From the Dominion Post.
Showing posts with label Richard Dimitri. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dimitri. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Way off the mark; Women's Self Defence Training
Every single member of our team believes that every woman has the right to live free from un-necessary fear and worry, and that they have the right to be empowered with the confidence and skills to know that they can stay safe from predatory violence. We have helped thousands of women achieve that through our courses, classes and seminars. But still we are only scratching the surface as so many more women live with an attitude of apathy about learning to protect themselves and their loved ones. When we work with survivors of past assaults, so very often we hear the comment “I wish I had known this before...” as they realise that the skills that we are giving them to recognise, avoid, de-escalate, or physically protect themselves against male aggression could (in many cases) have helped provide a very different outcome for them.
So then why is there such a resistance to attending a self defence course? Money is not the concern, we have a community support programme to enable people who can’t afford the course fee to be able to attend. We have done courses and talks for free and had only 1 in 3 women who could have come actually attend, even though we are the nation’s leading experts (I don’t like that word) on this subject. The people who do attend give us overwhelming positive feedback, so what stops the rest from attending?
The biggest reason is a complete misunderstanding of what women’s self defence entails. As we wrote about in ‘Every Woman’s Guide to Being Safe...For Life’, most people think of ‘self defence’ as martial arts, or physical fighting, or they remember the ‘self defence’ course they did at high school where they learned how to release from wrist grabs and kick at his groin. In truth, these things have very little, and in some cases nothing, to do with real self protection (especially for women). One of our jobs as the industry leader is to change the public’s perception of what self defence is actually about, or at least what is SHOULD be about, and we are working very hard to do that. The more people who understand what self defence really is, the more people will take action to attend a course and gain extremely valuable knowledge which positively affects all other areas of their lives.
So it was frustrating to me last week when one of our group class senior team members (and friend) called me to say that the news-talk station was discussing ‘Women’s Self Defence’ and asking callers to call in with their opinions. I tuned in and listened for 30 minutes and was genuinely saddened by what I heard. The level of ignorance about the subject was truly astounding. Interestingly the great majority of callers were men. And the entire perception of the subject revolved around physical ‘moves’. In other words everyone thinks self defence is all about how to physically fight off an attacker. One gentleman even called in to share how he used to practise ‘milling’ when he was in the army and thought that was a good idea for women! (‘Milling’ is where your partner puts on gloves or pads and throws repetitive punches at you from multiple angles at close range and you have to cover and/or block and evade. There are some limited benefits from a self defence perspective but they are limited at best and for women even more so.)
The show’s host was the only one to even mention that he thought that confidence was a big part of it, but even then I deduced that he believed that women could attend a course where they learned to physically fight, but it was the confidence that it gave them that would be their biggest asset. And, to a degree that is true, but it is a myopic viewpoint is still like looking through a pin hole trying to see the whole. There is just so much more than that.
The four stages to self defence that we teach are:
1 – Recognition to enable avoidance: This includes developing strong self beliefs and conviction, separating awareness from paranoia, recognising the psychological and behavioural manipulation strategies that males use against females to lure them into dangerous situations, heightened situational awareness, understanding fear, understanding intuition, recognising behavioural cues (what our organisation calls ‘Pre-Contact Indicators’), Predator Types and their methods, Predator motivations, survivor mentality, and a lot more...
2 – De-escalation: We teach conflict resolution skills which work under stress and pressure. These include psychological manipulation and behavioural tactics to enable a situation to be defused (literally ‘talk your way out of it’) if possible, or to set the person up psychologically to enable the effectiveness of your physical response to be maximised if it is necessary. And again, a lot more...
3 – Physical Response: This is when we are left with no other choice but to physically defend ourselves using what we call ‘Protective Offence’. Whatever physical response is given needs to work against a much larger and stronger aggressor, in any environment (sitting, standing, in bed, in car, dark etc), in any situation, while under the effects of extreme stress, fear, and pressure. Fancy moves such as wrist locks, ‘milling’, Jiu Jitsu locks or flash kicks and punches have nothing to do with this. It is just an illusion (albeit an all-too-common one) to believe otherwise. But this is what is passed off as ‘self defence’, basically 95% of what is generally taught is the physical aspect only, and even then 95% of the physical aspect that is taught is usually unrealistic and not functional anyway.
4 – Post event Issues: This stage includes such things as what to do after an event, how to get help, how to deal with Police, court, counselling, PTSD, possible retaliation, emotional effects on spouse and other family/friends, and a whole range of other things.
All of these four pillars have benefits which positively affect most other areas of a person’s life as well, outside of protecting against violence, but that is a completely different series of articles.
This is what true self defence entails. And although it may seem like a lot, it does not take long to learn and more importantly learn in a way that will be retained and recalled when it is required. Contrary to popular belief (and mentioned on this radio show half a dozen times) people do NOT need to train for years to learn to protect themselves. One-day courses do provide a massive benefit provided they teach the right stuff. We have had multiple people who have been training in martial arts or fighting systems for years (even Master Instructors, people who have been training over 30 years, Police instructors, and many more) tell us that they learned more about real self defence in our one day course than in all of their years of martial arts training. And that is not surprising, because most martial arts and fighting systems are NOT self defence systems despite their claims, and never will be. This is not to say they are not good for other things, because they are. Martial arts provide amazing benefits for many different aspects of life, and there are often things that they will teach you that you can use to defend yourself, but they are not self defence systems. (Disclosure: I trained in martial arts for over 20 years and held black belt levels or higher in several different systems)
Unfortunatley until the perception around what self defence is really about changes, more people will refuse to attend a course because they “Don’t want to be scared”, “Did a course at High School”, “Don’t think I could fight off a man anyway even if I learn that stuff”, “Live in a safe neighbourhood”, “Have a big dog”, “Am too unfit”, etc... And other common objections, all of which are completely irrelevant, misinformed, or just plain wrong. But I can see where these come from given what the public are generally sold as ‘self defence’. Most of what is taught is done in such a way as to make reality fit around the technique, as opposed to the other way around. People are not stupid, they instinctively know deep down that that stuff would never really work so why bother going at all. Who can blame anybody for that? It is worrying to me and my team that this is the case, but at least we know the problem and can keep working at changing it, even though we are one organisation swimming against a very large tide. I know that we can do it though, we are doing a little more every day, even if it is just one person at a time.
Ps. The reason I did not call into the show was because they give a maximum time slot of 2 minutes and there is no way I could put things in context in that time so it may do more harm than good. Give me an hour though and look out...:-)
So then why is there such a resistance to attending a self defence course? Money is not the concern, we have a community support programme to enable people who can’t afford the course fee to be able to attend. We have done courses and talks for free and had only 1 in 3 women who could have come actually attend, even though we are the nation’s leading experts (I don’t like that word) on this subject. The people who do attend give us overwhelming positive feedback, so what stops the rest from attending?
The biggest reason is a complete misunderstanding of what women’s self defence entails. As we wrote about in ‘Every Woman’s Guide to Being Safe...For Life’, most people think of ‘self defence’ as martial arts, or physical fighting, or they remember the ‘self defence’ course they did at high school where they learned how to release from wrist grabs and kick at his groin. In truth, these things have very little, and in some cases nothing, to do with real self protection (especially for women). One of our jobs as the industry leader is to change the public’s perception of what self defence is actually about, or at least what is SHOULD be about, and we are working very hard to do that. The more people who understand what self defence really is, the more people will take action to attend a course and gain extremely valuable knowledge which positively affects all other areas of their lives.
