being raped by the best friend of their partner/boyfriend in their own home – statistically, women are most likely to be assaulted by people they know, in their own home, or the home of someone else (rapes by strangers that happen in remote places are much rarer). I explained that the rapist, only has to cause the victim to delay in reporting the assault, to ensure that it’s never revealed – if an assailant says for example, “I’ve known your boyfriend for 15 years, you’ve only known him for 2, who do you think he’ll believe if you tell him about this?” the question is usually enough to get the victim to question whether their partner will believe that there was a level of consent involved, and force them to question telling their boyfriend/partner what happened. The longer the delay in saying anything, the less likely they’ll be believed e.g. why didn’t they something immediately, if this was actually what happened? The idea of keeping things secret is something that all sexual assailants are keen to promote, whether they target adults or children. Pedophiles understand the power that secrets hold for children. In a child’s world, information is normally the only thing they can exert control over, especially if they are operating in an adult’s world. I remember, as a child, that knowing something somebody else didn’t held great power for me e.g. if I knew what a particular birthday present that my sister was about to get was, and she didn’t then that knowledge and power was intoxicating to me. Pedophiles know how to exploit this. They “allow” children to enter their adult world, and share their secrets with them. The perceived power that these children have, encourages them to keep (and “enjoy”) these secrets. It may seem “perverse” to suggest that children enjoy the power of these secrets however the pedophile has to provide certain benefits along with the abuse, or the child would never go along with it. Pedophiles understand this; they have to give something to their victims, otherwise they would simply tell, and secrets are one way to do this – along with attention, bribes, gifts and the like. Continued abuse, is rarely maintained on fear alone (something which often separates it from one off instances of sexual abuse). If we are to protect our children from those who prey on them, we need to educate them as to what are “positive” secrets and those that are not. I have been guilty of involving my seven year old son in “secrets”, not those that involve harm but that benefit others, however I also recognize that I do this to give him a sense of power and control, and to share/reinforce a bond between us. As I do this I have to also recognize how a predatory individual would use these same methods to make sure that he would keep quiet about a sexual abuse, committed against him. I know my child and I know he’s not stupid, and pedophiles know he’s not stupid either – intelligence is always something that can be manipulated, and sexual predators understand the importance of a good argument, and “sensible reasoning” –they will do this to their victim, as well as the parents of the victim. There are no good secrets where children are concerned. We are in a season of present giving and having wrapped presents – where we disguise and hide the contents of the gift. ”Sharing” this knowledge, of you knowing what the present is or what you are getting for someone, may seem innocent, however when you do it you are reinforcing one of the tools that the pedophile uses. This may seem extreme, but when a trusted individual uses or replicates a method used by a sexual predator, a child may be left in a confused state about what is right and what is wrong. I despise that I have to give up certain innocent behaviors and actions that I would like to perform/display to my son however I also view his safety as my primary concern and so I don’t involve him in “secrets”, and from knowing how Pedophiles work, involving my child in secrets is something I am happy to give up.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=131 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=130 Physical violence never just happens. However for many people the early stages of a conflict, when it is still in its verbal – Pre-Conflict – stage, are taken up with trying to assess the situation: trying to understand the reasons why the conflict occurred in the first place, trying to overcome denial (that this is really happening to us) and often wondering why nobody witnessing the incident is intervening on our behalf etc. These are all things worth considering but not in this exact instance. In the first stages of a potentially violent altercation there are practical things to do, which may help deter an assailant from making an assault or at the very least improve your chances of surviving it. It is worth stressing again that your job is never to simply beat the person(s) you are dealing with to a bloody pulp but to prevent them doing what they want to do to you – if the only way to do this is to beat them into unconsciousness then this is what you must do; fortunately this is rarely the case. The first step in dealing with a verbally aggressive assailant is to deny them an opportunity to attack you – just because they are in front of you doesn’t mean they are able to assault you. The easiest way to do this is to confront them with a problem that they have to think about overcoming. If you can force them to think, then you have started to reduce some of the emotion in the situation, and therefore the likelihood of them attacking you. By raising your hands up in front of you, with your palms facing your assailant, you will be putting a protective barrier between you and them, without escalating the situation (closed fists would do this). By taking a step back, your assailant will have to move before they assault you – a good pre-violence indicator. If you step slightly to the side, they will have to turn if they want to attack you. If they have to find a way to get round your protective barrier, take a step forward and turn before they can launch an attack, these are three things they need to think about doing. If they then try and do these things you have at least gained some time and space in which to implement the next step in the process. People often panic and want everything to happen and be over at once. They want to be able to do one thing which will finish the fight – this is rarely possible and can only happen if you have a good fight finisher that you can deploy before or at the very moment the conflict starts, such as a TASER, stun gun or a very accurate and powerful, well timed strike. In most instances your best bet is to try and disrupt your assailant (you have done this to a certain extent by your movement and relative body positioning described in the previous paragraph). As the person turns and moves towards you, throw out an eye strike, a groin slap or something similar; a quick strike to a soft target that doesn’t require you to be in a great position or that relies on you generating any power. This strike won’t finish the fight but it will give you the opportunity to set yourself up for power strikes that potentially will. After disrupting your assailant’s attack/movement with your soft strikes, you need to enter the damage phase. This involves inflicting enough pain on your attacker that they can’t function or cope and want to remove themselves from the fight. This is where you need to attack with full emotion and commitment and convince your attacker that this is not a fight they want to engage in. If your assailant continues, then you will need to move from damage to destroy mode. This is where you need to somehow physically incapacitate them; either by breaking limbs, choking the person out (especially if they are pain resistant due to drugs or alcohol), or knocking them out – something which is very, very hard to do. At some point you will need to disengage. You should disengage at any point where you can create safely create/put distance between you and your attacker. The earlier you can disengage from a conflict the better, as this will reduce the risk of injury to yourself.             https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=130 Sun, 08 Dec 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=129 Most physically violent encounters are preceded by an aggressor posturing. Most of us have seen, or encountered this, where the person juts their chin forward, shouts obscenities, makes threats, and spreads their arms wide. Posturing is a clear indication that someone is considering physically harming us, however in and of itself it doesn’t indicate that a person is ready to make an assault. Posturing serves two basic purposes: one, to intimidate the target, and cause them to either back away or become too scared to be able to respond to any physical attack (literally freezing the person into inaction), and two, to get the assailant to an emotional place/level where they are prepared and ready to make their assault. Posturing can contain signals that the person engaging in this behavior doesn’t want to fight as well as signals, that the “talking” phase is over and they’re about to launch their assault. The problem with a lot of the physiological “warning signs” that indicate a person is about to assault you is that they are too subtle to pick up on, especially in many of the situations that you are likely to encounter violence. I have read and been at seminars where instructors have talked about changes in face color, jaw clenching, chin jutting etc. and whilst all of these things are definitely indicators and do indicate that a person is getting ready to attack, they are almost impossible to pick up on, especially if a person is intoxicated and when you are in bad light e.g. clubs, pubs, bars etc- the places you are likely to run into people who are more prone to violence and engage in posturing behavior.   In my experience, it is much easier to notice the changes in the way a person verbally communicates, rather than the way they physically do. My very first de-escalation technique is to ask open ended questions concerning the situation, and listen and judge the responses to them. If the person can talk and communicate at this level, I can normally be pretty safe in assuming that their posturing behavior is largely about resolving the conflict, rather than escalating it. This doesn’t mean I drop my guard rather, that I recognize there is a good chance of walking away without a fight. My trouble comes when the person can’t communicate well, and engages in some of the following activities: silence, staccato answers, jumbling up the word order of a sentence and/or repetitive looping. Communicating verbally requires our brains to be working with the capacity to reason still intact, as we become more emotional, we become less reasonable and less able to verbally communicate. Silence is a very good indicator that a person is left with two options: fight or flight. I have seen and experienced both responses from silent people. I have seen people become silent to a question and walk away and I’ve seen others launch a punch. I’ve also seen/experienced people turn to walk away in order to set up a punch i.e. they use the movement to blade their body and set their feet to strike. When people are reduced to staccato answers they do so because they are unable to form full sentences. This is one of the reasons I always ask open-ended questions; so that they are unable to simply answer yes or no. I need a person to have to try and formulate sentences in order to judge where they are emotionally. The other reason I ask open ended questions is so that the person can have input into the resolution of the conflict – this way they don’t see me as someone posturing to them. If they jumble up the order of the words when answering me, I take this as a definite warning sign. The “Repetitive Loop” is something that people do to justify their anger, and work themselves up into an emotional frenzy. When somebody keeps repeating an accusation or injustice over and over again e.g. “you spilt my drink”, “are you looking at me?” etc. they are not interested in resolution, they are simply looking to justify to themselves – and possibly those around them – that they are entitled to right this real or perceived wrong physically. There is a time for talking and a time for action and both need to be understood. Real world self defense should teach both. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=129 Sun, 01 Dec 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=128 Denial, is a common and normal the response we have when our adrenal system is triggered, and we become aware that we might be in danger. Two 19th Century Scholars, William James and Carl Lange, working independently came to similar conclusions about how our fear system operates – this is now referred to as the James-Lange theory. Most people naturally think that the order of events when scared is as follows: You see a bear, you become afraid, and because of the fear for your safety you run. Both James and Lange postulated that this wasn’t in fact the order of events and what really happens is as follows: You see a bear, you start to run and because you are running you recognize/understand that you are afraid. In effect what they are suggesting is that it is due to a change in your emotional state that you recognize you are in danger, not because you first consciously identify the threat. If the danger is immediate, such as being charged by a bear or someone trying to stab us, we will not have time to “consciously” respond to the threat and will work on instinct. However if we have time to identify a threat, one of the most common responses is to deny it. If you’ve ever been walking and felt there was someone walking behind you, and then you identify footsteps, chances are you’ll tell yourself that you’re just imagining that someone is following you, and that you shouldn’t be so stupid. Sometimes it can be hard to recognize that you are in such a state, and it is often easier to spot the signals that tell you, you are in denial. The first step when you enter a state of denial is to rationalize your state. If you hear footsteps that are gaining speed, and coming up behind you, rather than turn and confront the potential danger advancing towards you, you may try and convince yourself that the person behind you is just in a hurry (which could be the case however their movement was similar enough to someone’s who does want to hurt you that your fear system alerted you to the danger). You may add to the argument, that the time is around 6 PM and they are just in a hurry to get home from work etc. In this process you will start to minimize the potential risk to yourself – convincing yourself that you are not in danger. When you make a dynamic risk assessment of a situation there are only two outcomes, it’s either a high risk situation or one that contains unknown risks – there is no such thing as a low risk situation. Trying to minimize risk, and reduce the risk to yourself should only go to confirm to yourself that the danger is large and real – else why would you try and discount it? If you have to rationalize a situation to the point where you are minimizing the risk you are in a state of denial, and you should act. If it is someone rapidly approaching you from behind and there is little or no time/space to disengage or put some natural barrier, such as a parked car between you and the person behind you, you should turn and confront. The situation is either a high risk one or one containing unknown risks; by turning and confronting you can gain more information to make a better assessment and prediction of what is likely to happen e.g. is it someone chasing you because you dropped your wallet and they want to give it back, or is it someone running at you with half a house brick raised over their head ready to hit you with it? People often minimize risks when they are dealing with aggressively verbal people. If the question, “he surely wouldn’t hit me, would he?” ever enters your head when you are involved in a verbal altercation, understand why it does i.e. because you subconsciously are thinking that they may. When you ask these type of questions you are effectively making predictions. Don’t minimize the question by telling yourself, “No, of course he wouldn’t hit me”, as more than likely that’s what he is about to do. Trying to rationalize a dangerous situation is comforting, as it lets us off the hook for having to deal with it, and we can simply hope by ignoring it that it will go away. If we keep ignoring our fear system and getting away with this course of action we’ll soon detune it and will stop being alerted to potential dangers.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=128 Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=127 Last week\'s blog focused on Workplace Violence and how potentially violent employees, don\'t get picked up on and identified by employers during the interview phase. A large part of this is down to the fact that in an interview the employer is looking at the candidates suitability and eligibility to perform the tasks and responsibilities that would be given to them as part of the job, not whether they are likely to be aggressive and violent towards other employees - this is doubly difficult when aggressive/violent people know how to hide or justify their previous actions and behaviors. At base, the issue is one of awareness; knowing what to look for and recognizing when you see it - even if it is disguised and hidden.  This week I had a conversation about somebody\'s father who had grown up in a rough neighborhood, had become successful, and had ended up losing his \"street smarts\" and savvy as due to becoming more accustomed to his new lifestyle of success - after a particular incident these skills were rediscovered and reinstated. Most of us, reading this, have probably been fortunate enough not to have to learn what violence looks like firsthand, and if we\'re honest about it recognize that this puts us at a disadvantage. Our education into violence, isn\'t firsthand, and so we don\'t actually know what to look for in our environment, or what is significant when trying to identify potential acts of violence.   For many of us we are like the employer, who is looking to fulfill certain objectives. When we go to the supermarket to shop we are looking to get the groceries we need, we are not expecting to be attacked, or looking for potential assailants. When we go to work, we are looking at how to get their on time, whilst dropping off dry cleaning and getting a coffee. We are so focused on achieving our day-to-day goals and objectives that we ignore, deny or discount the potential dangers in our environment. If you grew up in a rough district/neighborhood, you knew that running errands for your mom, could see you being robbed before you got to the corner shop, a couple of blocks from your house - this was your reality and you took such possibilities into account.   Modern day-to-day life is so hectic that our personal safety is often the last thing to be, if ever, considered and yet the consequences of being assaulted are so great. This is not me trying to fear monger or create hysteria but simply communicate a message that personal safety should be a consideration in everything we do, that we should not become so focused on achieving every task that we neglect to consider our safety in doing so. We may not have \"natural\" street smarts and may take the opinion that because of this there is nothing we can do i.e. we put our heads in the sand, and hope that violence never comes our way, or alternatively we can recognize that violence does happen and that we should educate ourselves to predict, identify and avoid it before it occurs.  The media might like to portray to us that the world is in chaos and there is little we can do to avoid becoming victims but this is simply not true. When I ran errands for my mum, I knew who/what to look out for, how to move in a way that didn\'t draw attention to myself, and how to chose the safest routes based on the time of day. I was eight years old. I learnt what I did because it was essential that I did. You may be in your thirties, forties, fifties etc. and you may say to yourself, \"it will never happen to me\" (the line every victim says), yet you have far more intellectual ability than an eight year old, and far more opportunities to change how you act and behave. You just need to accept that you should and you can.  You are the most important asset you have, and you should preserve and protect that. Accept that violence, however unlikely, can invade and change your life and learn to identify what it looks like and how it acts so you can predict, prevent and avoid it.          https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=127 Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=126 I was recently interviewed concerning a stabbing at a Home Depot store in Quincy, MA. Both the victim and the attacker were employees. This brought up the subject of workplace violence. It always surprises me that there aren’t more instances of violence in the workplace; after all work is one of the few places we have to deal with, and communicate with people we haven’t chosen to be with i.e. the work environment is one that we have little or no control over the people we interact with. From what can be gathered concerning the incident at the Quincy Home Depot, it involved two employees who had a history of disputes, disagreements, arguments and aggressive behavior/actions between them. In any other setting they would never have met or interacted, and if they had come across each other they’d have probably both walked away, in the opposite direction, and had no further communication/interaction. Unfortunately the workplace doesn’t afford us this luxury of choice, and we aren\'t able to disengage, and instead may have to work alongside people that we simply don’t get like or get along with. Firstly, it is worth stating that what I’m about to write doesn’t reflect or call into question Home Depot hiring or employee management policies, but raises some general points and considerations concerning workplace violence. When a manager reads a curriculum vitae, and interviews prospective candidates for a position, the safety of existing employees is rarely a consideration. A manager wants to know primarily if a person can perform a job, and bring a skill set to the group/department that will allow them to fulfill certain functions and responsibilities. They are not asking the question, is this person likely to become violent and assault another employee(s). If a company/manager is hiring a computer programmer they are first going to check if the person can code in whatever language they use. They then may ask how much of a “team player” the person seems to be but they will rarely try to ascertain whether the individual they are interviewing is likely to put everybody else in danger or at risk. My personal belief is that this needs to change. Too often we assume that personal safety issues have been taken care of by others. If you are a parent have you ever asked your kid’s teacher if they have ever harmed or hurt a child? Probably not. We assume that the school has somehow addressed that issue for us. Often they haven’t. They may have done the necessary criminal checks but they haven’t actually interviewed the teacher from this perspective. The schools primary focus is often on the success that the teacher has brought academically, not on their actual attitude to children and how they treat them. When a manager looks to employ an individual the focus is on their ability to do the job. Hopefully you’re a bit picky about who you invite into your house. When a manager interviews a prospective employee they should be equally picky about who they bring into their “house”. A good team member should not only bring skills, abilities to the job, but they should also not cause a feeling of unease in their fellow employees. One of the things that is always surprising about incidents of workplace violence is that fellow employees often remark about how uneasy and uncomfortable they were with those involved. The co-workers of Patrick Sherill, the Oklahoma postal worker who went on a shooting spree after he was fired, had already nicknamed him, “Crazy Pat”, before he even committed his crime - there was a warning to management righ there. If you want to know whether there is a likelihood of workplace violence listen to other employees. If they use dark humor in reference to another employee, take note e.g. they hear a loud bang/noise, and jokingly remark that this was caused by “Crazy Pat” shooting his manager etc. start to investigate Pat Sherill before it comes to simply dismissing/firing him etc. Humor is a means of identifying danger – when we are in denial about a threat humor often reveals what that denial is. If a company puts extreme pressure on its supervisors and managers to get things done right and quickly  and yet doesn’t create a culture which allows any negative information to flow upwards, troubled employees might never be identified and brought to the attention to those in positions of power (who are ultimately responsible for the business). Many supervisors and managers will not want to admit that they made a bad hiring choice, and have a bad person in their department,  and so will continue to “sing the praises” of a troubled employee, that makes everybody in the business is uncomfortable about etc. In fact a manager may force themselves to become the biggest advocate of an employee in order to save face, instead of admitting they made a wrong choice. In some instances they will help that employee get a promotion that moves them out of their department. A positive workplace culture is key in allowing fellow employees and supervisors/managers to identify and deal with people who engage in aggressive and bullying behavior. Everyone must feel empowered to bring to the attention of management those individuals who make them feel uncomfortable and threatened. Personal safety is a right and something that every company should guarantee.    During the first stages of a person’s employment they should be observed and if any untoward behaviors and actions are identified e.g. being excessively resistant to change etc. then somebody needs to sit down with said employee and explain to them what the terms and conditions of the company means and how their way of explaining/describing things doesn’t fit in with them. The longer an employee’s behavior goes unchecked, the more it is given tacit approval by those in positions of power. An employee who is reprimanded for a minor offence of aggressive behavior may feel that this is unfair considering previous “major” incidents were never identified or dealt with. Consistent handling of an employee’s behavior in line with company policy is essential (and any company who doesn’t have policy and process for dealing with aggression and violence needs to start addressing that immediately). Workplace Violence is ultimately the responsibility of the company involved. The manager employing an employee must interview correctly, and those who work with the employee must be allowed to give their feedback early on. After that the company must be prepared to eject the employee as quickly as they can. The longer a person stays at a job the more entitled they feel to say even when they break all the rules. If an employee does need to be fired this should be done at the earliest opportunity before they feel they are entitled to work at that company – the last thing a company needs is a disgruntled employee returning with firearms to wreak havoc in the workplace.         Most company’s ignore basic processes in the hiring and firing stages of employment because they are really only concerned with the productivity of an employee when they are in the work phase. There are many simple steps a company could take to ensure that the safety of its existing employees is maintained before new members of a company come on board and after they leave. This however requires employers to consider the well fare and safety of their employees from another a new perspective. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=126 Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=125 I have always enjoyed lifting weights. One of the main reasons is because it’s honest. You can’t talk a bar up above your head, you have to lift it. Either you can or you can’t it’s as simple as that. Self Defense should be the same however all the abilities needed to be effective on the street can be difficult to test and prove. The UFC and MMA tried to get close but they were only able to replicate one dimension of a real-life conflict and had to take out some of the key elements that define reality, such as being surprised when attacked and recovering from a sucker punch etc. along with other more physical components such as multiple assailants and weapons. In some instances rather than reflect reality, instructors and schools have chosen to educate their students as to a reality that fits their techniques, skills and beliefs concerning what a real-life fight looks like e.g. two handed chokes from the front and back, pushing, pulling etc. – whilst such attacks do happen they are far less common than, pushes, grabs and large swinging punches, when surprised and still in denial of the reality of the situation. Whilst aself-defense school can\'t test reality as reality, it can take the many dimensions of a realconfrontation and test each component in a controlled manner. This is what is attempted in a grading.  In grading, students largely fall into three camps: those that think “knowing” the techniques is enough, those that think because they’ve been a member of a school for a length of time they are entitled to grade and be belted, regardless of the number of classes they’ve missed and their overall lack of training i.e. get to “Black Belt” without the effort  (they often end up quitting a school, and doing a circuit of others in the hope that they’ll find an instructor who’ll hand them out belts regardless of their commitment etc.), and then there’s those that care about improving what skills they have and developing new ones, and working their way patiently through the system. These are the guys who don’t want to talk about lifting the bar over their head, rather these are the ones who want to be able to. When you lift, you constantly have to add weight to the bar in order to improve. This means accepting failure, and having to start again. If you’re doing a big lift in a crowded gym, everybody sees this. Challenging yourself and accepting that you might not make the lift, and that’s okay because you can try again and again, is the same as improving your martial arts and self-defense skills. Some people who try to and want to lift heavy but find that it’s hard, it hurts and involves failure, may go back to lifting lighter weights for large numbers of repetitions because it doesn’t involve and real test of strength. Some martial artists will never try anything “new” in sparring because it may involve failure, others will not change the way they punch or kick, because it may mean they have to step back the power they were generating, in order to move forward (they must “fail” in a relative sense in order to get better). A student in the UK, would never alter his Roundhouse Kick because as a tall person with a heavy leg he could generate a lot of power, through athleticism, not through technique. He never had the strongest kick he could have had because of this- all he saw was the power he was generating at the time, not what he could have generated. To get better you must come out of your comfort zone. Your belt is a marker of where you are now, don’t strive to be in the same place but with a different color belt round your waist in 6 month, work towards improving what you already know. Don’t look at other schools and see the belts they hand out there and judge yourself worthy of a higher belt than the one you have. Where you are is where you are. I just spent the weekend being coached in Strongman Lifting by Svend Karlsen (World’s Strongest Man 2001). It was a humbling experience. On certain lifts, I need to drop my weight and improve my form; if I’m going to see the gains I want. I have a choice: I can continue what I’m doing or I can change in order to improve. Lifting is honest, you can do it or you can’t. Martial Arts training can be honest too; you can talk about how powerful your kick is or you can demonstrate how powerful your kick is. You can be satisfied by where you are now and in 6 months argue that the same kick is the one you’ve improved, or you can improve. The belt you will receive on Thursday is a line in the sand. Be honest about where you are and what you need to do to move on. Look on your belt as a 200 Lb lift, and aim to make a 240 Lb lift at the next grading.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=125 Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=124 Different criminals choose diferent crimes for a variety of reasons. A mugger, commits street robberies because they offer a quick source of cash, the burglar breaks in to houses because their need for cash isn\'t so immediate and they consider the risk of confronting someone to great. The pickpocket or \"sneak thief\" picks pockets because they need quick cash but wish to avoid having to confront their target/victim. In most cases of crime there is an element of power and control e.g. the burglar, the mugger get a rush from either breaking into a place and having control over a location they shouldn\'t be in, or from having someone acquiesce to their demands. The pickpocket might derive some satisfaction from accomplishing their crime,and demonstrating their skills of stealth and slight of hand etc. but because there is so little interaction, or time spent commiting the crime their need to take away a sense of \"power\" from the crime is a lot less. This is important to know if you expose a pickpocket during the act- they are not likely to be inclined towards violence in the same way as a mugger or burglar would be (this is of course a generalization and there are muggers who spend the majority of the time commiting robberies who would not pass up the opportunity to pick someone\'s pocket should it arise). Criminals may also opt for pick pocketing because of a language barrier. Someone who has just arrived in a country and is in need of cash but doesn\'t speak the language may opt for picking pockets because it\'s a crime that doesn\'t rely on any verbal exchange. Although commiting a burglary itself wouldn\'t involve any interaction, selling the goods on to a fence would and if the person isn\'t tapped into a criminal network they may not have this opportunity. Pickpockets like all criminals follow a four step (sometimes five step) process, that makes their crime somewhat predictable. Firstly they select their criminal activity and a location/environment to commit their crime. Pickpockets will work in crowded areas, sometimes as a team, where there is a large selection of potential targets; they will also want to work in crowed areas where people and objects can obscure what they are doing - pick pocketing is one of those crimes that passers by have less qualms or fears about calling out a person if they see them committing such a crime - they know that such individuals commit these crimes because they are scared of confrontation. Escalators are a good place, as they give the criminal legitimacy to be close to a person, and their target is static. When selecting a victim/target (the second step) a pick pocket will be looking for someone who is unaware and possibly engagedin other activity (such as talking on a phone, window shopping etc.), they will also prefer a static target to a moving one.The idea that a pick pocket will be able to take the watch of your wrist without you realizing it is far fetched. Most pickpockets will require whatever goods they want to take of you such as your wallet, to be easily accessible - and the further away from your actual person the better. If you carry a backpack with external pockets, these may well be checked for goods as it is unlikely you will feel the person unzipping the pocket; unless that is you sway slightly as you walk. If you do this then if someone has hold of the bag,you will feel the resistance as you move. Simple steps such as not having the bag fully on your back but slung over a shoulder is a much better way to carry it - it also allows you to release it quickly if the crime is a violent bag snatch etc. Oftentimes people don\'t realize when they have a wallet or cash taken from them. A person may assume they have had their pocket picked whilst being part of a crowd, when really their possessions were taken when they left their bag unattended whilst going to the bathroom in a bar/restaurant etc. It is naïve to rely on others to protect your possessions for you, and inconvenient as it is you should take your bag(s) with you. One strategy I often employ is to separate my cash, from my cards/ID etc, so if somebody does get past my \"natural\" security, I still have either money or credit cards to help me get through my day. It would be difficult for somebody to get either of these, as I keep them in the front pockets of my jeans, so that they are not easily accessible by me, let alone anyone else. When I carry bags/laptop,I keep it close to me so any interference with it can be felt- simply pulling a bag away if you feel it is being interfered with will dissuade any criminal from continuing their crime. Moving at a decent speed, rather than loitering will help prevent somebody from being able to get hold of our bags or clothing without being identified. All of these things will not only help us to avoid being selected as a victim but will also help us identify such crimes when they are in process. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=124 Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=123 We often talk about having an awareness of our surroundings and the potential threats within them however having an awareness concerning yourself is also important i.e. how will you react and respond in a violent altercation, not how you like to think you will, but how you actually will. There are many range shooters who believe that simply carrying a gun is an answer to situations where there is an active shooter - they like to believe that they would respond in a certain way when placed in such a situation without actually taking the time to think whether they would engage or disengage (should the opportunity present itself) from it, if it actually happened. There are many martial artists who look on their prowess at sparring, and take from that, that because they managed to overcome their initial fears and reticence concerning this form of training that they wouldn\'t freeze, stall or stutter when confronted with a drunken, shouting behemoth who is denying you space and time etc. Don\'t get me wrong sparring has its place, as does time spent on the range however unless an individual actually considers and visualizes how they would respond in such situations they will never be able to transition from the training environment to the real world.  The first thing to understand when dealing with violence is that your first response will be one of denial i.e. this can\'t be happening. If you don\'t think this is the case then you are already in a combat ready state (you\'ve identified the threat and are already formulating a response plan), or you\'re not being honest with yourself. If you were involved in an active shooter situation, such as the shopping mall in Kenya, where you were going about your business and then started to hear shooting, your initial response would be one of denial - especially if you\'ve not heard live fire in an urban setting - and you will search your mind for any other reason for the noise, other than one that might pose a threat to yourself. Are you aware of this? Are you aware that if a man with a gun suddenly burst into a movie theater you were sitting in, you wouldn\'t think it was a joke or prank? I have seen many people laugh in the face of violent individuals just because they couldn\'t accept the reality of the situation they were in and the only conclusion left to them was that the person must be joking.  You may think you\'re trained but are you really? There is no substitute for real-life experience but at the same time few of us have it, and it does become rusty and to a certain degree out of date. The way to experience violence, without having to deal with it is through visualization. Visualization is not dreaming or imagining but constructing a reality in your mind and working through it - and it involves honesty; if you haven\'t/can\'t kick a gun out of somebody\'s hand don\'t put that in to your visualization process. Visualization here is to reinforce what you can do, and put it into a real world context. You must also acknowledge how you would naturally respond.  Take a technique you have practiced in a classroom/studio setting e.g. 360 block and punch, and imagine a scenario that you could potentially face where somebody might throw a looping haymaker (where you would perform such a technique), such as when dealing with an aggressive drunk who bumped into you on the street, in a pub/club etc. In your mind assume your de-escalation/interview stance and imagine the conversation with them; go through what you would say to them, and imagine their responses. Visualize the drop of the shoulder and all the preliminary movements that have to happen before the punch is thrown, acknowledge the recognition time this takes, and then visualize your response. Understand that the confrontation doesn\'t end after your punch connects (imagine what this will feel like) and that you will need to continue your striking; imagine EVERY strike as a definite one, don\'t trail off the process with the idea of...\"and then I\'ll just throw some Hammer-Fists.\" Visualize each strike. Go through the whole process from start to finish, with your aggressor ending up incapable of continuing the fight. Feel your emotions as well.  When you visualize you should do it from two perspectives: firstly from your own view, and then from those of third parties i.e. as if you are watching yourself. This process will also help you understand the situations in which you are likely to face potential threats as you have to create the situations where such realities occur. Nobody just pulls a knife on you, they first approach you etc. You must visualize what this looks like as well.  When you consider that many of the individuals you will have to protect yourself from have first hand experiences of violence, and you probably do not,  you will need to gain those experiences through visualization.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=123 Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=122 All Predatory individuals follow a distinct 4, sometimes 5 step methodology, regardless of their motivations or the types of crimes they are committing; it doesn\'t matter whether they are a mugger or sexual predator they will follow a similar method for selecting and approaching their chosen victim/target. Understanding this process will allow us the ability to identify, predict and avoid  violence before it occurs.  The first step is to select an environment (Step 1) where there will be a large selection of potential victims to choose from: predators go where the prey is, and they will want the largest selection to choose from. No predator will want to be forced to choose an \"unsuitable\" victim simply because they are the only person available and will instead select a hunting ground where there is an abundance to choose from. A mugger looking for victims will not hang around deserted places where they will be forced to wait for a suitable person - who may never actually pass by - when they can go to a populated location, such as a shopping mall, transit station or parking lot and have a wide array of potential targets to choose from.  Muggers want cash - not credit cards - usually to support a drug habit and will want to hunt in places where people will be carrying cash - this could be shopping malls, or lower income areas where people are more likely to use cash than credit cards. A mugger is usually looking to get money for their next fix and will be satisfied with a $20 haul.  A Sexual Predator will choose a location that contains targets who match their victim profile. If it is a rapist who targets 18-25 year old women, he may well frequents bars and clubs which this demographic frequent, if it is a pedophile with an interest in girls aged 8 to 12 he may hang around Ice Rinks, Shopping Malls, Sports Fields, Movie Theatres, Parks etc.  (we will talk a lot about this in next weeks blog).        After choosing an environment they will select a victim (Step 2). Part of this selection may be based on a particular demographic e.g. 8 to 12 year old girls if they are a pedophile etc. But common to all predators is the fact that they are looking for a non-confrontational victim; somebody who will hand over control of a situation to them. This may be somebody who overly looks for guidance and support from somebody else and/or someone who does whatever they can to avoid potential confrontations e.g. when they walk in a crowd they are continually moving out of other people\'s way, and adjusting their movements so that nobody bumps into them. They may observe to see if people seem unaware of their surroundings/situation and ask for help from others.   After selecting a victim they will carry out some form of surveillance on them (Step 3). They will want to confirm that the person they have selected really is acting and behaving like a potential victim. The Great White Shark observes and \"tests\" its prey many times before it actually attacks, circling and observing from distance, checking if its approaches are noticed etc. Even a predator as powerful and strong as a Great White wants to know it is dealing with prey that will not be able to escape and fight back, and carries out surveillance in order to make sure this is the case. Human Predators are no different, possibly passing by their victims several times before they make their actual assault.  After surveillance, will come some form of synchronization of movement where the predator ties their movement to that of their target either following, approaching, intercepting or waiting for them. Often this synchronization will lead to a predator setting themselves up for some form of verbal exchange e.g. an aggressor may approach a target, under the guise of them giving directions, informing them of the time or lending them money etc. The synchronization being step 4 and the verbal exchange being step 5.   Violence is never random it just seems that way when we\'re unprepared for it.When we understand the process of an assault we can see there are clear steps that can be potentially identified and if we learn how to spot them we can avoid a physical confrontation in the first place.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=122 Sun, 13 Oct 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=121 There are natural fighters and there are those that learn how to fight; a natural fighter doesn’t need to be trained to look for an improvised weapon he’s already picking a chair up, to smash across somebody’s back. 99.9% of those who come to the reality based self-defense systems and the martial arts, do so because they recognize they are not natural fighters (I exclude combat sports such as MMA and Boxing, where natural fighters are attracted by the chance to have their skills and abilities recognized as well as potentially make a decent living). Recognizing that you don’t naturally possess the mindset to survive and deal with a real world violent encounter, is the first step in developing it. Often when people walk in to a school or studio for the first time, they look at the higher belts training and think to themselves that they want to be like them. They rarely consider that they want to be like the violent assailant who they are anticipating they may one day have to deal with. It is unlikely that you will have to deal with a trained and skilled martial artist in a real-life situation and much more likely that you will have to deal with some predator or thug, possessing the following characteristics: First Hand experience of violence Entitlement – believes it is his/her right to act No Conscience – Ready to act without hesitation Little/No Fear of the Legal Consequences of their actions Has a “Plan” Consider this list, and match who you are and your experiences to it e.g. what are your firsthand experiences of violence? It’s likely that the character you will have to deal with comes from a totally different background and way of thinking to you. You may have a good job and a great family life and consider a lot of your actions in regard to the legal consequences of them – a mugger supporting a drug addiction is only thinking about their next fix. We don’t simply want to emulate the Black Belt Martial Artist performing amazing techniques etc. but also start matching up our way(s) of thinking to the street thug and predator. We need to understand that we are entitled to act, that we – in that moment – should have no conscience regarding the person we are facing and that we should have behaved and acted in a way that when the time for physical violence comes we are not concerned with the legal consequences of our actions (because we have tried to dissuade, deter, disengage, de-escalate etc. beforehand). Many people fail to recognize the purpose of adopting a de-escalation stance, believing it is simply a “martial arts” stance. Your interview stance should also be a physical reminder that you are entitled to act without conscience or legal consideration should somebody try and compromise it. Predators and Thugs have simple, tried and tested plans that they have gained and developed from their firsthand experiences of violence. Most are based on intimidation and the threat of violence, rather than on any great athletic or martial ability. They expect victims and targets to respond in a certain way – by cowering and acting submissively, or by posturing – they rarely know how to deal with someone who doesn’t respond this way e.g. who smiles, and acts calm and confidently. Too many people get sucked into playing the criminals game rather than playing their own (we should match their mindset but adopt methods that counter theirs). Their physical plans for violence are simple and normally involve a disruption of balance, followed by extreme pain e.g. a push or pull followed by a punch. It’s an effective system. They strike first, after disrupting a person’s ability to defend themselves. Our striking should be more powerful, more effective and our balance taking more advanced but basically we should adopt the same approach: take balance and hit hard. Having a simple, proven and effective plan for dealing with violence is far more effective than a sprawling, complicated plan involving many moving parts. It is always worth taking note of how the “enemy” thinks and operates, and adopting the parts of their plan which prove effective.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=121 Sun, 06 Oct 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=120 For many people the legal consequences of their behaviors and actions when dealing with a violent situation are the most important consideration(s). It is understandable that having worked all your life to achieve a certain level of success there will be a natural fear that if you behave and act in a certain way when assaulted you could stand to lose all you’ve achieved – either by being prosecuted for excessive force, or by being sued by your aggressor for personal injury etc. These thoughts often cause us to back away from violence, when we should pre-emptively act to avoid it, and cause us to hesitate from acting “violently” and “aggressively” when in reality these are the only solutions available to us. Many people look to the Police & Law Enforcement Officers for advice on how to deal with violence and aggression i.e. how to operate within the law (the better person to ask would actually be an attorney who knows how to present the actions and behaviors of the individual, within the framework of the legal process). Unfortunately LEO’s – Law Enforcement Officers – have a skewed perspective on dealing with violence as they have a different end-game, objective when confronting violence i.e. they have to apprehend the person behaving aggressively, and they have a support network behind them e.g. weapons and other officers – all things that are necessary to accomplish their goals and the tasks that have been assigned to them. This is very different to the situation(s) that civilians find themselves in. When a civilian is being threatened, they are not wearing a badge or uniform and cannot call on anyone else to help them – usually they don’t have a weapon either. When you are confronted by a violent individual who clearly means you harm, you will rarely know the extent of the damage and injury they want to cause you (and they may not know this either). Also in the course of the conflict this can shift; an aggressor initiating a fight, will believe they have the capability to finish it quickly, and with little or no harm to themselves. However if in the course of the fight they begin to question their ability to do so (because you are fighting back, defending yourself and causing them pain) they will have to increase their level of violence to accomplish it. This causes a gradual raising on the ante which is why it’s a much better strategy to meet violence with “extreme” violence, as this allows you to end the conflict quickly and decisively. The longer a fight goes on the more desperate an aggressor will get and the more likely they are to resort to extreme measures. Unfortunately we often don’t consider “extreme” violence or we question its use because the “rules” of society suggests that it has no place as a civilized response to any form of aggression – as “nice” people we want to do just enough to deal with our attacker in order to defend ourselves. The real issue though is that the aggressor has already thrown out the rules of society, and is not behaving in a civilized fashion. They are not simply looking to defend themselves but to attack another person. Although it may be noble to claim the moral high ground, your aggressor has no respect for this, and you must instead claim the moral authority to act and to do what is necessary to deal with the situation – which is to meet it with extreme violence and assume the role of attacker within it.  There may well be \"legal\"consequences to your actions, but these should not be considered within the conflict/fight - this is the time to do what is necessary - and this is where having a pre-conflict method and strategy that an attorney can frame within a legal contextis imperative. If your method, involves avoidance, de-escalation and other preventative measures that can be referred back to in court, then your actions can be legally justified much more easily. You don\'t need a working knowlege of the legal system to work effectively in real-life situations, just a system that tries to avoid and prevent violence from occurring.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=120 Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=119 Often when we train, we look to find ways to make our strikes, faster, more powerful, more technically efficient and effective etc. and don’t take the time to see how our striking and techniques could be made more effective by putting our opponent/aggressor in such a disadvantageous position that almost any strike regardless of the power level would be effective. When practicing striking we often neglect something which is an essential part of our grappling training i.e. disrupting and setting up. When practicing throwing we never simply “throw”, we create movement and take balance before we execute a technique however when practicing striking we often neglect to set up our strikes and rather rely on what we believe to be our power, strength and speed. This is where working pads and bags can be detrimental to our training; we can end up believing we have such a good punch and kick that we simply have to execute it and it will be effective, regardless of what our opponent is doing or can do. In a real life encounter, relying solely on your capabilities, without first taking out your aggressor’s ability to be effective (and/or respond to any attack you make), is to underestimate their competency and overestimate your own. You may believe you have the greatest, strongest, most powerful punch in the world however if you assume that your assailant isn’t competent enough to deal with it and counter it, you are making a grave mistake. It is no good throwing “good” punches against an aggressor, who is in a good position to deal with them, you must first disrupt them in some way. If you want to land effective punches in the street, it may be necessary to start with a “soft” strike such as an eye strike, in order to cause a negative response in your opponent; force them to blink pull their head back etc. (in the Krav Maga Yashir system we refer to this idea as “Soft Strikes into Hard Strikes). In sparring, you may throw a jab out to force your opponent to block and move to the right, so that you can set up a turning back kick - in both situations you need to be prepared for the fact that the person you are dealing with doesn’t react/respond in the way that you want; not everybody’s response will adhere to the most common and likely ones.      Positioning your aggressor/opponent so that your attack will be effective must come before, or as part of your attack. Your aim should be to position your attacker so that: 1. Their weight is rooted/planted and they must undergo some form of weight distribution and movement before they can make an adequate defense or force them to move so that their weight is shifting (basically they should never be in a “neutral” position where they are stable and potentially mobile), 2. They are in a position where their stability is compromised (they can be well balanced without being stable) and 3. They will be mentally and emotionally unprepared for your attack/assault. These should be principles that although obvious in grappling should also be adopted when striking. Attacking a prepared opponent is a dangerous thing. I see this in sparring all the time e.g. a person is in a strong fighting stance, in front of another person, “waiting” for an attack, and their partner obliges. Their partner is then confused why their very, fast, powerful and strong round kick fails to yield the same results it did on the pad. When someone is “waiting” there is no element of surprise. In a sparring contest somebody has to attack, and if a person isn’t attacking they’re expecting the other person to. Rather than attacking a “waiting” person you must force them to engage in a movement, an activity, a behavior which causes them to have focus on that, rather than on the expected attack/assault. In sparring it could be moving, so they have to move, on the street it could be talking/conversation to mask a pre-emptive strike or a weapon disarm. The central principle of throwing, which require a disruption to setup an attack is one that should be adopted into striking as well.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=119 Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=118 Over the past couple of weeks I’ve had a more than a few questions about shouting, screaming and making noise when you’re assaulted. They normally come from “untrained” individuals who are looking for simple and direct, non-physical solutions to violence which will work in all situations – unfortunately there are no simple, catch all solutions that will work against all types of physical assault. There’s a huge difference between a barking dog and a growling one. Barking will normally precede growling, as it is used a call for other members of the pack to come to its assistance; if no other pack members come then a dog will start to growl, basically saying that it understands that it is on its own and has to deal with the situation alone and by itself. Not all noise is the same. When somebody screams in surprise, they are making both an involuntary call for help, and attempting to create a “startle” reflex in the person that surprised them – one of the first fear responses we develop is flinching at loud noises (this is the reason that new born babies used to be swaddled – so that if they were sleeping and heard a loud noise their flinch response would be restricted and they’d fall back to sleep quickly, or not really wake at all). The reason that we learn to react to loud noises so early on, is that our auditory senses can pick up dangers that we’re not able to see yet i.e. dangers that are hidden or further away. When somebody screams at someone they will flinch, freeze for a moment; so involuntary screaming acts as a call for help and as a way of creating a small window of opportunity, where an assailant hesitates. In certain situations, making a call for help by screaming, will not be in your best interest; if you start screaming when a mugger demands your wallet whilst in a crowded place they may feel obliged to stop you alerting everyone to their presence – the criminals greatest fear is getting caught. A much better survival strategy would be to hand over your wallet/money and not draw attention to the crime that is being committed. If you believe that the mugger intends to cause you harm then screaming/shouting as you make a physical defense has a place; as a call for help it only reinforces your “victim” status, showing you want others to come to your assistance and gives the mugger a new problem to deal with – one they will probably solve with a physical solution. Should you scream, shout, “Kiai” as you make a physical defense? It all depends on you as an individual. Some people will not be able to shout, speak or make any noise when attacked. Under high stress and emotion certain abilities and functions shut down; one of these is the ability to speak. When we become highly emotional we lose some of our verbal skills. If you have ever got into a heated argument you may have found that you, or the person you are talking to starts to mix up the order of the words, mispronounces things or stutters and is unable to form actual words. As we move towards fight or flight mode our bodies recognize that the time for talking and debating is over and the need to respond physically is approaching – as part of this process it shuts down certain of our normal processes, such as speaking and hearing, and clears bandwidth for the emotional responses we will need when engaging in a physical confrontation. This means that for some people making noise and shouting will not be a response that they can make – they will fight in silence. Trained individuals who practice tying noise to their movements will respond differently however this doesn’t make them “right” and the person who makes no noise “wrong”, they are simply two different ways of responding. As with all dangerous situations there is not one way to respond, the situation determines the solution e.g. if you are being mugged at knife point in a crowded shopping mall, it is better to hand over your money than create a scene, if somebody is trying to bundle you in to a car and abduct you then it is a good idea to make a scene. Whether that involves screaming and shouting will depend on who you are, how you react to things naturally, and your level of stress and emotion (you fear response). Everybody responds differently, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to making noise. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=118 Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=117 Often when I’m doing seminars, I’ll be approached by people who will tell me that not only have they been mugged, assaulted or abducted (usually attempted abductions) but that this has happened to them on multiple occasions; some will actually refer to themselves as having a “mark on their back”, which makes them stand out. In this blog post I want to look at why re-victimization occurs. For a predator to assault you, they must first engage in three actions: target selection, surveillance and synchronization of movement - surveillance may occur during synchronization of movement, and continue during a verbal interview that may precede the assault. Basically what this means, is that an assailant must identify you, possibly picking you out from other potential victims, and in some form approach you (tracking you from behind, intercepting you etc.). Whilst all this is occurring they will be looking for cues that you are someone who will capitulate to their demands, and/or not fight back. These will largely be non-verbal cues, but they may also study how you interact with others in your environment to see the degree with which you avoid possible confrontations with people e.g. do you move out of the way for other people even when it’s your “right of way” etc. People who have been assaulted before have a tendency to project more of these “cues” than they would have done before an assault. Some of this is quite natural e.g. if somebody assaulted you because you bumped into them when not looking where you were going, you will naturally be more jumpy when in a crowd and do more to avoid other people’s movement than you might have done before. Having been the victim of an assault, you will see the opportunities for people to assault you a little more readily than someone who has never been the targeted before. Our fear system is very quickly educated, and having been assaulted before it may trigger a little faster than it necessarily should i.e. it will see potential warning signals, earlier than before, even if those warning signals could lead to non-aggressive behaviors and actions. Your responses to these may stand out to a predator scanning for potential victims. Trauma will also affect the way you behave and act. There are many definitions of what trauma is but the one I’ve found most practical for the purposes of understanding violence is that of being exposed to a highly emotional and stressful situation over which you had no, or perceived you had no control. If you were picked “randomly” – assume you were in the wrong place at the wrong time – off the street, abducted, beaten and possibly sexually abused by a group of armed assailants you will have experienced an incident that was extremely emotionally stressful, and one in which you had no control over. One of the first emotions you will experience after the event is shame – that this happened to you. As social creatures we do not want to admit to others we were unable to control what happened to us; we are ashamed. However clear cut it was that the incident was not your fault and however evident it was that there was nothing you could do you will feel judged. Shame is perhaps the worst emotion for us to experience and for our mental health we will do whatever mental acrobatics we have to do to avoid experiencing it – this is where we start to play with the issue of control. Rather than experiencing shame we would rather have our guilt be personal and not social, therefore we start to blame ourselves for being assaulted. By blaming ourselves we start to take back some control of what has happened to us e.g. it was something we did or a way we behaved that makes us responsible for the assault we experienced. We may even extend, develop and expand this so that we see the assault as being our fault – we may also come to the conclusion that we deserved to be assaulted. Adopting these beliefs will affect us emotionally, and cause us to act and behave in ways that we wouldn’t before the assault. We may conduct ourselves in a more subservient and compliant manner allowing people to treat us badly without calling them on it. We may hold ourselves differently and give off a sense of non-confidence in our movement patterns. All of these things may mean that we appear far more quickly than we did before on a predator’s radar. This is why the issue of control in an assault, even if it involves compliance is so important. If as a survival strategy you hand over your wallet to a mugger, you will suffer less trauma because you exerted control over the situation, than if you did because you didn’t know what to do or felt you hadn’t a choice. Self-defense and reality based training needs to consider the post-conflict phase of violence as well as the conflict phase and design its solutions to take these into account.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=117 Sun, 08 Sep 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=116 Often we use our worst fears to create and develop our worst case scenarios; and once we have developed these we fixate on them and start to imagine and believe that these are the most likely situations that we will find ourselves in; we trade reality for the best that our imaginations can conjure up. In my time teaching self-defense, I have witnessed the bogeymen that people create and believe they are most “likely to face”, which have ranged from the mentally ill to members of various different ethnic minorities – as well involving some of the most bizarre locations including deserted alleyways (why would you be there?), to lift/elevator shafts that don’t work and abandoned parking lots – why would you park in one? When it comes to “fear” people will create for themselves a bewildering array of potential scenarios that bear no relation to the truth or reality. We tend to fear the most extreme, and in doing so ignore the most likely dangers and threats that we will have to face. When we talk about Situational Awareness, we are actually considering two types of “Awareness”: subconscious/passive and conscious/active. Our Passive/Subconscious Situational Awareness is managed by our fear system – which is operating all the time. Our fear system, which runs in the background, will pick up movements and sounds that could indicate danger and alert us to these potential threats. This all happens subconsciously. Our Active/Conscious Situational Awareness is something that we do; things that we consciously look or listen for, when we start to survey - carry out surveillance on - our environment. When we actively scan our environment for potential threats, we are first looking for actions and behaviors that indicate danger – we are not looking for people. The first thing to check is movement i.e. has anyone synchronized their movement to ours e.g. is someone following us, approaching us, trying to intercept us etc. If somebody has synchronized their movement to yours this is a key pre-violence indicator and demonstrates that a criminal/aggressor has already gone through the target selection and victim surveillance stages that also precede a physical assault or crime. If there is no obvious synchronization of movement, you should start to look at who lacks legitimacy in the environment: who doesn’t look to have a legitimate reason to be there e.g. there are “natural” places where people arrange to meet friends and will wait, such as street corners, park benches, and then unnatural places such as ATM’s and points in the middle of a street etc. People who are waiting for somebody will look for whoever they’re meeting in a natural way, they won’t try and disguise this whereas a predator will. A predator will wait in the most advantageous position to select and survey potential victims – if a person is waiting in a position that offers good surveillance of the environment you need to be questioning their motives. Lastly you should look to exclude people who are unlikely to be a threat e.g. people with children, old people etc. Be sensible in your exclusions; delivery men walking around in an city/urban setting are much more common than in a suburban one, where they should always be close to their van etc. Being able to exclude people will allow you a greater amount of time to focus on those you can’t exclude. It is a better process to exclude people than to simply look for potentially dangerous people whose actions and behaviors haven’t yet revealed them. A situation may have no harmful intent within it e.g. no one tying their movement to yours or others, nobody conducting surveillance etc. However if you go through the process of excluding people you will start to identify those who represent a higher risk to you, even if the likelihood of them acting against you is limited. We should approach every situation without prejudice and incorrect models of violence. We should educate our fear system, not by resorting to imagining worst case scenarios but be taking evidence from the situations we find ourselves in.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=116 Sun, 01 Sep 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=115 Those of you who have trained with Dave Ashworth, this time, or previously will have heard and/or me talk about and use the term “Combatives”, and I thought it would be worth writing a Blog post on exactly what “Combatives” is/are, and how the term relates to Krav Maga in general, and Krav Maga Yashir specifically. The traditional martial arts approach to fighting and self-defense, is one that takes a long term approach to building the necessary skills and abilities needed to become a competent fighter – in many arts the techniques and the system is not really tested as to whether it adheres to reality or not e.g. many sparring styles such as sport Karate and Olympic Taekwondo have rules which are designed to promote competition and demonstrate certain abilities rather than to replicate a street fight; this is not to say that there aren’t individual practitioners who are able to take the skills they’ve learnt and apply them to real life situations, but rather that the system itself doesn’t work to promote such an end . Combatives systems on the other hand are based solely on real-life situations and look to train an individual in a very short period of time in how to successfully survive a violent confrontation. To do this the development of physical skills takes second place to the development of a combat mindset. In fact techniques are often used as a means of developing the ability to act violently and single mindedly when a person is attacked and has to defend themselves. The accuracy and form of a specific technique is less important than the effort and degree of commitment that is used when executing it e.g. a sloppy technique delivered with maximum intent is looked on as being more effective than the perfect technique thrown with sub-maximal focus, effort, intent and concentration. To this end combatives techniques tend to be very simple and rely on large body movements that can be driven and powered emotionally rather than by any conscious thought process. Doing is everything. If you’ve ever witnessed a street fight where one or both parties rail in on each other, “wind-milling” and swinging repetitive wild punches at each other, with full aggression, commitment and utter abandon you will get an idea of what the combative mindset entails. Whereas many martial arts may attempt to promote “calmness” under pressure, combatives training sees the practitioner adopt many mental characteristics of the successful untrained individual. The combatives mindset is in this regard a very natural mindset to adopt – it’s what we are naturally equipped with for dealing with violence and something that doesn’t require much training to enhance e.g. it is easier to cope with violence, by becoming violent than it is to adopt a calm and neutral state of mind. Staying calm in the face of extreme danger is not a natural skill for most people. Where combatives training steps in, is that it attempts to focus this mindset and apply it to the execution of easily performed body movements – in a repetitive fashion. Any technique that is difficult to perform when under duress is dropped, any technique that comes naturally is adopted etc. The Krav Maga Yashir system, uses proven martial arts training methods to help develop the necessary skills for close combat, but recognizes that in real-life conflicts it is a combative mindset coupled with simple techniques that will ensure survival. Many other Non-Israeli Krav Maga systems simply concentrate on the fitness aspects of combat to help develop this mindset. Tomorrow, Dave Ashworth, with teach and demonstrate proven combatives – along with the mindset – that has seen him survive and be successful in a large number of high risk and dangerous situations. Dave continues to work in some of the hostile environments on this planet, and importantly with little time of in between operations. If you have time to attend one or both of tomorrow’s seminars with him, take the time to do so.