Is this the same dude that put that video up about winning a fight with head movement? If so then I think his skill is perhaps colouring his views on SD. He knows he's pretty good at avoiding shots and so that extra space (from the step back) probably works in his favour (as it gives him more reaction time should a shot be thrown)?
Dialogue in training or in the real world situation, or both? I'm not intending to discount knowledge and experience. I think these are the most important factors. I'm saying that "identifying the risks" is a process that takes time. Something comes before identifying the risks, and that is knowing the risks ahead of time and having protocols to follow. For example, getting an email with an attachment from an unverified sender. First protocol is don't open the attachment. If you don't open the attachment then this buys the time to identify the risks... analyzing the email header, signs of spear phishing, check authoritative sources... and decide if it meets the criteria for reporting (forwarding the email to the proper authorities before deleting it), etc. It could be that it is legitimate, but first you have to verify it and ask it be sent in a different way through verified channels. If you do open the attachment (even though they aren't supposed to) then there is another protocol to follow and this could be much more urgent and could involve isolation from the network and wiping the computer. Or it could be something benign, but this assessment takes time, hence the isolation protocol. When it comes to "don't open attachments" this first step buys the time to identify the risks. It is a very important message and should be standard operating procedure. At the very least, it allows for deletion of the email if verification steps aren't feasible. Of course this all could be semantics. I'm lumping identify the risks as part of the process of assessing risks, which includes steps to verify the risks. I'm calling "know the risks" as just part of the basics, or standard operating procedure. You might mean identify the risks as something done ahead of time, and if so, that is the same to me as know the risks.
Like has been said here and agreed on by most.....the things you train and consider the most are the things your best at and more ready for. Being randomly violently attacked is high on the list of worst things or something kicking of and it turning violent is a high on the list of worse things and a harder thing to deal with....avoiding a fight in society and going about life safely is an easier thing for most normal people to do. So its funny ,to me anyway, why someone saying they train for and consider the worse is meeting any resistance.And that others place it lower down in priority than arguably the easiest thing to do....avoid fights or situations. Also how two guys shoving each other or ,having seen and engaged with each other and then somehow communicated , cannot stop something happening because of Macho nonsense or something and then it goes physical ,can be called SD...is also funny to me. People seem to want to stand up for themselves or kicks someone's head in who starts on them ( which is up them) and call it SD.
Here's the Richard Dmitri video I talked about earlier in the thread. Note that I am not advocating this response for all situations, but notice how he circles as he steps back, which gives him a 360 degree scan of his environment, and also how you can use someone's forward momentum against them. I'm not arguing against the idea that it's generally bad to give up ground, just showing some others aspects and giving some food for thought WARNING: CONTAINS BAD LANGUAGE [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvJuBPUP4iM"]Ego Shoves Scenario Training REAL SELF DEFENSE Richard Dimitri - YouTube[/ame]
Thanks for posting this; following the thread I am a strong advocate of the moving in a circle or angling away rather than stepping back; although in sport boxing we do teach the push away to get out of range and there is the lay back which is the body weight shifting to the rear leg and the trunk leaning backwards as to spring forward with a counter punch but not many coaches favour this. What can work well with drunks as they cannot pick up on small subtle, discreet movement is the slight shifting at angles to the side. The only add on to Richards view re people getting in your face is that they think they have successfully intimidated you so; you will not hit them and if you do they can block it and that I am so hard if you did hit me I can take it; various youtube clips have shown that those ideas is not a precise science.
