It’s all crap.

Well, almost all. The vast majority of this stuff comes from very vocal people with very large egos (large ego = low self esteem) who need to feel better about themselves by seeming important, tough, or smart. Instead of focusing on learning, they are shut down to learning anything new.

I was recently reading about the Piper knife system on their web site and have seen a couple of videos on Youtube. I do not claim familiarity with the system but, from what I’ve seen they hold their knife in an ice-pick grip. This is not something I normally recommend, but I am willing to accept that I do not know everything there is to know about knife combat.

My understanding is that the system evolved with the use of a specific weapon. A short, extremely-dull, folding knife common among South Africa’s criminal gangs. Since such a blade would be relatively useless as a slashing tool, a system incorporating stabbing and ripping movements makes perfect sense. An ice-pick or reverse-hammer grip is going to be the strongest grip for the stabbing-ripping type movements. In this context it makes perfect sense.

I am sure there is much more to it than I have read about, and I have never personally studied Piper, but I’m willing to accept that this system wouldn’t have evolved or survived the streets of South Africa if what they did didn’t make sense. I’m willing to loosen the shackles on my mind and accept the fact that I could learn something that was true, and was counter to what I already accepted as true. The difference is context.

On the martial arts linked-in group I moderate there have been a lot of questions about whether high kicks or ground-fighting were practical. Again, everything is useful in proper context. This also means that things become less useful out of context. The real key is trying to understand that context.

All martial arts systems evolved in an environment which included opponents, geography, purpose, clothing and weapons etc. Japanese jujutsu was developed to fight multiple armed opponents in armor. Filipino martial arts evolved to fight in close with long blades against relatively unarmored opponents. Brazilian Jui-Jitsu arguably evolved to win wrestling matches. Karate evolved amongst unarmed and unarmored people. Each of these arts, and all others like them, make perfect sense. Remove their context, and of course you can point out “flaws”.

The presenter made an interesting point that I think is relevant to personal security and self defense. He showed an image of a house and talked about the three necessary components to preventing loss or mitigating risks for burglaries. The first component is prevention, this includes door locks, fences, and anything designed to keep a burglar out. The next component is detection and includes things like alarms which are designed to make us aware when a breach of our preventative measures has occurred. The final component is response and includes things like alarm monitoring that calls the police and owning a gun or a dog. Response is the ability to react when a breach has occurred and has been detected.

The presenter next asked which of the three components was most important. Most of us (including me) answered that prevention was most important. In surveys this is the consensus of 95% of people asked. The reality is that, according to insurance statistics, for mitigating loss to burglary – detection and response are far more important than prevention. While having good door locks and other preventative measures is  important, once they are bypassed – without detection and response a burglar is free to steal with impunity.

How can we relate this to self defense and personal protection?

1. Prevention: This is anything you do to keep yourself from being a target of criminals. This may include avoiding dangerous situations, locking your car and house doors, not flashing valuables or cash in public – etc. The issue is, that there is no such thing as 100% fail-proof prevention. You can do everything right, and even go overboard with security precautions and still become the target of crime.
2. Detection: Detection boils down to awareness. Clearly most people will be aware of an attack after it happens, but understanding pre-violence indicators and having situational and environmental awareness are keys to surviving violence. I sometimes tell students that I cannot teach them how to defend against a sniper rifle. If the attack isn’t perceived, there will be no response.
3. Response: What do you do when you detect a threat, or when attacked? This is where tools and training come in.

The truth of the matter is that all three layers of defense are incredibly important. Insurance companies are not going to tell you to forget about door locks and just get an alarm and a gun. Many schools of self defense focus solely on response, and this is fine. However, without awareness, response will be too late and infective.

“Think Evil” is at the heart of the Security Mindset…
~Patrick Heim, CISO of Kaiser Permanente from the preface to Hacking Exposed 6: Network Security Secrets & Solutions

In my experience people are generally good. Most of us don’t want to believe we’re evil or that we do bad things. When we do “bad” things we find all kinds of rationalizations for them. Sometimes our “goodness”, which is really about self esteem and self image, hampers us.

