(Mainly taken from SBG spring 2004 ISR Matrix Lecture...)You can research interesting topics such as Conflict Resolution, Game Theory, or Verbal Judo to help with verbal altercations.
But when someone is uncomprimisingly angry or drunk or both, your volume level can never be loud enough to instill reason. People operating at a high level of rage have an extremely loud internal noise going on in their head. Sometimes the only way to get people to turn down their high level of internal noise is to physically get their attention. And sometimes stopping perilous situations from happening requires subject control that's justifiable in a court of law.
My feelings, state of mind, or physical condition can severely alter my ability to work out of a harmful situation. Most of the time we can't only rely on our physical attributes. I can have a day where I have the flu, or I can have a really bad day in traffic and be really pissed off.
Those types of factors can actually hurt more than help, so we suggest 2 main concepts:
1. Strategic Point of View - If I'm minding my own business going through daily life and I get into a potentially harmful situation - I legally should have a consistent Strategic Point of View.
No one should rely on deploying psychological games (i.e. I have to be tougher than this guy or stick my chest out and I have to eyeball the guy, talk louder, etc.). Those examples of psychological games are used in a lot of Defensive Tactics (DT) training. Some DT instructors advise their clients that when an upset person says something threatening, they are to look at their chest. I don't think any of that works - if you're scared you're going to be scared that's part of it. If you’re angry, you’re angry.
So if I'm angry or sad or scared or sick...
my Strategic Point Of View stays the same.
"My strategy overrides me - I'm not that important"
Once I get in a predicament... I don't matter. I am basically my vehicle for my strategy to get done for what I have to do.
Our strategies allow us to act accordingly with the proper level of force to support our strategic cycle of 1) Engagement/Disengagement 2) Subject Control 3) Conflict Resolution.
3 Phase Force Continuum -
1. Presence (a probe) A verbal and command oriented level. Offer to buy an angry drunk guy a drink - he says yes - you have immediately resolved the problem and you're done. If words escalate, it would be best to safely remove yourself from the environment rather than make matters worse.
2. Predicament (a challenge) Tactical and Objective oriented. Physical altercation. Strategic point of view and a trained course of action enage to resolve the situation using non-lethal force. If a beligerant person restrains you from leaving, it is justifiable to engage the person, control the subject, and resolve the situation by holding them down until help arrives (controlling) or fighting them until they they give up attacking you (engaging).
3. Peril (a threat) Self-defense or Survival Oriented. If in a scuffle, the guy breaks a bottle and tries to stab you with it - You're not an officer or a soldier, but even if you were - subject control is no longer your job. Your life is in danger - lethal force is allowable.
Now the strategic point of view ties in with the 2nd concept...
2. Trained Course Of Action - If I work the cycle of 1) Engagement/Disengagement 2) Subject Control 3) Resolution - I put my hours into it and I have "hands-on" experience - I know what to do when things happen spontaneously. If I am in shape and “have game” in stand-up, clinch, and ground then I will have familiarity in fighting. When I'm in a predicament or non-lethal fight, my strategic point of view and trained course of action will always be to Engage or Disengage, Control, and Resolve the situation in a non-lethal manner.
If I don't have a strategy to go along with a trained course of action - meaning a legal, defensible strategy – and I immediately go with a potentially lethal level of force (like trying to spike a guy on his head with a judo throw) and it may not be what was necessary - civilian or otherwise – I may be found legally at fault for damages. Therefore, you should always have a strategy based on sound ethics. In civilian life, the law will determine if your course of action and your strategic choices were reasonable when considering the level of force you used in that situation.
So train ethically, humanely, and responsibly considering levels of force that can cause permanent irreversible damage to someone.
