The Pros and Cons of Babywearing

I have three beautiful children. As a parent, my style could be summed up in what is often referred to as Attachment Parenting. I have practiced extended breastfeeding, co-sleeping and babywearing with all three of my children. I've also been armed.

These practices have made for a rewarding, close and loving environment for my kids but there are some fall backs when it comes to defensive tactics.

The social and developmental benefits of babywearing are often debated among mommy groups all over the place, neither of which I will discuss here here. If you babywear you know the benefits of it for your family.

If you are interested in some basic babywearing and gun-carrying tips, please read Carrying A Gun And A Baby.

What we are going to discuss here is the narrow scope of the pros and cons of babywearing from a purely self-defense standpoint.

Pros:

- Free Hands
One of the best aspects of babywearing is that it allows for hands-free activity. Fighting, drawing a weapon, controlling an attacker long enough to gain access to a weapons, etc., are all easier with two free hands.

Whether the baby is front or back carried will also have an effect on how easy it is to work in a particular space or allow access to tools. Babies too young to sit up on their own are primarily carried in front carriers and wraps. However, this position limits your range of motion slightly with a child on your chest and if you carry a defensive tool on the front of your body they can hinder access to said tool, depending on how high you carry and the size of your child. It will also completely impede your access to something like a flashbang holster.

Front Body Carry Makes Center-line Carry More Inaccessible

Front carrying a baby with a front carry defensive (handgun, knife etc.) system also hinders your ability to look and reholster your tools. It's not a huge issue if it's a fight for your life, but it's something to consider.

- Baby Cannot Be Left Behind
This is both a pro and a con (as we will discuss later) but a baby that is physically strapped to your body obviously cannot be easily left behind.

One would think this would never be a concern but it is something that has happened on several occasions when it comes to violent crime or other emergency situations. This has a lot to do with the freeze, fight or flight response. These responses are designed for your personal self-protection and do not concern themselves with the defense of others. It is possible to leave your child behind in a flight response, but obviously not if that child is strapped to your body.

- Baby Is Secure
Child snatching is a huge concern for many parents, despite the fact that it is statistically unlikely to ever occur--especially via a stranger. That does not mean it cannot and has not happened, however. A baby attached to your body cannot be snatched either as a means of kidnapping or to be used as a tool of compliance. There is also no chance that your child will be accidentally dropped in panic.

- Movement Is Easier
To a degree, movement is easier when you are carrying a baby on your body. Yes, having an 8-20 lbs. child strapped to your body does degrade your movement to some point, but it's a lot easier to move around with your child strapped to your body than with a baby in a stroller. If trying to escape a burning building I'd absolutely prefer to have my child strapped to me than in a stroller or in my arms. I would be less likely to drop my child, get caught up fumbling with my baby and a door, or have him knocked from my arms by other panicked patrons.

Cons:

- Holster Systems Can Be Hindered

Back Carry Allows More Access to Tools Carried on the Center-line of the body

This is the single most common issue I see with babywearing and carrying. Because of the nature of baby carriers that attach around the waist, over the chest, and across the back, some of the most common carry locations for firearms are compromised or hindered due to the carrier or baby interfering with the holster or draw. Sometimes it's a simpler solution like changing the babywearing method or going to a different holster. Sometimes it means coming up with an entirely different defensive carry system depending on the method of carrying the child. What I have seen in practice is parents compromising access and putting their guns and holsters in places that are impractical and potentially dangerous for a self-defense situation.

But that will be a blog for another day.

- Damage To You Means Damage To Baby
Herein lies the single most terrifying part of wearing a baby from a defensive standpoint: If you take damage, it's highly likely your baby will as well. In other words, babywearing is like pregnancy. While pregnant and under attack there is nothing you can reasonably be expected to do to protect your child. The same goes for babywearing. Because you can't put your baby down or distance yourself and because your baby is so exposed if you are taking fire, it's highly likely your baby is going to be shot. If you are under a knife attack, it's likely your baby is going to be cut. If you are being kicked or hit or punched, it is likely your baby is going to be on the receiving end of those blows as well.

You could certainly try to shield your baby from harm by turning him or her away and placing your own body between yourself and the attacker, but even that is no guarantee your child will not come to harm.

As terrifying as that is to consider, it is something that must be addressed. If all of your preventive measures are overlooked and someone chooses to visit violence on you while babywearing you must be aware and prepared for the fact that it will likely mean harm to your child.

- Baby Cannot Be Left Behind Or Handed Over
As promised, I told you this was both a pro and a con. The con side of this particular coin is that you cannot leave your child behind to draw fire or violence away from them. If you are the target and not your child and the violence is centered on you, there is no quick, easy way to separate yourself from your child or give your child to someone who can take him or her out of harm's way. If the fight is on it's going to require fighting around the child.

- Fighting Is Harder
Hand-to-hand fighting is hard enough. Doing it with a 10-20 lbs. weight strapped to your back or front will make it harder. Your center of gravity is off. Your range of motion is restricted. Your ability to clench up or ground fight is almost gone. Roundhouse kicks? Front snap kicks? Vicious knees? All harder with a child strapped to your body. Not to mention the elevated degree of violence you may need may mean harm to your child.

- Running Is Not An Option
Let me rephrase: Running is always an option. It's not always a good option, but it is an option. Remember that women often cannot run as fast as men. If you are a man, 20 lbs. of strapped baby will probably hinder you as well.

If you have an opportunity to escape to safety you absolutely should take it! However, you have to reasonably understand what your capacity for escape is when you are carrying a child. Even if you are a runner, your ability to sprint with a child will be hampered. Try it sometime.

Thankfully, crime against parents while they carry their babies is still quite low. While it does happen, it's not so common as to be expected. That being said, it's still a possibility.

When the pros and cons are weighed exclusively from a defensive standpoint, babywearing is a terrible defensive tactic and has no real advantage and lots of disadvantages that can be devastating for both the parent and baby.

That being said, babywearing does have great developmental, bonding and even health benefits for the parent and baby. Whether or not one decides to continue to babywear should be based on all of those factors as well as risk factors for actual violence.

There are those who may decide that babywearing increases the difficulty in defending themselves too much and decide to no longer babywear. If that's the case, that's fine.

While I have continued to babywear, I have amended my practices to make the outcome better for the both of us.

-Be smart about when and where you wear your baby.
This should go without saying, but it stands to reason that making smart decisions about where, when and who you are with when you babywear is going to help with your defensive options.

Do you and your husband and your kids all have to go to the grocery store? Can you or your husband stay home snuggling the baby while the other goes to the store by him or herself for some alone time and therefore not have to worry about defensive situations with a child in tow?

If required to go some place with a higher rate of violent crime, might it be better to place your child in a stroller vs babywear? It may seem counter-intuitive, as parents like to collect their children to their persons when they feel threatened, but from a purely defensive perspective it may not be the best tactic.

-Have a means to get your baby off of you as quickly as possible.
This will have a lot to do with your type of chosen baby carrier. Buckle carriers are quicker to get in and out of than wraps, so given the choice between the two you might want to choose the one that is easier to get out of.

Safety Cutter on the Benchmade Triage

Make no mistake about it, in an immediate, violent attack on your life you are not going to have time to remove your baby from your person. However, immediately after or if in a lull or in other emergency situations, you might need to get your baby off you and quickly. Carrying items like safety cutters or seatbelt cutters for straps or wraps may be an advisable option. Be sure to carry them in a location they can be quickly accessed.