So it was frustrating to me last week when one of our group class senior team members (and friend) called me to say that the news-talk station was discussing ‘Women’s Self Defence’ and asking callers to call in with their opinions. I tuned in and listened for 30 minutes and was genuinely saddened by what I heard. The level of ignorance about the subject was truly astounding. Interestingly the great majority of callers were men. And the entire perception of the subject revolved around physical ‘moves’. In other words everyone thinks self defence is all about how to physically fight off an attacker. One gentleman even called in to share how he used to practise ‘milling’ when he was in the army and thought that was a good idea for women! (‘Milling’ is where your partner puts on gloves or pads and throws repetitive punches at you from multiple angles at close range and you have to cover and/or block and evade. There are some limited benefits from a self defence perspective but they are limited at best and for women even more so.)
The show’s host was the only one to even mention that he thought that confidence was a big part of it, but even then I deduced that he believed that women could attend a course where they learned to physically fight, but it was the confidence that it gave them that would be their biggest asset. And, to a degree that is true, but it is a myopic viewpoint is still like looking through a pin hole trying to see the whole. There is just so much more than that.
The four stages to self defence that we teach are:
1 – Recognition to enable avoidance: This includes developing strong self beliefs and conviction, separating awareness from paranoia, recognising the psychological and behavioural manipulation strategies that males use against females to lure them into dangerous situations, heightened situational awareness, understanding fear, understanding intuition, recognising behavioural cues (what our organisation calls ‘Pre-Contact Indicators’), Predator Types and their methods, Predator motivations, survivor mentality, and a lot more...
2 – De-escalation: We teach conflict resolution skills which work under stress and pressure. These include psychological manipulation and behavioural tactics to enable a situation to be defused (literally ‘talk your way out of it’) if possible, or to set the person up psychologically to enable the effectiveness of your physical response to be maximised if it is necessary. And again, a lot more...
3 – Physical Response: This is when we are left with no other choice but to physically defend ourselves using what we call ‘Protective Offence’. Whatever physical response is given needs to work against a much larger and stronger aggressor, in any environment (sitting, standing, in bed, in car, dark etc), in any situation, while under the effects of extreme stress, fear, and pressure. Fancy moves such as wrist locks, ‘milling’, Jiu Jitsu locks or flash kicks and punches have nothing to do with this. It is just an illusion (albeit an all-too-common one) to believe otherwise. But this is what is passed off as ‘self defence’, basically 95% of what is generally taught is the physical aspect only, and even then 95% of the physical aspect that is taught is usually unrealistic and not functional anyway.
4 – Post event Issues: This stage includes such things as what to do after an event, how to get help, how to deal with Police, court, counselling, PTSD, possible retaliation, emotional effects on spouse and other family/friends, and a whole range of other things.
All of these four pillars have benefits which positively affect most other areas of a person’s life as well, outside of protecting against violence, but that is a completely different series of articles.
This is what true self defence entails. And although it may seem like a lot, it does not take long to learn and more importantly learn in a way that will be retained and recalled when it is required. Contrary to popular belief (and mentioned on this radio show half a dozen times) people do NOT need to train for years to learn to protect themselves. One-day courses do provide a massive benefit provided they teach the right stuff. We have had multiple people who have been training in martial arts or fighting systems for years (even Master Instructors, people who have been training over 30 years, Police instructors, and many more) tell us that they learned more about real self defence in our one day course than in all of their years of martial arts training. And that is not surprising, because most martial arts and fighting systems are NOT self defence systems despite their claims, and never will be. This is not to say they are not good for other things, because they are. Martial arts provide amazing benefits for many different aspects of life, and there are often things that they will teach you that you can use to defend yourself, but they are not self defence systems. (Disclosure: I trained in martial arts for over 20 years and held black belt levels or higher in several different systems)
Unfortunatley until the perception around what self defence is really about changes, more people will refuse to attend a course because they “Don’t want to be scared”, “Did a course at High School”, “Don’t think I could fight off a man anyway even if I learn that stuff”, “Live in a safe neighbourhood”, “Have a big dog”, “Am too unfit”, etc... And other common objections, all of which are completely irrelevant, misinformed, or just plain wrong. But I can see where these come from given what the public are generally sold as ‘self defence’. Most of what is taught is done in such a way as to make reality fit around the technique, as opposed to the other way around. People are not stupid, they instinctively know deep down that that stuff would never really work so why bother going at all. Who can blame anybody for that? It is worrying to me and my team that this is the case, but at least we know the problem and can keep working at changing it, even though we are one organisation swimming against a very large tide. I know that we can do it though, we are doing a little more every day, even if it is just one person at a time.
Ps. The reason I did not call into the show was because they give a maximum time slot of 2 minutes and there is no way I could put things in context in that time so it may do more harm than good. Give me an hour though and look out...:-)
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Awesome...
Hi all!
I hope you all had a great break over Easter.
I had a call last night from one of our group class students (who is also a friend) with an interesting story to share. He and some friends and family were out fishing on their boat on Saturday, over 5km from shore in decent swell, when it capsized. In short, they were in very cold water for over 5 hours before being discovered and rescued. It was a very, very serious situation. I am just so glad that he and his family got through it, as it was very close to having a more dire outcome.
What was awesome though is that he thanked us for giving him tools to get through it. He is a very emotionally strong person so in my opinion although he may have used some of what we teach to assist him I have no doubt that it was in large part his character and emotional fortitude that played a big part too.
He specifically named four different tools that assisted him, and I thought it was important to share these here because it highlights again that what we teach goes far beyond simply defending ourselves against violence.
We have a training concept known as ‘Protect’s Stress Inoculation Training’ which helps people deal with highly stressful situations and remain calm(er) and maintain the ability, at least as much as possible, to respond rather than to react under pressure and stress. Although when we train it it is specifically against intra-personal human aggression, development in one area helps to bridge the gap a lot quicker in any other area of high stress/ high pressure situations as well. We have countless examples of where our students, course attendees, or ourselves have used this concept in situations such as motor vehicle accidents, personal accidents, natural disasters, as well as dealing with aggression and/or violence. In this situation, a serious boating accident, it was again used to help him remain as calm as possible, make rational decisions, and control the actions of the group which ultimately led them to being found.
Additionally, there were also four distinct tools that he used to help get through the situation:
Autogenic breathing – We teach this highly effective method of breathing to help to lower the heart rate in situations of high stress or pressure. It has multiple benefits from reducing panic, to enabling a clearer decision making process, to reducing the degree of emotional trauma suffered after the event, as well as many others. In this case he used it immediately upon surfacing while he worked to keep the others as calm as possible, and also after several hours in cold water he was shivering uncontrollably and his breathing was labored so he again used it to help gain control over his breathing and autonomic functions.
Positive self talk – The importance of positive self talk can not be over-stated. It helps control the overall state of the mind, and since the ancestor of every action is a thought (and taking the right action in these situations can be the difference between life and death) it is important to ensure that those thoughts are controlled and condusive to a positive outcome. He made the conscious decision that he was getting through this no matter what, and so were the others. And in this case, he not only used positive self talk for himself (constantly, for 5 hours!) but also for his group. He kept them focused on the future, what they were going to tell everyone at home about this, what they were going to eat for dinner, what they were going to do later in the week etc. The discussion helped him and the others stay focused on a positive outcome, and reduce panic (panic is a killer, especially in the water).
Choice speech – We train constantly on de-escalation and defusion to enable us to talk our way out of situations or psychologically and behaviourally manipulate a situation to stop it (if possible) escalating into physical violence. And these skills are transcendable into all other areas of life too. In this case, he used our basic principles to ensure that his speech patterns helped to keep the situation as calm as possible, define a leadership role, and stop any unhelpful discussion early.
Fitness – Although fitness is not necessary to be able to protect yourself, it can certainly help. And because we train for the ‘total defence of the self’, our group classes include a fitness component to them. This undoubtedly helped him physically manage in the water for so long, even though his legs were cramping and he was shivering uncontrollably.
He told me that if this had happened a couple of years ago, before he started training, he knows it would have had a very different and far worse outcome.
In my opinion he did a brilliant job, and may have saved the lives of others in his group by his actions.