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=115 Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=114 We live in a society where entitlement, rights and personal freedom trump reality. This week I conducted a series of external classes/seminars where the people attending the sessions were possibly only doing so because their organizations had deemed it necessary for them to undergo some form of personal safety and self-defense training. When you train groups, with members who haven’t voluntarily elected to be there you sometimes get a mixed response when you suggest that it is an individual’s, personal responsibility to ensure their own safety. Whilst I will be the first to acknowledge that the blame for an assault lies squarely with the assailant I am always amazed when people use this fact to absolve themselves of the reality that they are in no way in control of their personal actions and behaviors, which could see them attracting the attention of a predatory individual. I don’t believe that a drunk woman, choosing to walk through a bad part of town late at night is “asking” to be assaulted – or would be to blame if she was – however the decision to do so has to be questioned if there were other alternatives available: regardless of her rights and freedoms to walk where she wants at any time of day. In a perfect world our society would be a safe one to live in, and we would be by default exempt from any dangers, risks or threats. However that’s simply not the world we live in and it would be irresponsible to act as if it was. I have the “right” to walk to my car without being assaulted however I still check my environment before leaving my house to make sure I can do this safely. I shouldn’t expect to be have things stolen from my car but I still lock it. People kick back from the idea that their personal safety is their responsibility all the time. People argue with me when I say that you shouldn’t rely on third parties to come to your assistance if you are being assaulted. I would love to live in a world where other people will intervene in a violent confrontation to ensure my safety (an unknown person) but I recognize that this is an unrealistic dream to hold to; people will walk away from a fight not towards it. You might like to hope that the world is a kinder place to you than it is to me however you know in your heart of hearts that the only person you can actually rely upon to save you is you. You must be honest with yourself and admit that if you were an observer to a violent confrontation you too would look for every opportunity and excuse not to become involved; you may even stand there watching and say to yourself “isn’t anybody going to call the police?” (as if by the time the police turn up it will have changed toe outcome).The larger the group of observers to a crime the less likely someone will intervene, or call for assistance as everybody assumes somebody else will. This is not a blame game. When you look for someone to blame the event has already passed; it’s too late. When people start arguing who is, or not to blame for an assault, the assault has already happened – this helps no one. When I teach a class or seminar, I do not assume responsibility for everyone’s personal safety, I assume they have already done this because they’re attending the class. I see my job as giving them the tools and information that will help them exercise this responsibility. As a Kid I was taught the “Green Cross Code”, a system to help me cross the road safely, I see teaching self-defense and personal safety as being no different: I teach a system that helps you identify, prevent and avoid danger, it is each individual’s responsibility to use it to help them avoid becoming the victim of a violent assault – if they are assaulted are they to blame? No, but even to start arguing this is pointless. People will often want to believe there is nothing they can do to prevent violence. This is not the case but it is used as an argument for them not to take responsibility for their personal safety. Taking the view that everything is inevitable and there is nothing you can do, is a poor and dangerous argument and yet many people make it and take it. Why? It absolves them of having to take responsibility, to make the necessary changes in their life which would increase their personal safety. It should be called for what it is: laziness. It also reflects on their own perceptions of their self-worth. If they believe as an individual they are a valuable person they would take the necessary measures to protect themselves but instead they would rather deflect this introspection and argue the case that there is nothing they can do. These individuals often have the loudest and most persistent voice in self-defense classes and seminars. Rather than spend the time considering what they could do they’ll spend the time arguing their case that there is nothing they can do, doing a great disservice to all those people who have successfully fought off assailants. There are no silver bullets to protect yourself from violence, and there are no secret moves or pieces of knowledge that will keep you safe however if you accept that you are worth protecting, take responsibility for this you will have already upped your survival chances.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=114 Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=113 Civilized people want a civilized response to violence – a solution that avoids harming or injuring their assailant, or at the most, causes their attacker just enough pain and discomfort that it dissuades them from continuing further. Such ideas come from the media’s presentation of violence, where assailants make singular, clearly identifiable attacks, which can be dealt with in a clean and crisp manner, using definable defenses that have been created with such specific attacks in mind. In reality, violent assaults are simply that; a continuous and often repetitive use of force, with each attack merging and flowing into the next e.g. a frenzied stabbing, where a knife wielding assailant simply stabs, recoils, stabs and recoils etc. at a target’s torso, so quickly that it is impossible to distinguish each stab from the next – this is how the uneducated and emotional assailant works. There is no civilized response to this: violence must be met with greater violence. This is the combative mindset. This is a hard concept for people to grasp. It is not simply your technical ability that ups your survival chances but the mindset that the training of techniques – properly – brings. There are many people who walk through our doors that are searching for the “secret” techniques, and whenever you hear the word secret in the martial arts/self-defense worlds you should substitute it for “shortcuts”. These are the individuals that shun the hard work and the dedication that is necessary for them to progress. When I lived in the UK I did some DVD’s for a company that marketed to these individuals. I and other instructors were told that if a 250 lb, pizza eating, couch potato would question their ability to perform a certain technique we should drop it from our list. Their best-selling DVD’s was from a pressure point expert, who would teach you how to perform “killer” techniques in 10 minutes etc. simply by grabbing hold of someone in the right spot. The individuals who bought theses DVD’s believed that should they be attacked, simply touching meridian point G14, would bring an attacker to their knees. Whether this is true or not is immaterial: that a person can get close enough to a violent attacker to apply a pressure point is a ridiculous starting point from a self-defense perspective. These techniques did not train or work with the mindset necessary to survive a violent assault – although they appeared to promote extreme violence, they didn’t connect a person emotionally to the act they were performing. Your training of techniques should incorporate the mindset element which encourages you to not simply attack your assailant but assault them with extreme violence. Your training should bring you to a point where you are so focused on performing a technique with maximum aggression that every other thought and idea leaves your mind. You should in any aggressive situation you face first claim the moral authority to act. If you have followed a path of de-escalation and disengagement and you are facing the prospect of being involved in a physical confrontation, the legal aspects of your situation will largely have taken care of themselves (or to the point where a good lawyer will be able to present a strong case in your favor) and so the “legal” doubt about acting should have been removed from your mind. It is the legal system that exists to ensure that we all behave in a civilized fashion, once this has been put aside, by your aggressor so must you. A Fight is a time for extreme focused violence. If you meet violence, quickly, decisively and with greater violence – after first having exhausted your other non-physical paths, or having recognized the situation cannot be rectified through de-escalation and disengagement – the incident will be over quickly and with the reduced likelihood of injury to yourself. When you train, train with the concentrated mindset of delivering extreme violence (this doesn’t mean you have to hurt or injure your partner rather that you should not simply go through the motions of a technique but also reference your emotional side in your training).  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=113 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=112 I firmly believe that a good 85 % of all potential violent crimes can be detected and prevented if a person has good situational awareness (SA) – a further 10-12 % can be dealt with using effective de-escalation and disengagement strategies, demonstrating that physical self-defense (armed/unarmed) represents only a small, albeit a very important, piece of the total personal safety/defense package. Having just had David Ashworth conduct a TAC (Terrorism Awareness Course) at the school, I thought I’d write a blog piece, on some of the aspects of personal security that were reinforced to me by his teaching. One of the biggest enemies to having good Situational Awareness (SA) is routine. We develop routines for two reasons: to make sure every detail in a plan gets executed, and to allow us to not have to think – routines can save us time and ensure that everything gets done. A pilot will follow a checklist to make sure that nothing gets overlooked, that’s their routine, and a person getting up in the morning, will get out of bed, brush their teeth, get dressed, make coffee, eat breakfast, leave the house, get in their car and drive to work etc. The difference between their routine and the pilot’s, is that the pilot’s routine exists to make them think, whereas the other routine consists of habits that allow a person not to think. We all have these routines. If you take the same route to work each day, not only does this make you a “predictable” target – should someone be surveying you – but it also switches you off; it allows you to not have to think, which is why you probably do it i.e. you can tune out, listen to the radio, plan your day etc. You go the same way, so you don’t have to think about your journey, and can therefore create some mental bandwidth for yourself, so that you can think about something else. By simply altering your route, you start to think about your personal safety. If you don’t have too many options about the way you go to work, doing something as simple as turning left out of your driveway rather than right, and looping back on yourself at the next junction will be enough to at least get you thinking in the right way; if you stop to consider which way you should turn when you leave your house, you will be taking a moment to consider your personal safety. Planning. This was perhaps the most interesting part of the course to me. When you start to plan, you start to think, and when you start to revise a plan, you really start to think. One of the examples that Dave used was of changing the tire on a car. Dave’s Dad had distilled this down into an 8 step process for his mother to follow, should she find herself in such a situation. That such a plan has been made and exists, means that the possibility of getting a flat tire is considered i.e. when you accept that the unexpected and the unlikely may occur you will find that there will be no surprise and denial when it does – the early warning signs will be picked up on and recognized. The fact that Dave tried to distill his father’s plan down to fewer steps, demonstrates two things: 1. He wasn’t following the plan blindly but working with it, and 2. He was trying to simplify things. If you simply go through the motions of following a plan but aren’t really taking in the feedback that it gives, such as a pilot ticking off that they’ve checked the fuel without actually noting the level, or a motorist glancing in their mirror before changing lanes without really looking and considering their environment then the plan, the routine will work against you and put you in danger. Trying to simplify things means that you are not only accepting that there is feedback into a plan, but that it would be a better plan if it contains less steps to follow i.e. it will be more efficient. A streamlined plan is more effective and much more likely to keep the focus on a particular outcome, such as changing a tire. In my experience it is always better to have a greater quantity of smaller, more focused plans, than one larger more comprehensive plan that looks to cover every eventuality e.g. if your plan is designed to solve the problem of a flat tire, then there is no need for it to include checking your oil-level etc. Making a plan as lean as possible will keep you on track to achieving a particular goal. From a personal safety perspective, if your “plan” is to get you from your house to your car safely, convenient as it may be, watering the plants, taking the trash out etc. shouldn’t be included. For many people personal safety is an afterthought. For those that say they don’t need to really consider training in self-protection and self-defense because they have good common sense, my guess would be that they’ve never really thought about issues of personal safety (they may be in denial), and I would bet my overdraft on the fact that their level of situational awareness is nil. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=112 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=111 Whenever there is an extreme and violent incident, which the media picks upon and runs with, such as the abduction and murder of Amy Lord, members of the public who haven’t considered issues of personal safety before start to wonder what they can do to make themselves safe and avoid becoming the victim of the same or a similar crime - it is worth noting that there are many incidents of extreme violence, which aren’t reported on, and people aren’t made aware of. It is natural to focus on the specifics of a particular case and look to avoid becoming the victim of that same crime however from a personal safety issue this is not the best approach to take. One of the major dangers in looking at and targeting in on, the specifics of a particular crime, is that as new facts and details about the case emerge people can start to see the incident as less relevant to themselves as they might have initially done. If it was first reported that a person was abducted from the street, and then later discovered that they were abducted from their home, different questions start to be asked of how the crime/assault/abduction occurred e.g. how did the assailant get into their house/home, was the attacker somebody they knew, somebody who lived in the house with them etc. People can often then start to lose sympathy for the victim and start to make certain judgments about them, such as that they were wrong, or even to blame, for letting their attacker into their home, and that this is something that they would never do. This is when the incident starts to lose relevance for them – when it was an abduction from the street they could see themselves as being the target of such a crime, however if it is an abduction from the home they can no longer imagine or see themselves as being the target/victim of such a crime. As a result their guard drops and their level of personal safety is reduced – which is especially dangerous if the person/people they are trying to protect themselves against is still at large. Everyone likes to believe that they are good judges of character and can identify danger and dangerous individuals. The truth is that we are often dealing with skilled social predators who know how to disarm us and get us to break the rules, we know we should keep and follow. If you ever have the feeling that you are making an exception for somebody, or compromising a “rule” that you use to keep you safe, then you should think again and consider why you are making this exception and compromise. Telling yourself that “it will be all right” is a form of denial. Another reason why it is dangerous to focus on the specifics of a particular incident is that a criminal’s modus operandi can change, especially if the incident reported on marks the beginning of a person’s violent crime spree. Criminals educate themselves and learn from their mistakes. If they see certain facts, or pieces of evidence reported on, that could expose and identify them, they will try and eliminate these from future crimes. If your focus is to just look at the specifics of one incident, and try and change your lifestyle, behaviors and actions in response to them, you may find that the criminal changes certain elements and behaves differently in future crimes/assaults; becoming more sophisticated and subtle in the way they operate. What you are looking for to identify the criminal etc. is no longer present.    It should also be understood that abductions and murders are rare, when compared to muggings, sexual assaults and other violent crimes; it is the fact that such horrific crimes are uncommon, which causes us to take notice of them. Your goal should not just to be to avoid the extremes of violence but violence in all its forms. If you try and adopt general safety habits that protect you from all types of violence, you will be protecting yourself from abductions and the risk of murder as well. Once the perpetrator of this terrible crime/murder is caught and brought to justice, many people will sigh with relief and go about their daily life as before with little or no regard for their personal safety. If the abduction and murder of Amy Lord has caused you to consider your own safety, do something positive and life changing about it. Look to address issues of safety throughout your entire life and don’t simply focus on one particular threat or danger. If you are a woman in Boston or Massachusetts who is concerned about your own safety and wants to empower yourself, our school runs a free women’s self-defense and personal safety program every Saturday at 10:00 AM. We’ve been doing this for three years now, and have trained hundreds of women in self-defense and personal safety. You can read more about our program by going to www.womensselfdefenseboston.com    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=111 Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=110 We’ve all done stupid things in the heat of the moment e.g. said things, made threats, acted overly aggressively towards others. When the heat subsides, we normally recognize our stupidity, maybe sometimes try and justify it to ourselves, but on the whole recognize it as something we’d do well, or be sensible not to repeat. In self-defense and self-protection we often train from the perspective of being the calm victim/target who has to deal with an angry and aggressive assailant, forgetting that we too can become angry and aggressive, and that we too can behave in the role of the aggressor; and we might not be dealing with someone who is able or wants to de-escalate the situation or back away. Recognizing the warning signs that indicate when we are becoming overly emotional and aggressive is as important for personal safety as understanding when those we are dealing with are becoming emotional. There are many “war stories” I’ve heard from people, looking to portray themselves as the target and victim in an incident when it is very clear that their anger and emotion was actually responsible for escalating a situation they may have been able to walk away from. It is easy to see other people’s anger and aggression and harder to see our own. Some people can’t let go of these events, and build up a stockpile of injustices against them that they use to fuel the anger they experience at later injustices; this blog piece is not intended to address such issues but to look at how to recognize your own aggressive behaviors and actions in the heat of the moment. Anger needs to be fed, and we feed it in several ways. If we can recognize the way we add to it, we can intervene and stop the process – this is important if we are going to have to engage in a physical confrontation, as although we want to have an aggressive mindset we don’t want to be clouded by emotion (this will reduce our fighting ability to little more than being able to swing wild haymakers at our assailant(s)). Repetition and expressions of disbelief are perhaps the two most common ways of feeding anger. Anger often stems from a self-perceived sense of injustice e.g. somebody cut you off whilst driving etc. and repeating the injustice to yourself is a way of convincing yourself of your right to act and confront the person who has committed this “crime” against you, without letting any other arguments against acting have any head space or room to develop; what are you actually going to do/say if you follow the person who cut you off? Are you really going to get out of your car, or are you just going to follow them around to intimidate them – which would be an interruption to your day and a complete waste of time? Constantly repeating the injustice will feed and reinforce your right to act without letting any other “rational” arguments take the stage. If you take a moment to see if you are constantly repeating the injustice to yourself, you should understand that you are starting to lose control. If your repetition contains expressions of disbelief e.g. “I can’t believe that…[fill in your own injustice]”, understand that you are self-convincing yourself of your right to act and intervene. A right that may exist in your world, where the perpetrator of the crime has transgressed one of your laws, and behaved in a way that is unacceptable in your world – which is why you can’t believe it i.e. you would never act in such a way. Of course you probably have and will do again e.g. we’ve all cut people off at intersections, junctions and on the highway however when we’ve done it there were good reasons, the person was driving fast enough, wasn’t acting decisively etc. Often the expressions of disbelief that we make when angry are actually the behaviors and actions that we are most guilty off e.g. the drivers who get the angriest when cut off are usually the ones who commit these acts the most. Anger thrives on entitlement, and if someone holds the view that it is alright for them to act and behave in a certain way but not for others they will be the ones that have the greatest knee-jerk reactions to perceived injustices. If we constantly repeat a disbelief about a person’s actions and behaviors we are on the path to losing control. Understand your own body language. This is usually more important than understanding everybody else’s. If you can understand your different emotional states e.g. when you’re afraid, when you’re angry, when your stressed etc. you have a chance to control your emotions. Many times when we are placed in a situation and have to deal with it, we are so caught up in how to act, what to say and what to do we fail to recognize our level of emotion. If you take a moment to feel if your eyes are narrowing and your lips – and all the muscles around the jaw - are tightening then you are becoming angry (it can actually be very hard to untighten the jaw muscles and relax them, however if you can do this it will go a long way to relaxing you and moving you back to a position of emotional control). I’m not a huge advocate of teaching people how to interpret other people’s body language because people tend to identify people according to the emotional state they are in, and until they can return to a “neutral” state, which is difficult during an aggressive verbal confrontation etc., they will tend to identify people as angry if they are angry etc. The quickest way to bring yourself back under control? Tactical breathing: breathe in for a count of two, hold for a count of two, breathe out for a count of two etc. (you can change two for four, for six etc.) This is by far the simplest and most proven way to bring yourself back under control. If you find yourself expressing disbelief, repeating the injustice and clenching your jaw muscles/tightening your lips, it’s time to get yourself back under control and start evaluating what the most effective response to your situation is; most times it’s to do nothing and get on with your day/life.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=110 Sun, 21 Jul 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=109 The world can be a scary place; seemingly “random” acts of violence which are difficult to predict do occur. Last week In Melrose – a city in the Greater Boston Area - a female jogger reported being the victim of an attempted abduction, when a van pulled up and two men tried to drag her inside. Whilst we may find it difficult to understand what has happened, children who are exposed to such a big local story as this will find it even harder to place such an event/incident in to context; and parents may be at a loss to help them understand the seriousness of the event whilst at the same time not wanting to cause such alarm that their children become completely scared of the world they live in. As the parent of a seven year old, I have had to explain (in the last year) school shootings and acts of terrorism to my son, without wanting to scar or traumatize him. I believe we have a responsibility to educate our children as to the world they live in, whilst at the same time not denying them a certain innocence that they are entitled to and is necessary for their healthy social growth. One of the greatest dis-services we can do to our children, is to take away their ability to be a decision-maker where their own personal safety is concerned. Sometimes we do this inadvertently. I have always been very aware never to tell my son when I drop him off at school, to do what his teacher says, but rather to be good instead. Too often we tell our children to do what another adult tells them to do unconditionally, without considering that they may come across those adults who haven’t got their best interests at heart. I am don’t want to undermine the authority of those who are placed in positions of responsibility where children are concerned but neither do I want to empower those who may be inclined to abuse that authority and responsibility. I would always want my kid to speak up against what he believed to be wrong and not blindly follow the commands of another adult because I’ve told him to do what that person says. I’ve also been very aware not to confuse political correctness and social acceptability with victim conditioning. I have spent many an hour watching children’s social activities, where kids play alongside each other or together and become engaged in territorial battles over toys and games etc. All too often I have seen one child go and grab a toy off another (my son has played both roles in such incidents),  and the parent of the child who was originally playing with the toy telling them that they must “share” with the child who was/is attempting to take the toy by force. Sharing to me has never meant giving in. If a child wants to play with the toy another is using they should be conditioned to ask not to take, and the child playing with the toy should only be expected to share what they have if they are asked to, otherwise they should hold on to and protect what they have. I’m all for sharing, I’m not for capitulation. Children, especially where violence is concerned, understand a lot more about the world than we believe. By the age of three they are well versed in many basic survival skills and are able to recognize and predict aggressive behavior. When we hide the truth and tell them that the world is a safe place and that they have nothing to fear, they don’t really believe us, and we end up putting certain doubts in their heads about how safe they actually are. We cannot restrict their exposure to events in the world e.g.my son new about the Boston Marathon Bombings, but we can be honest with them about what has happened without exposing them to details which would allow their imaginations to run wild. My son’s understanding of the Middle East conflict (possibly the most complex violent situation on the planet) is restricted to the view that there are countries and people who don’t like Israel and commit violent acts against it, such as killing people. He’s seen aggression and violence in the schoolyard, he understands how this microcosm replicates the real and larger world. In small communities an abduction attempt is going to be heard by everyone very quickly, including children. Being able to explain honestly and simply that these people meant to harm this woman, whilst explaining how rare such attacks are, is far more beneficial than denying what happened, concocting another story or being alarmist. Fear is learnt, and our responses to aggression and violence are soon picked up on; presenting things honestly, simply and correctly – without being overly protective – is the most beneficial way to go. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=109 Sat, 13 Jul 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=108 Most adults haven’t been in a street fight – this is a good thing – and although they may train in a reality based self-defense system, such as Krav Maga, worry and wonder if they were called upon to use their training whether it would work for them. This is one of the reasons I believe in Krav Maga (that which was developed and trained in Israel, and used by the IDF); that it is continually tested in a variety of real life situations by a diverse set of individuals of differing body types and athletic ability, somebody like you has had to use it to defend themselves. Training in a system that has had a large body of people use it successfully over a long period of time, is a good reason to be confident that what you are learning is effective. Even so, people who have trained for a long period of time, may still question their ability to perform at the time when it really counts; the training environment is very different to reality however much you bring reality on to the mats. The most frequent question I hear on the subject of being able to perform in reality, is from women both in regular class, and in our free women’s self-defense program, who often ask “but would this technique work against a man who is a lot bigger and stronger than me?” This question holds a great truth about choking under pressure. The person asking it has usually been able to perform the technique against a compliant or semi-compliant partner, so they’ve enjoyed a level of success, but rather than simply enjoy that success they start to question it – which is natural – as they look to progress what they’ve just learnt from the training environment to reality. The answer to their question of whether they could perform the technique in a real-life situation at this moment in time, is probably no; they’ve just learnt the technique so their ability to perform it correctly an effectively is limited to the situation in which they have just trained it in. Rather than question their ability though, they question the technique, and use it to express a doubt not just about themselves as an individual, or the technique but about the point of learning self-defense. Their question is really saying, “I’m not sure women are able to defend themselves against men.” When people are reminded of the reasons why they shouldn’t be successful, they usually aren’t: they choke. It doesn’t matter if they’ve enjoyed great success in the past, once they are reminded of the reason or the stereotype that says they should fail they will under-perform. There have been countless studies of this in Academia, where students who are at prestigious universities, where they achieved their place by merit alone are reminded before an exam (part of the study), that they either come from a low social strata, belong to an ethnic minority, or are a woman etc. significantly under-perform in the exam compared to their previous results and successes. If you are reminded why you should fail you will. It’s as simple as that. We refer to these things as “Peripheral Doubts”, those negative thoughts, which hang around the edges of your focus on the task that you are being asked to perform. “Self Stereotyping”, is one of these peripheral doubts e.g. as a smaller woman I will be unable to defend myself against a larger male, as someone aged 35 who has never been involved in a fight I won’t be able to defend myself against an experienced street-fighter. We can always create the giants and the monsters that we will fail against and we can always set up impossible situations for ourselves to face; and talk ourselves out of our ability to perform in them. When we do find ourselves facing our worst nightmares, they may not really be our worst nightmare; as aggressive and angry as the person before us seems, doesn’t mean he has ever been in a fight, or one that lasted more than 5 seconds. There is no such thing as a fair fight, and if someone tries to engage you in one, then they have made sure that the odds are stacked in their favor. That doesn’t have to be your reality. If you are a 120 LB woman having to deal with a 250 LB sexual predator, you don’t have to beat them like you would in a ring fight, you only have to prevent them from doing what they want to do – if you set yourself the objective of beating them to a bloody pulp, rather than finding a way to cause enough pain for them to hesitate or allow you to break away (and this happens more than it gets reported on) you have a much more achievable goal. There are no rules on the street, and this is usually said to differentiate ring and combat sports from reality based self-defense in order to demonstrate that you should learn to defend yourself against knives and multiple assailants as well as just singular, unarmed combatants. However it should also show you, that you aren’t obliged to “win” or to even fight, that there are multiple ways to survive the situation. Man has dominated this planet, and learnt how to deal with animals who are stronger, faster and bigger, and who are armed with claws, teeth and better natural weapons simply not by following their rules of engagement and choosing his own. Our imagination is both our greatest weapon and our biggest weakness. We choke when we see the task as being too great and our ability to little. We forget that we can define our own outcomes and goal e.g. we don’t have to deal with the 250 LB giant on his terms, we don’t have to fight his fight (as Kelly McCann, always says, “The only fair fight is the one you lose”), we can choose our own goals and outcomes. We can come up with more reasons to fail, than we can to succeed – this will always be the case – and if we focus on these then we will fail. Our training comes direct from Israel, we bring the best in the world to our school, and our training methods are proven to work. Have confidence in what you do, and remember your successes in training rather than your failures – as it will have been your lack of doubt at those moments which allowed you to succeed.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=108 Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=107 Knife Disarming I don’t really believe in Knife Disarming, and to be honest I never have. I believe it is a dangerous tactic/strategy to follow on the street – in reality – and that it leads to bad training practices on the mats. I have trained at many schools, where the disarming of a knife or other weapon signifies the end of the fight. Really? In what world is this true? If you believe that when you disarm somebody of a weapon the fight ends you are very much mistaken; maybe in the movies but not in real life. Take a moment to consider the realities of a knife fight, where an aggressor is in such an emotional place that they are prepared to pull a knife and repeatedly shank it into your body; now imagine that by a great deal of luck and training you have managed to wrest the knife of them- do you seriously believe that they’ll wake up from their emotional trance, take a look at the “new” situation and come to their senses and apologize for their heinous actions against you. Of course not. Most times when you take a knife of somebody they’ll not really comprehend what has happened other than that they are now in a fight for their own survival, and they’ll continue fighting. Martial Arts and Self Defense training has to tell “the story” when training. Too often it teaches everything according to the “Happy Path” i.e. you do this and then this happens and then you’re safe. This is not reality, this is the imagination of the self-defense instructor who is so convinced by the power of technique and technical ability that reality can be forgotten. In reality unless you do something to physically impress upon the other person that the fight is over, they won’t understand that the fight is over. The reason they are in a fight is because their reasoning brain has shut down, and they believe the only/best option open to them is to engage physically with you. They are not suddenly going to become rational whilst you are holding their knife, and they’re certainly not going to view you as a person of moral upstanding character who is going to put their knife away and tell them to go on their way. They will see you as a threat and want to deal with you. Self Defense training should always end with a conclusion; every time you practice a technique there should be a conclusion e.g. if you practice an escape from a hold, you shouldn’t just escape and turn round to your partner and ask them to apply it again, rather you should take a few steps to emulate running away, turn to strike them etc. You should train to an end and a conclusion, so the technique you practice has a context. You should also put in the preceding parts i.e. how you ended up in such a control or hold. When you train Knife Disarming – and there are situations and occasions where you should disarm, though these are a lot fewer than you might imagine – you should train different responses from your partner. Have them continue the fight/training as if they haven’t realized that they’ve been disarmed – check your response(s). Have them behave as if they have realized that you have disarmed them, and that they are now fighting for their life – check your response(s). Get yourself a real knife stand on the mats with it close your eyes and imagine having to deal with it, then imagine disarming it (imagine having been cut, the frenzied nature of the attack, the look on your assailant’s face etc.) and hold it and think what your next step would be, and what your assailant’s response would be. Then consider if the way you train reflects this.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=107 Sun, 30 Jun 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=106 Sparring Many schools use sparring as their method of “replicating” the dynamics of a street or real-life fight, and whilst there are moments and elements of sparring matches which contain some of those experienced in real-life incidents of violence, the differences between the two are greater than the similarities. This is not to say that sparring doesn’t have a place in training just that its place is not to try and replicate real-life violence. Sparring has its place alongside pad-work, stress testing and other drills, it is neither, less or more important than these other training tools and should not enjoy anymore real significance than them. If sparring becomes such an event in training that people are tense and nervous about it, then there is something wrong with the way it is being conducted. Too often I see people padding up to an unbelievable degree, squaring off and then wailing at each other for a couple of minutes, before collapsing exhausted, anxious and terrified, as if they’ve just spent 20 minutes in a washing machine on the spin cycle. This is not sparring, this is just a train crash that both participants walk away from congratulating themselves that they survived. Reality Based Self Defense systems, such a Krav Maga, need to recognize that not every training experience has to try and emulate reality. Working the pads does not reflect reality, yet pad-work is recognized as a good way to generate speed and power in striking – it trains a particular component of fighting. Sparring trains other components. When you engage in a sparring match, and set the rules, you need to define what components you are trying to train; if you want to concentrate and train throwing your sparring should largely resemble a Judo contest, and you should spar under rules which encourage participants to throw, if you want to predominately train your kicking then you will need to spar under rules which encourage and reward kicking. Setting your goals are important in all aspects of training – when you do pad-work you should concentrate on a particular element e.g. when you train punching with a kick shield you should work on power, with the focus mitts, speed etc. The most important element for me of sparring is relative body positioning and movement; how do you position yourself relative to your partner, where you are in a strong attacking position, and they are in a weak or disadvantaged one. It’s also about recognizing these moments when they occur and responding with the correct tool e.g. punch, kick, throw or takedown etc. If you believe sparring is about conditioning and learning how to take a strike, then you should dedicate specific training time to develop this element of your game e.g. have your partner spend a few minutes punching and kicking you before or after class, rather than have this be the emphasis of your sparring. Will you get hit in sparring of course, but you should never get hit so hard, or fear getting hit so hard, that you spend all your time tensed up, as this will restrict your movement and your ability to recognize and take advantages. Sparring is something that you should enjoy and look forward to, not something that you fear or are frightened of. If you find yourself tense and nervous, sparring will benefit you little, as your mind and body will not be free to work; your decision making and threat recognition significantly impaired. If you want to have your sparring replicate reality, good luck. Real life violence is a very scary proposition with extremely high stakes, that are impossible to replicate in training, and so it would be naïve and unrealistic to try and do so. What sparring training is excellent at though is training relative body positioning to set up attacks, and to avoid danger, all in a dynamic fashion. There will be those that disagree with me and try and have their sparring training develop and train multiple components of fighting, such as physical conditioning, and whilst such an element is important it can be developed in other and better more concentrated ways. The fact that a fight often involves multiple assailants and weapons means that other training methods need to be used to empathize and train weapon defenses and tactics for dealing with more than one person. Sparring training by nature recognizes that it doesn’t train these elements and shouldn’t make any excuses about that; it is a specific form of training to develop certain specific skills.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=106 Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=105 A friend of mine was recently involved in a situation where he intervened on behalf of a stranger who had been given one hell of a beating by a group. He then became the target of the group’s leader who went to assault him with a bottle. By a show of force and posturing further violence was avoided, and the group ended up assisting the person who they’d assaulted (a friend!), and walking off with their tails between their legs, after having been given a lecture on the inappropriate use of violence. Whilst the whole incident when condensed into one paragraph may seem to contain the message that violent and aggressive individuals will respond to a stern talking to by a confident and obviously knowledgeable and capable individual (though multiple assailants would test such capability to its most extreme limits), it really raises two questions: when and how to intervene on behalf of strangers who are the victims/targets of violence? In my experience (and experience is a limiting factor), of the times I have intervened on behalf of others I have always found that the individuals involved knew each other, and had “legitimate” grievances against each other – there was never a case of one or a group of individuals beating on a complete stranger (I’m not saying this doesn’t happen just that I’ve not experienced it). On one occasion in Sunderland – a very tough city in the North East of England – late at night, a friend and myself, came across a man repeatedly bouncing a woman’s head of the glass windows of a shop front (probably the only time I’ve ever seen a classic Bart Simpson two handed choke applied to a person’s throat). My friend asked if we should intervene and I said that we really didn’t have a choice as I didn’t want to read in the paper the next day that we’d witnessed a killing and done nothing to intervene. This is a matter of conscience and personal choice. You fight when you are not prepared to live with the consequences of not fighting. This is the rule I apply whether it involves defending myself or others. If you can live with the consequences of walking away from a fight, where the violence and aggression was directed at you because your ego can handle it, and you can live with the consequences that is fine, if you can’t you will have no choice but to fight. This is why I teach people to hand over their wallet to a mugger as an act of control, not an act of subservience – when you control the situation and make the choices and decisions governing it, you will not live the rest of your life questioning whether you should have handed it over. When you can “control” the situation through your actions, and walk away without having to “rise” to the apparent challenge made to you, you will be able to live with the consequences of not fighting – there are none; you applied an effective strategy that allowed you to survive the situation. Put out of your head the idea that the martial arts exist to teach you how to dispense justice on others, they are there to teach you how to survive. Is it wrong that a mugger can take your wallet at gun point? Absolutely. Does your training exist to teach said mugger a lesson? No. Is it wrong that a person can be taken hostage and demand money for their release? Absolutely. Do government agencies and the like pay ransoms to such groups? Of course they do. There is a time for justice and a time for survival. Don’t confuse either the time for each or the role(s) you play in them. I would argue that when you see a woman being smashed around and in immediate danger you have an obligation to intervene – this incident occurred pre-mobile phones, so there was no opportunity for my friend to call the police (and an ambulance) whilst I attempted to deal with the immediate danger. My course of action was to tap the guy on the shoulder and in a polite but firm tone, say “Excuse me sir, if you could stop doing that we’d like to talk to you.” This is the type of language and tone that the British Police use, and I wanted to try and break him out of his frenzy as he was highly emotional. Immediately he stopped and as he turned around he said, “Thank f*ck you’re here this bitch has stolen my keys”. It turns out – he told me all of this before it finally dawned on him that we weren’t police – that the woman, who was his girlfriend, didn’t want to go on to a nightclub with him (this was when pubs and bars in the UK shut at 11 PM), and was refusing to give him back the keys to his house, that he’d given her to look after earlier that evening. This had resulted in a drunken argument and the ensuing violence. As he was telling us all of this his girlfriend realized that we weren’t the police (we’d both just come off working door security and so were dressed in the mandatory black pants, white shirt and jacket), and started to scream and shout at us. This has been another consistent experience of intervening on behalf of others; that they quickly side with their assailant, whether they are their partner or simply a friend – this is a simple matter of survival – they don’t want to be the reason that their assailant, who they have some long term relationship with, takes a potential beating. This would potentially be another notch against them and another reason for further later abuse. The woman’s screaming and shouting, started to attract people, including some of the boyfriend’s friends, and the situation quickly started to change. Whereas before my friend and I had numerical advantage that started to turn against us. The other issue we had was that one of the friends was clearly the more dominant individual and was prepared, in fact looking to get involved. This is something to understand about group violence. The boyfriend had used up his adrenaline by now and was no longer in a heightened emotional state, he just wanted to walk away; there was no real fight left in him and his appetite for violence was by and large gone. His friend however was in a different emotional state. He was just coming to the scene and was ready to go. It is worth understanding that in group situations different people can become adrenalized and emotional at different times, and perpetuate confrontations, which by and large are dead. I was still talking to the boyfriend but heard my friend say something along the lines of, “well if it’s all under control, we’ll be going”. I then received a firm pull on my shoulder and we both walked off. We’d maybe got 20 yards before the shouting and abuse started; directed at us. Then we heard the footsteps and saw that we were being followed by a large group and ran. Fortunately the group only made it about 20 yards before stopping. They’d proved their point and were happy to get on with their evening and to talk about how they’d seen off, humiliated, made to feel small etc. the two idiots that had tried to cross them etc. When I look back on such incidents, and the situations where I have intervened on somebody’s behalf I end up getting depressed (however to be fair I get that sense whenever I look back on any aggressive and violent confrontation). Whilst it may at first seem a selfless action, it isn’t. You get involved in another person’s fight because you can’t live with the consequences of not doing so – you have no idea whether the person you are defending is a good person or a bad one e.g. a pedophile who has been raping children in the neighborhood etc. and once you have stood up for them, if you stand down you are condoning the incident you sought to stop. In saying all of that, I have never regretted the times I have stepped in, either as a professional or just a concerned citizen. In the age of the mobile phone a 911 or 999 call should be your first course of action. Whether you directly intervene to “slow” down an incident till the police arrive, or stand back is your choice, and I would never pressurize anyone to act. If a third person is in imminent danger, and you believe you have the means to prevent serious injury and/or death you need to consider your response and whether you can live with the consequences of not acting – there is no right or wrong answer.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=105 Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=104 A large matted space is a great training environment. It’s safe and allows you the room to comfortably practice techniques in a productive fashion. However it’s a deliberately artificial environment, and one that doesn’t reflect reality. This is why Krav Maga training has to be taken to other locations, so that an element/degree of reality can be brought into your practice – these “environments” don’t have to exactly replicate the ones you may find yourself in but should emphasize certain environmental factors that are universal to all e.g. unstable and uneven terrain etc. These environments should also challenge some of the key martial arts skills that will be put to the test in a real life confrontation, such as your sense of balance and stability coupled with your movement skills; if you ever have to physically deal with somebody on a moving train etc. these skills will be seriously challenged. What you are able to comfortably do on the mats may be a million times harder to accomplish in reality. The beach is one of the most challenging natural environments we have at our disposal. Sand is one of the hardest surfaces to train on in terms of balance, stability and power generation. In the studio, the mat surface gives a solid platform from which to launch kicks and punches, sand however shifts and moves, necessitating readjustments and added exertions – to increase power you don’t always need to increase the resistance and strength of what your striking into, you can also do it by changing the platform from which you launch your strikes. Many people confuse environmental training, with just doing the same Krav Maga class you’d do in your studio in a different place – I see this often in YouTube clips, where what is billed as environmental training is a normal mat class, just in a different location. The point of training in an environment is to use it. Water can be used to provide both resistance and increase emotional stress. If you practice a front kick in water, and get the surface height just right, you can increase the acceleration of the last two phases of the kick significantly. Perform the same exercise when the water is choppy and you’ll also develop your core stability, and supporting leg muscles into the bargain. Using the water to practice side-headlock or guillotine defenses is a great way to heighten stress levels. The shock of having a choke or lock applied when under water, especially if your head is pulled under as part of the attack, adds to the urgency of the need to escape, and teaches you a great deal about overcoming the natural panic that such attacks in reality induce. Having two problems to solve i.e. the choke and the water, is a great way to learn to accept that everything has to be dealt with in turn, and that trying to do everything at once gets you nowhere fast. These are not things to practice on your own but in a group, with someone experienced teaching/leading the session. Summer is around the corner and another season of beach training beckons.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=104 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=103 As Human Beings we like to compartmentalize things and create categories etc. it’s how the brain organizes all the information that it holds, and how it is able to recognize, process and assess new pieces of information so quickly. It is also how certain things such as phobias work/operate e.g. a snake is a long, curvy thing, so are hoses, electrical cords etc. A quick glance that sights a garden hose, can create an emotional response that noticing a snake would. Attitudes however are different to pieces of information, and yet we have a tendency to categorize these as well. We convince ourselves that giving up in one area of our lives, is restricted to that area and that in others we wouldn’t, or we make excuses for ourselves, explaining that what we gave up at, wasn’t really important – if it wasn’t important to us why did we start it? We may look at others around us, succeeding at the things we find difficult and have to work so hard at, and say to ourselves that things are easy for them, and that we are justified in walking away and/or admitting defeat; that we will find something else to succeed at – I see this all the time with people coming to the school and hoping that “this time” they have found the thing they can be good/excel at, only to walk away and either give up that hope, or go to another school, and repeat the same process. Giving up is always a choice (and one that everybody has), and often the consequences of doing so are small. You stop doing continuous push-ups in part of a class, and there really are no consequences, in fact there’s an instant reward for doing so – the exhaustion and fatigue stop. But the real reward is lost and a negative attitude/behavior is reinforced. Determination and Tenacity are best built where there is a choice and where there is an absence of fear and punishment. You must want to continue, to push yourself forward, despite the odds against you, regardless of what everyone else around you is doing. Quitting is a choice, and so is continuing. We must all develop a zero-tolerance approach to this, in both our training and our lives. We must not excuse ourselves in one area, in the belief that we wouldn’t in another. An attitude is an attitude, a state of mind a state of mind. We have a tradition in our school of “recycling” belts – this is something that I took from my Judo school. I first studied Judo at a traditional school, where it was taught that the belt’s position when tied is over your “center”, which contains your KI, or spirit/energy, and that some of this is passed into the belt. When you pass your belt on to someone when you move up a belt (inheriting somebody else’s belt who has gone before you), you pass some of your spirit on to them. When you train, without giving up, you are developing and building your own spirit, and one that can be passed on to others, to help them develop the same tenacity and determination. When you pass on your belt to the person following you on this journey, make sure it has been well drenched in sweat, hard work, and contains a part of your spirit you’d like to pass on. Congratulations to everyone who graded and received their new belts this week. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=103 Sun, 12 May 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=102 What’s Your Krav Maga This weekend’s seminar with Roy Elghanayan, reminded me that many people in the US (and elsewhere) have some misconceptions about what Krav Maga actually is e.g. some believe that Krav Maga is a distinct style, others that it is a self-defense system that needs supplemental training etc. Some of these misconceptions have been created and promoted by those high up in the Krav Maga community, in various associations, to further their own ends and to make excuses for their lack of knowledge in certain areas of combat. Firstly, Krav Maga is not the name of a singular system but a term that the IDF, Israeli Defense Forces, gives to the various approaches of hand-to-hand combat that is taught to its soldiers and operatives, and although there may be many similarities between what different Krav Maga instructors teach there can also be significant differences. The important question to ask when assessing whether what you are learning is Krav Maga or not, is to ask who trained your instructor. If their instructor didn’t/wasn’t trained in Israel, and their instructor’s teacher wasn’t etc. and the line has to go a long way back before they can come up with a name of someone who was trained in Israel then it’s very likely that what you’re training in is out of date and possibly obsolete. The fact that Krav Maga is an evolving system means that anyone teaching Krav Maga needs to stay up to date with the changes in approach and techniques etc. either by going to Israel, or making the effort to train with those who come from Israel to teach. I have also heard of one high ranking Krav Maga instructor, tell students and prospective students that Krav Maga is limited in its scope, and that it is necessary to train in other systems in order to become a complete fighter. I don’t know how limited this instructor’s training was, but when I hear such people say that people need to learn Muay Thai, to become a complete stand up fighter, or BJJ to be competent on the ground, I have to shake my head in disbelief. If you look at Roy’s Krav Maga, you see how complete and technically complete his kicking and striking is, with all the necessary technical details present. We were both amazed by the lack/absence of throwing and takedowns that many Krav Maga associations and systems outside of Israel neglect to teach – as one of my old instructor’s used to say, “Nothing hits harder than concrete” – to not teach this aspect of fighting is criminal and shows a real lack of understanding at what is effective in a real-life conflict. The mantra of Krav Maga being easy to learn (that is repeated so often outside of Israel) has resulted in many Instructors and Associations failing to teach Krav Maga as a complete fighting system, and reducing it to a few escapes from various holds, with some technically poor striking thrown in – all of which they try and hide by covering it up with a cardio workout and a lot of aggression training. There is a new generation of Krav Maga Instructors who understand the importance of training in a way which emphasizes the development of fighting skills such as correct movement, power generation, threat recognition/assessment and decision-making in dynamic settings etc. i.e. teaching Krav Maga as a complete martial art. It was an honor and a privilege to have the best of them at our school this weekend. Sensei Roy. OSS!       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=102 Mon, 06 May 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=101 Most of us rarely think about our personal safety; muggings, abductions, and sexual assaults happen to other people, not to us. We trust in our common sense to keep us safe, believing that we would never behave or act in a way that would put us – or anyone who may be with us e.g. friends, children etc - at risk. This is the way that most people think before they themselves become the victim of a violent assault. Sometimes afterwards they console themselves with the thought, that even with the correct information and training, there would have been nothing that they could have done to prevent the attack/assault from happening - and in certain cases I’ll even agree that they may be right, however I would argue far more strongly that with the correct training and appropriate knowledge, there may well have been things that they could have and should have done, that could have prevented, lessened or dealt with the assault. Don’t get me wrong, nobody is ever to blame for being the victim of a vicious assault, however at the same time it should be understood that personal safety is the sole responsibility (and in the domain) of the individual, and whilst we may argue all we want that the police and other law enforcement agencies have been tasked with enforcing the laws of our society, it is unlikely that those who look to attack us and cause us harm will wait for these individuals to be in attendance before they decide to assault us. I have every right to expect that other drivers who I share the road with will drive safely and in accordance with the laws, however I’ve driven long enough to know that this isn’t something I can rely upon, and that I better have good insurance coverage. That we should have to think about our personal safety, and possibly alter some of our behaviors and action, in order to stay safe may seem an inconvenience however this is the world we live in, and we have to be realistic about our understanding of it. The Human Body is an interesting organism, it will inherently fight to survive, when challenged. If a person attempts to choke or strangle you, your hands will automatically rise to attack the attack, clawing away at your aggressor’s arms, hands etc (in Krav Maga we use these natural responses as a basis for our defense). However for most people it is only at this critical moment that they think about survival, neglecting to consider everything that could have been done before this moment to avoid reaching this point. Survival is a mindset, and one that should continually look to develop. One of the things that impressed me greatly about those that were physically unaffected by the terrorist attack on Boston, two weeks ago, was the universal desire to help and be of assistance to those that were hurt and injured. Nobody can be blamed for not having the necessary skills, knowledge and equipment with them to help those who were suffering. Whilst the desire to help whilst still being at risk is a noble thing, in the world we may now be living in, such skills and knowledge could well be a requirement of everyday life. I am never one to spread hysteria and panic however the dangers we potentially face could mean that knowing how to apply a tourniquet is a more relevant skill to have than it was before. There are many other skills and pieces of knowledge that may be more appropriate for us to learn and develop because there are many more likely threats to our safety than acts of terrorism however events such as the attacks at the Boston Marathon serve to remind us that we are not as safe as we often think we are, and that there are times when we cannot avoid being the target of violence. My guess is that in the light of the Boston Bombings more guns will be sold than ever, and whilst I am all for firearms being included in anyone’s personal self-defense strategy, I believe there are far more valuable survival skills for an individual to have, including first aid skills, and the preventative skills that self-protection training affords – not everybody has the time to devote to learning self-defense and fighting skills, however everybody can spare a few hours to think about avoidance and preventative measures i.e. how to avoid being caught on a predators radar, how to identify the Pre-Violence Indicators that can alert us to danger etc. Would these have stopped anybody from becoming a victim of the terrorist bombings in Boston? Probably not, however it would have meant that there were more people able to assist and help, and less people who were mugged, raped and assaulted that day (despite the media coverage, at least one woman in Boston was raped that day, and another individual was forced to hand over a wallet or phone at knife-point – other crimes don’t stop because of Terrorism).             The world we live in is becoming statistically safer, however the risk of becoming the victim of a serious or deadly assault is increasing. In two weeks time on the 12th, we are offering a two hour seminar aimed at addressing the safety needs of the Boston Public. This is a donate what you can seminar with 100% of the money donated going to the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund (helping to support those who will always be there for those in need). Donate what you can and empower yourself! Register using the link below: https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-redcrossdisasterrelieffund.html       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=101 Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=100 It’s been one hell of a week in Boston. We had the terrorist bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday (both Patriots Day and Tax Return day), leading to high speed pursuits, a locking down of large parts of the Greater Boston Area, and the eventual death of one of the brothers believed to be responsible for the atrocity and the capture of the second (I write this early on the morning of Saturday 20th, so I’m writing from what the media have reported on to date). Despite the desire of many for the execution of the captured terrorist, I am glad that we live in a State which doesn’t have the death penalty, as I would hate for this individual to become a martyr and used as an inspiration around the world to recruit more people to commit such atrocities. The recruitment of suicide bombers by Hamas, in the Gaza strip, is largely based on the romanticism of martyrdom – the US would be doing Itself, Israel, the UK and other countries that have been targeted by such fanatics a great favor by denying the enemies of western democracies a martyr that they can rally around. A scared and wounded kid in a boat, who is captured, tried and justly sentenced with multiple life sentences in some high security prison is not an inspiring story to sell the kids in Gaza City and elsewhere – no romance. If I was a family member or close friend to a victim of the bombing, my emotions may justifiably lead me elsewhere but from a purely non-involved/emotional standpoint I am glad he was taken alive, and for the record I have lost close friends to acts of terrorism. I’m also glad he was taken alive so that we can all better understand the nature of the potential threat we face. We are yet to find out if the motive was financial (give us $5 million or we’ll bomb the next major sporting event on U.S. soil), political (to draw attention to the situation in Chechyna – both terrorists were Chechian and it would be useful to know if there was a sponsoring body or group from that country) or religious (some form of “punishment” to the west for their presence on the Arabian Peninsula). I always want to know if the threat we faced is over, or is going to continue. When the terrorist attack/bombing occurred no one or group claimed responsibility – this could have been because they under-estimated the effect of what they did, and as first timers panicked, or were planning to execute some more terrorist acts before they did etc. Hopefully, we’ll now learn more about the potential threats and dangers we face, and if there is a new enemy to be concerned about. This might even improve our knowledge at a higher political level if we discover they were financed by Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia etc. I would like to congratulate the FBI on the way they re-constructed the “story” of what occurred on Monday (this was an amazing piece of surveillance work), when the bombing took place, through the use of video footage that members of the public provided however I have to ask the question, why does a modern city like Boston not have CCTV (Close Circuit TV Cameras), whose footage could be analyzed immediately, without having to rely on the time delay of the public submitting their un-coordinated footage – this is not a criticism of either the FBI or citizens of Boston who provided images etc however the lack of “official” footage shows that the City may need to put some measures in place to ensure that: a) any future potential threats may be identified on camera before they occur (something that would have been difficult given the apparent nature of Monday’s attacks but may help identify other potential terrorist acts before they occur), and/or b) there is adequate official evidence to work on before sifting through the thousands of hours of public images etc, speeding up the identification process. People always argue the case for civil liberties etc where CCTV is concerned however after a week that Boston has gone through is there really an argument? There are also lessons that Boston could learn from other cities. Paris in the 1990’s removed all of its public metal trash/litter bins and replaced them with frames on which clear trash bags were hung. Many other European cities that were also subject to continued terrorist bombing campaigns at the time e.g. London, replaced all of their metal trash/litter bins. This removed a potential hiding place for any device as there would be some degree of visibility, as well as lessening the blast impact of any bomb that would be placed. It is easy to fall into the idea that the capture of Terrorist No 2 is a great victory (and for the security services, and members of the public who played a part etc it is and everybody should be commended for it) however there are still 3 people dead, and hundreds injured and it is these people and their friends and family that need our support. Terrorism will fail, not because our agencies and military will stop every event from ever occurring but because we as individuals care enough about our own, to make sure that we don’t let it happen again (we stay vigilant, change our personal safety habits, accept the inconveniences that extra security may cause us etc) and that if another event does occur we’ll show the resolve, dignity and honor that sets us apart from those who commit such acts. Also we should all remember that the State Trooper or Policeman you celebrate now as capturing a terrorist is the same guy who may in the future write you a ticket for speeding: heroes are still heroes and have a job to do.