-Decrease the clutter you carry.
If you babywear, it's imperative that all other loads be kept to a minimum. Any additional bag will be that much more of a hindrance. Keep your on-body carry to your baby,  pepper spray, your gun, your safety cutter and/or knife, money, identification and carry permit (if required), and phone. Avoid putting your gun in any off-body carry system, and if you must have another bag for diapers and baby gear keep that gear to a minimum and be ready to ditch the bag.

-Increase your personal boundaries.
It's not easy to keep people away from you. We live in a world where people will encroach upon your personal space and it's unrealistic to think you will be able to keep a ten foot radius of empty space around you at all times. That being the case, it's still important to be aware of who gets within your space and control it as best you are able.

Move away from people if you can, be alert and aware of those who are around you and tell people to stop and back up who make you uncomfortable. Most people who do not intend harm, but may also think you are a little nutso, will respect your request for distance. Those who do not are of more concern and may lead to my next point...

-Carry a less-than-lethal option.
This is not a suggestion as much as a command. Go! Do! Get pepper spray and carry it! Period.

Not everyone who is a threatening presence deserves to be, or can legally be, shot. But they might deserve a good dose of pepper spray. As an individual who should now be able to articulate the reasons why you cannot fight or escape with a baby strapped to your body, you may be able to explain why you preempted by pepper spraying someone who was escalating and making you feel threatened.

This absolutely does not mean that you get to go around pepper spraying people who make you feel uncomfortable. It is, however, an advisable alternative to going hands-on or escalating immediately to lethal force.

-Practice your defensive options with your chosen babywearing options.
Go to the range with your wrap or baby carrier and a weighted baby-doll or bag of kitty litter. Practice drawing and shooting, moving, magazine changes, and single-handed shooting. If you find errors in your carry system work them out now.

Babywearing and carrying a gun may not be the best tactical practice but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done. If you choose to do it, make sure you do it as wisely as possible. Take some practical steps to ensure both you and your baby are as safe and secure as possible.

Announcing You Are Armed

For the purposes of this blog post we're going to assume you are a concealed carrier.

Here's the scenario:

You are confronted with a potential threat. You feel it may escalate to a confrontation involving serious bodily injury or death.

Do you tell or otherwise demonstrate to the individual that you are armed?

There are four ways that you could do this:

Verbally. Saying, "Hey, I have a gun. Back off!"

Implied. Sweeping your cover garment aside and/or placing your hand in the general area of where a firearm is likely to be kept. This is often called a furtive movement and widely recognized by criminals and law abiding citizens alike.

Brandishing. For the purposes of this post we're going to call brandishing the display of a firearm while it's still in the holster with intent to intimidate. Usually brandishing means the display of the firearm is not justified but we'll get to that in a moment.

Implied or brandishing combined with a verbal confirmation. Placing your hand on the firearm or displaying it while it's still in the holster and saying, "I'm armed."

I'm usually a "never say never" kind of gal. But I will say that some things are generally not a good idea. Any of the above responses, in my opinion, are all bad ideas.

The thinking, of course, is that announcing you are armed increases the stakes for the bad guy to a point where he decides to deselect you as a potential target. This has happened and it may work at deterring the threat . But, it may not and when it doesn't deter the threat it generally means you are dealing with someone who isn't afraid of your gun or isn't convinced you will use it, or use it effectively. In which case you are probably in for a violent encounter--an encounter you would be in anyway even if you didn't announce you were armed but now wherein you have lost a significant surprise advantage.

Not only am I a strong believer that a firearm should be kept concealed pretty much at all times, but I also believe that the only time a potential assailant should know that I am armed is when I'm pointing my firearm at him or he's hearing really loud noises and wondering about the strange sensations in his body accompanied by flashes of light.

This isn't an opinion I've borrowed from others. I'm sure there are others out there who will disagree with me but I've decided it's better not to tip my hand. I want the element of surprise and here's why.

You Announced That You Have Something Desirable
A gun is a pretty desirable thing to have if you are a career criminal. And if you don't mind beating someone up to get one, here is someone who just announced that there's one available for the taking if he's willing to take the risk in fighting for it.

The only thing that will likely save you is his ineptitude, your skill, luck or a combination thereof.

There Could Be More Than One
If your training is reputable you are being taught that bad buys come in pairs. In a confrontation you should always assume there is another assailant ready to jump into the fray when you least expect it. That could also happen to be the moment you decide to announce you are armed while fixated on bad guy #1. While there is no honor among thieves, there is potential for a lot of violence, and announcing you're armed might be all that the second assailant needs as ammunition to unleash his violence on you instead of allowing his buddy to interview you further or initiate contact. And his attack will likely be targeted and brutal (more on that below).

Just saying you're armed allows him to speculate as to where it is, but placing your hand over the firearm or displaying it allows both assailants (again, assuming there are two) to plan for it accordingly if they decide to continue their assault. Depending on factors such as distance, holster type and carry method and skill you may not be able to get your firearm out of the holster before your attacker is on top of you and doing serious harm.

You Open Up Dialog
"I have a gun."
"No you don't. I don't see a gun. You think you're all big and bad?"
"No. But I will use it!"
"You don't have to be like that. I don't see any gun and I don't think you'd use it anyway. What's a sweet little thing like you doing with a gun?"

All the while bad guy #2 is sneaking up behind or bad guy #1 is creeping closer and closer and planning his attack.

Dialog is dangerous. If you have to say more than, "BACK OFF!" you're starting down the rabbit hole. A few of the close quarters classes I have been to have demonstrated the dangerous potential of dialog. We naturally allow people to get closer to us when we dialog with them. Dialog also slows down our reaction time because we're thinking about responses instead of defense or offense.

Your safest bet is to shut down dialog immediately with anyone you perceive could be a threat.  If you want to dialog, verbally establish a boundary and have a plan should it be crossed. 

Yes, you could scream, "I'm armed! Back off!" and leave it at that and refuse to engage in any other dialog but then you're still leaving yourself vulnerable to my next point.

You Set Yourself Up For A Targeted, Brutal Attack
When the bad guy knows you're armed and decides to fight you anyway he will target your weapon or attempt to overwhelm you with such violence you are unable to use that weapon. If you don't have retention skills, a very good retention holster and the skills to resist that kind of violence you will likely lose your firearm and/or your life. 

All you have to do is watch altercations with police officers. One of two things happen:
1) The violence of the attack is so brutal the officer rarely has opportunity to defend himself with his firearm, if at all.
2) The gun is immediately targeted and fought for.

What ends these scenarios is death or defeat on the officer's part (at times resulting in the firearm being stolen), a competently trained officer being able to retain his firearm and regain control and fight through his injuries (make no mistake about it, there will likely be injuries--possibly severe) with skill and aggression, the officer using a hidden weapon the bad guy didn't see, or the force of other responding officers ending the confrontation.

You retain a small advantage if you have not revealed the firearm's location (i.e. saying you are armed but not indicating where it is by either touching it or displaying it) but you lose any advantage of surprise.

And here is where I will refer back to the Extreme Close Quarters class I attended in the fall of 2013.

