The All-Out 100% “Drive To The Wall”

Why The All-Out 100% “Drive To The Wall”
Is Necessary

© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – November 2009 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

American Combato
Seattle Combatives


We have sometimes been questioned regarding our philosophy of always attacking 100% and going "all out" in the face of a sudden, violent attack. "Why," some people have wanted to know, "do we not at first attempt to stop an attacker with a low level of force, and escalate to something more severe only if and when absolutely necessary, and only because the attack proves to be potentially deadly?"

Our answer is, “For the same reason that it is recognized as sheer idiocy to fire 'warning shots' with a firearm, when one is attacked in a manner that justifies the use of a sidearm — and/or — for the same reason that one does not try to 'shoot a gunman's weapon out of his hand', instead of shooting into that gunman‟s kill-zone, when under lethal attack”: UNDERTAKING SUCH ACTION WHEN ONE IS UNDER ATTACK IS SIMPLY TOO DANGEROUS TO RISK TRYING, AND, JUST AS PERTAINS TO THE NOTION OF “SHOOTING A GUN OUT OF AN ARMED MAN’S HAND”, IT IS ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTEMPT ACROBATIC NONSENSE SUCH AS THE APPLICATION OF “ARRESTING CONTROL” IN THE FACE OF A REAL ATTACK.

People who have not studied, researched, or been involved in real violence often have ideas regarding how violence may be handled put into their heads via motion picture and television shows. They then wonder why — in the real world — such methods as they see successfully rendered on the silver screen are not undertaken in actual confrontations. But in the real world violence is not a choreographed performance as it is on TV and in the movies. In the real world the good guy does not always win. Therefore, when good guys seek training in personal combat methods for self-protection they have a LOT to learn — not merely "technically", but tactically, mentally, and even emotionally, too.

When one is projected into a violent situation one has no possible way of knowing the intentions or the capabilities of one’s attacker(s). One must assume that one’s life is in peril, and one must do everything one possibly can RIGHT AWAY, WITHOUT ALLOWING THE SITUATION TO BECOME ANY MORE GRAVE THAN IT ALREADY HAS BECOME. The alternative to this is to attempt "lesser means", so as not to injure one’s attacker "too much".

But consider this: An attacker has chosen his course of action willfully. He knows what he wants to do, and he is demonstrating without question or doubt that he is willing to injure his intended victim. Only HE knows his ultimate objective. For all his intended victim can guess, it is the attacker’s purpose to murder him — and perhaps to murder the immediate victim;s loved ones, as well. How could anyone logically impose a responsibility to concern himself with ANYTHING save the immediate neutralization of the perceived threat?

And that is why we urge and advocate that which we do urge and advocate. We know that the victim of an attack has but one responsibility: To defend himself and his loved ones. He, the victim, did not ask for this predicament; the attacker has brought it on.The attacker is wholly responsible for whatever his victim does to him. There is not the slightest reason why the victim of any attack should care at all or concern himself in the least with the welfare of anyone who endangers his life ny violently attacking him.

This is "where we’re coming from".

No one in the world despises violence more than we do. We abhor physical aggression and regard as mindless savages those who choose violence in any instance, save that of DEFENSE. However, when defense is necessary — when it is MADE NECESSARY by some extralegal misfit — then we advocate the victim's instant and decisive counterattacking action; with NO regard for the opponent. It is simply too dangerous for anyone to bother with anything but the immediate application of decisive force when he is subjected to a violent attack. And in training and preparation for this contingency, we instruct anyone whose life is in imminent danger to attack ferociously and immediately, and to do so with utter disregard for the violent offender who has made this action necessary.

A victim who follows our teachings may still be injured or killed. That merely underscores the dire risk and danger of a physical attack. However, IF successfully defending himself is feasible, then a 100% drive to the wall — relentlessly attacking with ferocity and determination until the threat is neutralized — will certainly turn the trick for the intended victim.

Over the decades we have trained physicians, university professors, law enforcement officers, school teachers, businessmen, housewives, engineers, soldiers, private investigators, accountants, and virtually every type and variety of decent, respectable, peaceful human being in every vocation, occupation, and calling. Such fundamentally good people need to understand — to be taught to apply — attitudes, skills, and tactics that, were these people able to choose, would never have become necessary. And that’s the point. One IS NEVER “ABLE TO CHOOSE” TO AVOID A DETERMINED PHYSICAL ASSAILANT. ONE MUST DEAL WITH HIM. And the manner in which dealing with such a creature is best accomplished — proven in actual situations in both peacetime and during war — is by GOING AFTER HIM! The 100% committed "drive to the wall", all-out, the very second one realizes that one is in imminent danger, is the way to go. It WORKS.

If you’re ever in trouble, use it.