Understanding 'The Fence'--An Important Strategy

[Fred Fuller]

It seems to me as if too many people here are dismissing the concept out of hand without actually understanding it. The fence is not deployed from a static, standing position - it is used in concert with moving off the line of approach and verbal engagement with the approaching unknown contact as well, among other things like looking for any additional potential assailants.

As has been said, it is an intermediate stage between normal locomotion and full on fight/flight. It is intended to buy some time to allow evaluation of an approaching unknown contact's intentions. It is not a position from which to lauch an all out defense against what is clearly a committed attacker, armed visibly or not.

 

[Owen Sparks]

We teach this technique in Tansu self-defense along with "working the outside". This means that when a potential aggressor moves toward you, rather than backing straight up you maintain the distance by circling away from whatever hand he has back (usually the right). The point is that very few people outside of trained boxers can throw a good jab and the bad guy who intends harm will usually try to position himself where he can throw a punch off the back hand. If you continue to circle outside and he is obviously trying to re-position himself WATCH OUT he is trying to set you up!

If he gets you in front of him he can strike with either hand, either foot or even a head butt if you let him get too close. If you circle off to one side he can only strike with one hand and one foot. If you maintain proper distance he will have to take a step to use his jab and you will see that coming. If you let him get within hands reach it usually comes down to whoever moves first. A sucker punch is easy to avoid if you know how to maintain proper position, distance and learn how to "read" the opponants body language.

 

[Paul Gomez]

Just getting back online following the RangeMaster conference. Well, this thread has certainly taken off!

As several guys have commented, the Fence is merely a hands-up, non-offensive position to give you options when dealing with people whose intent is unknown. The idea of Managing Unknown Contacts is much broader than a hand & arm position. Most people tend to look at things as either an unarmed fight or a gun fight or a knife fight and train within that, limiting, framework. The vast majority of the time, things are not so clear and how you deal with people earlier in the engagement, the greater likelihood that it never escalates to having to use force.

Body Language, including hand & arm position, appropriate verbilization, patterns of movement that allow you to view what was behind you without putting you in a worse position vis a vis the person you are interacting with, the ability to read pre assault cues... all of these things are part of Managing Unknown Contacts.

And all of this is vastly more important than simple physical skills in isolation whether they be unarmed, knife, gun or anything else.

 

[Paul Gomez]

Here's a PDF that I found that might help put the whole 'Managing Unknown Contacts' in context. This material was originally posted by Craig Douglas on www.TotalProtectionInteractive.com and converted to a PDF by longterm member James Marwood. The original posts date from 2005.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Thank you Paul

 

[xXxplosive]

Excellent...........tutorial.

 

[MuleRyder]

Good write up...But I've said this before, I still think this leaves you in a very precarious position. The training assumes that "hand on weapon" will deter the BGs. IMO after you show your weapon, whether at count one or drawn, what are you going to do when it doesn't make them run away? What if they keep coming closer while saying, "What are you gonna do? Shoot us? We aint got no guns!" What can you do? That is my question. I know some of you will say, "Shoot them!!" But is that the answer? Shooting unarmed men? There has to be some other way to handle this situation.

 

[conw]

Mule that write-up is from 2005. I have it on good authority (had a discussion in person with Craig 10 days ago about this) that he only advises that type of brandishing right before you're ready to draw.

Think of establishing the grip on your gun and waiting a second as being a better legal and possibly tactical choice than drawing and pointing. If you are 99% sure, then you can pre-establish grip, then the BGs have +/- 1 second before you draw it and shoot.

You then have a decent way of articulating the threat:

"I was relatively sure based on my training, and the nonverbal cues being exhibited, that the two men approaching me were intending me physical harm and represented a lethal threat at that time. I established a pre-emptive grip on my pistol, which they saw and kept coming. I drew it they continued to come at me. I knew that they intended me grievous bodily harm based on my training and the fact that they failed to respond to my verbal commands to stop [insert other reasons here. The fact that they were indifferent to my being armed and continued to ingress caused me to deem the threat imminent, so I shot them to stop the threat. My training leads me to believe from experience that two attackers can overpower one person, even with a handgun, so I had no choice but to use pre-emptive force."

That was not really conveyed in the PDF and may not have been firmly established then but it is now.