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=100 Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=99 Whenever I conduct a seminar or training session on personal security and self-defense, there are always some common questions that people ask and/or some common pieces of “advice” that people have been given concerning their own safety – I was teaching a group last night where one of these came up; whether you are safer talking on your mobile phone, when in a potentially dangerous situation, or not. Firstly, the definition of risky and dangerous situations needs to be examined. Normally when people ask this question they cite the situation as being on their own, late at night, on a deserted street etc. This location in and of itself does not make it dangerous. We tend to think that we are safest in crowds and most at risk on our own, however the majority of muggings take place in crowded shopping malls and train stations etc, where there is an abundance of potential targets – this is not to say that you won’t be the victim of a mugging on a lonely street, however you are certainly not at any more risk, and statistically at less. When we are on our own, it is brought home to us that there is nobody who can come to our assistance and aid. That we are wholly responsible for dealing with any threat or danger that we face, and it is often this that causes us to reach for our phone and to call someone; so that we’re not alone, and to have somebody who we can share the responsibility for our own safety with. The fact however is that we are alone and that we alone have the responsibility for our own safety. Unless the person you are talking to is trained, and understands how violent situations erupt, develop and evolve they are unlikely to have any good or solid advice for you to follow and however graphically you describe your environment are not going to have a better understanding of it than you who are there. Violent assaults and muggings happen quickly, so quickly that you are unlikely to have the time to act on any advice given to you anyway. Handing over or sharing responsibility for your personal safety is a dangerous path to go down, even with someone who has your best interest at heart. It is something that many predators (sexual and financial) try to do in order to get you to trust them and hand control of a situation over to them e.g. to talk their way into your house, to get you to have a drink with them in a bar etc. It is far better to assume responsibility for your own safety in all situations and with all people. The real danger though from talking on the phone is that you get taken out of your reality. People who talk on their phone whilst driving are far less aware of what is going on than those who are talking to a passenger in their car who may be sitting next to them. This is because when it is you and a passenger you share the same reality. If you are having a conversation and suddenly a car pulls out in front of you, your passenger reacts as well, maybe by stopping talking, making a sharp intake of breath, or even telling you to look out etc. However if you are on the phone, the person carries on the conversation as normal, without any reaction or change in their tone, speed or delivery. Rather than helping alert you to danger as a passenger would, they reinforce the idea that nothing is wrong. This is one of the reasons why it feels comforting to talk to someone on the phone when you are feeling scared or fearful: you are brought into their world where it is safe, where there is no danger etc. You are to some degree transported to another reality. The obvious danger to this is that just like the driver talking on the phone, you are distracted to what is going on in your environment, and whatever danger or harmful intent may exist in your situation, the person on the phone will not see or be able to react or respond to, they will carry on talking as if everything is ok, when in reality it may not. It may be comforting to hear their voice and be transported into their world, and even have someone know where you are, however in the 5-10 seconds it takes for an assault to take place, the person at the other end of the phone will not have time to do anything; even if they get past, shouting “are you alright” etc as the assault takes place. If you want the comfort of somebody knowing where you are, call them when you leave, tell them where you’re going and how long it should take you to get there. Tell them what to do in case you don’t call them when you get there at a certain time i.e. take responsibility for your safety but lose the phone. Any potential assailant will know that it distracts you from what is going on around you and that the person at the other end will not have time to do anything in the time it will take them to mug or assault you. Your reality is the one you face; accept is and deal with it – don’t try and enter into somebody else’s by calling them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=99 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=98 People become aggressive and violent for a variety of reasons. One is to save face, either to themselves or to others. It is sometimes possible to talk someone away from violent actions but the route you take may not leave the person room to save face, which leaves them feeling compelled to continue justifying their behavior(s), which in turn can cause them to start to become emotional and aggressive again. Finding a way to let a person preserve their dignity, and give them a face saving way out is an important part of conflict resolution. To not do this, means that you are effectively still posturing in a situation that you want to end and remove yourself from – and that’s not going to happen if the person you’re dealing with isn’t given an exit strategy that preserves their dignity and self-image. Nobody wants to feel that they’ve lost, as they then may see their only alternative to this as becoming violent. The reason I’m writing this blog piece is because today I was presented with a potential situation/scenario that raised a lot of questions regarding egos, emotions and face-saving. It concerned a potential date/acquaintance rape situation, where a girl whose been dating the Captain of the Football Team or similar, ends up in a situation where he becomes sexually excited and isn’t listening to and/or accepting that she isn’t interested – it hasn’t yet turned to physical coercion but that’s the dangerous next step. If it does then it is a potential sexual assault or rape and there are no two ways about it however we’re considering a situation where the balance could tip either way and there is still an opportunity to prevent an assault from happening. I don’t wish to consider the moral questions here but to look at what can practically be done to avoid a worst case scenario. The first thing that must happen is for the emotion in the situation to be addressed, you can never negotiate or reason with a highly emotional person, especially one who feels entitled to act in such a way. In this situation the entitlement may come from the fact that the guy has been on a string of dates, has “put in his time”, and feels that he deserves some physical reward etc. This is his reality and the one on which his belief system is based. Trying to argue that a couple of dates doesn’t automatically result in or lead to sex, may be a difficult argument to make and win against someone who thinks this way, especially when they are emotional and aroused. If you attempt to avoid the issue and not confront it, there is a danger that the person will become frustrated and assault you anyway, so you need to address the situation in a way that causes the person to start thinking and having to reason (when we use our reasoning brain we become less emotional) and also gives a person an opportunity to save face. Ask him if he likes or minds having sex with women who are having their period - although this wouldn\'t be a deterrent to the most committed sexual predator, it is a tactic that has been used successfully in the past. It’s a good way to dampen emotion, as well as giving him a face saving way out. You can also state that you don’t like it and that it wouldn’t be a good experience for either of you; making him appear as the good guy in the situation. Sometimes you have to give up being \"right\" and not make the case that a person is wrong to behave and act in a certain way so as to be effective (put your ego aside and let your aggressor\'s stay intact). Don’t promise anything in the future i.e. to sleep with them in a few days etc; merely state that great as the evening was all you can think about now, beyond the cramps, is to get a goodnight’s sleep. The bigger issue concerning his issues of ego and entitlement etc can be dealt with in the morning in a safer environment.  When I worked door, I was always sure to allow people to leave because they wanted to, not because I wanted them out. If a person has a face saving opportunity that they can use to justify to themselves and others they are often likely to take it. For those occasions when they are committed to their cause, regardless of the alternatives presented to them there is Krav Maga.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=98 Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=377 Fingers need to be protected. I’ve had fingers broken, tendons ripped etc. and when this happens, it becomes difficult to punch, grab and even block successfully. I see fingers as one of our weak points, and they’ve always been a target for me; if an aggressor’s fingers are splayed, and their hands are available, then they’re something I’ll grab – forcefully bending them back gives you one of the simplest and easiest wrist locks/controls you’ll ever get. When you understand this vulnerability, you’ll want to protect them, and it’s one of the reasons why you’ll want to keep them close together when you’re making blocks i.e. a punch, stab, or slash that connects with open fingers, could see your hand being disabled, which will rapidly reduce your survival chances. If you are caught completely by surprise, then positioning them together may not be possible, however this is why you train to predict and identify violence before it happens – fortunately the natural position of the hand keeps them from splaying out too much. When somebody throws a punch at you, they will do so with as much power as they can muster. If their strike was to connect with your hand rather than your forearm – as you made your block - which is a distinct possibility, in a real-life, dynamic confrontation, as well as not stopping the punch, it is likely that your fingers if loose, or splayed would get injured. By tensing the hand, and forearm at the moment of impact, the blocking structure of the hand and forearm, will have structure and integrity; and the fingers will be protected. Making this isometric contraction, at the end of an isotonic movement, will give the block a “snap” that will in fact turn it into a strike. It is useful to think of all our blocks as being strikes aimed at whatever attack they are intercepting. Just as you wouldn’t want your hand/fist to be loose when you punch, neither should you want your hand to be loose with fingers splayed out, when you make your block, because if you were to misjudge it, you could end up striking the attacker’s arm or fist etc. with a structure that would crumble on impact. Many traditional martial arts will block with the hand clenched in a fist. One benefit of this is that it protects the fingers, however a disadvantage of blocking this way, is that it shortens the blocking surface i.e. you lose a couple of inches in length. By tensing the fingers and the hand at the extension of the block – and for a 360 defense, this should see your forearm at a 90-degree angle, to the upper arm – the hand should have enough integrity, when it is coupled with a body movement away from the strike, to still offer adequate protection. With such blocks, you should be aiming to use the forearm, not the hand, however when caught by surprise it is not always possible to do what we should do, and so we should be prepared for such eventualities. A common mistake I see with beginners when making 360 blocks, is to “chop” their arm out at the elbow, rather than driving their forearm out from the body. A quick remedy to this, is to use wrist rotation. Imagine you are standing in a “Fighting Stance” with your guard up i.e. your forearms held vertically etc. and someone swings in a right haymaker, towards your head. Rather than attempting to reach for the attacking arm, by making a chopping motion, rotate the wrist, so that the hand that was facing inwards, is now facing your attacker; as you do this move the forearm towards the attacker’s punching arm, timing your impact, so that you deliver it as a strike. At the moment of impact/interception, tighten the fingers of the hand, so that you have the longest and most rigid block possible, once the strike has been stopped, the arm can be relaxed. If your block lacks integrity, then anything you might be trying to do either simultaneously (such as striking with the other arm), or afterwards can be forgotten, because you will have been punched, stabbed or slashed etc. If the attack caught your hand, and the fingers were splayed, they may have suffered a hyper-extension that may make them inoperable. Your hands are perhaps your most important tool when it comes to fighting, and if they become damaged and injured in a fight, you will be at a serious disadvantage. Yes, there may be times, when our block is simply a flinch response, but these are the times when we are caught completely unawares. Most fights are preceded by a verbal confrontation, and so we should have a level of preparedness, that will allow us to make a block which has substance and integrity, and that also protects the hand/fingers. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=377 Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=97 People often confuse de-escalation as “backing down”, rather than as a means of achieving a desired outcome by non-physical means. De-escalation should never occur without there also being a demonstration of having the capability of being able to also end the confrontation physically. Part of the process of de-escalation, is determining whether the aggressor is willing to resolve whatever dispute there is through non-physical means. If there is no demonstration of willingness, then you know that you have no choice but to make a pre-emptive assault – I say an assault, as it should be all out and continuous, until your assailant has either taken themselves out of the fight or is no longer able to physically continue. When crisis negotiators deal with hostage takers, they make it abundantly clear that, despite wanting to end the confrontation peacefully, they are also equally able to resolve the dispute via tactical means. You may not be in the same position of strength as the FBI or the IDF’s Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) however you must still demonstrate that you have the ability to physically defend yourself. De-escalation can only be effective if your aggressor believes it is in their best interest to resolve whatever disagreement or injustice they believe has been committed without resorting to violence. If they believe you have no ability to defend yourself then they have little reason to move off the path of violence. This also means you have to have a zero tolerance approach to physical action, and understand when the time for talking is over. Whilst you attempt to de-escalate you should also be setting up your pre-emptive assault and be ready to deal with any attack that is made. Emotional and angry people are volatile, and even if you believe they are responding to what you are saying, can snap at any moment until the dispute is fully/completely resolved. In most Hostage situations, the firing of a single shot, will mean that action rather than further talking is required. If in an argument, somebody touches you, pushes you etc, action is required. It is worth noting that aggressive individuals have little if any idea of what they wish to accomplish through violence, other than a belief that they are entitled to act this way and some form of vague justice will be served. This means that you are not dealing with someone in a rational frame of mind. When someone feels they are entitled to act a certain way, it is almost impossible to argue against them, and so even if you believe that you are being effective at calming them down, that entitlement will not disappear, you are merely presenting an alternative method (a non-physical one) to meeting their goal(s). Hostage and Crisis Negotiation is a relatively new and modern science, and like a lot of new methods of law enforcement, was initially founded on ideas, rather than reality, which lead to it being based on many false premises. One of these that soon became apparent was that despite much of the planning that may have gone into a hostage taking incident, the actual goals are shaky, fluid or unclear, which soon become apparent when negotiations start i.e. they don’t really know what they wish to accomplish. It is often one of the goals of a crisis negotiator to frame or set the goals of the hostage taker. This is less the case in acts of hostage taking involving terrorists however when Palestinian groups kidnap Israeli Soldiers there is often no clear agenda or distinct/particular demands that accompany the kidnapping – it is more that an opportunity presented itself and a vague understanding that the hostage would be valuable. Often you will have to frame and present an alternative outcome to your aggressor and put alternative solutions on the table e.g. offering to replace a spilt drink, paying for dry cleaning etc, in order to resolve the dispute - all the time being ready, willing and able to act physically. De-escalation although the preferred method of dealing with potentially violent situations shouldn’t be seen as the only one and you should be equally willing to use physical force should the situation dictate. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=97 Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=96 Knife Attacks Last week in class we spent a lot of time practicing reverse knife slashes and discussing how we sometimes have to recover from our natural reflexes and responses, that although keep us safe from the initial assault/attack, may lead us to be in a disadvantaged position for the follow-up or secondary phase of the attack. It is always worth remembering that assailants with knives will almost always recoil the slash or cut, to set up a second and a third attack etc. The standard 360 Block that is common across all Krav Maga systems, is based on the body’s natural flinch reflex, that is triggered when fast movements cross the line of our peripheral vision e.g. such as a swinging punch or a slashing knife. In such instances the body will naturally and with lightning speed raise the arm to intercept the attack. There are times however when circular motions occur within our peripheral vision, and in such situations if the movement is within the eye-line you will make a swaying back motion to move the head out of the line of attack; rather than bringing the arms up to block. This is a good back-up defense that the body has when the flinch reflex isn’t triggered. The only problem is that with a knife slash, it’s very easy for the attacker to reverse the cutting action and slice again. Our fear system is incredible at making natural defenses but it only does so against the first threat/initial attack, it relies on us, or our conscious processes, to deal with whatever happens next. The problem that you will encounter with swaying back, is that your weight is all on the back foot, which means that moving back will be almost impossible – the only way to shift the weight and move is to go forwards and start to put weight on to the front leg i.e. sway forward. What we need to do with the swaying back motion is to “assemble” another motion with it. Namely raising the arms up (this is the same thing we do with the 360 Block; training the flinch response to result in the forearm being extended and held out at a 90 degree angle at the elbow, along with a body movement away from the attack, and a simultaneous strike). By bringing the arms up as you sway back in you have a natural “block” to any reverse cut or slash, plus you are now able to close the person down and restrict further movements of the knife. Restricting and limiting the movement of the knife is the first part of any knife defense, whether the defense is a solution to a threat or an attack. Many times it’s not possible to apply “technique” especially when you are surprised and caught off guard, with your body moving you out of the way, or putting you in a disadvantaged position for the next phase of the attack. Then it really is a matter of just working to the principles and applying the concepts. When it is almost impossible to recognize and determine the threat, such as in the case of a fast, reverse backhand slash (after you failed to identify the first attack), everything must come down, to restricting movement, getting two hands/arms on the knife, and getting your body positioned behind the blade.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=96 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=95 Your first alert to danger comes as you move from a non-conflict state to one of being conflict aware; this occurs as your fear system recognizes an action or behavior in your environment that signals the presence of harmful intent – this intent may not be directed at you (that has to be confirmed) but it is present and real. This is the moment you become adrenalized, and it this recognition of your emotional state that lets you know trouble is potentially brewing.  Often we think that this happens in a one single moment, that you shift between these two states however your body may release adrenaline slowly, rather than in a single dramatic shot e.g. if you are in a verbal altercation that starts to get increasingly aggressive you may become gradually adrenalized, whereas if somebody suddenly points a gun at your head you will become instantly adrenalized. This can make recognizing that your adrenal system is working, especially if you’re not used to experiencing it, sometimes difficult, with your conscious understanding of the situation being at odds with what your body is telling you. This also occurs if your conscious response to the threat is one of denial i.e. this can’t be happening to me – you actively deny your adrenal state, which is most people’s firs response when trying to understand the level of the threat they are confronting. Understanding your own body language can help you recognize your emotional state. I never spend much time trying to recognize the subtle nuances of other people’s body language, when I’m dealing with a threat, because if I can confirm and recognize my own emotional state, I can trust that to interpret and confirm their body language e.g. If I see someone walking directly towards me, I don’t watch their body language, rather I look to interpret my own; if my body is responding in a relaxed and non-threatened manner I don’t need to look to see if their arms are splaying out to see if they are a threat, my subconscious fear system has informed me that they are not. Recognizing your own body’s responses is far more valuable than trying to interpret another’s. Often when we feel uncomfortable in a conversation it can be hard to recognize whether it is because we feel threatened or because we just “don’t like” the person we are talking to i.e. do they represent a danger to our personal safety, or are they somebody we just wish would go away. We may meet such people at bus-stops, in queues outside clubs etc – those who engage us in unwanted conversations, that have a certain edge to them, such as complaining about the lateness of a bus or that they’ve had to stand in line to long. The challenge is to work out whether the aggression in the situation is directed at us or something general (like the bus service), or something/somebody more specific like the bus driver…when he eventually shows up. This is the big difference between the conflict aware state and the next state, the pre-conflict one. In the pre-conflict state the harmful intent is definitely directed at you. In the conflict aware state you need to make your dynamic risk assessment i.e. what is the risk level of the situation? There are two outcomes: high risk and unknown risk. If the aggressive individual sounding off about the lateness of the bus starts to direct his conversation towards you then you are in a high risk, if they don’t the risk is unknown. You can use your own body language to help assess whether a situation is high or unknown risk. I generally check two things when assessing my own level of aggression: my eyes and my mouth/lips. If my eyes are wide open I am in a fear state, if my eyes are squinting I am in or heading towards a state of aggression. A person complaining loudly about poor public transport may elicit either response: they make me afraid or they may make me angry. Both can send out the wrong message to the person who is complaining. If they now look at me in my “aggressive” state, they may perceive me as a threat or a challenging target they can displace their anger on to – in the absence of a bus driver or representative of the system they are railing against. Equally if they pick up that I am fearful of them, they may seek to readdress their lack of control in the current situation by creating a new one – being aggressive towards me – that they feel they can control. My job in any potentially dangerous situation is to fly under the radar and not drawing attention to myself – an aggressive individual’s fear/anger system will recognize threat signals very quickly however subtle they are (which is why I allow my adrenal system to do its job and I just interpret the results). When the lips tighten and get drawn back we are in a state of aggression. I use this cue a lot to get direction from my fear system i.e. should I be getting ready to fight. This I have found to be one of my best barometers for whether I should be looking to make a pre-emptive assault - usually confirm this by asking a question to tell if a person has lost the ability to verbally reason; if they can’t/don’t respond or jumble the words I know my body wants to fight and theirs is one step away from going to. I like simple cues as when emotional certain reasoning functions diminish, so if I can tell where my body is emotionally (through interpreting its response) and where another person’s is through a clear, defining tell-tale sign I know what I have to do, without going through a long decision making process. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=95 Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=94 The effects of adrenaline on the body are quite severe, which is why our emotional system naturally tries to limit when we become adrenalized. One of the most immediate consequences is that of extreme fatigue; anyone who has done any form of military training knows that the best time to counter an attack that has cost them a position is to immediately try and retake that position, as once a person’s adrenal system recognizes that a goal has been accomplished it will put the body into a state of rest and fatigue in order for it to recover from the stresses and strains that this cocktail of hormones places on the body. From my own experiences I know that being constantly adrenalized leads to extreme fatigue and a desire for sleep – one of the jobs that officers in the military have is keeping their soldiers awake during lulls in combat. You can become adrenalized in a number of ways; the sooner that you recognize what is happening to you the sooner you can start to control and limit the adverse side effects. Breathing is perhaps the most effective way of controlling your emotional state and thus your levels of adrenaline. Tactical Breathing is something that is taught to many law enforcement and military personnel. In its simplest form it involves breathing in for a count, holding for a count, and breathing out for a count e.g. breathe in for a count of 2, hold the breath for a count of 2 and then exhale for a count of 2. Breathing is both an automatic function of the body and one that you can also control, which makes it a unique way to link the conscious with the subconscious, tying your mental appraisal of a situation (being afraid) and altering your emotional response to it (fear). Being honest with yourself is another way of avoiding becoming adrenalized unnecessarily. Many people become afraid without reason, identifying threats where none occur e.g. if a person sees a group of teenagers wearing hooded tops they may immediately become wary and scared even if nothing about the way these teenagers moved etc indicated a threat. I am always amazed at the way people become aggressive in the anticipation of conflict even when no pre-violence indicators are present. Due to the “Models of Violence” we build, we often see threats and dangers where the y don’t occur and become aggressive and adrenalized without any real cause. The false anticipation of aggression and violence may cause us to become subject to tunnel vision and identify threats and danger where none exist. Often when I am in potentially dangerous situations, or feel my adrenal system go into action (hairs on the back of my neck stand-up, uneasiness in my stomach etc) I relax and let my “body” decide whether there is harmful intent present or not. This honest and natural appraisal prevents me from responding to actions and behaviors that don’t ever actually constitute a threat to my personal safety; this is not the same as trying to down-play a threat or denying that you are in danger. Most physical confrontations start with a verbal confrontation. One of the things I do when facing or dealing with an aggressive person is to tense and relax my legs, one at a time, over and over in a repetitive manner. Adrenaline “demands” a physical outlet and doing this small physical action is going somewhat to meeting the desire for flight or fight i.e. a physical response. This is something I can do whilst still talking to a person and is basically unnoticeable. It is also letting me get in touch with my body so I can feel my legs working, and not be rooted to the spot should I need to move. Next week I will talk about how to interpret body language, not somebody else’s but your own, so that you can be more aware of your physical and emotional state. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=94 Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=93 In this post, I want to talk about the “negative” side effects of Adrenaline and also dispel one of the myths that is commonly associated with extreme fear; that of time slowing down. Anyone who has been in a car crash or narrowly avoided an accident, or been the victim of an assault, will recall that “Time Slowed Down” for them – this is referred to as Time Dilation. If such an effect should exist, it stands to reason that it is not actually time slowing down but the brains ability to understand and make sense of the situation speeding up i.e. its cognitive processing increases. Researcher, David Eagleman, attempted to study this apparent phenomenon, by getting test subjects to estimate the time it took them to complete an upside down 150 ft free fall, into a net – this was a thrill ride on a fairground/amusement park, near the university campus where he worked . The idea being to invoke enough fear in the subjects to create Time Dilation. He also got his subjects to estimate the time it took for other people to complete a free-fall. Subjects estimated that it took them 36% longer to fall than the people they watching. This meant Time Dilation was happening. He then reasoned that if Time Dilation was occurring, the brain’s processes should be firing faster. He then attached a special watch to each subject that displayed numbers at a rate that was just too fast for them to make out when in a non-stressed state. He concluded that if his subjects could make out these numbers as they fell, then the brain was indeed speeding things up. As it turned out, they couldn’t; our perception of events doesn’t speed up when we are adrenalized, rather when we recall the event afterwards we remember it as if it occurred in slow motion. Some of the definite side-effects of adrenaline affect both our sight and our hearing. Under stress we all experience “Tunnel Vision” and in certain situations may start to see things in “Black & White” as well as even lose our hearing. Our Fear System, is designed to work for 90% of situations (this is just an estimate used to illustrate the point), but is not specific enough for particular situations. In most situations the primary threat, the one we are facing, is the one that should occupy all of our attention and so when placed under stress and fear we develop tunnel vision i.e. our peripheral vision disappears so we are not distracted by movements to our side etc. The problem is that 10% of violence involves third parties or other threats within the environment, and in these situations tunnel vision actually impedes our survival chances. As trained individuals, we should look to be aware of our environment and surroundings and not simply focus on the person(s) standing before us. One of the quickest ways to deal with tunnel vision is to “Scan”. Scanning allows our eye line to not only take in other threats that may be present but will also widen our gaze, as our eyes fix on objects and people in our environment who are located at difference depths of vision. In extreme situations we may be subject to hearing loss. Our fear system consists of both inherent fears and learnt ones. We have a natural freeze response to loud noises. The current understanding of this is that historically our natural predator’s i.e. wild animals would often first alert us to their presence by noise as they would hunt by stealth and take advantage of the terrain for camouflage, so identifying them by sight would not always be possible. There are many different ways that different animal species – including humans - use to confuse predators when surprised e.g. some play dead, some such as bird flocks, like flamingos take off together in a confusing array of movement with the aim of giving their predator too many choices of a potential victim, causing them to take extra time in selecting a target. Humans freeze – we do this because historically our animal predators hunted by sight and select prey by movement. If you have ever seen a bull-fight, you will witness the Matador, standing stock still, whilst he flutters his cape so that the bull identifies this as the target instead of him. Freezing when we first our alerted to danger makes good sense, however once we have visually identified the threat, our body may decide we don’t need our sense of hearing any more e.g. we are in fight or flight mode and all that our fear system requires of us is action – the time to use reason has gone. Unfortunately we may end-up over-reacting to a threat, and fail to understand that we could talk our way out of the situation, or de-escalate our aggressor(s). In an over adrenalized state our hearing may go, even though the situation doesn’t necessarily necessitate a physical response. The way to avoid becoming over-adrenalized is to recognize threats early on and have a proper understanding of the situation you are in so you don’t over-react to it. In next week’s Blog we will look at how to control the release of adrenaline so that we don’t become over-adrenalized and suffer from some of these negative effects.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=93 Sun, 03 Mar 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=92 Feelings are not the same as emotions. An emotional response is physiological, involving physical changes to the body’s natural state, such as a release of adrenaline (a cocktail of hormones) into the bloodstream. A feeling is the conscious interpretation of this state. Adrenaline will be released into our system, when our “fear” system identifies a threat that it believes requires a fight or flight response. Our interpretation of the threat, determines whether we become afraid or aggressive/angry. It is worth noting that our fear system can be educated, in fact many fears are learnt e.g. nobody has an inherent fear of snakes this is something we are taught and learn. Our fear system can also become over-educated, such as in phobias, where a person with a fear of snakes begins to identify things that resemble the shape and movements of snakes, as snakes – such as electrical cables, pieces of rope etc. The media and news reports also serve to educate us e.g. if there is a report about teenagers in hooded tops being responsible for assaults in a particular neighborhood, our fear system may trigger an adrenal release whenever we see such a group (even if none of their other actions or behaviors are potentially aggressive or violent). Having a realistic understanding of your environment and the potential threats within it is essential if you are to respond effectively to real threats and not react to things which contain no harmful intent. Whenever I teach seminars or courses to people who have never trained before one of the first tasks I have to do, is to explain to them what violence against their particular demographic actually looks like. This is especially true when teaching women whose primary concern is learning to defend themselves against a random assailant who attacks them without warning on a street or deserted place. Whilst such attacks do occur, they are not the most common ones. Assaults against women are mainly committed by people they know in their homes or in somebody else’s. Having an awareness of this, means that you are able to respond much quicker if you are attacked in such a location; if you aren’t aware that a friend or acquaintance can assault you in your home you will be slow to identify what is happening to you as you first have to get over the initial state of denial, that this can’t be happening to you. I remember being taken off-guard when an ex-business colleague sent a mutual acquaintance to threaten to assault me, at my place of work: 1. I didn’t perceive the person as a threat and, 2. I didn’t expect the threat of violence at my place of work. My “model” of violence didn’t include this situation as one to be careful of/in despite the fact that there were several pre-violence indicators I should have picked up on e.g. their general tone, the fact that they wanted to speak to me alone etc. When we discount the possibility of violence in a certain situation/location, we can be slow to respond, and not even realize that we are or were in danger. Even though are fear system may have been triggered and we are working in an adrenal state, our mental state is one of confusion, rather than even recognizing whether we are afraid or angry. Acceptance of the possibility of violence will help us recognize when we are adrenalized and accept the fact rather than keeping us in a state of denial and confusion. In the next blog post we will talk about the different ways in which adrenaline is released into our system, its effects and the ways in which we can manage it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=92 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=91 There are predators (those who create violent situations), there are ordinary people who get caught up in the aggression, emotion and violence of a situation and then there are those who are simply habitually violent i.e. given the chance or excuse they’ll become violent. It doesn’t matter what their motivations are e.g. if they are addicted to the adrenaline high of violence, or use it as a means to establish their position of social dominance in a group or if they simply need to assert and convince themselves of who they believe they are; the toughest/hardest guy on the planet, the person who won’t be “disrespected” etc, given a reason they will become violent. Individuals who force violence on others do so in a ritualistic manner. Everyone but the psychopath needs an excuse to become violent. Most of these excuses are fabricated e.g. “you’re sitting in my chair” “Who are you looking at?” “Are you looking at my girlfriend?” Oftentimes the person making these threats is going through the process of convincing themselves that their reason(s) for becoming violent are justified. Many people fall into the trap of denying what they’ve just been accused of, which is to basically call out the aggressor as a liar. Tempting as it is to argue the point and deny that you were looking at somebody’s girlfriend, even if you never so much as glanced in her direction, doing so will reinforce your aggressor’s right to assault you whereas admitting it can disarm them. One of the first rules of de-escalation is to avoid denying your aggressor’s right to become emotional. It is much better to acknowledge that they are right and then present a non-contentious reason why e.g. apologize and explain that you have new contact lenses which mean that you’re squinting/looking at everyone. Even before the question/accusation happens, eye-contact is usually made – unless your assailant simply wants to blindside you, for looking “gay”, dressing in a certain way etc in which case they may just attack you from the rear or the side, without any warning/question or eye-contact (in their mind there will still have to be a justification for their assault however tenuous it may be). One of the things I was always on the lookout for when I worked security in pubs and clubs were the individuals who “postured” and “scanned”, these were invariably the troublemakers who would end up starting a fight. These are the individuals who normally avoid the conversation of the group they are with and stare out into the distance, looking for someone who engages with them for too long. Never second-glance people, either hold a gaze and accept the consequences, or look away without looking back (both are signals of confidence but the latter doesn’t carry any challenge with it). After eye-contact and the question, there is usually a re-affirmation of the question accompanied with an open ended threat, such as, “…so what are you going to do about it?” You can be sure that whatever answer you give it will not be satisfactory. This is your aggressor trying to work themselves up into a higher emotional state whilst at the same time attempting to be the “good guy”, the guy who gives you an option to avoid the inevitable violence and punishment they deserve. At this point trying to reconcile the situation by peaceful means would be extremely naïve this is the time for pre-emptive action. You should either strike to set up a finish or strike to disengage. Be aware that in a social setting such as a bar or club there is the likelihood of third parties coming to your aggressor’s assistance, so staying tied up with them may not be the best option. As in all violent situations there are pre-violence indicators that are present e.g. eye-contact, the question etc, that should alert you to danger before it occurs however once an aggressor goes about confirming their actions it’s difficult to continue de-escalating and physical action is most likely required.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=91 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=90 I am always surprised at the way many instructors only present one outcome to dealing with violence: success. I understand the need to present a positive message etc however when this occurs at the expense of acknowledging reality I find this difficult to swallow. If you are in a knife fight, you are likely to be cut, if you deal with a gun threat you may be shot and there are few occurrences of violence that don’t see you get punched, kicked etc – especially if multiple assailants are involved. These are all the immediate potential “physical” consequences that need to be considered and dealt with in the post-conflict phase of violence (appropriate first aid training is a must for the serious martial artist), whilst not forgetting the longer term emotional effects that need to be considered; if you think you will not be affected by these you are an idiot or less than human – violence effects everyone emotionally. I relive many of the violent situations I’ve had to deal with on a regular basis. I’m not claiming to be a victim of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) but someone who often considers the significant events of my life and what they mean; I do this in order that I don’t relive them but am able to let them go e.g. I don’t want to be the guy in the bar who continually talks about the time that this or that happened to them, or about what this person did to me etc. I don’t want my person to be defined by such events. I often meet people who acquiesced to a mugger’s demands and handed over their wallet, and have spent their life wondering if this was the right thing to do, and if having done this makes them less than a “man” or the person they like to see themselves as. The Hebrew Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes has the proverb, “better to be a living dog than a dead lion” (I learnt that one the hard way, and continue to), and everyone who has handed over a wallet etc in order to survive to should take heed of this. There are times for the “noble” gesture but these are fewer than we like to think. The reason that people when they acquiesce to such demands feel the shame and guilt afterwards is because they never prepared themselves to do this (they always saw themselves acting differently), and so were unable to control the situation. If you can consider the possibility of not fighting, you may be able to control the situation so that you don’t have to. If you can’t consider or don’t plan for an alternative you will only ever have one option and therefore always have one consequence if that doesn’t work out for you.  Trauma is caused by having to deal with a high stress situation in which you have no effective control over i.e. you have no choices, you have to act a certain way e.g. children who have been sexually assaulted were subjected to a highly emotion experience/situation, which they were unable to take control of or exert influence over and so experience trauma. If you handed over your wallet at knife point because that was your only choice – you weren’t equipped with any self-defense skills or knowledge – then you will experience a certain level of trauma however much you rationalize that it was the right thing to do (and it was). Too many people who have been the targets and/or victims of violence are unable to let go because they never prepared for the possibility of it or had only one outcome in their mind. Being able to move on, and let the incident go, is the mark of somebody who is in control, and was always in control – those that have to relive an event in order to re-experience it, and possibly change the outcome are those that are without control. My belief is that everybody can learn to understand and accept the decisions they took and have closure on such events however it takes a process to do so. It is much easier to understand the potential outcomes of violence and accept all of them – then you are able to put them behind you and move on with your life.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=90 Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=89 There is much that is misunderstood about Close/Executive Protection (Bodyguards) e.g. it is a far more involved job than standing in front of a car, with your arms behind your back, whilst wearing a pair of sunglasses. The principles and concepts that are used in Close Protection, whilst protecting third parties, translate well to personal/self-protection and can be used to help increase awareness and improve a person’s ability to predict, anticipate and avoid violence. In this week’s blog, I want to just illustrate and describe a few of the general ideas, which cross over well from this professional field into the personal one (and reinforce some of the ideas that we talked about in yesterday’s class). Firstly, Close Protection is about avoiding confrontation. The person whose safety you are responsible for doesn’t want to be involved in an aggressive or violent incident. They have a life to lead, a job to do, and don’t want to be side-tracked from it. This is why the majority of high-level CP Operatives aren’t easily identifiable individuals e.g. they want to be invisible, not noticeable – don’t be confused by the large-built tanks who escort celebrities from limos to movie premieres, etc. - these “visible deterrents” perform a very narrow and distinct role in security terms. Flying under the radar is the desire of every principle, except when they have to perform obvious public duties. Many people look to the Martial Arts or Self-Defense to teach them how to handle confrontations, rather than avoid them – but although being able to handle oneself physically in a violent situation is a large part of the picture, it is not the end goal. If you’re the loud guy in the Tap-Out tee shirt in the bar, you are not flying under the radar. Planning and preparation are a large piece of any Close Protection gig, and probably make up the largest part of any detail. Identifying potential threats/risks beforehand, and planning how to avoid and mitigate them really is the most important part of the job. Individuals who “suddenly” find themselves in a dodgy part of town late at night have not planned their evening well. Walking into an unknown bar is another good example. Because we rarely see or experience violence, our plans don’t often involve considerations of personal safety, when in reality these should be our first and most important thoughts. Constantly referring back to the plan is also extremely important. It was interesting to note when we did yesterday’s drills where we trained with eyes closed, how few people checked that they were in arm’s length of the principle (the person they were protecting), though this was an essential piece of the plan, if they were able to pull the person away quickly at the first sign of danger. Simply being able to touch the person lightly, would be an easy check to see if they could be reached, however few people did this. Checking in with the plan and updating it if necessary e.g. moving closer, is as important as the plan itself.   I am not going to talk much about situational awareness (SA) in this blog, as I have written extensively about it in past blogs. Rather, I would just restate that it is important to let your eyes be drawn to the things and movements that are out of place. Many people will give the example of somebody wearing a heavy coat in hot weather, however this is not something you look for, as there are a million things that can be possibly out of place or unusual. The person wearing a coat in hot weather is something you rationally make sense of after you have noticed that the person is out of place, not something that you work out and then identify. Looking at the complete picture and letting your eyes pick out the things that don’t fit in, like you do when you look at a “spot the difference” picture, is more to the point of how situational awareness works. Many of the drills we do in class are designed to improve this skill. Identification, Prediction and Avoidance are the key skills of the Close Protection Operative and should be the skills that every individual looks to develop, rather than just their physical self-defense and martial arts skills.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=89 Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=88 If a mugger presents you with two options, at knifepoint, to: a) hand over your wallet, or b) get cut, you can be sure of a few things. Firstly, they have had the foresight to purchase a knife, with the understanding that this equips them to give weight to their threat/demand and punish non-compliance and secondly they can be assured that their victim understands the benefits of complying i.e. not getting cut. If they deliver their demand in a confident and controlling manner, you can be sure that they understand the potential consequences of what they are doing and are likely to stick to the agreement they are presenting. If they are emotional, nervous and appear out of control the less likely they are to understand and conform to the terms they are using to negotiate with. A threat is basically a negotiation – you comply this happens, if you don’t this happens. The context is everything; the emotional state of the aggressor the determining factor. I have lost count of the times, that a person I have thrown out of a club, pub or bar has promised to do something to me e.g. to come back with a weapon, with friends etc. Whilst I take all types of intimidation seriously, the ones where a person immediately tells me (or other people) of their intentions, scares me a lot less than the person who goes quietly and says nothing – but later indicates their desire to cause me harm. Delay, is a key factor in determining seriousness and intent. When I consider these two things, context and delay, I get a good picture about a person’s intent. An emotional person who immediately makes threats or promises to hurt me, is far less of a threat than somebody who later becomes emotional and makes promises of causing harm and injury (without any alternatives e.g. if you do this or that you will avoid harm etc), especially if those promises are made privately and not publicly – though such private threats often become public before the aggressor means them to. I have also lost count of the number of times somebody has told/promised me they would kill me – words spoken in a moment mean little to nothing – after escorting someone out of a bar or pub, moving them on from a particular location, recovering goods etc. When a threat is made in the moment e.g. you better buy me another drink or I’ll kill you, I know it contains little to no power – this doesn’t mean I shouldn’t take it seriously, rather that I understand that the demand comes from a place where the person isn’t confident about achieving their goal via any other means – they feel the need to intimidate – and so make extreme demands and threats that are far beyond the alternative they are suggesting e.g. death versus a drink. Such individuals, who are motivated by fear, are often relieved and grateful, when you comply with their demands. Understanding when somebody “negotiates” from a position of weakness, should tell you a ton about being able to resolve a dispute peacefully. The person who starts with the most extreme threat, is like the person who starts the fight with a big swinging overhand right; it’s the best they’ve got, there’s nothing beyond it – they want that one thing to end the dispute. The individual who starts with passive demands, “you should think about doing this”, that then transfers to active demands, “this is what you should do’, which then later evolve into actual threats, “if you don’t do this, this is what will happen” need to have such statements taken much more seriously, as they are the most likely to act. People who act in the heat of the moment aren’t thinking beyond the moment and if they can be made to consider the consequences of their potential actions will often end up dissuading themselves from acting. The person who builds to action over time has possibly/probably thought about these and considered them and come to a conclusion about how to avoid or mitigate them. At the same time they still have the underlying emotion of aggression, which they have continued to feed. We refer to these situations as “Slow” and “Fast” Burn. The person who builds up with promises and threats of ever increasing intensity and degree is far more likely to act physically than the fast burning person even though the danger they pose seems more immediate – if a small amount of time and space can be created then de-escalation is definitely possible. The person who listens and ignores the alternatives to violence that are suggested and starts to increase their demands and promises is much more likely to act.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=88 Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=87 In last week’s Blog Post, I talked about some of the reasons why people become violent. When a person see’s or believes there is no alternative to achieving their “goal”, which in many cases is undefined, they will often turn to violence as a solution – the lack of a definable goal may in itself may lead them to become violent, as being not sure what it is they are looking to achieve, they use violence as a an insurance policy to make sure whatever goal it is, is covered e.g. a person who has a drink spilt over them in a bar, may not actually understand what assaulting the person responsible will achieve but they do know, certain things will be accomplished, such as punishing the person, re-asserting their social position/dominance etc. If they have found that violence has “worked” for them before, or seen examples of it working for us (such as growing up in a violent neighborhood etc) they are more likely to have violence as a solution on their list of possible responses to certain situations. People will also become violent, not just when angry (when there is a perceived sense of justification to get physical) but also because of fear. Physiologically and emotionally anger and fear are basically the same thing – both involve becoming adrenalized with the preparation to act physically: either to run, attack or defend. The only thing that differs is a person’s interpretation of their state. If they are angry they see themselves as playing an “attacking” role, if afraid, a “defending” one. Even a cornered rabbit will attack it’s aggressor if it sees no way to disengage and escape, and nervous/fearful dogs are far more likely to snap and bite, than confident more reassured ones. Being fearful/afraid doesn’t lessen a person’s instinct to attack, rather it heightens it. If a person who is afraid sees no alternative to solving the situation except through violent means they will initiate the assault. It doesn’t matter whether a person is angry or afraid, a lack of alternative means to resolving a situation, will cause them to become violent. Pain and discomfort also increase a person’s propensity to use violent means. Numerous studies have demonstrated this, including ones where it was found that on hot days, people with no air-conditioning in their cars, were far more likely to use their horn and shout at other drivers, than those who could control the temperature of their environment. Crowded clubs, bars and sports matches often involve people bumping and knocking into others. If someone has their foot stepped on in such a situation or finds themselves being elbowed in the ribs etc, their “bite-reflex” may well be triggered. Dogs have a bite-reflex that can’t be untrained. If a dogs tail gets caught in a door it will snap out at whatever person or animal is nearest (it’s a preservation instinct). Dog Owner’s should train their pets, when puppies, what is acceptable “bite pressure” – I did this with my dog when he was young. The result is that when the dog’s jaw feel’s flesh it releases its grip, so even when its bite reflex is triggered as soon as it feels that it has a person’s arm or hand in its mouth it will release. Humans too have a “bite reflex”, where they lash out at whatever they believe is the cause of their pain and discomfort. If they haven’t been “trained” to seek alternative solutions and feel justified in the use of force, then there will be no brakes in place to stop them acting physically. Creating space and time, not only gives you the time to prepare and plan for a potential assault, it also gives the person who is preparing or thinking about making an assault the chance to have that process interrupted either by your presentation of alternative solutions and/or by inherent braking mechanisms. There are of course those individuals who have no time or interest in finding alternative means for dealing with disputes and grievances and these should be dealt with in a fast pre-emptive manner.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=87 Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=86 Reasons for Violence People become aggressive for a variety of reasons, sometimes simply because they don’t have any positive outlets for that aggression (such as sport, exercise or healthy argument/discussion) and so certain situations give them the excuse/outlet they are looking for, but more oftentimes due to a perceived lack (or loss) of status and esteem, where the person in question sees no alternative methods or ways but violence to rectify this. If an individual believes that they are not being recognized or acknowledged by others, to be seen as they see themselves they may feel forced to demonstrate their significance using violence. If you knock a drink over somebody in a bar/pub, and this occurs in front of their friends, they will probably feel a myriad of emotions including: humiliation, shame, loss of status etc. If not given a way to subdue these feelings and save face in the situation they may feel/believe that the only way to rectify the way they see themselves being perceived  is to become aggressive and violent i.e. dominate the situation this way. In their mind there is no other alternative. We are social creatures and social status is extremely important to us. How we are seen by others matters. It is difficult for somebody to back away from what could be perceived as social slight, whether it is real or not. If a person sees no alternatives to solving a problem i.e. regaining their position in the pecking order/social spectrum, other than by using violence they will become violent. If a person hasn’t developed other methods of resolutions, such as by discussion and negotiation etc and they are already “pent up” through having no natural releases for their “natural aggression” (and aggression is an innate part of our behavioral make up), they are more likely to gravitate towards using violence. Often we make the mistake of believing that people act after going through the same decision-making process as ourselves, and by seeing the situation as we see it. Both are false premises to work from. The same situation can be viewed entirely differently by different players in it. The person who spills a drink over someone understands how the accident happened e.g. they moved to avoid someone and their elbow knocked against a glass on a table. The person who the drink has spilt over, realizes they are wet, their clothes stained and everyone is waiting to see how they act to this injustice. It matters little whether the event was seen as an accident, the audience is waiting to see how everything plays out. In a wolf pack, it matters little if a particular wolf curls up to sleep where another dog normally sleeps by accident etc, they have made a challenge that needs to be answered. Humans are no different – we rise to such challenges. Whether a person chooses to become violent in such a situation is normally dependent on their belief in their ability to handle themselves in the situation – people become violent because they can. If the person knocking the drink over is 6ft 5 and weighs 320 lbs of pure muscle and the person who has had the drink spilt over them, weighs little more than a photocopy of themselves they are less likely to see physical violence as an option, than if the roles were reversed. Unless, that is, they have something that could equalize such physical inequalities such as a knife or gone. People become violent because they can. When trying to diffuse potentially violent situations you need to do the following things: Allow the person to regain their social status Show them an alternative to physical violence Demonstrate that they don’t have the ability or means to become violent This is the beauty of Krav Maga Yashir’s “De-escalation” or “Interview Stance”. Firstly it is non-confrontational. Although an action or behavior could be misinterpreted as challenging e.g. knocking a drink over someone, the body posture adopted immediately afterwards with the hands up in a non-confrontational  manner, demonstrates that this isn’t the case. De-escalation stance is the only stance that you will ever have time to adopt, as it is used in the pre-conflict phase of violence. If you are suddenly assaulted without warning there is no time to adopt any stance. By creating distance and putting up a “non-confrontational guard” to protect you, you give a potentially violent person the time to question whether they are able to attack you. This moment of hesitation is what allows you the time to show/demonstrate alternatives to violence e.g. offer to buy another drink, pay for dry cleaning etc. Never deny responsibility as it is to reaffirm that what has actually happened is/was a deliberate challenge. Even if what has happened, hasn’t happened e.g. if someone makes the challenge “are you looking at me?” the correct answer is “yes”, qualified by a reason, such as, “I’m sorry I was just spacing out I had a hell of a day at work and I was just lost in my thoughts of whether I’d be fired or not.” You don’t deny the situation but you demonstrate you are anything but a threat. In fact you’re somebody that your aggressor should feel sorry for and if they do start to become aggressive you can always demonstrate your non-victim status by adding, “,which is why I’m in this foul mood and I feel like I’ve nothing else to lose, in fact I just want to kill somebody…” (I’m just kidding on this last part). The key things in de-escalation spontaneously violent situations are not to deny what has happened, demonstrate and show alternatives to violence, to show you are not a threat whilst at the same time making the person understand that while you accept all of the above you, yourself are not a victim. All this should be done from your de-escalation/interview stance.      https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=86 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=85 I started my own business – teaching Krav Maga & Personal Training - because of fear. Many people don’t ever put a dream on the line and start a business because of fear. I know of people who want to quit their job and open a restaurant etc but are afraid to do so in case it fails. Their fear holds them back. I understand this: in any venture you undertake there is always the possibility of failure, as is the possibility of success. However, I have always found that the more things you are in charge of (the more things you take responsibility of – my fear was always having somebody else to be responsible for these things which is why I’ve never enjoyed working for someone else), the more your focus shifts to getting these things done, the less it concentrates on all the things that could go wrong. Taking charge of something immediately shifts your attention away from the obstacles to the goal that you want to achieve. This is the strength of New Year resolutions. We all make New Year’s Resolutions, whether we admit them publicly or keep themselves to ourselves privately. The strength and power of these resolutions are that we rarely consider failure – the alternative to success. It always seems possible for us to achieve our goals however unrealistic they may be. This is the power of a New Year e.g. despite being sedentary for all of 2012 it seems feasible that we’ll be able to run 3 miles a day, every day, in 2013. This belief creates great power, both for success and for failure. If we don’t take charge we will fail. For many people, joining a gym or starting a Krav Maga program etc is that first moment of taking charge – this is where they overcome their initial fear. We all know that physical activity “hurts” – we have all had to run, fall over and possibly get hit and we know what the consequences are. Engaging in a Krav Maga program means all of these things, amplified. We’re not stupid – we want to avoid them. There are always more reasons not to train than to train, whether you are a beginner or an old hand. I’m currently making  a big hit on my cardio performance, and there are always a million more reasons to not go to the gym than to go to it. However I want to achieve my goals and so I’m taking charge of them – I’m not giving myself the room or the reason to fail. One of the most important ways to do this is to establish a routine. If I’m due to attend a training session every other day at a particular time – the more likely I am to do it. If I leave everything “fluid” and just have my mind open to the possibility of training I know it won’t happen – there are a million reasons why it won’t. If I take charge of it and say that I will (at a particular time and place etc), I have no reasons why it won’t. It really is this simple. This same mental process works/goes hand in hand with dealing with violence. If you have a process/things to take charge off, it will prevent you going from both going into a state of shock/fear as well as questioning everything you have been trained to do e.g. put your hands up, talk to the person , control range etc. If you have something to do you have no excuse in not doing it. Life is always a choice. You can stand there hands down whilst somebody continues to scream and shout at you, you can sit on the couch and talk to yourself about how you need to get fit and lose weight etc, or you can take charge of yourself and give yourself actions (and activities) to complete. It is always better to be engaged in doing these things than simply thinking about them. Starting my own business was never frightening and nerve racking because I was too busy engaged in doing it. This may seem simplistic however that was always the truth. I never thought about the alternatives but rather took control and became preoccupied with “doing” and “realizing”. One of the reasons I get such a kick about being in the U.S., is that I think this attitude is embodied in the culture. Baseball is the craziest game/idea on the planet. I watch kids continually miss the ball in practice – when learning, and even playing they miss more times than they hit, but they keep going – they are taking charge of what they are doing, so failure doesn’t enter into the process (they have one thing to concentrate on – hitting the ball). If only this attitude could be applied into the “adult” arena, then every New Year’s Resolution could be realized. Accepting the failures is part of taking charge, it’s part of the process. The hard session at the gym/studio, where it feels like you’re going to die, the technique you keep mucking up, it’s part of the process. This is the year to take charge of your life, to concentrate on achieving something and becoming so focused on that, that failure never enters the equation. Become so focused on hitting the baseball that you forget the times you don’t and believe every opportunity represents a chance for you to do so – this is about taking charge. Whatever goal or aim you have for 2013, this is the way to achieve without letting fear get in the way.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=85 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=84 As we leave 2012 and enter 2013, I know people’s minds turn to improving and bettering themselves on the mats, so I thought I’d jot down a few ideas on how to help people up their game this year. Each training session set yourself a goal; some particular area of your game that you want to improve on. Be honest with yourself about the importance of these individual goals e.g. we all want to be able to hit harder but if in reality our biggest area of concern, or weakness, is movement then this probably deserves attention first. Train with and surround yourself with people who have the “right” attitude. This doesn’t mean the toughest, strongest or most physical people but those who train in a way that will help you develop your skills and abilities. Training with people who hit hard, are overly competitive and want to demonstrate their own ability is good at times but if you are only able to “test” yourself at this level, you won’t be able to “learn” and improve at the same time.  It is also your responsibility to be that partner who can help others – you need to train in a way that people want you to be one of the training partners they surround themselves with. It cuts both ways. Take strength from being part of the school. When the Allied Generals planned the Normandy Landings of the 2nd World War, they knew that as soon as the landing boats came in to range of enemy machine gun fire and their doors open, their soldiers would be walking into a solid wall of bullets. The task to wade through the water and get on to the beach itself would be almost impossible, let alone to fight up the beach to the enemy gun emplacements. Their belief that this was achievable was not based on superior technology etc but on two premises – one taken from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”: 1. if you put people on “Killing Ground” where they have no choice but to fight or die, they will fight with added determination and zeal and 2. If those people have something that is common and shared, they will support each other to incredible lengths – it is no coincidence that regiments and companies are based on localities, with soldiers from the same towns, cities and areas being grouped together. This common bond that joins people together increases the strength of the unit. When I competed in Judo during the 90’s I drew a lot of support from being part of a team, I didn’t want to let fellow members down and I willed them to do their best; I drew strength and I hope I gave strength to the unit. When you step out on to the mats, give yourself no choice but to train with the most effort you can and draw from the strength of the people around you giving the same.   Think whilst you are at the studio. To many people get caught up simply with “doing”, without understanding, or taking the time to make sense of what they are doing e.g. our system teaches every escape from a hold or similar in steps and stages – when you are listening to instruction make a mental note of each step, not just the first and the last, which is the most common method. Don’t simply try and copy the complete movement, so you end up with something that looks like the technique, take the time to register all the components and pieces that make it up. I remember the first time I was taught to apply chokes and that I at first only squeezed in one direction – it looked like a choke and felt like a choke but it was extremely ineffectual; when I slowed down and dissected the choke (and listened to my instructors complete list of instructions) and looked at all the components I realized that I needed to squeeze in three directions at once. What I had before “looked” like a choke without really being one. There is a reason why our instruction is so detailed – we should not just be looking to be good, we should be looking to be excellent, or as Jim Collins put it, “Good is the enemy of Great”. You should not be on the mats to acquire belts but to master everything you learn. At the same time understand when it is not your day and accept it – this is one of the keys to doing well in training. I lose count of the number of Krav Maga courses and camps I’ve been on, most of these have lasted at least a week, or 9 days (my first Krav Maga instructor course lasted 29 days – which is the standard in Israel). It took me a while to realize that at the start of the course, on my first few days I would be useless, not really getting any of the techniques etc. I used to spend those days questioning my ability, if I was working out of my depth etc. It took me a while to realize that for these first few days, they would not be “my day”. Depressing and disheartening as they were I had to accept them, work through them and keep going, understanding that eventually everything would click and I’d be able to perform as I should expect to. I have never been a natural athlete and I have to accept that, along with the fact that I’ll have bad days, when everything I do goes wrong. Learn to accept that you have these and move on. Don’t put pressure on yourself for the next training session – just step out on to the mats and enjoy yourself. Training is serious but it should be enjoyable and rewarding. This year set yourself some realistic goals e.g. I want to improve my movement, I want to get more powerful in my kicking or punching or both. Make them specific, not general. Just having a desire to be better overall will be hard to achieve but working on some specifics will give you something to judge your progress by as well as the ability to ask for specific instruction and advice. Set these goals and don’t change them for others, that mat seem more important, only to change them again as others seem more important etc. Consistency in desire is the most best way to achieve your goals. Have a great year of training in 2013.