I have been striving to get the Kid Escape abduction prevention program to as many children as possible. I have been contacting schools, churches, and any other organizations that directly work with children. To be honest, I am shocked at the number of organizations that care so little about the safety of the children in their care. To say I have been extremely disappointed is an understatement.

One of the churches I recently contacted made the following statement in response- "the time allotted to us for any special events for kids outside of Sunday services are intended for discipleship opportunities to help further grow kids in their relationship with Christ. We try to stay within those guidelines when providing additional programs through out the year."

Let me be perfectly clear here...I believe that assisting children to have a better relationship with Christ is very important. However, this alone will not prevent these children from becoming victims of abduction or abuse. This alone most certainly will not prepare a child for the pain and violence they may be forced to endure at the hands of a predator. To think otherwise is not only misguided, it's flat out wrong.

Who is ultimately responsible for the safety of all children? Schools? Churches? Parents? Or are the children supposed to just suck it up and take care of themselves? Actually it doesn't seem that anyone really knows or cares. School officials often say that they don't have time to teach safety to children and academics take priority. Church staff usually say something similar to what I quoted above. Parents? Well there are a couple of issues there. In most cases parents lack the knowledge or experience to properly educate their children on how to stay safe, especially from abduction and abuse. Also, considering that due to many parents working full-time jobs, the children actually see their school teachers and church educators more than their parents.

The reality is that ultimately ALL adults are responsible for the safety of children, especially if they regularly have children in their care (school educators, church educators, youth group leaders, childcare providers, etc). While children can learn simple skills to keep themselves safe as a last-ditch option, it's the adults that are responsible for making sure the children receive this education. If you oversee or provide care to children and you don't take steps to directly keep them safe or to empower them with the knowledge to keep themselves safe...you are part of the problem rather than the solution. As long as there are adults out there that feel safety should take a back seat to some curriculum or overall objective, there will always be child victims. However, it doesn't have to be that way.

A portion of my life has revolved around providing safety education to children with hopes that those I reach will never be the victim of abduction or abuse. However, I am only one person and I can't do it alone. I need help from those that work with children and those that can reinforce the message that I share. Without the support of educators, church leaders, and parents...children will always be vulnerable. Please open your eyes to this fact!

I use the term "disarms" very loosely because it gives people a general idea of what we are trying to accomplish, an attempt to prevent the attacker from shooting us. However, I do not teach disarms in the traditional sense, stripping the weapon from the attacker's grip while they stand there looking on in amazement. This is great for that WOW factor and getting people interested in self-defense, and it works great in a controlled training environment. However, these fancy techniques don't always work as well when the attacker intends on killing you and has a convulsive death grip on the weapon. There is an easy litmus test to verify this...use training firearms that shoot some kind of projectile such as airsoft, paint rounds, or even rubber bands. Set up the scenarios so that the attacker is acting and moving like a real attacker, no standing around with the gun just hanging out there waiting for the disarm. Then tell the attacker that he makes the decision whether or not he wants to shoot the victim and tell him that if he sees any aggressive movement toward the gun that he is to shoot.

Can you guess what you will find? The defender will be shot more often than not. Even if it's only 50% of the time, this is too high of a probability for the techniques to be applicable for surviving a gun attack.

What about the knife? Same thing applies. While many martial arts instructors will show these cool disarms where the knife is stripped from the attacker's grip, even while sparring, I wouldn't bet my life on them during a real attack. Why not? Because real attackers move and act differently than fellow martial artists. They generally don't comply like a good training partner and what often works in training doesn't always work in real life.

What's the real problem with the "disarm" strategy? Well, to be blunt, this causes the intended victim to be weapon-fixated. In other words, they focus on the weapon that the attacker is holding rather than doing what is necessary to slow or stop the attacker that is holding the weapon. In short, we need to focus on interrupting the central nervous system (aka the brain) because this is the most efficient route to disarming the attacker. The longer we focus on or struggle to take the weapon away, that's precious time we are wasting and this increases the likelihood we will be severely injured or killed.

While traditional disarms have been known to work in some situations, there are better and more easily learned options and tactics that have been shown to work more frequently and with less risk.

