is very hard, for example, to capture someone who is determined to get away, even when multiple adversaries are in play. If that is your goal, simply running away may be enough, particularly if you are able to move first. If in attempting to escape, you let yourself be drawn into a fight, however, it becomes self-defeating. Knocking an adversary aside so that you can run is better than squaring up to him in this instance. After all, your goal is to escape, not to beat down the other guy, win the fight, control the adversary until authorities arrive, or whatever else you can think of.
Consider intent, means, opportunity, and preclusion when determining your goals during a conflict. Many altercations these days are captured on video, be it from surveillance systems, cell-phone cameras, dash-cams, or some other source, at least when they occur in major populations centers across the United States. Even where video is not in the picture, bystanders may witness the event. If your actions don’t match your statements you will be in serious trouble when you get to court, particularly when it comes to preclusion.
Know your goal and make tactical decisions that support it.
Dealing with Threats with Altered States of Consciousness
Alcohol muddles your mind so that you don’t fully think things through. It also relaxes your inhibitions so that you are more likely to act out. Oftentimes it gives you a socially acceptable excuse for your behavior, or at least portions of it, compounding the effect. You want to do more and think you’ll get away with it, not that you actually will, of course… According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 36 percent of all criminals and 41 percent of violent offenders are intoxicated with alcohol when they commit the crimes for which they are convicted. These numbers rise even higher if you add drugs into the mix.
Drunks can be unpredictable, violent, and very difficult to corral. Tangling with one when you are sober gives you a significant advantage. When you’re drunk too, it only exacerbates the situation. Either way, you need to do your best to keep a cool head.
To begin, never argue with a drunk. As the old saying goes, “Reason goes into the bottle faster than the alcohol comes out of it.” If you can get away with it, just smile, nod, and say “Yes” or “No” as appropriate. Oftentimes, however, liquid courage will lead the other guy to take a swing at you. That is when you will undoubtedly be tempted to strike back.
Unfortunately, hitting a drunk doesn’t work nearly as well as you might think. It is not necessarily that they don’t feel pain, but rather that they do not feel it as much or as immediately as sober people do. That is an important consideration when dealing with an inebriated opponent.
Alcohol is not the only substance you might encounter that alters the mind of those who mean you ill. People who use drugs are roughly twice as likely to engage in violent behaviors as people who do not. In general, it is best to avoid tangling with anyone who is under the influence of drugs because such confrontations can become extraordinarily ugly. Leave such things to law enforcement professionals whenever possible.
For example, it can take as many as a dozen officers to restrain someone effectively in a drug-induced frenzy without accidentally killing him because less-lethal weapons such as pepper spray, Tasers® and the like, can prove ineffective in such cases. There is a good chance that many, if not all participants, will be injured in the process.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than half of violent criminal offenders are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or both, at the time of their offense for which they are subsequently convicted. The drugs of choice are most often marijuana, cocaine/crack, or heroine/opiates. Stimulants such as cocaine and crack are most linked to violence, although certain psychological conditions can have similar effects. (We’ll discuss emotionally disturbed persons in the chapter about Level 2.) Similarly, about 30 percent of victims are intoxicated with drugs at the time they are attacked.
Pain Compliance versus Mechanical Compliance
At the end of the National Anthem, we block the stairs above the 50-yard line to let the band exit the field and take their places in the stands. This usually takes several minutes, during which latecomers cannot take their seats. Those at the front of the line can see the kickoff and first few plays of the game, but those in back can only hear what’s going on. Needless to say that makes us somewhat less than popular, yet most fans understand and wait (more or less) patiently for the band to get out of the way. Not so, no-shirt guy. Painted purple with a gold W on his chest, he shoved his way through the line and tried to push his way past the guards at the top of the stairs.
They managed to stop his forward progress, but he launched into a verbal tirade and continued to push against my employees, nearly knocking one down the cement stairwell. After helping the guard regain his balance, I stepped into the fray and tried to reason with the fan, quickly discovering that he was far too intoxicated to understand what I was saying let alone comply. After fruitlessly arguing for a moment, I reached over and slid my fingers around the top of his collarbone while simultaneously pushing my thumb into the suprasternal notch at the base of his throat and dug in hard. On most people this will cause excruciating pain, simultaneously buckling their knees. On this guy, nothing. He didn’t even notice.
Pain compliance is a an excellent tool. It affords you the ability to control an opponent without seriously injuring him—when it works. Unfortunately, a committed adversary, a person whose mind is affected by certain intoxicants or who is in an altered state of consciousness, or one who is gripped by adrenaline is likely to shrug off virtually any pain you can throw at him. In those cases, pressure points or pain compliance techniques will not be enough. You will need mechanical leverage to control or injure your adversary.
If you must hurt someone in a fight, you will need to target a vital area of his body, someplace that can be damaged relatively easily. Punching someone in the stomach, for example, may only piss him off while striking him in the head may render him unconscious if you hit hard enough (and possibly shatter your hand in the process).
As we cover the higher levels of the force continuum, you will discover that targeting moves from lesser to more vital areas of the body to help assure success when dealing with determined foe. For now, be aware that merely delivering pain may not be sufficient to control a situation.
On January 1, 2008, Meredith Emerson, a 24-year-old University of Georgia graduate, managed to fend off both a knife and a baton attack, holding her own until her assailant tricked her into surrendering. Gary Michael Hilton, a burly 61-year-old drifter, subsequently tied her up and carried her to a remote location where he raped and eventually killed her three days later.
Hilton reportedly told police interrogators that his petite victim nearly overpowered him when he first accosted her on an Appalachian hiking trail. According to published reports, Hilton stalked the 5-foot-4-inch tall, 120-pound woman on the trail but was unable to keep up so he laid in wait and intercepted her on her way back down. He pulled a knife and demanded her ATM card. Emerson, a trained martial artist, recognized the threat and immediately fought back.
“I lost control, and she fought. And as I read in the paper, she’s a martial artist.” Emerson, who held middle kyu ranks (blue belt and green belt) in two different martial arts, ripped the knife out of his hands. He countered with a baton that she was also able to pull from his grasp. As the
