Situational Awareness: Practical Application

IMG_0515

As anyone who has read any of our articles or books knows already knows we place a high premium on developing and using situational awareness as an integral component of personal security.  In fact if you were to do only one thing to make yourself safer – and nothing else – it would be to develop and employ situational awareness.

Still many people struggle with this for a variety of reasons.  In some cases it is because they have not received proper training on it before:  they are told to be alert to aware of their surroundings but are not told how to do this or they have been told its “common sense”.  Others equate situational awareness with hyper vigilance.  I addressed that question previously here: https://protectiveconcepts.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/situational-awareness-and-the-danger-of-hypervigilance/.    Another problem is dismissing the concept of Coopers Colors based on a very strict understanding of the color code.  One instructor discusses his dislike of Cooper’s Colors as a method here:  http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/the-myth-of-situational-awareness/.  While he makes some interesting points I strongly disagree with what he says – his position only aligns with a very rigid interpretation of the color code.  Further the notion that situational awareness is not useful is ridiculous.

I believe that Coopers Colors is a guide to follow – not a rigid doctrine.  The four main colors that are used – White, Yellow, Orange and Red – form a framework for us to gauge awareness.  In reality there are sublevels or gradations within those colors in my opinion.  You might be in a low Condition Yellow or a high Condition Yellow as an example.  While you should not be in Condition White in public places as a general rule, you may be in Condition Yellow and move momentarily into Condition White for a moment while you look at a map, answer your phone, etc.  I think that is normal and fine as you are not walking around in Condition White for an extended period of time.  You should be positioning yourself in a more protected position to do those activities – i.e. stepping into a doorway to look at the map.  You are not lingering in Condition White – you go into it and come back out quickly.  Throughout the day you should mainly be in Condition Yellow which is a relaxed state of awareness.  You will likely shift briefly to Condition Orange from time to time – either due to some outside stimulus / observation that you make such as seeing a person exhibiting behavior that causes you some concern or because you are entering a perceived danger area or transition area where you know you should be more alert due to the increased potential threat.  You may drop briefly into Condition White while looking at a menu in a restaurant or taking a phone call.  This is only a brief interruption and only after assessing your environment and assuming a more protected position.  This is very doable and a very easy way to live your life.

How do you apply it?  There are a number of ways to begin introduce situational awareness behavior:

Establish Baselines:  It’s important to understand the baseline or pattern of normal activity for a given environment or location.  This baseline may change based on the hour of day and day of the week.  By establishing a baseline you determine what type of behavior is normal in that environment at that given time.  This allows you to detect behavior which is not normal (an aberration or anomaly) as well as the absence of normal behavior or activity.

Watch People:  Pay attention to people in your environment and learn to assess them rapidly.  We will look more at what constitutes suspicious behavior and other indicators of danger at another time.  We previously discussed some elements of it here: https://wordpress.com/stats/post/269/protectiveconcepts.wordpress.com

Look for Exits:  Train yourself to identify exits whenever you enter a room, building, public transportation, etc.

Recognize Points Where You Need to Raise Your Awareness: Recognize that arrivals, departures, choke points and danger areas are all situations where you need to be more alert to potential threats.

Eliminate Distractions:  This means moderating your smart phone, tablet, ear buds, etc. use in public areas in order to better focus on your surroundings.  For many people this takes real discipline.

You can condition yourself to be aware of your environment – specifically potential threats in your environment – in much the same way.  It takes some deliberate effort – especially at first but it is a worthwhile endeavor.  It doesn’t require hyper vigilance or rigid adherence to a strict interpretation of Coopers Colors.   With practice and a good understanding of how to employ it, situational awareness can be a habit that you use daily to keep yourself safe.

Thinking about Crime Scene 2

Should you get in that car?

Should you get in that car?

 

In the past we have looked at the question of when and whether you should resist a crime or not. Most authorities on personal security and most law enforcement sources will advise you to comply with a criminal in the case of an obviously economically-motivated crime. If a mugger wants your wallet or your cell phone, just give it to him. If a thief grabs your bag don’t chase him. Things can be replaced, people’s lives can’t. Most people agree, you should not put your life at risk to defend material possessions. Many, maybe most of those people would agree that in the face of a physical assault you need to escape or fight back. What about the gray area in between? What do you do when your assailants want to force you into a vehicle or otherwise move you from the place where contact first occurred (Crime Scene 1).

