Use OF Force

[USCMAAI]

In order to develop, or teach effective self-defense it is important that we understand use of force. In Law Enforcement this would be covered in Continuum of Force Training. That training teaches Leo’s (Law Enforcement Officers) and Military Police to respond to a threats/assaults with the appropriate amount of force. In Corrections the majority of institutions have adopted a resistance/control continuum. I feel that training your students in the continuum of force is important in view of today's litigation oriented society.

I will attempt to explain each type of aggression as we teach in Special Operations Combat Karate, and the corresponding level of response that is taught. Of course I should state in the beginning, that I am not an attorney and base what I teach off the Continuum of Force taught in Law Enforcement and the Laws of my state. Before you try to implement this type of training into your class structure, I would suggest that you do some research and or contact the Law Enforcement Agency in your local for information on self-defense laws/ and even ask for a copy of their Use of Force policy.

Generally speaking there are two philosophies when talking about Continuum of Force.

The first is the most common called the "One plus One theory (O.P.O)". This theory advocates that you can use one level of force higher than what is being used against you. For example a passive attack (like grabbing your wrist) could be responded to by using a break away, if not successful you could escalate to the next level to a joint lock and then so on. The problem with this theory it doesn’t take into account variables such as: size/ sex/ number of the attackers, environmental conditions, the circumstances in which the assault occurs, and the amount of time you had to react to the assault.

The second philosophy is called " Threat elimination theory (T.E.T.)". This theory advocates using the minimal force needed to eliminate the threat of injury to the defender. This theory takes into account the variables listed above. This theory is what Grandmaster Kemp based his concepts of the Three-blow rule and Three rules of self-defense on. This theory works on the premise that there are no absolutes in self-defense. Therefore a continuum of force theory cannot possibly have hard and fast rules on levels of assault and response. As opposed to OPO, TET takes into account things like number/size of attackers, environmental conditions, distance that the initial attacks begin, physical condition of the defender, etc. These conditions all have an effect on how you can reasonably expected to respond to an attack.

Because I am a product of my training (Grandmaster Kemp, Military, and Law Enforcement), I will use the Threat Elimination theory as the base for discussing the continuum of force.

The first level of assault is Psychological Intimidation: The use of verbal threats or non-verbal threats of potential or actual violence to intimidate or force a victim into complying with your wishes. This level does not have a physical assault aspect, but is often a precursor to a more serious physical assault. Often an assailant will “talk himself into an assault”. There are several possible ways to deal with this type of aggression, some are effective, and some are not. All have their risks.

1. Disengage: “ A good run is better than a bad stand.” Sometimes it is just better leave a potentially hostile situation before it gets worse. Of course this only works if the aggressor is interested in letting you retreat, or you are really fast, and you don’t have to worry about other people (it is really hard to run if you have your wife/girlfriend and or children with you). A disadvantage of this way of thinking is that it reinforces the aggressor’s behavior. I would rather walk away in most situations, but sometimes that is not an option!

2. Appeasement: This could be considered a form of disengagement, but I contend that this goes a bit further. Appeasement gives the aggressor exactly what he wants in the hopes that giving in will cease any potential violent action. The problem with this is that once you do this, it is likely that the aggressor will continue to try to get more from you. An example of this was Europe during the 1930’s. Hitler was aggressive and invaded Austria. Chamberlin (British Prime minister) didn’t want war, and so he and other European leaders appeased Hitler, allowing him to become more aggressive.

3. Verbal de-escalation/Negotiation: This is probably what most of us would like to do. It consists of talking with the aggressor, but not necessarily "giving in” to demands. Trying to reach a peaceful agreement with the antagonist, that is mutually satisfying. If you and the aggressor are both willing to settle matters without violence, this method is likely to work. However, if either party wants to escalate the situation, or you are unable to come to an arrangement that is win/win, then this probably will not work. Now sometimes the win/win is that you don’t fight and each party is allowed to “save face”. In many cultures “saving face” is very important, and has been the cause of assaults and even murder.

