The Hock Report, and Survival Centric

I've read several books about Wild Bill and creation of the OSS. Way back when, and this quote always stuck with me. The message of a more complete troop. You get the general idea. But, shouldn't this also be for every single soldier-Marine-cop...and...and civilian? Peace-niks will say no. Then step aside, we're coming through.

JUN FAN (JEET KUNE DO) KICKBOXING
It occurred to me awhile back about how I filter kickboxing moves. The filter for me is Jun Fan (Bruce Lee) Kickboxing. I still fall back on those origins. Learned from the Inosanto family (mostly Terry Gibson) Ray Medina, Tim Tackett and Paul Vunak. I've done Thai and regular boxing and "Kuraty," but the skeleton I use to see it all through is the old JKD kickboxing.

When I saw something different and new? I realized... it's in the book, in there only simpler. This book is-was fundamental to me. I have dog-eared, marked and notated so much so often, pages have detached from the binding. I may go to Fed Ex and have it spiral bound.

The reality criminal, cop, military fight-scuffle doesn't always start - or include a standoff, "dukes up," "boxing" situation, but sometimes it does! Usually it's chaos. Situational. But, sometimes people do break apart, and it looks like... well... "a match" of sorts. (The breakaway part should mean... leave? Or time to grab a lamp, a stool, or throw an ashtray - remember them? - Maybe pull a weapon? Whatever.) So a combatavist must know something about the problem.

A number of the lesser known, old-timers said they do Jun Fan, I've seen what they do and they are not as complete as what's in this book. These days I don't know where you'll find someone teaching this pure Jun Fan only. Students of Tim's are still out there. Dan does, but Dan is busy-busy doing other arts and you have to catch him doing just JKD. Same goes for all his people. I too am busy doing stick, knife and gun, not just hand and then not just the kickboxing part of hand. (It is level 5 of my Survival Centric: Hand course.) Co-author Chris Kent knows it all. If you listen to interviews, he's become quite diverse, but I am sure he can knuckle down to this JKD.

I always proclaim I will never make you or anyone an MMA-kickboxing champion. (Even schools that say they do? Never have, for that matter.) But I will teach you how to kick and punch your way out of a jam. That I will do.

And I do go back to this book, and I make sure I am on the straight and narrow. It's not perfect, but for me, damn near...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ_a81xpJCw&t=28s

The Science of Calf Kicks - The New Meta in MMA and the UFC Decades after the beginnings of MMA the calf kick entered the scene in a big way, revolutionizing the sport. The calf kick has been devastating in recent MMA...

HESITANCIES TO SHOOT. I recently attended a police gunfight survival course (once I retired these courses are very inexpensive). The SWAT police captain showed a film of an officer shot in a traffic stop. Cars were quite apart. At least 30-ish yards? Rural remote. A man exited his car with a rifle, but the rifle was very low in his hands and arms, like the photo here. Not even hip high. Almost casual, yet all obviously dangerous.

The squad car’s dashboard camera (not body cam) films the officer started shouting “drop the gun.” But, from this low arm carry the man shot, (not even a full hip shot, the first round hitting the officer in the throat and from quite a distance! Horrible “lucky” shot. The officer quickly died at the scene. The SWAT captain stated that he learned that the man looked a lot like the officer’s father, causing the officer's hesitation to shoot. “Relative Confusion.” Well, okay, maybe?

The film showed the man walking forward, gun very low. At first, lower than hip height. The shooter was not in any kind of shooting stance when that first round went off. Could the officer’s hesitation, his reading of the situation been about “low pose, medium pose, high pose perceived rifle shooting stances be a problem...waiting for officer’s mental picture of a rifle shooting pose is? We’ll never know. Or a resemblance to his father, or....what?

What was his perception? What is your perception of a shooting position worthy of pulling the trigger? It's a perception thing that involves one’s shoot/don’t shoot definition. If you don’t think this perception point shouldn’t come up in training, or that it won’t come up come up in criminal, civil and military courts, you are wrong. The BIG before, during and after.

