Slate joins in the monday morning quarterbacking fray with their article Fight or Flight at Virginia Tech.
Usually articles like this in mainstream press, greenlit by an editor wanting to jump in on the media frenzy for topical content, are glaring in their lack of realistic tactical or martial arts awareness.
Luckily they consulted a couple of "knowledgeable sources", a Krav Maga instructor from the KM LA headquarters, representing the new hotness Israeli counter-terrorist doctrine, and the leader of EPI, representing the old school ex-cop-as-bodyguard faction.
The advice is as good as it can be, given the short article length given to Slate's "Explainer" column. I think it's more along the lines of the articles written after 9/11 about fighting back on a terrorist-commandeered aircraft. If you know you don't have much of a chance anyway, why not charge the bad guy with a carafe full of hot coffee? But in a terrestrial situation, you have the possibility of slipping out a window--and the article does cover that option, albeit in passing.
Interestingly enough, the article doesn't mention the first rule of a gunfight--to fight back armed with a gun. Don't know if this is a reflection of the magazine's editorial bent or an understanding that most Slate readers aren't CCW holders (which, after all, would drive a particular editorial bent).
Posted by jameshom at April 24, 2007 03:10 PM | TrackBack