In the final force-on-force scenario with Greg Ellifritz, Greg decided to try to disarm me even though he hadn't seen my weapon. He knew I was armed but he didn't remember where I was carrying my gun (if it was appendix or behind the hip). While we fought, if you watch the video (NSFW, btw), you can see him searching behind my hip for where I would normally carry my Glock. That little bit of confusion on his part allowed me the opportunity to simulate stabbing him in the groin with my trainer knife. I never actually did get to my gun until after I broke contact but neither did he. Had Greg known exactly where my gun was I'm not sure how things would have played out. I prefer to never find out. Or to find out, but in the safety of a training environment because I'm morbidly curious like that. In real life, however, I prefer not to have people trying to take my gun away from me.

I do not think one has to be a skilled fighter to carry a gun but I do think anything less than a skilled fighter trained in weapon retention is taking undue risk by advertising a weapon they can legally conceal.

You Lose A Fighting Arm
If you have done any force-on-force while armed you know how hard it is not to reach down and finger your firearm during the interview portion of the scenario. You know your gun is there and you know that if you need to use it you want to get it out quickly. There's a psychological comfort in having your hand on top of it even if it's not necessarily the best tactical move, especially in close quarters.You soon learn that if you put your hand on your gun you aren't protecting your face and you have one less appendage to use in fighting and controlling your attacker so that you can get in a better position to use your weapon of choice.

Yes, there are times to put your hand on your gun. No, I can't tell you when that will be. A lot of that has to do with distance, gear, skill, size and you will have to figure that out for yourself in a safe training environment. In my opinion you should either have your hands up in a defensive posture ie. the fence or your gun out and in your hand.

In my opinion, the hand goes on the gun as part of the draw stroke.

The key point here is that before you decide whether or not you want to announce you are armed and how you are going to bring a gun into a fight you need to be getting training in those scenarios and practicing them.

This is multiplied if you chose to carry openly on a regular basis.

It's a really bad day when you get your gun targeted, have to fight for it and potentially taken from you and shot with it.

What Advice Would I Give My Younger Self?

What advice would I give my younger self?

Man, that's a hard one.

I've been trying to answer that question ever since Baz Luhrmann came out with the song "Everybody's Free" in 1999. I still don't know what I'd tell my younger self in regards to life to prepare myself for the future. Maybe that's as it should be. I probably wouldn't have listened to myself anyway. My life has been a journey of ups and downs, failures and successes, surprises of all kinds. And not knowing has always been half the fun. Overall, I have nothing to complain about.

Today, however, A Girl And A Gun challenged those on her facebook page to reveal what they would tell their younger selves in relation to self defense.

That, I can do!

It's a narrow enough scope that I can pinpoint specific areas where I could have been better prepared to face the evils of life.

The original challenge was "what would you tell your 20 year-old self?" Well, I'd have to go a lot younger than that to really do much difference in the scope of protecting myself or preventing some of the worst tragedies in my life.

How young? That's a tough one, too.

I decided to look at it from the perspective of a mother. I look at my two sons and my daughter and I think, "When should I start teaching them these lessons?"

The answer is now!

So, if I could go back in time and teach my younger self some self defense lessons I'd go back to the times of a little girl who was terrified of flushing toilets, learning how to tie her shoes, how to write the number "4" and stealing her mother's high heels out of the closet to wear around the house and these are the things I would tell her:

- It's okay to say, "No!" 
In fact, you need to say no. You need to have boundaries and it's good to have boundaries. People who don't respect your boundaries aren't people you should have in your life.

- Your body is your own. PERIOD!
With EXCEPTIONALLY few exceptions, no one has the right to touch you, hold you or ask you to do something with your body that you don't want to do. You don't owe anyone your body.

- Your parents are wrong.
A lot of society will be wrong, too. They will tell you things like, "You are safe here," "This person is okay," "Stay in public places. The public will protect you," "Good girls don't hit." It's confusing, I know, when people you trust tell you things they believe to be true and they turn out to be wrong. It doesn't mean they don't love you, it means they were human. You'll have to learn to discern the truth for yourself and that's where your own instincts, life experience and feelings will have to come in.

- Listen to your instinct.
When that inner voice says, "Something's not right," listen to it. Don't try to talk yourself out of it. Don't let other people downplay your feelings or talk you out of them. You're having those feelings for a reason. But here's a newsflash for you, sweety, you'll be wrong from time-to-time, too.

- It's okay to be angry. 
There are people who waste their lives on anger. They are consumed by it and use it for minor issues where it has no place or they use it disproportionately to the offense. Or they dwell in it, wallowing in it in misplaced comfort and failing to use it as the tool of action it should be. There are also people who never use anger for fear of it. They allow people to misuse them and abuse them and never get angry enough to change their situation.

Don't be either one of those people. Don't misuse or neglect anger. Don't be afraid of it, either.

Anger is a tool of action when you have suffered a legitimate hurt or injustice. Get angry--even if you need to get angry at someone you love. Use that anger to cut through the fear, the societal norms, the lies you've been told about how you or a "good girl" should act. Use it to give you the courage to act, to stand up for yourself, to do something about your situation. If you need to, use that anger to act immediately to save yourself. If it's after the fact, use that anger to give you courage to seek help. Learn to use it appropriately and to the right degree. Then, learn to put that anger away. As useful of a tool as it can be, it will destroy you and your relationships with those you love if you overuse it.

- Learn to hit.
Despite what you've been told, good girls DO hit. They hit hard and in the right way and at the right time. Be a good girl. Learn to hit!

- Get strong.
Seriously! Do it now. Lift weights. Screw running! Your life and the defense thereof will be way easier the younger you do this and the better you maintain it. You'll probably save yourself a lot of aches and pains and open up a lot more opportunities for yourself, too.

- Don't mistake your skill or defensive tool as a talisman.
I know you won't, but here's a reminder anyway. As you get older you will learn the hard lesson that there is no magic talisman against evil. Saving yourself will mean hard work. It will mean exercising your boundaries, your anger, your common sense, instincts, avoidance and learning proficiency with whatever tool or discipline you choose (Hint: choose as many as you can and take time working them all when you can). It will mean working that tool or discipline as regularly as you can which will demand money and time. You will need to keep working those tools and skills and it will become a part of who you are but it won't define you and it shouldn't. Avoiding or defeating evil is a tiny, TINY part of what will make up your life and the joys therein (as it should be), but that doesn't mean you should neglect developing and maintaining your skills in that area.

No one is as devoted or available to defend yourself as you are. You need to be in a condition--physically, mentally, skillfully--to do the fighting for yourself.

- Not everyone is out to get you.
There will be people you trust who will betray you. They will hurt you. They will make you question everything you thought you knew about life, love, trust and who you are. You won't be right about everyone and you will be hurt. Sometimes more than others. Sometimes just emotionally, sometimes physically. But there are other people who do love you. They legitimately want to help, encourage and support you. They won't test your boundaries, instead they will help you build new, stronger ones. They will love you. Rest securely in the love of those people. Seek out those people. Appreciate them, as I know you will. It will be your relationships with those people and the people you meet (and even create with a special someone down the road) that will make it all worth it in the end.

Why Read Words

I'll share a little secret with you: I don't particularly love to read. But I love to learn. Amazingly enough, the two often coincide. Therefore, I love to read. I am a very slow reader so sometimes it takes me a while to catch up but I keep plugging away at it and I'm better off for it because I do learn a lot.

