38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I think we need to be very careful not to conflate “running away” with “escape skills”. They are not the same thing at all. Not even close.

If we do muddle them up, then it becomes a false choice between the physical act of fighting and the physical act of running. Using dialogue, deception, strikes, tactical movement, protecting others as you escape, managing third party perceptions, are all part of escape skills.

Mislabelling “escape” as “running away” cuts all of this vital material out of training. It also means we ended up talking at crossed purposes.

There are only two ways you can prevent someone from physically harming you:

A) You get away from them.

B) You physically incapacitate them.

The first option of escape is definitely to be preferred because it is easier to achieve and legally less problematic.

Which is easier: to escape a group or incapacitate an entire group?

Around 40% of violent crime (excluding domestic violence, etc) involves more than one assailant. Escape is definitely the way to go.

Which has less change of legal problems: Explaining why you struck someone to facilitate escape, of explaining why you beat someone unconscious and stayed there?

Remember that the criminal will lie and blame you (they are sneaky like that) and witnesses can easily get it wrong. Like it or not, they tend to view whoever is “winning” as the bad guy. If you are creating distance (i.e. escaping) shouting, “STAY BACK! Don’t hurt me! STAY BACK!” then you don’t look like the instigator. If you’ve not escaped, but instead have incapacitated and you are standing over someone who is badly injured. There is a strong chance that the balance of evidence will shift against you because the “victim” and a number of the witnesses have you pegged as the assailant.

Whichever way you look at it escape is ALWAYS the preferred option; until such time as it is no longer an option. However, “running away” is not always the preferred option because it is the last part of a huge array of escape skills. Those other skills need to be utilised if the running is to play its part. Bottomline, it’s a huge mistake to reduce the escape skillset to nothing but the physical act of running.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Gabriel Suarez wrote:
So I say, "when you use your skills" make sure you do it correctly and justifiably.  This flowchart serves as a sort of "mental kata" to get your mind in the right place sooner and to eliminate the second guessing that comes from uncertainty and fear.

That’s a well-constructed flow chart, but I would encourage people to be familiar with the law of the land in their part of the world. I can see a few parts of it that would not be congruent with UK law. For example, over here, what matters is the force used is both necessary and “reasonable” in order to prevent crime. It does not matter who is the target of the crime. “Reasonable” is also defined as “honest and instinctive” action based on a “honestly held belief”; which does not require a person to “judge to a nicely” the level of force used. There is no legally defined criteria for the use of “lethal force” in the UK. This bit of guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service would seem to be relevant:

The final consequences of a course may not be relevant to the issue as to whether the force used was reasonable. Although, the conduct of the suspect resulted in severe injuries to another or even death, this conduct may well have been reasonable in the circumstances. On the other hand, the infliction of very superficial or minor injuries may have been a product of simple good fortune rather than intention.

Lethal force may be necessary, or it may be a result of honest and instinctive action, and in both cases, it would then be lawful. However, in reaching that decision, it would not follow the same process as the flow chart outlines.

There are other complexities too. For example, committing a crime does not automatically rule out the legal use of force in self-defence (R v Rashford [2005]). The law for this originates from a case where a person had sought revenge for a prior incident and had, in the worlds of the judge, “brought violence to the scene”; however, the judge directed that he could still rely on a claim of self-defence if the intended target had become the aggressor. As it was, in the case, the claim of self-defence was not upheld. Nevertheless, the case law stands. As an illustration, we can imagine a situation where a teenager was to jump over a fence a steal an apple from a tree. If the homeowner was to then try to drag the teenager indoors to administer a punishment beating (i.e. they “became the aggressor”), then teenager could legally use force despite the fact they were committing a crime.

I totally agree that education is required to avoided second guessing and I can see the utility in such a chart. My point would be that it has to be based on the local laws … just in case and UK readers were to adopt it as is.

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Anf wrote:
A skill is only a good thing if you understand and accept how proficient you are in it and how effective it may be in a given situation.

Very true. The key is, therefore, to identify the most relevant and effective skills and seek to ensure the highest level of proficiently in those.

Anf wrote:
And having skills to diffuse a situation is fantastic. As long as we accept that it won't always work and some people genuinely just want to fight.

Nothing is guaranteed to work and a key rule in de-escalation is that, “You can’t reason with the unreasonable.” If de-escalation is not possible, then we can still avoid giving them the fight they want by using alternative escape skills. What to do should de-escalation fail or be inappropriate is a vital part of the whole package. Apologies to readers for pushing the podcast once again, but that topic is covered in it:

https://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/verbal-de-escalation-podcast

All the best,

Iain

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Gabriel Suarez wrote:
There is a place for fighting over matters of honor, not just self defence.

I find myself disagreeing here. While I fully understand the sentiment, there is no legal right to use force on another person to defend our honour. We may not like that fact; but it remains a fact. If we use force to defend our honour, then we are committing a crime and I personally know of a good number of people who have ended up getting jailtime as a result.

We have a legal right to use force to stop crime. The examples given of a man grabbing your wife, slapping you, and spitting on your child are all crimes. The law gives us the right to use force to stop those actions. However, it does not give us the right to go further and to punish the perpetrator. Again, we may not like that fact; but it remains a fact.