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=84 Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=83 An extra-ordinary event often causes us to focus on our day-to-day security and safety. An event such as that in Connecticut has had many schools, including my 6 year old son’s, looking to do something – anything – that increases, or has the appearance, of increasing school security. I always understand the need to do something in light of a serious security breach (and disaster); however often the procedure, process or measure put in place does little to address the actual dangers and threats that may be faced. Whilst my son’s school has implemented some procedures that look to identify unwanted person’s trying to gain access to the school, especially during morning drop-off, the relative chaos in front of the school, which would make it relatively easy for a pedophile to abduct a child hasn’t been recognized or addressed. Many parents/guardians still text or talk to other parents when dropping off their children, without having them in their eye line at all times, relying on harassed school staff to ensure their safety. The focus of unwanted shooters in the school has meant that looking at overall security has taken second place to one particular threat/risk. If a child is ever abducted from the front of school I am sure the focus will shift on to this particular danger – till then it will all be about unwanted persons (armed/unarmed) within the school, not outside it. After 9/11, much of airport security was stepped up – to prevent unwanted people from getting aboard a plane however “overall” airport security was addressed in only a few locations, Boston not being one of them. On one occasion around 2009 when I was flying back to the UK with my family, we used a porter to get our luggage from the taxi to the check in desk. Our luggage was left in one place, near to the check-in desks, whilst we were told by the porter to join the winding queue that would move us away from our luggage. I asked him, what would stop me leaving the queue and the airport, and my luggage e.g. that I was a terrorist who had filled my luggage with explosives, who would drop them off, join the queue and then leave it and the airport. There was no process that informed the check-in staff of who in the queue had luggage left to pick up or that associated me to my left luggage – I also wasn’t sure how I could honestly answer the question, “has your luggage been with you at all times?” (As obviously it hadn’t). Although it hasn’t happened for a while Arab Terrorists have often attacked airline check-in desks and those people waiting to be served. Whilst unaccompanied luggage in airports is as a matter of course identified and if necessary destroyed, that which is seen to be accompanied – even if it has no one in attendance – is built in to the processes that airports use. It will unfortunately take a tragedy to address this particular issue. Security and safety is an afterthought for most of us (and most institutions) and something that we look at in light of certain events and perceived risks. Schools in the US at the moment are understandably looking at the risk of mass-shootings and terrorist acts – yes, the Connecticut shootings were an act of terrorism, despite not being committed by a named organization and/or foreign group (it would be positive and progressive for US News Agencies to categorize and name such incidents this way). Unfortunately this may well take their focus and attention away from other real and possible more likely dangers and threats. Schools, Airports and Ourselves etc should take a look at the way we view and address risk from an overall and complete perspective. This will help us predict and prevent future violence rather than simply implement specific and singular measures against one particular type of violence. We must be honest in our approach to this and accept the need for processes and procedures that may inconvenience us and carry a cost. When everything is going great, this cost/inconvenience may seem too high and time consuming but in light of a disaster such as a school shooting or similar terrorist act any safety procedure however costly will be seen as worthwhile. Now may be the time for us all to revise the way we live our lives from an overall rather than specific personal safety perspective.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=83 Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=82 I’m always dismayed at people’s first reaction to the events involving school shootings. The gun lobby, immediately go on the defensive and say, “this has nothing to do with guns”, and the anti-gun lobby straight away state that the only solution is to ban or restrict gun ownership etc. Firstly, and I’m aware I’m taking a patronizing, moral high ground approach etc, no event of this nature should have anyone rushing to their keyboard to make a Facebook post or twitter tweet to try and make their case or argument. Sometimes the best and most dignified response is to say nothing – especially till all the facts are clear. In the last few days I have read much about how similar events don’t take place in the UK because we have a ban on handguns and automatic weapons – the only gun ownership allowed is for farmers and those in similar occupations to own a shotgun (a pretty devastating weapon in its own right). An interesting UK statistic, is that Farmers have the highest suicide rate, next to dentists when the stats are viewed from an industry perspective; with the most common method of “attempted suicide” involving a shotgun placed into the mouth – an ironic result being that such a shot rarely kills the person but instead ends up performing a partial lobotomy on them, which often ends up curing the depression which caused the attempted suicide in the first place. In my mind there is no doubt that giving people an available means to fulfill their innermost desires/dreams is a step in empowering them to act upon them.  In 1987 and 1996 two events occurred in the UK, which lead to the weapons ban that is often referred to and cited as the model for gun control in countries where similar “mass killings” still exist e.g. the US. These two events, which lead up to the ban, are slightly different but give some ideas as to why firearm bans and gun control can seem appealing and can certainly lead to significant reductions in certain types of crime/violence. In 1987 a 27 year old gunman, Michael Ryan, armed with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun went on a rampage in the town of Humgerford killing 16 people, including his mother. In 1988 a law went into place restricting the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and restricted the use of certain shotguns. In 1996 43 year Old Thomas Hamilton entered Dunblane Primary School armed with four handguns (not banned in the 1988 law) and shot dead 16 children and an adult. After this, all firearms with a few exceptions (UK farmers etc) were banned. These acts and laws, from what can be ascertained stopped “Mass” Shooting sprees, in the UK i.e. we have not had such an event since 1996 (17 years) that involved mass/multiple killings. This is despite the fact that firearms are relatively easily obtainable in the UK e.g. I could walk into many pubs in Scotland or England and emerge, for a price, with a suitable weapon. There are however two restrictions that are on me: 1. I have to be tapped in to the community that has access to these weapons, which are normally reactivated weapons in plentiful supply i.e. I have to be a criminal) and 2. I have to have access to ammunition – something that has become in short supply since the weapons ban.   These things are two obstacles that an enraged and emotionally disturbed individual(s) has to overcome – and the UK Criminal Fraternity are usually pretty good at spotting these individuals in the first place and won’t supply them etc. In essence these two things have become the UK’s legal restrictions on gun carry; plus, there really was no gun culture in the UK in the first place and this s perhaps the most important point – when the weapons ban took place it affected a very small minority of the UK population; something that could not be said if a similar ban were to take place in the US. It is also important to note that the UK citizens never had a “right to carry” their firearms concealed or unconcealed in public. I say this because many Americans believe that the now high rates of violence involving edged weapons (blades, knives etc) in the UK is a direct result of our firearms ban – simply not the case. The fact that the UK has extremely tough knife laws and yet continues to see the levels of violence involving edged weapons that it does, shows that legislation alone doesn’t prevent or stop violence. The US culture is one where firearms play a defining role (whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is irrelevant), and legislation will do little to change or alter this. The fact that a “disturbed” individual can acquire a large cache of firearms is difficult to legislate against, because such a person is actually hard to distinguish from the responsible citizen who has a wide array of firearms that they use in a safe manner for recreational purposes. Enforcing a weapons ban in the US would penalize these individuals, who make up a large percentage of the US population (something that wasn’t the case in the UK). One step that could have a positive effect in identifying individuals who may be looking to own and possess firearms that they would use to take life, was if the fire-arms community took a level of responsibility in policing itself. If owners of firearms were required to be “active” members of a local gun club, and pass a vetting procedure to become a member then a level of profiling could be added. In July of this year there was a shooting in a cinema in Colorado by James Eagan Holmes, who had earlier been refused membership/had his application turned down of a gun club he tried to join. I’m not saying that such a requirement would have stopped or prevented the shooting however the identification of a potentially dangerous individual only became apparent after the event. If you own a firearm you should be at a range practicing with it regularly – and I would argue, tested on your proficiency (something required in Israel) – the last thing that would have been wanted was a non-proficient carrier trying to respond to Eagan in a crowded movie theater. The anti-gun lobby in the US have to accept that blanket bans on weapons or types of weapons will be unsuccessful – the prohibition era should have demonstrated that you can’t change cultures by legislation – and the gun lobby needs to stop making the repetitive argument that it’s people not guns that are to blame; I agree but let’s start to make an effort to look at and identify these individuals and take a level of responsibility for “policing” them. The UK never had its gun laws right before the ban, and the ban itself was extreme and excessive. It is also a lesson in how individuals can get around such legislation (i.e. Hamilton in 1996 used Handguns, which weren’t banned in the 1988 law). In light of recent events the US would do well to avoid such drastic responses by the anti-gun lobby however those in favor of ownership should start to make pro-active recommendations for how such events could be possibly prevented in the future, rather than make the same tired responses and arguments that have failed to satisfy their critics – the UK hasn’t had a mass shooting since the weapon ban took place and this is a hard argument to counter. If the UK had better laws and requirements around gun ownership in the first place, there may never have been the call for such a ban in the first place. It’s time for the gun lobby to stop responding to mass shootings from a defensive position and make a case for what it can do to police its own community (of which these criminals are part of, whether people like this or not), more efficiently and effectively. I don’t believe banning ownership of firearms is necessary however I do believe that responsibilities need to be taken and realities accepted. It is impossible not to feel for those parents who lost sons and daughters in the Connecticut School Shooting and not agree that the killers access to the weapons used played a part – if any parent (and I include myself in this) lost their child in this manner I would argue that firearms restrictions and legislation would be a natural first thought. However at the same time it was the mental state of the Killer that drove him to commit this atrocity and had he been forced to be part of a community (a gun club) that could have identified him as a threat then this or another atrocity he may have committed, using explosives etc, could possibly have been prevented. If it is time to accept that one of the consequences of having a “gun culture” requires armed guards in Schools and Theatres i.e. certain public places this should be accepted and the gun lobby should get behind it. If we have cars that can drive above the speed limit and acknowledge that we have to have police and state troopers to restrict this misuse, then it may be time to acknowledge that we need people/individuals who are trained and able to do this where firearms are concerned. A large proportion of Israel’s GDP goes on defense. I remember Dennis Hanover making the point that if all of that resource could have been put into construction and education etc what an incredible country Israel would be – more so than it is now. However the reality of Israel’s situation e.g. neighbors who want it pushed into the sea/destroyed, Iran supplying medium range rockets to its aggressors and conducting its own long range missile program against it etc, means that that is where that money has to be spent. If it is time, because of its situation with firearms, for resources in the US to be put into security at the public level (schools, malls, cinemas etc) then that should be accepted and the cost borne. There really is no price that can be put on safety.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=82 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=81 In a fight there is no such thing as a “defensive” action; everything has to be offensive in its nature and its attitude: a block has to be an attack and an escape has to be an attack etc. If your intent is not to cause harm and damage in everything you do your head is in the wrong space. There are no passive or neutral actions in a fight. This week in class we have been looking at defenses against side-headlocks. It should always be remembered that strangles, chokes and controls are things that you should prevent from happening. They are “worst case scenarios” that occur because something has gone wrong e.g. that you have not controlled range, that you have not kept your head over your hips, that you have not been aware of third parties in your environment etc. The fact that 95% of violence starts face-to-face means that when you are dealing with violence, escapes from various controls should not be necessary – you should have dealt with the situation before such attacks and controls can be made. If you are looking to prevent or deal with a particular attack before it occurs your escape/defense can actually become an offensive maneuver or technique; a setup and control that features as part of an attacking combination etc. I am continually fascinated by the mindset of people who come to class or attend seminars etc whose goal is to learn how to escape and deal with various situations as opposed to learning how to prevent them. In Seminar situations, where I’m trying to teach broad and universal solutions to violence I’ll often get someone who asks the question, “but what if they’ve pinned me against a wall” etc. My immediate response is, how did you get in that situation? I’m not trying to dodge the question but rather communicate the point that the worst the scenario you face, the more likely you’ve failed in trying to put appropriate defensive measures/tactics in place. We can always imagine the worst, and must have the appropriate skillset in place for when it happens, however we should also recognize that we have the power to stop these situations occurring. Side Headlock attacks have to be “setup” i.e. there are certain events that precede them – mainly on behalf of the person being attacked. If a person keeps their head over their hips this type of attack is completely nullified comply to the general  principals of Krav Maga) however there are always the situations where this isn’t possible;  which is why there/The system has to have a counter to the attack. If a person recognizes as they’re making their own attacks that an individual may try and counter what they are doing by trying to “side-headlock” them then the technique to deal with such an attack can become offensive rather than defensive e.g. a person can palm off a side headlock attack and continue their assault etc. This same “palm off” being the starting position for dealing with a committed side-headlock defense. An attack/assault occurs along a timeline. Hopefully you can pick up on this at the earliest opportunity and walk away, if not you should be looking to prevent the assault, and if failing that to deal with it when it is in the attackers infancy – before it’s a fully committed/completed attack. I’m old school. I grab you you’re thrown or swept, I hit you, you don’t get up (this is how I think), your job is to make sure this doesn’t happen. Understand why we train the way we do. Yes, we will continue to teach escapes, counters and escapes etc but also understand the context (and likelihood of the attack/threat). If you can avoid the threat, control range etc and know how to de-escalate your safe. I’m subject to the same laws as everybody else – give me the chance to be reasonable and I will. Today we train. Let’s do so with a mind that looks to attack and not just respond to the threat – but rather deal with it I its infancy.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=81 Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=80 For many people gaining a Black Belt is looked on as the end goal or pinnacle of martial arts training, just as gaining a Bachelors or Master’s Degree etc is seen as something conclusive in formal educational terms. Martial Arts training is a one of the most unique educational systems around as it uses a system of mentoring, where one person oversees the development of another; this is why humility is talked about so often in the martial arts – it requires both the student and the instructor to recognize the relationship and work within it. In Karate this is referred to as “scared space”; the unique space on the mats where instructor and student meet and the real instruction and education takes place. Every martial art has to be adapted for the individual – if you look at the variations in the way that different people throw their roundhouse kick, you will see “self-modifications” e.g. some with a slightly straighter leg, some who step to turn the supporting foot and spin less etc, all of these kicks are both valid and effective – they adhere to the concepts and principles of the kick e.g. turning the body with the kick, moving the knee past the target etc, but they are all executed slightly differently. There’s nothing wrong with this. In fact it’s the beauty of Krav Maga – that a conceptual system allows for such physical variation(s). It is the instructor’s job to enter this scared space with that understanding and accept the individuals way of doing something (as long as it is based on sound principles). Equally the student has to enter that space with the desire to learn. Gyms are full of individuals who turn up and complete their workout and wonder why they’re not seeing improvements. During my time as a personal trainer I have lost clients that never really got it – that I wasn’t the answer- because they wouldn’t follow the program(s) that were designed, or somehow believed that they knew better and followed their own path. On the mats, these are the people who think they can choose their own way to Black Belt and their rate of progression. I remember as a young Judoka, spending a good few years at Blue Belt, not particularly caring about the belt (I’m still a 3rd Dan Black Belt – and have been for years) as I always recognized how much there was to learn and practice at that level. I will never stop practicing my basic punches and kick because I know from experience that it is the development of skills not the accruing of techniques that was the distinction between someone who is good and one who is bad. My favorite throw at Blue Belt as a Judoka is still my favorite throw some 20 years later. There should never be a rush to acquire new techniques just a desire to improve overall e.g. don’t have a yellow belt front kick as a green belt etc, this is what time on the mats means. Also in a system such as Krav Maga we are constantly reviewing and adapting techniques at all level, meaning a green belt may have to re-learn or adapt their training of such a technique accordingly. As we come towards a grading in December (a selection of Green/Black Belts will grade in March for Blue), students should start to look to work on skill development rather than technique memorization. I look more towards performances in stress tests and sparring than in rote learning of techniques. An understanding of the principles coupled with martial arts skills means that a Krav Maga students can create the solutions they need. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=80 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=79 Often when I present our Knife system, people find it hard to stomach from both a moral and legal perspective that we are prepared to use the assailants knife against them, rather than simply disarming and disengaging. Firstly we always stress disengagement, whether this is accompanied by blocking and striking, or by simply running and attempting to put distance and barriers e.g. parked cars etc. between us and our attacker. However when disengagement isn’t an option, then the only other two that really exist are to disarm your aggressor and/or use the knife against them. It is easier, simpler and more effective to do the latter. If you can’t disengage and you need to disarm your attacker, you are going to need to do something to prevent them from attacking you further, which probably means using the knife. It is simpler to start from this premise, of using the knife than working towards it. People often try to apply a “use of force” continuum that is applicable before a fight, to the fight itself. Avoiding and preventing physical violence should be at the heart of any self-defense, martial art or fighting system. Avoidance, de-escalation and disengagement are strategies that should be taught alongside the physical components. Most fights begin with a verbal exchange or argument and this is the time to start putting up barriers e.g. the arms in a de-escalation stance etc. and putting distance between you and your aggressor(s) – if you are dealing with a predatory individual this movement away may well be seen as a demonstration of fear and weakness and you should prepare to act pre-emptively, if you’re dealing with a spontaneously violent situation you are setting up the time and space for de-escalation etc. If you’re carrying a weapon you may be creating the space and room to effectively draw and use it. In many fights, you see individuals start to push and slap each other etc in order to try and dissuade the other person from getting any more physical. This gradual upping the ante of violence is rarely – I have never seen it – effective at convincing one of the parties involved to back down. I understand the theory and logic that is at work i.e. hit the person lightly to give them a taste of what you are actually capable of but don’t hit them hard enough to “start” a fight. Physical warnings rarely work and working up towards “full blown” violence is not an effective strategy. If you have made the decision to use physical force against another person, either pre-emptively or in response to their use of force, it should be absolute not “measured”. You may choose to “stun and run” e.g. slap the person and run away rather than punch them, however that slap should be delivered with full force. If you decide to eye-gouge, you should eye-gouge 100%. The type of attack you make is your choice not the level of force behind it. You should not work up to a fight, you should come at it with everything you’ve got from the first moment. Your job is not to prolong the fight but end it quickly, either by disengaging or debilitating your assailant(s) to the point where they no longer want to or can continue the fight. You are not a law enforcement official who is working to an agenda, and within constraints (and with a whole team backing or ready to back them up) when they are applying force. They may choose to use spray first, possibly followed by baton, followed by a firearm etc because their job is to apprehend people who are often non-compliant – a police officer doesn’t normally have disengagement at the top of their list. Back in the day, police officers were taught to use empty handed techniques before they drew a weapon, now the consensus is to use empty handed techniques in order to get to a weapon. A weapon, such as a baton once drawn may have a system of colored targets to direct an officer on where to strike and when, however when a strike is made it is done so full force – trainers will also often teach you the way to “interpret” an aggressor’s movement in order to be justified in using higher levels of force. Why? Because anyone who has dealt with real world violence knows that the quickest way to deal with the situation is to use maximum force as soon as possible. Something every aggressor tries to do. When somebody pulls a knife you have to assume that they are prepared to cut you, if they are you should be prepared to do the same to them – if not you are starting from a disadvantaged position. If the situation determines that you need to control the knife, you should understand that your aggressor will be trying to use the knife to cut you (if they haven’t already – they were threatening you with the knife). Even if you disarm them they won’t stop being your aggressor and there is nothing to stop them out of fear, anger and/or simple adrenaline to continue to assault you, even though you have a knife in your hand. Your disarm may simply be akin to a warning slap or punch that is aimed at dissuading your aggressor from taking things any further but does nothing to actually prevent them from doing so.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=79 Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=78 It always amazes me when people confuse, and miss, a learning opportunity because their eyes are set on achieving something different to that which the exercise they are engaged in, has been designed for. How people interpret the point of the activities they engage in has always fascinated me from a teaching perspective e.g. the person who misinterprets a drill designed to test and develop control of range as a lesson in aggressiveness and forward movement etc. These people often come away feeling they have achieved something (and possibly scored a point) because their partner continued to work with the purpose of the drill whilst they were working to an entirely different agenda. These are the individuals that write their own rules to training and at some point wonder why they’re never improving. A drill is not a replica of a street fight, or even a sparring contest. It is an activity which looks to develop and focus on a particular skill that is required to be proficient in a fight or physical conflict. The development of these skills, such as movement and range control is something that a certain degree of expertise is required in before it is tested under extreme stress and duress. You cannot test and master something at the same time however much of a hurry you may be in to do so. The purpose of a drill is to help you master something – if you’re unable to do this because you are following your own agenda or interpreting the drill according to your own agenda, and what you want to take away from it you are wasting both your time and your partners. Krav Maga often gets labeled as a system that is simple and easy to learn. Many people however interpret this in a way that makes fits in with what they want/wish to hear. Being “easy to learn”, is not the same as being “easy to master” – the Krav Maga blocking system can be taught and learnt in about 5 minutes, however to be able to use it to block the strikes of an aggressive or skilled assailant is going to take a lot longer than 5 minutes. Simple is not the same as simplistic; an idea, principle or concept can be simple and uncomplicated (as can a technique) but there can be a lot behind it. The Krav Maga blocking system utilizes a hand defense coupled with a body defense, which is a simple idea however the movement/direction associated with the body defense can give the principle a lot more depth to it than may first appear e.g. the body defense should also move a person into a prime attacking position. The drills that we use are designed to teach these principles and give practitioners room to explore and discover how these principles can be worked out in dynamic situations, whilst developing the necessary skills to put them into practice. It is easy enough to turn a drill into pursuing your own idea of what is important however you won’t really take much away from the experience, other than the knowledge that once again “you are right” J. We drill in every class, and playing by the rules of the drill and to the point of the drill is what will develop the skills you need to apply the principles and concepts of the system. Once these have been achieved you will start to be able to get the techniques you are taught to work… https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=78 Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=77 I just wrote a blog piece on what it is to be tough and the way adaptability plays into this and I want to give a first-hand witness account as to what toughness actually is. I have a son, Noah, who is six years old. About 3 months ago I realized he was hard of hearing. He now wears hearing aids in both ears. His world has always been one where he understood sound and speech to be of a certain volume – without any training he learnt to lip read to make up for his hearing deficiency. In his world he understood communication to be something where you heard a certain amount and you took visual clues to the rest. Nobody told him that this wasn’t how it was meant to be; he just figured out how he needed to communicate and adapted to the situation. For Noah, everybody communicated this way. This was his world. He now has hearing aids and his world is starting to reflect ours. Children often give us the best demonstration as to what being tough is actually about. The first thing is that they don’t question, they just do what is necessary. In survival situations, where children get lost in the woods etc, those under 6 have some of the best rates of survival e.g. they sleep when they’re tired, eat and drink when they’re hungry and more importantly they don’t recognize that there is an environment that exists beyond the horizon/the one they can see – children over 6 and adults often exhaust themselves trying to reach something they can’t see. Noah didn’t imagine another world he simply learnt to deal with the one he was in/could see. Acceptance of your situation is a key survival skill. When you face violence there isn’t a world beyond that which is facing you, there is just a situation to deal with.   Resilience is the positive outcome of adaptability. Learning to work with what you have and maximize it to face and effect the situation is a key survival skill. If you can’t listen, watch. Deprived of one sense, Noah learnt to use another. Some of us are athletically fast and powerful others of us aren’t, so we need to learn other survival skills: we need to lip read where/when we can’t hear. Not all of us can engage in a toe-to-toe fight etc, some of us are better at playing a “stun and run” game, where we attack/hit and run etc. Everything is about being able to naturally adapt to the situation. In training we must keep challenging and upping the intensity etc. This Friday, Myself and Noah went to Mass Eye an Ear to try and find out the cause of his hearing loss e.g. did it develop or was it inherent. Apparently, there is a genetic condition in Ashkenazim Jews (myself and my wife are of this descent), where their child can is prone to and can develop both hearing loss and at a later date loss of eyesight. Being able to adapt and manage to this is a real mark of toughness. There are 3 types of loss, and I hope, beyond hope, that Noah will not lose eyesight as well as hearing but I will also know that in his world that what he experiences is normal. We have a lot of tough people within our school, who accept the training and adapt to it; who understand the knocks and bruises they\'ll take without mentioning them and who trust that the world that is created for them on the mats is a safe and normal one. This is all about being \"tough\". Simply giving and taking a beating is not about being tough. I grew up in a “tough” environment, where my dad – like many others – spent time in prison etc, and I learnt to adapt and manage my situation; I thought it was normal (tht was my world). This is what being tough is about, being able to adapt to what the situation(s) you face without losing who you are within it, and accepting the extremes you face as being normal e.g. no big deal. It is possible to make a big deal out of everything e.g. a trip to the shops can be spun to be the most extreme thing etc. Sometimes we just have to accept that the situations we face are what they are and it\'s up to us to manage and deal with them. Violence may seem extreme however it is our choice to see it for what it is, put it in its plce, and manage it. We will meet on the mats this week, and we will all have the opportunity to be tough; that is we can train to the situations/partners we face and adapt accordingly or we can carry on doing what we do regardless.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=77 Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=76 It doesn’t take any intelligence to take a punch, nor does it take a lot of intelligence to throw one – most fights would never start if it did. Nor is it a mark of “toughness” to be able to take a beating; that is simply a matter of conditioning i.e. if you take enough shots in your life, you’ll be able to manage the physical pain – being bullied as a child taught me that one (you can hear and feel a rib crack in a very detached and disassociated manner). The endurance of physical pain is not in itself a mark of toughness, though many people, especially in the martial arts, believe it is. However the way in which you emotionally adapt to the pain is. I went to school with a lot of “tough” kids who had never been in a physical confrontation: those whose parents went through messy and aggressive divorces, those who had fathers in prison, and those who witnessed the death of a sibling or a close friend. They were tough because they knew how to emotionally adapt and cope with the potentially traumatic situations they faced, whilst not changing the person they were as an individual. It is common knowledge that bullies are cowards, weak and not really tough, however they are often more than capable of being able to dish out a beating (and take one) – something a lot of school bullying programs fail to acknowledge. Emotionally weak people are more than able to inflict both physical and emotional pain as well as injury. Most bullies have themselves been the victims of bullying. Where they are “weak” is in their emotional capacity to adapt to the physical and emotional punishment they endured; rather than become stronger themselves they engage and perpetuate in the activities they were subjected to e.g. spreading rumors, trying to isolate others and engaging in threatening or physically abusive behavior. This is not being tough this is putting up a façade and an image of what they believe society believes to be toughness and they’re often successful in doing so. Many people may have seen the “physical” portion of Animal Day as being the mark of toughness e.g. putting on the head gear/body armor and standing toe to toe with someone and slugging it out. After watching the video footage of everybody I noticed a correlation between the way people performed in the physical/aggression component and the way they handled themselves in the decision making/adaptability section. Some people were great at slugging it out they put on the headgear and started swinging, others started slow and then when they realized what was required of them started to up the intensity. These were the ones who coped best in the situation we presented. These were the adaptable ones: the tough ones. Physical pain needs to be recognized, often it isn’t recognized e.g. I’ve been hit on the head with mobile phones, full bottles of beer etc. and never realized what was happening. The foolish would argue that this was a mark of toughness. I’d disagree. I would rather be judged as being tough, for having been bullied without becoming a bully. It doesn’t take much to learn how to endure pain; a victim of domestic abuse will tell you how quickly they learnt to take a beating, and how much harder it was to come to terms with what was happening to them and adapt to their emotional situation i.e. the tough part. Understanding yourself in a difficult situation and honestly coming to terms with it is the mark of toughness. Watching video footage of CQC training footage is fascinating stuff. My favorite parts are watching the moments of realization and understanding on people’s faces and then seeing them make a decision. In my head I still relive the first time I did a CQC circuit; I vividly recall not handing over my wallet to an aggressor and as a result engaging in a fight in an environment that was totally stacked against me – it taught me a great lesson about not engaging when I didn’t have to. I carry that lesson with me daily. I fucked up and I know it. Lesson learnt. We think that the person who engages in every potential confrontation is the tough one. I disagree. Standing up to a situation is very different to engaging in one. Walking away from a threat, whilst your peers look on, is a difficult thing to do – that’s why we left everybody in the room who had finished the CQC circuit beforehand. Believing how you should act in front of others but following your own plan, ideas and decisions is about staying true to yourself. It’s about not following the predictable path/route but doing what is right. That’s being tough. If you think that being tough is about enduring physical punishment etc. there are plenty of MMA gyms etc that will take your money along with your face and make you tough. There is a physical component to toughness but learning how to take and give a beating is not the way. Learning to understand, interpret and adapt is. I always hope that people take from the mats. Not just the physical self-defense but the ability to adapt and respond to situations in their day-to-day lives. That’s being tough. I hope the CQC training last Saturday helped and advanced that.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=76 Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=75 Everything is a choice. There are good decisions and bad decisions; there are seemingly good decisions that will set you up for bad ones. Much of reality based self-defense and combat is based around the decisions you make i.e. there are times when it’s sensible to disengage and times when it’s best to engage etc. Sometimes you have to “play the game”, other times you can ignore it and walk away. This is what CQC/Close Quarter Combat training is all about – presenting the possible options for avoiding violence and demonstrating the potential consequences for engaging in it. In true CQC training there is always the option to avoid conflict and from a reality based perspective this is always the one you should choose. In Krav Maga we talk about “closed” and “open” drills. A closed drill is where there is a predetermined outcome e.g. you respond to somebody’s attack and they behave in a particular way. In an “open” drill there are no such scripts. From a purely physical perspective sparring is the ultimate “open” drill – you and your partner respond to each other as you want and don’t have to play any particular roles. CQC Training is basically the RBSD (Reality Based Self Defense) equivalent to sparring, where you have the chance to behave and act in a situation with few restrictions. This Saturday’s training illustrated a few things… Situations occur within environments and environments lend themselves to different types of combat etc, often you don’t know what you will be facing, or what will be required of you. As soon as you enter a situation that is potentially hostile you should be looking to assess the terrain e.g. what movements are going to be difficult – if you are on a train or a surface that is moving, your footwork is going to be restricted etc, are there objects in the environment that can be used to act as barriers and blocking obstacles and are there tools in the environment that can be used (nobody picked up the baton or noticed the knife). All of this has to be assessed in a few moments, often whilst other things are occurring. In our training this was mainly the information that the instructors were providing. It was interesting to note, looking at the video footage that nobody looked behind them when they walked in.  Reality exists behind you as well as in front. Not all information is relevant and information isn’t instruction. We have a tendency to fixate on certain details and forget to try and understand the entire situation e.g. not looking behind, or checking our “flanks” the moment we understand that we could be at risk. Walking through the door into the training environment was akin to moving from a non-conflict to a conflict aware one (People’s adrenal responses were often clearly visible). There were two buzz words that people heard “gun” and “exit” and different people evaluated them differently e.g. those with a law enforcement background realized the need to secure a hot/live weapon – different words mean different things to different people. There were also two routes to both; not everyone chose the route that was furthest from the most obvious threats – the instructors (we hadn’t booby trapped the training area!) – to get to their chosen target. There are no right or wrong answers in these training situations, or right or wrong things to do. People were motivated by different concerns and interpretations of the environment and went through different mental processes, and reached different conclusions that made sense to them. The value of these sessions is to consider alternative solutions and understand what these could have meant from a personal safety perspective and speed up the decision making process. I would still stand by the adage that it is better to do the wrong thing than nothing and from a self-defense perspective hesitation is akin to nothing. Reducing and eliminating this is a core goal of this type of training. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=75 Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=74 Many people are in a rush to both “test” a technique whilst at the same time and in the same process master it. Firstly, no technique is perfect and every technique has a supposed Achilles heel e.g. it is easy enough to argue that punching isn’t very effective against an opponent who is able to move out of the way every time someone tries to strike them – one of the things that makes a punch effective is the element of surprise and the accompanying speed with which it is delivered. If my partner knows I am going to put a particular wrist-lock on them, they are only required to move and tense in a particular way to prevent me being successful; something I can easily rectify by repeatedly slamming my thumb into their eye socket. If I mimic this action in a training environment by lightly placing my thumb on a person’s eyebrow, I would hope that in 95% of all scenarios they’d act as if the eye-strike had been made to the actual target and respond accordingly: for the most part training involves playing the game and drilling/practice requires a necessary level of compliance for an individual to discover how a technique works. The phrase “learn before you load” comes to mind. In a real life altercation I never press home a technique, if somebody is able to resist what I’m doing, I’ll simply move on to another technique and so on etc. This is a great way of training to deal with non-compliance etc but is totally useless if you want to learn and practice a particular technique i.e. you never get to practice that technique, which means you are limiting your progression. In a training environment, where somebody who knows the technique you are practicing resists, they are loading before you learn. There are times to offer resistance etc but normal practice isn’t really one of them. This is why we have sessions like “Animal Day” I had a student who was 210 lbs, a phenomenal athlete, and whose roundhouse kick rocked the world. The problem was that his roundhouse kick was technically terrible. If he could have applied some basic principles to his kick, it would have been phenomenal, but the instant reward of hearing the pad crack when he kicked it, would’ve been temporarily lost if he’d tried to alter and work on his kick properly – his ego wouldn’t allow him to take the necessary step back, and kick with less power, that would have seen him have to learn a “new” way to do his kick. He was much happier to continue on the way he was and in doing so “limit” his own improvement. Oftentimes we can believe we’ve reached our goal/end because we’ve surpassed the ability of those around us, rather than going on to modify/improve what we are doing. Our job should be to be the best individuals and practitioners we can; if we should be able to kick double what the person next to us is able to, then we shouldn’t be satisfied with our current effort and do everything we can to take the time to improve on what we have – we should learn before we load. Turning every training session into a “test” of techniques, and your ability to perform them, is like continually walking into an exam room without having done any revision, having opened the books and studied. Training all the time in a state of duress is not the method for learning how to succeed. Real life violence, and an aggressor’s exact movements can be hard to replicate in the training environment (especially if you want to train safely), and non-compliance doesn’t always just come in the form of physical resistance, it can come in the form of your assailant moving away, or moving to a different attack/assault (just as you would do in a real-life situation if met with a “non-compliant aggressor” who was thwarting your attempts to finish a particular technique). Non-compliance can be broken down and trained, we do this when we look at the different ways an aggressor can retain their weapon if a disarm is attempted. We can then build these into drills, that train and practice counters to all of the different ways/methods and then we can practice under duress and test what we have learnt. This is the progression and all need to be trained. On Saturday we will look at the different ways an assailant can counter what we do and how it is often necessary to forget “pure” technique and distill everything down to the bare bone principles and work off them – this is not the starting point for our self-defense but something we may be required to do depending on the assailants we may end up meeting. This is about thinking (or not thinking as it were) on your feet; this is the time we apply the load to what you\'ve learnt.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=74 Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=73 A central tenet of the Krav Maga Yashir system, is meeting an aggressor’s forceful/harmful intent with a greater degree of your own. This often flies in the face of many martial arts that teach a more Zen/Peaceful approach to self-defense; that the martial artist should be somehow held to a higher standard of conduct than their assailant. Krav Maga is an Israel system, and in the Hebrew Bible, there is the line, ”Im ba l\'hargekha, hashkem l\'hargo”, which translated means, “when someone comes to kill you rise up and kill him first.” Encapsulated in this line, is the basis of the attitude and intent you should have (and need) when dealing with aggressors. The street and other real-life locations, where violence occurs, differ from the mats, the ring and the cage. In these sport settings, the intent of your opponent is known i.e. they are looking to win according to the rules of the competition e.g. by points, a referees decision, a knockout, a submission etc. In reality when somebody starts screaming and shouting in your face, you’re largely unaware of their intent. You may be aware of the reasons and causes for the situation arising in the first place but you are largely unaware of the end-game that your aggressor may have in mind – your assailant may lack a defined end-game or outcome simply knowing they want to punish you, dominate and humiliate you for your actions and/or behavior. Underestimating your aggressor’s level of harmful intent is a dangerous game to play. I remember the first time I was hit as a kid. I thought the whole thing leading up to it was a joke and that everyone was on the same page; everyone else was, just not me. It took me a while to learn and realize that not everyone else shared the same view and perspective of a situation that I did – when you are bullied as a kid, you are desperate for friends and willing to believe that any signal of acceptance is real. In the adult world, you may think that spilling somebody’s drink is a minor inconvenience and something that can be easily rectified and discussed in a reasonable manner, the person whose drink you have spilled may have an entirely different view of the situation and be far from reasonable about it. If you start viewing such situations from the perspective of the way you would interact with yourself if you were the aggressor/assailant in a situation you are liable to underestimate the intent(s) and goal(s) of the people you are dealing with.                 Whoever you face, whatever the situation, you must assume that your life is at risk; that the person you are dealing with – regardless of your relationship with them (stranger, friend, family member etc) – is capable of finishing your life whether deliberately or inadvertently. Violence however trivial it may seem always has some risks associated with it. You must always assume that the fight you are in could be your last and that you must act accordingly. You must always assume, and never second guess, that the person you are dealing with wants to end your life. If somebody comes to kill you, you must kill them first.                 Where knife is concerned you should always assume that the person with the knife has come to kill you; unless they tell you or indicate otherwise e.g. in a threat situation you may be given options/alternatives, such as, the mugger tells you you’ll not get cut if you hand over your wallet etc, if they ask you to move to another location, they’ve definitely come to kill you. If a person with a knife indicates that they are going to use it, you must be prepared to use it against them to the same degree of lethal intent that they are demonstrating towards you. You may like to think of yourself as the righteous warrior however let me put you in a squash/racket ball court with someone armed with a knife and you’ll soon change your mind. You’ll fight to survive. If you get the chance to “disarm” someone of a knife, in situations where disengagement isn’t an option you will want to use it. Having the intent to use it is far more important than the ability.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=73 Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=72 Punching someone is a decision, stabbing someone – if you are armed with a knife, or have picked up a stabbing/slashing weapon in the course of a fight – is a decision. It is not one that you can reach only being 50% sure of your choice; hitting someone with only 50% of your power, will and emotion behind it is a dangerous and possibly irrelevant thing to do. When you decide to do something in a fight it has to be with full conviction, belief and harmful intent i.e. you have to be willing to inflict the most serious and utmost pain upon the person you are dealing with. Why? Because they have given you no choice; If you have to hit them etc, it’s because that is the only solution left available to you, the only one they have given you. You have the “Moral Authority” to act. I still recall the student who once asked me, if they eye gouged an assailant, should they do it to an extent of “just enough”. If you have to eye gouge somebody it’s going to be an eye gouge, there are no degrees of extent. If you punch a person, you are going to punch them. There should not be at this point an internal debate around “reasonable force” etc, if you have to punch somebody “reason” left the building several hours ago and you are into the stages of animal instinct and survival. You should always assume the person you are dealing with has a knife, until proven otherwise. The only time you will know that they don’t have a knife, or are unable to use it is when they’re unconscious; till that point they have a knife. How hard are you going to hit/punch a person you believe has a knife? If it’s less than 200 % you need to have a rethink. How quickly do you want to end a fight, which could see a knife being pulled? Before it’s begun and that means hitting first, and with everything you’ve got. This is reality. The “world” doesn’t like this message. It wants us to take our assailant by the hand, sit them down around a campfire and teach them the words to, “I’d like to teach the world to sing.” This is the Zen Bullshit and option that those who have never dealt with violence like to believe that martial arts and self-defense offers. The world doesn’t know about or deal in violence and I’m happy to say that we know better: that we do. When I put my hands up in an interview/fence/de-escalation stance I’m telling everybody (not just my assailant) that I don’t want to fight. I’m giving my aggressor every, and I mean every opportunity to walk away – not even back down – simply walk away. If that choice isn’t taken then you/I have the moral authority to act and that means acting with 100% conviction, because nothing less will cut it. Everybody should be ready to walk away however when that isn’t an option the only one that is left is full force and absolute pain. I know this is against everything that civilized society promotes however where violence is concerned society and it’s civilized behaviors cease to be relevant. Survival becomes key. If I have told a person I don’t want any trouble, whilst I back away, and they still keep coming I have the moral authority to act (I don’t need a lawyer or my best friends opinion), I just need to act. I have two choices. If I’m not able to position myself and the other person to land a devastating power strike, I will set one up with a soft strike, such as an eye strike/gouge or a hit to the stroke, or I will put myself in a position to finish them with one strike – it may take more but each one is delivered with that intent. I will present a made up statistic, 90% of all fights see the person making the first strike walk away with less injuries and consequences: sometimes referred to as a “win”. This is why throwing the first strike, with intent, is so important – as is following it up with equal intent. The first strike should disrupt the attack, the second should damage the attacker (combine the two and your ahead of the game), the third should be aimed at destroying the person and after that it’s about disengagement.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=72 Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=71 Everybody has a story that brings them to the mats. It may be a story that is based on real events, or one that is founded on a set of fears and insecurities, alternatively it may be one that is based on an idea of self-image that the person wants to realize and achieve achieve e.g. who doesn’t want to see themselves as the person who is able to defeat a group of attackers who are armed to the teeth, and then be applauded by passers-by? Whatever the story a person has that brings them to a martial arts school it can be something that helps to push them forward or which hinders their advancement – sometimes it is necessary to honestly re-visit the story in order to write the next chapter in a positive manner. This is what the traditional martial arts talk about as “humility”, which in practical terms is really about being honest with yourself and acknowledging who you are as an individual; there is nothing wrong with being scared of violence – it’s a healthy and sensible attitude to have. Ego might tell you otherwise however trying to be somebody you’re not when dealing with issues of survival is an extremely dangerous route to take. The You that you might imagine you should be may believe that you should confront any person(s) that tries to step above you in the pecking order /disrespects you but the you, who you actually are, knows that the potential consequences of doing so are often greater than you’re willing or able to bear e.g. what if a knife gets pulled, what if you have legal charges brought against you, what if the way you see yourself gets destroyed? The last one is often the one that wins it for most people: what if your self-image is ripped to shreds – few people will ever risk their self-identity and put it on the line. Those who are able to do so are the genuine tough guys. This is why I have the utmost respect for anyone who steps out on to the mats for the first time. It takes balls. For some people this is the greatest moment in their martial arts career. For some it represents the moment they conquered and overcame a crippling fear, for others it was a moment that was soon forgotten and discarded as they got caught up in training for the purpose of training, making sure that their self-image was projected across the mats; that in drills they were always one better than their training partner, that they gave better than they got, that there was always an excuse when they failed to perform etc. The person they realized they were when they first stepped out on to the mats is long forgotten. I never forget my first Judo Class (32 years ago) – because it let me know exactly who I am i.e. a scared, nervous anxious kid who knew that I had to do something about being bullied and behaving like a victim. In the years since I’ve not changed that opinion of myself, instead I just know what I have to do about it. I know what fear is and how to manage it, and I know the necessary and appropriate solutions to violent situations and when to apply them. I still feel the same fear and anxiety as I did all those years ago but now I know how to handle and deal with it and what reality requires of me. I have always felt fear and trepidation in the situations I have had to deal with, except on a few occasions when my fear system overrode this for me and put me on autopilot, however I have always been able to function and apply what I know (as well as being extremely lucky at times). To truly progress your ego has to be put aside, you must be honest about who you are and the story which brought you to training. Too many people expect that enough time on the mats will make the magic happen for them and they will change who they are. In fact it should be the opposite: you should acknowledge who you are in reality and then work to resolve and deal with this in training. The day I walk in, strutting my stuff, with my hoodie pulled up and fist bumping everyone you’ll know I’ve given up on this and resorted to my internal self-image; the person who I think I should be, not the person who I am. In ten days we have “Animal Day”, leave your image at the door and reconnect with who you are. Be honest and train hard to address that which needs to be addressed. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=71 Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=70 Throughout our lives we receive an education in violence, whether from situations we’ve experienced first-hand or from secondhand accounts concerning friends, acquaintances and friends of friends, news reports and other media sources (such as TV shows and Movies). From these we build “models of violence”. These models are templates that we use both subconsciously and consciously to compare what we see before us, to what we believe, or what our models believe violence looks like.  These models help us predict and evaluate whether certain situations (deserted alleyways, lonely streets etc) and/or people (those wearing hooded tops, having tattoo’s etc) pose a risk or threat to our personal safety. Oftentimes our models have been built on assumptions that are incorrect and seriously flawed e.g. that rapes occur by strangers as we walk home late at night, that assaults don’t happen in crowded places or are carried out by people we know, that muggings are restricted to deserted or isolated places etc. If we examine ourselves we will find that we have a lot of beliefs and ideas concerning violence that may seem to make sense to us but in fact aren’t based or founded in reality. A good example of this is the assumption many people make about muggings and street robberies. Most people believe that muggers target lone individuals in quiet areas and that they are safe in crowded places. This assumption is incorrect and is founded on one principle that creates and influences their model. If we believe that a mugger doesn’t want to get caught it may seem obvious that they’ll choose deserted areas in which to work however if we also add in the idea that muggers want a good source of people to rob, deserted areas don’t seem such a likely location. A mugger, a financial predator, is much more likely to hand around a crowded transit station or busy mall on a Saturday Afternoon where there is a rich supply of people (prey), who are likely to be carrying money. Most muggers are skilled enough at their trade to rob individuals without either other people in the crowd realizing what is going on or in the knowledge that those who do see the crime will be unlikely and unwilling to get involved. If our models are based on incorrect  assumptions and principles e.g. muggers don’t want people to see what they’re doing so they choose isolated and deserted locations for their robberies, we can prevent ourselves from acknowledging that there is such a risk to our personal safety when we are in crowded and busy locations. If our models are based on certain stereotypes we can also prevent ourselves from identifying the real risks to our personal safety e.g. if we associate the teenagers in hooded tops who hang around at the end of a street with violence we may fail to identify the good looking and smartly dressed man talking to us at the bar as a sexual predator – despite all the warning signals (Pre Violence Indicators) he is giving off. Sexual predators/rapists are usually skilled social players who dress well, are often good looking and more often than not are extremely charming, which is why they’re able to be successful at what they do – getting women to trust them and forget basic personal safety principles e.g. don’t get into a car with someone you don’t know etc. Basically they don’t fit our idea of what a rapist is. If our “model  of violence” concerning rape is that it is based on the assumption that the rapists motivation is sex, then we may be trying to identify unattractive and physically ugly men who we think would have a difficult/impossible time getting a woman to sleep with them. Rape however is primarily about “control” and not about “sex”, therefore men who are married, who have consenting partners and an active sex-life can also be rapists; and in fact make up the largest group of rapists. If we can understand the true motivation(s) behind the violence e.g. control instead of sex, we are much more likely to build solid models of violence, which will help us make accurate predictions or at the least stop us making inaccurate ones that may divert our attention away from more realistic threats. We have an inbuilt “fear system” that is designed to keep us safe – it moves us away from danger, often before we realize it and will hold us back (or at the least cause us to hesitate) from approaching situations which it deems dangerous. This system starts being educated during childhood and never stops learning and evolving e.g. if we hear a news report saying that there is a gang in our neighborhood who are distinguished by items of red clothing, when we see someone of a particular age wearing red our fear system will be triggered. This is an important concept to understand: our fear system is capable of being educated and we need to make sure we teach it the right things to be afraid of and not the wrong things. By creating effective and realistic models we can teach/educate our fear system to identify real threats and dangers and not be triggered by irrelevant or unreal ones. There is little point in us avoiding things and situations where there is no chance of harm just because we have built a certain model that identifies something as a risk. Many people have a fear of the mentally ill and although there are times when certain psychological disorders can result in violent behavior (normally when a person isn’t taking their medication) this is the exception rather than the norm, and yet many people have built models which suggest the mentally ill offer them a real and definite threat. Unfortunately when building and educating our models we have a tendency to focus on the extreme and the spectacular rather than the mundane. If we watch a movie or TV show about vampires and zombies, we may well go to bed scared imagining every noise we hear to be one of the undead breaking into our bedroom, if the media starts to report  on a series of seemingly random abductions and rapes of women by a long distance truck driver, we will start to look suspiciously at every truck and lorry that passes us by – at least while the memory stays with us (and this is an important thing to understand about our fear system…it can learn to forget as well). The problem is that such abductions are rare, and vampire and zombie attacks non-existent. The case of the truck driver scares us because of its supposed random nature: we feel we have no control over whether we’d be targeted or not. This lack of control results in us being more anxious and causes our fear system to take extra note of the idea that truck drivers represent a high risk. We’re scared of vampires and zombies for the same reason i.e. our inability to control their behavior or whether we’d be a target for them. On the whole the people who wish to cause us harm operate in the realm of the mundane and the ordinary; they don’t do spectacular things: they are the dates who at first seem nice but then won’t take no for an answer, the stranger who helps carry our shopping to the car but then doesn’t seem able to leave us alone, the fellow male student who insists on helping us with a study project but then seems to expect, and even insist that we should go out for a drink with them after a study night etc. This is not to say that every person who engages in such behaviors is less than well-meaning and genuine however these are the “unspectacular” openings and opportunities that the majority of predators use. Being randomly abducted from the street is very rare indeed however these are the situations/scenarios that seem to scare us more and the ones we are more alert to. Our models of violence have a tendency to forget the ordinary and more common dangers and focus on the more spectacular and less likely dangers. Often our models don’t even reflect our lifestyle(s). Many women when asked about their greatest fear of violence, will talk about being sexually assaulted and/or raped – which is totally understandable. When asked to imagine the scenario or situation where it is likely to happen, they will often talk about one that appeals to their greatest “fears” but doesn’t really reflect their particular lifestyle. It may be that their greatest fear is being raped whilst their live-in boyfriend, partner or spouse is away on business, leisure or out of town etc, whilst they are home alone. When questioned as to how many times a year their partner is actually not with them, the number may be as low as 2 or 3 times. The fear doesn’t reflect the probability i.e. why would a person be more likely to be assaulted on these particular days of the year rather than others? If an individual had been conducting surveillance on the house for the past year, with the aim of commiting an assault, maybe but the profile of such a dedicated individual would suggest they’d have given a few hints and clues along the way beforehand. The fear despite being felt as “real” is “unrealistic” – it is unlikely to happen and when dissected into its component parts doesn’t make any real sense. Women often believe that they are at most risk walking home late at night however this requires them, by chance, to be unlucky enough for them to encounter a predator when it is more likely they are at risk in a large(r) social settings (groups, parties, bars, at people’s homes etc)  where such predators are more prevalent. Predators hang out where their prey hangs out. Sexual assaults are rarely random or occur by chance: they are usually committed by someone their victim knows in their home, the home of the rapist or somebody else’s house. Our models of violence need to be based on two things: 1. Reality and 2. Lifestyle. If you expect to be assaulted by a stranger in a deserted alley etc, you need to consider how often you frequent such places (lifestyle) and the likelihood of a sexual predator being in this location at a particular time (Reality). When the likelihood of both occurring at the same time the threat is not high and probably doesn’t demonstrate the highest risk that exists to your personal safety e.g. your boyfriends overly attentive or seemingly hostile best friend may well be a much likelier candidate to consider when evaluating your personal safety. If you consider that you may spend most of your free/social time partying or in group functions it is much more likely that you will encounter a predatory individual in these situations; someone you know, who knows you. As opposed to a stranger in a location you rarely (if ever) frequent. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=70 Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=69 Denial Human beings have a very simple way of coping with high stress situations; we deny them. Rather than accepting the reality of our situation, we tend to ignore our predicament, denying that we are in any danger at all. Our instincts may tell us to run or get out of a place but we will immediately look for and accept any reason that will allow us to stay put; however tenuous, ridiculous or patently dangerous it may actually be.  A statistic that should be in everybody’s head is 6:36. 6 minutes and 36 seconds, is the average length of time that it took for people to start evacuating the second twin tower after it was hit by the second plane on 9/11. Imagine sitting at your desk, aware that the unthinkable has just happened - a plane has hit the tower next to you. Now imagine that you here an explosion many floors above you and then you feel the building you’re in start to shudder and groan. Now set your watch alarm for 6 minutes and 36 seconds and wait. This is the average length of time that people working in that second tower waited before leaving their desk in search of a fire escape. This is the denial phase and it has a gravitational pull that is strong enough to keep people in a state of inertia regardless of the information and awareness that they have concerning their situation e.g. friends and relatives watching the events, from the outside, on the ground were phoning and emailing those within the second tower, keeping them up to date with what was going on. The reason we go into a state of denial so quickly and firmly, is because the human brain is extremely adept at building scripts that automate many of the “tasks” that we fulfill on an everyday basis. If you’ve ever gotten into your car to go to work, and after 15 minutes find yourself there without any real recollection of the journey, it’s because you’ve completed that familiar task on your automatic pilot; you’ve slowed down, braked, accelerated, changed lanes etc. without ever being consciously aware of your environment. A person going to work in the Twin Towers on 9/11, wasn’t expecting a plane to crash into their office space; it wasn’t in their script. Their script or model involved, grabbing a coffee, getting in an elevator, sitting at a desk, attending a meeting etc. The only “disasters” they’d been led to expect that could possibly happen (and maybe trained for) was the risk of fire – and how many people in offices assume that each time they hear an alarm, that it’s a drill and not the real thing? Getting people to take the unexpected seriously is a difficult thing. If you’ve ever had that feeling that says something’s wrong e.g. you had a bad feeling about a person, thought you were being followed or didn’t like the feeling of a place etc, your first response was probably to deny your feelings and tell yourself to stop being stupid and imagining things. If you weren’t able to immediately identify the cause of your unease, you probably discounted what your initial reaction to your situation and continued doing whatever you were in the process of doing i.e. you went back to following your script. I’m sure that nobody in the Towers that day could have completely ignored the impact of a 747 plane that took out four floors and would eventually bring the tower down. The noise of the crash and the shuddering of the Tower’s support structure would have sent an immediate signal that all was not well. However because nothing bad happened in the immediate aftermath, it was possible to deny/ignore what had just happened and go back to working from the familiar and comfortable script, that we were following before. It is much easier to believe nobody is following us than have to deal with the consequences if somebody is. The most important state for us to be in is one of immediate safety and if our script confirms this we’ll readily accept it and maybe even go to great lengths to match and mold our reality in order to fit it.    Having scripts that allow us to repeat common tasks, without having to think, enable us to complete them quickly and efficiently without us requiring any real mental bandwidth. Things fall apart when the real world ends up not matching the script. So strong are these scripts and models that we often choose to believe them instead of what is actually in front of our eyes.  It was this holding on to inappropriate scripts on 9/11 that kept people sitting at their desks for an average of 6 minutes 36 seconds before they made their way to an exit or fire escape. Some people took longer, some people never moved.  