That being said, I'm always astonished how few people are interested in reading about the topics of self defense. Some may follow the occasional blog or visit forums wherein reading is presumably necessary but from time to time it's made very clear that even those are not actually read to be digested before they are commented on.

Worse still is the idea that reading is unnecessary to the understanding of the principles of self defense.

I've seen many a comment to self defense book recommendations that go a lot like the Snotlout quote from How To Train Your Dragon:

"Why read words when you can just kill the stuff the words tell you stuff about?"

Or, as one person commented to a Rory Miller book recommendation, "I don't need to know what makes a criminal a criminal or how he thinks, I just need to know if he's a threat."

There is a certain sort of logic to that but it's also pretty naive. I may set people up for assuming too much or too little in any given encounter and in every aspect no less.

A Mindset Aspect:
Mindset is pretty driven into people who carry guns these days. But there are still a lot of people out there who carry guns who ".. don't want to hurt anyone." They will just, "shoot someone in the leg." They have no concept of awareness, avoidance and they can't recognize a dangerous situation unfolding until it's already gone past the point of no return. Yes, you can get this information from classes but a lot of it comes from sitting down and digesting the written material of those who've already been there.


An Equipment Aspect:
Many people base their carry setup choices based upon the recommendations of those they know ("My friend, who is a cop, told me I should get..."), feelings ("I got this one because it has pink handles"), cost ("It was between this one and that one but this was cheaper") and assumed reputation ("The military carried the 1911 for 70 years (with an empty chamber, no less). If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.")


So much has been written about what makes a good, civilian fighting/carry setup it's impossible to list all of the resources. Despite that fact, many people still skip absorbing the seasoned advice of people who've been there and done it in favor of pink handles and cheap accessories.

Why read? So you don't end up with crap.

A Tactical Aspect:
You may not have $500 to go to the class you want, but you can afford a $15 book on the principles of carry or gunfighting. You may not be able to sit under an instructor who will demo for you the ways to utilize cover, set up your equipment, think about how you walk down the street, clear a room, etc. But you can get the basic gist from a good book or two on the subject.

One of the best students I've ever had came directly to our intermediate class and had never taken a firearms class in his life. All he'd ever done was read, test what he read at the range, watch a few videos online and take what he learned to heart. He was a FINE shooter and had a great rudimentary grasp of everything we were trying to teach. With a few tweaks he was flying and started competing in IDPA the next day.

A Performance Aspect:
What will your bullets do? What won't they do? How far will it travel if you miss? What is cover? What is concealment? What is the penetration of your particular caliber choice in your particular gun? What about your target? What are the best areas to target?

What about your body? How does it work with things like adrenaline? How can you expect to reasonably perform under that kind of stress?

Guess what... There are books about that.

A Potential Threat Assessment Aspect:
So, you don't think you need to know how a criminal thinks or works but when some guy comes up to you and compliments your shoes you have absolutely no concept as to whether or not this is just a nice guy paying you a compliment or a predator using charm as a way to get close enough to victimize you. You have nothing to do but wait until the situation escalates or attempt some sort of immediate shut down.

Why read? Because being able to distinguish between the types of criminals and how they operate can tell you how you might be able to assess them and even be deselected or deescalate the situation.

Why is that important? Because it's always better to deescalate than let it progress to a fight and how you deescalate a situation with one type of criminal is different from how you may deescalate from another.

An Emotional/Psychological Aspect:
So you had your day. You shot someone. There are people out there who are unaffected by this. But a lot of people go through a whole gambit of emotional and psychological stages. Knowing about and/or being prepared for them can help one process and heal. And there are lots of good books on the subject.

A Legal Aspect:
It still astounds me how many people don't care to read about self defense law in general or in their own state.

"I was in fear for my life," is not the begin-all and end-all of your defense.

You do need to know when it's legal to engage and (sometimes more importantly) when it's necessary to disengage. You do need to have a sense of the law so that you can articulate why you were justified in doing what you did.

You do that by reading. If you don't have your state statutes bookmarked on your internet browser yet, what are you waiting for? Get reading!

And I'm just scratching the surface. There are so many more subtopics and theories and principles laid out by great minds worth exploring.

If you're serious about it, you should be reading about it.

Want a good place to start? Greg Ellifritz's "Recommended Reading" link on his website and all of his "free book" links.

Are Your Beliefs/Training Valid?

--> When I was twenty I got myself in an online debate about "knockdown power." Of course I didn't know what the hell knockdown power was. But I truly and genuinely believed that if you shot someone with a handgun bullet they would instantly fall down.

No, I didn't believe they flew across rooms or anything but I remember watching a movie where a man got shot in the shoulder with a handgun, doesn't even twitch, looks down at his wound and then charges the shooter in rage and all I could think was how unrealistic that was.


I was that naive.


So when I entered this debate, I did so under the premise that knockdown power was not only real but something to be relied upon in armed confrontation.


When my opinion was not sufficient to persuade I figured I would overload my nay-sayers with data.

So, the search began. I went to the interwebz and spent non-stop hours searching for a shred of irrefutable proof that a handgun bullet would physically knock a human being off of his feet reliably.

 
The problem was I couldn't find any data to support my argument.

 
I was wrong.

 
And if that weren't bad enough. The people I learned that from, who I thought were more knowledgeable than me in these matters were also wrong.

 
And if they could be wrong about knockdown power what else were they capable of being wrong about?

 
Holy plastic nutcracker, they could be wrong about .... EVERYTHING!

 
This meant only one thing: I would have to verify everything I ever learned. I would have to test it. I would have to do my best to make sure it was valid, not only if I were going to use it or allow it to influence in my own decision making regarding my own safety but especially if I chose to pass that information on to others.

 
The problem with that is that it's time consuming and exhausting and sometimes there is misleading or dated information out there that needs to be updated. Another problem I've seen is with public opinion. They get used to the way it is and resist change, new ideas or tactics. Instead of looking at those things dispassionately, they resort to rejection.

 
How was/am I to know what's valid, what can be changed or updated, what's worth considering, what I'm willing to change my mind about and what I'm not?

 
1) Question everything.
Yes, even the basics, the rules, the absolutes, the truths. If they are worthy they will stand up to scrutiny. If they aren't, they will crumble or will be improved upon.
 
No, this doesn't mean you have to be the jerk in the back of a class who is interrupting every five seconds to ask, "Why?" (Here's a hint: Most good instructors will already tell you why.) Use some common sense, ask valid questions as they arise, take good notes and go home to research and get your second opinion.

 
If the information your questioning is in a written or online form use your google-fu.

 
2) Consider the source.
In this world where anyone can have an opinion and publish it in one forum or another or get some credentials and teach a class, it can be difficult to narrow down whether something is a trustworthy source. There are a LOT of people out there who are vary well-respected (even if that's just locally) and very wrong. There are also people out there who are generally unknown but very knowledgeable. Determining who is worth considering can be difficult. Resort to step 1 and then move on to step 3.

 
3) Find someone (preferably more than one someone) you can trust.
I have been very fortunate to get acquainted with and even become friends with some great instructors and leading individuals in the gun community. Perhaps one of the reasons I've been so fortunate is because I've sought these people out. I have hunted them down and not been shy about asking them questions.

 
They base their opinions on experience, they know how to distinguish between tactics that work for police, military and the civilian sector and they aren't intimidated when asked, "What makes you believe this is better than that?" They have been gracious enough to take my questions and give me the time of day to at least point me in the right direction when it comes to information. I've been sent books, given links, had amazing discussions, learned about biases, and even been told, "I don't know."