Additionally, he has known what to expect from an emotional perspective after the event because we constantly train and discuss ways to manage the effects of high stress situations. He has been prepared for it, and taken the steps to help to reduce the effects.
We receive emails and calls all of the time from people who have used our training to help keep themselves safe. When it relates to an act of aggression or violence against them, the vast majority of the time the person shares how they managed to recognise, avoid, or de-escalate the situation allowing them to avoid physically defending themselves. As this is what we train for it is always brilliant to hear. Sometimes the situations could not be avoided and they have had to physically respond in order to ensure their safety, which is unfortunate but at least they have the tools required to get out of it. Just as frequently though we get the emails or calls like the one I have been talking about here today; the ones that say that the tools they have learned have helped them survive an accident, or manage a highly stressful work situation, or helped them become a more patient person in general, or helped with the communication in their relationship etc. These emails/calls are often the highlight of my day. Self defence is about empowerment, when I hear about examples like this I know that what we are doing is making a big difference.
Ps. Thank you for the amazing support and feedback for our new book 'Every Woman's Guide to Being Safe...For Life', it has been awesome. It is available at Amazon.com or by clicking here
I hope you all had a great break over Easter.
I had a call last night from one of our group class students (who is also a friend) with an interesting story to share. He and some friends and family were out fishing on their boat on Saturday, over 5km from shore in decent swell, when it capsized. In short, they were in very cold water for over 5 hours before being discovered and rescued. It was a very, very serious situation. I am just so glad that he and his family got through it, as it was very close to having a more dire outcome.
What was awesome though is that he thanked us for giving him tools to get through it. He is a very emotionally strong person so in my opinion although he may have used some of what we teach to assist him I have no doubt that it was in large part his character and emotional fortitude that played a big part too.
He specifically named four different tools that assisted him, and I thought it was important to share these here because it highlights again that what we teach goes far beyond simply defending ourselves against violence.
We have a training concept known as ‘Protect’s Stress Inoculation Training’ which helps people deal with highly stressful situations and remain calm(er) and maintain the ability, at least as much as possible, to respond rather than to react under pressure and stress. Although when we train it it is specifically against intra-personal human aggression, development in one area helps to bridge the gap a lot quicker in any other area of high stress/ high pressure situations as well. We have countless examples of where our students, course attendees, or ourselves have used this concept in situations such as motor vehicle accidents, personal accidents, natural disasters, as well as dealing with aggression and/or violence. In this situation, a serious boating accident, it was again used to help him remain as calm as possible, make rational decisions, and control the actions of the group which ultimately led them to being found.
Additionally, there were also four distinct tools that he used to help get through the situation:
Autogenic breathing – We teach this highly effective method of breathing to help to lower the heart rate in situations of high stress or pressure. It has multiple benefits from reducing panic, to enabling a clearer decision making process, to reducing the degree of emotional trauma suffered after the event, as well as many others. In this case he used it immediately upon surfacing while he worked to keep the others as calm as possible, and also after several hours in cold water he was shivering uncontrollably and his breathing was labored so he again used it to help gain control over his breathing and autonomic functions.
Positive self talk – The importance of positive self talk can not be over-stated. It helps control the overall state of the mind, and since the ancestor of every action is a thought (and taking the right action in these situations can be the difference between life and death) it is important to ensure that those thoughts are controlled and condusive to a positive outcome. He made the conscious decision that he was getting through this no matter what, and so were the others. And in this case, he not only used positive self talk for himself (constantly, for 5 hours!) but also for his group. He kept them focused on the future, what they were going to tell everyone at home about this, what they were going to eat for dinner, what they were going to do later in the week etc. The discussion helped him and the others stay focused on a positive outcome, and reduce panic (panic is a killer, especially in the water).
Choice speech – We train constantly on de-escalation and defusion to enable us to talk our way out of situations or psychologically and behaviourally manipulate a situation to stop it (if possible) escalating into physical violence. And these skills are transcendable into all other areas of life too. In this case, he used our basic principles to ensure that his speech patterns helped to keep the situation as calm as possible, define a leadership role, and stop any unhelpful discussion early.
Fitness – Although fitness is not necessary to be able to protect yourself, it can certainly help. And because we train for the ‘total defence of the self’, our group classes include a fitness component to them. This undoubtedly helped him physically manage in the water for so long, even though his legs were cramping and he was shivering uncontrollably.
He told me that if this had happened a couple of years ago, before he started training, he knows it would have had a very different and far worse outcome.
In my opinion he did a brilliant job, and may have saved the lives of others in his group by his actions.
Additionally, he has known what to expect from an emotional perspective after the event because we constantly train and discuss ways to manage the effects of high stress situations. He has been prepared for it, and taken the steps to help to reduce the effects.
We receive emails and calls all of the time from people who have used our training to help keep themselves safe. When it relates to an act of aggression or violence against them, the vast majority of the time the person shares how they managed to recognise, avoid, or de-escalate the situation allowing them to avoid physically defending themselves. As this is what we train for it is always brilliant to hear. Sometimes the situations could not be avoided and they have had to physically respond in order to ensure their safety, which is unfortunate but at least they have the tools required to get out of it. Just as frequently though we get the emails or calls like the one I have been talking about here today; the ones that say that the tools they have learned have helped them survive an accident, or manage a highly stressful work situation, or helped them become a more patient person in general, or helped with the communication in their relationship etc. These emails/calls are often the highlight of my day. Self defence is about empowerment, when I hear about examples like this I know that what we are doing is making a big difference.
Ps. Thank you for the amazing support and feedback for our new book 'Every Woman's Guide to Being Safe...For Life', it has been awesome. It is available at Amazon.com or by clicking here
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
How do we reduce violent crime?
I was asked at a seminar I gave this week a question I am asked a lot; In my opinion what could/should be done to reduce violent crime in our country. As my opinion is just that, my opinion, I thought I would share it here too.
The usual answers given to this question involve tougher penalties, more Police, more prisons etc, and although I agree that these things are all part of it, I truly believe that our only real chance of solving the violent crime problem is when enough people want to and commit to. More prisons, Police, courts, tougher penalties etc are fine but they are only part of the puzzle, the only true way that violent crime will reduce is if we all stop accepting and tolerating it in our society, our neighbourhoods, our friends, and in our own family. Violent crime is a moral problem which needs to be solved at a moral level and only this type of ‘get to the heart of it’ solution will work, in my opinion. I work every day in the field of violence prevention, I have seen firsthand real violence and the impact it has on those who it is delivered upon, and the resulting ripple effect on all those around them. It is toxic, corrosive, and destructive. I have worked with hundreds of survivors of violence in all of its different forms. I can not recall a single act of serious violence (not drunken brawls etc) that was committed by an offender that came from what would commonly be consider a positive background and supportive, caring family environment. The greatest majority of violent offenders are responsible for their actions, know right from wrong, made their own choices, and deserve to face the legal consequences of their actions. Occasionally one is born who is a true psychopath, but they are the vast, almost infinitesimal, minority. But in my opinion, far more violent criminals are ‘made’ than are ever born. This means that somewhere along the line, something went wrong. Someone who had an impact on them, who provided a profoundly negative influence could have instead provided a profoundly positive one, and that could have made all of the difference.
So in addition to more prisons, Police, tougher penalties etc, what we really need to make a difference is more love, understanding, empathy, and compassion. This is not me being idealistic or simplistic, it is at the true heart of the issue.
Many people will hear this message and dismiss it is being idealistic or think that the problem is too big for one person to make any difference. Some will embrace it and live it. When the ‘some’ become the majority, the ripple effect will be profound, and we will then have the answer to the question...
