In the world of law, there are essentially two types of crimes:  mala en se (Latin for evil in itself) crimes and mala prohibita (Latin for evil prohibited) crimes. The distinction is important, and most Americans don’t understand these concepts.

Image via Wikipedia

Mala en se crimes are obvious infringements upon the rights of others. This would include things like robbery, rape, or murder. I say that these crimes are obvious, because every organized society has laws against these crimes, and the harm they inflict is obvious and immediate.

These acts contain the element of mens rea (a guilty mind). Anybody of normal state of mind knows that they are violating these laws and thus understand they have committed a “wrong”.

Contrast that idea with mala prohibita crimes – acts that are crimes because somebody said so. These are laws like prostitution, drug use, etc.

You can argue the ills of these acts, but in themselves they do not infringe on anybody else’s rights. Mala prohibita laws are not universal in US states, across the globe, or historically. Why? Because mostly they enforce whoever is in power’s moral system. They try to replace self-regulation with government regulation of consensual activity.

The US constitution was originally drafted and has been amended to bind the federal government from creating and enforcing mala prohibita laws. The bill of rights is a stunning document outlining the types of things the government cannot infringe upon – freedom of speech, religion, freedom from self-incriminatiom, freedom from illegal detainment, search and seizure, the right to own and bear arms.

Mala prohibita laws are tricky because you can violate them with no mens rea. You can be in violation of mala prohibita laws without even knowing it quite easily. Think about the tens of thousands of pages of tax code.

You may have heard that ignorance of the law is no defense. That saying comes from 18th century British Law scholar Blackstone  who wrote:

“Ignorantia juris quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat.” (ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no man)

Most people have never heard the “which everyone is bound to know” part. What he’s talking about here is Natural Law. The idea of Natural Law is that you have certain rights by virtue of being born human – whether you think they are endowed by God, or simply extend from your status as a person. Everyone in society is bound to know that violating your personal or property rights is wrong. On the other hand, I may not know that whistling on Sunday is banned in certain towns, and I might get pardoned for whistling if I’m from out of town.

Why is understanding this important for self defense in Maine?

First, you should understand that your right to defend your person and your property from harm is a natural right. It extends from the very fact that you are human. All states have guidelines on what citizens may do to defend themselves. I’ll let the legal scholars argue about them. But you should read and understand what they are – and good luck.

Second, I think some of our mala prohibita crimes with regard to self defense are ridiculous. For example, if your kid has a slingshot in his backpack – technically he is committing a Class D crime in Maine and can be imprisoned for 364 days. A woman who has a concealed carry weapons permit allowing her to have a gun concealed on her person, she still could be arrested for having a stun gun in her purse.

I raise this because my students frequently ask about which self-defense weapons are legal to carry in Maine. I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice, but as I read the law it basically states that no item used for self defense can be carried concealed on or about your person except for a firearm by someone who has a permit or defensive sprays like pepper spray.

This is a bad law for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that there probably are many thousands of people inadvertently breaking this law every single day.

The real problem with outlawing objects is that it disarms the law abiding citizens, and creates a class of criminals who have never violated a law except for owning the object – and may not ever know they have broken the law. In general, laws restricting people’s ability to defend themselves from violence increase violent crime.

I have written to my state senator and state representative recently in hopes of opening a dialog to discuss Maine Statute Title 25 252. Section 2001A. “Threatening display of or carrying concealed weapon”. I will keep you informed, but I hope you go read and understand the laws of the state regarding self defense.

Here’s a video covering a story where an 11 year-o successfully fends off a kidnapper who was trying to drive off with his 9 year-old sister. Jonah Yano credited years of training in jujutsu (or Jui Jitsu) with helping in his defense of his sister.

Here’s  important takeaways I want you to understand:

Image by rinpoche via Flickr

1. You do not have to be Bruce Lee to defend yourself: A little bit of skill goes a long way.
2. You do not have to be bigger or faster than your opponent: simply putting up resistance makes an attacker’s job very difficult. Most attackers rely on compliance.
3. Self defense doesn’t mean beating up or defeating an attacker necessarily: Self defense is about creating opportunity for escape.
4. When you surprise an attacker by attacking them back they will be at a disadvantage.
5. Get training for yourself and your kids.

