How would you respond when asked by plaintiff’s counsel, “You have martial arts training, correct?”
And you say, “Yes.”
Then you are asked, “Your training covers various techniques ranging from simple moves all the way to complex moves that can cause significant injury, correct?”
And you respond, “Well it’s more than that.”
And then the golden question is brought to you: “You are taught control in class, correct? To strike without hurting. Correct?”
You just look at the attorney like a deer in the headlights not wanting to be there. Now he goes for your throat, turns to the jury and asks, “Why would anyone with your skill and training need to use so much force on a person like my client who does not have this same training?”
Just get out your checkbook because it’s going to be a poor day for you.
Does that really happen? I will tell you, yes. It does. Having been involved in a fight that lasted over six minutes with extreme violence and ended with deadly results, I was asked similar questions. My vast law enforcement training ranging from communication training to physical defensive tactics were analyzed by the plaintiff’s counsel. The incident I was involved in resulted in no criminal indictments but an out-of-court cash settlement due to evidence that the federal judge disallowed.
The Sheriff said, “You used your knowledge and training to control a horribly out-of-control inmate. The settlement was about our chances in court.”
We survived criminal liability by being reviewed (testifying) in front of a grand jury. We survived civil liability because we acted within the scope of our jobs, we did not overreact, and we followed the law. The civil settlement still bothers me today because we did nothing wrong and used our training.
There are three golden rules that are the mantra in most law-enforcement training classes when dealing with use of force situations:
• Go home safe.
• The bad guy goes/stays in jail.
• Liability free.
As a training officer, I have said these rules. As a student of Rory Miller, I have heard these rules in almost every class. In this book, Miller and Kane will teach you how to respond in a manner that may increase your chances of surviving a multitude of situations.
Have you ever considered the potential limitations of your martial arts or self-defense training? In no manner am I suggesting that martial arts training or self-defense classes are bad. I am cautioning that an important element may be missing in your training. This book aids the reader in developing potential knowledge to close that gap.
In the classes that I have instructed or in the review process when conferring with attorneys, I ask the question: “Is every use of force situation the same?” The answer is no. Force situations are like games of chess; no two are alike unless reenacted. There are so many variables to consider when responding to a situation.
Before we go further, let me pose a question: Is controlled training (studio) the same as a necessary response in an uncontrolled environment? Let me respond with this answer. My wife is a better target shooter with a firearm then I am, but I am a better combat shooter. In her world (no disrespect), she has time to sight, she understands time, the rules, and what end result is desired. In the world of combat, the variables are constantly changing to include…everything. It’s the chess analogy.
When violence comes to you, how will you react? If you overreact, as defined by the courts, you lose. You may lose your house, possessions, and freedom. All because you acted as you were trained. You could also under-react, and end up dead.
There are conditioned responses in some training that cause a person to increase, decrease, or even stop what they are doing. Other responses are to continue until your opponent is no longer a threat. Either conditioning can lead to a bad end result. Reacting too small can get you hurt. Acting too harsh may land you in court. This book helps you find the area where you are most comfortable.
When dealing with force, there is the art of disengagement. You may ask, “What, run away?” My response is yes. Years ago a trooper from the state where I reside stopped a car and upon exiting his patrol car, four bad guys got out of the stopped vehicle with bats and sticks. The trooper was told to get back in his car and he would not be harmed. How did the trooper respond? He disengaged. The bad guys left. About four miles down the road, the trooper stopped the vehicle again, with backup. A lot of backup. Nobody got hurt, bad guys went to jail, and the incident was liability free. The trooper may have been justified to shoot at the four bad guys, but chose a different force option. Think about it.
In another example, a friend of mine was a recruit 25 years ago and saw what he described as “the shit monster in a beater car give him the finger.” He attempted a car stop, but the monster drove to his home. Once home, the monster got out of the car and started walking toward a shed that had chain saws and swing blades. My friend then saw four younger versions of the monster who had given him the finger walking toward him. He told me, “I thought someone was going to die over giving me the finger?” He disengaged. How would court have gone for him if he had not?
For the past 17 years of my 27-year career, I have had the responsibility of reviewing use of force reports looking for policy violations, state law violations, and liability issues. During that period of time, I have reviewed uncountable reports from Miller. I never sent a situation that he handled for investigation. Further I know that he has defused situations ranging from a drunken idiot to an inmate with a shank. I have served with him in numerous venues and have found him to be a sound operative.
Miller and Kane have taken their experience both in law enforcement and martial arts, and have created a book that should cause a reader to pause and think about a proper response to a given situation.
When violence comes to you, will you survive? Many have, many didn’t. Many wish they did.
Stay safe.
—RB
All conflicts are not created equal. Sometimes your life is on the line, while other times it’s just your ego. You might be able to choose whether or not to get involved, or you may find yourself with no option but to fight. The perfect response to one situation could easily prove disastrous in another. Win or lose, however, when things get physical, there will be consequences. Those consequences can be life-altering.
Some violence can be staved off simply by presence, that is, looking and acting like you’re more trouble than you’re worth. Bad guys don’t want to fight; they want to win. And they rarely mess with alert, prepared targets. You can use words to defuse many situations, or apply calming or directive touch to reach resolution without injury. But not always. Sometimes empty-hand restraint is required, particularly if you need to control a situation without seriously hurting anyone; bouncers, security guards, and law enforcement officers routinely use such techniques. Other times, less-lethal or even lethal force is necessary to save your life or that of a loved one.
These choices form a continuum, a set of options that may be drawn upon to resolve any situation you encounter:
1. Presence—use of techniques designed to stave off violence via posture or body language that warns adversaries of your readiness and ability to act or that poses no threat to another’s ego.
2. Voice—use of techniques designed to verbally de-escalate conflict before physical methods become necessary.
3. Touch—use of techniques designed to defuse impending violence or gain compliance via calming or directive touch.