Prescriptive Solutions Vs Situational Solutions

When dealing with armed assailants (whether with a knife, gun, etc.), there are a number of approaches that you can take; which you select depends on certain situational factors – do you have an easy disengagement route, are there third parties with you, does your assailant look conversant with the weapon they are using, are there objects (improvised weapons, obstacles, etc.) in the environment that you could use to your advantage? The various combinations of such factors and components, means that only having one approach to dealing with an armed assailant, such as controlling and disarming, is extremely restrictive and limiting, and could see you trying to employ a tactic that in a particular situation is sub-optimal and potentially dangerous. It should always be remembered that it is the situation that ultimately determines the solution, rather than a rigid set of rules. A system of self-defense should empower us, rather than restrict us. If you find yourself in a real-life assault, you are not there to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding to your assailant, but rather deal with them in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

In a violent encounter, you need to be able to act decisively, and this means being able to reach decisions quickly – the faster, the better. Unfortunately, you don’t have time to consider the best option (using a rationalistic decision making model that sees you compare the relative merits and demerits of each available option) and instead must select the first effective option available to you. At the very top of your decision tree, should be disengagement – if you’re not there, they can’t harm you. If this option is available and would work as a solution to the situation, you should take it. It may be that you need to create time and distance in order to disengage safely, which could see you throw a pre-emptive strike before you quickly exit the situation (something referred to as “Stun and Run” in the British Military). You may have to clear the weapon in order to do this, such as knocking it to the side, so that you have the opportunity to strike and run. This may also be a strategy you want to employ, if you are in a multiple attacker situation, where you may not have the time to control and disarm your primary assailant, before the others in the group would be able to engage with you (though based on the situation, you may choose to take that risk and disarm your attacker, in order to equip yourself with a weapon, that you can use against the group). Because of such situational factors, it is necessary to look at solutions that don’t require you to spend time “engaging” with your assailant(s).

If you have distance between yourself and an assailant – especially if they are in the process of drawing the weapon – using a forceful push/stomp kick to the torso, to disrupt their movement, and potential attack, so that you have the space and time to disengage safely, may well be an effective option. In a confined space, such as an elevator, such a tactic may be employed to initially keep somebody, armed with a knife, back and “soften” them up, before either disengaging (when the doors open) or controlling them and/or their weapon. To believe there is only one course of action available to you, rather than simplifying your decision making abilities, may turn your models of violence into simplistic ones, where effective solutions are discarded in favor of a prescribed, dogmatic approach. One of the skills I try to equip my students with, is how to quickly interpret the situation they are in, and select an effective solution. My goal is to enhance their creativity and allow them to effectively assess what is actually happening to them. I have found that scenario-based training is the best way to do this, and in the debrief phase where we talk about different ways a situation could have been handled, you start to see people thinking laterally, rather than in a blinkered way. Violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and sometimes regular training, can make it seem sterilized.

Sometimes it is not possible to directly control the weapon, and you have to control the weapon-holder instead. It may be due to your position that the assailant is accessible, but their weapon isn’t e.g. you are positioned behind them. In such situations, pickups, throws, and takedowns become an effective way of dealing with an armed assailant. The weapon itself isn’t directly controlled, but the person controlling it is. Would it be better to directly control the weapon? Possibly. However, in an active shooter situation where the barrel of the weapon is hot, after repeated firing, taking control of the weapon may be extremely difficult; something that is exacerbated if the assailant is using a sling or harness. In such instances, it may be difficult to effectively control the weapon (although there are of course ways of doing this), and opting for a solution that requires less skill, especially in such a high stress situation, may be preferable.

The skill level of the practitioner should also be taken into consideration e.g. I can teach somebody how to knock a weapon away and run, in about 30 seconds, and with 5 minutes of practice, they will be fairly confident in their ability to do this. Teaching and practicing effective controls and disarms, takes much more time, and much more practice. Sometimes you don’t have that time with a particular audience, and this limited time means you’re not able to teach them every technique and solution; not everyone will dedicate the time and the practice to make it to Black Belt and beyond, and we have to accept this. An effective system of self-defense should be able to accommodate everyone, and this sometimes means we teach simple approaches, that although not covering every base, equip people with something that can work in a lot of situations, if not every.

I would argue that for a student to have a comprehensive set of solutions, for dealing with armed assailants, they need to be proficient in five basic solutions (I would also argue that they should be proficient in the use of the weapons they face – and be aware of the fact that any weapon they disarm is not their weapon, and may not be truly operable e.g. a gun they disarm may not be loaded or operational, etc.). These five basic approaches are:

1. Disengaging from your attacker

2. Controlling your attacker (rather than the weapon)

3. Combatively assaulting your attacker whilst controlling the weapon

4. Disarming your attacker, after controlling the weapon

5. Using the weapon against your attacker whilst they still hold it, and you control it

Obviously these approaches can be combined e.g. you can combatively assault an assailant and then perform a disarm against them, or use their weapon against them as they still hold it etc. Just as you can control the attacker, before controlling the weapon and disarming it. Different situations, require different solutions, and the principles we use to direct us, must be firm and solid enough to offer a true direction whilst at the same time not restricting us from choosing and deploying the most effective solutions.