Here are some clips that may bridge some conceptual gaps in dealing with multiples. Southnarc is the guy with the southern accent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBXlZChU34I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3h2bTe9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwRFZySixuA

 

[MuleRyder]

Good Videos...fills in some of "Gaps" and makes a little more sense now. Just trying to understand how this type of situation could end up as a justifiable shooting against unarmed BG. Conwict, you are right in that if they keep coming, they represent an immediate threat to your life and thanks for your response.

 

[conw]

ECQC is the single best training experience to understand how and when an unarmed assailant or assailants can become a lethal threat, and to know your own limits and abilities and develop a strategy around it. It bridges the gap between unarmed/armed, and sub-lethal and lethal.

On the internet people tend to view lethal threats as a black or white issue, and/or they speculate endlessly about permutations and possible responses from a legal standpoint, which is well and fine. But...

As I said, ECQC is an experiential tool to help you decide what you deem a lethal threat, and you will be able to articulate that concern later by referring to and describing your training. Southnarc was a police academy trainer for nearly 20 years and is a very credible source, for that and other reasons. He also trains military units. So if you have trained with him you have firsthand knowledge of how to judge and categorize threats. That's no small thing legally.

Smart criminals can very easily overwhelm the average concealed handgun carrier by closing distance without showing their weapon until they are inside of a certain distance. Having the ability to articulate how and when and why that person became a threat to you, as well as the skills to deal with him or her, is invaluable.

 

[xXxplosive]

Why would the CCL holder wait so long to present his weapon in those videos.....one LEO said that if your in a percieved life threatening situation to draw and keep it down at your side / retention....at least it's already in your hand and if the BG shows a weapon to fire immediately and let the lawyers sort it out afterwards.....says he knew to many who held off / hesitated and it eventually cost them their lives. If nothing happens and the threat is aborted, reholster your weapon and be on your way.......BG's don't call LE to report.

 

[conw]

xxx the training is conducted in such a way that the "BGs" don't actually present a lethal threat immediately.

it's not a simulated deathmatch, it's a simulated real-life scenario where a person you don't know approaches you. The people participating did not draw immediately because they don't draw immediately when approached by strangers in real life.

 

[xXxplosive]

OK.........but if a command is given to stay back once, twice and they keep on commin'....the LEO says as I explained to draw and retain at your side if necessary.....and I can agree with that.... after the third loud command it would be time for me to show I mean business before they can close the distance any further.....and if a weapon is presented, fire immediately.
I concur with his advice......again BG's don't call the police to report brandishing.

 

[conw]

The response would need to be dynamic and determined by the situation. I would NOT advise people to "draw the gun and keep it by their side" any more than I would listen to legal or defense advice from just anyone, even a police officer.

However as you stated, giving specific commands at intervals determined by distance, and of escalating intensity, is one of the keys to distinguishing genuine threats, and being able to legally articulate it later.

 

[xXxplosive]

I agree........especially today where almost every parking lot and mall is under camera survielance.....like having an eye witness waiting for the action to start.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Normally you don't want to show any fear or an aggressor will see you as weak and an easy target. An exception is when there are witnesses. We teach our students to say “STAY BACK, I AM AFRAID OF YOU AND I WANT TO LEAVE.” just before using force. That way if they kill or seriously injure someone there is witnessed proof that they were in fear for their lives and tried to leave.

 

[leadcounsel]

Said it before, I'll say it again. A hands up stance means that your hands are just that much further from your weapon, which is known as the "great equalizer." And that's not a position my dominant hand will be in - if I perceive a threat that gives me reason to put hands up, then my dominant hand is going to my holster and I'm backing out of the situation while giving verbal commands.

Internet mall ninjas can stand there with their hands and wrists exposed when a threat is perceived or evaluated. Evaluation may be too slow. You put your hands up and the guy tackles you with a shank. Then what? Three stabs to the lungs in a second and the fight is over. What did your "fence" do? Nothing, but remove your hand from your holster, which is where it ought to be if you perceive a threat. And it's possible for a person to grab your arm, thereby keeping you from being able to draw your weapon, which is your lifeline.

I cannot conceptualize a situation where I, as a private citizen, am in a situation where I feel that I am 'sorta' threatened to the point of implementing the "fence," knowing that it could in a split second turn into a lethal confrontation.