 
And that last one should be a big clue. If your trustworthy source isn't willing to say, "I don't know," I doubt their trustworthiness.
 
Many of these people have been around long enough to know and/or trained with a good number of other instructors and aren't afraid to recommend other classes and instruction or steer you in the right direction to meet your goals.
 
Be leery of instructors who discourage you from taking classes from any other source but do consider their warnings if they tell you a certain class or instructor isn't particularly up to par. Yeah, every instructor out there wants business and there are feuds so keep an open mind. Do independent research and come to your own conclusion.

 
But remember step 2. Every instructor and writer and trainer, no matter how good has their biases and/or flaws. Some are biased against certain types of guns or training or methods. It doesn't make them invalid sources but it may be important to see through their bias to avoid casting aside their valid information or instruction.

 
4) Test it.
It's really easy to take something you learn and think it's the begin-all and end-all of what you need to know, especially if it seemed to work well in a certain environment such as a classroom. I've seen this a lot in women’s' self-defense classes. A technique will be taught as "guaranteed to work" but then I go home and test it on a non-compliant partner and it falls apart.
 
Some things being taught are just bad all around. And some are just not right  for you. I've seen lots of techniques (or gear or ideas) that work really well for most everyone that just don't work for me. I will give it an honest try but if it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work. It doesn't mean the technique is completely invalid, just not for me. Sometimes it means that the technique just needs to be worked more to be perfected or adapted to your size and abilities. If it can't be adapted and you've given it an honest effort and it's still not working for you (or not working reliably) it might be time to ditch it.

The only way to know that, however, is to test it as often as you can.
 
This step goes hand-in-hand with step 1. If it's valid, it will work. If it's not it will fall apart or need changing or adapting.

 
5) Don't stop going through the steps... Ever.
Even if something has been tried and tested one hundred times or you've done it this certain way since the first time or you heard it from a hundred different sources, doesn't mean you stop questioning it, updating it, reevaluating it's place in how you prepare, train or think.

You may just learn a new way to apply that same principle or you might find something that works better. But you won't if you aren't willing to open up to different avenues of learning and training.

 
In a world where everything changes, the ones who fall behind will be the ones who think they have it all figured out.

Rangemaster Tactical Conference 2014

Every year Tom Givens puts on a conference in Memphis, TN, at his facility. It is called the Rangemaster Tactical Conference. It consists of three days of instruction by top instructors in the firearms and self defense community. At any given time there can be three to five instructors presenting on any number of topics related to self defense, particularly with a firearm. Most instruction blocks are two hours in length but from time to time and with an important enough topic it's not unheard of to see a whole four-hour block dedicated to one instructor and his information.

After years of hearing great things coming out of the conference we finally made it a priority to attend this year.

The Conference was held on Feb 21-23 and the hardest part was deciding which instruction blocks to attend vs the others.

My schedule started with Shane Gosa, instructor with CQB Services International, talking about The Mental Trigger. This entire two-hour block was largely centered around mindset. Shane had a unique perspective on Jeff Cooper's color codes of awareness, how they were intended to be used and how to apply them to daily life. We did one group visualization technique, discussed mental barriers and the aftermath of violent encounters and finished up with a training exercise on what Shane called, "Accessing State." The exercise is meant to train the mind and body to work together and to limit or completely eliminate the freeze response and allow for a faster and more efficient aggressive, defensive or offensive response. Not only did it address turning the aggression on, immediately, but also turning it off (often the hardest and most damning part of self defense). The lecture concluded with a discussion on winning vs survival, the importance of combat breathing and other tips on getting the most out of training sessions.

Next was Kathy Jackson, author and instructor for Cornered Cat. Her lecture was very bluntly titled "What Women Want" and centered around getting more women to attend professional firearms and self defense training. She opened with statistics about how many women were getting their carry permits and buying guns compared to men (hint, it's a lot more women than you think) and on the high note she dashed us down by showing the number of women who attend regular training past the basic carry class (hint, it's way less women than you'd hope). She drew parallels from other male-dominated fields and how they have fought to retain women. Her discussion on how women often feel in the firearms community (and other male-dominated fields) left my mouth agape in it's accuracy at how I have often felt. She then held back nothing as she talked about some of the common flaws in firearms training that set women up for failure or at least for being undermined in the industry. She slaughtered a few sacred cows (which I was gleeful to see butchered (there were at least two times I literally almost clapped)) and moved on to the best strategies for encouraging women. She was very frank that if you are going to teach women you have to be okay talking about and at least have a working idea of some women's issues like drawing around big breasts, discussing bra or thigh holsters, or even being able to address long fingernails and how it relates to shooting. In short, if you want women to come to your classes, you need to make them feel like they belong in a human space vs feeling like they are guests in a man's house.

After lunch I was off to Jim Higginbotham, a former instructor at Gunsite, from Riposte Training. His lecture was called "Fire for Effect" and entirely centered on how the body reacts to gunfire and how bullets may (or may not) physically stop a determined attacker. He discussed the factors that influence incapacitation, how one should train to maximize the effectiveness of their shots if they are needed and what physically needs to be achieved in order to stop a determined attacker instantly, rapidly or marginally. He addressed head-on the growing concept that it's better to spread your shots around vs making tight groups and how ineffective that can be. He addressed the issue of training scars developed through targets with poorly defined targeting zones and concluded with practice tips on improving ability to make better incapacitating shots.

My last class on Friday was Chuck Haggard, a former SWAT officer and current supervisory officer in Kansas. I had the privilege to meet Chuck at the Rangemaster Instructor Development class in September and we've kept in touch ever since. His block of instruction was on Active Shooters/Terrorist Events. Chuck has been personally involved in two active shooter events and his unique perspective was insightful when going through some of the information. A good majority of the class was going over many of the major active shooter events and discussing the tactics used by law enforcement and what worked and what didn't as far as slowing or stopping the events. He talked about what motivates active shooters and what civilians can do to better prepare for an active shooter event.

Saturday morning started with a four-hour block of instruction by John Hearne; a Rangemaster instructor, federal law enforcement officer and self-proclaimed research geek; called "Performance Under Fire." He gave the four-hour version of an eight-hour class and if I ever get the chance to take it in more depth you will find me there. A long-held belief is that humans are predestined to become quivering masses of unpredictable goo when confronted with traumatic events. John's lecture went over the brain, how it works and functions with other body systems to respond to emergencies, why it is conditioned to do what it does under stress and how it can be optimized to respond better or entirely differently. He explained the difference between the neocortex and limbic system and their roles in traumatic events and how to keep the neocortex in control. He defined what it meant to be untrained, to have learned a skill and what was an overlearned skill. My favorite part of his lecture was what he called the "Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse" that took on the concepts of heart-rate being a key factor in performance, the idea that a "natural" response is somehow superior vs an overlearned response, the famed "startle-response" we all train to start from, the supposed innate aversion we are said to have against killing other humans, and whether or not we really do loose our ability to perform fine motor skills and see something as small as a front sight when fighting for our lives. He concluded his lecture with training tips and tips for instructors on how to maximize student learning. All-in-all a very intensive and eye-opening block of instruction.

