<![CDATA[Close Range Tactics - Blog]]>Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:29:10 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[Entangled Weapons Fight: Armed Robbery Los Angeles Feb 2021]]>Thu, 20 Jan 2022 05:29:59 GMThttps://www.closerangetactics.com/blog/entangled-weapons-fight-armed-robbery-los-angeles-feb-2021According to police, a  26 year old father was out shopping in Los Angeles with his wife and 2 year old daughter when they were approached by two men armed with pistols. The wife and child were able to retreat to a safe distance, but the father found himself fighting against the two armed men whilst both unarmed and wounded.

Do you have strategies to deal with a similar situation should something like this happen to you and your family? 
The tactic of the armed robbers was one of pure brute force where a strongman physically restrains and controls the victim while the grab man runs the pockets and picks up what falls to the ground during the struggle. 

The police report stated that the male defender was both pistol whipped in the head and shot in the arm during the struggle. It appears that those injuries happened before the recording started on this clip, which means throughout the duration of this video the defender was wounded.

​There are two immediate observations here. First and foremost, for those with partners or families, what is your plan were something like this to happen to you? On the surface it seems like a simple question with a simple enough answer. But, I don't think these answers can be honestly reached without some real consideration to your own personal philosophies as well as those of your partner.

Secondly, this unique scenario brings into consideration the very serious issue of resistance  versus compliance.

Resistance vs. Compliance

Which tactic is the right one? Nobody can know that but you. It will be the task of the assailant to convince you that compliance is the best and ONLY option. Something for your consideration: if a person wanted what you had in your possession, and didn't care if you were alive or not... then taking those things from your possession would be a much easier task for them if you were dead. Problem is, if at any point they murder you in the commission of their robbery they will have much bigger legal problems than had they not. The kicker to that is, some criminals care about such matters and others don't. Many armed robberies seem to start off with no intent of murdering the victim yet still wind up doing so.

There are innumerable examples that can be found of video footage where victims are shot and stabbed by an armed robber even after they complied to their demands and forfeited their belongs. Far too many of those victims wound up dying from their wounds.

Should you resist? Should you not? It's really difficult to say. I can't give a definitive answer as to when either tactic should be used in a cut and dry sort of way. As is often the case, the situation you're in will dictate which plan of action is best for you.  

Important to note, you can change your tactics as the situation changes. You can comply initially and resist when the opportunity is better for you. It's not like you're obligated to be honest and forthright with the person robbing you.

Having a Defensive Plan as a Couple or Family

Our personal philosophy as to how we would respond to being targeted for an armed robbery will most likely vary depending on whether you are younger vs older, single vs in a relationship, dating vs married, non-parent vs parent, with our children or not. I'm sure we can add in all sorts of variables to consider, but these are the ones that I personally have noticed playing a major factor in my personal philosophies on the subject. My plan of action as a single 21 year old was different from the one I have today.  

I believe that a good starting point is with individual philosophy. A person would really benefit by considering many different sources of information and performing intelligent thought experiments to formulate their own detailed personal philosophy on matters such as self-defense. Afterwards, having a discussion with family members about being involved in an armed robbery such as the one in the video can help clarify a course of action for everyone involved. 

The next level beyond discussing the matter is to actually get out to train and practice as a family or couple. There are training opportunities available for families and partners to receive training in both armed and unarmed defensive tactics.
]]><![CDATA[Street Fighting and Martial Arts Training: Training to Go to Jail]]>Thu, 30 Dec 2021 05:57:02 GMThttps://www.closerangetactics.com/blog/street-fighting-and-martial-arts-training-training-to-go-to-jail
"In a street fight do this", "In a street fight, do that", "You should never do that in a street fight", "A person would never do this in a street fight", "This works in competition, but you never want to do it in a street fight". 

