When All Hell Breaks Loose: Stuff You Need to Survive When Disaster Strikes

by Cody Lundin

  CODY: Yeah, it's true. I think fear is frequently a reflexive response to the unknown. So the more people learn about unknown variables and how to deal with them, the more apt they are to survive a crisis or, better yet, use their training to avoid one in the first place. I know that the Combato system mentions command presence in its training. What is command presence and how can it be developed?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Command presence is not something you can teach per se, although perhaps you can develop it in someone. Have you ever been in a situation, and I know you have, where there's an emergency and there's a certain person present who takes control and inspires confidence? Take a simple thing such as going into a convenience store to buy a carton of milk. Most people are walking around, staring at their feet, almost apologizing for breathing the air around them, versus someone who has their head up and knows what they're doing and has a no-nonsense demeanor about them. It's not an arrogant thing; it's just simply and confidently going about the things you need to do. As confidence increases through training, command presence comes automatically. You can't affect command presence; you can't fake that kind of thing. Faking confidence is instantly seen as weakness, especially by predator types.

  CODY: You mentioned some of the Combato techniques earlier. In the average home there are lots of things lying around. Can people improvise self-defense weapons from common household items, such as a stapler or a pencil, that can be used in an emergency?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Yes, absolutely. The natural weapons of the body do a number of things. One, they prepare us for situations where we don't have a weapon at hand. But why would you defend yourself against a deadly attack and not use a weapon? A gun is great but might not be available or legal, so learn how to use everyday objects to deliver the knockout you need to stop the attacker. Pens, cell phones, remote controls, bottles, lighters, chairs, books and magazines, dirt, forks and spoons, rulers and more can all be utilized to the defender's advantage.

  CODY: How about a pen? I have a pen sitting right here for this interview. How would you use that?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Well, perfect. So if we're going to chop an attacker in the throat, let's think about what we're trying to do—we are trying to damage the airway. Now if I simply, with my palm down, grasp the pen and let it protrude out, maybe an inch or two, and now chop with the impact point being the pen, doing destruction to the airway or to the eye socket, clearly the effectiveness of that strike has increased. The chin jab smash uses the heel of the hand up under the chin. The key point here is brutally smashing up under the chin. This book could be held in two hands and the binding driven up under the chin to great effect. Clearly, this would only be justified in a life-threatening situation where no other alternatives exist.

  CODY: I mention canned goods in the food section. Could someone hold a can of food and strike with that?

  * * *

  USING A MAGAZINE OR NEWSPAPER AS A WEAPON

  1 Take a magazine or newspaper and roll it up tightly into a tube.

  2 Grasp the magazine or newspaper in your striking hand.

  3 Let an inch or two of it stick out from your clenched fist.

  4 Use the hardened tube to attack the attacker's target areas such as the temple, jaw hinge, eye sockets, etc.

  * * *

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: That would be an excellent weapon. The chin jab held with a can upright in the hand could be driven up and under the chin as a weapon. The can could be thrown in the face of the attacker, a side kick delivered to his knee, followed by a chin jab, followed by another can grabbed to smash the head. The choices are endless. A cell phone in the hand could be used to chop with and so forth.

  There are different types of improvised weapons. Some are going to bludgeon, some are going to be impact weapons, and some are going to be cutting weapons. But the point is they all do more trauma to the human body. There are three areas of the body that are generally attacked: the band, temple to temple; the centerline of the body; and the kicking triangle composed of the knees and testicles.

  Any type of impact weapon or cutting weapon could be used in the band area, to the eyes for example. Something as simple as a car key can be held and driven into the eye. You need to do the most damage as quickly and ruthlessly as possible to knock the attacker or attackers unconscious or allow you to safely flee the area. As you can imagine, improvised weapons could be the subject of a book in itself. If an item can't be used to directly strike an assailant it can be thrown into the attacker's face, such as throwing dirt into the eyes, to distract them in order to set up the next defensive attack combination.

  CODY: I've heard of several scenarios in the news where someone robs a restaurant for instance, and then starts hassling the people, who choose to do nothing, as opposed to people who started doing things such as throwing salt shakers, glasses, or ketchup bottles at the assailant. Is this a good thing to do?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: That would be an excellent thing to do. We don't want to just let the attacker go unchecked in what he's doing. There was an incident a few years ago where people were lain out prone upon the floor to be executed. One of the survivors was interviewed and said there was nothing he could do but lay on the floor and wait to be killed. This is not the combat mind-set. Move, get into action, throw something at the attacker, flee, do SOMETHING, and get into action to get the attacker under stress!

