Reddit reviews Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence

Get a cup of coffee. Then order a copy of Rory Miller and Lawrence Kane's book "Scaling Force" and while it's in the mail, head over to Marc MacYoung's website, http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Scaling-Force-Dynamic-Decision-Violence/dp/1594392501

If you're not in a bad area now, you're likely able to keep yourself from ending up in one in the future, which is always the best policy.

Once real, pressing, threats have been eliminated as a concern, it becomes a matter of speculation. What kind of not nice area do you expect to end up in? Where do you plan to move. What's an appropriate response in one locale will land you in serious trouble in another locale.

For starters I'd say get your hands on Scaling Force, which will give you a good idea of the necessary considerations for self defense, and that might help you narrow down what might be appropriate.

As far as a general rule goes though, running is often the best option. So practicing Parkour is a good idea (your small size is actually something of an asset here, as it's easier to pull your body up to get over obstacles compared to a larger person). Most martial arts and self defense instructors will advise that running is the best option, but won't actually teach you how to run. It's a good default option, and even if you have a false positive, it's never really going to be the 'wrong' decision.

In a situation in which you really can't run, a lot of martial arts will be limited, or useless. Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan Karate and Capoeira, for instance, all work best at ranges at which you can run very well, so practicing those styles isn't particularly useful (for modern people in most situations). You're either unable to run because you're being held, or because the area is crowded. For either situation, clinch work is ideal. If you're being held, you want a strong grappling base to get out of the hold - and once you're out, run - and if you're in a crowd, you don't want to turn it into a brawl, so throwing a punch and accidentally hitting someone else isn't a good idea. Still in line with the recommendation for dealing with school bullies, Judo and wrestling are very good default options (and with wrestling, once you graduate high school your opportunity to train it is quite limited, while you can quite easily begin practicing most other martial arts as an adult).

With a parkour + wrestling/Judo base, you can then look at other options, which would be best selected based on what you expect your situation to be. For instance it's utterly pointless for me to train gun disarms because where I live only gang members get shot, and when they do, it's at a distance. I could potentially be a victim of collateral damage, but that's not something I'd ever have the opportunity to do anything about. In other parts of the world, people actually get guns pointed at them at personal range, so for there practicing gun disarms would actually be useful. Since it's impossible to adequately prepare for every possible situation, for good self defense it's really important to figure out what the most likely risks are and specifically address them.

Well, thankfully I don't ask why as I can see the perspective pretty easily. I don't know why some ccw people get butthurt about the question, though: "Oh it's a tool! I carry it what's it to you?! Because of the neighborhod!" Someone in /r/edc once linked me to this video which explained it beautifully. I've since stopped asking. In addition I've read large chunks of this book which go into a lot about self defense (physical) which need to be taught in classes. I do my best to mentally prepare myself for any sort of conflict I might encounter. I'm an easy going guy & don't really deal with a lot of people to be honest, but it helps to understand the reality of the situations out there.

Going on a rant here: My other problem is everyone is against ccw for some reason. Those people don't know what it's like to walk down a street in fear of something. They don't realize that ccw people are usually the fucking nicest people you'll meet because of the things they learn through experience & that if you draw, you better be willing to use it mentality.

>First you'd have to prove that you didn't start it. If the court doesn't know how it started (which in most cases they won't), but know you finished by striking a downed opponent, you are likely to be judged retroactively guilty of the whole incident.

I have no idea where you are getting this, because the first stage would be for a prosecutor to go forward in pressing charges and bringing you to trial, which is highly unlikely, because they're not going to indict such a loose case. Since you are apparetly arguing a situation with no witnesses and no cameras, I don't know how you expect them to get proof of murder. Prior to all of this, your statement would be taken which would probably begin with "I was walking down the street they attacked me," and end with I defended myself wand was able to escape and call 911."

> Arguing down that line requires first admitting that you committed homicide.

Making words bold and big doesn't magically make your misunderstanding of the law correct. Any type of killing in self defense is an argument in justifiable homicide. Rory Miller actually covers this point heavily in Scaling Force. Literally any act of self-defense is the act of committing a crime, but with legally justifiable reasons. Guy tried to rape you and you kicked him in the groin? You committed assault, however you are justifying it based on the situation. Guy broke into your house and you shot him? You committed homicide and are arguing that it was legal based on the situation.

>The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice.

I don't know where the hell you are getting this. Are you confusing that with varying degrees of murder? Because that would still require that you had the mens rea. Premeditation is only a requirement on first degree murder, so unless that has somehow changed (it hasn't), you must be arguing second degree murder, but that has a requirement of having been done without just cause or legal excuse, which is what you are arguing if you argue self-defense.

>Those standards are not the same as for civilians. A civilian who acts like they're in a warzone is likely to end up in prison.

My point was that as a society, we have created rules that revolve around common sense and societal norms. Which is one of the reasons that when you stand trial (assuming a prosecutor wanted to go that far), you generally do so before a jury, who must judge your actions based upon the knowledge and actions taken at the time, and not in hindsight based on new information. So, if you knocked a person to the ground and he sustained an injury that would have prevented him form chasing you, but you would not know that, and so you delivered additional strikes to facilitate your escape, you could not be judged based upon later medical knowledge that you didn't have at the time. Furthermore, you must be judged based upon your knowledge of the situation and the reasonableness of the actions taken at the time. Striking a downed attacker to prevent chase and facilitate escape has and still does fall within the scope of reasonableness given the nature of the situation.