​Since I started martial arts and self-defense training, 40 years ago, I have heard everyone from a white belt to a red belt to "street survival experts" and "special operators" talk about "street fighting" in one aspect or another. The reasons to use one particular martial art or defensive tactics system over another in a "street fight" tends to come from those who are practitioners or at least admirers of that particular style/system. It all seems to be a rather subjective and ambiguous set of criteria for best practices in a bad situation.  My goal in this article is to try to clear up a very troublesome issue with both sides of this argument and attempt to make the argument have a more objective conclusion based on defined terms and real world data. The central theme that needs to be clarified by any martial system making a claim about it's effectiveness in a street fight is - What do you mean when you say "street fighting"?
What is your definition of a street fight, and is it in line with the person who is giving out all the (free?) advice as to how to behave in one? I think it's important that we first use our words clearly and purposefully to be explicit as to what we mean when we are talking about a street fight. Because, in terms of the tactics and strategies used it actually matters considerably that you are using the right tactics in the right situation.
Most BJJ, MMA, Muay Thai and other traditional martial artists I've heard speak on the subject of "street fighting" tend to drift loosely around several possible scenarios of having to use force to defend oneself outside of the academy or competition venue. However, as they offer their advice on many possible scenarios, the tactics they speak of often tend to all coalesce around a common and dogmatic theme: "Only two combatants are engaged in empty handed combat with the intent of staying engaged until the one combatant has either fled, been rendered unconscious, a third party (referee/anyone) has intervened and determined a winner or foul play; or one combatant submits in one fashion or another to the other combatant and that submission is respectfully honored."
Of course, the martial artists I'm referring to don't ever seem to put their own arguments in such a succinct package themselves. In their arguments the logic is such that it is made to appear that the system they are training is not only necessary and sufficient for addressing all possible use of force scenarios that are likely to happen - but preferred. And, when pinned into a corner by logical argument that threatens their beliefs, they defer to what they claim to be infinitesimal odds and incredibly rare likelihoods on how any person would ever actually be put in to such violent predicaments in real life. To be fair, this convolution of logic isn't usually intentional. It seems to be a cognitive bias known as the Confirmation Bias and possibly a touch of the Self-Serving Bias. After all, the more of your time, your money and your life that you've sunk in to believing a certain philosophy, the less likely you will be to give it up or change it. Humans are both risk and loss averse. Changing a belief takes courage. The Ego is the gate keeper, and it requires great strength to open that gate, because, the Ego absolutely hates to lose.

Am I also susceptible to a convolution of logic in my own right? Of course I am. However, I believe that the argument I make yields to the side of caution. I acknowledge the realities of criminal assault and the requirements of real self-defense events based not only on my own personal experience - but that of others who have told their stories to me, that of what's known about by experts as to how criminal assaults transpire, and that which is published in the academic literature.  
What is a Street Fight?
A street fight is a fight in public places. The combatants may or may not know each other. It may involve two or more people, as well as weapons, and there are no rules to a real street fight. In fact, it tends to be the observers of the fight who determine the rules for the combatants in many regards. For instance, a common street fight over trivial circumstances is typically broken up by a third party/the observers/crowd when one combatant gains a perceived unfair advantage over the other - as determined by the crowd. It should be noted that street fights are broken up by the crowd at different levels based on the locale. In the United States, most street fights are broken up once the fight falls to the ground. In Brazil, or amongst niche grappling cultures, a fight that falls to the ground is often allowed to proceed uninterrupted by onlookers unless some other social infraction should occur - biting, eye gouging, etc.

​Street fights can sometimes be considered to be mutual combat by the combatants themselves, but can just as equally be the result of one party defending themselves from the other party bullying them in some fashion.
​
It is also important to note that a Criminal Assault IS NOT a street fight. However, what starts out as a street fight or can easily turn into a serious and violent criminal assault. More on Criminal Assault below.
Picture
Two men fighting in the middle of the street.
The Key Component to All Street Fights
When many martial arts instructors speak of street fighting and self-defense, they do so interchangeably. This is an all too common and yet an incredibly dangerous misuse of terms. The key component to ALL street fights is that they are ALWAYS avoidable. In contrast, a true self-defense event where one must use force to defend themselves is UNAVOIDABLE by a reasonable person. ​
The Dangers of Street Fighting
One of the unexpected tragedies of "common street fighting" is an unintentional severe injury or death. It is far more common of an occurrence than most realize that one combatant in a street fight dies after they get knocked out on their feet then fall and hit their head on the ground or other hard object. In the worst case scenarios this leads to a fatal brain bleed, and at best makes the other combatant culpable of involuntary manslaughter. Although it is likely the prosecution will argue for something more malicious depending on the events leading up to the fight and how the fight played out, aftermath, etc. It may sound like a 1980's anti-drug slogan, but here it is: "In a street fight, even if you win, you could lose big..."
How to Actually Prevail In a Street Fight

Rule #1: Don't get into street fights. Street fights can be avoided, so don't waste your time or money attempting to learn or be instructed as how to "win" a street fight. People who try to make money off of offering such advice as how to win street fights are charlatans and swindlers. Avoid them and you'll save lots of money, pain and time spent in places you'd rather not be.