Some hypothetical scenarios -
1) Upon exiting my vehicle in the parking lot of a big box store, two thug-ish 20-somthing men approach me aggressively, yelling at me that I somehow affronted them somehow by taking their parking place, or cutting them off or some other arbirtary affront. My response: Create distance by backing up, diagonally if possible, preferably putting a vehicle between us, my off hand goes up, strong hand sweeps shirt and goes to holster, strong verbal commands to "Back the F off, you are threatening me and I want nothing to do with you." If they continue to threaten me, I do what I can legally do to stop the threat.

2) Discussion with friendly neighbor over the change in the garbage pickup schedule. NO threat. Hands in pockets or at side. End of story.

3) Argument with store manager regarding poor service, returned item, etc. No threat. No need for "Fence."

4) Walking down the street, begger asks for change. I assess him as I walk past, watching his waist and hands, assessing him for threat, weapon, or accomplises. I don't stop or engage in conversation. I keep moving. There's ZERO need for me to engage him in any dialogue. If he stops me against my will, refer to example 1. I take CHARGE of the situation with clear verbal instructions to "BACK OFF."

5) Pumping gas in a shady area at 2am. Thugs approach, looking for trouble. Refer to example 1.

You get the idea. I see this "Fence" as you being drawn deeper into a conversation that is zero gain and a lot of risk. If you suspect trouble, your strong hand needs to be heading to your holstered weapon. Not up and vulnerable to attack or being grabbed. Create distance. Verbal commands.

 

[sidheshooter]

^^^Actually, example 3 might be a good time for the fence, depending upon how the argument goes. The whole point seems to be to have a way to have a guard up in a situation where someone *might* just unload on you. Likely to happen with a store manager? Probably not at all likely, especially if you keep your verbiage in control.

On the other hand, it only takes one nutcase who's just had it; you could be the last straw. Having some guy who just lost his girlfriend and house in the same week clock you during a customer service dispute would be bad, especially if you are carrying and end up out cold on the floor.

Again, that's realistically pretty darn unlikely but-as the THR sages opine-it's not the odds, it's the stakes. Any disagreement with anyone that isn't your best friend or spouse strikes me as exactly the time for "the fence". (I like the looks of the less agro and more fluid versions that I've seen in these vids, personally).

I'm with you on your other examples, FWIW.

 

[xXxplosive]

And not to hijack here but one thought.....
After witnessing the videos of a multiple confrontation...just wondering to myself if a 1911 style with safeties would be the better gun in a situation that ends on the ground / grapling. if one sees it's going bad, by applying the thumb safety may just give you the edge for a second other than striker fire should the assailiant gain possession of the gun....only a thought who knows.....when every second counts.

But I believe the Fence technique as explained by PG is a very important tool in both defense and persuasion in an attempt to defuse by gaining some time as well as protect.

 

[gp911]

I work with the mentally ill, ex-cons, etc and I can see the utility of the fence with its combination of hands in motion and movement. During an "interview" situation on the street it creates distance but doesn't cause a scene. I think it's a useful tool for when there are bystanders that you don't want getting involved. Sometimes when you're the outsider in the bad neighborhood it's best to just slip through without really engaging anybody or showing alarm. Showing you have a gun may cause others to join the party to stick up for their friend from the neighborhood rather than just letting you keep moving along. No tactic works every time, we all have to judge for ourselves.

 

[Paul Gomez]

Said it before, I'll say it again. A hands up stance means that your hands are just that much further from your weapon, which is known as the "great equalizer." And that's not a position my dominant hand will be in - if I perceive a threat that gives me reason to put hands up, then my dominant hand is going to my holster and I'm backing out of the situation while giving verbal commands.

And a hands up stance gives you options to protect yourself that are absent when one hand is hovering around your gun. When you are backing out, given verbal commands, what happens when the opponent that you didn't see suddenly closes distance, striking you in the face on the unprotected side while you scramble for the gun?

You put your hands up and the guy tackles you with a shank. Then what? Three stabs to the lungs in a second and the fight is over. What did your "fence" do? Nothing, but remove your hand from your holster, which is where it ought to be if you perceive a threat.

Drop weight and jam his forward movement either using a SPEAR type jam or Default Cover working off of the Fence. This stops his forward movement and puts you in a position to manipulate him to allow successful access to your gun. If you simply try and draw your gun as a reaction to his movement and pressure, all you will do is get bowled over and shanked with fewer defensive wounds on your gun hand.