What else causes people-police-military hesitant to shoot. (This is also a military question because MANY soldiers-Marines have shared these stories too. “Looked like just a young kid (teen)", "Fear of rules of engagement (ROE) prosecution, etc."

Here is a simple researched list of major reasons why police, soldiers, or armed citizens may hesitate to shoot an armed criminal or enemy:

1. Moral Resistance to Killing. Many people are raised not to harm or kill others, and that instinct can remain powerful even in danger.

2. Fear of Making a Mistake. They may not be completely sure the person is truly a threat or may fear hitting an innocent person.

3. Shock and Surprise. Sudden violence can mentally overwhelm people, causing hesitation or temporary freezing.

4. Fear of Legal Consequences. Police and citizens may fear lawsuits, prosecution, prison, or public backlash after a shooting.

5. Fear of Personal Consequences. Many fear living with guilt, trauma, nightmares, or emotional damage after taking a life.

6. Confusion and Chaos. Real confrontations are often fast, noisy, dark, crowded, and difficult to interpret correctly.

7. Lack of Experience or Training. People with little realistic stress training may hesitate longer under pressure. Like for example, the aforementioned perception of needing to see an official shooting stance they are familiar with.

8. Hope for a Peaceful Outcome. Some delay shooting because they hope the suspect will surrender or stop.

9. Fear of Retaliation. They may fear return fire, harming family members nearby, or retaliation later.

10. Rules and Restrictions. Soldiers and police often operate under strict rules of engagement or use-of-force policies.

11. Human Empathy. Seeing the opponent as another human being rather than simply a target can slow action.

12. Uncertainty About Timing.

13. People may struggle with deciding exactly when deadly force becomes unavoidable.

14. The "zero-to-sixty," split second, avalanche that confounds us all.

15. Even highly trained professionals can experience hesitation. Training may reduce hesitation, but it rarely removes the human factors completely.

___________________________________________________________
Notes to readers...
- This is not about the pros and cons of hip-shooting. (The shooter was NOT a trained hip-shooter, just a knucklehead who went nuts. That first shot was very low armed and failed to resemble formal hip shooting.)

- This is not about how tough-a-guy you are and how much you will shoot any person in any gun situation, in any way, so dead and so fast. (Spare us the bravado.)

- Yeah, it’s all a threat. We know the appearance of a weapon is a threat. This is simple essay about hesitancy to pull the trigger and how to evaluate it and avoid it when needed WITHIN that threatening situation.
- This is not about dissecting this poor officer’s death either. Things may have gone quite differently had not the first low arm. long shot, lucky shot landed. See less

(Revised) HESITANCIES TO SHOOT. I recently attended a police gunfight survival course (once I retired these courses are very inexpensive). The SWAT police captain showed a film of an officer shot in a traffic stop. Cars were quite apart. At least 30-ish yards? Rural remote. A man exited his car with a rifle, but the rifle was very low in his hands and arms, like the photo here. Not even hip high. Almost casual, yet all obviously dangerous.

The squad car’s dashboard camera (not body cam) films the officer started shouting “drop the gun.” But, from this low arm carry the man shot, (not even a full hip shot, the first round hitting the officer in the throat and from quite a distance! Horrible “lucky” shot. The officer quickly died at the scene. The SWAT captain stated that he learned that the man looked a lot like the officer’s father, causing the officer's hesitation to shoot. “Relative Confusion.” Well, okay, maybe?

The film showed the man walking forward, gun very low. At first, lower than hip height. The shooter was not in any kind of shooting stance when that first round went off. Could the officer’s hesitation, his reading of the situation been about “low pose, medium pose, high pose perceived rifle shooting stances be a problem...waiting for officer’s mental picture of a rifle shooting pose is? We’ll never know. Or a resemblance to his father, or....what?

What was his perception? What is your perception of a shooting position worthy of pulling the trigger? It's a perception thing that involves one’s shoot/don’t shoot definition. If you don’t think this perception point shouldn’t come up in training, or that it won’t come up come up in criminal, civil and military courts, you are wrong. The BIG before, during and after.

What else causes people-police-military hesitant to shoot. (This is also a military question because MANY soldiers-Marines have shared these stories too. “Looked lie just a young kid (teen), etc.)