There were of course those people who reacted and responded instantaneously, these people are the ones who are equipped with what we refer to as a “survival mindset”. Survivors, survive because they exhibit a curiosity about their surroundings and environment. It is this curiosity which allows them to break out of their scripts/models and accept the reality of the situation they’re facing. Survivors don’t deny or discount the various possibilities and causes of danger however improbable and remote they may seem. They will take in every bit of available information concerning their environment and re-work and re-write their scripts and models accordingly. They will also be prepared to go against what may seem to be better judgment if their gut and instinct tells them otherwise. When I talk to people who have been assaulted one of the most common statements I hear is, “I just couldn’t believe this would be happening to me.” If a person’s entire modus operandi is to work to a script then the unimaginable has no place. If you believe that you won’t be mugged in a crowded shopping mall, bus or train station etc, when it does happen to you, your response will be one of disbelief and denial. This is one of the biggest causes of denial in violent situations: a person having built themselves an incorrect “model of violence” e.g. crowded places are the domain of pick pockets and surreptitious criminals not of muggers and sexual predators. A woman may believe that she is safe from being raped on a populated subway carriage but the truth is such assaults have taken place – and unfortunately will continue to do so. A rapist can carry out an assault in less than 10 seconds, using the cover that bystanders afford along with the victim’s sense of disbelief/denial to commit their attack with little fear of being discovered or caught. If your model of violence states that muggers and rapists only operate in deserted places then you are reinforcing your ability to deny these assaults happening in any other scenarios. Experience can often work to reinforce and validate an inappropriate script or model. For every subway ride you’ve taken where you haven’t been raped or mugged you’ll reinforce your perception that these threats and dangers are not something that need to concern you when in such a situation. Experience can have the effect of reducing your ability to be curious about your environment and stop you from questioning events, behaviors and actions that may occur within it. Familiarity breeds contempt and the result is a false sense of security. As soon as you stop thinking and questioning your environment you run the risk of becoming a victim. Just because something hasn’t happened ten thousand times doesn’t mean it won’t – the Twin Towers didn’t experience an attack by air for over 50 years however the unthinkable/unimaginable still happened. You may have walked along a street a thousand times, drunk in a bar five hundred times, all without incident. However you’re continued safe experience of these things means you’re more likely to deny the possibility of violence occurring in the future than had you had to deal with aggressive behavior in these places in the past. Experience can often be translated as, everything you previously got away with without any consequence. Our natural optimism concerning our belief that assaults happen to others and not to us, reinforces our scripts that disallow for the possibility of violence to interrupt their smooth running. When this is coupled with the fact that we over-estimate our ability to deal with aggression and violence when it does occur e.g. our “it will be alright on the night” approach to handling such situations, we find we have no pre-built scripts to deal with violent behavior that contradicts our normal models/scripts. If we were to have built some type of “emergency model” to handle these situations we could use such scripts to replace the ones we normally use to lead our life by. These pre-built models are a key part in both increasing our situational awareness i.e. we are able to identify and acknowledge behaviors that represent a threat, and allow us a path to follow as a solution to them.  Denial is a natural response to violence. It is easy to discount and deny the possibility of danger; after all bad things happen to other people not us. Our scripts and models disallow us the opportunity to accept the presence of danger and our experience(s) confirm these – if it’s never happened to us before then it is hard for us to believe it when it does happen. I am sure that the persons, who evacuated the Twin Towers in the first instance, did so after initially “denying” the situation they might be facing. Many people when first confronted with extreme aggression will actually laugh assuming that the other person must be joking or playing a prank. I remember as a child the very first time I was bullied, I simply didn’t believe that other children could or would want to behave this way or in fact that anyone would socially interact in this manner (an incorrect model of violence). I wasn’t sheltered as a child I’d just not experienced behaviors such as exclusion, extreme ridicule or physical violence before and they ran contrary to every script I had. Because I couldn’t imagine such things happening, I had difficulty accepting them when they did and because of this I initially kept denying that I was a victim of bullying; even when I experienced this, again and again. Many of our scripts and models are learnt/created early in our lives and we must learn to adapt and change them as we get older, wiser and more informed. Your initial reaction to violence will always be denial however much training you receive. We humans are continually optimistic creatures and we believe that what has kept us safe in the past will continue to do so in the future.  When we understand that violence rarely adheres to both our models and experience, we are able to set ourselves up for the next stage of the process we go through: deliberation.   Deliberation                                 The individuals in the World Trade Center who eventually passed through their denial phase and accepted that something was very wrong were faced with many choices e.g. should they wait for instruction on what to do, should they evacuate the building, should they try and find a supervisor/manager who may have more information etc. In such high stress situations many people get caught in a loop, comparing and evaluating the best option available to them. They will weigh up the pros and cons; eventually they seem to reach a decision, only to repeat the process over again. People do the same when dealing with potentially violent situations. Imagine you are being followed and you notice/hear the footsteps of somebody walking behind you. You might initially discount or deny that this person is following you but as they start to match your pace, slowing down and speeding up when you do, it becomes evident that you have to accept that you are being followed. Your next step is to work out what you should do. You consider turning around and confronting the person, next you decide it may be best to run or possibly walk up to one of the houses your passing and pretend you’re visiting someone. As these thoughts race through your mind you realize the person behind you is getting closer and you start to think about what their motive could be, if they’ve got a knife etc. You start to run through your options again, with an added sense of urgency and feeling the pressure of your situation. You are stuck in the “Deliberation Loop”, trying rapidly to find a solution without ever fully reaching one. It is a classic example of overthinking. The problem is that just as we have models and scripts that allow us to automate tasks, so we have ways/models of thinking that help us function in our everyday world. We are blessed with a rational brain that allows us to collect information, compare different pieces of it and eventually reach conclusions. When people make a choice about a car they are going to buy, they will consider things such as: reliability cost of parts/maintenance, fuel efficiency etc. When selecting a university or educational establishment: price, reputation, location, length of the course etc. will all be taken account and a comparison of different schools and universities based upon these factors will be reached. This is called “Rationalistic Decision Making” (RDM). It’s a method of evaluation that we use to make and justify our decisions 99.9% of the time. It’s a fantastic way of processing complex data and making informed decisions based upon it. It has one drawback: it takes time. Unfortunately violent situations have a habit of developing rapidly and time is one of the components of a situation that any assailant/attacker will try and eliminate.     The individuals in the World Trade Center on 9/11 were working against the clock – it took people an average of one minute to clear each floor. If you were an average person who took six minutes to gather your senses and leave your desk, you’d have been six floors higher than you would have been had you managed to start moving the moment you heard the initial explosion/felt the building rock. Without being over-dramatic those 6 minutes for many people were the difference between life and death. There also would have been individuals who “revised” their evacuation plans along the way. The majority of people don’t have strong models and scripts of what to do in the event of an emergency. There would have been individuals who had never completed a fire drill, or ever taken note of where the nearest fire escape was. If a person went looking for an escape route or fire escape and couldn’t initially find one, they may well have ditched their escape plan in favor of another possible solution they’d considered; waiting for a Fire-Marshall or supervisor to tell them what to do i.e. they were still deliberating after they’d appeared to reach a decision. There is always new information that becomes available as things develop and this needs to be both considered and used to revise a plan. However at the very beginning the initial plan needs to be acted upon with complete conviction.  The problem we have in our rational thinking model is that we are looking to find the best solution to a situation. The problem is that the “best” solution requires a comparison of all possible options to take place in order for a thorough evaluation to take place and this takes time. It is much quicker to simply search for an “effective” solution; something that will work/solve the problem and not care too much if it is the best one available. If you believe someone is following you and running would prevent you from being assaulted you should run. It should not be compared against the other possible options it should just be acted upon. If you are in an argument that is only going one way and walking away will not be effective, nor will continuing the argument or backing down, then your only real choice is to make a pre-emptive strike – with full conviction. This mode of thinking is referred to as Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). It is a fast way of reaching decisions because it only asks a person to make one comparison of a potential solution (is it effective), rather than comparing each possible solution with each other. It is easy for us to overthink, we have brains that allow us to do this – it’s why we are able to be creative; we can imagine what is not yet there. This is a dangerous mode to operate in as it allows our minds to create new problems that don’t exist. In high stress, emotional situations where time is of the essence we need to find effective solutions quickly and not worry if better ones may be available to us. Reaching Decisions, Acting & Choosing the Right Time to Act                 Once we have “chosen” a particular solution, we have to act on it. This is often the hardest part of the continuum. Our perceived inability to act may well cause us to revisit and reconsider the other options that we thought about before initially deciding on one plan of action. We may also try and look for other potential solutions, especially if we start to over-consider the potential consequences of what we first decided upon. This way of thinking puts us squarely back into the “Deliberation Loop” and moves us further away from action, which should be the goal of our threat recognition and decision process.                 Our fear instinct often prevents us from acting upon any decision that is made when in a high stress situation. If you are involved in an incident where an aggressive individual is screaming and shouting obscenities at you, despite being fully aware that at any moment he may start to physically assault you, and that your best plan would be to either run away or attack him first, your fear emotion may well hold you in check. In any potentially dangerous situation, even where the level of risk to our safety may be small, our fear emotion will often prevent us from acting. Anyone who has bungee jumped or parachuted will tell of the inertia that is experienced when you stand on a platform waiting to jump into open air. Our conscious mind knows that both of these activities are relatively low-risk however our emotional self knows otherwise. Our emotional self knows that whilst you don’t act you are not experiencing pain or danger and this is good. Let’s now take the parachute example and say that the plane is about to crash, you’ve got over your denial, deliberation and that your only chance of safety is to make the parachute jump; there will still be hesitation. In the moment when you are waiting to make jour jump you are safe, you are not experiencing pain or trauma and your emotional mind will assure you that this is a good state to be in, and whatever you choose to do will take you out of this state. Your emotional side doesn’t understand the future, it only understands the now. It doesn’t know what you will feel and experience in the future, that your only chance of safety is to jump. It just knows that at this very moment you are safe.                              This fear inertia is what holds you back from acting when dealing with an individual(s) where it is obvious that physical violence is the only outcome. As you stand there waiting for the inevitable punch, push or grab, your fear emotion will tell you that at this moment you are not experiencing any pain or discomfort and that you shouldn’t do anything to risk this state of affairs – whatever action you take, whether it’s running away or making a pre-emptive assault carries a degree of risk to it, and this is an unknown. What your body does know is that whilst not acting nothing bad or painful is happening to you.                 When you overthink the consequences of a decision, your natural hesitation to act is reinforced. I see this all the time when I watch sparring (which is great training for fighting but barely resembles a street-fight itself). Often I will see two individuals, at distance, looking for openings. One will start a kick or an attack only to see their opponent respond and pull back etc – for more experienced individuals, these responses can indicate how they should initiate their next attack. However most people start to imagine what will happen if their attack is unsuccessful. They have seen/realized that their opponent is going to respond in some way to what they were planning to do and they now start to imagine all the ways in which they might respond. Weighed down with all the imagined consequences of their action they end up doing nothing. Our fear response may hold us back from initially acting but it is these imagined consequences that reinforces it.                    In Combat Sports, such as Boxing and MMA (Mixed Martial Arts), the pre-fight build up to a contest is a great example of an individual attempting to get their opponent to consider the consequences of certain actions. A Boxer who repeatedly tells the media that the person he is fighting will not be able to get past his lead punch without walking on to his straight right, is attempting to get his opponent to hesitate and consider the consequences of trying to do so when in the ring. In a street-fight when an aggressor keeps telling you what they’re going to do to you, they are attempting to intimidate you into not acting. When a person tells you their plan for you, they are trying to reinforce your own fear instincts desire for inaction. You can choose to believe what they are telling you or not. You can also choose to believe your own imagination’s conclusions and scenarios concerning the consequences of acting as well. Or better still you can simply act on your decision.                 Too many individuals in hostage and abduction scenarios miss their best opportunity to act because they believe the optimum time for action is always in the future; never now. They are yielding to the fear system’s belief that because pain is not being experienced at that moment it would be unwise to act and risk the perceived safety of the present when the consequence of any action may be pain. With few exceptions the time to act in an abduction or hostage situation, where you are the target, is immediately. That a person needs to move you from one location to another (in an abduction scenario), means that your best chance of escape and survival is in the one you are in. In a hostage type incident, an assailant(s) most disorganized and unprepared moment is the very first instance of the assault – you don’t need to be a celebrity or politician to be taken hostage, it may happen because you are a bystander in a drug-store/bank hold-up when the police arrive etc.                   Being able to reach a decision and act upon it quickly is a mark of a mind that’s intent and goal is survival. Once a situation is understood action without hesitation is required.  Avoiding the Denial, Deliberation and Decision Loop Visual Assessment I don’t know much about American Football (coming from the UK I grew up with “Soccer”) however I do know one thing about the sport and that is the Quarterback – the person who throws the ball forward to his teammates in the hope of scoring a touchdown – has to make some very quick decisions whilst under immense stress and pressure; he has the opposing team attempting to take him out of the game before he makes the throw. He needs in one glance to be able to assess the state of the field in front of him and assess which players are in the best position, all whilst waiting for some 250 LB giant to bear down on him and prevent him from throwing the ball. He certainly doesn’t have time to weigh up the pros and cons of each potential decision rather he must look, decide and then act. His visual assessment immediately determines his decision, in the same way that many emergency personnel immediately seem to know what to do when they turn up at a fire, a train wreck etc. One look at the situation will tell them what “type” of fire it is and what they must do to combat it – as the fire develops they may take in the new information available to them and adjust their plan but in the initial instant they know, just like the Quarterback, what they must do. A computer has beaten a human at chess: IBM’s “Big Blue” beat Gary Kasparov, a Chess Grandmaster. However no computer program has ever been written that can beat a person at either Backgammon or the Japanese game of “Go” (a game where players attempt to change two sided disks to their color by trapping a line of their opponent’s disks between theirs). Chess differs from these two games, in that it is possible to make predictions and comparisons based on different plays. “Big Blue” beat Kasparov by comparing all the potential outcomes of a particular play and evaluating it against all the other ones available to it. Kasparov said he was only able to do this for one or two moves ahead and that he normally had a gut feel for a play based on the way that the board looked i.e. he’d seen the pieces laid out in an identical or similar way before. In Backgammon and Go, there are no “set outcomes” as such; every decision has to be based on the way the board “looks”, where the pieces lie etc. In Backgammon/Go the layout of the pieces do not result in any predictable outcomes; any computer attempting to run comparisons of plays would end up getting caught in an infinite loop – each year a large cash prize is offered to any programmer who can write a program that will defeat a top Go player. When doing crowd surveillance, a security professional is presented with the task of identifying any potential assailant that may be in a crowd of possibly tens of thousands. It would be impossible to assess and compare every individual’s behavior and actions to ascertain if they represent a potential threat or danger, whether to others around them, such as at a sports event, or to a particular individual, such as a politician at a rally or similar. Any identification of such individuals must be done by looking at the crowd as a whole, in a similar way to a Quarterback who looks at the field in front of him and let’s his eyes be drawn to a particular player who is in the “best” position. The Quarterback knows what a “Best Position” looks like because it’s stored in his memory from previous experiences. He probably couldn’t even explain why one player is better positioned than another rather he just knows what looks right. A Security Professional may never have seen an assassination attempt first-hand before – he will probably have been shown footage of previous assassinations as part of his training however these will have been caught on film from a cameraman’s perspective. Despite lacking a firsthand visual memory of such a thing, he’ll know from experience what a peaceful crowd attending a political rally etc will look like, and what behaviors people in such crowds engage in e.g. flag waving, clapping, smiling etc, he’ll also be aware of how people in such crowds move; whether the majority stand and wait, how those wanting to get a better look move through the crowd etc, etc. Whilst he scans his eyes over the whole scene, he will wait for his eyes to be drawn to the person whose movement, actions or behaviors are out of place and don’t adhere to the “normal” picture of a healthy crowd. Just as a Backgammon, Go player or Quarterback can take in the importance of what they see in an instant and make a decision based upon it, so can the security professional. He though works from what seems out of place as opposed to what looks good and in place. Most of us have had that experience of walking in to a bar or pub and feeling that something was wrong; something that we couldn’t actually identify or put our finger upon. This is our fear system alerting us to the presence of danger by identifying that what we see before us doesn’t marry up to all our previous positive experiences of bars or pubs. This comparison of images is a bit like trying to do a “spot the difference” puzzle, where we can see that the two pictures/photos we’re meant to compare are not the same but we’re not immediately able to identify the five actual differences etc. Our fear system works like a “behind the scenes” security professional, comparing situations with previous ones. If everything looks the same as a positive experience, then no alert is given. If it matches a negative experience an alert is given - likewise if it doesn’t match a positive one. Once this alert is given we must make a dynamic risk assessment. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=69 Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=68 No safety system can offer full and comprehensive protection unless it works in conjunction with others. A passenger jet has many different safety systems that work together, monitor each other and offer backup should any of them for whatever reason fail. A pilot also has human/manual processes and procedures that they can follow should an emergency occur. If you look at any ancient castle or fort you will again see that many different systems and structures were designed and put in place, to work together in a collective and collaborative fashion e.g. there may be a moat/ditch, a set of walls, a Keep etc. Julius Caeser (the legendary Roman Emperor and General) during the Gallic Wars once besieged the Gallic hill fort of Alesia, surrounding the hill upon which it was built with an 18 km wall (approximately 4 meters in height). The wall itself was preceded by two ditches; the one which was nearest the wall was flooded and filled with water from the surrounding rivers. These two ditches although constituting separate and individual defenses worked together: they were spaced so that Gallic Cavalry riders would be able to clear one but not the other. In front of these were placed pits, mantraps and covered holes with fire hardened, sharpened spikes at the bottom etc. Julius Caeser, who is one of the all time great military tacticians, understood the need to have multi-part defenses that were constructed in depth. Individual self-defense is no different. Physical techniques, such as: escapes from holds, blocks and punches etc should not be our only defense but make up the very last line in a circular, series of protective measures. Caesar’s aim was to prevent any of the opposing Gallic army ever reaching his wall as he knew that alone it was not sufficient to deal with the numerically superior force he was facing. We should have a similar aim: to put in place the necessary strategies and defensive tactics that will mean we’ll never have to engage in a physical face-to-face confrontation. Physically violent situations are always to be avoided as they may potentially involve: 1) more than one attacker, 2) an attacker(s) who is armed and 3) an assailant who is physically stronger, faster and better trained than you are. These are three assumptions that should always be made when dealing with an aggressive individual(s). Caeser was not naive, he knew his wall would eventually be reached – just as we know we might one day have to use our physical techniques and skills - and so constructed his siege works to create two things: time and distance. By increasing these he was able to give himself a better chance to respond effectively and decisively, with the limited resources he had (all resources are limited). With distance he had time to recognize the nature of an assault and where it was being directed before he had to engage it, this limited the damage and effect of any attack. With time on his side he could gather more information, increase the choices available to him and make better/more informed decisions. The two things that any street assailant will do involve denying you time and distance: they don’t want a fight, they want a victim e.g. they will shank you with a knife when you’re not looking, they will ask you for the time and then hit you whilst you’re looking at your watch, they will push you and then punch you as they ask a question etc. This is reality. In most martial arts and combat sports (MMA, Cage Fighting, UFC, Boxing etc) opponents start at some distance from each other and wait for the referee to tell them to start. Having the luxury to wait and the time to get your mind in gear is something that nobody on the street will give you. Just think, if you can create an extra two inches of distance between yourself and an aggressor before they attack you might stop their initial (knife) stab from being a fatal one; plus you will have given yourself more time to respond to the one that inevitably follows. Even an “uneducated” and inexperienced fighter/attacker knows that they’re not to give you a chance. Increasing time and distance increases your survival chances.   Your lines of defense should be arranged in the following order: 1) Firstly you should attempt to deny potential predators and aggressors the opportunity to select you as a victim – this would mean not going into a bar/pub that has the reputation for violence, not running/jogging alone late at night, 2) secondly you should present and conduct yourself in such a manner that you will not appear on their radar should they get such an opportunity e.g. walking and scanning, moving with purpose, 3) your next line of defense involves being able to detect the presence of harmful intent within a situation (situational awareness – SA), this normally involves you being able to pick up an aggressor’s movement as they synchronize it to yours, 4) after this you should look to be able to de-escalate the situation or disengage from it 5) with the final and last line of defense being that of physical action. In short: Deny Opportunity Reduce/Eliminate Victim Visibility Be Aware Be Able to De-escalate and/or Disengage Be Able to Physically Defend Yourself Personal Security & Protection is about being able to avoid appearing on a predator’s radar, it is about not behaving/acting in a conspicuous manner – next time you wear your Tapout T-shirt in a crowded bar and start talking “big” with your friends, understand how you have both created opportunity – by being in the bar where alcohol is present – as well as increasing your visibility i.e. MMA T-Shirt, loud talking etc. Sometimes it is not possible to avoid creating opportunities or being put in certain situations e.g. you live in a part of town that is notoriously violent (or your friends do), you are invited for a social night out in a bar or club that you wouldn’t normally frequent etc. However by altering your behavior and actions you will be able to reduce and possibly eliminate certain risks e.g. don’t start talking loudly about how you favor the Yankees this year in a Boston bar or wear your Glasgow Rangers shirt to a pub in Parkhead. Being aware of who is “interested” in you in such situations is also key as is having the confidence to leave/disengage from a situation you deem may become potentially violent, in spite of the social pressures that may be put on you to stay i.e. having a survival personality. Violence occurs along a Timeline and if you can avoid being on it all the better i.e. deny opportunity and eliminate visibility. In certain situations this is unavoidable and a good awareness and understanding of your environment (Situational Awareness) will help you create the time and distance you need to either prepare yourself for the physical conflict that may occur or allow you the space to de-escalate and/or disengage. This is what Self Protection is all about: avoidance of conflict. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=68 Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=67   Japanese martial arts, such as Karate break their training down into different components e.g. Kihon – the practice of the basic, Randori – free practice, Hojo Undo – Supplemental Training (Weights, Resistance Work, Makiwara Practice etc), Shiai – competition/free fighting. They recognize that for a person to improve and develop they must train and practice in many different ways. I was training two kids on Saturday who had hand-eye co-ordination issues, so we had to do specific drills to start to improve that before we were able to really work on the form of blocking and striking. We all have areas of weakness and deficiency and we all need to look at the types of training we do in order to address them. If is it simply a case of getting gassed out in a stress test the area of development is easy to spot. If it’s constantly jamming up with other people when doing drills such as stepping on toes it’s a control of range issue. Training is not a competitive thing it exists to make you competitive. This is easy to forget when taking part in drills and light sparring. The idea is to practice and hone skills. It’s one reason we do a lot of lower intensity work that tries to develop effective movement. Does everything we do replicate and train all the components of a real street fight? Absolutely not, however people dismiss the value of different systems and arts because they miss the point on this. Why are Judoka’s such good grapplers, Tae Kwon Do practitioners such good kickers, BJJ stylists so good on the ground? Simply because these arts create an environment that promotes the development of these particular skills. When we drill we do this in exactly the same way. Sometimes we isolate everything to train ground, sometimes we isolate everything to exclude knife. On the street I will bite, rip, gouge and tear but if I brought this into grappling training on the mats no techniques would ever be learnt and no skills developed, plus nobody would ever want to train with me or they would train with me in an apprehensive manner. Neither of which would help me develop. There is the need to train in situations where time and distance don’t exist, where a person’s heart is pumping and the adrenaline is flowing. There are times to move away from the comfort of the mats and change the environment e.g. this was the point of Saturdays outdoor Fall training and the beach training we put on over summer. There’s the time to mix all of this together. This is what I would refer to as “Shiai” in the Japanese Martial Arts; the time when the idea of playing/randori to develop skills is put aside and those skills are put to the test. This should still be controlled and safe but the situations that are set up are not there so much to train as to test. It is then through this testing that weaknesses can be detected and everybody can return to the mats to drill and play and further develop the skills they need. Some people are able to see what they need to develop through day-to-day training (and/or understand that they don’t yet possess the skills to test), others require themselves to be tested in more extreme ways or may believe that they possess the necessary skills and ability to be tested, or in Japanese terms to compete. There are many ways to test yourself e.g. a few years back I went and competed in the Dennis Hisardut Championship in Israel – a bare knuckle, knockdown style of event. Not reality but a very emotional and stressful situation e.g. I’d never competed under their rules, I hadn’t competed in any championship for years and was in a foreign country trying to understand commands in Hebrew. There are many ways to introduce the components of reality into a situation without it having to replicate reality. If people are interested in high stress CQB style training please contact me and I will try to arrange a session on the calendar before the end of the year. It will be hard, it will be painful and you will be taken out of your comfort zone,     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=67 Mon, 08 Oct 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=66 Dealing with aggressive and violent people is a frightening prospect. Not so much from a technical perspective but from an emotional one. As I always stress, 99% of assailants on the street will assault you with their best attack – the one they hope will end the fight there and then – and not plan or be prepared beyond that. This is why a push followed by a large swinging right is one of the most common types of assault. A street fight is rarely a highly physical technical affair, which is why we concentrate so much on basic movement, balance and stability. However from an emotional standpoint, to be able to perform such basic things under such a high level of stress requires an extreme emotional technical proficiency.   Habituation is the process of decreasing a particular behavior due to increased exposure to a particular stimulus. Tolerance to alcohol or narcotics is a good example of this. The first time you had a pint of beer (in the UK that would be when you were about 13) it probably went straight to your head and you felt the full effect of the drink. If you remember the first time you stepped out on to the mats, you were probably jumpy, flat-footed and in a partial state of panic. Overtime as you were exposed again and again to somebody moving around you and trying to make contact with you, the stress you felt in this situation was reduced. Sometimes when you are partnered with somebody new who is wild and uncontrolled in the drills you begin to experience that same feeling, as you have become comfortable with dealing with controlled and calm individuals. This is the time, not to panic and lash out, but practice managing your emotions and allowing your movement skills to perform for them under this “new” stress level. It is always interesting to watch stress tests at gradings and see peoples technical abilities slow down and decrease as well as confusing different threats and attacks and performing inappropriate and wrong defenses to them. It is not just fatigue, which decreases our ability to perform but our heightened emotional state. The fact that we train EVERYTHING and EVERY technique with movement may seem to be a frustrating way to learn and it may seem simpler to start training new things statically first however introducing a new technique without any form of stressor is unrealistic – introducing movement at the outset may slow down initial “mastery” of the technique however it gives not only a realistic representation of the attack it is designed to deal with but also puts an emotional stress component into the mix – one you should eventually overcome. When I grade/test I am not only looking for clean techniques, which demonstrate the teaching points I am also looking for the mental state and stress level of the person performing it. Too often I see frustration and the rushing through of something, which is a clear indicator of succumbing to stress and emotion. In your practice you must repeat, repeat and repeat again the practice of a technique so the threat recognition and remembrance of it is there. It is a testament to our system, that people almost always perform the first part of the technique well but fall down after their initial response and reaction as they try and think and/or workout what to do. Keep training with movement and you will learn to think and adapt with movement. Grading should not be a time to simply look back on what you may have achieved but to take stock of where you fell down and what you need to build on and develop. We grade again for Yellow and Orange belts in December.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=66 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=65 The Correct Way To Study Techniques One of my old instructors used to say, “Techniques can fail, concepts can’t.” I have found, especially in the Krav Maga world, that people get hung up about techniques e.g. they want to know the best and most effective technique to escape a side headlock, the appropriate technique to deal with a knife to the side of the throat etc, and whilst I admire this search for knowledge my concern is that people are really only gaining an encyclopedia of techniques that they hope they will be able to reference when having to deal with a real-life violent situation. They are becoming what I term “Dinner Party” Martial Artists. This is a term I coined after becoming tired and bored of untrained people at social gatherings and the like asking me how I would deal with somebody who has put me in a Full Nelson, A Rear Naked Choke or other hold, without considering or discussing how I’d come to find myself in such a situation, or what I might have to do after escaping it. They were simply looking to learn (or know) a technique to deal with that particular attack/threat without looking to gain an actual understanding about the nature of violence, and what is and isn’t possible when actually dealing with it. Techniques are the blueprints; they represent the perfect plans of how to deal with a particular assault or threat. If the threat/attack contains certain variations then the Blueprint might not be a completely accurate reflection of what to do. However it will always contain the fundamental and core ideas which will be able to be used in some form or variation to deal with the attack. A rear strangle where the assailant is intending to take you to the ground is a somewhat different attack to one where an assailant is simply pulling you backwards. People on the street will attack you in ways that are not always found when practicing with other students in a studio or similar training environment; you may not always find yourself on the even and stable terrain that allows you to perform certain “choreographed” techniques in your dojo or school, and you may find yourself executing a particular part of a technique too late due to being surprised or caught off guard. If you learn techniques simply to be able to perform them in an A followed by B, followed by C, followed by D fashion you will basically be learning a dance routine rather than equipping yourself with survival skills. If you can understand the concepts, principles and ideas that a particular technique contains you will be able to adapt your responses if the attack doesn’t follow the path you have prepared or trained for. Adaptability, along with evolution, is the foundation of survival. Being able to make changes in real time to what you have learnt in the studio, or out of a book, is a key self-defense skill. Believing you know what to do, is very different from being able to do it, and very different to being able to do it in a variety of terrains and against a variety of different attackers, both in size, attitude and the different ways they will all execute “the same” assault. Techniques should be looked on as containing photographic sequences, or snapshots of different parts of a defense, which are taken at various moments of a response to a certain type of attack e.g. defense against a rear strangle, a side headlock , a guillotine choke etc. Each snapshot should demonstrate and contain an idea which is pertinent to surviving that (and other) assaults. If you can train these ideas and concepts, as well as and as part of the practice of the technique itself you are on the road to building an adaptable skill set which will allow you to not only effectively deal with the assaults you have seen before and practiced defending against but those you’ve never seen or experienced before. Adaptability leads to creativity. One of the most gratifying things as an instructor is to have a student come over and show me a “new” technique/solution they have “created” after responding to something their partner did after going off script. The technique they were practicing in one sense failed but because they continued working to concepts they succeeded. Practicing Krav Maga as an art is essential, as this where the ideas and the skills that are manifestations of those ideas/concepts are built and developed e.g. proper movement, power striking etc. Krav Maga should also be practiced as a self-defense system: training that which can be achieved when a person is placed under duress and having to deal with real-life scenarios, as well as situational and environmental components. Both of these types of training largely focus on the practice and development of technique however Krav Maga should also be practiced from a creative perspective where these physical techniques are removed and a person is left with only the ideas, concepts and principles to work with – this is how the survival instinct that makes any technique work is trained. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=65 Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=64 Edged Weapons You will meet few security professionals and real world operators, who wouldn’t rather face an armed assailant with a gun than one equipped with a knife or blade. A gun is a unidirectional weapon that although packing more potential killing power than a knife is only functional /operational when pointed in one direction; if you can move yourself and/or the weapon offline the threat is dealt with. A knife, on the other hand, can be worked in many different directions and planes making it hard to escape and move away from. Also a gun is a blunt and regular object that can be grabbed, whereas a knife is sharp, edged and irregular and largely impossible to get hold off (there are ways and methods to grab a knife safely however it is not in the scope of this book to discuss or demonstrate them). Add to this that a knife never runs out of ammunition or jams, or requires any specialist training and you begin to understand that a person armed with a knife, and who has serious and harmful intent towards you, is a very, very dangerous proposition. This is not someone who needs to pull a trigger, from distance, but someone who is prepared to get up close and personal with you. Mentally, psychologically and emotionally they are prepared to feel, see, smell and experience the effects of their work and not simply observe things from a distance – something the luxury of a firearm would afford them. Forget any martial arts demonstrations you may have seen, which involves a choreographed routine where an “assailant” makes large and committed movements, which see the attacking arm/knife hand being left out in mid-air for the instructor to grab. In reality attackers tend to make small, fast, erratic and frenzied movements, which always involve recoil. Anybody can create a reality that will make their system look effective however the true test of a system is when its reality is taken from and reflects the real world. If you spend a lot of time practicing defenses against straight stabs and thrusts you are not making the best use of your time, in reality most people tend to “shank” the knife forward and upward in an arc when making their attacks, or slashing in tight movements (which always see them recoiling the knife). Committed straights stabs/thrusts and the like are taught to and mainly used by military personnel. Although we may like to think that military systems represent the most effective and cutting edge self-defense systems around, they may not always share a reality with that of the street and the real world violence that is committed against and by civilians. Give me the space, and even terrain of 2000 sq ft of mat space in a studio or dojo and I can create the room in which to do almost any technique I choose. Scale down this space to that of a pub/club bathroom, dim the lights and make sure the floors are coated with various liquids and fluids and the environment within which I have to work becomes increasingly limited. Alter the attack to come from the rear and when I’m least expecting it and what I’m able to make work for me is severely limited. I may have the advantage of objects I can use for my own defense, such as fire extinguishers (use them as impact weapons, don’t try and spray your aggressor with dry powder etc), waste bins and similar but the restriction of space and an unstable surface on which to stand are severe handicaps. Whilst it is important to initially learn and develop your techniques in a controlled environment e.g. even flooring and with space to move etc, you should also practice what you have learnt in confined spaces where both time and space are limited. Also you should quickly introduce the idea/concept of 2nd and 3rd phase attacks.  One of the core concepts of Krav Maga is, “Hand Defense, Body Defense” i.e. it is not good enough to just block an attack you need to move the target (your body) as well. There are several reasons for this. Firstly your block may not be 100 % effective, your hands may not be fast enough to get to the strike/stab/slash or the attack is too strong for you to stop. By coupling your hand defense with a body movement that moves you out of the way/offline you may be able to make an effective defense. In Krav Maga we refer to an evasive body movement that utilizes a hand defense as a 200% defense i.e. if your body movement avoids the attack it is 100% effective, if your hand/blocking defense is 100% effective then when you add both together you get a 200% defense. Looking at this from another perspective or angle you can also afford to have a margin of error in both your defenses and still have a defense that is 100% effective.                 In a knife fight you are likely to get cut. How you get cut, where you get cut will largely dictate the outcome of the fight. A stab to the center of your mass that penetrates 2 inches is far more significant than one that grazes or cuts your peripheries to a lesser depth. Simple body movements that assist your blocks can be the deciding factor as to whether a stab or slash is fatal. I am not advocating that you should operate under the assumption that you will be cut, rather I am emphasizing the important and essential part that body movements play when dealing with edged weapons; you should block everything and move away from everything. Disarming Versus Evasion                 The street is not the same controlled environment of the Studio or Dojo. This is often forgotten where knife disarming is concerned. In truth there is only one time when you should disarm a person of a knife: when you are going to use it against them and/or one of the third parties that is with them. In a high stress situation where your life is at risk – and every time a bladed weapon is concerned you should assume this is the case – you will do whatever is necessary to survive it: if you take a knife off someone, in your emotional/survival state, you will use it against them. In a calm and non-emotional state you may believe that you would never do this i.e. use a person’s weapon against them. Do not be fooled into thinking you can deal with life threatening violence with a Zen Mindset, that sees you disarm an assailant and then disengage; this is not the human condition – once in the moment where you’re  equipped with the means to finish them, you will. If you train to disarm and take the knife in every instance, you should also understand that you should be prepared to deal with the moral and legal consequences of using it.                 The issue is, that once you have disarmed somebody you have in no way taken away their potential to cause you harm; you have their knife but you have done nothing to stop them hurting you either as an unarmed assailant or with another weapon they may have about them. All you have done is to equip yourself with a weapon that can potentially cause them harm – and one that in all likelihood you will use. The simplest strategy is to do what you need to do to exit the situation. If this isn’t an option you need to put your attacker out of commission, either by disarming and then using their own weapon against them, or by using their own weapon against them whilst they are still holding/attached to it, or by controlling them and/or their movement and finish them by launching destructive strikes, limb incapacitations/breaks and the like.                 In the majority of cases your first choice should be to exit the situation if you have the opportunity – there are few occasions where this wouldn’t be the case, such as when there are third parties within the environment that you feel the need/desire to protect. Assuming that this isn’t the case your primary objective is to get as far away from your assailant as possible and/or put some obstacle between you and your aggressor. Parked cars make excellent barriers between yourself and an attacker, as long as they are alone; as long as you keep moving and don’t give up your assailant will soon move from their adrenalized state to a less emotional one and if you have the ability to call the police on a mobile phone whilst you have the car between you, they will soon realize that time is against them. Reality requires you to survive a situation not demonstrate your ability to perform technique. A fight is about controlling the environment you are in, not what you are able to do or demonstrate against another person.            https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=64 Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=63 I’ll let you into a secret (like most secrets there are none, so there shouldn’t be any surprises I - n telling you this...): nothing in the world of professional security and safety is designed for you and your use, everything is designed, articulated and for the benefit of the security and safety professional, not the person who is actually caught up in the middle of it. You are expected to behave and act according to a script that someone else has written for you. Every safety system is based on the premise that people behave rationally and sensibly under stress – the problem is that when given time they do.                 The behavior of people aboard the Titanic, as it went down, is legendary. The lines for the life boats were orderly and “Women and Children” went first. From a “disaster” perspective everybody behaved as they should: orderly and without panic, with social conventions and values being applied. Given space and time we behave as would be expected. We can cope with the stress and resolve ourselves to our reality of our situations. The Titanic is not the only disaster where the professionals got it wrong e.g. not enough lifeboats. In the World Trade Center it was estimated that evacuating people would clear a floor in 30 seconds, in the real word they did it in 60. Their response time was based on how they should behave not on how they actually would. Often the emergency plans we’re supposed to follow are based on the practices of the emergency services (trained professionals) rather than the ordinary people who suddenly find themselves in such a situation. The greatest number of first responders in the Twin Towers on 9/11 were not professional medics etc but ordinary individuals who had little more to offer than common sense. You don’t need to be a “hero” in such situations to have an effect you simply need to be the person who believes they can make a difference. One of the things that security (and “disaster”) professionals are beginning to realize is the importance that time plays in allowing people to bypass and deal with the stress of a situation. In a high stress situation where time is restricted, such as in an air crash, people fall into two camps, those that act and those that don’t. Those who wait for instruction don’t make it, those who don’t wait but simply act do. You survive a plane crash by making it to an exit ASAP, with your shoes on – don’t wear sandals or flip-flops next time you fly (or take your shoes off) they won’t offer much protection against burning aviation fuel. Don’t wait for others to tell you what to do just act. Often violent confrontations lie somewhere between the obvious and immediate danger of a plane crash and the slow sinking of a passenger ship i.e. the Titanic. Just enough time to think, but not enough to think completely – and rationally. There is also the issue of violence being a social thing: what if you’ve got it wrong that if the aggression isn’t real; that you’ve misinterpreted the situation. People in plane crashes and on slow sinking ships still experience denial but they have different timeframes within which to get over it: the danger of a plane crash is obvious, whilst the situation of a slow sinking ship is one that is continually reinforced and reminded to the passengers. The majority of violent situations lack the obvious and immediate danger of a plane crash, due to the period of dialogue and verbal exchange that precedes the majority of them however they are much faster moving than ships that take 45 minutes plus to sink. Having a period of time to think, allows for both denial and doubt; you may get over the denial phase and accept the reality of the situation but then enter into a stage where you start to question your ability to deal with it. This may be reinforced by your aggressor’s behavior, which is the very point of their posturing. As soon as you question your ability to handle a situation you have to act (preferably you should have done so beforehand), as once one doubt exists others will follow. You have no time to formulate an alternative solution – if you are questioning your ability to physically resolve an incident then you have already acknowledged the danger within it. You do not want to have to win an internal battle with yourself and then deal with an external threat to your safety. In training, start to develop the habit of doing and not thinking; of acting on first instinct; creating time for yourself to overthink what you are doing is not something you want to be educating yourself to do.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=63 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=62 The debate around 2nd Amendment rights, although politically important has led many people to neglect the use and carry of other available weapons that in certain situation may be more relevant and applicable than a firearm e.g. there are occasions when non-lethal weapons such as batons and CS Sprays etc may be more suitable for dealing with an aggressor than a handgun or similar. Not every self-defense situation requires the use of lethal force and having alternative solutions means that an individual doesn’t have to pull their piece when either the law or the level of risk within the situation doesn’t justify it. Just because a handgun can deal with the most extreme of threats doesn’t mean it should be used to deal with all threats. Taking a firearms course and buying a gun, in and of itself, doesn’t demonstrate much thought and consideration concerning your self-protection needs. Anyone who carries any weapon needs to understand the situations and scenarios when they would draw and then potentially use that weapon – to my way of thinking, as soon as you draw a weapon you need to be prepared to use it; I would actually go further and say that drawing a weapon signals your intent to use it and the situation must de-escalate quickly and significantly for said weapon not to be used. This is also how I view other people’s mindsets and intent when pulling weapons out against me (in spontaneously violent situations) i.e. they are intending to use them. If during a verbal discussion or argument somebody pulls a knife on me, I’m going to work off the basis that they intend to cut me as that would be the only reason why I’d be drawing mine. I would never draw a weapon either for “show” or in the “hope” that it would dissuade someone from acting/behaving in a certain way. If I’m carrying a firearm and draw it, I’m doing so with the intent to use it i.e. the situation determined it as the solution; if I don’t have to, all well and good. That’s a bonus. Carrying a knife is not a less than lethal option. A knife is an offensive not a defensive weapon. It may lack the potential collateral damage that a firearm can have however a knife is certainly not a defensive weapon. I would actually argue that a 9 mm has more defensive capabilities and options than a 2.5 inch blade: 1. the level of intimidation is greater which means it may dissuade a person from aggressive and violent behavior, 2. It can be used whilst you are backing off/away whilst a knife requires movement towards an aggressor to be effective and 3. A handgun can be used to take away a person’s movement whilst at distance ( a shot to the knee or hip joint – a tactic used against suicide bombers in the middle east), whereas a blade needs to be applied up close, personal and directly at the assailant. At the end of the day it is as easy and as likely to kill a person when using a knife as it is when using a firearm. I am no attorney however my cod legal knowledge tells me that it will be a hard job to argue the case for carrying and using a knife, even if the length of the blade conforms to your state’s laws. I have a 2.49 inch blade, which is legal for me to carry in Boston that can kill you with the same level of skill and ease as a 4 inch knife that would be illegal in the same city. The blade length may give me “carry” rights but to a Jury in a court of law, a knife is simply a knife. It matters little if I cut someone with a 2 inch knife as a 5 inch knife, a knife is a knife and it only has one purpose. Being legal doesn’t translate to having the right to use. The situation determines the solution and to 99% of the population and legal world a knife is a knife. The police don’t use knives and there are reasons beyond the risk of blood on the uniform for this. If a policeman pulls a lethal weapon they want to be sure (as well as justified) of the effect. The consequences of a bullet are far more predictable than that of a knife. But they also have two other non-lethal weapons at their disposal: a Baton and CS Spray. Even though batons are illegal to carry in Massachusetts, if you were to use one you’d have a great point of reference to explain that you were using it in a less than lethal capacity i.e. that’s how the police use them. With a baton you can create and maintain distance, which clearly identifies you as a person wanting to avoid conflict. You can make this case regardless of the number of hits and strikes you may land on your assailant – a hard argument to make if the injuries are wounds and cuts that are dispensed by a bladed weapon. A knife requires close contact to be effective - a baton doesn’t, neither does CS Spray. These are weapons that can be deployed at distance, meaning that you can be moving away from an assailant as you deploy them, whereas a knife can’t. These are true defensive weapons. There are times you need offensive capabilities, whilst at distance, these require a firearm. However to have defensive capabilities at depth you need to be able to employ both lethal and less than lethal solutions appropriately. Above all you need situational awareness and effective decision making skills to ensure you can deploy your solutions effectively. Not all violence is the same. There are those aggressors that simply need to be kept at bay whilst you escape/disengage etc and those who need to be finished. Have a knife, carry a baton, own a variety of firearms etc, just make sure you are able to handle all manner of situations.           https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=62 Sun, 09 Sep 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=61 A boxing ring, a cage or even the mats of a dojo offer the perfect environment for two different fighters to compare their fighting skills and abilities. Real life violence however doesn’t concern itself with the idea or concept of finding out who is the best fighter, instead it is about what one person is prepared to and able to do to another. The best ring or cage fighter is as vulnerable (and unprepared) as the next man if an armed assailant starts shanking them in the legs and buttocks whilst they stand, relieving themselves in front of a bar/pub urinal. Real life violence doesn’t occur on a level playing field where each party involved starts with even chances, rather it involves a level of inequality where one person(s) understands how to play the advantages of their situation and make the other party enjoy the disadvantages of it e.g. make an attack/assault when their target is preoccupied and their movement restricted etc, which makes a pub or bar’s bathroom an ideal environment in which to launch an assault. Being able to use the landscape and environment to your advantage is a key survival skill. I often re-tell the story of chasing someone through a parking lot, only to have them turn on me with a knife. Never underestimate a person who has given up on any thoughts of escape whilst at the same time realizing they have a knife. In a heartbeat the situation changed from one where I was viewed as the predator to one where I suddenly became the prey. The advantage of being in a parking lot is that there are a lot of cars, which make fantastic barriers/obstacles. The disadvantage of a knife is that a person has to be close to you to use it and the width and length of any family saloon is enough to prevent this happening. I lose count of the number of circuits I did of that car but it was enough time to cause my assailant to lose his heightened state of aggression and return to a more rational state where he wanted to talk – still holding the knife of course. What can be looked on as something that restricts your movement can also be seen as an obstacle to someone else’s. We are often so intent on looking for clear lines of disengagement that we fail to see those objects that hinder our escape/movement as things which could be used to create time and distance for us. The furniture in my house may prevent me from having the room to execute the perfect roundhouse kick but as a barrier between me and a potential aggressor my sofa/couch is able to offer a fair degree of protection. Your environment is not restricted to objects, people can form barriers too. If you know how to move through a crowd quicker than any aggressor, your exit from any situation – in a crowded space – can be faster than your assailants. Even though a crowd will slow you down, it can be used to slow down any (potential) assailant(s) more. Whilst you may be trying to perfect the perfect escape from a rear naked choke, you may be overlooking the possibility/fact that knowing how to move through a crowd quickly could be a more valuable life skill. Don’t get bogged down in becoming a studio/dojo warrior. The world needs these people to keep teaching and developing skills etc but it doesn’t need them to argue that the studio is the “street” and vice versa. Next time you walk a street, think how you would use what you see to deal with any potential aggressor – don’t look for discarded clothing etc, rather consider what you could use to give yourself an advantage against a blade.         https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=61 Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=60 The next grading is coming up, which means it’s a good time to focus on improving the basic and most fundamental skills of our system. To many people see gradings as a checklist procedure where they demonstrate their knowledge of the various techniques they’ve learnt – and if they perform them adequately they pass. In the UK educational system, simple memorization is graded as an “E”; it’s still a pass but at the same time it’s a pass that’s a long way from an “A”. In a grading you can pass with an “E” or an “A” but there is a difference. In our system, what identifies or makes the “A” grade student stand out is their performance and improvement in the area of the fundamental skills, the most important one being movement. I can tell a “good” martial artist the moment they step out on to the mats: their movement is assured, and they know why they are moving. This is what separates them from the beginner, who is just learning the correct way/the technique(s) to move. Whether consciously or subconsciously the good martial artist know the reasons why they move: 1. To create opportunity, 2. To move away from an attack and 3. To make their own attack(s). These are the three reasons to move. If number one is performed successfully, point number two never needs to be performed. Movement is everything: if you cannot create opportunity then the other person will dictate to you the terms of the conflict; you create opportunity by moving. If you can’t make a successful body defense in response to an attack, you will find yourself hassled and harassed to deal with the following attacks, and never be in a position to make an assault/attack of your own. In any confrontation I’ve had to deal with, whether against single or multiple assailants, I have always set things up with movement (especially true when dealing with multiple attackers). This may have been in the pre-conflict phase during the interview/dialogue stage of the conflict or during the actual fight itself. This is why it is important to stay calm and assess the environment from the first instance it becomes obvious that a situation may contain harmful intent towards you. It is key to understand the use of objects in the landscape such as cars, walls etc that can be used to your advantage or hinder you in your movements. The dojo/studio floor offers an uncluttered and “sterile” training environment however this isn’t where you will be attacked and understanding how to move in real-life terrain(s) is a key survival skill – this is why we are looking to create a reality training area in the studio. One of the reasons we have been doing so much multiple assailant/attacker training this month is to try and “force” movement. It is so easy to become complacent in movement when it is just one person against one e.g. both parties can “choose” not to move (this often happens because people naturally copy each other’s movements). In multiple attacker training this is not the case, as the movement advantage clearly goes to the attackers and so the target is forced to think and work harder with their own movement piece. If there is one thing I can advise everyone on it is to start moving: in order to create opportunity for yourself and deny opportunity to your attacker(s). https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=60 Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=59 Principle 10 - Move around your assailant, changing the angle of your attacks. Avoid being in a position where your assailants hips are facing/square to you (this is where they are strong). By changing the angle of an attackers assault you force them to “reset” their attacks creating time and space for yourself. Whoever controls the movement of a fight controls the fight. Movement both creates opportunities for attack as well as denying the same for your assailant. Power comes when the hips and shoulders are pointed squarely at the target; this means you must prevent your attacker from “lining” you up in this way whilst at the same time creating situations that put them directly in your sights. Too often I watch people when they train or spar, just standing in front of their partner/opponent looking for some attacking opportunity to magically appear. If you are waiting for your opponent to simply make a mistake for you, you’ll probably not be in a position to exploit it when it happens i.e. you’ll be flat footed with your weight rooted. Your role is to create the mistakes you want your aggressor to make e.g. to get them to move in a certain direction, to get them as they move to load all of their weight on to a particular leg, to lean back to avoid a strike etc.To throw a person, you must first take their balance. Nobody willingly unbalances themselves – the human condition will do everything and anything to ensure that this doesn’t happen. To throw somebody you have to overcome one of man’s most innate instincts: to stay upright. And yet people in training give up their balance and stability so easily. Next time you are working the hook and jab pads with a partner, watch how many times their back foot comes off the ground when they are throwing a rear strike. Their desire to hit the pad is so great that they over-extend themselves in doing so, with their head passing forward of both their hips, knees and feet. With their balance taken the simplest of throws, sweeps or reaps is possible. If a person’s attention can be shifted and directed, it is possible to move them in to positions that they know are not safe. If control of range can be combined with lateral movement i.e. moving sideways, it is possible to attack a person from all angles and even take their back. Forcing a person to commit their weight to a movement freezes them in time. Lateral movements, accomplish this well, as a person if they wish to continue an attack must abort what they are doing and make a change of direction in order to line themselves up for their next attack. These are the moments to choose your attacks; as long as you have moved in a fashion that keeps your hips squared to your target.        Sparring is a great opportunity (in whatever fashion it is conducted) to learn these things. Next time you train play with one thing, not staying directly in front of your opponent. Understand how your movement causes them to move and what attacking opportunities your movement provides you with. Maybe spend the initial moments of your partner work, using your movement to learn how your partner responds to you; then calculate the attacks you could make that would exploit these. Train to learn, and how to get better and expect to make mistakes along the way.  https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=59 Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=58 Principle 9 - Avoid staying in the “transition zone”either be close to your attacker or far away from them One of the things that has always put me off boxing is theacknowledgement and acceptability that you are going to get hit as part of yourattacking process; something that is acceptable if in the process you are ableto score your points. Whilst I am the first to point out that in a real-life streetencounter you are going to get hit, and if a knife is involved cut, I don’tadvocate “trading” with an aggressor in order to get the upper hand and where aknife is involved there really is no concept such as “trading” with an assailant. One of the major differences between a street-fight and asparring contest is the idea of “dead time”. In sparring contests/trainingthere are always moments of rest and inactivity between the bursts of actualfighting. This isn’t a bad thing it just reflects the nature of the training,where both opponents feel each other out and look for opportunity; also thepoint of sparring is not to “finish” the person you’re facing but to train withthem, using them to train your own skills and techniques. The Japanesedifferentiate between “Randori” (practice) and “Shiai” (competition), withinregular training everything is “Randori”, where the aim is prepare yourself forcompetition, or the “real thing”. In a real-life encounter, there should be no “dead” time,a person should always be moving with intent, either to escape the situation orfinish it (finishing it, may involve movement that leads an aggressor to aparticular point/position where you are able to start the process of takingyour aggressor out of the game – a skill that sparring certainly helps todevelop). The “Transition Zone” refers to that space where both you and your assailanthave an equal opportunity to gain an advantage or dominance e.g. you can attackthem and they can attack you. This is not a zone to stay in but one you mustpass through on your way to finishing your aggressor or back out through inorder to disengage from them. I will often see, in sparring, people jam up, cover up orfreeze in this zone. This is not a viable option, when there is the potentialfor a knife to be drawn in a real-life situation. Staying your ground and coveringup with a pair of 14 oz gloves on gives a false sense of security and a unworkabletactic for the street. Covering whilst moving out of this zone however may makesense, but staying stationary whilst taking blows (and cuts) is not somethingthat makes much sense if the focus of your training is for the street andreality. Whatever drills you do, you must make movement part ofthem. You must learn how to move in and how to move out – in reality your goalis to do each one just once e.g. move in, finish, move out etc, or just moveout – anything else is just prolonging the fight. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=58 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=57 One of the major differences between MMA (and other combat sports including Boxing, Judo etc) and Reality Based Self Defense, is that combat and ring sports take part in a sterile and controlled environment – this is what allows for the physical skills of the fighter to be showcased. If in the Octagon there was a liberal sprinkling of sand on the floor, which competitors were allowed to pick up and throw in each other’s eyes, we might not get to see if a person’s grappling skills could overcome another fighters striking ability etc. This is not a failure or something lacking in the UFC it just isn’t the point of it. I get frustrated when Krav Maga practitioners argue that they shouldn’t spar because it’s not fair on them because they can’t eye gouge and groin strike. Sparring training isn’t there to reflect 100% what a street-fight actually looks like but rather to build skills that can be used in a street-fight. It’s an activity which takes place within a controlled environment so that basic fighting skills can be developed for later use. I used to have this argument all the time when I was practicing Judo. Martial Artists from striking arts would argue that Judo was unrealistic because striking wasn’t included in Randori/”free practice”, I could argue that boxing, Karate and Tae Kwon Do are unrealistic because their sparring methods/format doesn’t include grappling. We could all argue all day about this. Judo taught me how to move, stay balance and keep thinking whilst larger people pushed, pulled me and grabbed my clothing (all things that happen in real life confrontations). It taught me a particular dimension of the fight, just as Karate and Tae Kwon Do sparring teach people other dimensions of the fight. Training each dimension distinctly, certainly leads to better martial development in that particular area – which is why tonight at 8:00 pm we spend a dedicated hour, as we do each week (and always have), training groundwork on its own without much focus on the parts of the fight that bring you to ground. We specifically control the environment to allow us to develop these distinct and necessary skills. A real-life confrontation between you and another individual(s) is not simply an incident that involves you and this other person. This is not the Octagon, where the cage represents the boundaries of your world and the possibilities of what could happen are limited within the cage walls. Your focus cannot solely be on the one person you are facing – this is professional security 101 – if it is, you are bringing a sparring, combat sports mentality to the street and whilst this is fine in training it demonstrates a real naievety and “innocence” about what reality actually is and looks like. As I always stress there are 3 assumptions to make: 1) Your assailant is armed, 2) he is technically and emotionally competent and 3) he is not alone. It has always amazed me the number of individuals who engage in what they believe to be one-on-one fights and confrontations whilst in social settings – I saw this so many times when working door in pubs and night clubs. Few people go clubbing alone, most go with friends or in a group, so why would you think that when you get in to an argument at the bar you are only potentially dealing with one person? Having spent enough time in garrison towns in the UK, I have seen more than enough times the consequences of someone engaging in a justified verbal exchange with a short haired guy at the bar, who fails to realize that the other 12 short haired guys in the bar are his mates who along with him have all just returned from a particular warzone or similar. This is the danger of “tunnel vision”: you only see what’s directly in front of you. Nobody is 100% sure of why we develop tunnel vision when we become angry or fearful. There are obvious benefits to being able to focus on the direct and immediate threat as well as definite downsides – when our greatest threats were from wild animals and the like (or if you’re a certain presidential hopeful who believes humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time then include T-Rex’s and Pterodactyls in that list of things to be scared of) having the ability to focus entirely on one thing and excluding all others is a definite advantage. It may be that we go tunnel vision as our brain switches of various sensory functions, such as hearing and the ability to see in color (two abilities that can go when under high stress) and so turns off or down our peripheral vision to martial its finite resources to be able to have enhanced reaction times etc in order to deal with the job at hand. Whatever the reason, under stress we suffer from tunnel vision and so lose our ability to understand the environment around us, including the third parties who may be coming to our aggressor’s assistance. Surviving a real-life encounter is about controlling the entire environment not just dealing with the person in front of you. Scanning is a simple method of returning your peripheral vision and also understanding your environment e.g. third parties coming towards you, exits to escape by, obstacles to shield you and create barriers as well as objects to use as weapons. When you scan it has to be active. Scanning involves moving the head, not just furtive gazing, which means you must be able to control the range between you and the person you are first dealing with (good use of your de-escalation/interview stance will enable you to do this). By looking at and for objects around you, your eyes will focus on things at different depths/distances and it is this which causes your eyes to widen their field of vision. This will also have a secondary effect of helping to de-stress you. Real life encounters happen in real-life situations and environments, where there are third parties, different objects and different terrain. The mats are the environment in which to master the techniques but they need to also be trained in different environments and in different ways to fully develop them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=57 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=56 6. All techniques should utilize maximum body weight. This involves striking with forward movement Our system recognizes that in the first instance it is often difficult to deliver and perform powerful strikes. To align the hips and transfer weight forward can be extremely difficult in the first moments of dealing with an assault, especially if you are not just figuratively, caught on the back foot. This is why we advocate fast strikes to the eyes, throat and groin that can be delivered using hand speed alone, that requires little or no power/force to have effect i.e. a poor eye strike will be much more effective than a poorly delivered punch. After these initial quick strikes to soft targets have been delivered the necessary power strikes, that will finish a fight, can be executed. Whilst an eye strike can disrupt an assailant and cause “psychological” confusion it is not really a finishing move. Power strikes using punches, knees and elbows etc are required to achieve this end/aim. This is not to say power strikes can’t be delivered as initial attacks or responses rather that they require a higher level of skill and technique, which can be difficult to achieve at the very first moments of an attack. I wrote the list of principles 10 years ago and the idea of setting everything up from quick, fast non-power strikes was not an idea I’d really worked out. I’d used these strikes before in real-life encounters but had never “found” a place for them; they were things I did in specific instances, such as when dealing with multiple assailants – using a quick eye strike to disrupt one person whilst focusing my attention on another. I’d never really systemized their use. I now understand that I used eyes strikes, throat grabs and groin flicks as entry points in to other things, such as fists, elbows and knees. I now advocate their use as primary assaults to set up secondary power strikes where the opportunity to generate forward movement can be difficult; which is normally when being first attacked. For any strike to have power there has to be forward movement, either through use of the hips that turns/shifts weight forward or by literally stepping/moving the body forward. Using the arm and shoulder alone to generate power in a punch is utilizing maybe 10-15% of the potential force that can be generated. The masters of the “linear punch” are without doubt Japanese/Okinawan Karateka. If Karate has a speciality it is the straight punch, often delivered with a step, as well as with a turn of the hips i.e. with forward movement. This is how bodyweight is added to a punch – in fact it should be this movement which starts the punch’s journey. The problem students often have is that they overplay this body shift, especially when delivering strikes using the rear hand (for a right handed person in a left leading stance this rear hand is their right). Often when people first start to throw these strikes, they throw out their rear hand so far that their rear (right) foot lifts up from the floor and they are literally balanced on their front foot, with not only 100% of their weight on it but their rear foot somewhere of the ground. If you are working/holding pads for someone who does or is doing this you should point out the need to correct this – don’t do it on every occasion but mention it at regular intervals until the person corrects it. Whilst the weight should shift towards the front leg when striking, the rear leg must remain on the ground – in traditional martial arts the heel never lifts; Krav Maga uses a more boxing style stance and movement, so for us the heel can lift HOWEVER weight should still remain planted in the toes. In fact the rear punch should be delivered from the toes, with the definite feel of the hip being pushed forward as the leg extends against the “pressure” of the ground. This is how you remain rooted in a strike whilst still moving the weight forward. It is a lack of the idea of the punch being pushed that often leads to the arm being over-extended, whilst the foot comes off of the ground. If when you are working the pads and throwing your rear hand your emphasis is simply on reaching and making contact with the target you will often find yourself judging the success of your strike by the speed at which it hits the pad and not the power it generates. Although you want a quick strike you need for there to be body movement behind the punch and not for the strike to be simply pulling the body behind it. If you are going to be throwing a hard power strike you need it to be effective as a power strike and not simply as one that makes contact – this is where the fast, light strikes to vulnerable targets come in. Next time you work the pads make sure your range is appropriate for delivering strikes that allow the body to shift its weight forward without making it lean so far forward that the rear foot leaves the floor. In fact make sure you can sense the ground beneath your foot as this will give you the feeling of being rooted and not over-committed. The next time you train try to put these principles into action and not settle for a strike that simply makes contact.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=56 Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=54 Everybody wants to either: lose 10 lbs, put 10 lbs of muscle on, get stronger, get fitter, be faster, be better etc. It doesn’t matter if you’re an Olympic Athlete or an ordinary Joe Schmo. I made my choice of who I wanted to be when I was around 8 years old and I’m still working at it – the task never stops. I don’t have any special talents and I’m not naturally or athletically gifted - something I discovered aged 19 when I realized despite my hard work and determination, I didn’t have what it took to be a professional Judoka. I also have accrued enough injuries and possible excuses to give up training many, many times over the years. I don’t write this to be congratulated or admired (people’s opinions of us don’t change who we are) but to draw attention to the spirit, enthusiasm and commitment that was shown during Saturdays training. Saturday was tough, I know that: Gorilla Crawls on sand aren’t easy and sit-ups in the surf are hard. Training for 90 minutes without a break means your head has to be in a certain place. Everyone will have had their private thoughts e.g. “how much longer?” “I don’t think I can push out another rep.” But everyone bought into the concept and idea of keeping going, not giving up and more importantly smiling throughout the process. This is what training is about: hitting the moment when every part of the human condition, mental, physical and emotional comes together and lets you know who you are and who you can be, even if the result is no more than just a glimpse for the briefest moment – that moment should be one of complete satisfaction and that does makes you smile. When you have it, get it you don’t want the training to end. It doesn’t happen every time you train or step out on to the mats if it did it wouldn’t mean anything. We all have the sessions when we suck (most people have seen me have my off days when lifting etc) and the ones where the end couldn’t have come quickly enough. Maybe these are the times when we question if what we’re doing makes sense or if we’ll ever “get it” or be good. The martial arts are full of the people who listen and take full notice of these doubts. They go from school to school, style to style, searching for the miracle, they stop running and lift weights, give up weights for swimming etc all in their quest for that “something” that is made/perfect for them. They never realize that you don’t make the training, the training makes you. Saturday was a great reminder for me of this. As an asthmatic 8 year old I was gassed on the mats more times than I got to train but I made a decision to myself, that I would dig in and do my time. I knew everything physically that I tried would be hard and that I couldn’t cheat at either getting fit or being able to defend myself. But with the simple thinking of an 8 year old I knew that the training would make me. Often we think too much. I used to see this when I was a personal trainer, teaching people how to lift weights in the gym. Lifting is dead simple. You want to get stronger, you have to lift heavier. There isn’t a simpler formula, yet just about everyone I trained wanted to cheat this. They wanted me to come up with cleverly formulated workouts, training different muscle groups one day, using complicated patterns of sets and reps and engaging in the most bizarre and esoteric training routines etc. They would read an article in “Men’s Health” and question me on it – if I told them they just needed to lift heavier weights in order to get stronger, they’d often see me as some form of lifting idiot who wasn’t privy to the secrets of the masters - f anyone wants to borrow my copy of Zatziorky’s classic text on Olympic Lifting, I have one of the few, rare copies BUT for all the words and theories it’ll still tell you to lift heavy if you want to get stronger .If my clients had approached their training with the simple thinking of an 8 year old, their training would be much more effective and productive. Apply the direct simple approach to what you do and you’ll get the results. Children are often better at surviving wilderness disasters than their adult counterparts. In a child’s world nothing exists beyond the horizon, which means they don’t run/walk further than they can see. Adults think they know what is beyond the skyline, children don’t. If a child is hungry they stop and eat, if they’re tired they sleep. Their world is simple and their solutions are simple. They don’t look for alternatives they do what they need to do according to the situation they are in. On Saturday, when you ran with a sandbag weighing 50 lbs or so, there were no alternatives (except for giving up), if you had to do push-ups you had to do push-ups etc. At the time you weren’t looking beyond the horizon to see where your efforts might be leading you those are the thoughts you have at the beginning and the end of the training. Everyone who steps out on to our mats to train does so having made a decision: you want to be someone. It doesn’t matter whether you’re an 8 year old or a 32 year old make the decision about who you want to be. In your training be the 8 year old and accept the situation. On Saturday everybody attacked the day as a child both in the dream and the situation. Those are the sessions which are truly amazing.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=54 Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=53 On Friday, I conducted an afternoon of training for a group of executives whose role sees them travel abroad on a regular basis - to a variety of countries in both the developed and developing worlds. I am always impressed by companies and managers who see the value in equipping their staff with both self-protection and self-defense skills. It shows both a personal level of care for their employees as well as recognizing that they are also an asset and resource to the business. One of the things we discussed in the seminar was the way in which familiar business protocols can be exploited by those who plan abductions/hostage taking. Familiarity is one of the greatest dangers to our personal safety. One of the reasons that CP/EP (Close Protection/Executive Protection) Operatives advise “at risk” people to change the routes they take to work etc. is not simply to help prevent potential aggressors and assailants from knowing their whereabouts at any given time but to also increase the awareness level(s) of the person making the journey i.e. If you always take the same route to work you will soon end up travelling 90% of it on autopilot, if you alter and change the route you will find yourself focusing much more on the journey itself. If you travel for business, the familiar picture of a driver holding a card with your name on it at the Arrivals Gate can be a sight for sore eyes; especially if you’ve just endured a 10 hour flight. The fact that 99 times out of 100, the driver has been legitimate and has taken you to your destination does not mean that you should automatically assume that the person waiting for you this time has your best intentions at heart. Any driver, especially if they are driving a car with “Livery” plates, is themselves a target for abduction. This is a common ploy in South America, where a driver/chauffer is abducted in the airport parking lot, bundled into the trunk of his vehicle whilst a replacement driver is sent to wait at the Arrivals gate for the unsuspecting target. Although this method is more common in the developing world it works equally well in the developed. It is however a fairly easily abduction technique to avoid as long as a modicum of time is spent up front – like most self-protection strategies…The first thing is to make sure you don’t arrange to meet your driver at Arrivals. This has a couple of advantages; the main one being that any individual/group planning to abduct you would have to consider that your driver would be meeting you in a “specific” pre-arranged location, which isn’t the norm in these situations and if pressed your original driver would have to actively divulge the location. Both are possible but that doesn’t make them probable. A second advantage is that you can exit the Arrivals gate looking like you know where you are going and with an air of familiarity that smacks of someone who is in control of their environment – we’ve all seen the “tourist” with the fanny pack at the arrivals gate looking around for something, anything that is common and familiar… This is one of the reasons I always advocate checking the layout of an airport before you depart/arrive (most airports have maps that are available online); being able to walk with your eye-line anywhere but the overhead signs giving directions, gives off a clear message of someone who is both familiar and at one with their environment. Watching what other people are looking at can tell you a great deal about them; when someone is looking for signs and directions their unfamiliarity is obvious. These are also the individuals who are normally happy to accept anybody’s help, handing control of their situation over to them. If you look/are lost and someone offers to help you are very likely to accept. There is nothing wrong in asking the company who is sending the driver to provide both their name and a photograph. When you first meet them (at your pre-arranged location – away from arrivals) you will know it is them. You can also ask for them to provide you with ID. Criminals often foul up on the smallest of details and it is worth remembering this. They may send a driver who looks similar to the one you are expecting (if they are extremely organized) but forget to equip him with the appropriate ID etc. a small omission that if picked up on can thwart the whole abduction/exercise. If in any doubt you can phone the company/agency employing the driver and ask that they send someone else or take your own transport (taxi, bus etc). If you have done your research properly and looked at the maps of the airport, you will know exactly where these depart from. Negotiating an airport or any entrance route to a country/destination contains many risks; this was just a brief glimpse into some of the things we teach on our “Travel Security” courses. We will be looking to run more of these types of seminar, for a general audience, in the coming months. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=53 Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=52 I’m going to take a break from the 10 principles of fighting to write about our experience(s) of beach training on Saturday. Firstly, I’d like to thank those who turned up to try something a little bit different from our usual training experience(s) in the studio. I think everybody started to get an idea of the benefits of training in different environments and I’d like to explain and detail some of these and why it is so important to “mix up” our training from time to time. I’ve been involved in martial arts and self-defense virtually all my life (since age 8); and I’m still as passionate/child-like in my learning and training 22 years on. The excitement I have when I gain a new understanding about what we do, how something works or an enhanced appreciation of something I’ve done for years but only now start to see its real genius, is something that keeps me coming back to the mats, over and over again. I sometimes get this when I’m teaching, some realization of a particular point to a technique or similar that has just becomes so pivotal to everything we do that I get lost at how to communicate it fully (it then takes me the rest of the day, night etc to think about the best way to explain it). Beach training on Saturday was one of those moments. When I saw the Human Weapon Episode on Krav Maga, one of the lines that stuck in my mind was when Dennis Hanover and the Hisardut guys, who was training on the top of Masada in the heat, was asked about him choosing such an outside location for practice said, “This is called Survival, this is not a gym, this is nature”. It is sometimes easy to forget that what we train in the gym is not actually for use in a gym. There is also something very “real” about training outdoors i.e. we are basically animals and this is our natural environment. The world we have created for ourselves, indoors, is an artificial one. I don’t believe we were designed to sit at a desk all day etc, rather that we are creatures that need to move and engage in physical activity – one of the reasons that training gives us such a buzz/high. When we couple our need to engage in physical activity whilst performing it in our natural environment it’s extremely invigorating. There was definitely something primordial about Saturday’s training! Don’t get me wrong, training on the mats is essential. This is where we build up the necessary skills and can create a “controlled” environment however it’s great at times to take this training to an “uncontrolled” environment and try and work what we do there e.g. try generating power in a kick whilst in water and standing on sand. Will you ever have to do this in real life, probably not but if you can think about what you will be able to do on a flat surface such as concrete. If you don’t hesitate and commit to a defense, even when you realize a wave is going to put your head under water, think about the lack of hesitation you will have when doing that technique/defense in another environment. Mixing things up and training what you know in different ways is a great way to start speeding up your training curve, or certainly getting over those humps when progression has slowed down. Being able to adapt to your surroundings is a key survival skill and at essence what we train for is survival. We will always be a mat based, studio based school; we will be bringing a car in as soon as we get the green light, so we can have a “reality based” training area but on certain occasions it’s good to get back to nature and train in our first and natural environment.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=52 Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=51 Principle 5 – “Switch between attacking high and low targets. Don’t focus on or become blind to just one target” Our system looks at using soft strikes (gouges, finger strikes, open hand strikes) to soft and vulnerable targets (eyes, throat and groin) as a means of overwhelming and “short circuiting” a person in order to open them up. This creates the opportunities that allow us to follow up with hard strikes, such as punches, elbows and knees as a means of finishing/ending the fight. The reason we initially attack this way, is that soft strikes require little accurate body positioning, unlike a punch which to be effective needs to have both the hips and shoulders engaged/lined up e.g. a poorly executed eye strike will provoke more of a response than a poorly thrown punch. Once the person has been psychologically overwhelmed by repeated strikes, gouges, slaps and rips, the “time” can be taken to deliver the hard strikes which will effectively put them out of commission (knees, elbows, head-butts and the like). The idea of repetitive “soft” striking to vulnerable targets is not to cause maximum damage but to cause the maximum disruption to the aggressor’s attack, bypassing both their flinch/blink response and their pain management system(s). Just as we use the body’s natural flinch reflex for our 360 Blocking system, so we have to be aware that an untrained person will also naturally flinch and raise their arms up to protect themselves when we are attacking them, and this can be an issue. By throwing soft strikes that don’t require the body to engage fully, and use just the arms, our attacks can be that much faster and have the potential to beat the flinch and blink reflex. We call these strikes “Quarter Beat” as opposed to the metronomic and overlapping rhythms that we use to deliver our harder more powerful strikes. The aim is to throw as many strikes in the shortest possible time into your aggressor’s soft and vulnerable areas (eyes, throat and groin) not just focusing on one but alternating between them. If a person has brought their hands up, by reflex, to protect an area you’re attacking, you need to move to another. As soon as you’ve attacked the eyes, move to the throat and then to the groin; working high and low. A repetitive strike to one area will allow a person to recognize and realize what they need to defend but by changing targets and heights this opportunity is denied them. If you are continually reigning strikes to the head a person will simply cover up their head – we see this all the time in wall and line drills – whilst if you keep changing the height of the targets you hone in on, you will soon see the hands drop, giving you the head. The idea is to psychologically overwhelm your assailant. Most fights end with a person giving up/giving in, normally not through injury but rather due to becoming emotionally overwhelmed. One of the quickest ways to do that is to cause a variety of different pains and sensations to the person, in a variety of different bodily areas/targets. The TV and Video footage of Dennis Hanover, working up and down the body with his “soft” quarter beat strikes never really captures the amazing speed of his hands, nor what it looks and feels like from the victim/target’s perspective. The first time I met him – as well as pulling a gun on me in a restaurant – he lightly attacked me and his hands beat my blink reflex: he had landed two or three strikes to my eyes and nose before I even registered what he was doing. Had each of those strikes actually “hit” I would have been completely disorientated. Whilst we were doing our young women’s course I demonstrated on Griffin, without telling him what I was doing, next time you see him ask him what his response and feelings were at the time. Our methodology is to use soft strikes to soft targets to set up hard strikes to soft targets. These targets are primarily the eyes, throat and groin. Vary your use of them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=51 Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=49 Principle 4 - Change from “prey” to “predator” in the shortest possible time – defense and attack should be as close together as possible or attacks should be pre-emptive. There are three components of and reality based self defense system: simple instinctual techniques, physical fitness and an aggressive mindset. When your heart rate hits 180 BPM (Beats per Minute) due to the effects of adrenaline, your ability to perform complex techniques disappear, and when your adrenaline wears off, whatever superhuman powers it gave you will got to; all you’re left with is your current fitness level and your aggressive mindset. I don’t believe in the term “self-defense”, it suggests that’s what’s required of you in a violent confrontation is to do “just enough” in order to stop your assailant assaulting you. If you want to put boundaries around what you’re prepared to do to the other person then you are putting yourself at a serious disadvantage. If they want to pummel and kick you into oblivion and all you want to do is protect yourself and nothing more, I promise you that the outcome of the fight will see you unconscious: your predator(s) will not restrict themselves in what they do to you, even if you will to them. Forget the movies, forget your skills and put your technical ability aside for one moment. If you have ever seen the absolute rage and violence of someone who has lost all rational thought and at that moment in time simply wants to make sure you cease to exist, you will quickly dispense with the idea that in a state of Zen Calmness you can dispatch them forthwith and teach them a lesson they’ll never forget. If you can survive the situation, get out alive, with minimal injuries you have done more than succeed. Violence is a messy and dirty affair both physically and emotionally and if you cannot bring the same level of emotional and physical commitment to the game, that your assailant does, your chances of success are close to zero…or…you’re hoping you get lucky. You’re emotional state doesn’t have to be one of out of control rage like your assailant but it does have to outstrip them in terms of depth, determination and belief. A physical assault/threat is a challenge to the very core and essence of the person that is you. Although I care little for the respect of those that don’t know me, I still take seriously the disrespect that an aggressive person shows to me; that they believe they have the right to communicate with me (or anyone) on such an uneven footing – don’t tell me it’s just “trash talk”, it’s ignorant entitlement at a volume that nobody should be expected to tolerate (and when you won’t get out of your car to talk to me, or walk away when challenged about it, I’m surprised you can keep upright without your backbone). At the first sign of aggression and violence, you should be prepared to act preemptively – this doesn’t mean you should, just that you should be prepared to. Making the switch that says you’re prepared to be the one to hit/strike first signifies you have moved away from a prey mentality. Even a cornered rabbit with no escape opportunity will attack first if necessary. If your head is concerned with the legal implications of such a course of action, clear it, your assailant isn’t encumbered with such thoughts. If you fear for your safety you have every right to strike first: you don’t have to wait for a person who is holding a gun to your head to pull the trigger before you act. As long as everything you did up until that point was following a course of disengagement/de-escalation and avoidance you should have no concerns about the implications of your actions – they are to be worked out after the assault. In my experience both as a participant and observer of violence 8 out of 10 fights are “won” by the person throwing the first punch/strike; that person should be you. If you fail to do this, the first strike your assailant throws should be there only one, as you move from defense to attack in the shortest possible time. You end fights by being the predator not the prey.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=49 Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=48 Principle 3 – “Lay down as much continuous firepower in the shortest possible time i.e. “assault” the attacker. Don’t allow gaps/spaces between your strikes and attacks as this gives the opportunity for your attacker...” Sparring is something that two people do as a pair together; a fight is something that two people do to each other and an assault is something that one person does to another. Sparring as invaluable a training aid as it is, is a poor reflection and replication of an actual street fight. In a sparring match both individuals get the opportunity to both attack and defend as well as counter and evade etc. This teaches and allows the practice of valuable fighting skills but doesn’t resemble a street fight or any other example of real life violence. Reality will see one person assault another with no intention of giving them an opportunity to demonstrate what they can do. This normally involves an aggressor launching a committed strike, probably combined with a push to cause maximum surprise etc, and then following it up with a barrage of other strikes in a continuous fashion. This is why Krav Maga teaches pre-emptive action and failing this, making sure that attacks follow defense in the shortest possible time-frame. Some organizations will talk about simultaneous defense and attack - I think what is actually meant by this often misleads and/or the instructor doesn’t understand the concept fully and ends up teaching/practicing strikes which don’t fully engage the hips and shoulders; this is why I talk about attack following defense as quickly as is possible to deliver powerful, effective and meaningful strikes. Not letting an assailant get into a rhythm is essential if you are to have any chance of replying with your own assault. Your defense and attack, should be aimed at disrupting your assailant, which is why it is preferable to strike soft and vulnerable targets – which we talked about in the previous two posts. Krav Maga teaches the idea of “Retzef/Retzev” – Retzef/Retzev, means “continuous” in Hebrew – which involves laying down your strikes and kicks, one after the other with no breaks, almost as if each attack you make is made with the frequency of bullets from an automatic weapon. Striking this way, means you must understand the way that the turn of your hips in your strikes, sets up the next strike etc. It should also influence the rhythm of your attacks i.e. there should be little space between them. Whilst striking in a metronomic fashion will allow each individual strike to be thrown with full power it will also means that gaps appear in your striking. If you can strike using half and quarter beats, throwing second strikes before recoiling the first etc, you will be able to get past a person’s flinch/startle reflex and overwhelm them with your assault. Your attacks have to get past a person’s flinch reflex, or their natural reactions may impede your assault. Just as with we use the flinch reflex as the starting point for the 360 block, so untrained people will flinch and raise their hands to guard their head and face when attacked. Using a combination of high and low attacks can allow you to get the hands lowered and raised automatically. By throwing leg and groin kicks you will cause a person to drop their hands – even trained people who know that they should block leg kicks with their legs will often drop their hands in sparring situations when attacked low – which can set up your head shots. Closing the distance will allow you to get into a position where you can throw “fast hands”. Open palm strikes, as opposed to fists, can be used to obscure a person’s vision and create a mask behind which you can throw other strikes in a non-metronomic rhythm. Closing distance and denying time and space are tactics the untrained fighter does automatically and they are good principles for us to follow – especially if we apply “scientific” ideas to them. Preventing and limiting your assailant’s attacking opportunities, means you can concentrate on attack not defense and no fight ever goes in the favor of the person who adopts the defensive mindset and attitude.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=48 Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=47 Principle 2: “The nearest weapon should attack the nearest softest target (eyes, throat or groin). Use attacks, which bypass an attackers “pain management” system e.g. bite, slap, eye rake etc. Use strikes, which give you the most “bang for your buck” and are the easiest to pull off.” The nearest weapon attacks the nearest softest target is an artillery principle that a gunner’s (artillery) officer once told me over a pint. I think this is both an obvious military principle and one that makes perfect sense from a self-defense/Krav Maga perspective. Imi Lichtenfeld, the founder of Krav Maga, talked about the need when facing multiple assailants (which he had to do when facing Anti-Semitic, fascist street gangs in his native Bratislava in the 1930’s) to strike and hit sensitive targets such as the groin, throat and knees to quickly debilitate and put somebody out of action. When dealing with multiple opponents, you don’t have either the space or time to try and employ a game-plan or strategy you just need to get each assailant out of the picture and way ASAP. I can never emphasize or stress enough the difference between ring sports/cage martial arts. When you read about boxers, cage fighters etc they will talk about how they prepared for a particular fight – I was just reading Randy Couture’s book on Wrestling for Fighting/MMA and he talks about the game-plan and the way he trained before facing particular fighters (some great pointers demonstrated and brought out). In a real life fight you don’t know your opponent; you just need to dispatch them as quickly as possible before the next one appears, you really don’t have time to adopt a ring strategy etc. Using soft targets to quickly disrupt an attacker becomes essential. For me the most obvious “soft” targets are the throat, eyes and groin, with secondary targets being the IT band/Quadriceps and nose. I am not a great believer in pressure points etc – I have been in too many confrontations that have turned into a shit show where there was no time to aim for some magical spot etc that made somebody collapse and then die on a rainy day in July (pardon my skepticism – I think the body is an amazing organism, but I really don’t believe some people’s – martial arts instructors - claims about their ability to control its functions and…destiny). N.B. It is worth noting that just because we practice a lot of striking on the pads with a closed fist, it doesn’t mean those strikes are limited to closed fist striking; your hand can be shaped into any “tool” you require e.g. cradle strikes, eye pokes, thumb gouges etc. The throat and groin are fantastic targets as they face forward and can’t easily be hidden, unlike the eyes, where a person can turn their head away to escape an attack – and are also the first bodily parts to first detect any assault and are equipped with a “blink” reflex to protect them. It must be remembered that the groin being a sensitive area has certain reflex actions when it “perceives” a threat. Any upwards and forwards motion towards the lower/mid-section will see the hips pull back to protect these vulnerable areas. Any strike to the groin will have to beat this reflex action. This is where hand strikes are often more effective than kicks and knees (which are slower moving). In reality based situations the opportunity to knee/kick the groin may be denied both by the proximity of the assailant as well as the clothes the target/victim is wearing. All attackers will deny time and distance; something they do to both cause surprise and protect/defend themselves. If an assailant is close and you are wearing tight jeans, jeans with a low hanging crotch, pushed against a wall, in a pencil line skirt etc, the groin becomes an unavailable target for the legs/knees, but is still available to the faster and more adaptable hands. The great thing about groin strikes, is that even if they don’t cause a great deal of pain, the body will naturally pull the hips back to protect this vulnerable area. If the hips aren’t engaged there will be no power in a person strikes. The throat is particularly vulnerable due to its lack of mobility – however much you turn your head it will still sticks forward to a greater extent. Instead of using a lead hand punch I’ll often substitute it for some form of throat strike e.g. a cradle strike. A poorly executed strike to a soft area will yield more than a badly executed punch/fist to the chin or the face etc. Eyes are great, without them you can’t see. I’m not sure of the need to explain anything further…If you can hit them quickly do: little force is needed to effect a response. Rather than using rigid fingers, that may get stubbed if they hit the cheek bone or the forehead etc (which is a distinct possibility in the rough and tumble of a street-fight), flicking, brushing and gouging are much safer ways to attack the eyes. Thumbs are also extremely useful and fit quite nicely into the eye socket. The nose and quadriceps are less obvious “soft targets” but part of what attracts my attention to them is not just the fact that they are great targets but the tools that can be used to affect them are large and significant. In the case of the Quads, they are a large muscle group/target that only needs to be hit with a single concentrated force for there to be a significant result. When I consider the nearest weapon to the Quads I am naturally drawn to shin kicks: the shin bone is long, with a single ridge. The shin connecting to the Quads if thrown with commitment will have a result, either as a sweep (if thrown early) or by deadening the leg if weight is loaded upon it, of making sure that person’s leg is out of action. Hit the nose hard (which breaks easily) and you will cause the eyes to water etc. Taking away your assailants ability to see is an obvious and relatively low cost tactic. The nose, like the throat, is an obvious and relatively large target: aim for the center of the face and you’ll get there. Even without breaking the nose, minimum force is required to elicit the eyes to water…  The Quads are a large muscle group which can quickly stop working when hit correctly. The IT band runs the length of the leg (on the outside – basically it mirrors the side seam of trousers or jeans, giving you a good target to aim for) of and is a muscle which spends much of its time “tight” – there is very little give in it. If you’ve ever tried to stretch it out using a foam roller at the gym, you will know how tender it is. A strong strike using the shin to the upper leg will certainly get you a result. The pain may not be as acute as a strike to the eyes or groin however if it freezes the leg, even just for a moment, it will give you an “in” to follow up with Retzef (continuous strikes).  This is the key to striking soft targets, not to look for them as “finishing” moves but to see them as a way to initially disrupt an attacker and set your-self up for a continued barrage of strikes and kicks. If a groin strike etc has the effect of finishing then all well and good however just creating time and space is a net positive (and essential if dealing with multiple attackers).  It is important to attack in such a way that the attacker’s pain management system is bypassed. An adrenalized attacker can gear themselves up to accept and take punches, especially if this is what they are expecting to deal with. The most painful thing in the world, is not an eye strike, or groin slap but a Thomas the Tank Engine model, stepped on at 1:30 in the morning, when you’ve just got out of bed. Why? Because the pain is unexpected and unanticipated. This is why strikes need to be mixed, pokes, gouges as well as punches. Putting all of these strikes, which elicit different types of pain, mean that you increase your chances of having an effect against an adrenalized assailant(s). Soft targets and strikes need to be mixed up into your Retzef, so not only do you overwhelm your assailant with strikes, you overwhelm their pain management system as well. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=47 Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=46 Along time ago, I wrote down a back of a cigarette packet list of “principles” on fighting that I worked out in a coffee shop one morning after a training session. I came across them again in an email I sent to a friend. I might re-word or emphasize things a bit differently but this is how they originally stood: 1. Disrupt then damage, then destroy or disengage. Disruption can be as simple as attacking an assailants balance. 2. The nearest weapon should attack the nearest softest target (eyes, throat or groin). Use attacks, which bypass an attackers “pain management” system e.g. bite, slap, eye rake etc. Use strikes, which give you the most “bang for your buck” and are the easiest to pull off. 3. Lay down as much continuous firepower in the shortest possible time i.e. “assault” the attacker. Don’t allow gaps/spaces between your strikes and attacks as this gives the opportunity for your attacker to fight back. 4. Change from “prey” to “predator” in the shortest possible time – defense and attack should be as close together as possible or attacks should be pre-emptive. 5. Switch between attacking high and low targets. Don’t focus on or become blind to just one target. 6. All techniques should utilize maximum body weight. This involves striking with forward movement. 7. Keep your head over your hips (don’t lean forward and don’t overextend) and your hips facing your attacker/target. 8. “Scan” to check your environment (don’t give in to tunnel vision) and to “de-stress”; always assume there are third parties in the environment who can comes to assist your assailants aid. 9. Avoid staying in the “transition zone” either be close to your attacker or far away from them. 10. Move around your assailant, changing the angle of your attacks. Avoid being in a position where your assailants hips are facing/square to you (this is where they are strong). By changing the angle of an attackers assault you force them to “reset” their attacks creating time and space for yourself. I thought I’d take the next few blog posts to work through the list, explaining my ideas at the time and how these might have developed and changed due to different training/real-life experiences…. Principle 1 – Disrupt, Damage, Destroy, Disengage The first person to act within a violent situation is the assailant (if you choose to pre-emptively attack, this will be you). Whoever acts first has the advantage i.e. the other person is obviously forced to react. There are two ways to force a disruption of their attack: 1) before they make it and 2) by responding to it.It is possible to disrupt an assault before it is even made. This is one of the aims of using a de-escalation/interview stance. By bringing the hands up to guard the body and limit any attacks that can be made directly from the front (Jabs, crosses, overhand rights etc), an assailant is forced to make circular strikes, such as large swinging haymakers etc. By controlling range and forcing an assailant to move and commit their weight, in a particular direction, when making an assault is also a disruption of their attack. This is one of the skills that starts to develop during: sparring, randori and “free fighting”. Learning how to position yourself in order to disrupt an attack before it’s made is something that is essential when sparring…otherwise you get hit with the full power of the strike and at the same time are unable to counter and/or launch your own assault. Simply moving will often be enough to disrupt an assault. It is possible to cause disruption in response to an assault, attack or threat. Simply taking a person’s balance will cause their desire to be stable to over-ride any other natural responses they may have. We have seen this in the knife threat controls we are studying this semester; how by taking balance we override a person’s natural grab reflex. It is this disruption, which allows us to control the arm and then perform a successful disarm. Pain is another way in which an attack can be disrupted e.g. this is the basis of the simultaneous block and punch which is a defining Krav Maga movement. Disruption is essential in order to stop an attack getting into a rythmn. 99 % of assailants will attack with what they believe is their most successful technique – on the street this may be an overhand right, or a giant haymaker. Often these techniques are simple enough to deal with…on their own. However, once several haymakers are strung together they become another proposition and the swinging arms become like the blades in a food processor. Disrupting the first attack becomes an important objective in light of this, A fight is a fight the time for walking away and being the nice guy has evaporated. I always tell people to forget the individual and see the assailant (something which is especially true in sexual assaults where the rapist is known by their victim). Your job is not to explain to your assailant why they shouldn’t be attacking you but to stop them. This requires inflicting serious pain. People may not like the idea of this however it is necessary. Assailant’s stop assaulting because of the pain inflicted upon them either because it discourages them or because it mechanically stops them: you break someone’s arm and they’re unable to hit you, you throw an elbow into their face and they want to give up etc. Somebody once asked me if when I gouge somebody’s eyes, that I do it “just enough”. I never do anything “just enough”, I do what I do, till it stops the other person doing what they’re doing to me. Then I continue doing it till I’m sure they’re not able to do it again. This is what I mean by destroy. I want to reach this point as quickly as possible. There are never any benefits to continuing a street fight longer than necessary. It is safer for you to work this way, and in fact means you punish the person you are dealing with less i.e. hit them with everything you’ve got in a condensed time frame is less likely to impart serious and permanent injury than a lesser level of violence meted out over a longer time-span. At some point you have to disengage. It’s why standing and lying around applying joint-locks and chokes in a controlled manner can eat up your disengagement time. This is where combat sports that train in a controlled manner such as Judo, BJJ and MMA etc. can cultivate the wrong mindset for the street. At some point the fight has to be over i.e. the person assaulting you has taken themselves out of the fight, either through physical injury or lack of desire. If you can safely disengage before this, do. No points are given for staying at the scene of a fight, only for surviving it. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=46 Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=45 It’s awhile since I’ve written anything that directly addresses women’s personal safety and self-defense so I thought I’d do an blog piece on abusive relationships, focusing on those that have the potential to become violent (Domestic Violence) or possibly aggressive (Stalking). We are by nature optimists; we believe that bad things happen to other people, not to us – if the average age of death in the U.S. is 87 and you inform people this and follow it up by asking them how old they believe they will be when they die they’ll tell you 89, 90, 90 + etc, any figure higher than the average. Whatever the statistics say, we will always believe we’ll be the exception. I don’t knock this optimism I think it’s one of the character traits that makes us such an amazing species. However our natural optimism can sometimes get the better of us – especially when we like to believe that somebody else’s behavior and actions are acceptable (or excuse them), when clearly they are not. Relationship abuse (which also covers/includes Domestic Violence) is one of those areas where the victim and often the public excuse behaviors and abuse, which should never be tolerated or excused. The disturbing thing is that domestic violence and abusive behavior(s) in relationships is often seen as something that the victim is to blame for. When singer Rhianna was physically abused by her boyfriend Chris Brown, many young women sided with Brown rather than his victim, excusing his violent behavior by stating that she’d provoked him to a point where he had no alternative but to be physically violent towards her. Although there may be many situations within a relationship where the wronged party is the man and not the woman, this never justifies or gives a green light to physical aggression. That women are excusing and validating male violence and aggression towards women is a very worrying thing. No relationship starts with physical abuse; no abuser is either that stupid, or at the initial stages of a relationship accustomed to acting this way (there are both “conscious” and “subconscious” abusers – the state of mind/intent does not excuse the abuse). Those who “consciously” abuse, know that they have to first gain trust and dependence before they abuse, else their partner/victim will leave. Those who abuse as part of the way they manage relationships tend to do so after the relationship has moved into a particular phase. Both types of abuser give warning signs early on in the relationship. Often people who look on from the outside can’t understand why women in abusive relationships stay with their partner (especially when kids/children aren’t involved). What they don’t realize is that the “good times” are so extra-ordinarily good; and not just because the bad times are so bad. Abusive people are skilled at making the good times something exceptional, something so good that a person will risk anything and everything to experience the “high” they once had. You will never meet a more loving and caring person as a relationship abuser. The good times will be over the top good: so good that you’ll be hooked, that you couldn’t believe such a caring and loving individual existed. In real-life, people have good moments, bad moments and indifferent ones – that’s reality. Relationship Abusers, know their own profile and will do everything to create the illusion that they are the perfect partner without any flaws and faults (they will over do this by hiding their bad and indifferent moments). In the initial stages of a relationship they will be overly attentive, often making lavisous gifts, and talking endlessly about their future with you – they’ll often advocate things such as moving in together, getting married, or other long term plans very early in the relationship. What may appear as attentive may merely be them expressing a dependency upon a dream or plan where you are an interchangeable/bit player or to put it another way someone who appears to be fulfilling a role in their life. When planning becomes a big part of the early stages of a relationship the other party should accept the flattery but at the same time be very aware of what is going on. At the same time, the expectation of how the relationship will be managed will be moved from something that may have been casual to something formal; with one party requiring another to account for any and every time spent away, whilst at the same time arguing that every spare moment a person has should be spent with them. Often our heart strings play to these abusive individuals who appear to be acting in the best interests of others, however we should recognize that concern in one (our own) relationship may be akin to claustrophobia in another. Identifying in the early stages of a relationship the risks of having an abusive partner is a valuable skill. Dealing with such behaviors and people early on is the best way to act and precede. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=45 Mon, 28 May 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=43 I always stress that there are three components to reality based self-defense: an aggressive mindset, simple techniques that can be performed under stress and the one people always pretend not to hear: physical fitness. It is no coincidence that the best-selling martial arts and self-defense books and DVD’s are those that detail secret techniques, such as lethal blows and pressure points that require little training and no physical effort or exertion. As long as you read the book, watch the DVD etc, you don’t need to worry about what you eat or whether you ever step out on to the mats to train. Of course, if you fall into this category (Non-practitioner with books and DVD sets) be sure that you post all of your opinions and thoughts regarding self-defense and martial arts on some forum using the name, “UrbanWarrior” or “StreetNinja” etc. Believe me the world desperately needs to hear what you have to say. Firstly let me caveat this blog post by saying, we could all be fitter, we could all be stronger etc. and anyone who steps out on to the mats or gym floor regardless of their current physical condition has my respect. Too many people, and I’m guilty of this myself, live off past fitness glories e.g. “you should have seen me when…..” Mine and your(s) past physical condition have no relevance currently or historically. Where we are now is what counts, and if we have to improve – and we all do – then that’s where our collective heads should be. One of the great things the U.S. Market did when it started promoting Krav Maga was to emphasize the importance of fitness in self-defense. Unfortunately at the same time much of the fighting and self-defense skills were lost at the expense of promoting the fitness and workout component of Krav Maga e.g. doing 50 push-ups followed by 50 punches doesn’t really improve punching ability, just the ability to do push-ups followed by punching. Much of what is promoted as Krav Maga in the US would in Israel be defined as “Cosher Kravi” i.e. Combat Fitness. I often couple mental aggressiveness and physical fitness. If you give up or stop when performing a physical activity, can you be sure you won’t do the same when confronting and dealing with a physical aggressor? If you grimace and show exhaustion when made to train with physical intensity, will you be able to prevent yourself from showing or demonstrating fear? Giving over to your emotional state and being an open book is something to avoid. Whatever hurts is never relieved by exhibiting the fact to those around; train to show no emotion when you’re tired and you’re learning a skill that can be transferred to other emotional states as well. Fitness is important in a street-fight because once the adrenaline has gone that’s all you will have left. Although most physical confrontations last under 10 seconds, the entire incident takes much longer. The majority of violent situations will involve threat identification a period of verbal aggression etc before erupting into a full blown physical assault. From the moment of identification, the adrenal system is in action. The adrenal system may well give you a 20 second shot of super-human energy but if 15 of that has been taken up as part of a verbal confrontation, you’ll have only 5 seconds worth left. If your aggressor has only just started to get fully adrenalized at this point, you’ll be working from the back foot. Next time you step out on to the mats understand that this is an opportunity that has been given you so that you can improve both your fitness and emotional control. Whatever your fatigue level don’t let anyone else know, if you want to have an easy session – without pushing yourself – don’t. The time on the mats is yours and you shouldn’t waste it. Train with energy and enthusiasm: every time you hit a pad, hit it with everything as if your life depended on it. Next time you feel you physically can’t go on, do one more punch, kick or repetition, then another, then another etc all the time without letting on your pain.The ability to appear indomitable and un-fatigued is enough to make 99.9% of aggressors mentally crumble. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=43 Mon, 21 May 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=41 This semester sees us introduce some basic throws into our Krav Maga syllabus. Many people are unaware that in the early days of Krav Maga, Judo was taught alongside the program and that when individuals graded in Krav Maga, they also graded in Judo. There is a reason that the majority of military close combat systems (are based on or) have a Judo component to them: throws, chokes and strangulations are effective fight finishers that a smaller person can perform against a larger and heavier opponent. Another major reason is that most fights rapidly progress to a grappling or clinch type range – an attacker will always try to eliminate time and distance from their assaults, so being able to work in close gives a person a real advantage. Although the Chinese martial arts contain throws, it was the Japanese systems of Ju-Jitsu that really turned them into an art and systematically studied ways to effectively throw people. The ground is the largest and hardest punching surface that you’ll ever be able to find (much better than a fist), and it never misses. A 150 lb person will not have the same striking power as a 250 lb person but they’ll be able to throw as hard and if not harder than their heavier counterpart – something I’ll explain later in this post. The Japanese arts (like Krav Maga) are all about finishing a person: Japanese Karate has the concept/idea of “One Punch, One Kill”, whilst Judo and Ju-Jitsu are concerned with joint breaks (not joint-locks), incapacitating throws and chokes/strangulations that leave an individual unconscious. Throwing is a great way to physically finish a person and also cause them to mentally remove themselves from the fight i.e. there is nothing more obvious than who is the superior fighter, when one person is left standing and another finds themselves on the ground. There may be “lucky punches” but there are never “lucky throws” and as such throwing takes a bit of time to get the hang of – as does punching/striking correctly. Moving yourself and another person in a dynamic context is the pinnacle of physical mastery. We teach our throwing from realistic self-defense scenario’s, recognizing that strikes are necessary to enable you to perform a powerful and finishing throw. In my time working professional security I have probably “finished” more fights through throwing than by any other means – I’ve had people walk away, refuse to fight on but in terms of actual finishing, throwing remains top of the list: nothing hits harder than concrete. A throw consists of three distinct phases: breaking a person’s balance, “fitting in” or positioning yourself ready for the throw and the execution of the throw itself. Balance breaking is a key self-defense concept/idea. Whenever I attempt any disarm (knife, gun, stick etc.) I attempt to break my aggressor’s balance. It is much easier to take a gun off of someone who is 100% concerned with gaining balance rather than thinking about the gun itself. When throwing someone, taking a person’s balance, is what gets them ready to fall (this is why the larger a person is the harder they fall – 250 LB moving downwards hits the concrete heavier than 150 LB’s). When you perform a hip throw, you are not lifting a person’s weight, merely presenting their moving weight with an obstacle that “trips them up” or gets in their way. Fitting in, is the way you position yourself ready to execute the throw – this will only work if a person’s balance has already been broken: it is this which gives you the time to position your body accordingly ready to make the throw; as well as making the throw itself easier – because the person is already falling. The execution is merely the final piece, that should be simple and effortless whilst at the same time causing the real damage. When we reap the leg, after an attack with a knee, we do so after moving the person out of balance, and then stepping through to get in position. By the time we reap/”cut away” the leg, the person should effectively be falling. The reap should add the last 10%, which sees the person 3ft in the air and waiting to crash. We have a small number of throws to focus on this semester and by the end of it you’ll be performing them like professionals. You are learning and equipping yourself with some of the greatest equalizing techniques out there. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=41 Mon, 14 May 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=40 I don’t know much about American Football (coming from the UK I grew up with “Soccer”) however I do know one thing about the sport and that is the Quarterback – the person who throws the ball forward to his teammates in the hope of scoring a touchdown – has to make some very quick decisions whilst under immense stress and pressure; he has the opposing team attempting to take him out of the game before he makes the throw. He needs in one glance to be able to assess the state of the field in front of him and assess which players are in the best position, all whilst waiting for some 250 LB giant to bear down on him and prevent him from throwing the ball. He certainly doesn’t have time to weigh up the pros and cons of each potential decision rather he must look, decide and then act. His visual assessment immediately determines his decision, in the same way that many emergency personnel immediately seem to know what to do when they turn up at a fire, a train wreck etc. One look at the situation will tell them what “type” of fire it is and what they must do to combat it – as the fire develops they may take in the new information available to them and adjust their plan but in the initial instant they know, just like the Quarterback, what they must do. A computer has beaten a human at chess: IBM’s “Big Blue” beat Gary Kasparov, a Chess Grandmaster. However no computer program has ever been written that can beat a person at either Backgammon or the Japanese game of “Go” (a game where players attempt to change two sided disks to their color by trapping a line of their opponent’s disks between theirs). Chess differs from these two games, in that it is possible to make predictions and comparisons based on different plays. “Big Blue” beat Kasparov by comparing all the potential outcomes of a particular play and evaluating it against all the other ones available to it. Kasparov said he was only able to do this for one or two moves ahead and that he normally had a gut feel for a play based on the way that the board looked i.e. he’d seen the pieces laid out in an identical or similar way before. In Backgammon and Go, there are no “set outcomes” as such; every decision has to be based on the way the board “looks”, where the pieces lie etc. In Backgammon/Go the layout of the pieces do not result in any predictable outcomes; any computer attempting to run comparisons of plays would end up getting caught in an infinite loop – each year a large cash prize is offered to any programmer who can write a program that will defeat a top Go player. When doing crowd surveillance, a security professional is presented with the task of identifying any potential assailant that may be in a crowd of possibly tens of thousands. It would be impossible to assess and compare every individual’s behavior and actions to ascertain if they represent a potential threat or danger, whether to others around them, such as at a sports event, or to a particular individual, such as a politician at a rally or similar. Any identification of such individuals must be done by looking at the crowd as a whole, in a similar way to a Quarterback who looks at the field in front of him and let’s his eyes be drawn to a particular player who is in the “best” position. The Quarterback knows what a “Best Position” looks like because it’s stored in his memory from previous experiences. He probably couldn’t even explain why one player is better positioned than another rather he just knows what looks right. A Security Professional may never have seen an assassination attempt first-hand before – he will probably have been shown footage of previous assassinations as part of his training however these will have been caught on film from a cameraman’s perspective. Despite lacking a firsthand visual memory of such a thing, he’ll know from experience what a peaceful crowd attending a political rally etc will look like, and what behaviors people in such crowds engage in e.g. flag waving, clapping, smiling etc, he’ll also be aware of how people in such crowds move; whether the majority stand and wait, how those wanting to get a better look move through the crowd etc, etc. Whilst he scans his eyes over the whole scene, he will wait for his eyes to be drawn to the person whose movement, actions or behaviors are out of place and don’t adhere to the “normal” picture of a healthy crowd. Just as a Backgammon, Go player or Quarterback can take in the importance of what they see in an instant and make a decision based upon it, so can the security professional. He though works from what seems out of place as opposed to what looks good and in place. Most of us have had that experience of walking in to a bar or pub and feeling that something was wrong; something that we couldn’t actually identify or put our finger upon. This is our fear system alerting us to the presence of danger by identifying that what we see before us doesn’t marry up to all our previous positive experiences of bars or pubs. This comparison of images is a bit like trying to do a “spot the difference” puzzle, where we can see that the two pictures/photos we’re meant to compare are not the same but we’re not immediately able to identify the five actual differences etc. Our fear system works like a “behind the scenes” security professional, comparing situations with previous ones. If everything looks the same as a positive experience, then no alert is given. If it matches a negative experience an alert is given - likewise if it doesn’t match a positive one. Once this alert is given we must make a dynamic risk assessment. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=40 Sun, 06 May 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=39 Once we have “chosen” a particular solution, we have to act on it. This is often the hardest part of the continuum. Our perceived inability to act may well cause us to revisit and reconsider the other options that we thought about before initially deciding on one plan of action. We may also try and look for other potential solutions, especially if we start to over-consider the potential consequences of what we first decided upon. This way of thinking puts us squarely back into the “Deliberation Loop” and moves us further away from action, which should be the goal of our threat recognition and decision process. Our fear instinct often prevents us from acting upon any decision that is made when in a high stress situation. If you are involved in an incident where an aggressive individual is screaming and shouting obscenities at you, despite being fully aware that at any moment he may start to physically assault you, and that your best plan would be to either run away or attack him first, your fear emotion may well hold you in check. In any potentially dangerous situation, even where the level of risk to our safety may be small, our fear emotion will often prevent us from acting. Anyone who has bungee jumped or parachuted will tell of the inertia that is experienced when you stand on a platform waiting to jump into open air. Our conscious mind knows that both of these activities are relatively low-risk however our emotional self knows otherwise. Our emotional self knows that whilst you don’t act you are not experiencing pain or danger and this is good. Let’s now take the parachute example and say that the plane is about to crash, you’ve got over your denial, deliberation and that your only chance of safety is to make the parachute jump; there will still be hesitation. In the moment when you are waiting to make jour jump you are safe, you are not experiencing pain or trauma and your emotional mind will assure you that this is a good state to be in, and whatever you choose to do will take you out of this state. Your emotional side doesn’t understand the future, it only understands the now. It doesn’t know what you will feel and experience in the future, that your only chance of safety is to jump. It just knows that at this very moment you are safe. This fear inertia is what holds you back from acting when dealing with an individual(s) where it is obvious that physical violence is the only outcome. As you stand there waiting for the inevitable punch, push or grab, your fear emotion will tell you that at this moment you are not experiencing any pain or discomfort and that you shouldn’t do anything to risk this state of affairs – whatever action you take, whether it’s running away or making a pre-emptive assault carries a degree of risk to it, and this is an unknown. What your body does know is that whilst not acting nothing bad or painful is happening to you. When you overthink the consequences of a decision, your natural hesitation to act is reinforced. I see this all the time when I watch sparring (which is great training for fighting but barely resembles a street-fight itself). Often I will see two individuals, at distance, looking for openings. One will start a kick or an attack only to see their opponent respond and pull back etc – for more experienced individuals, these responses can indicate how they should initiate their next attack. However most people start to imagine what will happen if their attack is unsuccessful. They have seen/realized that their opponent is going to respond in some way to what they were planning to do and they now start to imagine all the ways in which they might respond. Weighed down with all the imagined consequences of their action they end up doing nothing. Our fear response may hold us back from initially acting but it is these imagined consequences that reinforces it. In Combat Sports, such as Boxing and MMA (Mixed Martial Arts), the pre-fight build up to a contest is a great example of an individual attempting to get their opponent to consider the consequences of certain actions. A Boxer who repeatedly tells the media that the person he is fighting will not be able to get past his lead punch without walking on to his straight right, is attempting to get his opponent to hesitate and consider the consequences of trying to do so when in the ring. In a street-fight when an aggressor keeps telling you what they’re going to do to you, they are attempting to intimidate you into not acting. When a person tells you their plan for you, they are trying to reinforce your own fear instincts desire for inaction. You can choose to believe what they are telling you or not. You can also choose to believe your own imagination’s conclusions and scenarios concerning the consequences of acting as well. Or better still you can simply act on your decision. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=39 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=38 The individuals in the World Trade Center who eventually passed through their denial phase and accepted that something was very wrong were faced with many choices e.g. should they wait for instruction on what to do, should they evacuate the building, should they try and find a supervisor/manager who may have more information etc. In such high stress situations many people get caught in a loop, comparing and evaluating the best option available to them. They will weigh up the pros and cons; eventually they seem to reach a decision, only to repeat the process over again. People do the same when dealing with potentially violent situations. Imagine you are being followed and you notice/hear the footsteps of somebody walking behind you. You might initially discount or deny that this person is following you but as they start to match your pace, slowing down and speeding up when you do, it becomes evident that you have to accept that you are being followed. Your next step is to work out what you should do. You consider turning around and confronting the person, next you decide it may be best to run or possibly walk up to one of the houses your passing and pretend you’re visiting someone. As these thoughts race through your mind you realize the person behind you is getting closer and you start to think about what their motive could be, if they’ve got a knife etc. You start to run through your options again, with an added sense of urgency and feeling the pressure of your situation. You are stuck in the “Deliberation Loop”, trying rapidly to find a solution without ever fully reaching one. It is a classic example of overthinking. The problem is that just as we have models and scripts that allow us to automate tasks, so we have ways/models of thinking that help us function in our everyday world. We are blessed with a rational brain that allows us to collect information, compare different pieces of it and eventually reach conclusions. When people make a choice about a car they are going to buy, they will consider things such as: reliability cost of parts/maintenance, fuel efficiency etc. When selecting a university or educational establishment: price, reputation, location, length of the course etc. will all be taken account and a comparison of different schools and universities based upon these factors will be reached. This is called “Rationalistic Decision Making” (RDM). It’s a method of evaluation that we use to make and justify our decisions 99.9% of the time. It’s a fantastic way of processing complex data and making informed decisions based upon it. It has one drawback: it takes time. Unfortunately violent situations have a habit of developing rapidly and time is one of the components of a situation that any assailant/attacker will try and eliminate.The individuals in the World Trade Center on 9/11 were working against the clock – it took people an average of one minute to clear each floor. If you were an average person who took six minutes to gather your senses and leave your desk, you’d have been six floors higher than you would have been had you managed to start moving the moment you heard the initial explosion/felt the building rock. Without being over-dramatic those 6 minutes for many people were the difference between life and death. There also would have been individuals who “revised” their evacuation plans along the way. The majority of people don’t have strong models and scripts of what to do in the event of an emergency. There would have been individuals who had never completed a fire drill, or ever taken note of where the nearest fire escape was. If a person went looking for an escape route or fire escape and couldn’t initially find one, they may well have ditched their escape plan in favor of another possible solution they’d considered; waiting for a Fire-Marshall or supervisor to tell them what to do i.e. they were still deliberating after they’d appeared to reach a decision. There is always new information that becomes available as things develop and this needs to be both considered and used to revise a plan. However at the very beginning the initial plan needs to be acted upon with complete conviction. The problem we have in our rational thinking model is that we are looking to find the best solution to a situation. The problem is that the “best” solution requires a comparison of all possible options to take place in order for a thorough evaluation to take place and this takes time. It is much quicker to simply search for an “effective” solution; something that will work/solve the problem and not care too much if it is the best one available. If you believe someone is following you and running would prevent you from being assaulted you should run. It should not be compared against the other possible options it should just be acted upon. If you are in an argument that is only going one way and walking away will not be effective, nor will continuing the argument or backing down, then your only real choice is to make a pre-emptive strike – with full conviction. This mode of thinking is referred to as Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). It is a fast way of reaching decisions because it only asks a person to make one comparison of a potential solution (is it effective), rather than comparing each possible solution with each other. It is easy for us to overthink, we have brains that allow us to do this – it’s why we are able to be creative; we can imagine what is not yet there. This is a dangerous mode to operate in as it allows our minds to create new problems that don’t exist. In high stress, emotional situations where time is of the essence we need to find effective solutions quickly and not worry if better ones may be available to us. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=38 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=37 Denial Human beings have a very simple way of coping with high stress situations; we deny them. Rather than accepting the reality of our situation, we tend to ignore our predicament, denying that we are in any danger at all. Our instincts may tell us to run or get out of a place but we will immediately look for and accept any reason that will allow us to stay put; however tenuous, ridiculous or patently dangerous it may actually be. A statistic that should be in everybody’s head is 6:36. 6 minutes and 36 seconds, is the average length of time that it took for people to start evacuating the second twin tower after it was hit by the second plane on 9/11. Imagine sitting at your desk, aware that the unthinkable has just happened - a plane has hit the tower next to you. Now imagine that you here an explosion many floors above you and then you feel the building you’re in start to shudder and groan. Now set your watch alarm for 6 minutes and 36 seconds and wait. This is the average length of time that people working in that second tower waited before leaving their desk in search of a fire escape. This is the denial phase and it has a gravitational pull that is strong enough to keep people in a state of inertia regardless of the information and awareness that they have concerning their situation e.g. friends and relatives watching the events, from the outside, on the ground were phoning and emailing those within the second tower, keeping them up to date with what was going on. The reason we go into a state of denial so quickly and firmly, is because the human brain is extremely adept at building scripts that automate many of the “tasks” that we fulfill on an everyday basis. If you’ve ever gotten into your car to go to work, and after 15 minutes find yourself there without any real recollection of the journey, it’s because you’ve completed that familiar task on your automatic pilot; you’ve slowed down, braked, accelerated, changed lanes etc. without ever being consciously aware of your environment. A person going to work in the Twin Towers on 9/11, wasn’t expecting a plane to crash into their office space; it wasn’t in their script. Their script or model involved, grabbing a coffee, getting in an elevator, sitting at a desk, attending a meeting etc. The only “disasters” they’d been led to expect that could possibly happen (and maybe trained for) was the risk of fire – and how many people in offices assume every time they hear an alarm, that it’s a drill not the real thing? Another manifestation of denial. Having scripts that allow us to repeat common tasks, without thinking, enable us to complete them quickly and efficiently. Things fall apart when the real world ends up not matching the script. So strong are these scripts and models that we often choose to believe them instead of what is actually in front of our eyes. It was this holding on to inappropriate scripts on 9/11 that kept people sitting at their desks for an average of 6 minutes 36 seconds before they made their way to an exit or fire escape. Some people took longer, some people never moved. There were of course those people who reacted and responded instantaneously, these people are the ones who are equipped with what we refer to as a “survival mindset”. Survivors, survive because they exhibit a curiosity about their surroundings and environment. It is this curiosity that allows them to break out of their scripts and models and accept the reality of the situation they find themselves in. Survivors don’t deny or discount the various possibilities and causes of danger however improbable and remote they may seem. They will take in every bit of available information concerning their environment and re-work their scripts and models accordingly. When I talk to people who have been assaulted one of the most common statements I hear is, “I just couldn’t believe this would be happening to me.” If a person’s entire modus operandi is to work to a script then the unimaginable has no place. If you believe that you won’t be mugged in a crowded shopping mall, bus or train station etc, when it does happen to you, your response will be one of disbelief and denial. This is one of the biggest causes of denial in violent situations: a person having built themselves an incorrect “model of violence” e.g. crowded places are the domain of pick pockets and surreptitious criminals not of muggers and sexual predators. A woman may believe that she is safe from being raped on a populated subway carriage but the truth is such assaults have taken place – and unfortunately will continue to do so. A rapist can carry out an assault in less than 10 seconds, using the cover that bystanders afford along with the victim’s sense of disbelief/denial to commit their attack with little fear of being discovered or caught. If your model of violence states that muggers and rapists only operate in deserted places then you are reinforcing your ability to deny these assaults happening in any other scenarios. Experience can often work to reinforce and validate an inappropriate script or model. For every subway ride you’ve taken where you haven’t been raped or mugged you’ll reinforce your perception that these threats and dangers are not something that need to concern you when in such a situation. Experience can have the effect of reducing your ability to be curious about your environment and stop you from questioning events, behaviors and actions that may occur within it. Familiarity breeds contempt and the result is a false sense of security. As soon as you stop thinking and questioning you become a victim. Just because something hasn’t happened ten thousand times doesn’t mean it won’t – the Twin Towers didn’t experience an attack by air for over 50 years however the unthinkable/unimaginable happened. You may have walked along a street a thousand times, drunk in a bar five hundred times, all without incident. However you’re continued safe experience of these things means you’re more likely to deny the possibility of violence occurring than had you had to deal with aggressive behavior in these places on every other occasion. Experience can often be translated as, everything you got away with in the past, without consequence. Denial is a natural response to violence. It is easy to discount and deny the possibility of danger; after all bad things happen to other people not us. Our scripts and models disallow us the opportunity to accept the presence of danger and our experience(s) confirm these. I am sure that the persons, who evacuated the Twin Towers in the first instance, did so after initially “denying” the situation they might be facing. Many people when first confronted with extreme aggression will laugh assuming that the other person must be joking or playing a prank. I remember as a child the first time I was bullied, I simply didn’t believe that children could behave this way or anyone would socially interact in this manner (an incorrect model of violence). I wasn’t sheltered as a child I’d just not experienced behaviors such as exclusion, extreme ridicule or physical violence before. Because I couldn’t imagine them, I couldn’t accept them and because of this I kept denying them even when I experienced them, again and again. Many of our scripts and models are learnt/created early in our lives and we must learn to adapt and change them as we get older, wiser and more informed. Your initial reaction to violence will always be denial however much training you receive. We humans are continually optimistic creatures and we believe that what has kept us safe in the past will continue to do so in the future. When we understand that violence often doesn’t adhere to both our models and experience, we are able to set ourselves up for the next stage we go through: deliberation. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=37 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=36 One of the “comments” I got from one of my last posts was about the use of improvised weapons i.e. if you\'re overseas and can\'t carry a firearm, CS Spray etc what could you carry or use as alterntives. This is a subject that I feel many self-defense instructors take lightly or misinterpret and at the worst case point people towards “legal carry” weapons that actually disempower them. A true “improvised” weapon can only exist once. The moment something you find in your environment is spontaneously used as a weapon it loses its improvised quality. The moment you realize an umbrella, pen or chair can be used as a tool for self-defense purposes, the next time you are in a similar situation you will be looking to find one of these items. I remember having the realization that a car radio antennae – the old telescopic ones from the 1980’s/90’s - would make a great flexible weapon. In that initial instance it was an improvised weapon. Every time after that when I was in a parking lot I was either subconsciously or consciously searching for cars with that type of radio antennae – technology is great but there is no car like a MK 2 Ford Cortina for defensively minded radio aerial design! Time is great for progress but the ban on smoking in public places deprived many of us the chance/possibility to use those big glass ash trays as “improvised” blunt impact weapons. In one sense the smoking ban saves lives on the other hand… The value of a true improvised weapon is that it demonstrates that a person is aware of and understands their environment. The irony being that if they truly understand their environment they shouldn’t need a weapon in the first place – obviously there are exceptions to this. When people talk about the use of improvised weapons they are usually talking about how common household objects etc, could be used in an offensive/defensive manner. By definition you can’t create a list of improvised weapons, you can only teach people how to identify objects that can be used in this way. This is a skill, a mindset and one you have to develop. Learning how to fight with a chair is learning how to use a chair in much the same way as you use a “traditional” weapon such as a stick, a knife, or a gun – admittedly this isn’t the primary purpose of a chair but many “conventional” weapons have started out this way e.g. the PR-24 side-handle (fixed length and telescopic) baton is an interpretation of the Okinawan Tonfa, which in turn was the handle of a rice mill turned to militaristic purposes.The skill/mindset of “discovering” items in your environment that could be used as weapons lies in understanding your environment. A colleague of mine who used to work in security in Russia tells of how there would be a meeting of individuals, in a bar/club, where everybody was searched for weapons – any being found were confiscated. Knowing that there would always be condom machines in the toilets, whoever was hired for protection would go down and by a pack and put a bunch of coins in one to make a flexible schlock. One person had the thought and the rest were taught and followed. Many people see improvised weapon’s as a quick fix or even a starting point of self-defense, I see it as the pinnacle. If you can understand how to make a tool out of things found in your environment then you have an exceptional mind – you are going back to the basic instincts and ideas that first enabled man to discover fire, create the wheel etc. Improvised weapons are the height of invention – and necessity is the mother of invention. If in a moment you can create a “tool” whilst under emotional pressure, as far as I’m concerned you are at your most human. Being curious about our environment is what allowed us to become the dominant species. Improvised weapons smack of this curiosity. If you can walk into a bar, pub, club or restaurant and identify 5 things that could double as a weapon then you are thinking like our forefathers. If you don’t have this mindset then teaching you how to fight with a chair, a pen or a flashlight is a waste of time. The person who instinctively smashes a fire extinguisher over somebody’s head or breaks a pool cue in two is thinking in the right vein as opposed to the person who starts unstrapping their belt because they were taught in a seminar that this was a good idea. There are no short cuts when it comes to self-defense and personal protection; it’s a way of thinking. I could run seminars on fighting with a chair, using a flashlight etc, they’d be worth zero. If you’re not attuned to your environment you will never realize the harmful intent that is in it. If you carry a firearm and don’t have the time and room to pull it, why do you think you’d have the time to identify another weapon and improvise its use? If you want to carry a “legal” weapon that’s another matter, but understand what “legal” means. Also understand, that if it’s legal it’s probably been “compromised” in some way that makes it ineffective or it requires a lot of skill to make it work in a real-life situation. Don’t fool yourself that these “legal” tools are as effective as a knife, a TASER, CS Spray etc, they’re not, which is why they’re legal carry. I would rather have a hand free to scrape, gouge and rip than tie one or two hands up in a “weapon” that promises much and delivers little. A tool is only a tool if it empowers you. Don’t be fooled. The martial arts industry has created many \"legal carry\" tools, some gimmicky e.g. baseball hats with lead shot in them, other more tactical and with genuine thought behind them, such as the \"Monkey Fist\" (a take on the Japanese Kusarifundo), the Kubotan Key Chain (an interpretation of the Japanese Yawara) or the now popoular \"stoppers\" - basically plastic one finger, knuckle dusters. From a traditional perspective these tools were taught as part of a martial arts system that viewed weapons training as an art, not like us in the West who see these things as quick fixes and equalizers - a Yawara is a very technical weapon that is used to apply painful wrist locks, controls and restraints etc but what business does a civilian on the street have for doing this type of action? When you look at the purpose of a tool, such as the Kubotan that is based on it and look at the goal of what you are trying to achieve, it may become obvious that the two might not marry up. If you\'re simplt looking to use the tool as an impact weapon, a bottle, pen, magazine or other hand held item will do the trick and may be more readily available. This is one of the dangers of weapon training in general i.e. you become fixated on the weapon and mold your purpose around it. This is true of conventional, modified and improvised weapon. An improvised weapon should be drawn from the environment to solve the problem at hand - a broken pool cue might make a great weapon in one environment and be lousy in another - the situation determines the solution. Being able to identify and use objects in your environment is a skill to develop, and one that can be done before the proverbial hit shits the fan. When you enter a room take a sweeping glance and identify objects that could be used as weapons and barriers etc as well as where the exits are. This is a great situational awareness excercise and will hopefully start to rase your awareness of the environments you occupy. It is this awareness that will save you, not the telephone directory in the corner....   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=36 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=34 This post follows the last and is looking at personal security when travelling abroad – both posts stem from a question a student at my school asked, concerning altenrative self-defense products to CS Spray that could be carried legally by a female friend who was travelling in Europe (in many European countries CS Spray is illegal). Rather than concentrate on alternative weapons to CS Spray, I’m choosing to look at the direct security measures that a person traveling can take to avoid them having to deal with a physical conflict in the first place. As a side note to this, I want to talk briefly about the way “defensive weapons” are viewed from a legal perspective in certain European countries. In the UK most of the definitions concerning what constitutes an offensive weapon comes from the intent of the person carrying it e.g. if I am carrying a golf club, garden spade or the like with the intent of using them as a weapon either for offensive or defensive purposes then these items will be classified as offensive weapons. There are also more explicit laws concerning folding knives whose blade’s lock etc. But it is worth noting that anything can be potentially categorized as an offensive weapon based upon the intent of the person carrying it. Not being a legal mind, I would also speculate, that if you are involved in a violent incident in the US and you are carrying a weapon that is effectively legal, your intent in carrying and using it would be called into question by any prosecuting attorney. I say this because people often put forward arguments for carrying canes, walking sticks and Kubotan Key Chains (a short stick based on the Japanese Yawara that was popular in the 1980’s) as being “legally” eligible as weapons. The fact that a Kubotan key chain serves no other purpose than as a weapon makes it illegal in the UK and in other countries such as in the US it may cause a prosecutor to raise the question as to why a person was carrying it – often by making a substitution, like a Maglite torch, these arguments and questions become moot; especially when travelling it can be argued that a person could be staying in a hotel, boarding house etc where there were shared bathrooms and it would be needed as an aid at night. But I digress. The purpose of this post is to primarily talk about certain measures that can be taken when travelling. One of the main areas of concern I always had when travelling was how to secure my hotel room once in it. The fact that hotel rooms accessed by old fashioned keys always meant that there would be duplicates around, allowing people to access my room. From a female perspective this could be at night with the purpose of a predatory individual attempting to commit a rape/sexual assault. It should always be remembered that any criminal’s greatest fear (apart from terrorists) is getting caught. Simply making yourself a hard target is often enough to direct a predator’s attention elsewhere. Often all that is needed to deter someone with harmful intent is to put an unexpected obstacle in a person’s way. Carrying a doorstop in your luggage, and placing it under your hotel door room at night may be all that it takes to slow down and deter a would-be predator. Certain companies make security doorstops which are fitted with a motion activated alarm. There is a link below, which illustrates one of these products (this shouldn’t be taken as my endorsement of this particular brand – read the reviews of different makes/models of this type of device and make your own selection). http://www.amazon.com/50246-Smart-Home-Door-Alarm/dp/B0000YNR4M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1334351512&sr=8-2 Another useful device that can be fitted into a handbag/purse is this temporary lock called an AddaLock. It works on most doors and is pretty effective; I’ve used this product before. It may be used in bathrooms which don’t have a lock, both in people’s homes and in hotel or restaurant rooms etc. It could also be used in a situation where you need to improvise a “safe room” in somebody else’s house whilst you call the police. This is another simple security measure: making sure your mobile phone works in the country you are in and that you know the number for the police or guarda etc. Don’t assume it’s 911 everywhere.The temporary locks details can be seen by clicking on the link below: http://www.amazon.com/Rishon-Inc-Addalock/dp/B00186URTY/ref=sr_1_2?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1334351849&sr=1-2 In the next post I’ll look at measures such as securing travel documents etc. See everyone on the mats tomorrow. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=34 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=32 It’s awhile since anyone has asked me to write on Travel/Overseas Security but I had a request to do so this week. The question was more about what concealed or legal carry weapons should somebody (in this case a female) take, when travelling especially in European countries where OC Spray – which I’m a big fan of – are illegal and/or there is a risk of causing an alert when passing through airport security etc. Firstly, any weapon carried should be seen as the last line of defense and not the first. Unfortunately, many people become lazy about this and put their complete dependence on the weapon itself, not realizing that if the other previous lines of defense are compromised it may not be possible to gain enough time to deploy any weapon you may be carrying. Any assailant will attempt to deny you time and distance to act and so if you are going to lower your SA (Situational Awareness), simply because you have a weapon that will give you the upper hand, you may not identify the threat earlier enough to act and use it. I always teach on my women’s self-defense course, where we teach the use of OC Spray, that the fact that you are thinking about drawing the spray is the most useful part about it. When we first recognize a threat we enter a “Denial, Deliberation & Denial” loop, thinking about drawing a weapon can help us move out of the denial stage i.e. if you have your hand on the spray or another weapon you can’t deny the danger you are in. Accepting the presence of a threat and overcoming denial is the first step in being able to deal with any threat of danger. This post and the next will concentrate on dealing with personal safety when abroad, either when with work or during a holiday/leisure time. Personal safety (and fighting for that matter) is about controlling your environment. The first thing to understand when you are in a foreign country is that you don’t understand your environment and as a consequence you will be an obvious stranger. However much you may have read about a particular culture etc, you are not part of it. You will probably stand out, simply by the way you dress, or by simple behaviors, such as not smoking (smoking being the norm in certain countries etc). The more you try to “fit in” the more obvious you are likely to become. The goal of personal security is not to draw attention to yourself:  to be low profile. Trying to fit in, in a culture you are unaware of, puts a spotlight immediately on you. At the same time you must also be able to put the doubt in somebody’s mind that you are unaware of your environment. A seasoned traveler is much less of a target than a newbie. Standing in the airport looking at your “Rough Guide to Thailand” or other guidebook, just after you’ve landed, is going to draw attention to you even before you have left the relative safety of the terminal. Ensuring that you know your transport route from the airport to your hotel  beforehand and moving purposefully towards the necessary bus-stop or taxi pickup will more than likely allow you to pass through the airport under the radar of any would be predator. Knowing the route that a Taxi is likely to take from the airport to your hotel or destination will a) allow you to give off the image of somebody who has been in the city/country before and b) ensure that you won’t be over-charged. Don’t be afraid to ask generic questions, such as “why are we going this way?” etc, if the route isn’t one that seemed obvious from your previous research. Simple questions like this may be enough to put in a person’s head that you are aware of the surroundings you are in. Be aware that in most countries taxi drivers and those in the leisure industry are normally amongst the low waged and simple criminal activities such as over-charging may be ways to supplement income, up to more heinous acts such as muggings etc. A taxi driver may well be involved in a staged mugging at a traffic light etc, telling you to hand over your wallet and do what his accomplices want, whilst at the same time pretending to be a victim himself. If the route a driver chooses to take is not an obvious one, you need to question his reason for taking it. In many countries hotel staff will offer to book your transport such as taxis, bus/train tickets etc for you. At first glance this may seem convenient however in countries such as Vietnam and Thailand these services are charged for. Also you have alerted a member of the hotel staff to where you are going and at what time. Having a predictable movement pattern allows would be predators the chance to synchronize their movements to yours. Convenient as some services are, from a personal security perspective they may not be worth it. Never make the default assumption that the “locals” are friendly and nice because that is in their nature. The dollar in your pocket is what everyone in the tourist trade is after. Some people have more integrity than others however all are trying to make a living in a low paid industry. You shouldn’t be paranoid or suspicious of everyone you meet but you should be aware. Having prior information about your environment is the key to this. There is no need to become over-read and an expert but knowing simple things such as the transport route’s the relative proximity of bus and train stations along with the times when such services do and don’t run is one way to help you get about safely. In the next post, I will talk about making sure your hotel/hostel room etc is safe and how to increase your security when in it. All of this may seem a touch extreme however I give it as general advice taken from courses I have run for FTSE 100 & NASDAQ companies in the past, who sent their executives into hostile environments. Take from these posts what you will…. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=32 Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=31 The shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida, a few months ago as raised many issues about the rights a person has to defend themselves against both real and perceived threats to their safety – I am staying out of the debate as to whether the shooting was justified but will use it to illustrate certain points that might help us avoid adopting the roles of both Martin (the victim) and George Zimmerman (the shooter). Many people who carry weapons, despite being technically proficient in their use, have never really considered the decision making process that they would have to go through before actually pulling and using it, whether it be gun, knife, stick etc. Most people hold to an innate belief that they will “just know”, when it’s the right time; and although this may be true in certain cases, there will also be those times when a situation could be interpreted incorrectly – when considering the use of lethal force, relying on an “it’ll be alright on the night approach” is one hell of a gamble. I have also seen many unarmed fights start because an individual hasn’t considered the times and situations when they would get physical. I am certainly not suggesting that a person should over analyze a situation – in reality there is not time – but instead work off “triggers” that indicate an aggressor’s emotional state, and/or think/work through potential scenario’s both mentally and if possible physically using role play to discover possible disengagement and conflict resolution options that may be an alternative to physical force e.g. if you’ve been sitting in a bar for a while and somebody comes over and says that you are sitting in their seat/chair, what are their potential motives/reasons? What are your possible solutions? Etc. Are you prepared and comfortable in making a principled stand, that you’re prepared to back up with force, over a chair? Pulling a gun on somebody is an extreme response and signals an intent to use lethal force, making a pre-emptive unarmed strike on somebody is also an extreme response. In both instances the process that brings you to the conclusion that such actions are effective solutions to the situation, should be considered and thought about before you find yourself in the middle of such an incident, running in real time. There are people who don’t understand the role of having a de-escalation stance and learning to fight and defend yourself from such a posture. If at the first instance of trouble you adopt a fighting stance you are immediately giving a person, even if they are the initial aggressor, the right to defend themselves. If they are carrying a weapon, your action may be the “trigger” that causes them to draw it. What started as a verbal dispute over a chair etc, could now have escalated into a gun/knife threat/fight scenario simply because of the adoption of an aggressive stance. Such an escalating situation as the one above may seem extreme or ludicrous however only George Zimmerman, if we work from an innocent till proven guilty position, can say what it was that Trayvon Martin did which triggered him to not only pull his weapon but use it. It may be he misinterpreted an action, behavior, movement and genuinely believed that any one of these represented a real and immediate threat to his safety. It could be that his motives were more sinister…but these are for others to investigate, debate and discuss. The decision of when a situation deserves a physical response (be it armed or unarmed) is one that needs to be considered beforehand. Adopting an aggressive posture/stance or behaving in an aggressive manner towards someone carry’s a risk, and this has to be accepted. It doesn’t matter if this is done in response to someone else’s aggression. In a country where it is a legal right for somebody to carry a sidearm, that risk is always going to be a high stakes one. Don’t get me wrong, when it is time to act you should do so, unwaveringly and with full commitment and absolute force however you should make sure that it is your decision to act and that you have considered all the consequences (something you need to do beforehand – this process itself will eliminate many peripheral doubts that may be present in a violent situation). Be aware that your behavior can cause someone else to act aggressively, become physical even if in your mind you wouldn’t expect it to illicit such a response. Frightened people do extreme things and it is not always obvious that they are acting from fear. I am not advocating subservience to all aggressor’s simply behaving in a way that allows you to stay fully in control of your environment i.e. manage both your behaviors and the ones of the individual(s) you are dealing with. Controlling the environment is the essence of self-defense. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=31 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=30 I often have people coming to my school who say that they don’t want to learn how to fight, only how to defend themselves. I understand the sentiment they’re expressing but also recognize the danger in their thinking. Self Defense is a useful term to describe an approach to fighting where the person “defending” themselves isn’t the person initiating the conflict however this doesn’t mean that they’re not the person who makes the first strike – striking pre-emptively is an integral part of self-defense and KravMaga (as the Hebrew bible states \"Imbal\'hargekha, hashkeml\'hargo,\" \"If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.\"). Whilst I’m on biblical turf, I’ll digress a little and give a historical context to the idea of turning the other cheek. At the time when the Sermon on the Mount was given, of which the line, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” is part of, Palestine (as it was known then) was under Roman occupation. The Romans were an extremely disciplined military and their soldiers were under very strict orders and instructions about how they could and could not treat the civilian population they were governing. One of the punishments they were allowed to give out involved using their right hand to backhand somebody across the face (it was also ; in fact such an action as the time was seen as a way of displaying and demonstrating authority. If however a person turns the other cheek, the action can’t be repeated unless the left hand is used (at the time the left-hand was viewed as being unclean and was therefore inappropriate if a person wanted to display dominance). Within the same sermon, is the idea, that if a person wished you to walk a mile with them you should walk one more. A Roman Legionary called ask a member of a civilian population to help them carry their equipment for a mile, but would be disciplined by their officers if they made a person walk with them any further. There are indeed ways of fighting back without resorting to open conflict but none of these should ever involve a person adopting a “victim’s” mindset. This is very much the problem I have with the term “Self Defense”. It suggests a defensive mindset where a person waits for an attack/assault to be made and then and only then acts, doing just enough to fend off their assailant(s). This way of thinking puts a person at a distinct disadvantage – person(s) assaulting you are not working this way; they will not be waiting for you to act, they’ll be doing everything they can to be the first person(s) to act. Also they’ll not be looking to do “just enough”, rather they’ll be throwing everything they have at you from the very first moment. 99.9% of assailants will initiate the assault with an attack that they believe will finish the fight at that moment. From my experience (and I recognize that although experience can validate things, it can also be a limiting factor) the person who throws the first strike or makes the first move is the one who “wins” the fight. The person responding/reacting is playing a catch-up game which is much harder to pull off. We are not looking merely to respond to a person’s violent behavior, we are looking to throw back at them our own assault which is more determined, more aggressive and more committed – and is also sustainable (this isthe idea of using “Retzef”, continuous movement). If you look at the way we train it is always interactive. We never stand punching the air or moving in lines etc (don’t get me wrong there are benefits to this method of training), we are always training with somebody or working the pads with them. There is always contact. Why? Because at the end of the day, our self-defense involves us doing something to somebody else. What is that something? Pain. It doesn’t matter if it’s a control, a strike, or using a person’s knife against them, our job is to inflict pain and damage to a person in order to prevent them from doing what they want to us. Our goal is pretty simple but it requires a mindset and one that may seem at odds with how society likes to believe we should act; unfortunately society knows very little about violence. Society would have us believe that if we disarm a knife of a person they will cease to fight, and/or if we can escape from a hold or control we can/should run away. The situation determines the solution, not society’s misinformed idea of violence. In a civilized and rational state I have no desire to inflict pain or discomfort on another person however if I believe that, that is your desire towards me, then you have given me the moral authority to act. I will not do just enough, I will do what is necessary. I care little if people who have never faced violence want to preach about use of force, and I understand the need to have it expressed legally, yet the law and people’s opinion will do little to aid me at the moment a 300 LB drunk decides to take a swing at me. An attacker never stops attacking – they only do so when you stop them. Throw away any ideas that you will be able to adopt a state of Zen calmness, you will need to turn your fear into a determined aggression and take the fight to them.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=30 Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=29 De-escalation In the last post, I talked about several of the dynamics that cause individuals to become angry, with anger being a necessary pre-cursor to physical violence. As I always say, violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum; people are motivated to move towards a particular emotional state e.g. if someone spills a drink all over you, this act motivates you towards anger, if a gang of aggressive individuals corner you in an unfamiliar bar, both the setting and their actions motivate you towards experiencing fear. It is these situational components that often cause us to freeze i.e. we don’t know how to act and behave in such situations. This is what makes training in a dojo or competing in a martial arts tournament so different to real-life situations; in an MMA contest, you know that you can win by knockout or submission (or possibly points) – that is your goal. If someone spills a drink over you during a night out, what is your goal? If you are cornered by a group of drunken, aggressive youths in an unfamiliar place, what is your goal? When we look at the causes of anger that were discussed in the last post e.g. dominance, territorial rights etc, we must understand that we are subject to these emotional demands as well. If someone spills a drink over us, is showing an undue interest in our partner, we too will see our emotional state change i.e. e will become angry. Again what is our goal? To exert dominance, defend territory? When we become overly emotional ourselves we also become subject to and controlled by our emotions and may lose sight of what it is we are trying to achieve in the situation. In my time working in bars/clubs I have seen countless individuals emotionally react to a situation, only to realize that they have bitten off far more than they could chew e.g. the target/subject of their outburst pulls a knife, or has friends who end up intervening. The desire to exerting dominance over another person may be emotionally compelling however it actually achieves little and is not without its risks – we lack the inbuilt hardwired controls of animals such as dogs and wolves who have instincts that recognize and respond appropriately to shows of dominance and know how to back-off safely i.e. a wolf who is in a power struggle and realizes they don’t have the ability to back up their position, only has to shows it’s throat and roll over on to its back to be left alone (as humans we have few clear signals that will be respected). If you believe your martial arts skills give you an edge think again. We are the people who train. Why? Because we have to. There are plenty  of tough, vicious and hard individuals who’ve never trained and are extremely competent at handling themselves on the street – individuals who will think nothing of sticking a glass or bottle in your face or pulling a knife. Never underestimate the power of violence when it lacks a moral code. This is why the ability to de-escalate (as well as fight) needs to be part of your arsenal. It is important to recognize that there are times when de-escalation is not the best course of action to take: 1) when a person is so overly emotional that they’re unable to process/understand verbal commands and questions and 2) when they are working to an agenda with specific goals and outcomes in mind – which it will be difficult/impossible to sway them from e.g. rape/sexual assault, hostage taking etc. If a situation developed spontaneously and a person has no pre-determined goal that they are working to, de-escalation has its place. The first thing to understand is that resolution seeking is different to de-escalation. De-escalation involves removing the emotion from a situation and only then attempting to seek a resolution. In most situations when dealing with angry people, where violence is a real possibility, resolution may not be a viable goal e.g. it is probably not a good idea to try and resolve your right to be in a bar where a group of angry drunken men don’t want you to be there, much better to get as far away as possible. The first step is to validate the other person’s anger; this often steals away their thunder and is a confusing response. An angry, emotional person is looking for a fight or flight response: they are expecting you to confront them or back away. Validation of their state runs straight between these two; agreeing with them that they have every right to be upset etc (don’t use the word “angry” as it has so many negative connotations that a person may mistake it as “fighting talk”). People process information according to their emotional state, providing a response that can’t be interpreted emotionally means that part of the brain is bypassed and the reasoning part is engaged. If a person is able to reason they have been moved away from acting solely on their emotions. The language you use is extremely important. Telling someone to “calm down” is an instruction not a request. Anyone on the cusp of violence will interpret instructions as fighting talk. Asking someone to speak more slowly, so you can understand them better is a request rather than a signal of dominance. A request signals your desire to resolve the situation. Also by getting a person to slow down what they are saying you are forcing them to listen to their own words – another way of getting them to engage their reasoning brain. Ask the person what they would like you to do or how you could sort the situation out. If they respond with reason or can suggest ideas, you have contacted the “reasoning brain”, if they want to continue to simply play a dominance game, you know where you stand. Talking to an angry person is a good way to ascertain their emotional state and their ability to turn violent. If they are able to understand you and process what you say then you can continue on your course of de-escalation; recognizing at every point you may have to strike pre-emptively or act defensively. Adopting a de-escalation/interview stance will allow your body language to reflect what you are saying, as well as put you in a non-offensive but effective stance for delivering strikes and/or defending yourself. As always remember an attacker will attempt to deny you time and distance and so control of range is key. When the person loses their ability to comprehend you and/or their ability to speak, it’s time to hit hard and beat them to the punch. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=29 Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=28 When I was studying Psychology at University, our department over the 3 years I was there began to develop/evolve into two main camps: the Behaviorists and the Ethologists - two schools of thought that are divided on the “nature versus nurture” debate. I found myself gradually sliding towards the ethologist’s point(s) of view, especially where anger and violence is concerned i.e. are responses are hardwired instinctual survival mechanisms rather than learnt behaviors. I also came to the conclusion (and I was not alone in this as the research of the past 20-30 years had been pointing in this direction) that we are basically emotionally driven, rather than rationally driven creatures who use our ability to think logically and process information in a rational manner to justify the “emotional decisions” we make. This understanding underpins much of the self-protection piece of the Krav Maga Yashir system. All individuals, with the exception of Psychopaths, need to become emotional (angry or fearful) in order to become violent. Anger or Fear are basically the same emotion i.e. if you were to wire a person up and monitor all the physical/chemical changes that happen in the body when a person becomes angry and compare these results to that of when a person becomes afraid, the results would be almost identical. A person cornered by a gang, and fulfilling the role of prey in the relationship, will be experiencing the same adrenal release etc as the members of the gang (the predators) who are incensed that any person would have the audacity to enter their bar/pub and stray on to their turf. With everybody in such a heightened emotional state it is unlikely that debate and discussion will resolve the incident: the thinking brain has switched off and the animal part has taken over; you can’t explain to a hungry lion why it would be wrong to eat you. Whether in the cold light of day the gang would find it hard to argue and debate why an outsider was unwelcome in the pub/bar they frequent, in the heightened emotional state they are experiencing their anger will justify and reinforce their actions. This is an important survival instinct, though in today’s complex social situations it may often be misplaced. If you need to become physically aggressive and engage in a conflict, you need to be emotionally committed to what you are doing; both anger and fear (the same emotion) will go towards justifying your actions to you. If you’re the cornered person your fear instinct will tell you to run, if you’re a member of the predatory group your anger emotion will back-up your desire to become physically violent. There are many other instinctual factors at play in such a situation; dominance being one of these. In our animal brain we arrange our social relationship by dominance hierarchies e.g. anyone above you can be aggressive towards you but you can’t fight back. In a dominance hierarchy the group will normally trump the individual with aggression flowing downwards. In many social conflicts individuals are attempting to assert dominance over each other. If you are the cornered individual in the bar attempting to explain to the group why you are in that particular place and have a right to be there, it may be that your explanation is seen as a form of insubordination; that you are not respecting your place in the hierarchy. Anyone who believes that an argument can end with one person being right and the other wrong is basically trying to play a dominance game – not a good idea if you are dealing with an emotionally volatile (and alcohol fuelled group) in a bar room setting. The idea of territory is still a very strong instinct in us; we expect people to behave in a certain way if they are on our turf or dealing with things/people we may believe “belong” to us. If somebody is in our house we expect them to behave in a respectful manner and abide with our “rules and regulations” etc, even if these rules and regulations haven’t been explained – territory and dominance are strongly connected. Walking into a bar/pub that is seen as belonging to a particular group is really about breaking a rule of territory that was never explained or made clear to “the outsider”. Wolf packs spend their entire working day marking their territory. They make it very clear what is theirs and where their boundaries lie. Human beings don’t always make these territorial boundaries clear BUT certainly want them to be observed. Once a person becomes angry there is no higher authority than their anger; it justifies to them everything they do and every action they take however unreasonable or unfair it may actually be – remember reason takes a break when people become angry. It is always interesting to watch when other people try and intervene in a dispute or try and reason with a person who is angry with another etc. Basically that person doesn’t want to know and they usually expect not only the person reasoning with them to agree with them but will see anything but full commitment to their cause as “disloyalty”. If a member of the gang who have cornered someone in their bar/pub tries to argue that they should leave their “prey” alone etc, they will soon be shouted down and their loyalty to the group questioned. All of these things are instinctually programmed into us and we must work at finding solutions that connect at an emotional, rather than a rational level. In most angry disputes it will not be possible to come up with a resolution that satisfies all parties and in order to prevent violence this should never be the goal. Resolution is a rational pursuit and can only be sought when all parties are in a non-emotional state. Often this means getting and making distance. The ego can make this a hard thing for us to do as often we want to stay and argue our case, even when the situation we are in is clearly the wrong place to attempt this e.g. when dealing with a boozed up group/gang. All of this happens in the pre-conflict stage of violence – the phase before any actual conflict occurs. This is a key phase to learn how to operate in as it represents the last opportunity to avoid violence; which should be our goal. The Pre-Conflict phase of violence is the one where we have the choice of: de-escalation, disengagement and/or a determined pre-emptive strike. Often we have to use all three. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=28 Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=27 Krav Maga Yashir (meaning “Direct Close Combat”), consists of four main components: 1) Self Protection, 2) Self Defense, 3) Combat Fitness & 4) Full Contact Fighting. In the next four (or so…) blog posts I am going to talk about why all four areas need to be trained and more importantly why they need to dovetail together to present a coherent, comprehensive and consistent approach to dealing with violence. With a grading coming up in late April it is very easy to shift all our attention to the study and learning of techniques and lose the bigger picture of what we are actually trying to achieve in our training. However many times you successfully pull-off a guillotine escape in a studio setting it is far better to be able to avoid this type of attack in the first place (understand the context in which such an attack can be made) and even more preferable to avoid being assaulted in the first place. This avoidance piece is taught in our Self-Protection component. I’ve been involved in Krav Maga and Reality Based Self Defense for close to 20 years now and one of the things that many instructors seek to validate their teaching are the “War Stories” of their students. These are the reports from the street that describe how a student who has only been training in a particular system for just a few weeks managed to repel an armed gang with the technique(s) that they learnt only a few days earlier. My question always is, regardless of whether I believe a particular story or not, is, what could that person have done to avoid the confrontation in the first place? What did they do that put themselves in such a situation to begin with? What were their decisions that lead up to the assault? Etc. Any person who has done any amount of CP (Close Protection) Work or “Body-Guarding” as it’s referred to in the U.S. will tell you that avoidance of violence is the key, as to put it bluntly, “dead clients don’t pay.”  When you are involved in protecting a third party, everything you do is to reduce risk. You choose routes and places where it is less likely that you/your client will be subject to any threat and you disengage and walk away from any trouble at the first site. This is how professional security people work and civilians/individuals would do well to follow their example. To operate at the highest levels in the security industry, discretion is the key; not being noticed is far more valuable a skill than being noticed. It amazes me the amount of posturing people do to draw attention to themselves, from talking aggressively to strutting around in a pub or bar in the latest Tap-Out T-Shirt (don’t get me wrong I own a few of these but I’m selective when I wear them). It may seem strange to talk about discretion in a culture that calls for everybody to be “recognized” and “respected”. But a major part of avoiding violence is to not be noticed, or if noticed not to appear either as a threat or as a victim. Playing the “neutral” role is one which demonstrates self-confidence, self-assurance and integrity. When I used to do security work in bars and clubs I would be called on to scan patrons and make eye-contact with them. A classic line I’d hear back when someone caught me looking at them would be, “what are you looking at?” My default response would be, “Nothing, I’ve had a long day and I’m just spacing out.” I’d them move on before that particular individual had time to respond. People who make posturing statements look for two responses: returned posturing or submission. Not doing either confounds their game-plan i.e. the neutral role is a hard one to deal with when people expect us to respond as they would. People are extremely unimaginative in the way they expect people to behave. Being able to avoid physical violence is a greater skill than being able to physically deal with it. I’ve had to perform both and being able to predict, anticipate and disengage/de-escalate violence is the most rewarding activity. I think little about the physical confrontations I have had and much more about the ones I’ve avoided. The Self-Protection piece of our training is maybe the most essential however it only has wings when all of the other pieces are in place i.e. you can only confidently avoid physical violence when you know you have the means to deal with it. Never underestimate the satisfaction that comes from walking away whilst the other person wonders why the conflict never happened. The true art of self-protection would have avoided the potential conflict in the first place but then nobody’s perfect.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=27 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=26 I believe that simple ideas can sometimes be presented in a simplistic fashion and in doing so the real meaning and idea can become lost or misinterpreted. I believe this is often the case with Krav Maga\'s concept of the simultaneous block and counter. This idea of a seemingly simultaneous defense and attack makes a lot of sense i.e. you will never survive a real-life aggressive assault by simply acting defensively; at some point you will need to attack/assault your aggressor - and if this is the case you might as well do it as soon as you can. The longer a street-fight lasts the greater the chances of sustaining a serious and/or life-threatening injury. One of the issues faced though is that your attack has to be able to be effective. This is where many people have an unrealistic expectation of the effects of their punching/striking and their assailants reaction/responses to it. I often see instructors \"define\" an attackers response to a strike e.g. you punch the person in the face and their head goes backwards. Really? If a 300 lb guy is swinging in a committed haymaker whilst stepping forward and you as a 175 lb person try and block and at the same time throw a punch to the face I really don\'t think you can gauruntee the outcome. Different people respond differently to punching/pain etc. You can increase your chances of getting this result by making sure that your body dynamics are correct e.g. you are rooted, your strike involves your hips, shoulders and full body etc and that rather than punch you use an eye strike or cradle strike to the throat/neck or other soft target etc. But even then there is no gaurutee that you will create the movement you\'ve been told to expect. I\'ll often see people perform a standard 360 block, with a simultaeous punch where the body dynamics of both the block and the punch are questionable to say the least. They normally involve the body bending forward at the hips and the punch being thrown with the elbow out, so that the body is not behind the punch. The rush to getting the strike in, along with the block, means that the punch lacks and real power. Yes, in training it may produce a snap on the pads but that really doesn\'t mean it has stopping or major disrupting ability. Also with such equal and even effort shared between the block and the strike, there is often not enough strength and support given to the block e.g. it may not be strong enough to deal with the weight and power of a 300 lb guy\'s haymaker. A more effective way to generate both power in the block and in the strike is to move both together by turning the body. Remember the 360 blocking system is based on the body\'s natural flinch reflex. This means the blocking arm will naturally move before the punch/strike starts. The idea is to \"piggy back\" the punch on to this movement. By turning the body towards the strike as you flinch you will move both hips forward. The hips are the powerhouse behind every strike and block you make. If you keep both elbows down, you will ensure that the forearm of the blocking arm is vertical i.e. defending the target and that the punch comes out from the body. When you block and strike like this there will be a short gap between the block connecting with the arm and the punch/strike connecting - if you clap your hands together twice, quickly you will get an idea of this timeframe. There\'s another reason that you need the block to make contact first. The 360 defense is also used to defend against circular knife attacks. If the block and strike connect at exactly the same time, there is the danger that should your punch move the person back, they will end up dragging the knife across your blocking arm as they stumble back. By having the block \"clear\" the knife first you avoid this issue. Rather than talk about \"simultaneous\" blocking and striking it is perhaps better to talk about an attack following a defense within the shortest possible timeframe. This also allows for \"control\" movements/attacks to follow a defense, where striking may not be appropriate e.g. it risks a person moving with the strike in a direction away from you, which may not be beneficial if you are trying to control them. For me, the principal is really about always attacking and if I\'m totally honest, pre-emptively, so a defense never has to even be made.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=26 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=22 There are certain things which all Krav Maga systems/styles have in common, apart from the principles and concepts that define a system as being \"Krav Maga\" in the first place. There are several common techniques which are seen across all Krav Maga systems; one of these is the 360 Defense. The 360 Defense is a means of defending any circular attack (coming overhead, from the sides or upwards) , such as a swinging punch or a circular knife slash - remember you respond and block \"movement\" rather than trying to alter your defense based on the nature of the attack/assault. In real life it is almost impossible to recognize, at least initially, if a knife is being used; all that is obvious is that something is coming towards you incredibly fast. About 10-12 years ago someone tryied to shank me with a 9 inch Kebab Knife. what saved me was not that I immediately identified that a knife was involved and made an \"appropriate\" defense, rather that I instinctively pulled my hips back and threw my arms forward to block i.e. performed a scrappy but adequate 360 - I still have the scar from where the knife cut my blocking arm, which is a great reminder to train your defenses with your attacker recoiling the knife. Apart from having to throw away a good suit, back in the day when I owned good suits, my hand and body defense were sufficient. This type of automatic \"flinch\" response demonstrates how Krav Maga uses the body\'s natural movements, reflex responses and behaviors as the foundation for its defense(s). This is one of the underlying principles of the system and one which makes it an extremely realistic and effective method of self-defense. There are many things we may like to think we would do in a situation however Krav Maga is about what we will do e.g. somebody chokes/strangles you, your hands will naturally go to try and free the choke - you won\'t be attacking the person but the attack itself. Using the body\'s natural defenses makes complete sense when designing a self-defense system to be used by the ordinary man/woman in the street as opposed to trained athletes (or as in the case of 1940\'s Israel getting an untrained raw recruit competent in hand-to-hand combat, in the shortest possible time, before having going to the front-line to defend his/her country). Rather than retraining the body to work in an unfamiliar way Krav Maga accepts how we will act when faced with violence and then works with these responses to make effective defenses that immediately flow into powerful and committed attack(s). The 360 block, which is based on the body\'s flinch mechanism i.e. how we respond to movements that are picked up by our peripheral vision, also demonstrates the idea of reusing techniques; another fundamental Krav Maga principle. Instead of coming up with a multitude of different defenses for different types of attack, Imi Lichtenfeld looked to see how a defense against a punch, could be re-used against a knife etc. If the body responds/reacts to movement, but is unable to initially identify the nature of the attack, then the block has to be good for both knife and open hand/fist. If two seperate defense are needed then the person being attacked will have to undergo some form of threat recognition before they make a defense. Such a process will take time and involve conscious processing - it won\'t be reflexive and will therefore be slower. By allowing one defense to be able to deal with two different types of attack eliminates the need to make a conscious identification of the threat and then select an appropriate technique. It is important to always evaluate what you are being taught from the perspective of how you will behave in reality; when you are surprised, scared and your adrenaline is running high. We can all pull off spectacular techniques in a clinical or controlled setting but on the street we\'re left with our natural instincts. Krav Maga is designed to build on these not replace them. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=22 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=21 Your goal in any violent encounter should be to shut your opponent down in the shortest possible time. This is accomplished by using two Krav Maga principles: 1) a continuous (Retzef), unbroken assault on your assailant and 2) by attacking soft targets. In today’s post I want to examine these two principles and how they fit together to form a single and unified strategy. The Hebrew word \"Retzef\", means continuous; literally, one thing after another. It’s a term I first became aware of (though I’d been aware of the concept earlier), when training with David Kahn and the IKMA (Israeli Krav Maga Association) in Netanya, Israel. The idea of Retzef, is to lay down a continual barrage of attacks that basically alternate between high and low targets on the body. The aim is to so overwhelm the assailant to the point that they literally become \"short-circuited\" and unable to both resist your assault and make any further attacks of their own. If you give a person space and time they will have an opportunity to continue with their assault: take both away and they are forced to become purely defensive. Turning your predator into prey, both emotionally and physically is fundamental to surviving a real-life assault. Becoming the attacker, rather than being the attacked, is the only way to deal with real world violence; the Ideal is to avoid falling into this role all together by acting preemptively and not ever assuming the role of \"the attacked\". In my experience the person who makes the initial attack is 8 times out of 10, the one who comes out of the situation in the best condition. Most people mentally crumble when assaulted and take themselves out of the fight, even if they could physically continue. If you’ve ever been hit hard in a real life scenario you will know of the \"shock\" that this causes and how it can cause you to hesitate long enough for the other person to make a 2nd and even 3rd attack. This might be all it takes This is why it is important if you are attacked to immediately move from a defensive position and mindset to an offensive one and begin your continuous assault on the other person (I will talk more about this in the next blog article), following the disrupt, damage and destroy continuum I spoke about in my last article. In your initial assault, in the first cluster of attacks, you need to be attempting to hit soft/vital targets that will have the effect of shutting the person down e.g. eyes, throat or groin etc. A street fight is not a prolonged affair where you have time to \"feel\" an aggressor out, like you would in a sparring match or competitive fight. If you\'ve ever seen a ring fight or sparring in your training hall/dojo/studio you\'ll have witnessed that there is a lot of time spent with each party looking for an opening and trying to formulate an attack plan. None of this time is available on the street/in reality; you need to finish the fight as soon as possible - to prolong it could result in a knife or third parties getting involved. This is why \"soft\" targets need to be attacked - attacks to the eyes, throat and groin have an effect that bypasses most people\'s pain tolerance/management systems. One of the reason\'s I am so keen on attacking the throat both with strikes as well as chokes and strangles is that the effect is immediate. It doesn\'t matter how many hours a person spends in the gym, their neck is always vulnerable (the same can be said of the eyes and groin). If I can get to the neck, I can shut a person down. My Retzef/Continuous Assault aims to get me there as quickly as possible in one uninterrupted fashion, by way of attacking the eyes and groin along the way. Imi Lichtenfeld once said (I paraphrase), \"Muhammed Ali\'s balls are as weak as a newborn baby.\" People may laugh and joke that Krav Maga focuses so heavily on groin strikes however there is a reason it does so. Not only is an attack to this area painful it will also cause a person to pull their hips back, a position from which they cannot generate any power. This disruption to their assault is a good opening in which to continue and press home your assault; disrupt, damage, destroy.... https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=21 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=20 One of the core principles of Krav Maga, and the one that really sold me on the system was, “If the threat/attack is life threatening attack the attack, if it’s a non-life-threatening attack the attacker”. An example of this would be someone strangling/choking you versus someone grabbing your lapel or wrist. A wrist or lapel grab doesn’t pose any immediate threat to life whereas an attack that is restricting an airway does; therefore the choke/strangle has to be attacked and dealt with before anything else i.e. it is the number one priority. In the case of a lapel or wrist grab, the threat and attack itself doesn’t cause any immediate danger, it’s what is going to follow that does e.g. the punch or head-butt etc that follows the grab. In this case it is best to attack the attacker in order to prevent and disrupt them from making this second phase assault. Obviously this isn’t something you think about in the heat of the moment as you certainly have no time to ask questions when violence occurs. However it is a principle upon which all Krav Maga techniques are based. Having studied many martial arts, I have seen many seemingly great solutions to various attacks and threats however many of these fail to differentiate between the nature of a life-threatening attack and a non-life-threatening attack. An attacker on the street will always deny you time and distance, and because of this it is important to practice a system that prioritizes and recognizes the differences and ultimate consequences between various types of attack e.g. with a lapel grab you have a degree of time as the attack itself poses no threat to life, with a choke/strangle you have no time, you have to deal with it immediately – you don’t and your unconscious and if you’re unconscious you might as well be dead. Sometimes you have to “trade” a life-threatening attack for a non-life threatening one. It may be that you start to deal with a rear strangle, attacking the attack, and your assailant responds to your attempted defense by turning the strangle into a headlock (a non-life threatening attack). At this point you can stop dealing with the attack itself and concentrate on dealing with the attacker e.g. attacks to the groin and eyes etc.                 