Just two seconds

by Gavin De Becker; Thomas A. Taylor; Jeff Marquart

  When I was in the military, I had the opportunity to free-fall parachute out of a perfectly good airplane. When I immediately recalled the first jump experience, it appeared to be a virtual slideshow. Only key images where etched into my mind. I remember checking my altimeter numerous times, verifying the location of my rip-cord (this dates me!), seeing the beauty of an inflated canopy and finding the "T" and then contact with the ground. The entire event was 5-7 minutes long. After 60-100 jumps the staccato slideshow morphed into a streaming digital video. Same time frame, but now my brain did not have to spend precious resources finding a "spot" to burn the information in since it was no longer new information but familiar territory. I could now casually see everyone exit the aircraft, immediately place myself in proper perspective to all jumpers, the aircraft and the ground. I was spending plenty of time doing relative work with other jumpers, flying my canopy and landing extremely close to the desired target. I was now able to assimilate huge blocks of visual data effortlessly, as well as recall them with great accuracy and clarity. I was now "oriented" to this somewhat stressful event.

  The brain has an amazing capacity for data storage, recall, and decision-making, provided it has some meaningful reference points. But when we are presented with a totally new set of circumstances, with no prior reference points, we become disoriented. I.E., when is the last time your brain had a threat with a loaded firearm swinging in your direction displayed on its internal movie screen?

  Hence, the need for realistic training that creates these movies and turns them into valid reference points. High quality training paves a new and much needed information access road to a now cached experience. The experience will be real enough to prevent disorientation when actual combat is faced.

  Consistent with the personal computer example, you are giving your brain upgrades specific to orientation. A larger cache of stored experiences on the hard-drive, a faster CPU, memory, and data transfer rate, greater display size, resolution and color. You now have a greater probability of arriving at a sound solution in a shorter period of time.

  I have spoken with numerous law-enforcement officers and military personnel following fire fights on the street and in combat who have participated in good force-on-force training prior to the real thing. They were not disoriented, quite the opposite. They could articulate the details of the engagement and followed a logical and effective sequence of events during the engagement.

  Since all participants in the engagement must move through the OODA cycle to achieve consistent and repeatable results, you must strive to disorient your opponent. Note I did not say, out shoot, out run, out shout, the prime directive is to disorient your opponent. Once in this state, he or she should be overcome by events as you move smoothly on to the next phases and around the clock again and again. The opponent's perception of time becomes distorted, incoming data is dismissed, decisions are irrational, and actions become erratic and ineffective. This is an immensely powerful and often overlooked tactical tool.

  Decide: The Pipeline -The Third Quarter

  Practical decision-making can easily divided into two basic paths. The subconscious mind which can process hundreds of variables simultaneously, in parallel and the conscious mind which works in serial or sequentially, handling seven plus minus two variables before disregarding or misinterpreting incoming data.

  Any process that must be accomplished in a compressed time frame should be relegated to the powerful subconscious mind, through training.

  "If you consciously try to thwart opponents, you are already late."

  Miyamoto Musashi Japanese Philosopher/Warrior -1645

  Subconscious decisions are decisions arrived upon based on what we perceive, how we orient that perception and the time allowed to make the decision. If the threat is close and the time frame compressed we will automatically default to the sub-conscious pipeline. Whatever we brought to the situation, genetics, personality, training, assumptions, tools available, will pour out of us without conscious thought or effort.

  I frequently use an example based on a real world incident in Southern California. A police officer has pulled over a motorist on the roadway to issue a traffic citation. Starting off, the officer does everything correctly. He finishes his initial assessment and begins to approach the vehicle to make contact with the driver.

  As he makes visual and verbal contact, the driver reaches down between his legs to grab a handgun, with full intention to shoot the officer. The officer has just entered the OODA cycle in terms of this particular engagement. The suspect has already started cycling. As the officer reads the body language then moments later actually sees the handgun coming into view (Observation), he begins to orient to the situation. It is not something he regularly witnesses. During the orientation phase, he concludes that this is really a handgun, this threat is real and imminent and he must decide what to do. As the threat is relatively close and the time frame is compressed, the sub-conscious immediately dominates the decision phase and the officer is now on autopilot.

  The officer is driven backwards by the pressure of the moment and rotates 90 degrees to his right and begins to accelerate and run to get back to his vehicle. The vehicle represents everything that is friendly and safe. It embodies familiarity, cover, concealment, communications, and additional weapons with which to neutralize the threat with.

  Simultaneously, the suspect, attempting to engage the officer, immediately creates a decision-action by the officer to turn and leave the immediate vicinity, a subconscious decision he is now exploiting. The suspect continues to move through the OODA cycle again arriving at the top to observe. The suspect now exits the vehicle and observes a police officer with his back turned, essentially attempting to outrun super-sonic projectiles.