Here is a simple researched list of major reasons why police, soldiers, or armed citizens may hesitate to shoot an armed criminal or enemy:
1. Moral Resistance to Killing. Many people are raised not to harm or kill others, and that instinct can remain powerful even in danger.

2. Fear of Making a Mistake. They may not be completely sure the person is truly a threat or may fear hitting an innocent person.

3. Shock and Surprise. Sudden violence can mentally overwhelm people, causing hesitation or temporary freezing.

4. Fear of Legal Consequences. Police and citizens may fear lawsuits, prosecution, prison, or public backlash after a shooting.

5. Fear of Personal Consequences. Many fear living with guilt, trauma, nightmares, or emotional damage after taking a life.

6. Confusion and Chaos. Real confrontations are often fast, noisy, dark, crowded, and difficult to interpret correctly.

7. Lack of Experience or Training. People with little realistic stress training may hesitate longer under pressure. Like for example, the aforementioned perception of needing to see an official shooting stance they are familiar with.

8. Hope for a Peaceful Outcome. Some delay shooting because they hope the suspect will surrender or stop.

9. Fear of Retaliation. They may fear return fire, harming family members nearby, and public and media retaliation later.

10. Rules and Restrictions. Soldiers and police often operate under strict rules of engagement or use-of-force policies.

11. Human Empathy. Seeing the opponent as another human being rather than simply a target can slow action.

12. Uncertainty About Timing,

13. People may struggle with deciding exactly when deadly force becomes unavoidable.

14. The "zero-to-sixty," split second, avalanche that confounds us all.

15. Even highly trained professionals can experience hesitation. Training may reduce hesitation, but it rarely removes the human factors completely.

Notes to readers...

- I decided to take the whole segment from my next book on this, and get rid of the rambling first draft I foolishly spit out here. The removed first draft created a lot of off-mission message to follow. All over the board. Don't think too harshly of them. Probably my fault.

- This is not about the pros and cons of hip-shooting. (The shooter was NOT a trained hip-shooter, just a knucklehead who went nuts. That first shot was very low armed and failed to resemble formal hip shooting.)

- This is not about how tough-a-guy you are and how much you will shoot any person in any gun situation, in any way, so dead and so fast. (Spare us the bravado.)

- Yeah, it’s all a threat. We know the appearance of a weapon is a threat. This is simple essay about hesitancy to pull the trigger and how to evaluate it and avoid it when needed WITHIN that threatening situation.

- This is not about dissecting this poor officer’s death either. Things may have gone quite differently had not the first low arm. long shot, lucky shot landed.

ACTION BEATS REACTION. This is a tiny segment in the Gun One chapter called "These are Not Surrenders" in my next book "COLLISION ONE. HAND ONE. STICK ONE. KNIFE ONE. GUN ONE. (Yes, there will be ten books.) I am trying to collect all that I have learned in 53 years to pass along, and that includes interacting with experts from all over the world. I learn something new from y'all each weekend seminar. Watching, listening, doing. Filtering. Realistically, the first book will be done in the Fall, 2026. I am completely confident in saying, this collection? There will be nothing like it. See less

YOU! THE LAW AND SELF DEFENSE, THE AFTER OF THE BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER.
A very important part of my martial-combatives job is keeping people out of jail, out of courts and military tribunals. Which almost all martial arts ignore. Any serious discussion of self-defense, crime and war must begin with four foundational, legal concepts: the "use of force," "disparity of force," "proportionality" and the "totality of circumstances."
These principles form the legal and practical framework by which actions are judged after a violent encounter. They are not abstract theories. They are the standards-concepts by which the best police, prosecutors, juries, the public and the militaries of civilized countries will evaluate what you did, and why you did it. sadly it may come down to the supreme courts of each state and then even the Federal, to get the right answers. ($$$$)

Use of force refers to the level of effort or action a person uses to stop a threat. It exists on a spectrum, ranging from verbal commands and avoidance to physical control, to the use of deadly force. The central issue is not whether force was used, but whether the level of force was reasonable under the circumstances. A defender must be able to explain, in simple terms, why the force they used matched the threat they faced. Use "only that force necessary."