4. Confrontation: This method is one used by people who are aggressive in nature. Some people who use this method usually have the belief that if you meet aggression with aggression, that you can force your antagonist to back down. They “call the bluff” of the antagonist in hopes of ending the situation without appearing “weak”. Some people use this method, because not only are they aggressive, but they also don’t mind physical confrontation. This type of person is just as likely to be on the antagonistic side of a situation as not. The advantage of this is that often you can call the “bluff” of a bully, and back them down. The problems with this method are:

1) You may just get the fight you are trying to escalate (maybe even more of a fight than you anticipated).

2) In a legal sense it makes the claim of self-defense less believable. If you are seen “nose to nose” with someone and then a fight starts, it could (and probably should) be considered a fight of “mutual consent”. Which means that you both can be charged.

Being a “ naturally assertive” person myself, I understand how difficult it is to remain calm when confronted by an aggressive person. Over the years Grandmaster Kemp taught me that a confident person can be firm in their beliefs, and still maintain a passive demeanor. He says that you should be “ as gentle as possible, until it is time to be violent, then you should use controlled violence, overwhelming the would be aggressor.” This philosophy has served me well over the years, although that assertive streak has shown itself at times. Having this type of demeanor acts like camouflage, as most of us (combat martial artists) have confidence in our abilities, which can be seen in our mannerisms. This (our mannerisms) belies our soft-spoken, gentle appearance, which can have a confusing effect on an aggressor.

I stress that no matter what approach you take when dealing with psychological intimidation, you should be prepared for your antagonist escalating his assault to a physical level.

The second level of assault is called Inactive/Passive Aggression: This type of aggression is done as a form of intimidation as well. An example of this is the guy standing in the doorway, preventing you from leaving. Of course our "friend" is not really hurting you, however by using his body to prevent you from leaving he is effectively holding you hostage. Dealing with this type of assault (I call it an assault because you are being kept from exiting) can be a little touchy. I teach my students that they must make it known their intention is to leave. Then in a loud and clear voice ask for “our friend” to excuse you. If after doing this he still persist in blocking your exit (and there are no alternative exits that are safely available), use body checks (hips, and shoulders) as a way of dealing with this. S.O.C.K. also uses Touch Reference as a way of teaching students to move or move around such aggressive people. These techniques are not really damaging, and you must be prepared to escalate your response quickly if our “friend” decides to attack you. In this situation strikes, kicks, weapons, etc may be used depending on the environmental variables of:

1. Number of possible attackers

2. Weapons involved

3. Size and sex of the aggressor

4. Size and sex of the defender

5. Any other environmental conditions that would lead you to believe that your safety is in jeopardy.

The third level of assault is Control/Manipulating Aggression and is more dangerous. This assault involves the use of grabs, holds, pushing and or pulling techniques. While you are not being struck (at least not yet!), this aggression is much more dangerous than the previous levels and must be dealt with immediately. Allowing a hold, lock, grab, etc to be placed on you could result in you being effectively neutralized before you realize it! Now because the threat elimination theory states that you use the minimum force needed to neutralize or affect your escape from a threat, my school focuses on the use of a limited number of control techniques. It is my experience that most assault don't happen one-on-one, and so while locks and holds can be effective they may not be practical. As for ground fighting, these techniques are effective in a one-on-one situations (with no weapon involved), but in situations where there is more than one attacker, or weapons are involved these techniques are not as effective (when dealing with multiple attackers or someone using a knife, the last place I would like to be is on the ground).

Of course the level of response to this type of assault (as with any other physical assault) is dependent upon various elements. T.E.T. (Threat Elimination Theory) demands that you consider: size /sex and number of your attackers, weapons involved, environmental factors, distance when assault begins. These variables can cause dramatic changes in the response level. At a minimum if some one touches you without your permission that it is battery, and can be responded to with physical force. I add that whatever your response is to an assault that it must do one or more of the following: 1) Cause your attacker(s) enough damage to end all possible threat. 2) Create a sufficient distraction so as to facilitate your escape. 3) Cause your attacker(s) to re-think the risk/cost of an attack on you, and disengage.