  Let's get back to the police officer. Where is he in the OODA cycle? He is in the unseen "Third O" as in "OH SH#@." He can no longer obtain any good visual information in relationship to the moving, now firing suspect. Only the grace of God can help him now. How did he find himself in this situation with little prospect of successfully overcoming the circumstances? A virtually instantaneous subconscious decision compelled him to arrive here.

  Could it have been avoided? Most certainly it could have. How? Through well directed "Force-on-Force" training. Training that would allow an officer to observe this situation not for the first time while under extreme duress. These observation opportunities should be given progressively and repeatedly. This observation process starts creating a cache that ends up becoming a reference point from which to properly and efficiently orient. All the non-verbal cues, timings, the bio-mechanical possibilities and constraints of the combatants are now identified, sorted, stored and are ready for retrieval by the powerful subconscious mind. New courses of action will be discovered and can be experimented with.

  The subconscious now has new experiences from which to draw upon. This creates an improved matrix of actions, increasing probability of success in the future.

  Act: What we Dream About -The Final Quarter

  We have finally arrived at the phase where most spend the majority of their time practicing and from my perspective the least significant in terms of what is really required. This is where you pull the trigger, push the button on your pepper spray, call for back-up forces, or any number of actions. Don't get me wrong! You must be able to act powerfully. You must develop a smooth, accurate "look-down, shoot-down" capability with your shoulder-fired and hand-held weapons from a variety of positions and circumstances.

  Let's put this in perspective. If you were given just enough instruction to successfully fly an F-15 Strike Eagle off the runway and around the sky, and you also received good instruction on how to release a missile, by simply pushing the red button on the joystick, would you consider yourself ready for aerial combat? Combat taking place in 360-degree battle space flooded multiple threats, while sorting critical information and dealing with the physiological and psychological factors associated flight in combat.


  To increase your chances of survival in this complex environment, you might construct a mock joystick at home and practice pushing the button really fast, over and over!

  Operators love to show others how well they see the relationship of two pieces of metal and pull a lever. They will run down range, carefully pull their target and hold it like a newborn. They will cherish it and show all interested and non-interested parties, including their neighbor's dog, their prowess at pulling a lever (pushing a red button). It's comical, sometimes. If you simply learn to properly release a tiny metal missile from your handheld or shoulder-fired missile launcher, you are no more ready for combat on the street or the battlefield than your newly found piloting skills.

  It is all that leads up to the point of missile release that ultimately matters. Your observations, orientation, and decisions are what allows a relatively minor action on your part define the difference between success or failure, life or death.

  Whether you are in an F-15 or controlling a firearm, once you push the button or pull the trigger you are not going to make any difference on where that missile is going to strike. It will conform to its "programming" and the immutable laws of physics.

  If you talk to the Gracie Brothers, you would find out that their best selling Brazilian JuJitsu videotapes are the submission tapes, the last in their comprehensive series. This hunger to learn submissions (pulling the trigger) is enormous. Nobody is saying submissions are not part of the total package and skill set, but the Gracie's will tell you, "Position before Submission." Prior to submitting someone a sequence is in effect. You must maintain proper distance and balance relationship to your opponent, close the distance with your opponent at the proper time, take your opponent to the ground, establish a dominant position over them, then submit them (force them to give up, damage them to point where they can no longer fight back or choke them into unconsciousness).

  If you watch the greatest submission fighter in the world, Rickson Gracie, you will notice that he does not vary his routine by much. Rickson more often than not ends up choking out his opponents using the same dominant position and the same finishing hold. Why is he undefeated after over 400 plus no holds barred fights? Why can't his opponents just counter the strategy employed time after time?

  I believe it is his total mastery of the time and space prior to the relatively simple position and finish. It is the game within the game. The OODA Cycle in action.

  I have had the opportunity to work with quite a few shooters that have the action phase of their personal development honed razor sharp. Their ability to shoot a handgun, shotgun, and rifle at paper and steel is literally world class, far outpacing anyone on our training staff if the only measuring stick is speed and accuracy on non-threatening targets. This is certainly not a negative, but can lead to a false sense of security and accomplishment.

  When weapons are out and everybody is carrying lethal force at the push of a button, the proverbial wheels fall off the chariot until all phases of the OODA are understood, mastered and consistently applied.

  A smooth running OODA cycle translates to good situational awareness. Situational awareness is the ability to collect, collate, and store data in a fluid, dynamic environment, accurately predicting future events based on that data.

  Predicting future events in a tactical environment is a potent asset to have in your personal arsenal.

  Respectfully, Ken J. Good Director of the Sure-Fire Institute ken@surefire.com

  Appendix 11

  Can a Determined Assassin be Stopped?

  by Jeff Marquart, circa 1999

  Initial consultations with new clients of Gavin de Becker & Associates often begin the same way. They tell us one thing clearly and directly: "I will not have bodyguards surrounding me everywhere I go. I just won't live like that!" "Good," we say, "because that would be completely unnecessary." After a brief period of silence, they say in surprise "Oh ... O.K." and we begin the discussion of what is appropriate.