In an effort to draw a distinction between training and competing in sports martial arts and the reality of self defense, I make the analogy: training for sport is to self defense as NASCAR is to parallel parking.

I did sport karate when I was in college, and it was fun. But I stopped because I believe I was developing bad habits which would score in the ring, but make me more vulnerable in self defense. MMA and any other sport martial art fits.

While no analogy is perfect, this one holds up pretty well. Here’s how I break it down:

I’m sure you could keep going with comparisons of your own.

My buddy Ray, who is studying Systema, gave me a link to a great article here on neurological training.

Another thing that self defense “experts” (the one who pay thousands to advertise in Black Belt Magazine) have been touting like mad over the past few years goes something like this:

• Under stress only gross motor movements will work
• Conscious reaction time to an attack is .1 to .25 seconds, too slow to react so you need to strike preemtively
• You cannot retrain reflexes – the flinch response is all you get

I’m here to tell you that most of that is crap mixed with a little truth.

Think about this for a second: If you couldn’t train yourself to react to things faster than conscious processing, professional baseball, boxing, and driving a car would all be impossible. If the flinch response were absolute and in-alterable, the same things would be impossible.

What holds a bit of truth here is that fine and complex motor skills do tend to break down under extreme stress. What is true, is that you can train reflexive actions.

In his book, On Killing, Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman talks about soldiers being unwilling to kill other human beings and primarily shooting over the heads of enemies. The army figured this out after a couple hundred years of dismal hit ratios, and started training soldiers with targets that looked like people and popped up. They literally trained a soldier with a rifle to reflexively squeeze the trigger when the stimulus was a human shaped target that popped up downrange.

So, it can be done, it is done, it works.

Here’s the thing – it requires training. Let me go on record saying that everything worth doing well requires training. How much training depends on the person.

The problem comes from the “commando in a box” salesmen who promise to turn you into a lethal fighting machine in 5 minutes a day.

It sounds great until you consider that human beings have been naturally lethal towards each-other since the beginning of time. It takes very little training to learn how to kill another human being. Here’s the first and last lesson: Grab something heavy and hit the person with it, repeat.

My problem with these systems is that they do not teach the control and skill of long term training. Chances are, if you kill another human being, even in self defense, you’re going to be well acquainted with your legal system. If you can’t prove that lethal force was justified – you’re going to use your new-found skills to fend off rape in the prison shower for the rest of your life.

Not all self-defense situations require lethal force responses. Imagine trying to stand in front of a jury and justify shooting a guy because he tried to throw a punch at you.

Control takes time, skill, and proper training. And yes, sometimes lethal force is justified and necessary.

Sometimes I’m called on to teach very short self defense seminars. In those seminars I use a few gross motor skills which are highly effective, but I encourage the students to practice and seek further training. Never do I promise to turn them into Rambo in an hour. Most of the training is awareness, avoidance, and psychological.

Be a critical thinker and examine “truths” that are given to you, even if they sound like the truth.

Today I was inspired by this story about a local grandmother who single-handedly fought off two armed home invaders. I was inspired because this story highlights how untrue many statements are that I’ve heard from martial arts and self defense ‘experts’.

Let’s break down a few myths that I’ve been trying to debunk for years:

Self Defense Myths Perpetuated By Experts

1. You can’t fight multiple attackers
2. You need years of training to defend yourself
3. All fights wind up as a wrestling match on the ground
4. You can’t fight armed people without getting killed
5. Untrained people just freeze up
6. You have to be in great shape to defend yourself

In my experience, most instructors out there get their ideas about self defense from the same place most people do – movies and the TV. They also tend to think in absolutes like “never”, and “always”.

Here’s an absolute that makes sense: “Every situation is different”.