And it's possible for a person to grab your arm, thereby keeping you from being able to draw your weapon, which is your lifeline.

You seem to have made an idol of your gun. It doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't stop the bad guys momentum. It doesn't work like a TV remote control. It is an important tool but it will not fix all of the problems inherent in dealing with bad guys. If you go for your gun at the wrong time, it won't make the situation better. In fact, it'll only make it much worse for you.

I cannot conceptualize a situation where I, as a private citizen, am in a situation where I feel that I am 'sorta' threatened to the point of implementing the "fence," knowing that it could in a split second turn into a lethal confrontation.

Umm, OK. How's about every time you are interacting with someone whose intent is not immediately know to you. For instance:

Some hypothetical scenarios -

1) Upon exiting my vehicle in the parking lot of a big box store, a person approaches me asking for a jump. He has jumper cables in his hands and is coming from a car with the hood up. Hands go up. 'Hey, can you hold up, man?' 'What's going on?' as I continue moving. He stops. Explains his situation. I'm able to access his demeanor and the environment. Now, having not exposed myself unnecessarily to a potential problem by allowing him to get too close and/or maneuver me into an ambush initiated by his associate, I may decide that this Unknown Contact does not pose a threat and may choose to render aid. However, if he had failed to respond to my verbal request and had closed the distance, my hands would be in a position to strike preemptively and/or protect myself if he did launch a sucker punch.

2) Discussion with friendly neighbor over the change in the garbage pickup schedule. NO apparentthreat. Talking with my hands in a relaxed fence. No issues. All is right with the world. Neighbor decides he has had enough with my leaving trashcans out for two days after pickup. He just got laid off from his well paying job and he just loses it. He's fed up and throws a big looping haymaker at my head. Hands moving in a Fence allows me to Default, minimizing damage to me, and allowing me to move into a position of control, such as an Underhook & Pike or striking or accessing a weapon.

3) Argument with store manager regarding poor service, returned item, etc. Again, No perceived threat. Again, if nothing happens, no problem working from a fence. If something happens, I can escalate verbiage along with posture and am in a better position to deal with aggression.

You get the idea. I see this "Fence" as you being drawn deeper into a conversation that is zero gain and a lot of risk. If you suspect trouble, your strong hand needs to be heading to your holstered weapon. Not up and vulnerable to attack or being grabbed. Create distance. Verbal commands.

And you do not. OK, I get it.

 

[Claude Clay]

decades of having my left hand in a vest/coat pocket wrapped around a j-frame has served me perfectly through many street encounters. that my posturing is strongly alpha certainly compliments my 'presentation'. also, as personal guards have learned to hold their hands slightly above the waist to act faster, deflect faster--my right hand will be high, in motion and between us.
i see many good points in your system especially for a person starting out.

 

[xXxplosive]

Now I'm as confused as a baby in a Topless bar......

What are the different stages or positions of the Fence....?
ie.....Hand Positioning, Chest height, Waist level,etc.

Explain please........

 

[Paul Gomez]

Now I'm as confused as a baby in a Topless bar......

LOL.

Sorry for the confusion. The Fence is as much a concept as a physical structure. It is one component of Managing Unknown Contacts. If you look at the PDF that I attached, Craig goes into quite a bit of detail on the thought processes behind it.

The idea of having a physical structure [the high, compressed fence] that serves as a staging area for our interactions with others is one aspect.

The ability to escalate verbally as well as with our structure is another.

By keeping our hands in motion, it is easier to bring them into play. If interacting with someone that we do not feel any agitation towards/from, my hands might be lower but still forward of my torso. As the situation develops, the hands would raise and extend slightly into a fence. The fence can be very inoffensive and still be effective. It may be made more offensive as the situation dictates.

As we escalate both our verbiage and our physical structure, we are, hopefully, able to better control the situation without having it devolve to the point of interpersonal violence. Of course, if it does, we are in the best possible position to deal with it.

Hope that clears it up a bit? If not, I'll try again.

 

[xXxplosive]

Ah, ha............so the level of positioning of the hands better determines the level of escalation from mere discussion to louder discussion and so on......got it.
But you still maintain the hands in front, moving during normal discussion.....Ok.