That said, a person who has experience in fighting because of their job as a bouncer, security guard or police officer, may have real legitimate advice to offer for the situations they were put in. But, unless you're in one of their occupations and put in a similar situation, their advice for you as a standard civilian may have little to no practical use for you. Just because a trainer/instructor has a laundry list of validated credentials and real world experiences, doesn't make them a good instructor who is capable of teaching what's relevant to you in an effective way. The ability to teach, train and coach effectively to a broad audience, and to do so such that it enhances both knowledge and performance of the recipients of the training is akin to being an alien from another planet that is capable of living on Earth. Which means, it's rare that people can teach, train and coach at a high level - even in the field that they excel in as a performer/athlete. Cutting to the chase, just because there's credentials or even a pedigree for an instructor, doesn't mean they can teach or coach worth a damn. 
 
Having to Fight vs. Wanting to Fight
This is a tough one for those who are competitive and/or have training in the combat arts. It's a lesson that was first wonderfully illustrated to me by an amazing instructor - Chris Fry who runs MDTS Training. But, it's a lesson which, I've seen so many highly trained Jiu-Jitsukas and other martial artists fail so miserably at in real life. Sometimes, you just want to see what you're capable of. Sometimes you just want to unleash all your training on an adversary who seems to be so deserving of a thumping. But, there is a HUGE difference between HAVING to use physical force to DEFEND yourself, versus WANTING to use force against a "deserving" assailant. Worse yet is the possibility that you egg-on or entice the other party into a fight which you otherwise could've easily avoided and walked away from. Do yourself a favor and walk away from every one of these scenarios that you possibly can. Avoid them all because none of them matter. If you want to see how well your training has prepared you - GO COMPETE! That's what competitions are there for. Compete in tournaments, in boxing and muay thai smokers, in MMA matches and any number of other specialized events. It's all out there. Google it. Train for it. Compete in it - and stay out of prison/hospital/the morgue. 

If You Cannot Avoid The Street Fight - What Do You Do?
If you are unable to avoid being in a fight, as in - you are not able to leave without serious harm to yourself or another, it is likely you are being criminally assaulted and have legal justification to defend yourself with reasonable force. In some jurisdictions you must be able to explain how you attempted to avoid having to use such force (duty to retreat). In other jurisdictions you do not (stand your ground and castle doctrine). It is to your benefit to learn the laws of your jurisdiction. At Close Range Tactics we teach our students and clients the law regarding self-defense and judicious use of force. Regardless of the specifics of your jurisdiction, the better you are able to articulate why you used force when you did, and why you used the level of force that you did, will be of a monumental benefit to your  legal use of  self-defense claim that 99.999% of all martial arts academies who claim to teach self-defense DO NOT take into consideration when teaching their clientele.

Conclusion
Street fights are ultimately always avoidable. Therefore, they should never be used as an example of, evidence of, or validation of a martial concept that is not appropriately addressing the realities of a modern criminal assault - which is unavoidable.  Any martial arts or defensive tactics instructor that speaks of street fighting effectiveness or relevancy of their techniques, but which is not also addressing what is known about the modern criminal assault, is uneducated on the topic and should not be teaching techniques under the guise of them being effective for a modern self-defense scenario. 

To train under such ignorance is to set yourself up to either go to prison or to the morgue. It's possible to do better than this, and at Close Range Tactics we are able to do much better than the standard martial arts academy or YouTube Tactical Street Self-Defense Expert. In our weekly class we teach our student body a skill set that encompasses soft skills of avoidance and deescalation all the way through the force continuum of having to grapple, strike, and use defensive tools to protect themselves. At every step along the way we teach in regards to common and local use of force laws. 