In self defense classes where I am teaching people with zero training, many people have a visceral reaction when I describe things like how to shove a finger into an eyeball. I see them squirm and many vocalize, “yuck”. “This reaction is fine,” I’ll explain, “it tells me that you are a decent human being who is repulsed by doing something so violent.” I will then go on to explain that criminals who want to hurt them aren’t so nice or decent, and that sometimes causing bodily harm is really the only choice other than being killed or seriously injured themselves. Most people get it.

The quote that started this post comes from a book about computer network security – it’s for people learning to be penetration testers, otherwise known as “ethical hackers”. These are people who, with authorization, try to penetrate the security of computer networks in order to find the holes before the “bad” hackers get in and cause damage. If you’ve ever read about the military’s Red Teams or Red Cell – it’s the same idea – pretend to be a bad guy to test security.

So I offer the following mindset practices to you to learn how to shore up your defenses:

• When you’re in public look around as if you were a mugger trying to choose a target. Who would you choose and why? Make a note of the criteria you would use to pick a target – and learn to make yourself less of a target.
• From time to time when you are sitting or standing near to someone imagine they were going to suddenly physically assault you. Based on both body positions, what are some of the likely ways for this to happen. If the person had a weapon hidden, where might it be, and how would they access it?
• Look at your home and ask yourself how you would break in if you wanted to rob the place.

I’m sure you can come up with a few more mental drills such as these. The key is not to become paranoid or obsessed with what can go wrong, but play with the mindset and learn to become safer.

First the 70% statistic may or may not be accurate. I got it from a trusted source, and when I asked him for his source – he had legitimately lost his notes – but pointed me in to a couple of places where it may have come from. I’m still looking. That number includes blades carried for work purposes, multi-tools, and pocket knives. It seems like a reasonable number in my experience. A recent Gallup poll said that 11% of Americans responded that they carried knives for self defense, and that number was higher among men than women.

I was using the statistic the way statistics are often used – to convince people to take action. That action was to get some training in how to handle edged weapon assault. Attacks with edged weapons are fairly frequent in the U.S. and that includes the use of swords and machetes. Knives are very common. Let’s be clear that I am not selling training at this point, and am not using that statistic to scare people for my own personal gain. The real question about the value of the number is this – would following the interpretation of the statistic and getting some training be a good thing? I believe it would.

There are two potentially big issues with the use of statistics: 1. bad data, and 2. flawed interpretation.

Bad data can mean that the statistic is totally false – that  the resulting data is just made up. This is frequently the case, and I’ll talk about a pervasive lie about self defense in a minute.

With statistics generated from studies or surveys, errors in data can creep in from sampling or how questions are posed. There are mathematical formulas that tell researchers how large a random sample  of a population they must survey or test before their results cannot be attributed merely to chance. If you interview one guy in the United States and that guy happens to be Charles Manson – your data set isn’t going to represent the attitudes of the general population very well. The issue here is getting a truly random sample. Political polls aren’t random, they only poll people who are willing to answer polls – not necessarily those who may vote.

The other issue comes from the way questions are asked in surveys and polls. Look at these two questions: 1. Do you carry a knife? and 2. Do you ever carry edged tools for work or for other reasons including box cutters, knives, multi-tools, or the like? – People are likely to answer those two questions differently. People may be more likely to lie when there is a social stigma attached to the question. I’m aware of a survey done about butter consumption where rephrasing a question swung the results by around 15%.

In my opinion, one of the most commonly held misconceptions in self defense or martial arts is that all fights wind up on the ground, or 95%, or 80% or whatever number you’ve heard. Any number you hear in this regard is most likely completely made up (in other words – crap). This number has been actively promoted by people selling ground fighting systems. It sounds very authoritative, logical, and gives you something actionable to do.

There are only two studies that I am aware of. One study conducted by the LAPD before they designed their newest defensive tactics curriculum showed that in around 60% of hands-on use of force incidents, both the officer and suspect wound up on the ground. This is not only far less than 90%, but if you interpret use of force as an officer trying to take a suspect to the ground to facilitate cuffing – this sheds even more light.

Another study analyzed “street fight” videos uploaded to Youtube – which is not an analysis of all street fights – merely of the ones uploaded to Youtube. The results of this study showed that far less than 50% of fights analyzed wound up with both opponents on the ground. It also showed that the first person to go to the ground nearly always fared worse. Regardless, the term “street fight” does not imply self defense to me – just unsanctioned mutual combat.

So, let’s weigh the statistic on the scale of more good than harm. If you were to believe that all fights (100%) wound up on the ground, and so that you only learned ground fighting for self defense would that be a good thing or a bad thing?  If the statistic is wrong, and you faced an opponent who knew how to keep off the ground, or multiple opponents, or someone with a weapon – that could be a very very bad thing.

So let’s say that we have a rigorously controlled study with good data, and we generate some statistics from that, what could go wrong? Well, even more insidious is the misinterpretation, or deliberately false interpretation of what the data represents. Misuse of statistics in this way is rampant in media and politics..

I once read an article on a newspaper’s web site that had the headline, “study shows that people who own guns are more likely to be murdered.” Really? No. The paper quoted a study that showed that the rate of gun ownership was higher in areas with a high murder rate. To even approach this interpretation, the study would have had to compare gun ownership amongst murder victims – it did not. Just as easily it could have been interpreted as people living in high crime areas feel the need to arm themselves for self-protection, but this would also be false as the study didn’t look at motivation for gun ownership.

So what is a good way to look at statistics?

Let’s take a statistic about sexual assault among college-aged women in the U.S. In some studies it is shown that there is alcohol consumption by either the assaulted or the criminal or both in 70% of reported cases of sexual assault. Without getting into the validity of the statistic, could we safely assume that it’s a good idea for young women to be careful both about their own alcohol consumption as well as being cautious about others around them who are consuming alcohol? Seems pretty reasonable. Could we assume that women who don’t drink have nothing to be concerned about? No, absolutlely not.

Universally, police and self defense experts warn people never to let a criminal take you to a second crime scene. After an abduction, the chances of an abductee surviving drop to almost zero. I do not believe this is in any way an urban myth and I believe the advice to be sound. We don’t know how many of the people who go missing every year are abducted, or how many survive that abduction. From the crimes we know about over time – this advice stands up.

Look to statistics in self defense with an air of skepticism, and think about the consequences of their interpretation.

The point I’d like to make is that untrained, unskilled people have been killing each other for as long as human beings have walked upright. In fact untrained animals do it all the time. Any person can pick up a rock and smash another with it.

Granted, in martial arts training, we can learn more elegant ways to take apart the human body, we can do it in a way that we are less likely to also be hurt, and we can do it with style. The most difficult thing to teach and learn is to control an opponent, particularly if that opponent is determined to hurt you.

When I was in college, I once observed the campus police try to evict a drunken gentleman from the steps of a building. First they tried to ask him to leave – he merely ignored them. Then they tried to grab his wrist and put him into some kind of come-along or cuff him (not sure which because it didn’t get that far) – her merely sat there and wriggled a little bit slipping their grasp. The guy was like an oiled-up jellyfish. Finally, two officers grabbed the guy under his shoulders and slammed him on his face on the pavement – giving him a bloody, perhaps broken, nose. At that, the man began to struggle while it took there of them to get handcuffs on him and get him into an ambulance  – to go get his face checked out.

Think about that, a barely resisting drunken gentleman eluded an attempt to control him by 3 able-bodied, well-trained, experienced police officers until the level of violence got ramped up.  Whether or not the level of force was justified is almost irrelevant here. These cops have a conflicting duty – to protect the campus from crime, and from liability. Control without injury is difficult against any kind of resistance.