 
This phenomenon is called Crime Scene 2. I first learned about this concept from the book Strong on Defense written by Sandford Strong in the 1990s. Strong, a retired San Diego police officer argues you should never let yourself be taken to Crime Scene 2. Strong makes this argument for some very good reasons I think. In his perspective Crime Scene 2 is always worse. The only reason why the criminal would seek to move you to Crime Scene 2 is to get more privacy, better isolate you and have better control. What is likely to follow will be very bad – probably torture, sexual assault and often murder. Under these conditions you would likely do well to stand your ground at Crime Scene 1 and fight or try to escape even at risk of injury or death to yourself. In the US, Canada and a number of other countries this is very often a reasonable and sound strategy. In other places in the world, however it can be less clear.

 
Kidnap for ransom is a rare crime in the US and when it does occur there is a very high apprehension and prosecution rate. Express kidnapping, while perhaps more common than kidnap for ransom is still pretty rare. Therefore, many abductions in the US occur for other than financial gain and there is some real validity to Sanford Strong’s hypothesis that Crime Scene 2 is always worse than Crime Scene 1. This is especially true for women and children who are more likely to be targeted for predatory, sexually motivated crimes.

 
Once you leave the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and some of the more developed nations of the Pacific Rim this becomes less clear. In many places around the world, kidnap for ransom and express kidnappings are common, even rampant. In these environments people are abducted for financial reasons and frequently come through the experience alive if traumatized. In the case of express kidnapping in particular, the crime can be over relatively quickly. A quick trip to the ATM and a withdrawal of the daily maximum is often followed by the release of the victim. In some cases the victim may be held past midnight to make a withdrawal on the next day. In other situations such as kidnap for ransom, victims may be held for days, weeks and sometimes even years but are frequently eventually released. Yes – sometimes it’s not a successful outcome. As we have seen from the recent hostage executions by ISIS and the Daniel Pearl case in Pakistan that kidnappings can also end badly with the victim being executed, sometimes very brutally and publicly.

 
We discussed the question of to resist or not to resist as well as the issue of Crime Scene 2 here: https://protectiveconcepts.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/to-resist-or-not-to-resist-that-is-the-question/. It’s a difficult question that is very situationally dependent. It should depend a lot on where you are and adversary tactics in that area. It’s going to also depend on your capabilities and your mindset. There is no pat answer that will fit every person and every scenario.

Review – Left of Bang

left-of-bang

If you are looking for a resource to improve your ability to be aware of your environment and identity threats before an attack occurs then look no further than Left of Bang by Patrick Van Horne and Jason Riley.
While there are other books that discuss reading body language and detecting potential threats none really address it as comprehensively and in such a user-friendly, applicable way. In my opinion this is the definitive work on situational awareness, yet it also readily complements other books like Gavin De Becker’s Just 2 Seconds (which we will review separately in the future).

 
The material in Left of Bang is taken from the US Marine Corps Combat Hunter Program. The Marine Corps implemented the Combat Hunter Program to better prepare Marines for counterinsurgency environments like those found in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the counterinsurgency environment the enemy hides among the civilian population, which presents a real challenge for warfighters. The material used in the combat profiling portion of Combat Hunter is also incredibly useful for the average person in terms of their personal security.

 
The term left of bang refers to the time before a violent incident. If you are looking at a timeline and “bang” is the attack, the IED detonating, the ambush, the kidnapping or whatever, the left side is the time preceding the incident. Right of bang is the time following the incident, the reaction, the response and so forth. While it’s important to be ready to deal with the incident and its aftermath, if you can deal effectively with the time before the incident you may be able to prevent the incident from occurring or at least remove yourself from the scene before the incident occurs. Getting “left of bang” means being ahead of the threat, seeing it coming and recognizing it and taking the appropriate action, this book gives you tools to do that.

 
In the book you will learn about baselines and anomalies, the six domains of profiling, the combat rule of three and how to make decisions based on your observations and make them quickly. I have not found this level of detail or techniques that are as useful anywhere else. The book in available in paperback and e-book version through Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Left-Bang-Marine-Combat-Program/dp/1936891301/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413499479&sr=8-1&keywords=left+of+bang

 
I also had the great opportunity to take a tactical analysis training class with Patrick Van Horne prior to the book being published and found that to be incredibly insightful as well. Van Horne’s company CP Journal (Combat Profiling Journal) now also provides an online training course now too. More information about CP Journal and their programs can be found here: http://www.cp-journal.com/.

 

Resources You Might Like – Staying Safe – a blog by Christopher Pendas

In the coming weeks Protective Concepts will highlight various resources that may be of interest to readers and will also do some additional book reviews.

