Human beings abhor the unknown, and unpredictability. However much we may crave excitement, we prefer it if we can exert a level of control over our situation(s) e.g. we may enjoy the adrenaline rush of sky diving or bungee jumping, etc. but we do so understanding that a certain level of control and predictability exists regarding these activities. In real-life violent encounters, there are so many variables at play, that it is impossible to know for sure, what is and what will happen; an attacker may be concealing a weapon, they may have friends who can come to their assistance, they may be in a psychotic state where their only intent is to eliminate us, etc. This can start to lead to a certain level of paranoia, where we always assume the worst – that unless we eliminate an attacker, they will continue to hunt us down Jason Bourne-style for the rest of our lives. Once we start thinking this way, certain strategies and tactics are taken away from us e.g. we can’t simply disengage, because we may be shot in the back as we run away; even though there may be no reason to believe an aggressor has a firearm etc. Rather than consider the odds and likelihood of such things happening, the “what if?” mode of thinking means we always have to consider the worst-case scenario, and this usually means that our only strategy is to render an aggressor unconscious; we have to stay and “fight”, where really any engagement we have with an attacker, should be to create an opportunity to disengage and get out of there. Might there be times where we have to stay and be involved in a fight? Of course, and our training should reflect this necessity, but really, we should be looking to avoid conflicts and disengage from them at the earliest opportunity, recognizing that the longer we stay engaged, the greater the possibility that something will go against us e.g. the assailant has a chance to pull a weapon, or have people in the environment come and assist them, etc. That is, the “what ifs?” that we are trying to eliminate by taking the time to finish the fight concussively/conclusively, are more likely to occur.
I hear many instructors talking about overwhelming force, that an attacker should be overcome by delivering concussive strikes from all directions, until they are on the ground unconscious, etc. I’m not saying that this isn’t a relevant approach in certain contexts, but it should never be looked on as a universal solution; sometimes it may be more effective to simply stun-and-run i.e. throw a pre-emptive strike to the face, throat or groin in order to create an opportunity to run – and not be crippled by all the “what ifs?” that are extremely unlikely to occur, and “if” they do, deal with them “when” they do. Gary Kasparov, the chess grandmaster, when he beat IBM’s Big Blue, stated that unlike the computer, he was only able to think one or two moves ahead, however this approach overcame a computer (and a team of programmers), that was making millions upon millions of computations i.e. asking a million “what ifs?” Sometimes, it is better to put all your effort into dealing with what you are immediately facing, than worry about everything that you might have to face, yet is extremely unlikely to happen.
The “better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six” argument, may sound good when an instructor is demonstrating that you need to keep stomping an assailant when they are on the ground, because you never know if they might have a weapon on them, or not. If you have no good reason to believe that the person has a weapon – such as you saw it at some point in the conflict – that argument has no legal credibility, and you will be deemed to be using excessive – and possibly – lethal force. “Might have” is never a good argument when claiming that you acted in self-defense i.e. you’re admitting that you used physical force against your assailant, but are claiming that you did so in order to defend yourself, etc. If you’re stomping somebody when they are on the ground – and you are standing – trying to argue that although they weren’t a threat to you in that moment, you thought they might be in the future, without any good and credible reason that they would, is going to be a very difficult argument to make and support. One of the “what ifs?” that often doesn’t get asked is, “What if I’m criminally charged for my actions?” and, “What if my assailant decides to bring a civil suit against me?” Two “What ifs?” that are far more likely than “What if my assailant decides to hunt me down after I’ve disengaged/run away?”
Disengagement, and running away, must be trained. It’s not enough just to train a technique and then have it in your head that you would run away. A technique in and of itself is not a solution – leaving the environment after performing a technique, starts to create a solution; and these are what we should be training e.g. if you perform a weapon disarm during training and then stay next to your training partner, what is that you are actually practicing? Is this what you would do in a real-life situation? In reality you would disengage, understanding that when you do so a “separation” has occurred e.g. if you disarm somebody of a firearm and then step back several feet away from them, legally this “new” situation, where you have the weapon and your attacker hasn’t, will be viewed as a “separate” incident; if you now have to pull the trigger, you will have to articulate why you felt it was necessary to use lethal force. Sometimes getting a long way away from the incident and an assailant makes things less complicated, both in the moment and in the long run i.e. keeping it simple and not creating a new incident for yourself.
Thinking about and preparing for every potential “what if” in the moment, can restrict our options, and put us in a position where legally it might be difficult for us to defend our actions. If a close relative or friend of yours got involved in an altercation, where they had their head repeatedly stomped by an assailant, who defended his/her actions by stating that although your friend/relative was not a threat to them in that moment they didn’t want to risk the chance that they might have been carrying a firearm, you wouldn’t buy it. You would judge it as unnecessary, extreme and paranoid. If we keep our thinking to the context of a violent encounter, we start to have far more options and avenues to explore, including getting out of there at the earliest opportunity.