Almost every time we hear about the use of lethal force in self defense the question comes up – either from the media, ignorant people, or from our legal system, “did you have to do that, couldn’t you have used less force?” It almost never fails when police officers are forced to shoot somebody that someone asks, “did they have to shoot to kill, couldn’t they have just shot him in the leg?” This line of questioning stems from an unrealistic viewpoint highly influenced by the media. We see gunslingers on TV shooting the guns out of people’s hands, this is TV magic not reality. In order not to miss their target (which they do 83% of the time under stress), the police and military are taught to shoot at center mass – the largest part of the body. Asking someone under extreme duress to shoot at a small, probably moving limb is asking them to miss nearly 100% of the time and put their lives in great jeopardy.

People who have martial arts training are also frequently held to a different standard to those who are not. We are sometimes expected to defend ourselves with less force than others who are not trained. A well rounded approach to martial arts training should contain tactics that kill, cripple, and control – but again, controlling someone who is intent on doing you harm is nearly impossible.

Realistic self defense training includes techniques which are very very likely to create an injury to facilitate an escape. Tactics which rely on simply causing an opponent pain are highly unreliable and less effective on opponents who are under the influence of chemical intoxicants, adrenaline, or have some kind of pathology making them pain resistant.

Aikido is arguably the most gentle martial art on the planet, one of it’s goals is self defense without injuring your opponent. Watch people doing Aikido and ask yourself what would happen to the uke (one receiving the technique) if he didn’t know how to breakfall, or if he landed on a curb or up against a steel signpost. Aikido is very high level martial art and, from observation, it takes a very long time to get good at it. Even then, there is no guarantee of injury-free self-defense.

The specific style of Ketsugo Jujutsu we teach originates with Peter Freedman sensei, who was a pioneer in teaching self defense concepts and principles. Anything you could do, wanted to do, or needed to defend against involved at least one concept and one principle.

The concept, is simply an idea. You can’t visualize it – it’s abstract. The two concepts I want to explain for surviving and armed assault are: 1. create distance, and 2. seek cover. A principle is then the working science that makes the concept work. Frequently we use technique as a method of displaying the concepts and principles.

First the concept of creating distance. The basic idea here is that all weapons, knives, guns, empty hands, etc. have an effective range. Weapons lose effectiveness as a target moves beyond the effective range. Moving targets are also much harder to hit with a weapon.

Keeping this concept in mind opens up a number of possible tactics. Running away from a threat is a great option, one that I recommend if possible. There are circumstances where running away is not possible, so what are some other ways in which distance can be created? Pushing an assailant away is another. Knocking an assailant to the ground – yet another if possible.

Some people have suggested running in a zig zag motion to throw off someone with a gun. I believe that would only slow you down and increase the likelihood that you trip and fall. A better option is to run for the closest hard cover – this brings us to the second concept.

Seek cover – also known as shielding. The principles behind seeking cover are shielding or creating barriers between the weapon and your body. Weapons lose power with each surface they must penetrate. Bullets refract on every surface they strike, so cover can reduce accuracy.  Also, cover may keep your opponent from seeing you and effectively targeting you.

When a weapon comes into play look for the nearest hard cover and get ready to run for it. By hard cover, we usually mean some kind of structure, door, car etc. Many firearms are powerful enough to pierce car doors, tables, steel mailboxes, and the interior walls of most houses. However, some protection is better than no protection at all.

Stay low but mobile behind cover, look for the next place to run to should your assailant pursue you.

If hard cover is not available, look to place anything you can between yourself and your assailant and make distance. Let’s say, for example, you were assaulted in an elevator. Put whatever you are carrying or whatever you can get your hands on between you and the assailant. If a struggle ensues, move as much as possible – circle around the person as much as possible – his own body then becomes your cover, his need to turn to face you is your distance. You are buying time and looking for the opportunity to escape.

If there is no way to escape or cover, and you are being assaulted with a weapon, you have a couple of choices.

1. Give the person what they want. In the case of a simple mugging, handing over a wallet or purse to save your life is a good idea. Never, ever, under any circumstances allow someone to take you to a second location, tie you up, or get you into a vehicle – your chances of survival drop significantly if you do

2. Attack. Use both hands to grab the weapon arm (not the weapon) and do your best to control the hand (not the wrist). Attack with everything else you have – kick, headbutt, bite, scream, hip check, stomp on the feet etc.