The usual answers given to this question involve tougher penalties, more Police, more prisons etc, and although I agree that these things are all part of it, I truly believe that our only real chance of solving the violent crime problem is when enough people want to and commit to. More prisons, Police, courts, tougher penalties etc are fine but they are only part of the puzzle, the only true way that violent crime will reduce is if we all stop accepting and tolerating it in our society, our neighbourhoods, our friends, and in our own family. Violent crime is a moral problem which needs to be solved at a moral level and only this type of ‘get to the heart of it’ solution will work, in my opinion. I work every day in the field of violence prevention, I have seen firsthand real violence and the impact it has on those who it is delivered upon, and the resulting ripple effect on all those around them. It is toxic, corrosive, and destructive. I have worked with hundreds of survivors of violence in all of its different forms. I can not recall a single act of serious violence (not drunken brawls etc) that was committed by an offender that came from what would commonly be consider a positive background and supportive, caring family environment. The greatest majority of violent offenders are responsible for their actions, know right from wrong, made their own choices, and deserve to face the legal consequences of their actions. Occasionally one is born who is a true psychopath, but they are the vast, almost infinitesimal, minority. But in my opinion, far more violent criminals are ‘made’ than are ever born. This means that somewhere along the line, something went wrong. Someone who had an impact on them, who provided a profoundly negative influence could have instead provided a profoundly positive one, and that could have made all of the difference.
So in addition to more prisons, Police, tougher penalties etc, what we really need to make a difference is more love, understanding, empathy, and compassion. This is not me being idealistic or simplistic, it is at the true heart of the issue.
Many people will hear this message and dismiss it is being idealistic or think that the problem is too big for one person to make any difference. Some will embrace it and live it. When the ‘some’ become the majority, the ripple effect will be profound, and we will then have the answer to the question...
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
'Gang member's...Just hit 'em!' (yeah right)
Today I heard a very disturbing piece of ‘advice’ given by a so-called ‘self defence instructor’ to his students. Frequently I hear things that make me cringe because they are just so wrong or even irresponsible (sometimes just downright funny if it were not for the fact the attendees tend to believe what they are told). I thought I had to share this one...He was discussing what to do if you are confronted by a gang member. His (‘black & white’, ‘absolute only way’) advice was along the lines of:
"Gang members are cowards. They are a joke. That is why they are in gangs. If you are confronted by a gang member or a group of gang members, don’t bother about trying to run or talk your way out of it, even if you think you easily can. The best thing to do is walk up and drop the biggest guy. The rest of them will be shocked and leave you alone. Let the rest of them know that you are not to be messed with, walk right through the middle of them, shoulders up and tall, show them you mean business. Then leave slowly so they can see you are not afraid."
Ok, for those of you reading this who know anything about real violence, you are probably thinking that no-one could be so stupid as to teach this, but someone is, and someone did.
The reasons that this (mis)information is so ridiculous, dangerous, and ignorant may be obvious to many, but equally many others (such as his students who seemed to be hanging on his every word *Sigh*) will not know so I will explain a few of the reasons here. I am not even going to touch on the fundamental principles of real Self Protection that we teach, which include recognition and avoidance strategies, de-escalation strategies, and post-event issues – ALL of which would cover reasons why this advice is terrible, I will focus solely on the specific dynamics of gang violence today.
Disclaimer: Everyone who has trained with me or other Protect instructors will know that we do not believe in a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to dealing with violence. There are just too many variables to have a ‘if someone does this, you should do that’ approach which is why we teach principles, concepts, and techniques but also the context to each one as well. So because of that, is it possible that this instructor’s recommended approach could actually work? The answer is yes. I have seen and heard of some outrageous ways that people have avoided or survived violence so anything is possible, and the art of the bluff is certainly a useful tool...at times. But the reason I am taking exception to this is because it was taught as the ‘only’ way that these situations should be dealt with, ‘end of story’. That is ignorant and dangerous.
Firstly, it is immediately obvious that this person has never been involved with gang violence, or any other type of serious violence in my opinion, even though he claims otherwise. Nobody who has been involved with real violence, and is in a sane state of mind (and not sociopathic) would advise this unless they were deliberately lying with the intention of selling you something or ‘bigging themself up’.
So, firstly, what are gangs? Simply put they are groups of people sharing an identity, who claim a territory, interact predominantly among themselves, often wear distinctive clothing including colours, insignias, and ‘patches’, generally engage in criminal and anti-social activity regularly, create an environment of fear and intimidation, and often communicate with each other in unique ways. They will often display their affiliation with tattoos, scars, cigarette burns, sometimes adding a new tattoo or scar to display another victim that they have murdered. Gangs are present in almost every race, ethnicity, and economic and social circle. Both male and female gang members carry out acts of violence, drug deals, crimes, carry weapons, intimidate and lead by fear within their organisation. Gangs participate in drug manufacturing and dealing, murder, rape, prostitution, fraud, car theft, stand-overs, kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, burglary, assaults, weapons dealing, money laundering, vandalism (including tagging), among other things. Gangs operate as a ‘family’ (and I use that term very loosely), if you mess with one of them, you have messed with all of them, and that is not a place you ever want to find yourself.
These people are not a ‘joke’. Prospects (prospective gang members, new recruits) often have to pass initiation tests to be able to join. These sometimes include murder, assaults, rape, various crimes, taking the rap for something that another member did, or taking a severe beating to prove their ‘toughness’. Gang member reputations are made through crimes, particularly violent crimes.
Regardless of how we may feel about them, the danger they pose is real. Gang members operate on what we call the ‘three R’s’: Reputation, Respect, Revenge. Make no mistake, coming up against a gang member is going to have consequences (as most real violence does), probably very serious ones. I am not writing this to help support the environment of fear and intimidation that the gangs already impose, but if you remember the instructor’s advice above; “...don’t bother about trying to run or talk your way out of it, even if you think you easily can. The best thing to do is walk up and drop the biggest guy.” You will start to see why I am writing this. Because as with almost all potentially violent situations, avoidance and/or de-escalation are far and away the best option if they are available. If they are not available then of course we have to do what we have to do to survive and get home, but that is a LAST resort, not a first.
A gang member’s reputation is everything to them. They will protect it at all costs. A loss of reputation could mean becoming a target of rival gangs, or their own gang, and a loss of status among the gang. They treat it seriously, it is worth more to them than your wellbeing, or even maybe your life. If the gang member feels his/her reputation has been damaged, there will be retribution. There has to be. If he doesn’t he may well be beaten, disgraced, expelled, or even murdered by his own gang. Do you want to be the person in between that? Revenge is a huge deal for them. Finding yourself the target of that revenge is about as far away from comfort as you will find yourself. Because reputation is so huge, no assault or insult can be let go. It is a hell of an incentive to avoid at all costs if you can, not walk up and ‘teach them a lesson’!
Quite simply, anyone who willingly engages a gang member(s) when there were other options is misinformed or to be blunt, stupid.
This is why I always encourage our students to learn from anyone and everyone they can, to take that information, question it, pull out the good bits and chuck away the bad. I personally encourage every student or course attendee to challenge me on anything I have said or taught, if I can’t back it up I shouldn’t be teaching it. It is potentially people’s lives at stake, not some game or ego-contest.
So my advice today is to question anything you are told about ‘self defence’ to make sure it is the right information for you. Don’t just simply and blindly trust someone’s advice because they are the teacher or ‘master’. Challenge and question, do it respectfully of course, but do it diligently.
I'd like to add that my thoughts are with everyone in Christchurch, and everyone affected by the devastating earthquake there. This has affected every Kiwi and all of NZ is standing beside you all to help you through.
Cheers
Phil
"Gang members are cowards. They are a joke. That is why they are in gangs. If you are confronted by a gang member or a group of gang members, don’t bother about trying to run or talk your way out of it, even if you think you easily can. The best thing to do is walk up and drop the biggest guy. The rest of them will be shocked and leave you alone. Let the rest of them know that you are not to be messed with, walk right through the middle of them, shoulders up and tall, show them you mean business. Then leave slowly so they can see you are not afraid."
