Responses to different types of assailant

Self defence skills are ever more important to people nowadays.  However, it is important to understand that a “one strategy fits all attackers” mentality is not sufficient. We need to moderate the level of violence according to our assailant’s capabilities, state of mind and intent. These things can be hard to assess on the spur of the moment, but it’s better to assume the worst rather than underestimate the seriousness of the attacker’s intentions.

According to 9^th dan George Dillman, most confrontations  are perpetrated by one of four types of people. Each has a different general motivation for hostility, possibly moving towards actual physical violence, and each must be handled in a different way.

A mugger depends upon intimidation to achieve his objectives

Career assailant

Dillman labels the first one a “Career assailant”, although a better term would be someone is “expertly threatening”. This could be a mugger, but in Britain there is just as much chance that it will be a stroppy or over-zealous night club or pub bouncer. Career assailants are people who consciously understand the psychology of aggression, and who use it as a means to an end. They are likely armed, or backed up by others, and may well have experience at fighting or weapons use.

In some ways, career assailants are the least dangerous type of aggressor. They have an end objective in mind – your eviction from a club, or the theft of your belongings, and generally, have no specific desire towards violence, so long as their objectives are met.

The best way to deal with these people is through compliance. Sure, you might be able to outfight a bouncer, or disarm a knifeman, but you might not, so why get into what are potentially life-threatening confrontations if they are unnecessary?  Dillman suggests carrying mugging money, which you can easily hand over to placate potential muggers. I would especially advise against taking an expensive mobile phone to school. I would also suggest simply avoiding places where mugging is a possibility. However, speaking as one who was mugged in a crowded 5^th Avenue in New York, I know from experience that muggings can take place in crowded places too. I also know from experience, that muggers depend upon intimidation to accomplish their ends. Most do not want to use their weapons. Thus, if you give them what they want, they are unlikely to escalate the situation to violence.

	He's mmmmad sir. Handle with extreme caution!

Deranged assailants

Although career assailants may be more accomplished at violence, by far the most dangerous assailant is the deranged assailant. He may be under the influence of drugs, or may be psychotic or so afraid that he is acting completely on instinct.  The deranged assailant is not operating with a full deck. Although he may (or may not be) intelligent, his thought process are not functioning properly. These are people who perceive wrongs that must be righted with violence, or threats that must be pre-emptively neutralised. Trying to placate or reason with these people is dangerous, and should only be done at distance, and with great scepticism. By and large, they must be treated as loaded guns that not only might go off, but actually want to do so.

Although deranged assailants are not necessarily numb to pain, you must consider the possibility that their fury or survival instinct will be intense enough for them to continue an attack in spite of it. If you cannot escape safely from a deranged assailant, your strategy must be complete neutralisation. You need to hurt them sufficiently to prevent them from regaining mobility and hurting you. A recent example of a deranged assailant appears to be the man who stabbed two French students over 200 times in London. Another interesting example is the American woman who shot her landlord because she believed that he was an assassin hired to kill her.

Bullying takes many forms. Inaction can sometimes promote continued violence.

Bullies and louts

This is a common type of assailant. They are not necessarily capable fighters, but they depend upon physical size, strength, the presence of friends, or psychological advantage to dominate other people.

Unfortunately, reasoning with or capitulating to bullies may only fuel their need for self-aggrandisement. Some may be sufficiently mollified by playing to their ego, but in the long run, this behaviour only increases the likelihood that they will continue bullying behaviour in order to get their ego fix. To quote a saying from Sensei Steve Rowe, “Cowardice breeds violence”.

You must assess whether or not you will have repeated or prolonged contact with bullies, such as in the workplace or at school. Of course, it is worth trying to get yourself moved away from the bully, although you may perfectly reasonably be unwilling to compromise your quality of work, school or recreation to do so. If you are repeatedly brought into unavoidable proximity of bullies, in spite of your desire to simply walk away or placate them, it may be necessary to take physical action. Bullies tend to choose “soft” targets; in other words people who are unlikely to fight back. In order to remove yourself from their field of interest, you must make yourself a dangerous target. Even if you may get hurt, it’s better to go down fighting once, than to be bullied day after day. The psychological effects of being bullied, are, in my opinion, far worse than the physical damage, and can dis-empower you for your whole life.

In my opinion, the best way to fight against the bully is fiercely, and with great determination, pressing forwards and never letting them gain equilibrium or build bravado. Although it’s certainly not your responsibility or obligation to dispense justice, one humiliating defeat can be enough to change a bully’s ways forever.

	Drunks may be slow and artless fighters, but they also have higher pain thresholds.