Again, the main goal of self defense is to seek escape.

A little background is in order. Before I completed my first masters degree I was actually working on a masters in conflict resolution. I didn’t complete that, but I did intern in small claims court helping to settle quite a few cases (more on this in a minute). I studied primarily mediation and negotiation, as well as organizational psychology.

One of the interesting things I found in small claims court is that generally – the lower the amount of money people were arguing over, the more contentious the argument and the more people dug into their position. I would hear over and over again, “it’s the principal of the thing,” or something to the effect of, “I know I’m right and the other party is wrong”. People would miss an entire day’s work to argue over $65, a considerable net loss for some. Cases involving $1000 or more sometimes settled in minutes.

Why? Well, my working theory is that, for most people, larger sums of money are the ends – the goal is first to recover a financial loss. People who are willing to lose money to go to court (lost time, wages, and filing fees) are there to defend their very identity. Many people have a very rigid set of beliefs which includes ideas about right or wrong. Getting them to budge from their position can be a herculean task. Holding a belief which is contrary to a person with rigid beliefs is seen (at least unconsciously) as an attack on their identity – you are questioning who they have come to believe they are.

So how does this relate to verbal confrontation?

When people are angry, it is primarily because they feel threatened in some way. This may not be a physical threat, but may be a threat to their precious belief  system. Remember, their sense of who they are as a separate human being (their ego) is very wrapped up in “the truth”. Questioning someone’s religious or political beliefs is a good way to experience this.

What people are looking for when they argue is validation. Arguments outside of academic debate are rarely about actual facts, even though that might be the content of the argument. Issues of identity and ego have to be cleared before substantive progress can be made.

Keeping these ideas in mind here are a few ideas to help you counter verbal confrontation:

1. Do not argue in the first place. It takes two people to argue, people arguing with themselves seem pretty silly and most people won’t gain the satisfaction they are looking for. Excuse yourself from the argument – “This is something that’s getting us pretty mad, I’m going to go ahead and stop this conversation and we can pick it up later when emotions calm down a  little.”
2. Avoid an accusatory tone. People who are angry probably believe they have a right to be angry. Things only escalate when you try to tell them they have no right to feel the way they do. Instead of, “what are you so pissed off about?” try, “I know your mad, and I would be too in your shoes.”
3. Do NOT invalidate the other person’s beliefs. Remember – this is why they are mad in the first place. I once was accosted by a very well known martial arts instructor at a seminar who threatened to sue me for stealing his intellectual property (I didn’t). I listened very carefully to why he was angry and said something to the effect of, “I can see exactly why you think that way, and I don’t disagree with anything you just said – instead of making excuses, let me try to explain why I think there’s a misunderstanding.” It deflated the whole situation and we parted as friends.
4. Listen. It’s really simple, but just listen to the person rather than starting to shout back. Don’t stare them down, or make threatening body postures, just shut up and let them talk. Many people will start off angry and just wind themselves down. I have used this Jedi mind trick many many times. In college I had a project partner come up to me once and say, “I am really really mad at you.” I just sat down, shut up, and let her talk while I listened. She got calmer and calmer and when she was done, she apologized to me. I had said absolutely nothing.
5. Have personal de-escalation catchphrase to deal with personal attacks. I have been using this for years, and it’s also been written about in book called Verbal Judo. An upset relative once called me at 2AM spouting all kinds of insults and names at me for some perceived injustice. Each time she called me a name or directly insulted me, I just stayed calm and repeated my well-practiced catchphrase, “I’m sorry you feel that way.” This encompasses many of the other skills – I didn’t argue, didn’t invalidate what she was saying, didn’t take on an accusatory tone, and I listened. This de-escalated things very fast. To this day, I cannot come up with a single option that would have made things turn out better.
6. Practice non-violent but safe body postures. It is important when someone begins a verbal confrontation that you remain as calm as possible, when you lose your temper, you have lost. If you clench your fists, yell, or take on threatening body movements – the other person may perceive that as a threat or as an escalation to physical violence. Many self-defense systems practice what are called non-violent postures. These are defensive postures which are not viewed as threatening, but offer safety should the other person escalate anyway.
7. Watch out for indications that things may turn violent. No tactic is 100% sure, so your attempts at de-escalation may fail. I had an incident on a subway a few years back with an intoxicated gentleman who wanted to fight with me. Despite my attempts to de-escalate, he was determined. I used a little trickery and got off the train without having to put my hand on the drunk, filthy, smelly guy who chose me at random to pick a fight. Here is an article I wrote on pre-violence indicators.