Here’s what I would rather hear:

1. Defending yourself from  multiple opponents is hard, but it’s definitely been done and can be done.
2. Untrained people defend themselves successfully every day. Training makes you better at defending yourself.
3. It’s a good idea to learn how to disengage if you’re ever grounded. Some self defense situations wind up with both opponents on the ground, but you don’t want to go there if at all possible.
4. Weapons are always to be considered dangerous. Sometimes armed assailants wound or kill their targets, but this isn’t a definite outcome.
5. Sometimes people freeze up, even trained people. But there are a range of reactions including fight or flight that are more common. Most people are not good at predicting what would happen to them or others under duress.
6. Fitness is a definite advantage in self defense situations. However, unfit people can be skilled. Skilled and unskilled people defend themselves successfully every day. If your self defense training requires you to be in peak physical condition to execute, it might be less effective when you are sick, injured, or elderly.

You do not need to be some kind of commando trained lethal weapon to defend yourself from most common situations. Real self defense is not about fighting like you see it in the movies.

I encourage my students to train mentally with little imagination exercises they can  do when they’re out and about. When you go to a place that isn’t your home look for the exits, look for improvised weapons. When in the presence of other people, gauge their distance and imagine how you might react if they were to suddenly attack you. Look at everybody’s hands. Above all, always be aware of your environment.

Last night, during class, one of my students told me that she had been doing these exercises all the time. Great. Then she asked me a really good question, “isn’t it a little bit paranoid?”

My answer to that, as you could guess, is no.

To me, paranoia is about unjustified fear. In contrast, we work these drills in part to instill a sense of confidence. We aim to remove fear. Imagining a threat is around every corner is paranoia. Asking yourself what you’d do in the event there was a threat around a corner is mental exercise. One is healthy, and the other is not.

Paranoia is particularly a problem if it interferes with your normal life. You may be safer locked in your basement all day – but that’s not healthy. Preparation might point out some changes to your routine which would make you safer, but shouldn’t have you cowering in bunker for the rest of your life.

I live in a really safe neighborhood and have been mocked for locking my doors and owning an alarm. Then somebody tried to break into my house. Locking my doors and turning an alarm on and off are not disruptive in any way to my enjoyment of life. In fact, those two things give me a peace of mind that help me enjoy life better.

I was talking with a woman in Boston where I suggested that women probably shouldn’t jog alone at night on the Esplanade. About 5 women had been attacked and sexually assaulted at gunpoint doing just that. She was indignant, “Well, I fell that women should be able to go any where they want.” Absolutley, I agree with that statement. And I should be able to walk into the roughest neighborhood in the country with $100 bills falling out of my pocket and expect no problems either – but that’s just not realistic. It’s simply about recognizing an existing danger and making better choices.

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that nobody and nothing would ever harm you is as unrealistic as paranoia, and it’s probably more dangerous.

To me, the two aspects of what we refer to as paranoia (in a non-clinical sense) are unreasonable belief of danger and unreasonable fear of danger. In my classes, we try to inject as much reason as possible. We discuss recent crimes, local crime rates, the differences between TV crime and reality. Nearly all of my students have reported a greater sense of confidence which I equate to less fear. We do not teach paranoia here.

In fact, my new school slogan might be “preparation, not paranoia ™.”

I have a lot of respect for the Gracie family – and Hélio Gracie in particular. Here I’ve found this Youtube video, purportedly of Hélio Gracie doing a self-defense demonstration.

What I find interesting about this video is that there are almost no ground-fighting techniques demonstrated – something the Gracies are famous for. The video shows clearly Gracie Jiu-Jitsu’s Judo origins.

Gracie Self Defense

Here are some more videos from the Gracie archive – again notice the Judo (and some of the famous ground technique).

If I had to make a point about these videos it would be to emphasize the difference in training for sport and training for self-defense. This is something I’d like to believe most instructors recognize.

Watching the news in Maine this week, you may wonder what the heck is happening. Three separate stabbing incidents in less than a week have been reported in Maine.

First, was a report of a double stabbing in Auburn. Police report that Mohamed Abdulkarim, 26, of Portland and Mohamed Ali Bile, 26 of Lewsiton were transported to CMMC suffering from  stab wounds after a reported fight.