The fourth level of assault is Active Aggression: In this type of aggression your antagonist(s) use more aggressive techniques (punches, kicks, etc) to put you in a submissive position. Although I feel that any physical assault can be potentially life threatening, Active Aggression is closer to Deadly Assault than most people (including many martial arts instructors) think! How many times have of you heard of someone being beat to death? I personally know someone who killed a man in a bar fight with nothing more than one well placed punch to the head! T.E.T. states that you use the "minimum force" necessary to end a particular threat. This can be a difficult thing for an instructor to teach, mainly because each situation is different, and you can't "write in stone" which response to an attack should be used. I prefer to teach an environmentally aware approach (taking all variables into consideration, as you formulate your response) to self-defense. This gives you at least the ability to explain your actions. If you follow this model, and you are logical about what you teach (basing your approach on what a reasonable person would consider excessive), you are likely to be able to not only teach successful defense, but also build a legally defensible system.

The fifth and final level of assault is Deadly Force Assault: This type of assault, the aggressor intends to kill, maim, or do serious bodily injury. Many people believe (and quite correctly) that assaults involving weapons are deadly force assaults. Now some of you say that some armed assaults may not fit into this category. I would say that depends on several factors! I recently had a fellow martial artists inform me that if he sprayed me with mace or pepper spray, that could not be considered deadly force assault. I suggested that legally it would not be considered deadly force if he were the aggressor, but because he was doing it to incapacitate me, and a reasonable person could be persuaded that he may do more serious damage to me, once I could not fight back, I would be justified in responding to his attack at an accelerated level. I know that some would consider this excessive, but keep in mind that “pepper spray” is readily available and works on “good guys” just as well as “bad guys” and that once incapacitated you really can’t defend yourself very well!

Weapon assaults are not the only type of deadly assaults there are. As stated earlier, an unarmed assault can be considered deadly if the conditions warrant. Chokes, strangles, etc are all deadly assaults. Any attack that has the reasonable potential to cause serious/permanent bodily injury or death is Deadly Assault. I use reasonable potential as a basis, because almost any technique can be made lethal. Reasonable potential applies to the use at the time. A knife hand strike to the jaw is damaging, but not necessarily lethal. That same strike to the temple or throat is potentially lethal. I teach that your reaction to assault should be swift and devastating, but always appropriate to the type of assault you encounter. I am always amused by those who say " I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6", if you understand the continuum of force, you won’t have to worry about either. Take it from me; none of us really want to go to prison for assault or murder!

In conclusion I reiterate, study your local self-defense laws, along with what your local, county and state law enforcement official's use of force policies. Then develop your self-defense formulation based on these principles. That may not give you total protection, but will be valuable in a situation if you find yourself or one of your students in court for excessive force or assault. Remember that you must strike a balance between what is “justifiable force” in a self-defense situation, and effective technique that protects the defender from injury.

[bushido_man96]

Great information. Thanks for sharing.

[USCMAAI]

Great information. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks! We had discussed this topic in a previous post about being able to kill an attacker. I thought it would be a good idea to talk about all levels of force as it pertains to self-defense.

[bushido_man96]

I agree. Many people just assume that if they claim "self-defense," that they can coast out of some charges, when in fact, you have to be very careful.

You don't want to be tried by 12, and then sentenced for 5!

[USCMAAI]

We just had an incident this weekend. A fellow I have known for years is now in jail for manslaughter. He was at a biker rally this weekend. Another drunk guy came up and pushed him outside of a bar. He hit the guy one time and the fellow just died! Now I have been warning Lance (the guy who hit the other biker) for years that his "take no (blank) from anyone" attitude would eventually get him into trouble. He always responded "I never start a fight I always finnish them". Now he is sitting in jail awaiting his preliminary hearing, and the claim of self-defense will not work. A man is dead, Lance killed him and for what? To prove to his buddies how tough he is? Everyone should think about this....really think about this.

[bushido_man96]

That is a bad deal. I hope your friend has a really good lawyer, and lots of luck coming his way. I don't see anything good coming out of that. Just getting pushed...I can understand if he thought that the man was going to continue, and it was probaby just a fluke that he was killed, but why run that risk?