THE REAL WORLD

In today's society acts of violence occur with increasing frequency. The degree of brutality with which many of these mindless deeds are executed is frightening. Little or no consideration is given to the 'victim', your very existence is at risk. More often than not the motive for these malicious attacks are, to say the least, frivolous. You can fall into a victim category for pathetic reasons such as, where you come from, the team you support (as are both cases with regards to football hooliganism), the way you look, the way you dress, or even the colour of your clothes, let alone the colour of your skin. All these trivial reasons and more have been the incentive for some 'moron' (for want of a better, and printable, description) to deliver an innocent person with a merciless beating. Sound familiar. If it does, then you can fully understand what I'm talking about. If you don't, then welcome to the 'real world'.

A number of people still do not appreciate just how sadistic a portion of modern-day society really is. Yet it is, and what's more, the way things are going, it won't be too long before that element of the population is no longer a minority. Nearly every time you switch the television on, news broadcasts, both national and local, are filled with reports of murder and mayhem. But what's new. Many don't even get headline status, such is the normality of such occurrences. It's amazing that people have developed an acceptance of such violence, even to the point were it's considered an everyday thing when someone is brutally beaten or murdered.

When people do recognise the degree of violence that has been exerted upon another human being, they act as though they are disgusted and shocked by it's 'ugliness'. Having said that, those same people often develop a 'it will never happen to me' attitude, convincing themselves that they are not foolish enough to be 'caught out'. This is a most dangerous and foolish demeanour, one that could quite easily be responsible for a person falling foul of their own mis-guided confidence. Because of their disregard of the possibility that anything could happen to them, they become oblivious to the danger signs which accompany their unforeseen doom. It's almost as though, through ignorance and an over-confident attitude, that they do not feel threatened, convinced that it will always be someone else, never them who is left for dead over the contents of their pockets.

I'm not trying to create paranoiac tendencies with my views, merely to promote thought and trigger conscious behaviour. Many people cannot understand or relate to the ever present dangers that stalk our streets day and night. It's not until something happens to them, or someone close to them, that they see the error of their ways. By then it may be too late. You can tell a person the cold facts until you're blue in the face, but until something 'wakes them up', they will never really listen and comprehend. Only the wise few can see the full picture, by being aware of the dangers and understanding pre-attack rituals.

What contributes to the current 'aggressive climate'? Are there any justifiable reasons? What factors must be considered with regard to why people feel compelled to behave with such callous and malicious intentions? Who really knows what makes people tick? Of course, a person's background, emotional state, level of stability, social acceptance and peer pressure are all contributory factors with regards to individual behavioural traits (some of which have been covered in my previous articles). One topic which should not be overlooked is the attitude of the law, and that of those responsible for introducing and enforcing those laws.

With the exception of very few, many Judges and Politicians have never been directly touched by the hand of violence, nor is it likely that they ever will be. Their lifestyle will never expose them to the same elements that the everyday normal person has to face. Their social circles do not rub shoulders with your everyday 'scumbags'. I am aware that there are exceptions to this rule, but generally speaking this is not common place. When you consider that it is the responsibility of these people to set the laws of the land, it is easy, taking into account their lifestyle, why the legal system does not fully appreciate reality. It isn't just a case of the legal consequences being somewhat lax by providing little or no deterrent for the offending parties. With respect to a person defending themselves in a violent situation, the law still seems to expect that you 'turn the other cheek'. Now, you don't need to be a genius to realise that in today's society that that course of action may, quite literally, be the death of you.

The antagonist of today is of a different, more callous demeanour than it's predecessor. It is out of a necessity for survival that one must be pre-emptive in their defensive tactics, especially if personal safety is to be maintained. Regrettably the law does not recognise these requirements. If you listen to, or read, any legal journals, they are nearly always referring to such and such a law or act from 1958 or 1965 etc. Many of the law's relating to violent situations are decades old. Quite frankly, they are more than a little out-dated, yet the powers that be seem to ignore that fact. For a lot of them, sat in their security guarded homes, in their exclusive residential areas, they do not see the same dangerous world as the majority of us. They do not frequent the type of social events that normal people do (town and city centre pubs and clubs), they socialise at selective bars and restaurants, or attend exclusive functions, places which are either inaccessible or hold no interest for the peddlers of violence. They do not have to wait at a bus stop or taxi stand late at night (with the possibility that their ride may not turn up anyway) risking becoming a victim of some mindless act of violence. There is much that can be said with reference to the legal system of this land. I know from discussions I have had with various people that my views and opinions are not unique. Unfortunately, myself, and the people who share my sentiments, are in no position to influence those in power, so it looks as though, for the time being at least, the law will stay in the mess that it is.

It appears to me that the law finds it easy to prosecute the innocent, the people who attempt to protect themselves or their possessions. If someone breaks into your home and you use force against them, then you are liable for prosecution. Ridiculous isn't it. Someone has gone to extreme measures to enter your property, forcibly in most cases, with criminal intentions in mind. If you confront the perpetrator, then you're the one looking at a prison sentence for merely defending your home (or even your well-being). The fact that this person may have been intent on committing more than just a burglary is not even considered.