  CODY: So it sounds like, as with a lot of my training, that mind-set is everything and with the proper mind-set, you can take almost anything from your environment and use it to your advantage to help stay alive in a self-defense scenario.

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Well put, Cody. Technique is always subservient to mind-set.

  CODY: As it's so critical, let's talk a bit more about mind-set. What exactly is a combat mind-set?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: The combat mind-set, simply put, means that a person under attack is going to feel intense rage at the person coming after them and feel very natural in the process of going about destroying them. Really, a mind-set is simply a collection of beliefs pertaining to a certain area. So when you cultivate mind-set in your students, you're perhaps changing beliefs in certain areas about certain things, as I am with my students. There are several areas of belief that often need to be altered in a situation of self-defense. For example, sometimes a person firmly believes it's never right to injure another person under any circumstance. Or another belief that is often firmly embedded and gets in the way of a person defending himself is that he is not going to succeed and will only make matters worse if he fights back. Of course, in a self-defense situation these are totally irrational. Again, the combat mind-set is simply a belief structure that revolves around a combative situation. The proper response to someone trying to hurt you should be rage, anger, and action.

  CODY: So I think it's probably safe to say that every mother, if any harm were to be directed at her children, would have a natural combat mind-set.

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: You bet. I'll train women and often they'll say, "Oh, gosh, Mark, I don't know if I can do that attack technique or not." I then ask them what they would do if someone was going to hurt their son or daughter. Instantly their facial expression changes, they start to grit their teeth, and they'll often say something like, "I'd kill that son of a bitch!" I then remind them that they are just as important as their kid. Sometimes the combat mind-set is easier to apply to protect a loved one than to protect the individual herself. Again, we're back to altering belief structures—maybe their self-esteem just needs a little boost.

  CODY: In my field, a lot of survival training is bogus as it assumes the survivor will be a physically fit, twenty-four-year-old Special Forces soldier with a gung-ho mind-set. Is it the same for self-defense training? I mean, what about a typical home where there are going to be women, children, and maybe even grandparents living at the house? Can these people defend themselves?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Of course they can defend themselves, and, unfortunately, they're going to be the ones who ar
e targeted, as predators will go after the weakest individuals that they feel they can easily victimize. Nothing really changes with these individuals other than it behooves them all to understand that they are in a deadly circumstance every time. They need to realize that they are fighting for their lives and that they must do the most decisive, destructive thing quickly. Weapons, or at the very least having something in the hand to strike with, will become more important. One of the things to keep in mind with these individuals is that they have a tremendous advantage with the element of surprise if they learn how to use it. No one would ever expect an elderly person to even fight back, let alone fight back effectively. So in a situation where the attacker is threatening, or the attack is mounting, a woman, elderly person, or child can fain compliance, go along with them, convince them that they aren't going to fight back, and thereby create an opening that might not exist for someone like you or me. In other words, the attacker might be less wary and open himself to being attacked with a quick chop to the throat, which would pave the way for more follow-up strikes.

  CODY: So family members don't need to feel out of place, they could even set up a counter-decoy for the more able-bodied family members to fight back. So there's a place in self-defense for each family member, is that what you're saying?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: That's correct. When you look at actual incidences of self-defense, you'll note that the people who do successfully defend themselves usually are not martial artists or athletes. They are everyday women, children, and elderly people. The common denominator that I see, other than luck, over which we have no control, is that they all take action. Oftentimes women who fight back will defend themselves against rapists. Their mind-set is right and they are not about to be taken into that car or whatever. With this combative mind-set, their chances for success go way up, whether they fight back well or not, they should just fight!

  CODY: As far as improvised weapons go, I guess Grandma could use her cane or whatever, right? Nothing changes concerning using improvised weapons with the elderly, kids, or women?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Correct, other than they are more justified in their use and won't have to fear any kind of legal repercussion if the situation is handled properly when the authorities show up.