Ok, for those of you reading this who know anything about real violence, you are probably thinking that no-one could be so stupid as to teach this, but someone is, and someone did.
The reasons that this (mis)information is so ridiculous, dangerous, and ignorant may be obvious to many, but equally many others (such as his students who seemed to be hanging on his every word *Sigh*) will not know so I will explain a few of the reasons here. I am not even going to touch on the fundamental principles of real Self Protection that we teach, which include recognition and avoidance strategies, de-escalation strategies, and post-event issues – ALL of which would cover reasons why this advice is terrible, I will focus solely on the specific dynamics of gang violence today.
Disclaimer: Everyone who has trained with me or other Protect instructors will know that we do not believe in a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to dealing with violence. There are just too many variables to have a ‘if someone does this, you should do that’ approach which is why we teach principles, concepts, and techniques but also the context to each one as well. So because of that, is it possible that this instructor’s recommended approach could actually work? The answer is yes. I have seen and heard of some outrageous ways that people have avoided or survived violence so anything is possible, and the art of the bluff is certainly a useful tool...at times. But the reason I am taking exception to this is because it was taught as the ‘only’ way that these situations should be dealt with, ‘end of story’. That is ignorant and dangerous.
Firstly, it is immediately obvious that this person has never been involved with gang violence, or any other type of serious violence in my opinion, even though he claims otherwise. Nobody who has been involved with real violence, and is in a sane state of mind (and not sociopathic) would advise this unless they were deliberately lying with the intention of selling you something or ‘bigging themself up’.
So, firstly, what are gangs? Simply put they are groups of people sharing an identity, who claim a territory, interact predominantly among themselves, often wear distinctive clothing including colours, insignias, and ‘patches’, generally engage in criminal and anti-social activity regularly, create an environment of fear and intimidation, and often communicate with each other in unique ways. They will often display their affiliation with tattoos, scars, cigarette burns, sometimes adding a new tattoo or scar to display another victim that they have murdered. Gangs are present in almost every race, ethnicity, and economic and social circle. Both male and female gang members carry out acts of violence, drug deals, crimes, carry weapons, intimidate and lead by fear within their organisation. Gangs participate in drug manufacturing and dealing, murder, rape, prostitution, fraud, car theft, stand-overs, kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, burglary, assaults, weapons dealing, money laundering, vandalism (including tagging), among other things. Gangs operate as a ‘family’ (and I use that term very loosely), if you mess with one of them, you have messed with all of them, and that is not a place you ever want to find yourself.
These people are not a ‘joke’. Prospects (prospective gang members, new recruits) often have to pass initiation tests to be able to join. These sometimes include murder, assaults, rape, various crimes, taking the rap for something that another member did, or taking a severe beating to prove their ‘toughness’. Gang member reputations are made through crimes, particularly violent crimes.
Regardless of how we may feel about them, the danger they pose is real. Gang members operate on what we call the ‘three R’s’: Reputation, Respect, Revenge. Make no mistake, coming up against a gang member is going to have consequences (as most real violence does), probably very serious ones. I am not writing this to help support the environment of fear and intimidation that the gangs already impose, but if you remember the instructor’s advice above; “...don’t bother about trying to run or talk your way out of it, even if you think you easily can. The best thing to do is walk up and drop the biggest guy.” You will start to see why I am writing this. Because as with almost all potentially violent situations, avoidance and/or de-escalation are far and away the best option if they are available. If they are not available then of course we have to do what we have to do to survive and get home, but that is a LAST resort, not a first.
A gang member’s reputation is everything to them. They will protect it at all costs. A loss of reputation could mean becoming a target of rival gangs, or their own gang, and a loss of status among the gang. They treat it seriously, it is worth more to them than your wellbeing, or even maybe your life. If the gang member feels his/her reputation has been damaged, there will be retribution. There has to be. If he doesn’t he may well be beaten, disgraced, expelled, or even murdered by his own gang. Do you want to be the person in between that? Revenge is a huge deal for them. Finding yourself the target of that revenge is about as far away from comfort as you will find yourself. Because reputation is so huge, no assault or insult can be let go. It is a hell of an incentive to avoid at all costs if you can, not walk up and ‘teach them a lesson’!
Quite simply, anyone who willingly engages a gang member(s) when there were other options is misinformed or to be blunt, stupid.
This is why I always encourage our students to learn from anyone and everyone they can, to take that information, question it, pull out the good bits and chuck away the bad. I personally encourage every student or course attendee to challenge me on anything I have said or taught, if I can’t back it up I shouldn’t be teaching it. It is potentially people’s lives at stake, not some game or ego-contest.
So my advice today is to question anything you are told about ‘self defence’ to make sure it is the right information for you. Don’t just simply and blindly trust someone’s advice because they are the teacher or ‘master’. Challenge and question, do it respectfully of course, but do it diligently.
I'd like to add that my thoughts are with everyone in Christchurch, and everyone affected by the devastating earthquake there. This has affected every Kiwi and all of NZ is standing beside you all to help you through.
Cheers
Phil
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Protect on TV3...
Here's another video from a TV3 programme 'Pacific Beat Street' which airs on multiple channels in New Zealand featuring Protect Self Defence's founders Phil and Athena Thompson. Good times! :-)
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Free video on Self Defence Fundamentals!
Hi Everyone,
We have had so many questions on the fundamental aspects of our training that we have done something very cool for you...Click on this link:
http://www.protectlessonsgiveaway.com/signup.php
Enter your name and email and we will send you a video that was taken at one of our recent seminars where I explain many of our fundamentals. Not only that, but you can get a second video for free too, instructions on how to do that are on the email you will receive when you request this one.
Anyone interested in real self defence will get good value from these videos. I'd love to hear your feedback too.
Enjoy!
Phil
We have had so many questions on the fundamental aspects of our training that we have done something very cool for you...Click on this link:
http://www.protectlessonsgiveaway.com/signup.php
Enter your name and email and we will send you a video that was taken at one of our recent seminars where I explain many of our fundamentals. Not only that, but you can get a second video for free too, instructions on how to do that are on the email you will receive when you request this one.
Anyone interested in real self defence will get good value from these videos. I'd love to hear your feedback too.
Enjoy!
Phil
Monday, October 18, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Child sexual predators 'sick'?
Below is part of a Facebook conversation between Richard Dimitri (founder of Senshido), Ryan Sainsbury (senior Protect student), Craig Walsh (briefly - Senshido affiliate UK) and myself. I thought I would copy it here as I think it raises some interesting points of view around child sexual predators...
Richard Dimitri - Senshido International: "Despite Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users from sexual predators, tens of thousands of registered sex offenders have been able to slip through the cracks in security. Those with CHILDREN please, make certain you set your privacy settings accodingly especially when it comes to your children's profiles and pictures shared."
Craig Welsh
"dirty bastards.."
Richard Dimitri
"Most yes, some are actually sick, realize, feel horrible for what they do, how they feel and even ask to be medically impaired from it or incarcerated. Nothing is ever cut and dry or black and white brother... the human being is much to complex a creature to be categorized under any label our intellectual mind can come with."
Phil Thompson
"Sorry Bro, I'm with Craig. Regardless of the human condition, to label all child sex offenders as 'sick' is a way that people can pigeon-hole the issue and use that as an excuse for the truth, and that is what most people do (not what you were doing I know, you said 'some'). And the truth is that they are cruel and in many instances, evil. 'Sometimes' they are 'sick', that is, they have a mental illness. 'Some' do ask for help, and good for them. Most are not sick and most do not ask for help. And the majority of the time, outside of their sexual practices they appear as normal as everyone else. 'Some' of them have a sexual attraction to kids, the vast majority are attracted to the power, manipulation, dominance and control that they can act out on the 'easiest' of targets, young kids.
It is wrong in every context, damaging in ways most people cannot even begin to comprehend, and absolutely needs to be called what it is: Cruel, horrific, and evil. Stage 1 of any problem we need to fix: Accept it and label it correctly...