So, don't get caught up in the weapon "disarm" illusion, especially if your focus is on the ability to survive lethal force situations.

There seems to be a common misconception regarding the terms "self-defense" and "street fighting".  Many will talk about the terms as if they are one in the same, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.There are a variety of books out there and even internet discussion forums devoted to "street fighting". Unfortunately, few that promote the term actually understand what it is that they are promoting.

Let's begin with some simple definitions-

Street Fighting from Wikipedia-
"Street fighting is hand-to-hand fighting in public places, between individuals or groups of people."
"The main difference between street fighting and a self-defense situation is that a street fight is avoidable, whereas a self-defense situation is not. "

Self-Defense from online dictionary-
"The act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense."

As we look at the definition of "street fighting", especially the second statement we see the word that that clearly sets "street fighting" apart from "self-defense", and that word is 'avoidable'.  A "street fight" is what is commonly referred to at a symmetrical match fight. Everyone that is involved in a symmetrical match fight has agreed to be involved. They have provided consent, either verbally or implied. The typical scenario involves two or more guys. They begin with the pre-fight rituals of flaring their chests, flailing their arms, and pecking their heads. Typically this will include the exchange of verbal abuse and threats, leading up to the physical engagement. When all parties have agreed to participate in these rituals and engagements, not a single participant can claim "self-defense" by any legal definition. So, in other words, "street fighting" is about engaging in consensual combat. It's not any different than boxing or wrestling with the exception that it takes place on the street or in some public place.

"Self-defense" on the other hand is what is referred to as an asymmetrical assault. Generally during asymmetrical assaults, one person has initiated the attack and the intended victim has not provided consent in any way, shape, or form. They have been forced into the situation and generally look for opportunities of escape rather than engage the attacker in a physical manner.

So, "street fighting" can easily be avoided. It's a matter of avoiding those people and places that will likely lead to confrontation. If confrontation is expected, it's just a matter of walking away and choosing not to feed the ego. However, "self-defense" situations can often be avoided as well by simply using awareness and prevention strategies. Although, even if these strategies are regularly employed, there are no guarantees. In that case, escape should be the first priority and physical engagement should only be considered after all other options have been exhausted.

As you can see, there is is a difference between the two terms as well as the potential outcome for each. If effective self-defense and personal safety is what you seek, I suggest avoiding those instructors that promote the term "street fighting". Not only does the term confuse the student but it reflects negatively on the objective of the training and could even lead to legal ramifications should a person be forced to use their "street fighting" in defense of themselves or someone else.

Recently I stumbled upon the following description on a website and it honestly made me cringe. Why? Because it shows a true misunderstanding of the subject. I have changed the actual description using my own words because I have no interest in bringing negative attention directly to this school or their website. However, I do believe that if an instructor or a school doesn't truly understand the difference in training methodologies, they shouldn't be in this business. My objective is to help readers understand the difference between those instructors that actually care about the student's safety and those just looking to make a few dollars.


---------------------------------------------
Self-Defence / Mixed Martial Arts

Through the same training that law enforcement receive, learn how to protect yourself during real-life attacks.

Description:
Combining boxing, jujitsu, and law enforcement techniques to create a devastating street survival system useful by anyone regardless of size and strength. Learn how to protect yourself in real-life scenarios. Taught by a law enforcement officer using the same techniques he uses on the job.
----------------------------------------------


The title of the class should be the first warning sign. Self-defence and Mixed Martial Arts are two very different animals. One is used for surviving violent situations including unarmed assaults, weapon assaults, as well as multiple attacker situations. The other is used for winning tournaments. These are two separate and distinct objectives that require very different training methods. Anyone that claims otherwise truly doesn't understand the difference or just doesn't care.

