civilian combatives

Hi Lee. Welcome to the board. I was wondering if you could tell us what the difference is between civilian combatives and military combatives. I seem to remember from the old board that you teach the civilian style. How have you adapted it from the military style?
All the best,
RGC

Hi Socrates

I personally do not see any big differences exept the finnish. I do not remember who said it, but it is well said.

"Civilian combatives (self defence) is hit and run, but millitary combatives (close combat) is stay and finnish"

If somone tries to kill me og beat the h... out of me, wether I have a uniform or not, the goals are the same. He wants me, and I want to be the one still standing when the dust is gone.

Jono

Hi mate
apoligies for the delay in replying to you
In my opinion I feel that any combative method that is geared primarily for the civilian sector needs to cover 3 factors; these are the pre-conflict phase: such as

 Target hardening,
 Awareness, avoidance & escape,
 Understanding the aggressor of today,
 Pre-conflict body language cues along with an understanding of the adrenal response and how it can affect operational performance.


Next is the Conflict phase: This is the physical part of the equation, built from a power base of combative mindset and attitude. The conflict part, if unavoidable is made up of 90 percent attitude and 10 percent skill there are no half measures, if you must fight, you must have the intention to keep fighting until there is nothing left to fight about period!

The final part is the Post-conflict phase: You must know that all actions carry consequences, such as injury, police involvement; court appearances; comebacks you need to understand the relevance of Self-Protection and the law in the Country that you live in/particularly regarding pre-emption. Think about witnesses, third party observers, how you appear, what you say and what you’re heard saying can all affect the outcome of the situation.

Although we all draw from our CQB forefathers such as Fairbain, Applegate and Styers and the like; the thing to understand is that what they taught was born out of the experience of war: the only important factor was the Conflict phase, it was a clear cut war time objective to eliminate the enemy at all costs!

Although we should take on board that mindset as it does have its place in modern society, we must taper what we learn to the current environment particularly for 21st century civilian Self-Protection.

Combatives can work within all areas of conflict resolution regardless of whether you’re a Civilian, Police Officer, Bodyguard, or Infantry Soldier. A Military personnel’s objective might be to eliminate the enemy, for a cop it might be to restrain, arrest and interview a suspect a Bodyguard will be focusing primarily on third party protection and keeping their principle safe. Whereas a Civilian’s primary concern should be to inflict just enough damage, to facilitate an escape if avoidance is not an option in the first place.

All modules within my curriculum are geared for dealing with the potential violence that any of us could face in our day to day lives in any environment. As well as training the physical tools needed to deal with a larger and stronger assailant, we also need to tackle the psychology of combat such as fear control and operational performance under adrenal stress along with other elements that work from a power base of AWARENESS that will allow you to spot and avoid most confrontational situations before they start.

All elements are designed as a whole to provide the student or operator with a functional game plan that can be tapered to cater for the needs of the individual be it for civilian Self-Protection, door/event security, law enforcement, Military or a Close Protection Operative.
hope this helps
Peace

That´s a great answer, thanks Lee. Thanks Jono, too.