  We are committed to helping our clients lead lives that are as normal as possible. They take their kids to school, go shopping, attend business meetings, have lunch with friends, and so on. They apply fairly simple measures to make these times safer, but there are times when it is appropriate for public figures to be visibly protected and unapproachable to the general public.

  In most cases we suggest that public figures have a dedicated security detail for all announced public appearances, and when assessment of a particular unwanted pursuer indicates a likelihood that he is seeking an encounter, and might succeed.

  The goal of our protective details is to help clients avoid encounters with inappropriate pursuers. Though we often learn of individuals planning to encounter our clients in some sinister or inappropriate way, admittedly we cannot always know. We can, however, reduce opportunities for them to succeed.

  In spite of an abundance of proof to the contrary, most people do not believe these encounters can be prevented. We hear about security daily from myriad "experts" in the field -- clients' assistants, publicists, and even household staffs. Usually their misinformation is harmless -- even entertaining -- but there are times when uninformed expertise is dangerous and destructive.

  Often, these experts don't really believe that security precautions are valuable because they don't believe they are effective. The myth I hear expressed most often also happens to be one of the most ridiculous and inaccurate: that security precautions are of little value because fate or luck determines if one is to go through life safely.

  There is a major point that most lay people misunderstand with regard to the value of protective coverage: the clear correlation between protective coverage and safety even when there is no obvious hazard. The general belief seems to be that as long as no shots were fired at a public figure on a given day, everything was fine and security was unnecessary. This logic is like arriving home safely, stepping out of the car and exclaiming, "See, no crashes. I told you we didn't need to wear seatbelts today!"

  However, there is one key weakness to the analogy of seatbelts and security precautions: seatbelts only benefit the user if there is an accident; proper security precautions actually prevent many incidents from ever occurring, on that day and even well beyond.

  The Correlation of Security Coverage and Safety

  "If they want to get you, they will get you!"

  I cringe every time I hear these words because they are so untrue and so damaging. This notion was introduced through the media many years ago by a very intelligent, charismatic, much loved man -- who incidentally was assassinated. The problem is that in all his other brilliance, he knew very little about security. Still, when John Kennedy said "Anyone can kill a president -- All he has to do is be willing to trade his life for the president's," the myth was born.

  While it may sound profound, it is really just ridiculous. A willingness to die is simply not all that is required in order to assassinate a president. One must overcome the obstacles set in place by the highly trained, well-prepared, well-staffed Secret Service. Many more individuals have failed to kill presidents than have succeeded.

  The "random and unpreventable" sentiment is even more disturbing when it comes from law enforcement and security professionals. In an interview following the Versace murder, a well known "security expert" said (on TV, of course) that the Versace murder was random (which we now know is false) and that it could not have been prevented.

  Oh really? Couldn't Versace have simply driven a car and entered his estate behind the existing security gates, rather than walking? Didn't Andrew Cunanan gain advantage by Versace establishing observable and predictable patterns -- frequenting the same establishment and walking to and from that establishment along the same routes? Knowing now that Cunanan surveilled and followed Versace, is it impossible to believe that Versace could have detected it and taken precautions?

  If President Kennedy's statement were correct, President Nixon (and probably every other president) would not have survived the
Presidency. Arthur Bremer was ready and willing to trade his life for President Nixon's. He wanted to become famous by killing a famous person ... whether he himself lived or died. Nor did he fear going to jail ... he only feared that he would fail.

  He described his several-week pursuit of Nixon in a diary. He visited several of Nixon's public appearances, armed with a .38 caliber revolver. Like most public figure pursuers, Bremer paid particularly close attention to security and the accessibility of his target. His observations of security dominated his writings:

  "Three men in reflective orange overalls and carrying flashlights (it wasn't really dark yet) searched the road the President would travel for bombs, wires, strange diggings nearby, etc. I guess. Had heard that snow-banks were watered down to nothing to destroy a hiding place for bombs."

  "All the homes and businesses along the route were questioned by Secret Service men and asked to be on the look-out for strange movements in the bushes, strange cars etc. I saw a trench coated guy, an obvious SS cop, leave a home along the route and go into his car, he looked at me as I passed him."

  "A RCMP in ceremonial uniform turned me away from getting in to the grounds."

  "Looking up, I noticed earlier 2 SS men with binoculars on top I think it was the Embassy."

  "A young handsome cop with a moustache took down all the license plate numbers of the cars coming into the lot."

  "Mr. Moustache stopped cars from leaving the lot too soon -- possibly joining the motorcade. A neatly run operation."

  Though Bremer pursued Nixon for weeks and visited several public appearances, he was never able to get the opportunity he wanted.

  Failing in his pursuit of Nixon, Bremer simply focused on another famous person -- one who was less difficult to encounter. Bremer chose a governor who was running for the presidency: George Wallace.

  He attended Wallace's public appearances as well, assessing his chances. Referring to Wallace's security detail at an appearance in Cadillac, Michigan, Bremer noted: