Acts of Habitual Violence

Violence rarely arrives as a surprise. It builds in small, predictable steps — the same steps I was taught to recognise first as a security officer, and later, from a very different angle, in karate. What struck me over the years wasn’t the difference between those worlds, but how closely their principles overlap when things start to escalate.

The SIA approach to potentially violent situations was simple and structured:

• Avoid
• Call for backup
• Try to de‑escalate any situation (non‑verbal cues and talking)
• If it escalates, be aware of the laws of self‑defence
• Only act in self‑defence as a last resort, if you can’t walk away and backup doesn’t arrive

Years later, when I took up karate for health reasons, I was struck by how familiar the material felt. Different environment, different purpose — but the same underlying logic:

• Awareness
• Avoidance
• De‑escalation
• Distraction and escape
• Awareness of the laws of self‑defence
• If you believe a threat exists, make sure people around you know you are the victim
• Attack, disable, escape

One thing that was usually not taught to trainee security officers, however, was how to act in self‑defence if it became unavoidable. Proportionality was discussed, but the physical “how” was left largely untouched.

In the style of karate I study (Shorin Ryu), as well as in other Okinawan systems, realistic responses to potential real‑world situations form a fair part of the syllabus. Recently, a friend of mine posed a scenario online to see what responses people from different backgrounds would offer.

The replies were enlightening. The principles of avoidance, engagement, and legal awareness were almost universal. What surprised me more — though perhaps it shouldn’t have — was how similar the physical responses were across styles. Differences in kata references aside, most people gravitated toward broadly the same mechanics, with only minor variations.

The scenario involved escalating aggression: chest punches followed by a swinging punch to the head. The required outcome was to:

• Avoid being knocked out
• Prevent continued aggression
• Control the attacker
• Alter the relationship
• Escape

This matters more to me than it might to others, because one of the standard responses — distract and escape — simply isn’t an option. My health issues preclude me from “making a run for it,” so I have to be more certain than most that my techniques work.

The majority response to the scenario matched almost exactly the example I had submitted based on the brief:

• Frame
• Crash and bridge
• Step back and pull down
• Knee strike
• Drag down and escape

When crashing, the right forearm presses into the side of the neck while the left arm receives the incoming punch, forming a double bridge for control.

This aligned with the general consensus. And that being the case, I can honestly say that this is one scenario which — while I never want to find myself in it — I feel relatively comfortable I could handle within the bounds of proportional response to the violence being attempted.

I still hope I never have to use any of this. But if someone insists on offering me a practical demonstration, at least I know my response won’t be guesswork. Habit is a far better plan than optimism.

Thank you very much for reading if you made it this far.

Regards,

REY

04/02/2026The summarised conclusions from the exercise can be found at: 

Summarised Conclusions

A video with explanation of how it relates to the kata I know can be found at:

  AHV response