Next, was this report of 38 year old Whitney Anderson of Belfast allegedly attacking her boyfriend Tracy Roadarmel with a knife. Roadarmel is being treated at Eastern Maine Medical Center, while Anderson has been charged with aggravated assault.

Finally a fatal stabbing in Westbrook. Police are reporting that 40 year old Robert Stubbs was killed and a woman he was living with was wonded in a knife attack which may have been drug-related.

All of this after several recent knife-attacks – including a lethal knife on knife fight in Lewsiston.

It’s unclear whether assaults with edged weapons in the state of Maine are actually on the rise, but it certainly seems so. Not wanting to be alarmist, in most of these cases the victims knew their attackers.

In nearly every single self defense class we train with the knife, and we train to defend against the knife. We feel that it’s extremely important to know how to use a knife, so that you can understand how to defend against it.

Many other systems take the approach that knife defense against a determined and skilled attacker is impossible. First, nothing is impossible. Second, you’re not always facing an attacker who has trained in knife fighting for decades.

Attacks with guns,and knives are always potentially lethal. It is better to try to neutralize an attack, or at least lessen it’s impact if you can’t immediately flee.

Here are some tips to defend against a weapon attack:

1. Get some training in a system that is focused on self defense. Some training is going to be better than no training.
2. Flee. Your #1 tactic will be to run away as fast as you possibly can. Moving targets are extremely difficult to hit, even with a handgun. Don’t bother trying to zigzag. Run for hard cover – something solid that you can get behind, but keep moving.
3. If you can’t flee, put anything you can between you and the weapon.  A bag or a jacket isn’t going to deflect bullets, but it might distract an opponent, keep them from closing, or can be used as a weapon.
4. If it is a simple robbery – comply and give your property to the person with the weapon. There is nothing you own worth your life.
5. If the person wants to take you captive, indicates they will harm you, or wants to tie you up and you can’t flee – fight back immediately and as ferociously as possible. Attack the eyes and throat if possible. Scream as loud as you can, scratch, hit, poke, pull, tear. An enraged yet untrained person can do a heck of a lot of damage.
6. Do not see an opponent as an unstoppable juggernaut, that type of sociopath only exists in horror movies. The toughest guy in the world isn’t going to stand up well to having a bezerker scratching his eyes out.

Thumb through any martial arts magazine from any time in the past up to today and you’ll find a lot of advertising. You’ll see systems advertised as “The World’s Most Lethal Fighting System,” or teachers as, “The Deadliest Man Alive.” If you don’t look at martial arts magazines – I’m not kidding here, these are serious ads.

But what’s the truth? Are there really systems or teachers which have proven to be “the best.”

In a word: no.

In the world of advertising in the United States, false advertising is a form of fraud. So, how could a person say their fighting system is the best if it isn’t true?

You can thank a legal concept known as “puffery”. Yes, puffery is a real legal term. The Federal Trade Commission defines puffery as:

“A term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined.”

The FTC expects 1000 different pizza shops in Boston to claim they have Boston’s best pizza. Why? because there is no objective measure of “best” in this sense. What you can’t do is make factual claims which are false. For example, if your pizza shop says its pizza is covered with real gold flakes and it isn’t – there will be in trouble.

The debate about martial arts systems is likely to go on as long as human beings populate the earth. In the 30s – everything was about Judo or Jujutsu. In the 40s and 50s Judo and Karate were big. In the 60s and 70s Kung Fu Made a big splash. Everything in the 80s was about Ninjas. In the 90s through now, MMA and military style combatives are all the rage. Who knows what’s next.

These trends are always driven by the media. From movies to the UFC. After the Stephen Seagal  movie, “Under Siege,” came out in the early 90s, everybody was teaching reverse grip knife fighting.

So expect a lot of puffery and look at it all with a grain of salt. My own business cards say, “Maine’s Best Self Defense Training.” Do I believe it to be true? Absolutely. Can I prove it’s true? Absolutlely not. There’s no way to measure it.

We do teach a comprehensive system based on concepts and principles designed specifically for self-defense with no sporting aspect.