 
If you find the articles on Protective Concepts interesting and helpful you will enjoy the Staying Safe blog by Christopher Pendas. Christopher takes a proactive approach to personal protection and self defense that provides the reader useful tools and ideas that can be implemented immediately. His approach to developing and enhancing situational awareness goes well beyond the usual prompts to pay attention to your surroundings that are given by so many instructors without really explaining how. In particular he makes a good use of videos to illustrate preincident indicators and other aspects in the context of a real world situation.

 
The philosophy and approach outlined on the Staying Safe blog complements our approach at Protective Concepts and is highly recommended. The blog can be found here: http://stayingsafe-selfdefense.com/ and Christopher also has a Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/stayingsafeselfdefense.

When Avoidance Fails

Threat
When looking at personal security we constantly preach the importance of awareness, avoidance and prevention over reaction or physical response. The last article discussed the limitations of physical self defense and the importance of avoiding a situation when these types of skills might come into play.
While awareness and avoidance are the best and most proactive approach, we have to recognize that there may be times when they fail us. Maybe despite our best efforts we are still caught unawares or maybe do to good planning by our attackers or physical conditions we are not able to detect preincident indicators.
If we find ourselves in a situation where we need to defend ourselves what are the best methods to use? While Protective Concepts generally focuses on soft skills, we would be remiss not to consider what to do if preventive measures fail.
There is so much about physical self defense that is misguided or just wrong that it might be useful to look at some concepts of effective physical self defense that hopefully will assist the reader in selecting training or if already training evaluate what they are doing and whether they need to augment or adapt it. This is not a “my style/system is better than yours debate” – which is all too common when this subject comes up. Rather it is a high level discussion of principles and concepts to consider.

  • Gross motor movements: Techniques should be practiced which can be employed using only gross motor skills. Technical, fine motor techniques that may work in controlled training are not likely to work in a high stress, adrenaline – fueled event
  • Use high probability techniques and tools: Keeping with the theme of gross motor movements, techniques should also have a high probability of success while limiting vulnerability. This means having a core of tools that will work in multiple situations, are difficult to defend against and do not leave you too exposed.
  • Soft tissue targets: Attacks should target the eyes and throat and in some cases when accessible the groin. A strike to the eyes will likely cause a flinch response at the very least and create an opening for you. This does not mean you should seek pinpoint targets as this is unrealistic in a dynamic situation.
  • Train against resisting opponents: While it may be necessary to learn fundamentals by practicing in a more controlled way – as soon as possible training should be against a dynamic, resisting partner. Training partners should conduct realistic attacks to allow you to pressure test your skills.
  • Add emotional content: Role playing and introduction of realistic emotional content such as cursing, insults and aggressive body contact help replicate the feelings created in a real situation.
  • Use of preemptive striking: Train to gauge when and how to strike preemptively. There are legal and ethical as well as tactical considerations to consider but realistically striking first, when appropriate, may be the difference between success and failure and even life or death. Too many self defense programs base everything in reacting to an assailant’s attack. Many if not most times this is too late, especially against a hardened, experienced attacker.
  • Use of distraction techniques: Whether throwing hot coffee in the eyes, feigning illness or using a verbal pattern disruption – distraction techniques can provide the opening needed to launch a preemptive strike.
  • Training against multiple opponents: It’s important to recognize that in a real situation there are likely to be multiple assailants and they may be armed. This should be reflected in training scenarios.
  • Use of improvised weapons: Training should include identification of improvised weapons in your environment and their use. Improvised weapons usually fall into three categories: impact, edged and flexible although this can be expanded to include projectiles and sprays. Improvised weapons should be items you can realistically use with a minimum of training and practice. Flexible weapons as an example can be difficult to master. Conversely a palm stick or kubotan type weapon such as a pocket flashlight or pen can be employed using the same movements and body mechanics that you would use for striking with a hammer fist in empty hand combat. This allows for greater transferability and less training time.

Unfortunately good training in realistic combatives can often be difficult to find. For a variety of reasons this type of training often doesn’t translate well to the commercial environment. For that reason you may need to seek out informal groups the train in garages, basements or parks or train in a combat sport or traditional martial art and augment your training with the principles discussed here.

As always – avoidance and prevention are best – but should they fail be prepared by training as realistically as possible.

Recognizing the Limitations of Physical Self Defense

Alley

Why do many self-defense training scenarios start with a gun already at your head? Or an assailant threatening you with a knife to your throat? What happened in the moments prior to that situation and how often is that time frame covered in any depth in much of what passes for self- defense training? If you Google self-defense classes you will likely get info on a bunch of local martial arts schools and maybe a course or two offered through a Y or community center. While many of these courses will mention the need for awareness, assertiveness and in some cases de-escalation most will quickly shift the focus to physical techniques – some better than others depending on the program and the instructor.

First off let me say that I am not against training in physical self-defense techniques. I think they are useful and I love combat sports and martial arts and have done them in one form or another for most of my life up to this day. I also don’t mean to imply that there are not good self-defense teachers out there who also teach awareness, de-escalation and other non-physical proactive measures as big part of their curriculum, because there are. Our focus here is on the more common training programs that cut right to the physical with little regard for the components that lead up to a violent incident occurring.

Now – with that out of the way – let’s look at some of the real limitations of focusing exclusively or mainly on physical self-defense:

  • Many self-defense courses are taught using techniques and elements from traditional martial arts. While some traditional arts have aspects or tools that may be useful in a real confrontation for the most part many of the techniques are not applicable for a real world violent confrontation.
  • Many are taught based solely on combat sports. While this is perhaps a better fit than the traditional arts in most respects, if not properly modified there can be real shortcomings such as not considering multiple opponents, weapons, etc. We previously discussed the pros and cons of both approaches here: https://protectiveconcepts.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/combat-sports-traditional-martial-arts-and-defense/
  • Regardless of the physical techniques used many self-defense systems require a great deal of training to become proficient. There are some practical combative systems that can be learned relatively quickly but frankly they are not widely available to most people. Given the level of interest and competing commitments many if not most people will not devote the time to become proficient.
  • To train realistically requires training with intensity. This means against a resisting opponent with some level of contact that approximates a real situation. There must be enough intensity to get your adrenaline flowing as it would in a real violent encounter. A large segment of the population is not willing to train at this level.
  • Despite what many people think – size and strength are a factor. Unless you are at a very high level you will be at a disadvantage against a larger, stronger opponent. Especially if that opponent has training and experience with violence – which most assailants will have.
  • As you age your ability to be physically effective resisting a determined attacker is decreased.
  • Your assailants will choose the time and place where they attack you in most cases. They will choose a situation where the odds are in their favor and you are in a disadvantaged position.
  • Your attacker has likely committed similar violent assaults, has a game plan and knows what to expect. For you it may be the first time.
  • In many if not most cases there will be multiple assailants, weapons or both.
  • Carrying firearms or other weapons may be of no help or even counterproductive unless you train to use them under duress and have bridging techniques that allow you to get space and draw and deploy your weapon if suddenly attacked. We discussed this in our piece on the 21 foot rule: https://protectiveconcepts.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/the-21foot-rule-and-over-reliance-on-firearms/

The fact is criminal assaults don’t happen in a vacuum. There are always indicators prior to the attack and with the possible exception of some ambush-style assaults where the perpetrators are well concealed and lying in wait for a victim, you can usually detect these indicators. The key factor is you need to be watching for them and you need to be trained or have trained yourself to recognize them.

Personal security and self-defense needs to start before an incident ever begins and way before any physical techniques are needed. You need to:

Training to physically respond to a violent attack has its place but also its limitations. Training for personal protection should focus heavily on detecting and avoiding potential threats. These are things everyone can do – especially with a little training and practice – regardless of age, physical condition and so forth. It’s also completely scalable based on the person’s perceived threat level and degree of interest. Many aspects of this approach were covered in previous articles which are linked here for those who want more information and a greater understanding.

Guile & Deception as Kidnapping Tools

Lome, Togo

Lome, Togo

 

Most people when they think of a kidnapping think of a violent, dramatic event. The victim is ambushed, dragged from his car, threatened with weapons and restrained before being moved to a location where he is isolated. Many kidnappings do follow this model or something very similar. Speed, violence, “shock and awe” are effective tools for the kidnappers – allowing them to gain control of the victim quickly and effectively, dramatically reducing the likelihood of resistance of escape.
There are however kidnappings that don’t follow this model. Circumstances where victims are lured into their captivity induced to put themselves in a vulnerable position and sometimes even controlled through duplicity as much as physical restraint. It’s important to understand and recognize this methodology to be able to protect yourself against it.
A number of these events evolve out of sophisticated scams. The victim is lured to a specified location with the promise of a lucrative business opportunity and then abducted. Many but certainly not all of these incidents have occurred have occurred in West and Central Africa. In March 2014 KR Magazine (www.krmagazine.com) outlined the case of an Australian businessman who was lured to Togo in West Africa, in December 2012 by an opportunity to purchase gold bars. He entered Togo by land from neighboring Ghana, did not get an entry stamp in his passport and was told by his “hosts” that he faced immigration and money laundering charges. He was then held captive “for his own protection” and forced to call his business partner and estranged wife for ransom payments. This incident was also controversial in the sense that after the victim purportedly escaped or was allowed to escape there were allegations that the entire incident was a fraud. Regardless – the case provides numerous examples of a modus operandi that has apparently become increasingly common. There was also a notable case in May 2012 off a US commercial airline pilot who was also lured to Lome, Togo by an opportunity to buy gold bars. The pilot was subsequently held captive in a village in neighboring Benin until a ransom was paid. Similar cases have been reported in Uganda, South Africa and numerous other countries.
The Colombian Facebook Gang – which we have previously discussed (https://protectiveconcepts.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/social-networks-and-the-threat-to-personal-security/) used social media to identify and target wealthy men. Using fake profiles depicting beautiful women the kidnappers enticed the men to “meet in person”. The victims were then abducted when they arrived for the meeting.
Even the well-publicized and tragic case of journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan contains elements of the use of deception to lure the victim into captivity. Pearl went to what he believed was an interview with a Pakistani militant – Sheikh Gilani in Karachi. After being taken willingly to the safe house where the interview was to occur, Pearl surrendered all his personal items and allowed himself to be restrained “for security reasons”.
Kidnapping through the use of deception and guile, rather than a gun offers a lot of advantages to the criminal:
• They can get the victim to do the work for them by getting them to isolate themselves and in some cases willingly put themselves into captivity.
• It gives them deniability. If it goes bad and they are caught they can argue it was all a misunderstanding on the part of the victim. If no violence was used and the victim was not physically restrained they may very well prevail with this argument.
• It reduces the physical risk to they face. The victim is unlikely to fight back or physically resist and they are less likely to draw the attention of law enforcement.
• It creates an opaque environment they can manipulate to their advantage. Is the victim free to go? Does the victim know that?

 

Common Elements and Mitigation:
There are some common elements that occur in cases where guile and deception are used and ways to mitigate your risk:

• Many of these situations have the hallmarks of a scam. If it seems to go to be true then it probably is. That said it is worth noting that many of the perpetrators of these crimes can be very sophisticated and can work on developing the mark or victim over time – this is true for both kidnappings and straight out scams. It’s important to do your due diligence in these situations and know who you are dealing with as well as watching for some of the other indicators below.
• Many have an illegal or at least unethical component where the victim knows he or she is getting involved in something that is not legitimate. This allows the perpetrators to require a level of secrecy that would not be typical in most business dealings. It also provides the kidnapper with the leverage of reporting the victim to the authorities. You can mitigate this by not engaging in business deals or other activities that are questionable.
• Be wary of unsolicited approaches from people you don’t know or unsolicited calls or emails requesting a meeting or offering a prospective business opportunity.
• There may be a requirement to go to an isolated location or to accompany the perpetrators to an unknown location. Additionally there may be a change in plans or meeting places at the last minute that isolates the victim. To avoid this it’s important to insist on holding meetings in public locations – preferably that you are either familiar with or have time to assess in advance. You should not agree to last minute changes in meeting venues and if pressed its best to cancel the meeting. Criminals will try to create a sense of urgency to get you to go along with their plan.
• The perpetrators may say certain measures are “for your own protection” or are “security measures” to control you. Do not allow yourself to be willingly confined or restrained under these circumstances.
• There may be an attempt to isolate you and make you dependent. This may include surrendering your passport, mobile phone, etc. We strongly advise travelers – particularly in the developing world – to create multiple layers of contacts or parallel contacts. Do not allow one person or one group of people to control your agenda and activities. Have alternate means of transport, communication, etc. to eliminate this dependency. Also have check in procedures and let others know where you are going and who you will be meeting. We have discussed this in our article on dealing with local contacts (https://protectiveconcepts.wordpress.com/?s=dealing+with+local+contacts ) and in the book Safe Travel Abroad (http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Travel-Abroad-Individual-Expatriates/dp/1484871987/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1402518982&sr=8-1).
Being aware of this type of crime is the best way to reduce your risk of being a victim. Recognizing the criminal modus operandi and identifying the signs will allow you to avoid these situations in most cases.