Just 2 Seconds (97 page)

Let's get back to the police officer. Where is he in the OODA cycle? He is in the unseen "Third O" as in "OH SH#@." He can no longer obtain any good visual information in relationship to the moving, now firing suspect. Only the grace of God can help him now. How did he find himself in this situation with little prospect of successfully overcoming the circumstances? A virtually instantaneous subconscious decision compelled him to arrive here.

Could it have been avoided? Most certainly it could have. How? Through well directed "Force-on-Force" training. Training that would allow an officer to observe this situation not for the first time while under extreme duress. These observation opportunities should be given progressively and repeatedly. This observation process starts creating a cache that ends up becoming a reference point from which to properly and efficiently orient. All the non-verbal cues, timings, the bio-mechanical possibilities and constraints of the combatants are now identified, sorted, stored and are ready for retrieval by the powerful subconscious mind. New courses of action will be discovered and can be experimented with.

The subconscious now has new experiences from which to draw upon. This creates an improved matrix of actions, increasing probability of success in the future.

Act: What we Dream About -The Final Quarter

We have finally arrived at the phase where most spend the majority of their time practicing and from my perspective the least significant in terms of what is really required. This is where you pull the trigger, push the button on your pepper spray, call for back-up forces, or any number of actions. Don't get me wrong! You must be able to act powerfully. You must develop a smooth, accurate "look-down, shoot-down" capability with your shoulder-fired and hand-held weapons from a variety of positions and circumstances.

Let's put this in perspective. If you were given just enough instruction to successfully fly an F-15 Strike Eagle off the runway and around the sky, and you also received good instruction on how to release a missile, by simply pushing the red button on the joystick, would you consider yourself ready for aerial combat? Combat taking place in 360-degree battle space flooded multiple threats, while sorting critical information and dealing with the physiological and psychological factors associated flight in combat.

To increase your chances of survival in this complex environment, you might construct a mock joystick at home and practice pushing the button really fast, over and over!

Operators love to show others how well they see the relationship of two pieces of metal and pull a lever. They will run down range, carefully pull their target and hold it like a newborn. They will cherish it and show all interested and non-interested parties, including their neighbor's dog, their prowess at pulling a lever (pushing a red button). It's comical, sometimes. If you simply learn to properly release a tiny metal missile from your handheld or shoulder-fired missile launcher, you are no more ready for combat on the street or the battlefield than your newly found piloting skills.

It is all that leads up to the point of missile release that ultimately matters. Your observations, orientation, and decisions are what allows a relatively minor action on your part define the difference between success or failure, life or death.

Whether you are in an F-15 or controlling a firearm, once you push the button or pull the trigger you are not going to make any difference on where that missile is going to strike. It will conform to its "programming" and the immutable laws of physics.

If you talk to the Gracie Brothers, you would find out that their best selling Brazilian JuJitsu videotapes are the submission tapes, the last in their comprehensive series. This hunger to learn submissions (pulling the trigger) is enormous. Nobody is saying submissions are not part of the total package and skill set, but the Gracie's will tell you, "Position before Submission." Prior to submitting someone a sequence is in effect. You must maintain proper distance and balance relationship to your opponent, close the distance with your opponent at the proper time, take your opponent to the ground, establish a dominant position over them, then submit them (force them to give up, damage them to point where they can no longer fight back or choke them into unconsciousness).

If you watch the greatest submission fighter in the world, Rickson Gracie, you will notice that he does not vary his routine by much. Rickson more often than not ends up choking out his opponents using the same dominant position and the same finishing hold. Why is he undefeated after over 400 plus no holds barred fights? Why can't his opponents just counter the strategy employed time after time?

I believe it is his total mastery of the time and space prior to the relatively simple position and finish. It is the game within the game. The OODA Cycle in action.

I have had the opportunity to work with quite a few shooters that have the action phase of their personal development honed razor sharp. Their ability to shoot a handgun, shotgun, and rifle at paper and steel is literally world class, far outpacing anyone on our training staff if the only measuring stick is speed and accuracy on non-threatening targets. This is certainly not a negative, but can lead to a false sense of security and accomplishment.

When weapons are out and everybody is carrying lethal force at the push of a button, the proverbial wheels fall off the chariot until all phases of the OODA are understood, mastered and consistently applied.

A smooth running OODA cycle translates to good situational awareness. Situational awareness is the ability to collect, collate, and store data in a fluid, dynamic environment, accurately predicting future events based on that data.

Predicting future events in a tactical environment is a potent asset to have in your personal arsenal.

Respectfully, Ken J. Good Director of the Sure-Fire Institute
[email protected]

Appendix 11

Can a Determined Assassin be Stopped?
by Jeff Marquart, circa 1999

Initial consultations with new clients of Gavin de Becker & Associates often begin the same way. They tell us one thing clearly and directly: "I will not have bodyguards surrounding me everywhere I go. I just won't live like that!" "Good," we say, "because that would be completely unnecessary." After a brief period of silence, they say in surprise "Oh ... O.K." and we begin the discussion of what is appropriate.

We are committed to helping our clients lead lives that are as normal as possible. They take their kids to school, go shopping, attend business meetings, have lunch with friends, and so on. They apply fairly simple measures to make these times safer, but there are times when it is appropriate for public figures to be visibly protected and unapproachable to the general public.

In most cases we suggest that public figures have a dedicated security detail for all announced public appearances, and when assessment of a particular unwanted pursuer indicates a likelihood that he is seeking an encounter, and might succeed.

The goal of our protective details is to help clients avoid encounters with inappropriate pursuers. Though we often learn of individuals planning to encounter our clients in some sinister or inappropriate way, admittedly we cannot always know. We can, however, reduce opportunities for them to succeed.