My two Kiwi cents... Love ya fella"
Richard Dimitri
"I fully agree bro... no argument there at all, most are indeed sociopathic, however, there are some that are clinically and medically 'sick' and realize it and also abhor what they are... and even though they appear to normally function in everyday society doesn't take away the fact that a small percentage do actually have a mental condition, much like some drug addicts that manage to hide their addictions for years to both their friends and families as well as social networks. I'm not saying the law should ease up, I'm just saying that on a humane level, to simply throw a blanket statement isn't fair to the minority and is to a certain degree, a judgement... that's all :`)"
Phil Thompson
"Yeah, I understand bro. I have such conflicting emotions around this. On one hand I know that when we judge someone we don't define them, we just define ourselves as someone who needs to judge. I get that and I work hard on it every day, you constantly inspire me towards that. On the other hand where is the line drawn? I think our judgements are necessary to form our opinions, which are often ego fuelled I know, but sometimes necessary. I mean without them we would condone every act of violence and cruelty in the world and simply accept it as 'it is what it is'. I think my personal direction on this is that I will aim not to judge anyone as best I can for the way they act, how they live their lives, who they are etc until such time as their behaviour adversely affect other people or brings harm to any other person or creature. That is the point where I am happy to make judgements and form strong opinions on someone and take the appropriate action. Otherwise I think tolerance becomes weakness and even denial, which does not serve humanity or the world at all. In the case of child sex offenders, yes I appreciate that some of them are mentally sick. But most are not. It is just an easy lable that most bestow upon predators because it makes it easier to understand and accept. And to look at the issue with empathy or sympathy because the offender 'might' be sick is not giving it the weight it deserves. Personally I will choose to look upon every child sex offender as being cruel and evil. If through the process of law and order (for the countries which actually have it) it is determined that the person is 'mentally sick' then my opinion on the person may change, but my opinion on the crime never will...I think before society starts to worry about whether a child predator has a mental illness before they draw an opinion, society needs to wake up to the fact that we have an enormous problem, accept that these things are happening out there to our kids, silence the voice of denial that goes on for so many, and bring this issue into the mainstream so it can be reduced. Once that is done, then we can start categorising the predators and ensuring their treatment or punishment fits their own circumstances. Right now, we are a long way off..."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Y'all seem to be looking at this somewhat differently from myself, so I'm going to pitch in here.
Personally, I don't care if or why a person is attracted to children. Are they sick in the head? Fine. Do they have an innate sexual preference for children? Okay. Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.
Point is, what leads them to the point of wanting to do these things to children is utterly disinteresting to me. If one of them wants help, for any of these situations, I'm all for giving it to them. If they decide to spend their lives bottling their desires up in a vortex of self-loathing and despair, then that's cool too.
Myself, I see the important distinction as being between 'person who wants to have sex with children' and someone who acts upon those desires. As far as I'm concerned, your ultimate fantasy can revolve around an orgy in the goddamn maternity ward, but the moment you actually touch a child for gratification, that is the point in time that I break out a big heaping bowl of judgment and start ladling it out.
Rich, you made the distinction between people who are clinically 'sick', and those who are sociopathic. I suggest that these are two sides of the same coin. And in the end, it makes very little difference, because both are capable of controlling their actions - the difference from one to another rests not in discerning in which particular way they specifically are fucked in the head, but whether they decided to resist the urge or not.
The sole exception to this is people who are clinically psychotic, and this is so insanely rare (there are very few true psychotics, and most of their blackouts end with people injured and dead, not molested) and difficult to prove that it's hardly worth mentioning. Did a quick search, and could not find a single case where this defence was even argued.
I'm not sure why we're placing such a large emphasis on why they're attracted to children. It seems entirely academic, because in the end the practical result is the same. Ultimately, anyone who wants to have sex with children wants to have sex with children, and the question seems not to be "why do you want to" so much as "did you resist the temptation to do so?"
In the end, that's the only question the child's really going to care about."
Phil Thompson
"Ryan, good points fella. I have the same thoughts on some of what you say and different thoughts on other points you have made. Particularly your point about fantasies.
Fantasies are thoughts and thoughts equal outcomes. The missing piece in the middle is... Action. If a person with child sex fantasies goes their whole life without ever doing anything about them then I agree with you. People will have their own judgements about this but at the end of the day nobody is hurt. But as soon as that person starts to take ACTION against any of their fantasies then there is an escalating problem.
Rich’s original post referred to child predators (in fact registered sex offenders) using Facebook as a means to exploit kids. That is a serious issue. It means that they have taken action against those fantasies. They are no longer harmless. In the same way that child pornography is not harmless. An argument I have heard there is that as long as the person ‘just looks but never touches’ it is harmless. That is not so. For every photo or video of child pornography there is a victim. The innocent child on the tape or in the photo is a traumatised victim and the person viewing it for their own pleasure or to satisfy their fantasy IS guilty of the crime. They have acted upon their fantasy.
That same person who views child pornography, or hunts through Facebook looking for children, left alone with a child and to their own devices would likely abuse that child in some way. Not necessarily in all cases I know, but the probability is high. Therefore the only difference between the fantasy – once any form of action has been taken against it - and the reality is opportunity.
Therefore our responsibility is to work towards removing the opportunity for sexual predators and increasing online security in just one avenue to do that. If all we worry about is “Did you resist the urge or not” and forget the “Why and how do you carry out crimes against kids” then we will always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The biggest part of our job in this area is prevention. And knowing the ‘enemy’ is important so that we can implement preventative strategies to keep kids safe.
You stated: “Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.” This I do not agree with in this context. My reference to this was in the context of people using ‘he is sick’ as an excuse for his actions. By that logic then every act of murder, cruelty, torture, manipulation, control, emotional or physical aggression is a form of ‘sickness’ and there are no evil people in the world. I don’t believe this is the case. There are some truly evil people out there. There are a hell of a lot more loving, caring, great people, but there are the bad ones too. And my point here is to call it what it is. An act of sexual violence against a child is evil. Regardless of where it came from, the act itself is evil. Now as Rich points out, there are ‘some’ cases where the person has a genuine mental illness and I accept that but once the crime has definitely been committed against the child this is a case where I think ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is relevant when it comes to proving mental illness as an excuse.
Loving the conversation and debate here, awesome."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Hey Phil, you've made some pretty good observations mate.
To be honest, when I wrote that, I'd more or less forgotten about Rich's opening post, and had started focusing on the whole judgment/difference between a 'paedophile' and a 'child molestor' part. In relation to his initial point, could not agree more with him (except perhaps the part about "Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users" - I like Facebook, but their safeguards are pretty pathetic and they really don't have any serious interest in maintaining privacy). Any movement to make children safer from online predators is something I can get behind - have gotten behind - and I've got no argument with you there.
I should have clarified that I do include viewing child pornography in the category of 'acting on those desires', on account of the fact that that pornography has to come from somewhere, and in acquiring it they support and encourage the creation of it.
As for the part about sickness, I think we're both using the same term to mean two different things. I gather that when you say it, you mean 'sick' in the sense of something which renders a person irresponsible for their actions, on account of the concept that they 'can't be held responsible' - as a result of some form of mental health issue wherein they genuinely don't realize that what they're doing is wrong, or literally lack the capacity to stop themselves. Of course, someone who just enjoys inflicting pain does not fall into this category.
When I use the term 'sick', I'm referring more generally to 'someone who has desires that just aren't right'. Be this a desire to have sex with children, or a desire to cause suffering, or a desire to feel power over other human beings - I see them all very much as sides of the same coin. The main difference between our use of the terms seems to be that your usage of 'sick' refers to people whose actions are (for lack of a better term - this doesn't really convey what I'm trying to say, but it's the best I can think of) excused by their affliction. My use is more in line with merely explaining how someone came to have those desires, and isn't in any way mitigating their responsibility. When I say 'sick', I'm only referring to sick desires - not a literal inability to control them. That's something quite else.