To gain and keep the upper hand in a verbal confrontation it is important to keep above the fray. Keep cool despite what is being said. Remember that you are not very likely to convince a pissed-off person that they are wrong, even if they are. You are unlikely to change a person’s beliefs in an argument – don’t fight the battle you are destined to lose. Using some of the tactics above you can yield, redirect, and come out on top.

So are there some safe assumptions, or assumptions which will better inform your training? I can think of two:

1. Assume your opponent is armed: Even if you do not see a weapon, your opponent may have one. Many people who are stabbed, report not even being aware of a knife – that it felt like they got punched. In the heat of the moment it can be difficult to see a fast moving weapon.

If an attacker is not brandishing a weapon at the moment, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have on hidden on his person. It also doesn’t mean he won’t pick up and use an object in the environment, or be handed a weapon by a friend.

It is safe to assume a weapon, becuase the assumption should make you safer. Take every encounter seriously, avoid violence if possible, and train train train for when violence becomes necessary.

2. Assume multiple opponents: Even if you are alone in an elevator with someone, assume that person’s buddies are going to step on the elevator with you at any minute. There have been many people killed or badly injured in an attack when seemingly innocent bystanders turned out to be accomplices.

With the UFC, groundfighting styles are all the rage all over the world. They are good systems, but you do not want to be wrestling someone on the ground in a real self defense situation. You need to stay up and mobile an disengge with an attacker as quickly as possible, because you may have to deal with his friends.

Oh yeah – remember assumption #1? Assume the person’s friends are armed. While you’re going fora triangle choke on the ground, what would happen if the person’s buddies decided to kick you in the head with steel-toed shoes? Or stab you? Or hit you with a tire iron.

When attacked, deal with it fast and look for escapes, improvised weapons, and hard cover. Look for objects that you can place between you and potential other assailants. Do not get caught up struggling with a single opponent if you can help it. Stay mobile and keep your options open.

Here’s the real secret: There isn’t one. The technique, strategy, or mindset you need is the one that’s appropriate for the situation. Everything depends. This may sound like a cop-out, but it isn’t – let me explain:

As a rule, I try my best not to denigrate other systems or instructors. Everything is valuable, and there are many good systems out there. It can be tough to make sense of the sometimes contradictory information out there. At this point I will not comment on some of the marketing practices of some of my colleagues other than to say there is a lot of hype out there – you need to learn to spot it.

In my 3 decades of experience trying just about everything out there, there is no instruction which is going to turn you into Rambo in 48 hours. There is no systems that will give you imperishable hand to hand combat skills in a weekend seminar.

Combative skills are no different than any other skills. You will not become a trumpet virtuoso by taking a single class with a master performer. You won’t join the big leagues after a weekend in the batting cages. You must practice, refine, practice, refine, then practice. You must move your skills into muscle memory and keep them there.

I’m a firm believer in cross-training, having trained in an eclectic style of jujutsu, several styles of karate, arnis, silat, and studied everything I can get my hands on related to martial arts and self defense. I try to find holes in what I do, fill them, simplify, and go again.

If I knew in advance that I was going to be the victim of a violent attack, when it would happen, at what range, what weapons would be used, the number of attackers, my exits, the environment etc… I could focus on certain strategies and tactics in my practice. But the truth is, I’ll have no idea if I’ll need to grapple, run, strike, kick.

Many teachers advocate teaching killing and highly destructive movements in order for civilians to defend themselves. There is nothing wrong with that, unless it is your only option. Most jurisdictions allow for reasonable force to defend yourself. If you kill a guy for throwing a punch at you, you may very well wind up in prison.