There can also be affronts to our honour that are not crimes. I once had a conversation with a person who had been given a suspended sentence for assault. The were telling me that the “self-defence laws in this country are a joke!”. They said they acted in self-defence and still they got prosecuted. When I dug deeper it became clear they had not acted self-defence. I asked them why they simply did not walk a way from the non-threatening person who was being obnoxious. Their response was, “I’m not having anyone talk to me like that!” The perceived affront to his honour made him commit an illegal act for which he was punished. The law does not give us the right to punch a##holes (hospitals could not cope if it did!). It gives us the right to prevent crime.

The first rule of de-escalation is that you need to de-escalate yourself. You can’t allow yourself to be controlled by someone else pushing your emotional buttons. We need self-control. I’ve been in situations where people have gone to verbal extremes to try to provoke me in to action. They wanted me to hit them because then they could run to the police and claim assault / get into a fight and remove my claim of self-defence (i.e. drag me outside of the law to reduce legal risk to themselves). Criminals and a##holes can be really clever like that. We need to be even clever and retain full control.

My family need me to be clever too. If I punch an a##hole then I cause long term problems for my family. We have the stress and cost of a court case.  I may even go to jail and then they miss having me around and they will suffer financially. My family don’t need me fighting over my honour; they need me at home doing what a good dad does.

I will not allow anyone to harm my family. Ever. If anyone where to try to commit a crime against them, they will be stopped; and the law will be fully behind me. As I say, I will not allow anyone to harm my family … and that includes me! I will not harm my family by being provoked into action by some jackass. They can afront my honour all they want; I’ll be at home that evening playing with my daughter. I won’t be in a cell awaiting police interviews.

Use force to stop crime? 100%. Use force to punish some one? Nope. The law does not allow it. I’ll be sure to keep them on the wrong side of the law and me on the right side of it. The courts can punish them without my actions getting them off the legal hook. Use force to protect my honour? No. My personal sense of honour demands I am there for my family and friends. If I fight over perceived slights to my honour, then, to my mind, I’m acting dishonourably.  The words of a##holes mean nothing to me. Time with my family means everything to me.

There is a great line in the movie Rob Roy:

“Honour is what no man can give you, and none can take away. Honour is a man's gift to himself.”

My honour is mine. No one can take it away with their attempts to affront it. I can throw it away if I respond. But no one can take it.

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

A man grabs your wife's arse - you run away?

I'd probably visit the chap during his subsequent hospital stay and explain the error of his ways. He'd have more to worry about coming back from my wife than from me! :)

Gabriel Suarez
Gabriel Suarez's picture

I agree Iain that everything needs to be filtered through your local laws.  I think defending yourself is just as legal everywhere.  Here in the USA most people carry weapons so it is an assumed thing.  And where we say "deadly force", you can easily simply subsititute "force".

On the honor thing, perhaps wrong choice of words as I refered that to the "grabbing" "spitting", etc.  Although it can be defined as a crime, and it is, it is more a physical disrespecting.  It is unliely you would be injured by a slap or a spit..but you are not going to allow it.  In my part of the world that is sort of the word we use, but perhaps nt the best definition.  We certainly don't go out looking for trouble, or to cause trouble, nor seek to fight from an emotional level, but sometimes evading those who bring such things "at all costs" is not our chosen course of action. 

Again...speaking for the USA.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Gabriel Suarez wrote:
I agree Iain that everything needs to be filtered through your local laws.  I think defending yourself is just as legal everywhere.  Here in the USA most people carry weapons so it is an assumed thing.  And where we say "deadly force", you can easily simply subsititute "force".

The cultural difference occurred to me while pondering this thread during a recent drive. Thanks for articulating it. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger certainly assumes deadly force in a way that striking someone does not. Of course, a single strike can be deadly, and a high bar for use of force is a commonality. Using force when truly unavoidable generally assures solid ground legally and morally.  

I really do like the flow chart idea and something directly relating to UK law would be very useful. We need people to act confidently and effectively knowing that the law is on their side. Confusion can see people hesitate or end up on the wrong side of the law. Mapping it out in a genetic way with a flow chart could cut through the “legalese” and make it more understandable for people. Thanks for sharing the concept.

Gabriel Suarez wrote:
Although it can be defined as a crime, and it is, it is more a physical disrespecting.  It is unlikely you would be injured by a slap or a spit … but you are not going to allow it.

I’m with you. I would draw a sharp distinction between crime and disrespect though. We have a legal right to act for the first, but nothing for the second. Here in the UK, a slap or spitting would be considered a crime; irrespective of the damage done. They don’t need to cause any physical harm. Just giving a person reason to assume force is potentially forthcoming is assault. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 defines “assault” as:

“An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.”

If someone spits on you, it is reasonable to assume that further unlawful force could be forthcoming and hence the law would support you in action taken to prevent that force. If you struck them and then quickly left the scene, then that would be lawful self-defence. If you administered a “punishment beating” then, at best, you are now both on the wrong side of the law. At worst, the spiting is denied, and all witnesses report you beating seven shades of s##t of a person who claims you started it; you are then looking at potential jail time.

We therefore don’t have to permit any crime that makes us “apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force”, but we have to take action congruent with the law and be sure we articulate to the police that such action was taken in response to an honest apprehension of unlawful force (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Section 76 (3)), and not because we felt disrespected.

That accurate articulation after the fact is very important. As one of my teachers said, “Most people find themselves on the wrong side of the law not because of what they did, but because of what they said they did.”

All the best,

Iain

Pages