Using The Force

Force is variable. We need to learn to apply appropriate force when needed, without hesitating. That takes practice.

Society is deteriorating. Conflict is increasingly likely. We repeatedly see criminals assault others with impunity, and defenders are prosecuted. Rioters rampage freely, and defenders are prosecuted. Thieves brazenly steal, and defenders are prosecuted. As we transition to anarchy, laws are being applied less to the aggressors, and more to those who try to protect their property, their society, or their lives. We should assume that the full weight of police and prosecutors will be applied to defenders, and less to aggressors. It’s important that we defenders recognize this disparity and learn the laws so we can use them as part of our defensive tool kit.

I reported recently about James Kilcer, who heroically stopped an armed robbery, barehanded, in a Yuma, AZ, gas station. He is being recommended by the sheriff for a medal. It’s good to see there are still a few outposts of rational thought in America. But not everywhere — maybe not where you are. I wrote then that we need to practice limited force responses. Yuma was a good example of a measured response to attacks.

I wondered what I would have done in James’ situation. He had one second to decide, and one second to act. My instinct is I would have shot him and at least one of his accomplices. I probably wouldn’t have received a medal. In many jurisdictions I would have been arrested.

I’m a student of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, which is a fine workout and does teach reactions and confidence that might have helped with that confrontation. But it doesn’t seem to be the right tactics for that situation. BJJ is a grappling sport, and I don’t really want to wrestle with an armed robber. A quick parry and strike seems to be the best tactic, as James successfully demonstrated.

So I did some reading on Krav Maga (pronounced muh GAH, not like that other MAGA) which seems to be more appropriate training for a quick strike. I asked my BJJ instructor. He’s not a fan. Not enough art for a martial artist. Not enough discipline. Therein lies a problem similar to my armed response, and my search for less forceful responses. How do we decide instantly the amount of force to apply to defend ourselves from assault, without being accused ourselves?

Whatever response we make is likely to be conditioned by our training. I’ve had a lot of firearms training. Draw, two to the chest, one to the head. Multiple assailants get two each, then return to the greater threats. If unarmed, I might have tried to apply an arm bar and takedown. Probably still not the optimum tactic. So I plan to upgrade my skills with Krav Maga, which promises to teach us techniques in hours that would have succeeded in Yuma, or a more comprehensive set of K-M skills in a six week course. Quick. Efficient. But still possibly excessive.

I’ve also been “trained” by watching MMA fights. Not good training for real life.

But even with broader training I’ll face the dilemma of choosing from among my tactics quickly, without giving up the advantage of surprise. Hesitation can be as dangerous as surrender, or even inadequate defense. We need to instinctively know, and apply, the appropriate amount of force to defend ourselves without subjecting ourselves to accusations of excessive force, and getting more punishment than our attackers. I haven’t found civilian training that drills use of force options. So, for now, I’ll continue my training and try to rehearse scenarios in my head.

But even a K-M strike has the same legal risks as using a weapon. Assault is illegal. It’s defined as “touching.” I don’t want to be on a 9-1-1 call explaining there’s a blood splattered stiff on the ground who threatened me, and hope the cops agree. I also don’t want to tell 9-1-1 there’s a stiff on the ground with a crushed windpipe because he violated my space. We need to consider after-action responses, too.

Some say it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. But prison time can be as bad. James had the advantage of a security camera, friendly witness and honest sheriff. Those don’t always happen. We need to have a clear threat and choose appropriate response, and hope for the best.

We should review the rules. They’re a little different in every jurisdiction, but a few principles are shared in most. Everyone considering the possibility of kinetic responses to assaults should learn the laws that would apply to you.

The first consideration should be witnesses. If there are none, you might need to be more careful, since it would become a “he said - he said” situation. It’s often considered to be an advantage for the person who calls 9-1-1 first, so incapacitating your adversary might be useful. If you do engage someone in front of witnesses, get names and addresses from as many as you can. If you have a phone, your camera can be your friend.

The first principle of self defense (and defense of others) is you must reasonably believe that you (or others) are in imminent danger of physical harm. The related principle is we can only use force reasonably necessary under the circumstances to stop the danger.

“I was in fear for my life and defended myself.”

If you can prove that, you probably won’t be prosecuted. Both of those principles leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. Not everyone prevails. We must remember that the first interview with the cop is crucial, so it’s important to rehearse a sincerely fearful reaction.

Some states have a “castle doctrine” that lowers the bar in your home. You still have to convey fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Some states require retreat when threatened, if possible. Many states have “stand your ground” laws that do not require running from a fight. But you can’t claim self defense if you were the initial aggressor. You can’t pick a fight and then claim self defense because your adversary stood his ground. Some states allow defense of imminent threat of harm to their property. Some don’t. In every case, the response must be proportional. You can’t shoot someone (or crush their windpipe) for stealing your car, or kicking your dog. You can push them away, and if they then assault you, maybe you can shoot them.  We need to be ready to quickly escalate the application of force.

And, even those who successfully claim self defense may still get sued by your adversary or his heirs. It’s useful to check your insurance, especially if you carry a weapon.

And, no, people trained in martial arts do not need to “register” as deadly weapons. A trained fighter who is charged with assault may be deemed as a deadly weapon by the judge for that trial.

Ronald Reagan said self defense is not only our right, it’s our duty. Duties should be taken seriously. It’s important for those who consider themselves prepared to fight for their safety to understand the laws that would apply to that fight, before the fight. Sometimes cops can get away with excessive force, and sometimes civilians can. But sometimes not. Many cops receive use of force training. We should too.

Please share your experiences with effective training, and let’s see if we can find our best defense together.