Close Range Tactics is available for corporate, group and private training sessions in both armed and unarmed self-defense tactics. Please contact us with your inquires and we will design a training package unique to your training needs. 
]]><![CDATA[Martial Arts Training and Self-Defense Training Are Not the Same Thing]]>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 18:55:36 GMThttps://www.closerangetactics.com/blog/martial-arts-training-and-self-defense-training-are-not-the-same-thing
Often when an individual or organization is looking for self-defense training they wind up hiring the services of a martial arts instructor. In part this is because many people are under the impression that the typical martial arts instructor is capable of teaching the lessons important for effective modern day self-defense. Additionally, those seeking self-defense training services will often do the bulk of their research via Google and it is common for martial arts schools to advertise on their website and storefront signage that they offer self-defense training, when the fact of the matter is that they quite simply do not.  
In fact, the instructor may even believe (falsely) that the martial art they teach constitutes or can be effectively used as self-defense. After all, they were once students in the art themselves, but now they have an academy and bills to pay. It may be dubious for an instructor to claim expertise in a plethora of martial arts. This is often seen as a scandalous tactic of casting a wide net in order to "catch" as many students as possible. You shouldn't trust a school that gives off the impression of being the Walmart of the martial arts world.

However, term "self-defense" has become an ambiguous catch-all that any and martial arts instructor can claim typically without challenge or proof of any sort. Tacking on the phrase of "self-defense" to the list of selling points on their signage and website is seen as a no-harm-no-foul add on that is used to catch a demographic that may otherwise pass them by. 

There are several problems with hiring a martial arts instructor to teach you or your organization self-defense, and there are just as many issues that lead the general public to believe that the two types of instructors are synonymous.
THE BOX CHECKERS

Let's first address the "Box Checkers".  People given the task of finding self-defense training for their organization, or even for themselves, may not care about the differences between martial arts instructors and self-defense trainers. When the priority is simply about putting an "instructor" in front of people for a few hours so it can be said that they were provided with  "self-defense" training, then it doesn't matter who that instructor is or what it is they teach. In this case, it is economically beneficial to simply choose the least qualified and lowest bidding instructor who returns their call. For the die hard box checkers reading this article there may be very little incentive to continue reading further. However, if you wish to provide your people with the best service possible, and I hope that you do, then the rest of this article is to help you become a more informed program provider.
WHY NOT MARTIAL ARTS FOR SELF-DEFENSE?

The four key reasons to not selecting a martial arts system to provide you with modern day self-defense training are:
  • The majority of popular martial arts offered today are historical systems of 70 years old, or even centuries old, in age
  • The majority of the martial arts systems were either developed exclusively as a sport, or, have become exclusively a sport over time
  • Some martial arts systems were developed for military use, but the capabilities of these militaries and the tactics they use are historical or no longer relevant
  • As a caveat, the majority of popular martial arts systems today were not developed in the United States. (more on how this is important later)
COUNTRY AND DATES OF ORIGIN OF POPULAR MARTIAL ARTS

Tae Kwon Do: South Korea, 1940's - 1950's
Karate: Okinawa, 17th Century AD
Kung Fu: China, 5th Century BCE
Judo: Japan, 1882
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Brazil, 1925
Krav Maga: Israel, 1948
Aikido: Japan, 1942
Muay Thai: Thailand, 16th Century AD
THE PARADIGM OF MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING

Martial arts training revolves around a common central paradigm:
  • A person who is good at a specific martial arts system is going to teach you how to be good at that specific martial arts system.
These training sessions may lead up to sparring or some form of ritualized simulated combat. Both participants will be fully ready for the match to begin. They will both start facing each other at an optimally fair distance from each other. There is usually a referee of some sort who will tell them when to start the match, when to stop it and when there's been some sort of infraction over the agreed upon rule set of the martial arts system. If striking is involved there is usually protective gear being worn, and if grappling there will be a signal of submission to prevent any sort of serious injury to the practitioners. If weapons are involved they are typically historical (stick, sword, etc.) and there are strict guidelines in place to ensure safety.

In regards to the above generic training scenario, I ask you to judge for yourself how accurately it replicates a situation of a real and modern criminal assault or even modern military hand to hand combat. ​
THE PARADIGM OF MODERN SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING

High quality modern self-defense training takes several factors into consideration that martial arts systems do not:
  • The criminal assault paradigm
  • The context of a criminal assault
  • The modern legal landscape
​
Put simply, criminal assaults rarely have a fair start where both participants (assailant and defender) are aware that they are about to be in a fight. There are no standardized rules to the fight, no referee, no points to be counted or time limit. Additionally, it is quite common in a criminal assault for more than one assailant to be involved as well as the use of weapons. These factors alone can put into question any sportive martial art where two people fairly compete from being able to claim that the system teaches self-defense.