  CODY: What about a smaller person needing to defend herself against a larger, more powerful attacker?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: First off, keep in mind that people do it all the time. Smaller individuals defeat larger, stronger, more skilled individuals regularly. This isn't a sport; you're not in the ring; you're not squaring off with this individual. Remember that the attacker will have no idea that you are prepared and ready to launch a preemptive attack against him. When looking at a larger person, the smaller person needs to realize that you don't look at the strength of the individual. Look at his eye sockets. Are they any stronger than anyone else's? The throat, not much stronger than anyone else's; the testicles, same thing, and so forth. You have to look at the weak parts of the body, use the element of surprise, and destroy these targets. Perhaps the single greatest advantage that the defender has is the element of surprise.

  CODY: Are there any basic assumptions that one can make regarding an attacker?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Absolutely. You should always assume, regardless of your size or strength or ability, that your attacker will be stronger, bigger, more skilled, and faster and that he will be determined to fight to the death. Also, if you're doing everything that this chapter has outlined to avoid conflicts in the first place, there is a very good possibility that you're dealing with a psychopathic personality, a very dangerous individual who would be willing to do anything to you. It's not uncommon that somebody might kill a clerk when they steal a six-pack of beer from a store. Assume that you're dealing with a very, very dangerous adversary every time.

  CODY: What should people look for in an effective self-defense school and what kind of questions should they ask the instructor?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Look for a school that focuses entirely on self-defense, that there is no sporting aspect to what they're doing. It should also be self-defense in the extreme, in other words, worst-case-scenario situations. What if the attacker is highly motivated or high on drugs? If so, it's going to take a lot to stop that attacker. The school's curriculum should focus on offense, attacking the attacker, not on defensive responses of how to deal with an attack once it's already underway. In my school we teach counterattacks such as how to escape choke holds and bear hugs, and many other scenarios, but this is secondary to preemptive striking when attack is imminent. Ask the instructor if they spar, in other words, how the techniques are practiced, if they compete in sporting systems, and how long their classes last. You don't want anything to do with sparring, sports-type systems for self-defense. The school should teach ruthless, brutal, violent techniques—it's the only way to stop a violent attacker.

  CODY: So what if I drop an attacker? Will I be prosecuted for defending myself?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Well, first understand that this question can only be fully answered by an attorney. People should consult an attorney in their area about the laws of self-defense. Having said that, laws regarding self-defense differ from state to state. The place you would find the answer to these questions would be on the jury instructions for justifiable homicide. In the state of Arizona, for example, I can tell you that there are a number of things that are looked at—one of the biggest being what was the perception of the defenders at the time they defended themselves. Did they fear for their lives? Also, another thing that is commonly looked at is whether the defender had an escape option but did not take it. If you're ever in a situation where you have the time or the means to escape and you don't do so, you will never have a right to self-defense. It has to be unavoidable, unprovoked self-defense. Another factor in the state of Arizona is whether the defender provoked the self-defense situation in any way. If you get into an argument with somebody, and he pulls a knife and tries to stab you, you have a legitimate self-defense situation. But the legal courts may see it differently: if they decide that you provoked the situation, you will lose your right to self-defense. This all gets pretty complicated. Basically, go out of your way to stay out of trouble and not get into arguments—saying whatever needs to be said to appease the other person and only fighting when there is no other choice.

  It's important that you are frightened for your life, and that you feel that you're going to be seriously harmed or killed if you don't take action. This needs to be made clear to the authorities. So if you are asked if you were afraid of this person, of course you were afraid of the person—drop the macho nonsense.

  CODY: Will the elderly or women have any easier time, so to speak, in the courtroom compared to some 300-pound body builder?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: I would have to say no. An elderly person could successfully defend himself and when questioned by the authorities say, "I wasn't afraid of these punks for a moment, they got what they deserved!" The police will have no choice at this point but to arrest the elderly person because there was no perception of fear.

  CODY: So what you say when the authorities show up is vitally important.

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Yes, and if someone ends up seriously hurt, you have every right to ask for legal counsel and not talk until you have someone who will advise you about what to say. Unfortunately, that's the system we live in.

  CODY: So that gives credence to the Combato system of relaxed ready, too, doesn't it, because it's totally nonthreatening. If someone looked up from a crowd at a defender with their hands up, angled off, and they were saying, "Hey, I don't want any problem with you," that would be good from a legal aspect and yet that person is totally wired and ready to defend himself if necessary. Would you agree with that?

  PROFESSOR BRYANS: Yes, I would completely agree with that.

  CODY: This is primarily a home-based book on self-reliance, but the chances are high that at some point a member of the family will need to travel to another location, whe
ther to get supplies or to evacuate because of a disaster. That said, what about dealing with a carjacking?