This leads directly to disparity of force, one of the most misunderstood but critically important doctrines in self-defense law. Disparity of force recognizes that a person does not need to be armed with a conventional weapon to present a deadly threat. An “unarmed” attacker can still cause death or serious bodily injury when there is a significant imbalance in power or circumstance.
Disparity of force exists when the attacker’s advantage effectively turns their body into a lethal weapon. This advantage can take many forms:

•Force of numbers, where multiple attackers overwhelm a single defender

•A significant difference in size or strength

•Specialized skills, such as training in combat sports or martial arts

•Physical limitations, where age, injury, or disability places the defender at a disadvantage

•Positional dominance, such as being pinned, knocked to the ground, or having one’s head driven into a hard surface

•Gender-based disparities, often cited when a male attacks a female due to general physical differences.

•The law may recognize that a higher level of force, including deadly force, can be justified because the threat itself has been elevated.

•Courts commonly evaluate these situations using three key elements, often summarized as 1: Ability, 2: Opportunity, and 3: Jeopardy. Ability: Does the attacker have the power to cause death or serious bodily injury? Opportunity: Is the attacker in a position to immediately use that power? Jeopardy: Is the attacker acting in a way that places the defender in immediate danger?

We come to proportionality, the principle that the level of force used in defense must be proportionate to the threat faced. This does not mean equal force. It means reasonable force. The law does not require you to fight fair. It requires you to survive within reason.
When an attacker is armed, proportionality often becomes clearer. A weapon such as a knife can create an immediate deadly threat, and responding with a firearm may be considered a reasonable act to stop that threat. In this sense, the defender is not escalating the situation but equalizing it.
However, proportionality is always judged through the lens of reasonable belief. The defender must be able to articulate why they believed the threat was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Not every object, and not every situation, will meet that threshold. A small knife at a distance may be viewed differently than the same weapon at close range with aggressive intent.

The legal phrase “totality of the circumstances” is a cornerstone of constitutional analysis in U.S. law, especially as developed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Rather than relying on rigid, mechanical rules, the Court often evaluates a situation by looking at all relevant facts and context together to determine whether government action, especially by police, was reasonable under the Constitution. In short....the situation.
This approach is most commonly applied in cases involving the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Instead of asking whether one single factor justifies a search or arrest, the Court asks whether the combined weight of all circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe that their actions were lawful. This includes factors such as behavior, location, timing, officer experience, and any observable evidence.

In essence, the “totality of the circumstances” test reflects the Court’s recognition that real-world situations are complex and cannot always be reduced to simple formulas. It allows judges to weigh the practical realities of human behavior and law enforcement, balancing individual rights with public safety. While this flexibility can make outcomes less predictable, it provides a more realistic framework for assessing reasonableness in a wide range of legal contexts.

Finally, the overall situation, the “totality of circumstances” is a big study. What was the big picture, the whole situation? What if you shot a smaller, older unarmed man? Legal trouble? What if that man was part of four unarmed angry men attacking you? Less trouble. If you used only that force necessary to stop them.

When all four are present to review, a reasonable person may conclude that the threat was both real and imminent. It is important to understand that weapons are not the sole measure of danger. A person does not need to be armed with a gun or knife for deadly force to be legally justified. If disparity of force is present, the law may view the situation as life-threatening even when no traditional weapon is involved.

In the end, these four principles work together. Use of force defines what you did. Disparity of force explains why the threat was serious. Proportionality determines whether your response was justified. Totality of circumstances determines the big picture of what happened.
Every act of violence is both a trauma and a drama. Understanding these four seriously is not optional in the hand stick, knife, gun, civilian, police and military world. It is essential. Because in the aftermath of violence, your actions will be measured by whether a “reasonable” person would have done the same in your place, your predicament, your exact situation.

(Which leads us to 1: moral, 2: ethical, 3: legal. Which is...another story...)

(This has been shared a lot, Here is a URL for this... https://survivalcentric.com/you-and-the-law-self-defense-the-after-in-the-before-during-and-after/