Speaking of prison, do you know who practices violence regularly? Criminals. There are even prison-specific martial arts and conditioning programs spread from prisoner to prisoner. I’ve seen video of prisoners practicing edged weapon attacks. Gang-bangers have been known to practice arnis, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and even to join the military to learn combat tactics. Some Central-American gangs recruit from the military of their respective countries.

To become good at self-defense, you have to become good at self defense. That means practice. You can learn a lot in a 2 day seminar, or taking lessons, but knowledge doesn’t make you good. You must practice and practice and practice. You have to internalize skills.

You should learn to kill, cripple, and control so that you can use appropriate force when necessary. Your first line of defense is always awareness, and your second is escape, and your last line is physical self defense.

Avoid -> Evade -> Invade™ is a shortcut for remembering strategic preference. Learn to avoid trouble, when you spot trouble look to escape, if you can’t escape – attack until you can.

In a delayed violence scenario, there may be a few reasons why the attacker delays violent action. The bar fight where angry words are exchanged before violence erupts is one example. Another would be a  mugging where the attacker first uses intimidation before resorting to physical violence.

In a delayed violence scenario, you may still be able to avoid violence, or prepare yourself to mitigate some of the violence. Becoming aware that violence is about to happen is the key. Here are some body language cues that someone may be about to attack:

• Target staring or glancing – A person may narrow their eyes and stare at a part of your body (such as the chin) looking at the target they intend to strike. They may also begin to look around at other people in the vicinity or exit routes
• Looking through you – Also known as the “thousand yard stare”
• Blading the body back – Instead of facing you straight on, someone places their body more or less 45 degree angle, the knees may be slightly bent. THink of a boxer’s stance or Karate ready stance.
• Hands to the Head, or on hips – Some people who are extremely angry will unconsciously touch their head, some may place both hands behind their head
• Hands touching or patting potentially hidden weapon locations – Under a threat, people who are carrying a weapon may instinctively move their hands to check the weapon – usually at the belt-line, pockets, or jacket area
• Suddenly looking away, or turning partially away – This is the typical “sucker punch” maneuver
• Clenching the fists – Clenching and unclenching, or holding balled fists
• Bearing the teeth – Particularly the canine teeth
• Dropping the head – Chin tucked and eybrows dropped
• Face becoming red, or pale – Rapid changes in blood flow to the face may indicate an emotional change
• Rapid, deep breathing through tight lips or flared nostrils – May be accompanied by puffing the cheeks
• Rocking or bobbing back and forth – usually on the balls of the feet, may be combined with looking for targets on your body
• Shedding clothing - such as removing a shirt or jacket
• Profuse sweating – watch for sweat of the forehead
• Excessive blinking – Also a fairly good lie indicator, excessive blinking may indicate emotional stress

These are just a few pre-violence indicators, and it definitely pays to learn them. Most of them are unconscious behaviors, so a potential attacker will not realize they are doing them at the time.

Obviously some other indicators include things like making verbal threats, raising the voice, being intoxicated, and other things we may already know.

Now, what do you do if you pick up on some pre-violence indicators? That depends on the situation, but your guard and your attention should go up immediately. It’s a good idea to make some distance, and take on a safer non-violent posture. Always be aware of what the person’s hands are doing, look for weapons, and accomplices. Look for your best exit.

Again, depending on the situation, you may still be able to avoid a violent encounter by safely leaving the area, talking the person down, or creating some distance.

Whether or not you’d be justified in striking a person first if you sensed them about to attack is a very sticky area of law that I can’t get into as I’m no lawyer. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the law is that nothing is 100% sure. Most, if not all, jurisdictions allow the use of reasonable force against the threat of violence. Some people who should be within their rights to defend themselves have undoubtedly wound up in prison. Imagine yourself in front of a jury explaining why you stomped a guy who hadn’t even thrown a punch at you yet. Research the law in your area, talk to a cop and a criminal lawyer sometime,  and use your best judgment.