Although the title claims it's self-defence and mixed martial arts the next sentence mentions "training that law enforcement receive". OK, now I am totally lost. Does the course teach self-defence or mixed martial arts or law enforcement techniques? Again, these are all different objectives and require different training. Law enforcement officers generally use control and containment strategies more so than defensive skills. When forced to protect themselves officers generally team up or escalate the level of force through weapon deployment in order to maintain control over a combative subject. In other words, they rely on weapons to defend themselves when the subject becomes too combative for control and containment techniques. This is obviously different than what is taught in mixed martial arts. It's also different than what is taught to civilians, because civilians have no true need for control and containment strategies. The goal of civilians should be to use the amount of force necessary to escape the situation. They should NOT be taught to stay with an attacker and attempt to control them, which is what is being taught by both law enforcement and mixed martial arts.

Now we move to the actual description which states that the system is a combination of boxing, jujitsu, and law enforcement techniques that make a devastating street survival system. Say what? Anyone that has read my previous posts will know my thoughts on "boxing" for self-defense. Again, I have nothing against boxing or MMA for what they are. They offer many benefits but realistic self-defense isn't one of them. Boxing is a sport that requires years to master. Even then, there are no guarantees that the skills learned in boxing will be applicable to self-defense. Jujitsu, especially old-school stand-up jujitsu is a great art that has many useful techniques and skill-building exercises. However, teaching a student to try to out-grapple an attacker is both futile and dangerous.

Then we learn that the instructor is a law enforcement officer. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing this doesn't guarantee that the material taught will be applicable to civilian self-defense. In fact, unless the officer has specialized training in civilian self-defense it's a safe bet that the material offered will be more geared to law enforcement than civilians. 

All of this being the case, how can such a system prepare the student for "real-life scenarios" when most of the training seems to be based on sport fighting and law enforcement techniques? Statistically, we rarely see the same kind of attacks on the street during real assaults that are frequently seen in the ring. Even attacks on police officers are different than what civilians are forced to face. Again, the difference between sport, law enforcement, and civilians is obvious and the fact remains that each requires different types of training. Don't be fooled by these instructors claiming that they are one in the same. Generally, such claims are based on making money rather than keeping the student safe from crime and violence.

Steve Zorn, ICPS
www.personalsafetyunlimited.net

To my surprise there are tons of so-called “self-defense” systems out there that emphasize closed-fist punching as the primary method of striking. There are even rape awareness programs geared toward women that teach the absurd idea of punching with a closed fist. In fact, during these classes the instructors will not only wear large protective suits but each female participant will be required to wear large protective gloves to keep the hands safe while practicing their punches. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this idea? What kind of instructor chooses to teach techniques that are more dangerous to the defender (intended victim) than the attacker? Obviously, only those with little real-life experience would teach such dangerous and ineffective techniques.

1. Punching is unnatural- Yes, there is some research that supports the use of the closed-fist as a striking implement. This goes without saying. Both primates and primitive man likely used their fists to resolve conflict and protect themselves. If we ask a child to strike a pad or some other object without showing them some special striking method we will see this primitive response in action. While a closed fist may be used, it will be performed in a natural and instinctive manner. The emphasis will be on what is commonly referred to as a hammerfist. This is the simple act of performing a large hammering motion with the fist while making contact with the soft portion of the hand just under the little finger. You most certainly will not see a typical boxing-style jab, cross, hook, or uppercut because these are unnatural movement patterns that require specialized training.
   
   
2. Punching poses risk of injury to user- The reality is that punching poses more of a risk for injury to the defender than the attacker. When I teach self-defense I focus on those techniques and tactics that statistically have the highest rate of success. While punching has been shown to work for some people some of the time, it's generally considered to be a low success technique because of the risks that it poses to the user. What many people, especially instructors tend to forget is that the bones of the hands are both smaller and less dense than the bones of the human skull? Why? Simply put, the bones of the hands are designed for movement and dexterity while the bones of the skull are designed to protect the human computer, the brain. When discussing this with my clients I often use the analogy of punching a bowling ball. I ask how many in attendance would be willing to punch a bowling ball with full force? Of course no one raises a hand. Punching the human skull with a closed-fist is no different. If the punching of a bowling ball makes little sense, how can anyone in good conscience promote the idea of punching the human skull in self-defense?
   