Good self-defense training will take into account the factors above and incorporate strategies and tactics that are based on the reality of a criminal assault. 
USE OF FORCE LAWS MATTER

Martial arts systems rarely, if ever, take into account the modern legal landscape when teaching how their systems can be used as self-defense. In my forty-plus years of training in the martial arts I can't recall ever having a lesson on the legalities of the use of force from the instructor. In fact, it's not uncommon for martial arts instructors to mistakenly advocate for either too much or too little use of force when teaching their versions of self-defense. 
Martial arts students who do not understand use of force laws may find themselves in front of the judge for an unjustified use of force even though they thought they were simply defending themselves. Equally as detrimental is the student who doesn't understand what legally constitutes an assault, and therefore waits too long to begin defending themselves and receives serious injuries as a result.
THE SOFTER SKILLS

Martial arts are usually about imparting a physical skill set to the student. This means that there will be perhaps lots of movements, punching, kicking, perhaps grappling and maybe even weapons use. However, in regards to self-defense there are critical "softer skills" that will most likely never be trained in a dojo. These are the skills of deselection, deescalation, avoidance, identifying potential criminal assaults before they happen, and other skills that general work towards keeping the student out of being in a fight.

Additional supplemental skills that are worth training but typically aren't include post assault skills such as first aid and trauma skills, and how to interact with law enforcement and first responders. 
 TRAINERS WITH MARTIAL ARTS BACKGROUNDS

Almost all well respected self-defense trainers that I've had the experience of working with have a background in the martial arts. It's often the quest for self-defense skills that led them into the martial arts originally, only to learn after being there a while that martial arts were lacking in what they were seeking. However, it is the intelligent blending of effective martial skills and techniques as well as the omission of ineffective ones that can make for a well rounded trainer. A thorough martial arts background intelligently combined with an effective modern skill set of soft skills, firearms, edged weapons and less lethal weapons - AND a working knowledge of use of force laws, is in many ways the level of expertise sought by many seeking self-defense training.

The truth of the matter is that there are good techniques within several martial arts systems. But the techniques exist within systems that apply a high degree of context and specificity in which the techniques are taught, learned, perfected and utilized. Rarely, if ever, do these contexts mimic real world criminal assault scenarios. It is much more likely that they mimic historic scenarios of duels and mutual combat, neither of which is useful to the self-defender who was surprised in the parking lot by two armed attackers.

The lesson here is that a skill learned under a specific context (a martial arts dojo) is greatly impaired, even to the point of failure, when required to be performed outside of that specific context. It will be the intelligent self-defense trainer who can separate the specificity of the martial art  from the various techniques while still retaining it's effectiveness. When these techniques are combined into the other skill sets the trainer has to offer, a complete package of relevant skills can be offered to the student. 
SELECTING A SELF-DEFENSE TRAINER

When selecting a self-defense trainer their martial arts background should not be their only qualification for why you are choosing them. It is most likely an asset that they have a martial arts background, but if that alone is their only claim as to their ability to teach self-defense it is generally wise to look elsewhere. 

Secondly, the claim of teaching "self-defense" is an ambiguous term that virtually every martial arts instructor can plant a flag on. There is no global standard for what that term means and many martial arts instructors are under the impression that they are capable of teaching self-defense. Seek out well rounded trainers who can offer more on their resume than their list of black belts. For the sake of this discussion we at CRT define self-defense as a skill set that is beneficial and effective when utilized to prevent or survive a criminal assault, to include use of reasonable force.

The quality of the trainer's teaching and coaching abilities is a critical manner that often isn't known until after the course has begun. Look for trainers that have good reviews and are known for being intelligent, knowledgeable, professional and relevant. ​Trainers who spend time perfecting the craft of coaching, skills acquisition and studying various methods of learning and teaching are certainly of higher value to the student or hiring officer than those resting on the laurels of a black belt certificate.
MORE INFORMATION

If we can be of assistance in providing you or your organization with professional self-defense training, please fill out the form on our Professional Services page and we will get back with you shortly.

If you are interested in attending our weekly self-defense class in Iowa City please visit our Adult Self-Defense page where you can sign up for a free class to try us out.

​To learn more about myself as a self-defense trainer please check out the Instructors page.
]]>