Drunks/family assailants

Particularly in Britain, where we have a culture of alcoholic excess and laddishness, alcohol-fuelled aggression is all-too common. Alcohol thugs may be moderately reasonable people when sober - although I question how reasonable anyone is who drinks, knowing that it will make them violent... However, when they have had a few drinks, they get aggressive and this quickly turns to violence. Often these people will be acquaintances or even family members, although there is an increasing trend towards drink-fuelled stranger violence in the UK according to statistics announced in July 2008.

If these people are known to you, you may be unwilling to hurt them in order to defend yourself. Be quite assured that they do not feel the same way. Although their movements and thoughts may be slowed by alcohol, they are likely more than capable (and willing) to put you in hospital or worse. Worse still, their response to pain will be dulled, so a punch in the nose, or a kick in the groin may not even slow a drunk.

Of course, the best response to an aggressive drunk is simply to withdraw from the situation and leave, unless it is your house, or your event. You may be able to reason with a drunk (at a safe distance), but all too often they are actively seeking a fight. If a physical confrontation is unavoidable, try to use multiple helpers. If you are forced into a one-one with a drunk you are unlikely to succeed by the use of any but the most physiologically irresistible restraining techniques. Unless you are very well practiced in the use of pressure point or joint-locking restraint, you are sadly going to have to hurt the other person for your own safety. If you know how to deliver knockouts, these are probably your best chance, and ironically, the most humane solution. If you do not, then you may have to do serious damage to the knees to take the danger out of the other person. Remember, with their high pain threshold, drunks can continue to attack you with broken fingers, ribs, or much worse. It is only when they sober up that any damage takes effect.

Sure, you don’t want to fight, and you especially don’t want to hurt a family member. But if you are absolutely forced into such a confrontation, the only question should be; who would you prefer to be the one who walks away uninjured – the loutish drunk who started the trouble, or you?

Variations

Armed assailant

Armed assailants can fit into any of the categories above, but I suggest that they require slightly different handling, regardless of their motivation. Armed assailants present a much higher risk of serious injury to you, and therefore should be engaged only as the absolute, total last recourse. Treat them as career assailants, and do everything you can to avoid a physical exchange – bribery, running, appealing for mercy, whatever. If you must engage, treat them as deranged assailants and do not stop until they are utterly unable to continue fighting. If this means broken arms or knees, gouged eyes, ruptured testicles or broken jaws, so be it. They chose the confrontation, not you, and even in the eyes of the law, you have a perfect right to defend yourself.

To be honest, you probably don't have much to worry about from this gang, unless you have a particularly low resistance against chinese burns and wet willies!

Gang violence

Violence from gang members is another type of aggression that may be considered bullying. However, whereas the defence against a lone bully may be to fight him, gang violence can provoke action against you and/or your family that will never end. My first advice in such a situation is to avoid places where gang violence may occur. If it is unavoidable, I recommend running at all costs. It’s better to be scorned by a gang as a coward, than gunned down by them as a threat.

Roughhousing friends

How often have you been around a friend who starts off with a bit of horseplay, maybe a play fight, then it turns into wrestling, and it quickly becomes competitive, then before you know it, things get out of hand and tempers start to flare? It’s a really common story.

Of course, the simplest advice is to avoid roughhousing, but what fun would that be?! More practical advice is to know when to back down or ease off the intensity. Sure you may be the strongest, but if play is going to lead to violence or bad feeling with your friends, surely you can be man enough to be the one who takes the initiative? The bravest action is to completely capitulate, giving them nothing to fight against. As Bruce Lee once said (in a completely different context) "If there is no me, there can be no opponent."

If things  have already escalated, then of course, you’ll want to kill your friend as slowly and painfully as possible, shattering every bone in their body, and ramming your fist into places not meant for a fist. Failing that, you should probably think about compliance techniques or exiting the situation. Unless they are drunk, friends can usually be reasoned with.

The law

When it comes to law, lots of people caution about the level of violence that you use to defend yourself. I believe in the Buddhist philosophy, which says that one should do more injury to a person than needed to ensure one’s own safety or the safety of those under your protection. If that means seriously maiming someone to stay alive, then so be it. If that means crippling a momentarily downed assailant to prevent him from resuming his assault, then tat's what I am prepared to do.

I live by the following creed: “It’s better to be judged by twelve men, than carried by six.”

In England, the Crown Prosecution Service offers the following:

Reasonable Force

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

• self-defence; or
• defence of another; or
• defence of property; or
• prevention of crime; or
• lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

• was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
• was the force used excessive in the circumstances?

In practice this means, that you can do whatever is deemed reasonable to defend yourself or another.

It does not mean that once an attack has been nullified, that you can continue fighting, breaking bones and rupturing organs to ensure that the attacker doesn’t do it again.

As a trained martial artist, there is the presumption that you probably need to use less force than an untrained person, but it will be down to you to argue in court how threatened you felt, and how much benefit your training gives you.

Read the full CPS article here