   
3. Punching requires years to master- Like many martial arts techniques, punching is a learned motor-skill that generally requires many months and even years to master. Once mastered there is still no guarantee that the user won't receive injury during the use of punches in self-defense. In fact, most people are aware that famous boxer, Mike Tyson broke his hand during a street altercation. If a highly trained boxer of Mike's caliber can't avoid injuring the hand while punching, what can we expect from average men and women with far less training? Keep in mind that the hands represent the ability to protect ourselves. Even if only one hand is injured, the ability to protect ourselves or our loved-ones is greatly diminished.
   
   
4. Hands require protection- Even if a person has mastered the art of punching the hands still require some kind of protection in order to reduce potential injury. This is why boxing gloves were invented. Before that, the old-time fighters would take steps to condition and toughen the hands to withstand the impact. Even in ancient times Roman Gladiators would wear protective gloves (gauntlets) to reduce hand injures during combat. So, in order to keep the hands well protected a person would essentially need to wear gloves 24 hours a day, just in case they happen to get attacked and need to punch. This obviously isn't practical or convenient.
   
   
5. Closed fists appear more aggressive- This goes without saying. If you see two people engaged in a physical altercation and one if punching the other into unconsciousness, what's your first general thought? If you are a reasonably civil person you will likely assume that the person executing the punches is the aggressor. Even if this was a legitimate self-defense situation, bystanders may see a different picture.

1. Open hand strikes are more natural- Unlike punching, the use of the open hand to push or drive things away from the human body is natural, instinctive and as old as man. Almost everyone can relate to using a simple pushing movement for everyday activities like opening doors, pushing grocery carts and lawn mowers, or even shoving the car off the road after it runs out of gas. By keeping the hand open we properly activate all of the muscles of the hand, arm and upper body that are designed for pushing. This not only makes the “open hand” more natural than punching but it also makes it a more powerful strike for average men and women who have little time or interest in learning to punch like a boxer. Because of the natural nature of this technique it is generally easy to teach and easy for most people to retain with very little training. 
    
2. Open hand striking appears less aggressive- Obviously the open hand strike appears far less aggressive than punching, especially to bystanders. If we see a situation that involves a series of powerful shoves or open hand slaps, we are less likely to automatically assume that the user is the aggressor. 
    
3. Open hands are safer for both parties- The very nature of “open hand” strikes makes them very effective. However, the same thing that makes them so effective also makes them safer, for both the intended victim and the attacker. Unlike punches that focus the strike into a smaller surface area of the first two knuckles, the open hand strike spreads the impact evenly out over the entire surface of the hand. This means that we can still use the same amount of power but because the impact is more evenly distributed it greatly reduces the chance of injuring our hands. It also greatly reduces the chance of injuring the facial bones of the attacker. Not only does this reduce potential injury but it increases the effectiveness of the strike. How so? Simple...when we make contact with the entire surface of our hand it spreads the impact energy out over a large area of facial skin. This can result in major stimulation of the facial nerves. When multiple facial nerves are stimulated at the same time it increases the potential for creating nervous system overload. The result of such an overload? A person can be knocked unconscious, obviously. So, not only does an open hand strike allow for a concussive knockout (the brain impacting the inside of the skull) but it also increases the potential for a nervous system knockout. All this is done without risking the small bones of the hands.
   
   
4. Open hands are easier to justify- Based on the above information we can see that not only are “open hand” techniques safer, more effective, and easier to use but they are more easy to defend in a court of law.

The next Warsaw, Indiana seminar is scheduled for Saturday January 19th from 12-3pm at Absolute Fitness Academy.

The topic to be covered will be "Defensive Knife". In a nutshell this is learning how to use a knife to save your life. This is not the typical knife dueling, or flashy martial techniques often passed off as tactical and practical. Due to the sensitive nature of the material it will be suitable for adults 18 and older.

To be covered: legalities of the defensive knife, fixed blades versus folders, standard grips, angles of attack, efficient fight-stopping targets, striking methods, inclusion of the empty hand, attribute-building exercises, self-defense scenarios, and more...

The cost for this intensive overview of the defensive knife will only be $25.

If you currently carry a knife for personal protection or have plans to start, this is an opportunity to learn how to use it effectively and efficiently.

Contact me to pre-register...

http://personalsafetyunlimited.net/seminars.html