I have examined many of these “ultimate” systems out there. Many of them have very good information. However – the ones with the very extreme advertising seem to suffer from the same problems. They are usually really limited, often focusing on a single or small group of techniques rather than training concepts or principles. If those techniques fail (and all techniques fail sometimes) you’re screwed.

Just be careful how you spend your hard-earned money, and try to get good in-person training.

Right now on Facebook and Youtube there’s a video of a young boy from Australia fighting back against a bully. That video has gone quite viral. Apparently there is even a Facebook page with over 75,000 members supporting the young man names Casey Haynes.

In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a copy of the video…

In full disclosure, I wasn’t there. I don’t know what happened before or after the fight. I don’t know the history, only what’s been reported. Here’s what I’ve read:

• Casey Haynes has been bullied for a while and, according to his parents, this is the first time he’s lashed out. His parents also report that they have taught him to walk away from a fight. Haynes father is afraid of reprisals against his son.
• The parents of the bully, named Richard Gale, have demanded an apology from Haynes. Gale’s mother is upset over the video being posted everywhere despite the fact that it is apparently her son’s friend who recorded it.
• Gale was not injured seriously – he received a scrape on his ankle.
• Both boys were suspended from school for 4 days.
• The school system is considering pressing charges against Haynes, that’s right Haynes.

Let’s operate under the assumption that the reporting here is correct.

Haynes has his back to a wall, and is at the mercy of his younger smaller tormentor. This makes no difference as the younger boy lands a blow to Haynes’ face and several to his body. Haynes tries to deflect several of the blows with some success, and even tries to get away. When Gale charges him – Haynes grabs and body slams him like a WWE wrestler. Haynes does not strike the downed Gale, he get’s away. At this point one or more of Gale’s friends tries to pursue but is stopped by a taller girl.

Here’s the problem: Haynes is clearly acting in self defense. I would also argue that he is using reasonable force. I live in the U.S. and don’t know the legal system in Australia, but most jurisdictions allow self defense.

The problem is deeper though. The school is punishing the victim for standing up for himself. Psychology, economics, and history 101 all tell us that punishing victims increases victimization. Taking away the ability for people to defend themselves from violent crime ALWAYS increases violent crime. I can point to the UK, Washington DC, Chicago, and Boston as example where disarming citizens lead to double digit or higher increases in violent crime.

Wim Demeer, a blogger and martial artist I have a lot of respect for posts here about the incident. He includes a quote I like: “It’s no use for the sheep to pass peace resolutions if the wolves don’t adhere to them.”

We have often heard phrases like “violence solves nothing,” or “violence isn’t the answer.” This is a great sentiment, and I am a pacifist at heart. The only issue is that not everyone believes that. There are murderers, and rapists, and violent home invaders, and bullies who are not adverse to use violence. Sometimes, the only thing that will stop them is violence.

I am a big fan of Ghandi who took non-violence to the extreme. However, even Ghandi was upset by the bullying of Hindus by Muslim countrymen and thought that the Hindu’s should stand up to them even to the point of dieing. He said,”Where there are cowards, there will always be bullies.” And, “My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected.  Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.” You can read the full account of what he said here.

Further, why has Haynes become a global cult hero even while his school system looks to prosecute him? Because as human beings we generally know right from wrong. No matter the culture or the country, we inherently understand that victimization and harassment are insidious. We can empathize that, as young students, we couldn’t look to adults (particularly who were part of the system) to solve our problems for us.

Even more than that, bullying is an epidemic. Most martial artists I know (including myself) were bullied at some point in their life. I’m guessing that most people were bullied at least once. Schools in the US are just now starting to address this issue (after several high profile bullying driven suicides).

Ultimately I believe that self-defense is a human right. Our founding fathers (notably John Locke) wrote that self-defense was a natural right. Natural rights are considered universal and inalienable – everybody has the right to self defense and nobody can take that away. This is why the right to self-defense is not clearly spelled out in the constitution. The founding fathers of the U.S. could not conceive of a society so stupid that it would attack people’s natural human right to defend themselves and their loved ones from harm.

Don’t forget to sign up for my self defense pro newsletter.