To summarize that ridiculously long-winded definition of mine - when I say 'sick', I'm talking about anybody who wants to do terrible things, not somebody who *literally* cannot stop themselves, or lacks comprehension of what they're doing. So, in the context in which you were using the term, I agree wholeheartedly.
"An act of sexual violence against a child is evil."
I think this is the ultimate crux of the discussion, and I don't think anybody's arguing with you. There exist cases where mental illness plays a genuine role, but they are rare and are far more likely to be used as an excuse than they are to be a genuine reality.
...I think I could have summarized my entire statement by saying "ya i agree lol"."
Richard Dimitri - Senshido International: "Despite Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users from sexual predators, tens of thousands of registered sex offenders have been able to slip through the cracks in security. Those with CHILDREN please, make certain you set your privacy settings accodingly especially when it comes to your children's profiles and pictures shared."
Craig Welsh
"dirty bastards.."
Richard Dimitri
"Most yes, some are actually sick, realize, feel horrible for what they do, how they feel and even ask to be medically impaired from it or incarcerated. Nothing is ever cut and dry or black and white brother... the human being is much to complex a creature to be categorized under any label our intellectual mind can come with."
Phil Thompson
"Sorry Bro, I'm with Craig. Regardless of the human condition, to label all child sex offenders as 'sick' is a way that people can pigeon-hole the issue and use that as an excuse for the truth, and that is what most people do (not what you were doing I know, you said 'some'). And the truth is that they are cruel and in many instances, evil. 'Sometimes' they are 'sick', that is, they have a mental illness. 'Some' do ask for help, and good for them. Most are not sick and most do not ask for help. And the majority of the time, outside of their sexual practices they appear as normal as everyone else. 'Some' of them have a sexual attraction to kids, the vast majority are attracted to the power, manipulation, dominance and control that they can act out on the 'easiest' of targets, young kids.
It is wrong in every context, damaging in ways most people cannot even begin to comprehend, and absolutely needs to be called what it is: Cruel, horrific, and evil. Stage 1 of any problem we need to fix: Accept it and label it correctly...
My two Kiwi cents... Love ya fella"
Richard Dimitri
"I fully agree bro... no argument there at all, most are indeed sociopathic, however, there are some that are clinically and medically 'sick' and realize it and also abhor what they are... and even though they appear to normally function in everyday society doesn't take away the fact that a small percentage do actually have a mental condition, much like some drug addicts that manage to hide their addictions for years to both their friends and families as well as social networks. I'm not saying the law should ease up, I'm just saying that on a humane level, to simply throw a blanket statement isn't fair to the minority and is to a certain degree, a judgement... that's all :`)"
Phil Thompson
"Yeah, I understand bro. I have such conflicting emotions around this. On one hand I know that when we judge someone we don't define them, we just define ourselves as someone who needs to judge. I get that and I work hard on it every day, you constantly inspire me towards that. On the other hand where is the line drawn? I think our judgements are necessary to form our opinions, which are often ego fuelled I know, but sometimes necessary. I mean without them we would condone every act of violence and cruelty in the world and simply accept it as 'it is what it is'. I think my personal direction on this is that I will aim not to judge anyone as best I can for the way they act, how they live their lives, who they are etc until such time as their behaviour adversely affect other people or brings harm to any other person or creature. That is the point where I am happy to make judgements and form strong opinions on someone and take the appropriate action. Otherwise I think tolerance becomes weakness and even denial, which does not serve humanity or the world at all. In the case of child sex offenders, yes I appreciate that some of them are mentally sick. But most are not. It is just an easy lable that most bestow upon predators because it makes it easier to understand and accept. And to look at the issue with empathy or sympathy because the offender 'might' be sick is not giving it the weight it deserves. Personally I will choose to look upon every child sex offender as being cruel and evil. If through the process of law and order (for the countries which actually have it) it is determined that the person is 'mentally sick' then my opinion on the person may change, but my opinion on the crime never will...I think before society starts to worry about whether a child predator has a mental illness before they draw an opinion, society needs to wake up to the fact that we have an enormous problem, accept that these things are happening out there to our kids, silence the voice of denial that goes on for so many, and bring this issue into the mainstream so it can be reduced. Once that is done, then we can start categorising the predators and ensuring their treatment or punishment fits their own circumstances. Right now, we are a long way off..."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Y'all seem to be looking at this somewhat differently from myself, so I'm going to pitch in here.
Personally, I don't care if or why a person is attracted to children. Are they sick in the head? Fine. Do they have an innate sexual preference for children? Okay. Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.
Point is, what leads them to the point of wanting to do these things to children is utterly disinteresting to me. If one of them wants help, for any of these situations, I'm all for giving it to them. If they decide to spend their lives bottling their desires up in a vortex of self-loathing and despair, then that's cool too.
Myself, I see the important distinction as being between 'person who wants to have sex with children' and someone who acts upon those desires. As far as I'm concerned, your ultimate fantasy can revolve around an orgy in the goddamn maternity ward, but the moment you actually touch a child for gratification, that is the point in time that I break out a big heaping bowl of judgment and start ladling it out.
Rich, you made the distinction between people who are clinically 'sick', and those who are sociopathic. I suggest that these are two sides of the same coin. And in the end, it makes very little difference, because both are capable of controlling their actions - the difference from one to another rests not in discerning in which particular way they specifically are fucked in the head, but whether they decided to resist the urge or not.
The sole exception to this is people who are clinically psychotic, and this is so insanely rare (there are very few true psychotics, and most of their blackouts end with people injured and dead, not molested) and difficult to prove that it's hardly worth mentioning. Did a quick search, and could not find a single case where this defence was even argued.
I'm not sure why we're placing such a large emphasis on why they're attracted to children. It seems entirely academic, because in the end the practical result is the same. Ultimately, anyone who wants to have sex with children wants to have sex with children, and the question seems not to be "why do you want to" so much as "did you resist the temptation to do so?"
In the end, that's the only question the child's really going to care about."
Phil Thompson
"Ryan, good points fella. I have the same thoughts on some of what you say and different thoughts on other points you have made. Particularly your point about fantasies.
Fantasies are thoughts and thoughts equal outcomes. The missing piece in the middle is... Action. If a person with child sex fantasies goes their whole life without ever doing anything about them then I agree with you. People will have their own judgements about this but at the end of the day nobody is hurt. But as soon as that person starts to take ACTION against any of their fantasies then there is an escalating problem.
Rich’s original post referred to child predators (in fact registered sex offenders) using Facebook as a means to exploit kids. That is a serious issue. It means that they have taken action against those fantasies. They are no longer harmless. In the same way that child pornography is not harmless. An argument I have heard there is that as long as the person ‘just looks but never touches’ it is harmless. That is not so. For every photo or video of child pornography there is a victim. The innocent child on the tape or in the photo is a traumatised victim and the person viewing it for their own pleasure or to satisfy their fantasy IS guilty of the crime. They have acted upon their fantasy.
That same person who views child pornography, or hunts through Facebook looking for children, left alone with a child and to their own devices would likely abuse that child in some way. Not necessarily in all cases I know, but the probability is high. Therefore the only difference between the fantasy – once any form of action has been taken against it - and the reality is opportunity.
Therefore our responsibility is to work towards removing the opportunity for sexual predators and increasing online security in just one avenue to do that. If all we worry about is “Did you resist the urge or not” and forget the “Why and how do you carry out crimes against kids” then we will always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The biggest part of our job in this area is prevention. And knowing the ‘enemy’ is important so that we can implement preventative strategies to keep kids safe.
You stated: “Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.” This I do not agree with in this context. My reference to this was in the context of people using ‘he is sick’ as an excuse for his actions. By that logic then every act of murder, cruelty, torture, manipulation, control, emotional or physical aggression is a form of ‘sickness’ and there are no evil people in the world. I don’t believe this is the case. There are some truly evil people out there. There are a hell of a lot more loving, caring, great people, but there are the bad ones too. And my point here is to call it what it is. An act of sexual violence against a child is evil. Regardless of where it came from, the act itself is evil. Now as Rich points out, there are ‘some’ cases where the person has a genuine mental illness and I accept that but once the crime has definitely been committed against the child this is a case where I think ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is relevant when it comes to proving mental illness as an excuse.
Loving the conversation and debate here, awesome."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Hey Phil, you've made some pretty good observations mate.
To be honest, when I wrote that, I'd more or less forgotten about Rich's opening post, and had started focusing on the whole judgment/difference between a 'paedophile' and a 'child molestor' part. In relation to his initial point, could not agree more with him (except perhaps the part about "Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users" - I like Facebook, but their safeguards are pretty pathetic and they really don't have any serious interest in maintaining privacy). Any movement to make children safer from online predators is something I can get behind - have gotten behind - and I've got no argument with you there.
I should have clarified that I do include viewing child pornography in the category of 'acting on those desires', on account of the fact that that pornography has to come from somewhere, and in acquiring it they support and encourage the creation of it.
As for the part about sickness, I think we're both using the same term to mean two different things. I gather that when you say it, you mean 'sick' in the sense of something which renders a person irresponsible for their actions, on account of the concept that they 'can't be held responsible' - as a result of some form of mental health issue wherein they genuinely don't realize that what they're doing is wrong, or literally lack the capacity to stop themselves. Of course, someone who just enjoys inflicting pain does not fall into this category.
When I use the term 'sick', I'm referring more generally to 'someone who has desires that just aren't right'. Be this a desire to have sex with children, or a desire to cause suffering, or a desire to feel power over other human beings - I see them all very much as sides of the same coin. The main difference between our use of the terms seems to be that your usage of 'sick' refers to people whose actions are (for lack of a better term - this doesn't really convey what I'm trying to say, but it's the best I can think of) excused by their affliction. My use is more in line with merely explaining how someone came to have those desires, and isn't in any way mitigating their responsibility. When I say 'sick', I'm only referring to sick desires - not a literal inability to control them. That's something quite else.
To summarize that ridiculously long-winded definition of mine - when I say 'sick', I'm talking about anybody who wants to do terrible things, not somebody who *literally* cannot stop themselves, or lacks comprehension of what they're doing. So, in the context in which you were using the term, I agree wholeheartedly.
"An act of sexual violence against a child is evil."
I think this is the ultimate crux of the discussion, and I don't think anybody's arguing with you. There exist cases where mental illness plays a genuine role, but they are rare and are far more likely to be used as an excuse than they are to be a genuine reality.
...I think I could have summarized my entire statement by saying "ya i agree lol"."
Monday, April 26, 2010
Hindsight: 20/20
A little while ago a few of our members and I were having a discussion about some of the recent salient violent events occurring around New Zealand. We watch these events closely as they give great insight into current trends and behavioural psychology as it relates to violence. The discussion found its way to the topic of Mr Singh, the Manurewa liquor store owner murdered in 2008 as part of an Armed Holdup. I was asked by a martial artist who was attending our group class what I would have done if I were the person in the liquor store. In other words, if I was Mr Singh.
My reply to him was along the lines of; "Well he was shot in the chest at close range so I probably would have died. Why do you ask?" This was clearly not the response he expected and he immediately retorted with "well, that's a great attitude from a self defence teacher!"
I asked him why he felt that way and he went on to explain how his (martial arts) instructor had told the class exactly what he would have done in the situation to not only not get shot, but to physically harm the three robbers, one of whom was armed with a gun (which incidentally involved jumping the counter in front of the gunman and kicking him in the throat etc *Sigh*). I find this attitude incredible. Actually, I find it blatantly ignorant.
No-one can say how they absolutely would react in that situation. We can theorise about it, but there is no way we can say with certainty what we "would" have done. There is never any black and white answer to violence. Ever.
It reminded me of what Rich Dimitri told me about a magazine which called him up after 9/11 to ask him what he would have done if he had been on the plane when the highjackers took it over. Several other self defence 'experts' had told the magazine how they would have dealt to the highjackers and resumed control of the plane saving the day, whereas Rich's reply was "I would have died of course". His reply was not published.
Certainly there is merit in analysing the situation and what occurred retrospectively to help create 'mental blueprints' and provide greater understanding of how these situations unfold and occur, and also to adapt our training to suit and give greater chance of adapting to the specific scenario, but we will never 'fully' bridge the gap between how we think it may happen and how it really happens, unless...It really happens. There are always too many variables which could occur to try to "run a script". But if your self defence training is reality based it will prepare you as much as possible for this type of event. The 'stress inoculation' training that is a core concept of what we teach at Protect helps you to prepare and to make decisions under pressure which best serve you.
I don't know exactly how the events unfolded in the liquor store, and whether any previous training for this type of situation could have helped Mr Singh, I would like to hope it may have, but one thing I know is that he did the best with the knowledge and preparation that he had and in the end he tragically had his life taken from him and his loved ones.
All we can aim to do with our self defence training is gain as much knowledge and preparation against real world violence as we can so that if the worst happens we are as prepared as possible. Still, we will never be 100% prepared but 90% is better than not prepared at all. If the worst should happen you only have a small gap to bridge and will be far more able to adapt under pressure.
Self defence is not about flashy Hollywood moves and being a hero, it is about staying safe and getting home to your loved ones. That's all. And effective self defence training should reflect that.
My reply to him was along the lines of; "Well he was shot in the chest at close range so I probably would have died. Why do you ask?" This was clearly not the response he expected and he immediately retorted with "well, that's a great attitude from a self defence teacher!"
I asked him why he felt that way and he went on to explain how his (martial arts) instructor had told the class exactly what he would have done in the situation to not only not get shot, but to physically harm the three robbers, one of whom was armed with a gun (which incidentally involved jumping the counter in front of the gunman and kicking him in the throat etc *Sigh*). I find this attitude incredible. Actually, I find it blatantly ignorant.
No-one can say how they absolutely would react in that situation. We can theorise about it, but there is no way we can say with certainty what we "would" have done. There is never any black and white answer to violence. Ever.
It reminded me of what Rich Dimitri told me about a magazine which called him up after 9/11 to ask him what he would have done if he had been on the plane when the highjackers took it over. Several other self defence 'experts' had told the magazine how they would have dealt to the highjackers and resumed control of the plane saving the day, whereas Rich's reply was "I would have died of course". His reply was not published.
Certainly there is merit in analysing the situation and what occurred retrospectively to help create 'mental blueprints' and provide greater understanding of how these situations unfold and occur, and also to adapt our training to suit and give greater chance of adapting to the specific scenario, but we will never 'fully' bridge the gap between how we think it may happen and how it really happens, unless...It really happens. There are always too many variables which could occur to try to "run a script". But if your self defence training is reality based it will prepare you as much as possible for this type of event. The 'stress inoculation' training that is a core concept of what we teach at Protect helps you to prepare and to make decisions under pressure which best serve you.
I don't know exactly how the events unfolded in the liquor store, and whether any previous training for this type of situation could have helped Mr Singh, I would like to hope it may have, but one thing I know is that he did the best with the knowledge and preparation that he had and in the end he tragically had his life taken from him and his loved ones.
All we can aim to do with our self defence training is gain as much knowledge and preparation against real world violence as we can so that if the worst happens we are as prepared as possible. Still, we will never be 100% prepared but 90% is better than not prepared at all. If the worst should happen you only have a small gap to bridge and will be far more able to adapt under pressure.
Self defence is not about flashy Hollywood moves and being a hero, it is about staying safe and getting home to your loved ones. That's all. And effective self defence training should reflect that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