In spite of an abundance of proof to the contrary, most people do not believe these encounters can be prevented. We hear about security daily from myriad "experts" in the field -- clients' assistants, publicists, and even household staffs. Usually their misinformation is harmless -- even entertaining -- but there are times when uninformed expertise is dangerous and destructive.

Often, these experts don't really believe that security precautions are valuable because they don't believe they are effective. The myth I hear expressed most often also happens to be one of the most ridiculous and inaccurate: that security precautions are of little value because fate or luck determines if one is to go through life safely.

There is a major point that most lay people misunderstand with regard to the value of protective coverage: the clear correlation between protective coverage and safety even when there is no obvious hazard. The general belief seems to be that as long as no shots were fired at a public figure on a given day, everything was fine and security was unnecessary. This logic is like arriving home safely, stepping out of the car and exclaiming, "See, no crashes. I told you we didn't need to wear seatbelts today!"

However, there is one key weakness to the analogy of seatbelts and security precautions: seatbelts only benefit the user if there is an accident; proper security precautions actually prevent many incidents from ever occurring, on that day and even well beyond.

The Correlation of Security Coverage and Safety

"If they want to get you, they will get you!"

I cringe every time I hear these words because they are so untrue and so damaging. This notion was introduced through the media many years ago by a very intelligent, charismatic, much loved man -- who incidentally was assassinated. The problem is that in all his other brilliance, he knew very little about security. Still, when John Kennedy said "Anyone can kill a president -- All he has to do is be willing to trade his life for the president's," the myth was born.

While it may sound profound, it is really just ridiculous. A willingness to die is simply not all that is required in order to assassinate a president. One must overcome the obstacles set in place by the highly trained, well-prepared, well-staffed Secret Service. Many more individuals have failed to kill presidents than have succeeded.

The "random and unpreventable" sentiment is even more disturbing when it comes from law enforcement and security professionals. In an interview following the Versace murder, a well known "security expert" said (on TV, of course) that the Versace murder was random (which we now know is false) and that it could not have been prevented.

Oh really? Couldn't Versace have simply driven a car and entered his estate behind the existing security gates, rather than walking? Didn't Andrew Cunanan gain advantage by Versace establishing observable and predictable patterns -- frequenting the same establishment and walking to and from that establishment along the same routes? Knowing now that Cunanan surveilled and followed Versace, is it impossible to believe that Versace could have detected it and taken precautions?

If President Kennedy's statement were correct, President Nixon (and probably every other president) would not have survived the Presidency. Arthur Bremer was ready and willing to trade his life for President Nixon's. He wanted to become famous by killing a famous person ... whether he himself lived or died. Nor did he fear going to jail ... he only feared that he would fail.

He described his several-week pursuit of Nixon in a diary. He visited several of Nixon's public appearances, armed with a .38 caliber revolver. Like most public figure pursuers, Bremer paid particularly close attention to security and the accessibility of his target. His observations of security dominated his writings:

"Three men in reflective orange overalls and carrying flashlights (it wasn't really dark yet) searched the road the President would travel for bombs, wires, strange diggings nearby, etc. I guess. Had heard that snow-banks were watered down to nothing to destroy a hiding place for bombs."

"All the homes and businesses along the route were questioned by Secret Service men and asked to be on the look-out for strange movements in the bushes, strange cars etc. I saw a trench coated guy, an obvious SS cop, leave a home along the route and go into his car, he looked at me as I passed him."

"A RCMP in ceremonial uniform turned me away from getting in to the grounds."

"Looking up, I noticed earlier 2 SS men with binoculars on top I think it was the Embassy."

"A young handsome cop with a moustache took down all the license plate numbers of the cars coming into the lot."

"Mr. Moustache stopped cars from leaving the lot too soon -- possibly joining the motorcade. A neatly run operation."

Though Bremer pursued Nixon for weeks and visited several public appearances, he was never able to get the opportunity he wanted.

Failing in his pursuit of Nixon, Bremer simply focused on another famous person -- one who was less difficult to encounter. Bremer chose a governor who was running for the presidency: George Wallace.

He attended Wallace's public appearances as well, assessing his chances. Referring to Wallace's security detail at an appearance in Cadillac, Michigan, Bremer noted:

"These SS men are a different crew than was in Dearborn. No suspicions. Another security breakdown. And no cops to hold back the crowd from stepping in front of his following cars!"

Two days after making these observations, Arthur Bremer attended a Wallace rally at a shopping center in Laurel, Maryland. Having abandoned a target he perceived as too well-protected (Nixon), Bremer shot George Wallace with a .38 caliber revolver.

Successful assassinations require that hundreds of factors play out a certain way. Even the smallest snag in an assassin's plans will make the difference between success and failure. So really, an assassin has one slim opportunity to achieve this "perfect" event and literally hundreds of opportunities to fail.

Our office has been involved in many cases where a pursuer has shown up at a location with the intent of harming a client, but was deterred by our efforts or by the visibility of precautions. And there are many such times we will never know about. For example, we learned of Bremer's presence and intentions at the Nixon public appearances after he shot Wallace. Had he not shot Wallace and self reported his pursuit of Nixon, we may have never learned of it.

After murdering actress Rebecca Schaeffer, assassin Robert Bardo described his pursuit of another public figure, a young singer who is our client. He told of how he attempted to encounter her several times, but could not. Then, he pursued still another singer. Stalking her at a concert, he noted that the stage was protected by guards and that she was escorted by security as she moved about. He abandoned his plans to kill her, and selected a target that was easier to encounter: Rebecca Schaeffer.