Usually dreams like that are about some sense of helplessness in your life. At earlier ages, they're the dreams about going to school totally naked. Or it is finals week and you have to go to a final for a course you forgot to go to all semester long. Or you get to that final and the exam is written in a language you don't understand.

When I was younger (and in high school), we lived in Ireland back when the IRA was actually doing home invasion murder/kidnapping, so this was something our family's friends actually had to plan and prepare for. Some of them worked for the British Embassy, so their homes were fortified. Each home had a bulletproof "safe room" (substantially similar to FEMA's tornado shelters except these were lockable from the inside) where the family could retreat into and lock until the police (actually the "special branch" at that time since the regular police force was not and still is not armed with firearms) could arrive. Other friends of my parents had fled Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) during that civil war and others fled Apartheid South Africa. Both countries had armed guerrillas and death squads, which we don't have in the US yet.

In any case, I strongly recommend reading the book The Gift of Fear (wikipedia summary). Many times your intuition (or gut feeling) is picking up signals that you are uncomfortable with. Or that you can't express verbally. And those dreams might just be warning signals that you're ignoring. Or they might just be you showing up to the final exam naked and unprepared (because you left your #2 pencil in your pants, wherever they are).

Other books that may help you to start to understand how violence my happen and what you can do to protect yourself (mostly it is never getting into such a situation, but sometime you can defuse it verbally) are Facing Violence (this book is focused on the onset of violence and dealing with the first few seconds) and Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence (this book does show how voice and "presence" can prevent an ugly situation from escalating into violence). I recommend reading them before you sign up for self defense classes.

>In quel 0,1% dei casi cosa bisogna fare?

Quello 0,1% di casi comprende un'infinità di situazioni diverse, dalle semplici parole grosse alle pistole.

Purtroppo non è così semplice generalizzare, proprio perchè si tratta di casi molto, ma molto diversi.

Giusto per darti un'idea di cosa significhi, a livello teorico, "difesa personale" consiglio questo : molti dubbi e preconcetti sul "cosa" e sul "come" lì vengono spiegati (bene) e approfonditi.

Detto questo.... Wall of text incoming.

​

>raramente si allena il contatto pieno (per ovvie ragioni sul Krav Maga) ergo non ci si prepara, imho, a un vero scontro.

Il "contatto pieno" ha senso solo sul ring. I professionisti della violenza non ti prendono a ceffoni, usano attrezzi atti a offendere comunemente noti come "armi", quindi c'è un'unica strategia valida in questi casi: se puoi, non farti prendere.

Detta così sembra un'ovvietà da bacio Perugina, ma l'essenza della difesa personale sta tutta lì: imparare a riconoscere e prevenire le situazioni di pericolo ed evitarle (leggi il libro che ti ho consigliato e capirai un po' meglio cosa intendo).

Se e solo se tutte le tue strategie di evasione non funzionano, e se e solo se riesci a prevedere con sufficiente anticipo il rischio (spoiler: i predatori migliori cacciano all'agguato o in branco, or inclusivo), allora è il momento di menar le mani.

Dal punto di vista legale la strategia migliore è deescalare il livello di violenza dell'incontro (che significa ? Miller lo spiega bene), sapere come farlo richiede anni di pratica (e non si può spiegare in un post, per quanto lungo).

Pratica di cosa ? Tenendo conto della situazione italiana, dove la maggior parte delle aggressioni avvengono con lame corte o equivalenti e armi contundenti improvvisate, consiglio di tenere d'occhio tre stili in particolare: Kali, Jujitsu tradizionale (non Brazilian e per carità, niente metodo Bianchi...) e Kenjutsu

Il kali per un motivo molto semplice: ti mette in mano fin da subito lame corte e bastoni. E ti insegna fin da subito cosa NON fare quando ti trovi davanti qualcuno armato di coltello o bastone (occhio che non insegna tutto, in particolare non insegna a scappare....)

Il Jujitsu tradizionale ti mette a disposizione un vastissimo arsenale tecnico le cui armi principali (proiezioni e leve) sono perfette per deescalare situazioni rognose.

Il kenjutsu, invece, è utile non tanto per cosa insegna ad usare, ma per l'enfasi che pone sul controllo e sulla valutazione del maai (concetto un po' rognoso da tradurre... diciamo gittata ma è un pelo più complesso di così). Sapere dove mettersi per essere (relativamente) al sicuro rispetto ad un avversario armato è un'abilità che fa molto molto comodo in qualsiasi scontro.

Dove sta la difficoltà in tutto questo ? Principalmente in due punti.

Il primo è che se non pratichi sotto pressione, tutto quello che farai sarà perfettamente inutile in una situazione di stress. La paura vincerà, l'adrenalina prenderà il comando, e tu prenderai (se va bene) calci nel culo a due a due finchè non diventan dispari.

Il secondo punto è il tempo. Chiunque ti prometta di diventare competente in pochi mesi mente. Che sia per ignoranza, arroganza o avidità non importa: mente e da lui non potrai imparare niente di utile.

L'unica e sola strada per acquisire un minimo di competenza è la pratica, costante e per molti anni.

Spero di aver risposto in maniera almeno comprensibile.....