What does "fight mode" mean to you?

[Ian]

I was thinking about Craig's thread about flying knee dance fighting, and I was wondering - what does your "fight mode" look like in terms of mindset and tactics?

[WongYing]

Entering into a temporary state of cold psychosis

[BruceP]

Run away and see if they got 6 miles in 'em

[Chris McKinley]

It's a matter of semantics to some extent, but I don't have a "fight" mode. I don't engage in fights. Fights are for paid professionals and untrained dominance contenders. At least by mindset, I either avoid, de-escalate, egress, or neutralize. That means when I recognize a situation as being potentially dangerous, I attempt to avoid it if I can. If I am already present, I will attempt to leave if it is safe to do so. If egress isn't immediately available without at least verbal engagement, or if I am convinced of the need to become involved in the situation, then I will attempt to de-escalate. If de-escalation is unsuccessful and egress is not possible, I neutralize as many individuals as necessary until egress can be achieved.

Neutralizing someone in this context doesn't refer to the movie term, necessarily. Yes, it can mean taking someone's life if that becomes necessary, but it can also mean striking, injuring or otherwise rendering the person incapable of further attack. It can mean changing his intention to attack either through direct physical action on him or by his witnessing direct action on another of his accomplices or by presentation of a weapon. It can also mean controlling and restraining the individual. The latter is impossible/unwise to attempt with more than one assailant.

Several years ago, I chose to view potentially hostile encounters the very same way that I would if I were acting as personal protection for a client, only the client is myself and/or my loved ones. I act/decide in exactly the same manner. This turns out in all circumstances to be the best set of choices and actions for the safe protection of my own life or that of my loved ones as it would be if the client were someone else. I've written on this concept here a while back, but I'm not sure if the thread survived the move/schism of EF.

[I am...]

It's a matter of semantics to some extent, but I don't have a "fight" mode. I don't engage in fights. Fights are for paid professionals and untrained dominance contenders. At least by mindset, I either avoid, de-escalate, egress, or neutralize. That means when I recognize a situation as being potentially dangerous, I attempt to avoid it if I can. If I am already present, I will attempt to leave if it is safe to do so. If egress isn't immediately available without at least verbal engagement, or if I am convinced of the need to become involved in the situation, then I will attempt to de-escalate. If de-escalation is unsuccessful and egress is not possible, I neutralize as many individuals as necessary until egress can be achieved.

Neutralizing someone in this context doesn't refer to the movie term, necessarily. Yes, it can mean taking someone's life if that becomes necessary, but it can also mean striking, injuring or otherwise rendering the person incapable of further attack. It can mean changing his intention to attack either through direct physical action on him or by his witnessing direct action on another of his accomplices or by presentation of a weapon. It can also mean controlling and restraining the individual. The latter is impossible/unwise to attempt with more than one assailant.

Several years ago, I chose to view potentially hostile encounters the very same way that I would if I were acting as personal protection for a client, only the client is myself and/or my loved ones. I act/decide in exactly the same manner. This turns out in all circumstances to be the best set of choices and actions for the safe protection of my own life or that of my loved ones as it would be if the client were someone else. I've written on this concept here a while back, but I'm not sure if the thread survived the move/schism of EF.

I enjoyed this post, thanks for writing that up Chris. Great way to phrase things, as well as touched on a couple of points I hadn't looked at that way.

[Ben]

It's a matter of semantics to some extent, but I don't have a "fight" mode. I don't engage in fights. Fights are for paid professionals and untrained dominance contenders. At least by mindset, I either avoid, de-escalate, egress, or neutralize. That means when I recognize a situation as being potentially dangerous, I attempt to avoid it if I can. If I am already present, I will attempt to leave if it is safe to do so. If egress isn't immediately available without at least verbal engagement, or if I am convinced of the need to become involved in the situation, then I will attempt to de-escalate. If de-escalation is unsuccessful and egress is not possible, I neutralize as many individuals as necessary until egress can be achieved.

Neutralizing someone in this context doesn't refer to the movie term, necessarily. Yes, it can mean taking someone's life if that becomes necessary, but it can also mean striking, injuring or otherwise rendering the person incapable of further attack. It can mean changing his intention to attack either through direct physical action on him or by his witnessing direct action on another of his accomplices or by presentation of a weapon. It can also mean controlling and restraining the individual. The latter is impossible/unwise to attempt with more than one assailant.

Several years ago, I chose to view potentially hostile encounters the very same way that I would if I were acting as personal protection for a client, only the client is myself and/or my loved ones. I act/decide in exactly the same manner. This turns out in all circumstances to be the best set of choices and actions for the safe protection of my own life or that of my loved ones as it would be if the client were someone else. I've written on this concept here a while back, but I'm not sure if the thread survived the move/schism of EF.

+1
Great post!

[Andy_S]

Good post by McKinley, a sound, common sense strategy that reveals a lot of mature thinking.

But more to the point: Your lexis is masterly, Chris.

"Egress."

I bow before the greater wordsmith.

[edededed]

Is that some kind o' bird then?