And from there I stood in line for twenty minutes waiting to attend Craig Douglas' workshop on Managing Unknown Contacts. Craig Douglas is often known through his former screen name "Southnarc." As his handle would suggest, he was an undercover narcotics officer who has since retired and started his own training company called shivworks. The man has a stellar reputation in the training community that is well-deserved. Many of his techniques were developed directly from his own experience interacting on a regular basis with the criminal element. The workshop was based around the simple premise that you are being approached by an unknown individual. You need to decide whether or not this individual is a potential threat with enough time and/or distance to do something about it if it turns out this individual means you harm. We spent most of the instruction block working his three-part interaction system of Verbalizing, Moving and preparing your Hands for action. He then went over four of the most common pre-fight indicators and we practiced identifying them in class. Lastly, we talked about what to do if we are still unsure of the genuine intent of an individual but decide we want to help them vs shutting them down. This was mostly a live-action class worked with other partners and a great exercise in staying relatively safe while deciding if someone is a legitimate threat or not.

My final Saturday class was Skip Gochenour, a retired police investigator who specialized in homicides and helped prepare cases for trial. Skip's lecture was titled "Problem Two: On Trial." In other words, you've survived a lethal encounter (problem one) but now you are being charged with a crime (typically some form of homicide). He opened his lecture with some pretty harsh facts about the law and legal system, the hardest to accept by your average gun-totter being that the truth has absolutely no relevance in a court of law. If a question cannot be clearly answered by the evidence it is what is considered "a jury question" at which point a prosecutor and defense attorney will both make a case on how they interpret the evidence and the jury makes a declaration and what they believe the evidence likely indicates what happened. He went over a lot of history of our legal system and broke down what four main questions a prosecutor will ask in order to determine whether or not someone acted in self defense. He then moved on to what criteria the jury will look at as to whether or not they will convict (or acquit) someone of the various degrees of murder. One of the quotes of the class that particularly resonated with me was, "When you decide you will take on problem one you agree to accept the bill and pay for problem two no matter what the cost." Be that emotional, financial, physical, legal or in prison. A sobering reminder of the responsibilities involved in carrying a firearm.

Sunday morning opened with Cecil Burch, a career martial artist and instructor. His block of instruction was titled Immediate Action in Extreme Close Quarters. In short, you've just been taken by surprise in a violent attack and you can't get to or don't have a gun. What do you do? This was another live-action workshop and we spent much of it on our feet working with partners to protect our most vital area (the head) and work on switching from a defensive posture to an offensive one and gaining ground to either fight, access tools or flee.

Next I attended Tom Givens' Active Shooter lecture. His lecture differed from Chuck's in that he did not spend a lot of time discussing individual cases but rather patterns across many active shooter events. He went over a lot of information that is already known in the community such as the fact that most active shooter events happen in gun-free zones, a large portion of them being schools, and that the shooters tend to be lone, white males with one gun. He went over the phases of an active shooter from fantasy all the way to the shooting and how the best time to stop an active shooting is in the planning or preparation stage. He discussed the difference in outcomes with civilian's have responded to active shooters vs law enforcement with the results being in favor of a civilian response. Lastly, he talked about what to do if caught up in an active shooter event and wrapped it up with an admonition to be armed and fight for abolition of gun-free zones.

After lunch was William Aprill's lecture titled, "Fatal Choices." William Aprill is a psychologist who works with criminals in a law enforcement capacity and a brilliant speaker. His lecture was primarily about what makes a criminal pick a particular individual to victimize. His initial task was to distinguish between those who are targeted and those who are victimized. Anyone can be targeted but only a portion of those are actually chosen to be victimized and that comes down to a criminal deciding whether or not that target is a "go" or "no go." How does he make the decision? William went into depth about what is called "thin-slicing" and it's connection to the intuitive mind that allows us to make instant and more-often accurate decisions about people based on very limited, external data. Facial expressions, gait, appearance, even the amount of multi-tasking we seem to be taking on in a particular moment, can all be factors in what makes a criminal decide whether or not to victimize a particular target. He talked about what we can do to lower our chances of being targeted in the first place or even "deselected" as a "go." Of all of the presentations at the conference, it was William's that fascinated me the most and has made me want to research much more into the topics of thin-slicing and how it relates to criminal choice.

Finally, when I thought I could cram no more into my little brain I sat down in Greg Ellifritz's "Armed Citizen Response to Terrorist Bombings." Anyone who has followed my blog for any length of time has seen Greg's name before. He's one of my favorite instructors and this is my third class with him. He's the author and lead instructor for Active Response Training. He holds more instructor certifications than I care to list at the moment and his topic of the day was bombs. He went over what they are, how they work, how we might be able to identify them and how they are being used by terrorists and active shooters. After pretty much letting us all in on the terrifying reality that there's not much you can do about a bomb he dampened the mood even further by alerting us to the fact that most active shooter/terrorist bombs are homemade and unstable and it's not even a safe bet to try to shoot someone, even if you are 100% sure he has a bomb. If you choose to do so you're doing so with the expectation that you're going to die and generally not going to stop the bomb from going off anyway given the instability of the device, handlers who will set it off anyway, timers, or a hit to the device that triggers it early. He did try to end it on an upbeat note by assuming if we were involved in a bombing we were far enough away or able to get to cover quickly enough to survive. He talked about steps to take to identify secondary devices, how to manage other survivors of the blast and then talked about relative safe distances and cover from certain sizes of devices (which can vary depending on device).

On that happy note we piled in our car, went for some good bbq and just about crashed in an information-overload coma.

These were only the classes I was able to attend. There were so many more I missed and am disappointed for it.

I got to meet some of my heroes and other top-name instructors, got to network with some great people and trainers, meet some of the people who have followed me for years and generally rub shoulders with some great, like-minded individuals.

In addition to the instruction, there is an ongoing pistol match which I shot on Saturday night and learned later that out of 129 shooters I came in 22. To say I was pleased would be an understatement.

I'm not done processing the information from the conference and I fully expect to write more in depth thoughts on several of the training blocks I attended, but for now, I'll leave you all with the admonition that if you can even remotely conceive of going to a Tactical Conference you should do so!

I plan on returning often! I hope to see you there!

Realities and Legalities of Child Snatching: Part 3

Note: Throughout this blog I refer to some legal code and legal issues. All codes quoted are for the state of Iowa. Check for differences in your own state code. I am not a lawyer and all opinions are from a layman's perspective.

In Part One, we discussed the legalities of determining whether or not your could reasonably use lethal force against someone who snatched your child from you, what kidnapping is and what it is not.

In Part Two, we discussed using less-than-lethal force against someone holding your child, whether or not it is necessary and the types of force one can employ.

In this segment we are going to discuss using lethal force against someone holding your child and the realities of what that might entail if it is, indeed, necessary.

PART THREE: LETHAL FORCE AGAINST SOMEONE HOLDING YOUR CHILD

The scenario we opened with in the beginning of this series was a woman who snatches a child from a mother who is attempting to put the child into a carrier. The woman believes the carry method is unsafe and holds the child, neither threatening the child nor the mother but does not return the child to the parent.

In Part One and Two the woman doing the snatching never implied any harm to the child or the parent.

In this segment we are going to take all ambiguity out of it and up the stakes.

The child is snatched, the woman refused to return the child and has produced a weapon and stated she intends to do the child harm and lethal force is justified.

I know many parents who have stated they would rather have their child die in front of them from a bullet they fired than have their child taken, tortured, molested or assaulted and never found or found mutilated days, months or years later. I'm inclined to agree but I think every one of us would do our best to minimize the chances of that happening. The problem is that not many parents know how to minimize those risks. Without the proper information, training and practice their skills set them up for potentially killing the very person they are trying desperately to defend.

First, let's talk about guns. For the sake of brevity I'm going to assume you are armed, your firearm is in good working order and accessible. I'm also going to assume that you can access this firearm without having to neutralize an attack first. You are set to take the shot.

1. Shooting The Hostage Taker (Distance Shots)
Deciding when to shoot is the question of the ages. There is a delicate balance of timing, distance, threat and more and when you put a child--YOUR child--between yourself and the bad guy you are upping the stakes considerably, especially if your child is being threatened with death or serious bodily harm, or worse, in the process of being harmed.

I have done lots of hostage-taker shooting, both with actual hostage targets in shoot houses and in IDPA-type matches where no-shoot targets are overlaid on hostile targets. The most challenging (and dare I say, realistic) are when either the no-shoot or the hostile targets also move.

It's not easy.

As accurate as a bullet has potential to be, it is only as accurate as you are and I have seen MANY bullet holes in hostages or no-shoot targets. I have put some of them there.

Finding little data for civilians shooting hostage-takers, I asked a trainer friend of mine who routinely puts concealed carry pistol students through live-fire shoot houses with a variety of hostage targets if he would estimate how many of the students shoot the hostage and this was his response:

"I'd guess 50%. Others miss everything. Others make a very poor shot on bad guy and very very few actually make a stopping hit on bad guy. I've learned. Never be a hostage...."

Keep in mind. Most of these targets do not move. They are static targets and the hostage is hit as often as 50% of the time. Now imagine that hostage is your child.

For individuals advocating "just shooting" the man (or woman) who took your child. Could you reasonably expect to hit the bad guy vs your own child? What practice or training have you done to make you more confident in your abilities? If the individual is running with your child do you know if you need to lead the target or how to lead the target and at what distances you would need to increase that lead with your particular caliber or gun? Can you do that under duress? When's the last time you practiced such skills?

Sometimes a distance shot is the only option. Can you physically make that shot? What if you could attempt a contact shot?

2. Shooting The Hostage Taker (Contact Distance)
I like contact shots and in a hostage situation involving my child where there was clear intent to do my child harm or to kill him I would hope for the opportunity to make a contact shot vs a distance shot.

Why? Because there's less chance of my child being hit or injured and I might even be able to take temporary control of my child in order to make a better shot.

One of the many parts of the Partner Tactics class I attended that was enlightening to me (and again in Extreme Close Quarters) was the concepts of "Partner Rescue." Or, in this case, child-hostage rescue.

In order to understand how dangerous it is to shoot at two people--one of which you have a vested interest is NOT injuring--you must understand that shooting a gun is not instantaneous. It's fast, but many times it's not fast enough.

In the time between deciding to shoot and the bullet impacting the intended target, your intended target could very well have moved or been moved. This is why follow-through is so important to accurate shooting and why moving individuals who you don't intend to shoot get shot.

How do you keep that from happening?

You need to buy yourself time through control.

In other words, you need to get yourself into the mix.

For an adult partner we practiced doing this by grabbing onto your partner and moving with him or her, finding a free space on the attacker that would ideally be incapacitating (more on that later), contacting it with the muzzle of the firearm, finding an angle that will not allow any pass-through bullets to hit one's self or the partner, backing off the muzzle so that it was not forced out of battery (in the case of a semi-auto) and taking the shot.

Yes, it's a lot. It may mean getting beat up a bit as the three of you wrestle around and sometimes there are no perfect angles. But it beats the heck out of trying to make a distance shot on a moving target with your child in arms even if that distance is mere feet.

For a child, I would ideally find a way to wrap my arm around the child and pull him or her to myself or myself into him and the individual holding him. If possible I might even try to tear the child away from the individual holding him or her. Might I injure the child in the process? Yes. But I'd rather a broken or twisted arm than a bullet hole. This might change if the child is an infant and violent movement could result in coup-countercoup (whiplash) or similar injuries. The rest of the steps would be identical.

The only potential good thing about shooting an adult holding a child is that children are very small shields. You may have more available targeting areas and less worry about pass through striking the child. A grown adult male holding an infant leaves most of his head, abdomen and lower extremities completely exposed.

3. Targeting
When it comes to shooting someone who is threatening the life or limb of your child, dare I say there is no "bad" shot but there are better shots.

Bones of the Skull

Many people like head shots and for good reason. There's a lot of really vital stuff up there and a good head shot gives you a pretty good chance of complete incapacitation vs something like an abdomen or extremity shot where the fight can continue for even extended periods of time.

But even head shots are not guaranteed show stoppers. Heads are exceptionally well fortified with bone. Bullets have been known to bounce off or fail to penetrate said bone, particularly the frontal, jaw (mandible), occipital and parietal bones. Some ricochets have even been fatal to those nearby. You certainly wouldn't want your ricocheted head shot to be the thing that killed your child. 

Though the facial bones and the side bones (the temporal and sphenoid) are not as thick or strong they still provide plenty of opportunity for deflection. Good head shots are considered shots within the inverted triangle of the tip of the nose to the brow-line.

Greg Ellifritz wrote a very good and short write up on head shots and within that article and his Extreme Close Quarters class he advocates that if the head is available to shoot, usually the neck is also available. There's a lot of very vital stuff in the neck (airway, nerves, major blood vessels and cervical spine) that can lead to incapacitation very quickly. It's also a decent opening to the thoracic cavity if you if you shoot down from the clavicle towards the heart and lungs.

If the head and neck are not available, the thoracic cavity containing the lungs and heart is another good target. It's large and not as well protected as the head. It also contains two of the most vital structures to life (the lungs and heart). Be aware that even direct hits to the heart and lungs do not always produce immediate stops.

The lesser vital organs of the body are tucked into the lower abdomen. Though they are not considered optimal targets they will do.

The pelvis is very vascular. That is to say it has a lot of major blood vessels running through it. There are also some major structures there that, if damaged, could make it impossible for an attacker to continue standing or use one or both legs.

Finally, extremity (arm and leg) shots are considered least ideal but, again, I would not hesitate to take the shot if it was the only one I could reasonably get while in extreme close quarters with an attacker and fighting for mine and my child's lives.

This is all being mindful of trajectory should the bullet pass through the intended target. If the bullet followed a straight path (sometimes it doesn't) would it exit the bad guy and enter your child or a part of you?

4. Knives and Other Lethal Tools
Some people prefer knives or other lethal tools in extreme close quarters if their state will allow them to carry them. Sometimes, if in a state that does not allow firearm carry a knife or other tool may be all that is available. Do you know how to target with a knife? Do you have any training in using a knife to incapacitate? What would you do to ensure you did not cut your child? If using another object as a lethal object such as a baton, are you confident you could hit the attacker and not your child? Are there be less optimal targeting areas with less risk to your child?

Now I'm going to add a few more monkeys to the pile. What if the attacker is holding a gun or knife to your child? What are you going to do? Is it possible to make a fight-stopping shot before he can pull the trigger or stab your child? If you are able to close distance and make contact, how are you going to ensure you and/or your child don't get shot or cut in the process? What is your priority, getting to his weapon or getting to your own weapon?


