In my last post we looked at perhaps the very most common baseless assertion from the “pseudo-profession”. This wildly unsupported claim that: “you should never be on the ground in a real fight”, is really pretty dumb but is so wide spread that it causes a lot of confusion among the lay public looking for realistic self-defense training. I made the point in no uncertain terms, that I feel a lot of the “pseudo-experts” who make this baseless assertion are simply lazy fat asses that don’t want to make the investment, in time, money and especially sweat, necessary to both shed a few pounds and to acquire the kind of realistic skill sets that Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and Mixed Martial Arts type training produces.
Therefore, I am going to use one of my personal experiences as a “Case Study” to be able to be more specific about some of the issues we discussed in that last post. To clarify some of those ideas; how you respond to a self-defense situation is about the “tactical choices” (options and opportunities) you have. Being on the ground is just one of many possible tactical choices you can make based on your assessment of the situation. Therefore, while being critical of just mindlessly taking every “fight” to the ground because you lack training for anything else (and therefore tactical choices) I nonetheless believe that ground fighting and defense is one of the ,if not the, most practical and proven tactical choices.
what follows is just one of the incidents that are regular events in the urban environment that I live in. Before I am accused of “cherry picking” incidents in order to support my point I should say that this was one of the most recent “tactical situations” I have found myself in and I believe it is the kind of relatively minor event that literally anyone could experience. In other words, This case study is not some statistically improbable event, like the “pseudo-experts” like to dream up, but an actual event of the kind that happens nearly every day in the every day lives of everyday people. Case in point:
I was walking through the local shopping mall and as I approached a jewelry store, I suddenly heard some one screaming “thief!”, “thief!’. A few yards in front of me I saw a young guy go bolting out of the store holding a bag, and heading for the big glass doors of the mall exit.
It was something I had seen before at this mall which I guess has its share of “snatch-and-grab” type robberies so I wasn’t taken by complete surprise and reacted immediately. The moment I understood what was happening I ran after him.
He had a good lead and wasn’t an immediate threat to me because he was moving away. This created a lag time which enabled me to do a more conscious “tactical assessment”. In other words, I had the luxury of a few seconds to think about what was the best way I was going to handle this situation when I caught up to the robber.
Later on reflection, I found this interesting because in most self defense situations there isn’t the time or opportunity to be able to actually go through a mental check list that I found myself doing as I ran full tilt through the mall. What usually happens is this same process is done much faster and at a more intuitive level. But it does happen and you come to realize that it can be done very rapidly and just as accurately as this longer version. I don’t think its all that difficult because humans are designed to do it fast and under stress. However, like any other human skill, practice and experience make it much more functional. The point being, is that I instantly made an unconscious intuitive assessment while my conscious mind had the time to do a more logical assessment and they turned out to be identical.
The first thing I considered was if he was armed, because he had just committed a robbery. It did not look like he had a weapon in his hands; furthermore, it was summer so he had shorts and a “T” shirt on. These facts helped support my assessment that he probably was not armed since it would be hard for him to have concealed a weapon as he went into the store.
This certainly didn’t mean he definitively did not have a weapon and I considered that. However, two factors in those clear headed moments before the adrenaline kicked in on creep contact, gave me the tactical “all clear”.
Firstly, It wasn’t an “armed robbery”. why would a robber bring a weapon with him then not use it to facilitate his crime? While possible, because the cretin saw an opportunity or something it is still unlikely that someone unwilling to use a weapon merely to intimidate during a robbery is going to suddenly prefer to actually use it on people. Most crimes and acts of violence follow predictable patterns. Anyone who doubts this should read the book, “The Gift of Fear“, by Gavin de Becker.
“The Gift of Fear” is a fascinating read and I’m going to do a book review of it in a later post so I am not going to say much here except it is a great book that is exactly the kind of science based approach to the larger problems of personal protection that our industry badly needs. works like these go a long way in dispelling the myths that the “pseudo-profession” likes to spread in order to support their silly claims. The point being, it is scientific fact that most kinds of violence follow predictable patterns and you can and should use this knowledge to make sound tactical choices. Not worry about multiple opponents and weapons when the patterns and evidence indicate that there are not any.