I would like to give an example of just how bias the law can be, especially against those working within the security profession. Only this past weekend (at the time of this writing) a number of youths were ejected from the Nightclub, were I work as a doorman, for fighting. The fight continued once all the offending group were out on the street, lasting for several minutes. Both the main culprits were bloody from their endeavours (one from a headbutt, one from a strike with a bottle). When the police arrived on the scene, bearing in mind that the whole fiasco had been monitored by the town centre CCTV, the group were just dispersed with no arrests being made. Now, a number of weeks previous, one of the doorman working with me had to deal with two aggressive punters, who, for no apparent reason at all, were determined to cause a fight. Accompanied by another member of the security team, they set about removing them from the premises. The eviction became a physical struggle, and when one of the offending lads took a swing at the doorman he received a 'slap' for his trouble. The strike caused the youth's nose to bleed, but it was not an example of unnecessary force, in fact I consider it a case of justifiable self defense, the whole situation could have got right out of hand had the doorman not executed his 'calming' influence. Anyway, the two lads were ejected from the club without further incident. Less than half-an-hour later a van full of police officers arrived at the club. After lining all the doorman up along the pavement for an impromptu I.D. parade, they immediately arrested the doorman who was accused of the assault, even though at that point all the police had was their allegations. At the police station they interviewed all parties concerned and the doorman was formally charged, even though both the other lads had admitted causing trouble in the club, and the doorman pleaded self defense. A fine example of fair justice (I don't think).

I'm not trying to excuse the behaviour of the doormen, although I feel that there was apt justification in this instance, I was merely using that particular incident as an example. It appears to me that if a person makes a complaint to the police, then in most cases the attitude displayed is one of 'charge first, investigate later'. If you were attacked, or threatened with violence, whereby a physical response was required for you to maintain your personal safety, and your attacker, having received their just deserve, runs crying to the police and gives them a 'cock and bull' story, then immediately your actions will be viewed with suspicion. Obviously their version of events will favour them considerably. The next thing you know, the police are arresting you for assault (or worse), for merely defending yourself. It then comes down to the discretion of the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether or not you should face any legal proceedings and stand trial. It is not an uncommon occurance for a victim of an attack to end up going through the traumatic experience of being arrested, charged, bailed and then having to attend court (not that the original incident wasn't distressing enough). I have personally been accused (in my term as a doorman), and known many more who have been accused for an unsolicited assault on someone, who themselves have been responsible for the instigation of the incident. But, as seems usual in these circumstances, when thing go wrong and the tables are turned and they are on the receiving end, they soon cry foul play.

As far as the punishment for violent crime, especially the regard to those of a sexual nature, there seems to be a sad loss in the value of human life. When a crime is committed whereby money is stolen, an armed robbery for example, while I agree it's a serious offence, the perpetrator will (usually) receive a long prison sentence. Compare this crime against that of a rapist or a child molester and the crime is often looked at with a totally different attitude, at least as far as the courts are concerned. With good legal representation, and the interferrance of 'do-gooders', the offender can be made to look like a 'victim of society', as a result of which they are often offered more help than their victim. This is a definite example of inappropriate justice in my book. In a lot of cases any prison sentence is suspended. It's little wonder people have little faith in the British legal system. I don't want to go too much off on a tangent, but I hope you can interpret the point I'm trying to make.

People who are victims, real victims, of violent crime can be irreversibly affected by the traumatic experience they have encountered. The repercussions of such an event will often cause the victim to react adversely if ever faced with a similar situation. Your self-confidence can be shattered, as well as your confidence in the law. The whole episode can be soul destroying. The effect on a person psychological condition can be responsible for a series of personality disorders ranging from agrophobia to paranoia.

You may be asking yourselves, "what the hell has this all got to do with Martial Arts". Well, before I comment, I would just like to say that I do not wish to offend or appear sacrilegious. As I have mentioned in one of my previous writing's, whatever reason it is that motivates you to study your respective style or system is fine. However, the purpose and format of your training should be fully understood. If your system is a sport's based one, then it should be taught, and learnt, as a that. It is out of context to consider a sport orientated system adequate in a live physical confrontation. Mentally, the combatant is conditioned on a different level. Also it is unlikely that he/she are accustomed to accept the intensity of the situation, handle the adrenaline, or possess the appropriate experience at understanding the pre-fight ritual. (Having said that, it doesn't necessarily mean that their self-determination or will to survive will not be adequate to succeed, but the price may be costly, especially against a formidable opponent). Many traditional systems are still fighting ancient warriors on horseback. The applications are obsolete and impracticable. The warrior of today is cunning and deceptive in their approach, ferocious and merciless in their attack. It's of vital importance that the correct training regime is implemented to enable a sound appreciation of 'real' confrontational situations. All associated topics must be studied, both the physical and mental aspects. If your requirements are for street survival you must build yourself mentally, toughen yourself physically and above all pressure test your abilities and beliefs. It is of imperative worth that you have full confidence in your own abilities, knowing just how effective they are and having an honest understanding on where your limitations are. Also, this type of evaluation will afford you the opportunity to know where your weaknesses are, thus allowing you to structure a training regime that will allow you improve and overcome those shortcomings.

While ever people have the attitudes they have towards violence, there seems little hope that things will improve, at least within the near future at any rate. The powers that be, in my opinion, need to take a more concentrated and personal look at how the law actually approaches the subject, and also how it deals with it. Attention and consideration should also be paid to how a violent incident effects those close to the victim, especially if that effect is of a critical or fatal outcome. As I've mentioned in previous articles, in an ideal world things would be 'sweet', but it doesn't take me to bring to your attention that the society we are all part of, is to say the least, far from ideal. It is blatantly obvious that everyone should show a degree of vigilance at all times in an effort to preserve their personal safety. After all, you only live once, so why put yourself on a 'hit list' by becoming an ideal victim. I appreciate that this topic could be expanded upon ten fold. If, however, I have suceeded in provoking thought on the subject, then I have achieved my aim and at this time I need say no more. Be prepared, be safe.

Written by Dave Briggs