5. Injuries
Finally, what if your child is injured? Can you treat him or her?

When the body is injured it begins to compensate for the injury as long as can. When the body can no longer compensate for the injury it goes into a state of decompensation, the end of which is often death. Children decompensate faster than adults. Their bodies cannot sustain a compensated state as long. They have less blood volume to lose and their lungs often give out faster than an adult's.

Are you certified in child CPR? Can you stop a hemorrhage in your own child? What do you have on hand to aid you toward that end? If you have purchased a commercial trauma kit will all of the tools within fit a child? What about an infant? Do you know how to improvise things like tourniquets and pressure bandages if the items won't fit your child?

Don't be seduced by the idea that there are simple or easy answers to these questions or that you could "just shoot" someone holding your child. Imagine with me, if you will, the life-time of regret that may come from accidentally killing your child over a less-than-lethal situation or a poorly executed shot or act.

Don't let your passion for your loved one get them killed by your own lack of knowledge, training or skill--or worse, by your own delusion that such a situation is easy (legally, tactically, emotionally or physically).

Part One: Is It Legal
Part Two: Force Against Someone Holding Your Child

Realities and Legalities of Child Snatching: Part Two

Note: Throughout this blog I refer to some legal code and legal issues. All codes quoted are for the state of Iowa. Check for differences in your own state code. I am not a lawyer and all opinions are from a layman's perspective.

In Part One, we discussed the legalities of determining whether or not your could reasonably use lethal force against someone who snatched your child from you.

We discussed when someone snatching your child is kidnapping and when it is not per Iowa state law (I strongly recommend that parents look up the definitions of kidnapping in their own state).

In this segment we're going to discuss using less-than-lethal force against someone holding your child and, in Part 3 we will discuss using lethal force.

The scenario we started with in Part One was a woman snatching a child from a mother and not returning the child to the mother but neither fleeing the scene or showing intent to harm the child.

The goal is to get the child back unharmed and quickly. What level of force do we need to use to accomplish that goal? Do we even need force at all? Do not underestimate the power of a broad smile and a feigned, "Thanks for the suggestion," while you take your baby back.

Use your Verbal Judo. Understand deescalation and ways to calm yourself and other individuals and manipulate them into doing what you want.

Also, do not underestimate the power of drawing attention to the scene. A woman yelling, "She took my baby. Call the police! That woman has my baby," can be quite effective in making the snatcher with no ill-intent return the child for fear he or she will be perceived as a child-abductor. If you choose this method enlist the help of specific individuals on scene. Speaking in generalities to a crowd (if there is a crowd) tends to bring attention but little action. Find one or two specific people you can single out and command their action. "Ma'am!," (point to a specific woman) "Call the police. That woman took my baby. ... Sir!" (again, make it specific) " Help me! That woman has my baby." You are far more likely to get responses out of onlookers.

You don't always have to make it escalate to force if it doesn't have to go there.

But, because this is a blog about force, let's discuss it.

PART TWO: FORCE AGAINST SOMEONE HOLDING YOUR CHILD

Many people who consider using force against someone holding a loved one do so with little consideration to the fact that the loved one is an intricate part of confrontation.

Even considering hitting, pushing or use of other levels of force means the possibility that the child might also be injured. The age of the child may have a large affect on how much collateral damage the child can take. A newborn who is dropped because you hit or startled the individual holding him can suffer brain damage and more. A toddler might be able to take more but what levels of force are you willing to involve your children in at what age?

What level of force are you comfortable using and how would you use it to minimize damage to your child? What training do you have to make your force effective and targeted that might spare your child involvement? At what point would the potential for damage by your hand be worth the risk of death or greater bodily harm by the perpetrator?

There are several levels of force. From least amount to most:

• Presence
• Commanding voice
• Threat of force 
• Calling the police
• A threat to injure, wound or kill
• Brandishing a weapon 
• Physical Force
• Pushing, hitting, the use of less-than-lethal tools
• Lethal Force
• The use of open hands to maim or kill (eye gouges and choke holds), knives, batons, guns or the use of any other tool in a manner that can cause serious bodily injury or death.

Presence and Commanding Voice
Many people underestimate presence and a commanding voice. People who actually study inter-human relations based on posture, presence and voice have proven that individuals who act authoritative often receive the respect and deference their presence suggests. This includes confident posturing such as holding the head up, chest broad, hands on hips and feet planted and apart.

This combined with an authoritative voice (low, loud, and demanding) can often result in commands being met.

Men may not have as much difficulty adopting a commanding presence, especially around women who are smaller than they are. A man commanding a woman to give his child back in an authoritative manner would likely have the child immediately returned to him.

Women can find it more difficult to be authoritative due to our small statures and frame or cultural upbringing. Some women mistake volume for pitch and instead of sounding low and loud they sound high-pitched which can sound more panicked instead of commanding.

Many do not consider practicing a commanding, confident presence part of self defense training, however, that skill can end a conflict or even deter one from choosing you as a victim in the first place. Practice authoritative posturing and a commanding voice. Practice it in social environments (getting everyone's attention at a gathering, teaching a class, etc).

Threat of Force
If the simple command of returning my child did not work I would immediately call authorities. It is still a level of threat of force that does not pose any risk to myself and it establishes that the situation has gotten quite serious.

Be aware that the threat of harm can be assault if it is not justified. Also be aware that your threat of force could cause the individual to escalate into threatening harm to your child.

Physical Force
From here out the level of force you choose to use will depend on more factors than we could possibly discuss. Here are some things to consider.

In the scenario, the individual who snatched the child was a woman. Would your level of force be different if it was a man? How old is she or he? Are you comfortable threatening further force realizing that this may escalate the situation or would it be better to wait for authorities provided he or she continues to remain on scene and the implied intent has not changed?

If you choose to escalate are you considering the harm you might be putting your child in? Is your priority to get your child out of the situation or to fight? Have you considered, if you are armed, that if your weapon is discovered in the altercation the snatcher might try to go for it while in the midst of a fight? What would you do do defend both your gun and your child? Has there been any change in implied intent that makes you believe you need to act sooner rather than waiting for authorities? What level of force are you competently trained in? Could you go hands on with a woman or a man? Do you carry a less-than-lethal tool you might be able to use?

If your child is injured, how would you assess and/or treat him or her?

The suggestion of pepper spray was brought up in discussing the opening scenario on Facebook and this was a response that was given:



Consideration is being made for the child being exposed to pepper spray but no consideration is being put into the damage that could be done if the child was hit with a bullet. There's also little consideration going on as to the jump in force from non-lethal to lethal. The assumption seems to be that if you are justified in pepper spraying you are justified in shooting. This is simply not true.

I, for one, would GREATLY prefer washing pepper spray out of my child's face than trying to treat him or her for a gunshot wound. I would do anything I could to avoid bringing a gun into a situation involving my child (or any situation for that matter) and would not hesitate to use a less-than-lethal option if I reasonably believed it would be effective and minimize the potential for harm to my child.

Sometimes there is no time to consider less-than-lethal options or to attempt deescalation or verbal judo. The situation is immediate and dire. Action is demanded. But if you have time to consider your options you likely have time to deescalate or use a lesser form of force. If you choose to use force you must be competent in that use of force and decide its appropriateness in the given situation.

Part One: Is It Legal
Part Three: Lethal Force Against Someone Holding Your Child