I always try and work along a continuum when I have to deal with violent individuals whether their attack would be categorized as non or life threatening. This is as follows: 1)      Disrupt 2)      Damage 3)      Destroy 4)      Disengage The first thing you should always try and do is “disrupt” the attack/attacker, whether it is a life threatening assault or not. If it’s a choke, disrupt the choke; if it’s a grab disrupt the attacker. The most important thing is not to let your assailant get a “rhythm” to their assault and control the movement of the fight. Your initial defense should involve some form of disruption. This is key to buy you back both time and/or distance. Your initial assault on an assailant, whether it occurs after defending/dealing with a life threatening attack or as an attack on an attacker making a non-life-threatening attack should aim to “damage” them in a way that makes it difficult/impossible to make a further attack. This normally means attacking weak and vital areas such as the eyes, throat or groin. Equally it may involve shutting down a person’s ability to move with a knee or kick to the Quadriceps/legs. The damaging blow should act to stun the person so that they are unable to follow up their assault and so create an opportunity for you to continue you yours. Remember self-defense is allowing someone to do something to you, fighting is something you do with someone else and an assault is what you do to another person. Your damaging strike is you creating the opportunity to assault your assailant. Some people question why you need to “destroy” your assailant. An attacker will never stop attacking unless you stop them from doing so. I remember teaching a defense to a bear hug in class one day, which involved sticking your thumbs in to your attacker’s eyes. Somebody in class asked if you would push/gouge the eyes, “just enough”. On the street there is no time to “measure” your response: you have to act forcibly, decisively and with full commitment. You can be sure your assailant isn’t holding back and so to do so yourself is handicapping yourself in a potentially fatal way. You must assault the person to the point where they are unable/unwilling to continue the fight. Disengagement. At some point you need to leave the situation. Staying too long dealing with an individual can create the opportunities for them to get back in the fight (the more desperate they become the more extreme their attack may become) and/or for third parties to become involved. Your goal is always to come away from a violent incident with the least amount of injuries sustained. It is not to try and dispense righteous justice and inflict pain in order to punish your assailant or to make some statement about how \"badass\" you are. Rather you do what you do in order to leave the situation and go back to living your life. Real world violence should be viewed as an interruption to your life and not something you want to live for or have your life defined by. I have little time for the behavior of some martial artists who posture and strut, as if their supposed (and normally unproven) ability gives them the power to become some dispenser of justice or even somebody that should be feared and respected. Such immaturity should be left in the schoolyard as it is not an appropriate attitude for either avoiding or dealing with the violence we are likely to face on the street. The point of learning to fight/defend yourself is so that nobody is able to take who you are away from yourself; to be able to preserve your identity against those who threaten it/you – your ability to do this does not give you any more rights than that and is certainly something that shouldn’t be put on display or paraded about. If you can disengage from a situation before it begins, whatever hit your ego may have to take in the process, you should. You have to disengage at the end of a fight anyway. Why go through the dangers and risks of a physical conflict for the same result and end. You fight only when you cannot live with the consequences of not fighting. Not fighting can take as much, often more character than letting your ego and emotion drive you into a conflict. If your identity and idea of self is not well defined then you will oftentimes find yourself responding aggressively and violently to situations that really when put on paper and considered rationally require no such response. Disengagement before or after a physical conflict should be at the crux of our training. Next time you are on the mats practising gun disarms, dealing with knife threats be sure to put emphasis on the disengagement phase i.e. move away from the aggressor each time you practice. In stress tests, practice handing over wallets etc when threatened, and if you are the \"aggressor\", sometimes walk away with the imaginary wallet when the person responds in this fashion. Disengagement (& Avoidance) must be part of your training. I look forward to seeing everyone on the mats this week.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=20 Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=19 Last night as I was teaching the Knife Defenses that make up part of the curriculum/syllabus that we’re going over this week (and that I want to start putting into our Redman training at 8:00 pm tonight), I got to thinking about how many people don’t realize how Krav Maga works as a system. A lot of people think that it is simply a collection of the “best” self-defense techniques around rather than realizing that it is a system based on concepts and essential fighting principles. Krav Maga was (and continues to be) built from the bottom up; certainly it took techniques from other systems and was inspired by other martial arts however it is something more than a random collection of techniques. Any time a technique is modified or a “new” one developed it has to adhere to a certain set of concepts, principles and ideas – just because something seemingly works doesn’t mean it is worthy on inclusion e.g. if the technique, its movement pattern etc is one that can’t be re-used and/or doesn’t compliment existing movements in the system then however much it stands alone on its own merits, it’s probably not going to make its way into the system i.e. if it doesn’t adhere to the system’s principles how can it be part of the system? If a person doesn’t understand these principles and concepts they will be ignorant as to why Krav Maga is taught and practiced the way it is – unfortunately that often includes some instructors who claim to be teaching “Krav Maga”. In the next six blog posts I am going to discuss some of the underlying ideas behind the system. In this post I am going to look at “Hand Defense, Body Defense”. There are four parts to any block: Be a random/moving target that an attacker will find difficult to synchronize his movement to All blocks should be attacks Move the target/body away from the threat/attack Move to a position where you can make a powerful counter-attack Without looking at all these points in depth, I just want to briefly talk about points 1 and 4 before moving on to points 2 and 3, which are really about the idea of “Hand Defense, Body Defense”. If your movement pattern is random it is hard for your assailant to predict where you will be, this will make it difficult for them to position themselves for a powerful attack; it may also cause them to over-commit and/or cause them to move into positions which make them vulnerable to your own attacks. This dovetails into point 4 i.e. you should always be looking to position yourself in a way that allows you to make a strong and powerful attack. With that out of the way let’s consider points 2 and 3, under the heading of “Hand Defense, Body Defense”. Whichever way you want to look at it when you are attacked you become a target; someone aims something at you e.g. punch, knife etc. Just as you wouldn’t stand on the tracks as a freight train hurtles towards you, neither should you remain static when a punch or a knife strike/slash is coming towards you. Even if your movement is not perfect, it is better than staying rooted and absorbing the full force of the attack. At 155 lbs many times my blocks will yield somewhat under a larger and stronger person’s assault, moving away from it etc may give me the distance that my block has had to give up. In Krav Maga we call this a 200% defense: if the hand defense is done 100% perfectly and the body defense is done 100% perfectly then the total effectiveness of the defense is 200%. If however the block is only done 50% well and the body defense is only done 50% well then at least there is a 100% total defense. I will always come back to the fact that there is no blocking system that gauruntees you full protection. In a real life violent confrontation it is more than likely that you will get hit and if a knife is involved, cut/stabbed – on the occasions I have had to deal with knife this has been my experience. How you get cut/punched, where you get cut/punched is often what decides the fight. This is where the body defense part is so crucial. The actual block needs to be combined with the movement, often we try to do this based on instinctual reflex actions e.g. somebody shanks us with a knife, we pull the hips back and the hands come forward etc. the movement piece becomes key in this as it can often give us the room and space, as well as the time to make the block. With 360 “flinch” defenses (defenses against circular attacks), we rely on picking up movement as it enters/crosses our peripheral vision. Under stress we become somewhat tunnel-vision(ed) and so the result is that we pick up the movement later (one of the reasons we “scan” and move), this means that our arm starts to move a lot later than it would in a more relaxed training environment/scenario. It may be that our movement away from the attack is the only thing that gives us the space and room to successfully bring the arm up to block the haymaker, knife slash etc. It is not just in striking that “Hand Defense, Body Defense” is used. We do it when dealing with knife and gun threats. If I am facing a gun and all somebody has to do is pull the trigger I need to buy myself as much space and time as I can. Simply moving the gun away from me may not be enough, I must move the body also. I have seen some spectacular gun disarms, where the target never moves out from the line of fire i.e. there is no body defense. If you’re fast and athletic you may just get away with it however in approaching my fortieth birthday this Friday I have to recognize that neither my reactions nor hand speed are what they once were. I need the body defense in there as well to make things work. This is why Krav Maga works: you don’t have to the most athletic or the most physically gifted as the insurance components for your lacking in these areas have been worked into the system. Krav Maga was designed for the average Joe who had no prior training and so the system was designed to give everyone the tools, regardless of size and strength etc to be able to defend themselves. This is why we use/combine, “Hand Defense, Body Defense”. Further principles and concepts to follow….   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=19 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=18 “The Monkey Dance” refers to the back and forth posturing that individuals engage in before they actually enter a physical conflict. In the Krav Maga system that we teach, this occurs in the “Pre-Conflict” phase of violence: one where the threat of danger/violence has been explicitly directed at a particular individual(s). I mention the “Monkey Dance” because on Saturday we started to take the skills and techniques we had been learning in the previous 6 weeks and start to show their relevance in actual street scenarios i.e. a push followed by a swinging punch/haymaker. You can learn every defense against knife, stick and gun etc and yet if you don’t understand the context and situational components of the scenario then your knowledge will only have relevance to the studio in which you train and not for real-life.                 What is important to understand is that this simple attack – a push followed by a punch – is effective for several reasons: 1) The person is acting, whilst you are reacting, 2) the push takes away your balance, and gaining it back will be your natural focus not to defend the punch and 3) one punch may be all it takes for you to emotionally crumble – most people “give up” a fight because they are emotionally exhausted/crumbled rather than because of any physical injury.                 One thing to understand about 95% of untrained individuals is that they will attack with their best attack and have little planned beyond it. Despite its effectiveness the push & punch combination rarely has anything more sophisticated coming behind it; it is basically an opening for more of the same. Crude and unsophisticated attacks are rarely followed by anything more subtle and dangerous….unless the fight progresses and a knife gets pulled etc. The most significant thing to note is that there is a “monkey dance” which precedes the assault.                 One of the hardest jobs I often have as a reality based self defense instructor is to convey to people that violence rarely just erupts without warning. In fact I would go far enough to say that physical violence directed towards an individual can always be predicted (if not always prevented), as opposed to violence against individuals who form part of a targeted group e.g. someone caught up in an act of terrorism that is directed at a group or target (a worker in the Twin Towers on 9/11) would have no chance of predicting what might happen to them that day. If a person is screaming and shouting at you over a perceived injustice, such as a spilt drink etc, it is easy to make a prediction concerning the likelihood of violence against you. This display of emotion and aggression is what forms the monkey dance.                 Aggressors engage in the monkey dance for three main reasons: 1) they need to emotionally prepare themselves in order to make a physical assault/go to the next step, 2) they want to intimidate their selected target/victim so they are less likely to fight back and 3) they often need to make it clear to any onlookers/audience that they have a “right” to physically assault their chosen target. As I wrote in my last blog, I was bullied as a kid. One of the worst things about being bullied was the bullies supposed justification as to why they were bullying me. They knew that should the bystanders and onlookers call them in to question, they were finished and so they used to make stuff up about me in order to justify to themselves and others why they were behaving the way they did. In acts of aggression that are performed in front of a group, understand the importance the group has in validating the actions of the bully i.e. walking away and doing nothing – two responses I now understand and accept – are all it takes for their actions to be validated to them.                 If a person needs to engage in the monkey dance it indicates that they are not ready emotionally to act and/or require validation/justification to act. If they are unready yet to get physical you have a chance to appeal to their reason and move beyond their emotions or go pre-emptive. If they need validation, then taking the reasonable route may also be productive. However you choose to respond to their aggression it is important to stay calm and be prepared to strike decisively. Your aggressor may see your lack of aggression as a weakness, just as George Foreman did against Muhammad Ali in the “Rumble in the Jungle” however it is sometimes best to let a person run themselves emotionally out of steam. We will talk about various methods of de-escalation etc in this weeks classes.                 If a person pushes you and throws a punch, you better have a plan in place! See you on the mats this week.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=18 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=17 One of the great things about running short courses (we have just completed) the 5th week of our latest 6 week course, is the questions you get asked. In “regular” classes people assume that their questions will eventually get answered, in short courses this is not the case and people come straight out and ask them. One I just received concerned a gun disarm – and I will answer this more clearly and practically on Wednesday in our hostage/abduction training – when you see someone else being held at gunpoint if and when should you act?                 I want to rewind this question a bit and look at the role a bystander/witness has when confronted with aggression and violence towards another person, in a variety of situations: ones where you are in possession of the facts, ones where you aren\'t and ones where you have an emotional commitment to act.                As a kid, I was bullied and always wondered why people never felt compelled to act against the injustices I knew they saw and recognized. That was my viewpoint as a child. As an adult I can look back and understand how they saw things i.e. an aggressive and intimidating individual focusing on someone else, someone who wasn’t them. Self-preservation is a strong motivator for inaction and it is built into our DNA and Survival system (I understand this now) – it is why you can never rely on anyone else helping you deal with a violent situation. At the time I might have screamed out about the injustice and unfairness of the situation however I now recognize and accept people’s inaction for what it was (I also recognize that it is up to the individual/target in question to form a survival strategy and not rely on someone else to save them). Nobody at the time should have felt guilty for not stepping in (those that added to the gossip and name calling behind my back or cheered on those who engaged in such violence another story…). People with high but unstable/questionable self-esteem (the common profile of the bully) are always dangerous and volatile– and are basically/always best left alone and avoided. A bystander has to be able to understand their role and position in a situation before trying to understand that of the victim’s. This is perhaps their greatest challenge.                 There are also situations where we are placed in the role of bystander, where we are not in possession of all the facts and are unable to make a judgment call on what is occurring. Just because we see a person being held up at gunpoint, doesn’t mean that they are the victim; what we could be witnessing is a plain clothes officer conducting the arrest of a dangerous criminal. In a bullying incident we may be aware of the dynamics of the situation whereas in the above scenario we are not. In both cases there are strong motivators not to act.                 Your first priority as a bystander is to ensure your own safety. I always come back to the warning given in the safety instructions on airplanes, “In the unlikely event of the air pressure in the cabin decreasing, oxygen masks will fall from in front of you, please make sure you secure your own mask before helping anyone else with there’s.” It may seem that the safety instructions on planes are simple, basic and not very in depth however much thought has gone into them. They contain a very simple message: be responsible for your own safety and know where to exit the situation. Pretty good advice for life.                 So when as a bystander do you act: when the moral, emotional and physical consequences of not acting are those that you are not prepared to live with. If not intervening in an incident of bullying is going to cause you a level of trauma and unease in your life that you are not prepared to live with act. If seeing a lone knife attacker going on a “random” killing spree in a Kindergarten compels you to act, then act. If you cannot bear the consequences of somebody hurting a family member or friend, then act. But and this is a big but, ensure your own safety first. Another dead or injured bystander may not have been any use to anyone e.g. if I attempt a gun disarm to the side where no one is standing but have only practiced disarming on that side a few times, whereas I am well versed in disarming to the other side then I may be better to go to the side I feel more confident at even if it carries a higher risk to other bystanders. Failure means we will both definitely get shot.                 The role of the bystander in incidents of violence is a tricky one. The aggressor/assailant and the target/victim have well defined roles, whereas those watching have to make decisions based on all three of the roles, not just their own. Again we will talk more about this in hostage/abduction scenarions tomorrow. See you on the mats. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=17 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=16 To survive an assault you need three things: physical fitness, simple techniques and an aggressive/focused mindset. If I had to choose to stress the importance of just one of these I would choose the “mindset” piece. It is a strange irony of our training that on the mats 90% of our focus is on the physical component with only 10% of our attention being drawn to the mental aspect; on the street/in reality you need to switch this and understand that it is your “mindset” which is the major determining factor concerning your survival and it is a much, much more important piece than the physical aspects of your game.                 The greatest enemy of a determined and aggressive mindset is peripheral doubt. Peripheral doubts are the thoughts that invade your mind as you attempt to do something. They are the doubts that cause you to hesitate and where survival is concerned hesitation equals failure. I believe there are  basically two types of doubt: those that question the training you’ve received and those that question your ability to perform a particular action and/or technique.                 We are fortunate that our system and training’s pedigree is not in question. Those who came to Israel with me were fortunate enough to train with the two head “Krav Maga” trainers of the MOSSAD – Israel’s premier special operations agency. For those of you who were unable to come to Israel with me on that particular occasion it is worth talking to those who did. Our techniques and training comes from the collective experiences of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces), which allows us to have confidence in what we are practicing on the mats – I always enjoy taking people to Israel to train as they see that what we practice in our school is what is practiced there. When David Kahn comes to teach, you will see that there are much more similarities between our systems, than differences (David is the US Representative for the IKMA – Israeli Krav Maga Association – which is the first/original civilian association). Despite having been an instructor and black belt with several different associations, I have always taught/studied Krav Maga and taken comfort/confidence in the common methodology the various styles share.                 The second type of peripheral doubt is the one concerning our own ability(s) to perform a particular technique, response or action. This is where I see Krav Maga as being “uniquely” clever in the way it reuses techniques; the 360 blocking system being the most obvious example. The fact that we can block knife and punch using the same system means we can eradicate/limit the decision making process. It is only when we involve a conscious thought process to “select” an appropriate technique do we introduce the possibility of “doubt”. Using a blocking system that is a) instinctual and b) universal (it can deal with both unarmed and armed/bladed assaults) the decision piece is effectively removed. When an assailant attempts to deny you time and distance, taking away the decision making process becomes a necessity. Krav Maga is more than an encyclopedic collection of techniques, it is an approach based on concepts – all of which have been tested collectively.                 Yesterday I met with an ex-Spetsnaz operative (Russian Special Forces), who has a training facility in Winchester – which I will try and arrange for us to go and train at, in the coming weeks. Amongst other things that we discussed, including using condoms as improvised weapons, we got to talking about knife. Although we both dealt with bladed attacks differently, the concepts and ideas behind our different techniques were identical e.g. hand defense and body defense etc. The fact that another military with hands-on experience had recognized and understood the problem/issues with knives and developed surprisingly similar responses to the Israeli’s only goes to confirm my belief in what we do and prevent any potential peripheral doubts from entering my thought process. When you step out on to the mats to train, you should be confident in both your own ability to perform what we do and the process, which has lead to the development of the techniques you practice. When you practice with a partner be sure not to over-correct but to make sure they see the “successes” of what they are doing. Help them to succeed and avoid being overly critical and even worse being negative. Training has to balance being positive/enjoyable whilst at the same time being effective and realistic. We are not in the business of building a false sense of security but of developing a personal confidence in our ability to perform that which we know we can have confidence in.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=16 Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=15 It was perhaps Plato, who coined the phrase, “Necessity is the Mother of Invention”, a phrase that really does explain how the “origins” of Krav Maga differs from that of many other martial arts. Krav Maga was designed with one very simple premise in mind: how to get a previously untrained person to be able to defend themselves from the most common type of attacks that they are likely to face, in the shortest possible time. It is great to know how to defend against a low roundhouse kick etc but how often will you have to deal with such an attack in a reality based situation? In the ring or cage, very likely, on the street probably low to never.                   British Police Statistics “suggest” that the most common street attack/assault is a push followed by a punch. I have no idea if there are similar statistics taken in the US but my guess is that real-world violence differs very little (with the exception of firearms in the US and the prevalence of knives in the UK) between the two countries. Most male-on-male fights, in Western culture begin with some form of verbal exchange, followed by a degree of pushing/pulling that eventually leads to someone throwing a committed but unsophisticated overhand right/swinging clubbing right hand attack. No ring/professional fighter would ever make such an attack however your average drunken assailant, with a grudge against you, in a bar room setting, is more than likely to throw such an attack, against you.                   You can train how to defend against a lead hand, rear hand, and front hand hook combination till the cows come home however if nobody chooses to throw such an attack you’ve been developing skills outside of reality – of course practicing and developing these skills will support your street realistic techniques and give you a greater appreciation of your own combinations and offensive skills. Of course a ring/cage fighter will probably not be tested with these unsophisticated street style assaults and will never have to deal with an attack, such as a bar room right, inside their chosen sport.                   Once you start looking at the most likely situations you will have to face, you will see how many traditional martial arts and combat sports may have lost their street edge or reality based origins and how in the “modern world” it may be much more applicable and realistic to build a system from the bottom up; creating solutions to the most likely situations that a person is going to face and who has a limited amount of time to both train and get proficient – this was the way Imi Lichtenfeld approached the idea of “self-defense” and “fighting”. If your martial art doesn’t present and practice solutions to a simple push and a punch style of assault etc it is hard to make the claim that it is reality based. There is nothing wrong in studying a ring or combat sport for its own worth and to supplement your other training etc but proficiency within that controlled environment does not always equate with proficiency on the street. I often think that a combination of certain arts can give you the components e.g. Judo will teach you how to handle pushing and pulling, boxing punching etc, but you will need to practice and find away to join the two art together – this was the approach Dennis Hanover took to “Israeli Self Defense”.                   Training in another art/system can help develop skills and hone technique however the feeling of “reality” differs from that which is experienced in a controlled environment such as the training mats, cage or ring. You want to train for reality, then you need to look at the type of assaults you are likely to face and train train the techniques that offer proven solutions for dealing with them. The beauty of Krav Maga is that it can be trained in a short time as a self-defense system and over a longer period as an “art” e.g. I can teach somebody to flinch and block a swinging overhand right with a 360 block and I can also teach them to “rip” the arm by turning their hips and rotating the forearm; a skill which takes a much longer time to develop, especially when you want to combine it with a powerful strike. I often think our approach is to give a person something that is simple and immediately applicable and then over time develop the movement as an art, turning your “self defense” skills into “fighting” skills. The way to achieve this? Practice. See you on the mats tomorrow.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=15 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=13 The Importance of Movement I like to take a conceptual approach to training. As one of my instructors once said to me, “techniques can fail, concepts can’t”. We’ve all had techniques “fail” on us e.g. we picked the wrong one for the particular situation we were in, found that the one we were trying to use wasn’t particularly effective against someone of a particular weight and size etc – anyone who says that these two factors aren’t important in a fight should consider why there are weight categories in most combat sports (even the UFC went down this route as it looked to prolong the bouts and maximize its entertainment value). One concept that I use in helping me define how I teach and train is, “Targets define weapons. Weapons define movement”. This also helps me consider the targets I deem as valuable. A street fight is not a pro-longed affair and there are no defined outcomes that result in a “victory” other than the other party’s inability or unwillingness to continue the fight. This means my targets must be able to yield a lot of bang for their buck, which is why I normally have the eyes, the throat and the groin as my primary targets – these are also the ones banned in combat sports for the very same reason. Although these are not exclusive (I may also try for the Xyphoid Process, the back/side of the neck etc) they certainly tend to be the ones that I choose when I’m considering pre-emptive strikes, as they are all forward facing and easily reachable. When I choose my weapons, I choose those that are applicable for those targets. Eyes and throat are most easily attacked by the hands, the groin primarily by the hands but also by the foot, shin and knee. My next task is to recognize the movement that is needed on both the part of myself and that of the person I am attacking to “set up” my weapon. The movement of the other person is as important as my own movement e.g. if they are closing me down I may not have the room to attack the groin with my legs but may still be able to do so with my hands etc. In training I stress a lot of importance on getting the aggressor/attacker to load weight on to the forward leg, which is best done by getting them to move forward and commit to their attack. This a) makes them a static target for a moment and b) exposes the forward leg as a solid and rooted target. The other targets I look for are those that are large and can affect/shutdown the other person’s movement. The legs are the obvious choice here. The Quadriceps, Hamstrings and IT Band (the muscle that runs almost like a seam down the leg) are large muscle groups which move relatively “slowly” unlike the head, which can bob, duck and be pulled back quite quickly and reflexively. This makes the leg an “easy” target, which when struck will affect the other person’s ability to move. My weapon is the shin and ankle/top of the instep of the foot: a weapon with a large surface area – this also means I can use it from a variety of ranges (though there are those which make it optimal). This makes the low roundhouse kick a good first choice. Now I have to define the movement piece. I need to have the room to make the kick and the person with their weight loaded on to the target, so that it will absorb the full power of my strike rather than being “moved”/pushed away. I need to do something to get the person to move their bodyweight forward i.e. get them to punch. This means I must present myself as the target and be prepared to move to a position where I can use my kick as the weapon i.e. targets define weapons, weapons define movement.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=13 Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=12 We have a tendency to believe that the best trained, the most sophisticated and those with the greatest understanding are the ones who are most likely survive disasters and high stress situations etc. Bullshit. On December 26th 2004 a Tsunami hit the Indian Ocean. One group the Jarawa tribe survived. Their greatest and most sophisticated tool/piece of equipment is the “Bow and Arrow”, however their ancient folklore contains advice on what to do, when the ocean retreats i.e. get to high ground. An ocean retreating is a tell-tale sign that a tsunami is about to occur. These primitive people survived in a situation where the educated and seemingly sophisticated failed (this is not a judgment on those who died, simply an observation): their culture was more in tune with the basics of survival than their modern western counterparts. Most people in the modern world rarely have to consider if they will have enough to eat, have somewhere to shelter etc. These survival concerns are taken for granted. For the Jarawa, they are an everyday concern. Our training aims to put us back in touch with our survival side. In every technique practiced we should consider the potential outcomes if: the assailant had a knife, had friends to assist him and/or knew how to prevent us applying the technique. This is not just in order for us to claim that we are a reality based self-defense system; an assailant may not be armed, may not be part of a group etc. Rather it is to engage our mind and make us curious about the situation we are facing. Rather than standing on a beach looking out at a retreating sea in a transfixed state, we should be questioning the situation e.g. if the sea goes out what happens next? And come to the logical conclusion that it’s coming back at some point and then determine our response i.e. it’s probably not best for us to be there when it happens, simply because we don’t know exactly what will happen. We may not always have the exact knowledge of what to do in a particular situation however if we are curious and ask ourselves questions we can up our survival chances greatly. If we assume that the aggressive individual coming towards us has a knife in his back pocket we will know that it is wise to keep some distance and watch his hands. If our eye is drawn to something or a movement that is out of the ordinary we should make a risk assessment of the situation. There are two possible outcomes of our risk assessment: high risk and unknown risk. Judging something as low risk puts us of our guard. If we are standing on the beach and the sea retreats we need to assess the situation from a risk perspective. We may not have the knowledge to understand what we are seeing and may only be able to categorize the situation as having “unknown” risk but that should be enough for us to try and determine the possible outcomes of the situation e.g. what will happen when the sea returns. Developing this ability to assess situations from a risk perspective and being curious about our situation and environment is how we start to develop situational awareness (SA). Bring this thinking to your training; consider how a technique would fair when a knife or multiple assailants were present and what you could do to offset these additional problems – how you might alter a technique, your body position or what your next steps would/may need to be. This will take out a lot of the potential surprises that real life situations may involve and prevent you from standing transfixed as something you’ve never seen before or considered happens.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=12 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=11 One of the first questions I’m often asked by beginners and new starters is if I teach private lessons – which I do. Everyone is looking for a fast track to success whilst at the same time wanting to ensure that the techniques they’re practicing are performed correctly etc; all admirable goals and desires. Many instructors will play on this and suggest that a private lesson with them is worth 10 regular public classes. Something which is nothing more than a sales pitch. Don’t get me wrong, private lessons have their place e.g. if people can’t make regular class times, or want to work on specific areas that we don’t regularly cover in class, such as handcuffing or control and restraint techniques/procedures etc. However what they don’t do is improve performance in the same way that regular classes do. The problem with private classes is that they don’t give a student the opportunity to train with a variety of people. In the UK I took private BJJ classes for around 3 years before my schedule allowed me to train in a regular public class. In those 3 years I’d got very good at rolling with my instructor; I knew his game perfectly and although not technically as good I could give him a good run for his money (or at least I thought I could) as there were few things he could surprise me with. When I started to train with different people I found that my game wasn’t working nearly as effectively as I thought it should. It took me another 18 months to broaden out and develop a “style” that had universal effectiveness. The fact that we have a large span of body types and athletic types in class is only to everyone’s advantage e.g. we have people who are fast and have reach, physically strong and large students, small and powerful students etc. Each one of these groups brings their own skills and “style” to the mats. What works well against one group may have to be adapted and modified (or even thrown out) when working with somebody with a different level of athleticism, physique and body type. We all have people we enjoy working with, people that we naturally gravitate to when it’s time to partner up. I don’t discourage this but I would encourage you to look at whose on the mats and who may be able to present you with a new problem to solve. Reality based self-defense involves adapting to the situation. It isn’t a sport where you’re placed in a weight category and may have prior knowledge of who you’re fighting. On the street you must learn to solve the problem you are facing as it happens, if you haven’t trained with a variety of people on the mats you may find your game-plan is ineffective and you don’t know how to change it. Next time you hear “Change Partners”  look for a new and different problem to solve.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=11 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=10 There are some within the martial arts fraternity who see Krav Maga as little more than a weapon disarming system with a few punches and kicks thrown in for good measure. Such individuals obviously think the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) don’t value unarmed hand-to-hand combat. For those who came with me to Israel in December 2010, you were trained by two of the top trainers for the Mossad, one of whom a year previously had beaten the UFC Champion Carlos Newton in an MMA Championship. This is not to say that this is proof that reality based self-defense training can be automatically translated to the ring or cage, rather that our training is as substantial and in depth as any martial art, be it Judo, Karate, Tae Kwon Do or MMA.   There is a huge difference between something which is simple and something that is simplistic. A punch may seem to be a very simple mechanical action, and indeed it is, however to utilize every part of your body when delivering it is another matter – something far from simplistic. We pay as much attention to these mechanics as any traditional martial art. The Japanese/Okinawans turned straight, linear punching into an art form; they recognized that the large muscle groups had to work first, that the body must shift its weight to the forward leg and the hips and back muscles must engage whilst the shoulder stays down and the elbow rubs close to the body, with the fist turning at the last moment. We may not punch in exactly the same style as a Karateka however we practice and embody all the same concepts and principles in our training. Our “style” may be different but our execution and adherence to “the rules” is the same. The same is true of kicking. If we want to deliver fast and powerful kicks we must adhere to the same principles and body mechanics of any other martial art. There are some things, which are common to all systems. Where we differ from other arts and systems is that we present everything from a reality perspective i.e. we talk about when in a reality based situation you would throw a particular kick or punch and how you could expect the person you’re dealing with to react and respond. Also our training is partner and pad based to give it a dynamic feel. In the old days of martial arts training there was a view that the best way to improve in your training was to simply up the quantity of your training. To get better at punching you should just punch more. I remember this when I was training at Judo. There were two camps: the “old school” that said to improve you should just do more Judo and another that suggested adding running, weight training, co-ordination and reaction drills etc to supplement and advance your development. Adding supplementary training to martial arts training is not a revolutionary approach however there was a phase when it fell by the wayside only to be picked up again in recent years. Okinawan Karate (especially Goju-Ryu) has “Hojo Undo” a form of supplementary training that emphasizes the use of weights and resistance training (we have a set of Niri Gamae or lifting jars in the basement that I train with and recommend others to do the same). We’ve recently added strength and conditioning training to our Krav Maga program. Why? Because training weights etc will start to develop the “Power” behind your punch. Repetition will also do this however it won’t fast track you in the same way that this “supplemental” training will (why traditional Karate practitioners will add resistance/weight training into their programs). A person who has practiced an art for 20 years, well may tell you that they didn’t get where they are today by lifting weights etc but you should remember that it took them 20 years to get there. By supplementing your training you can get there a great deal sooner. There is no substitute for hard-work but you should put your work in, in the areas where it will yield the greatest return. Resistance training is nothing new in the martial arts and its benefits are universally recognized. If you want to improve your technique, power and ability whilst at the same time improving your health, come down to our strength & conditioning classes and supplement your existing training. Doing more of the same will get you so far, doing something complimentary and different will get you further.     https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=10 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=9 This is a very quick post to go over what we covered today with the Kettlebells. I’m a big fan of these for building strength. Not just in the muscles but also the tendons. They also help in developing co-ordination, stability and balance etc. These days they are also relatively inexpensive – unfortunately I had to get my first set custom made by a Blacksmith! – I’m not kidding. They were originally used by Russian “Strong Men” and wrestlers. I was introduced to them in the 90’s when I was a competitive Judoka (Judo player), cross-training in Sambo – a form of Russian Wrestling, which is a little more brutal and a little less subtle than the Japanese system. The Kettlebells share this lack of subtlety but are brutally effective at what they do. It’s worth remembering what our goal is: not to bulk up or put on muscle but to develop functional strength i.e. the type of strength that is useful in getting a particular job of work done, be that throwing a punch or kick or lifting up an irregular object such as a bag of groceries. Functional strength is the strength that is needed for us to function in our daily lives. If Krav Maga is part of our daily life then we need to learn how to develop the strength necessary to make the techniques we practice work. This Functional approach to training means we have to select compound as opposed to isolation exercises. A compound exercise is one which involves several muscle groups. When we throw a punch or lift something from the ground we are using our legs, hips, back, shoulders as well as our arms. This means we need to train all these muscles together rather than isolate each one and train it individually. For example, when you throw a punch, the largest muscle groups work first: you push up from the floor using your legs, then engage the hips, pull back using the larger back muscles and then employ the shoulder followed by the triceps to extend the arm and punch. I like to compare this to the way that a multi-stage rocket works: the biggest boosters fire first, then the next largest, followed by the smallest. A punch should fire in the same way. This is why we chose the exercises we did. All employed the use of the legs, buttocks and back followed by the shoulders and then the arms. When we look later at the way we should structure our workouts this is the logic we will follow: biggest muscle groups to smallest. The lifts we practiced were: the swing, the clean and press (two handed) and the one handed clean and press. All of these employed the calf muscles, the quads, hamstrings and glutes/buttocks along with the hips, lower and upper back, shoulders and triceps (back of the arms). The abdominals and core muscles were also used to stabilize the body as the exercise was performed. We were pretty much training the whole body to work as one unit, with each muscle group “learning” how to transition/flow work and effort between them. This is what many people don’t realize about strength training. It’s not about simply building muscle but about educating muscles how to work/fire and combine together to do a piece of work. An Olympic Lifter wants to get stronger without simply putting on muscle that may move them up to the next weigh category – this means they are concerned with getting the most work out of their body as they can i.e. they are all about efficiency. We studied three different types of training: straight sets, circuit training and “laddering”. If you use straight sets you choose one exercise, train it for a number of repetitions and for a number of sets. A circuit sees you take a number of exercises, train one set of each moving between them. A ladder is a great way to get a lot of work done, when you are not able to train many repetitions in a set e.g. if your maximum number of reps for a pull-ups is 8, rather than try and push out 8, in a ladder you would start with 1 repetition, then do 2, then do 3 etc by the time you do 8 reps, you will have actually done 36 reps (8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1). This is maybe the best piece of advice I was ever given regarding strength training, “A muscle cannot recover until it returns to its natural length.” When you train, you shorten your muscles i.e. you contract them. Where you make your gains in strength training is after the workout, when your muscles start to recover. However you have to wait for them to return to their natural length. The quickest way to do this is to stretch. Although there is no scientific evidence or studies to suggest that stretching before a workout has any benefits there is a lot to say that stretching after a workout is extremely beneficial, whether it is weight training or Krav Maga etc.  After a workout you need to consume both protein and calcium. Protein will help your muscles to recover and gain strength whilst calcium will help your nervous system to recover – both get “exhausted” from training. You can give your muscles time to recover and fail to do the same for your nervous system and still feel fatigued and unable to train. You should also take vitamin C, as your immune system will become depleted as well. As a final thought, don’t think you’ve got away with it because you don’t hurt tomorrow (Sunday), Monday is the teller. DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness) will hit you the day after (Monday). Keep stretching, taking your protein – especially before you go to bed, calcium and Vitamin C and I look forward to training everyone on Monday.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=9 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=8 There are three components of reality based self-defense: simple technique i.e. what you will actually be able to do in a real life altercation, aggressive mindset (the will to survive) and physical fitness. Nobody wants to be told that their fitness level is important to their survival however this is the truth. In almost all disasters and threats to a person’s existence etc it is the fit who survive. When I first started training in Krav Maga, this was something that was instilled in me: you can know everything you need to know and be able to perform kit perfectly in a controlled environment but when reality bites you better have the gas in the tanks to make what you know happen.                 There are weight classes in combat sports (boxing, wrestling, MMA) for a reason: the promoters want the fight to be as even as possible – so it lasts as long as possible. On the street such niceties don’t exist. A 230 lb guy can start (and is most likely to do so) on a 160 lb guy etc. In the real world weight classes don’t exist. Every advantage a person has is an unfairness to the other…                 You don’t have to be big to be strong you just have to be strong. Everyone in the school has seen Jose kick and punch. At 130 lb’s Jose certainly can’t argue that it is size that allows him to kick like a mule and/or have a punch like a sledgehammer: that’s down to good technique and strength. If you feel like you’d lose out to the bigger opponent then these are the two areas to concentrate on. Our regular classes develop technique but they’re unable to focus exclusively on strength & power development.                 Tomorrow we pick up the Kettlebells and start to address the strength and conditioning component of our training. Repetition is great for technique however we also need to develop the power behind the punch/kick. That’s what the Saturday, Monday, Tuesday classes are about. These classes will not teach you how to punch and kick (that’s what classes are for)  from a technical perspective, they will however teach you how to do it with power…and that’s what counts.    https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=8 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=7 I had a great conversation (via email) with one of the higher belts, whom I both respect as an individual as well as valuing  his thoughts and thinking regarding self-defense and self-protection. It concerned the idea around handing over your wallet to a mugger/robber rather than immediately making a physical response, such as a disarm or an immediate “counter assault”. I realized as our conversation developed that there were things I hadn’t necessarily emphasized or things I’d not drawn enough attention to; things I now realize need to be spotlighted in order for us to have a coherent approach to handling these real life incidents, whatever the particular situation we’re dealing with.    Firstly, handing over the wallet when asked is not a passive act. When confronted with an armed assailant (gun or knife), you will be surprised and freeze –never underestimate the effect of this. Having a covering line, which buys you time and confirms to the mugger that you are going to comply (whether you eventually do or not) is an essential strategy. At this stage you will probably be unaware if your assailant is alone or not or where your potential exits and escape routes are etc. All criminals from the moment they initiate the crime are time constrained; slowing down the assault gives you time to understand the situation however you need to do this without provoking your aggressor to act. Agreeing to hand over your wallet etc allows you a moment to try and understand and assess the situation. When I talk about taking time to understand the situation etc, I am not talking about devoting thought process or conscious reasoning to assess and evaluate what is going on rather I am creating a “moment” for you to confirm what your “gut” is telling you. Your fear instinct will direct you as to what to do. If it says take the knife do it, if it says hand over the wallet do it. However both responses can be covered by handing over the wallet i.e. much easier to go for the knife when an assailant is focusing on the wallet than when they are focusing on the knife…If your instinct tells you that you need to physically control the knife, give yourself every chance by acquiescing to your muggers demand and giving them every impression that you are the perfect victim. If they walk away: good. However you will know before they do this if you have to act i.e. You are not waiting for them to walk away before you start to act. A financial predator’s/mugger’s greatest fear is getting caught; they want to be moving away from you as soon as they are handed the wallet. if there is any hesitation or pause on their part you will need to fill that space by attacking. Again your fear instinct if you give it space (by going through the motion of handing over the wallet) will tell you when to act. You will know if they are intending to walk away before they walk away.                 In training drills we specify two different responses of the assailant. In a drill we will have a person pull a knife and make a threat e.g. they ask for a wallet at knife point. Sometimes when the “target” gives them the wallet they walk away other times they stay and attempt to cut them. These drills are not aimed at conditioning a response but to prevent you from going to take/control the knife at every opportunity  - in many situations that would be the worst thing to do – a third party could cut/attack you. Your “potential” response should always be to take/control the knife or gun but recognize that there are times when you shouldn’t. The “freeze” phase everyone goes through should be turned into an assessment phase. I am not waiting to see what happens when I hand over the wallet but looking to confirm my assailant’s response/intent and then have this trigger my action. This should be happening instinctually not consciously.                 If your gut tells you to grab the weapon do it; if it doesn’t don’t. My only concern is that you are able to understand the situation first. If you overcome the freeze phase of being accosted with the knife and are able to act immediately and take control of the situation/environment do it without running through any verbal script however if you need time to compose yourself and gather more information run the script. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=7 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=6 The term reality based self-defense (RSBD) is probably one of the most over-used terms in the martial arts world. When it first came into use it was less of a badge of honor and more of a differentiating term that separated what Krav Maga instructors (like myself) were teaching from that of more traditional martial arts, such as Karate, Kung Fu, Tae Kwon Do etc. It wasn’t used as a critique of these styles and systems or to try and suggest their techniques don’t work but to identify that our approach to handling/solving real world violence was very different to what these other systems were dealing with. Rather than being technique lead “reality based” systems such as Krav Maga are governed by Situational components such as your state of preparedness, your location, your relationship with your aggressor etc and work on the basis of what you will do, rather than what you would like to do e.g. freezing under stress, flinching at movements etc. This is what is meant by “Reality”. In this morning’s class we started to discuss the “assailant’s motive” and the decision making process that needs to be performed in order to apply/make an effective solution. We took the scenario of a knife threat and demonstrated two potential solutions: one where we used the assailant’s knife against them and another where we performed a control/armlock followed by a disarm. Both are effective techniques and I personally know someone who has performed the latter under duress in a real-life situation. However these different techniques are used to solve different problems/situations. In a traditional martial art setting or combat sport there is only ever one setting and really only ever one objective: it is a completely predictable and controlled environment – when I competed in Judo and Hisardut tournaments/competitions I always knew what my fellow competitor’s singular objective was. When somebody pulls a knife on you they may or may not have a plan in mind: a sexual predator may want to abduct you and will use the knife to force your compliance, a mugger will use it to scare you into handing over your wallet, whilst a drunken person in a bar who you’ve bumped into may have no end game in site – they’ve reacted to the situation and haven’t thought about what it is they may want to achieve. In all these situations they may never even envisage having to use their weapon, the threat of use is enough. Today we considered two threat types: abduction and mugging/robbery. In a mugging scenario the assailant wants your possessions whilst an abduction signifies that they want you. My possessions, I may choose to give up, myself never. The risk to my personal safety is much higher when somebody tries to move me from one location to another i.e. what they want to do to me can’t be performed in that particular place or time. This is why my response is much more immediate, dramatic and conclusive: I look to take them completely out of the game – it’s them or me. Reality Based Self Defense considers these things: the reality of the situation not just the physical nature of the assault.   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=6 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=5 In last week’s classes we looked at the process of a reality based fight/assault going to ground; of how a fight that ends up there starts from standing and then goes through a “transition phase”, where one person often remains standing whilst the other ends up on their back. This week we go a step/stage further and look at ground-fighting or as I prefer to term it from a reality perspective “Ground survival” i.e. survive this stage in order to get back up to your feet to continue the fight. The means by which people end up on the ground actually split Judo into two styles: Kodokan Judo and Kosen Judo (sometimes referred to as Koshen). In Kodokan Judo – that which is now the Olympic sport etc  - a practitioner has to execute or at the least attempt a legitimate throw before they follow up their attack with groundwork. In Kosen/Koshen Judo, this isn’t the case; a person can literally drag their opponent to ground or “pull guard” from a standing position and then continue the fight on the ground. It will come as no surprise that the Gracie’s originally learnt their Ju-Jitsu as Kosen Judo. BJJ/Brazilian Ju-Jitsu/Gracie Ju-Jitsu is an evolution of this particular style of Judo (the Gracie’s learnt Judo from Maeda, and Helio Gracie himself was defeated by Kimura, a Kosen/Koshen Judo practitioner). There truly is nothing new under the sun! It was the Japanese who created the Omoplata, the Guard and the Half Guard etc; the Gracie’s simply built and added to this foundation creating what has become a sophisticated and highly technical system of ground-fighting. Something that should be commended and celebrated; too often the “art” side of the martial arts isn’t celebrated or trained enough. It is the “art” which brings and develops the skills which in turn leads to the effectiveness of the techniques, which will work on the street. This is why we train Krav Maga, as an “art” - I challenge you to find a school that teaches reality based self-defense from the technical/detailed perspective that we do. There is a difference between simplicity and being simplistic etc. This week you will study groundwork from a reality based perspective and add in various perspectives that are often not considered e.g. a person pulls a knife or is aided by multiple attackers etc.                 Today we will start putting the ground-survival piece into the mix. We will look at what happens when a person does end up on the ground with you. Whilst not the norm it is certainly a situation you will want to be able to deal with. We will look at the various ground positions and discuss why/how they could result from a standing position. We will see why BJJ practitioners favor and view the Guard and why this became the dominant ground position in their system (a direct result of the rules of the Kosen/Koshen Judo system) and why Scarf Hold (Kes-a-gatamae) is the most common Judo “start” position. We will then tie all of this together and present the reality perspective and position. In short we will look at both the “art” and the “reality”, adding in knife and multiple assailants. I look forward to seeing you on the mats. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=5 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=4 Street Fights and real world violence are continually evolving. When I first worked in London (late 90’s), confronting an armed assailant was the exception rather than the norm. Ten years later that situation changed and it seemed that every one under the age of 25 was carrying a knife, and was more than ready to pull it if provoked or “disrespected”. Many security professionals who had been working the door successfully up until this point found that what they’d relied on to work for them in the past was failing to do the job now. If you don’t evolve with the times you soon find yourself on the receiving rather than the giving end of the relationship – I ended up having to change much of my approach to throwing; something that I’d been very successful with over my past experiences but that brought me much too close to any potential weapon/blade that may have figured into my assailant’s thought process (I still have a scar across my top and bottom lip to remind me of my mistakes regarding this).                                Those of you who have studied Krav Maga with me for over 12 months have probably seen subtle changes I have made to techniques based on my own experiences, my conversations with friends and security professionals (who are still in the thick of it), along with my continued training in Israel and with Israeli trained operatives who find themselves in the hottest and most intense crucible on the planet – it doesn’t really get any more real than in Israel. When I first visited in Israel in 1990, Krav Maga looked a certain way, today it looks significantly different. If you read a Krav Maga book from the 1980’s e.g. Col David Ben Asher’s 1984 look at Krav Maga, and compare it with David Kahn’s books and DVD’s you will see an art/style/system that is more basic, less evolved and much less relevant to our ideas of what violence today looks like. I remember quite vividly the time I was told that it was necessary to pull the body back from a Knife Threat to the body before you moved the knife, because muggers in South Africa were starting to push the blade into a victim’s body rather than simply holding the knife in front of/or against them: a trend that started to be followed by predators in other countries. The lesson: get as many or as much experience(s) as you can and evolve your system as necessary. It is important to recognize that experience is limited in its range and scope, which is why it’s Important to make sure you’re part of something larger than yourself – one of the reasons I continue to go back to Israel to train, to consult with fellow professionals and friends who work and live dealing with violence. This week we looked at going to ground from a street/reality perspective e.g. one where your attacker is unlikely to pull guard, attempt side-control or execute a Kimura but instead try to punch you as you fall and kick/stomp you when you’re down (things that  become more common in multiple attackers scenarios). However you have to remember that violence evolves – there’s a generation of Kids being brought up on the UFC and Cage Fighting. Are “Rear Naked Chokes” and fight where both parties start rolling on the floor going to start to become more common? Probably. I’ve always said to people, “when I want to see the type of violence I’ll be dealing with in the future I watch how 10 and 12 year olds fight and play.” Six years down the line, this is what you’ll be dealing with. Has/Is Krav Maga evolving to deal with these new forms of violence? Absolutely. This is why we moved defenses against Rear Naked Chokes into the Yellow Belt Syllabus. If you’re not moving, you’re not fighting. I’m always thankful that I belong to a community who updates me, educates me and adds to my own experience(s) of what the face of real world violence REALLY looks like. This means I can change/alter what we do on the mats. I hope to see you all tomorrow, when we continue to train with one goal in mind: reality.       https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=4 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=3 I want to pick up on something we started to discuss at this morning’s 6AM class. We were looking at the scenario where somebody pushes/throws you to ground and then follows up with some form of attack be it a punch or kick. Often as martial artists we train our ability to transition from standup fighting to ground fighting whilst forgetting that the uneducated, alcohol infused street thug doesn’t view fighting from this clinical or trained perspective. They have one goal , which is to cause us the maximum amount of pain and punishment in the shortest possible time; they are not looking to take their time or set attacks up with feints or ring tactics, instead they are going “route 1”: straight for us with the largest, strongest and most committed attack they have. This is what we need to train for because this is reality.                 This “basic” approach to fighting is what has allowed me in my career as a real world operator in the security field to be successful in both defending myself and the “Principals”/Clients I have been charged with protecting. Any sophisticated assailant who has thought through their plan of action is an extremely scary proposition to deal with, the one who is pent up, driven by emotion and who believes that their “everything will be alright on the night plan” is sufficient is a much easier problem to deal with…once you learn to combat their desperation and extreme/out of control feelings i.e. their initial onslaught.                 I remember the first Close Protection i.e. Body-guarding, certification course I took. Everyone on the course (including myself) both over-thought and over-talked the solutions to the problems and situations we faced. Rather than viewing the situation from the perspective of the individual who was causing/initiating the “threat”, we started to ascribe our training to theirs, giving them “powers” well beyond their capabilities. We can easily do this to the person we have to face on the street, turning them into a Brock Lesner, a Randy Couture or Chuck Lidell, whilst failing to recognize that they are in fact an insecure, untrained, alcohol-confident Numpty who has failed to develop a plan beyond their first wild swing.                 At the same time neither their aggression, their ability to pull a weapon and/or involve third parties should be underestimated. Neither should we over-estimate our ability to deal and cope with the shock, surprise and pain that their assault may cause (Nobody will ask us “if we are ready” before the fight starts). However what we should not do is over-imagine their ability to deliver and execute complicated, professional or well thought throws plans, tactics and strategies of attack – they’d be fighting professionally if they were capable of this rather than engaging in bar room brawls.                    Your average street assailant isn’t going to follow you to ground and attempt a Kimura; they’re going to push you, throw you to ground and try and stomp on your head. A bar room brawler isn’t going to set up their finely tuned hook punch with a jab, jab, cross combination; they’re going to swing widely and aggressively towards your head – and if you think you’re going to set them up in a similar and clinical fashion you’ve been watching the movies (anyone who tells me exactly what they did in a fight is a bullshitter, nobody remembers much beyond odd moments and weird thoughts -  I remember once wondering what my then girlfriend was cooking for dinner as I got pummelled by three guys) . Prepare to deal with reality…a drunk, aggressive and committed attacker who assaults you without thinking or a specific plan of attack. Deal with them and you deal with reality.                 Today we looked at how a person breaks from clinch, forces their opponent to the ground and follows them in with kicks and punches. It’s as simple and as real as it gets. If you think your greatest worry is someone passing your Guard, you need to take a serious rain check!   P.S. I’ll be training Guard Passes later this week in my Judo & BJJ training. Go figure :) ….   https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=3 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=2 When you start considering all the variables that are present in a street or reality fight together you have to significantly change your attitude to dojo/studio training. Multiple assailants (this can include passers-by who decide a “free” hit on the guys on the ground would improve their alcohol fuelled evening…), concrete – rather than soft mats - and the potential for the person(s) you are dealing with to be carrying a blade means you have to change your attitude and often techniques considerably. Whilst the UFC may claim it’s as real as it gets, it still can’t replicate many of the variables and environmental factors that are at play when reality bites. Don’t get me wrong a Double Leg Takedown, a la Octagon or Judo style will be extremely effective on the street, just don’t assume that if you’re on the receiving end of it you’ll be in a position to pull guard when your head hits the granite; as nothing hits harder than concrete. The “ebb and flow” of a fight on the street differs considerably to that practiced on the mats or in the ring. Where going to ground in the cage may see you “winning” the fight, on the street it seriously impedes your survival chances. A trained Cage Fighter (like a Judoka) will see many submission opportunities when a person goes to ground, whereas a drunken douche bag will see little more than a head that resembles a soccer ball which requires the immediate attention of their size 10 boots. Hardly a sophisticated response to someone who has inadvertently adopted a prone position, but then who has the luxury of being assaulted by those that have an idea about what they are doing? Training to escape from Mount, Side Control etc or perform a Guard Sweep is great (and we cover all of this in our training) however we should roll the story back somewhat when we want to talk about the realities of a fight – especially one that involves multiple assailants. Today we looked at kicks and stomps along with punches committed by a standing aggressor’s whilst you are on the ground (possibly from being the victim of a group assault). This is reality - perhaps the worst kind you could face - and you need to address these common attacks and assaults first before you attempt to perform a rolling Knee Bar, Ju-Ji-Gatamae or Omoplata etc. Tomorrow I will go and take my BJJ class and then go and spend an hour on the mats practicing Judo. Does this sound inconsistent? I don’t believe so. I recognize the difference between studying an art that gives me “skills” and a “system” that directs those skills to the real world. https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=2 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=1 In the martial arts fraternity many myths and/or opinions get accepted with little or no scrutiny e.g. high kicks don’t work on the street – obviously nobody ever told legendary Liverpool bouncer Terry O’Neil that; a doorman who knocked out the majority of the people who challenged him with head kicks (bouncing is a REALLY hard game in the UK, that goes well and beyond checking ID). Perhaps the most common and most oft-repeated myth/opinion that is touted around in today’s self-defense world is that “95% of street fights end up on the ground.” Coming from a background in Psychology I am very interested as to how the particular study that drew this conclusion was conducted and very interested in the statistical analysis that resulted in such a high figure being produced: one that is statistically so high it might as well be 100%.    From personal experience I have seen many fights where one person ends up on the ground, whilst another remains standing (if I include multiple attacker scenarios the number rises considerably) but few where both parties end up rolling around in the dirt. Do not get me wrong, being able to survive on the ground against another party who has taken you there is extremely important and I don’t regret the large part of my training that saw me training in Ne-Waza (as it’s referred to in Judo) or the years I spent in London learning BJJ from Roger Gracie and his father Mauricio Gomez. This training developed and continues to develop for me the skills needed to survive and fight on the ground however I recognize that on the street – especially when a person is armed or there are multiple attackers present – my chances of pulling off a “Rolling Armbar” or a clinical Ju-Ji-Gatame are extremely unlikely however high my percentage in the dojo or studio may be. I still train them of course because the more skilled I am in pulling off these techniques the greater my movement skills on the ground, and as a consequence my ability to get back up to standing where I want to fight improves.    This week we will be looking at the section of the syllabus (for the various belt levels) at how to survive on the ground when our assailant(s) is still standing (in reality the most likely ground scenario we will face). This will cover soccer style kicks, stomp kicks, punches from standing aggressors as well as all of these scenarios from the perspective of multiple and armed assailants. We will of course continue to train knife defenses, punching and kicking etc but our “theme” this week is ground survival (just as it was headlock/clinch work last week).The Ernest Shackelton (Arctic Explorer) quote, “A man must shape himself to a new mark directly the old one goes to ground”, rather than being taken literally should serve to point out that when a fight changes you must be prepared to set yourself a new goal or “mark” rather than continue trying to pursue the old one. When a fight goes to ground, in a reality based situation, everything changes and your goals have to as well. We will drive this home over the course of the week.For those of you who would like to do more work on their groundwork “skills” development and learn submissions, chokes, combinations and “flow” type training remember that Tuesday nights at 8pm have always been dedicated to this style/type of training. We also dedicate time to the throwing and takedown components of the system in this class (it is of course covered as part of our regular syllabus in our morning, lunchtime and evening classes).Remember the next grading is in April… https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/kravmagaboston-readblog.php?BlogId=1 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:00:00 EST