Secondly, in my experience, and I think backed up by the stats and experiences of anyone who has done unarmed security and dealt with robberies. If an armed robber (or far less likely a “snatch-and-grab” robber who is also carrying a weapon) finds himself in this situation where he is being pursued by people or security he will most assuredly stop and display or brandish his weapon to discourage any unarmed pursuers. This is the norm in Canada, where I live, because Security and civilians are unarmed.
I have seen this “back off” behavior both as a security guard and as a “regular Joe” who has been unlucky enough to have walked into an armed robbery on two separate occasions; its a predictable pattern. Thus, in that moment my tactical assessment was that the odds of him pulling a weapon on me were slim to none.
As we rounded the corner of the area right in front of the big glass doors of the mall, I could see a single peddle bike waiting outside. The mall was relatively quite that afternoon, so basically there was no one else around and I guessed, correctly that he was heading for that bike to speed his get way. With in a couple of seconds I made the accurate tactical assessment that he was most likely not armed and did not have confederates to help him. It really was not that hard because it followed predictable patterns.
What did I asses my best course of action to be? To use “ground fighting” of course. I was going to get a hold of him so I could put him on the ground which would give me the most control, safety and force options. This would enable me to restrain him or choke him out until security or police got there. Assuming all went well.
Can you imagine trying to restrain someone while you both are standing up? Why would I even consider this? Because I’m worried that his imaginary friends are going to come and kick me while I’m immobilizing him? Ive restrained my share of people both at work and on the street and this doesn’t happen much if you understand and asses the situation.
Therefore, this is a good example of “being on the ground is the best place to be in a fight’”. In this situation ground fighting skills are the perfect choice. You can’t restrain someone standing unless you are very much larger and to try usually just uses a lot of energy and gives the person a lot of opportunity to escape or injure you. Believe me, Ive seen this too.
The two factors that are supposed to be “proof” that I didn’t want to be on the ground are in this and many contexts just silly. First, I was justifiably not worried that he had people to help him, if any one was going to jump in it was going to be other concerned citizens or security. I would keep it as a tactical possibility as I engaged, but I was not going to let “pseudo-professional” induced paranoia prevent me from making the best tactical decision that was going to keep me the safest. In other words, I used the best evidence available and my own experience to make a sound tactical judgement. That is about all any of us can do.
My other concern was that he might have a weapon , this was still an unlikely scenario based on the evidence, but I took it into consideration and my tactical assessment was identical. If he had a weapon then he had not deployed it so my best chance of preventing that deployment was the same-to get as close to him as I could and smother his movements and get him on the ground. Once on the Ground I would have optimal control of the situation and him. I could specifically monitor his hands or put him in a position (like the Brazilian Jiu-jitsu “gift wrap”) which is both easy to control even a much larger person and takes the use of his arm away from him.
It may sound like a lot to think about in the heat of the moment but believe me, it took a lot longer to write this mental process than to think it. Sorry, the story does not have a very exciting ending. The thief had enough of a lead on me and was wearing running shoes while I slid after him in my leather soled dress shoes. Thus, he was able to jump on his bike just before I got to him.
At that moment I had to change plans and reassess, I saw other people getting in on the chase and made another tactical decision to go for my car that was parked at that end of the mall. I figured that the other people would keep him in the line of site while I went after him in my car. One guy even had his cell phone out so I thought we had a good chance, but I think this slowed him down. It felt like less than a minute before I was in my car and speeding after him, but there where multiple exits and directions he could have taken and I had to guess and guessed wrong.
That is how this case study ends, another scum bag got away with it. Oh well, no one hurt, including me and that’s a good thing. After all that talk about weapons and multiple attackers, it might leave the impression that taking on a young, obviously fit, and highly motivated guy probably willing to do just about anything to get away would be some easy task. Don’t kid yourself, armed or unarmed that can be a very hairy situation and Ive been there.
I would not advise people without a lot of practical training to get involved in those kinds of situations and by practical I mean stuff like Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and Mixed Martial Arts that you know you can actually apply, because you apply it all the time in training. Beware, the alternatives that the “pseudo-profession” dreams up while using the most uncommon and absurd examples to justify their baseless assertions. You can see from this real life and not fantasy example, which as I mentioned is the kind of situation anyone could find themselves in, that being on the ground is often, if not usually, the very best place to be in a “fight”.