An Interview with John Farnam
by Gila Hayes
The subject of this important interview could be termed safe disengagements perhaps also known as stranger danger or perhaps more professionally called managing unknown subjects. Who better than John Farnam to advise about disengagement before contact and how to discourage predators by just putting too much work between them and their goal? John serves on our Network Advisory Board, for which we are grateful, and I never miss the chance to pick his brain on emerging threats and the tactics that we need to counter them and that was a topic we discussed when he was in town several months ago. For learners who enjoy video, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOXzhEPUVm0 for a more casual version of this conversation with John Farnam.
For the few who may not know him, John Farnam is one of the longest serving instructors, teaching military, law enforcement and private citizens starting in the 1960s as a young marine officer and since then teaching under the imprimatur of Defense Training International influencing thousands of soldiers, police, and private citizens. I met John and his wife Vicki about three decades ago when I became their student and they have influenced my thinking ever since. We switch now to our Q & A format so you, too, can learn from John Farnam in his own words.
eJournal: At the foundational level, John, we recognize the need to stay out of the control of people we don’t know, but predators use subtle approaches to get inside of our boundaries. That’s often characterized by requests for change or cigarettes or inquiries about the time. This approach is so common that you teach a series of standard responses called “tape loops.” What do you commonly say in reaction to approaches like, “Do you have the time, buddy? “Hey, have you got a match, buddy?
Farnam: You don’t answer questions. I think the important thing is not to engage in a conversation. What you want to do is disengage and separate as quickly as possible. When possible, never stop moving. When the person approaches you do not ever stop moving. One of their tactics is to get you stopped and so they can start a conversation. When possible, keep moving or if you’re not moving, start moving away.
Instead of trying to make this up as you go along, you have standard tape loops. The one I recommend to students is very simple. We assume what we call the interview stance – put your hands in front of you to establish standoff distance as if to say, “You’re close enough” – and then we say something like, “I’m sorry, sir. I can’t help you.”
eJournal: “What do you mean you can’t? You look like a nice fellow,” and he keeps coming. What then?
Farnam: In that case, we have to escalate, probably verbally, but I tell you, my students, family members and I have used this many times. I’d say 95% of the time that suffices.
Under some circumstances, the average panhandler may be very dangerous, but they’re not going to spend a lot of time on a dry hole, to put it in oil prospecting parlance. When it’s obvious they’re not likely to get anywhere, they’re going to quickly go on to the next person. They know that they’re going to get a successful hit in, I don’t know, one out of 20. The less time they spend on nonproductive contact is better for them better and that’s better for us, too.
We have an expression in law enforcement that goes like this: courteous to everyone, friendly to no one. Courteous to everyone, friendly to no one. I don’t think being insulting or rude is ever going to be in your best interest. I don’t think that is going to produce a result you want.
Bad things happen when you say something like, “Why don’t you get a job, *&$#*!” to people who approach in a circumstance like this. Some prosecutor looking at this is going to say, “You may not have started it, but you aggravated it, you made it worse.” Prosecutors don’t like that. What is in your best interest is to disengage courteously but aggressively. Say, “I’m sorry, sir, I cannot help you. You have a nice day.”
eJournal: Criminal approaches can be subtle. Maybe a woman comes up to you while you’re pumping your gas and says, “Hey, I’m stranded, can you help buy me some gas so I can get home?” or “Can you help me buy some food for all these kids?”
What do you say? What distances do you try to maintain? To what extremes will you go to disengage?”
Farnam: You have to do whatever’s necessary, because the longer this goes on, the more dangerous it gets. As you say, a lot of times they will use decoys instead of some industrial-sized Jamoke.
If a good-looking young girl comes up to me [starts laughing] ... Wow, good-looking women find aging males irresistible, that’s right! I’m sure she just couldn’t resist me. [adds seriously] The fact is, it’s a scam. Again, you have to be courteous to everyone, but friends to no one. You have to courteously disengage. Say, “I’m sorry, I just can’t help you. You have a nice day,” and keep your distance. Try to stay away. Don’t say anything a prosecutor later can claim, “You started a fight. You insulted them or you said something very unkind or disparaging.”
Insults are not illegal. You can say anything you want. What’s in your best interest and the smart thing to do is to disengage and separate.
In the 5% of the time that is unsuccessful, you’re probably going to have to escalate verbally. In what would be the next step, you’d go from, “Uh uh, I can’t help you,” to “Get away from me!” Say it very emphatically, as loud as you can. [demonstrates with left hand blocking] “Get away from me!” Once again, that’s done without threats to do something terrible, it’s just, “Get away from me!” or “Back off!” or something like that. That is verbal escalation. Normally, when you do that, they’re a little taken a back and you can take advantage of that to move out.
When that is unsuccessful, when you can’t get somebody out of your face, carry a can of OC (pepper spray). The one I’ve got on right now is made by a company called Fox Labs. This is a personal size dispenser. It will go about four to five feet and maybe has three or four seconds of spray, but I’ve never needed more than a half-second. You spray them in the face – that’s the only target that makes sense. It takes their breath away and burns and distracts them. While they’ve got other things to think about, you separate.
They’re not going to die – there’s no permanent injury – it’s unpleasant, you know. We’ve both been sprayed, so you know, it’s unpleasant but it’s certainly not life-threatening, nor does it produce any kind of permanent disfiguration or damage. If you use pepper spray, you committed a battery, so once you get a safe distance away, you’ll probably want to call the police.
Another thing that falls in the same category, especially in the late hours, is a flashlight. We should all carry a tactical flashlight –in excess of 500 lumens. There are various brands like Fenix, Streamlight, Surefire, Powertac, and FirstLight. I hate to do this because I may forget a brand.
If you can hit someone in the face with a beam of light, it has a very temporary paralytic effect. I’ve done it many times. When you go to restaurants after dark, the parking lots are full of people who approach you. I usually do a verbal escalation with a light in my hand, and I’ll hit them in the face with the beam. They’ll put their hands up. I can see what’s in their hands and all they can see is orange balls for the next five minutes. I’ll say, “You have a nice day, sir,” and go into the restaurant. Nobody gets hurt. There’s no need to call the police because there’s nothing that could be described as a battery. We separate and no one gets hurt. That is the definition of a good outcome.
I ought to say that I don’t make a habit of going places where this becomes necessary. I suppose my life could be described as a colossal bore but at my age I have no interest in sexy nightclubs and places like that. I have students in that time of their life and I tell them:
- Don’t go to stupid places.
- Don’t associate with stupid people.
- Don’t do stupid things.
- Be in bed by 10:00 o’clock.
- Have a normal appearance.
- Don’t fail the attitude test.
I have students that say, “Well, I kind of like to meet good-looking women and I kind of like to have a drink now and then.” Okay, yeah, I get it. When I was your age, I probably would have said the same thing, but let me add that my goal is to get you to live long enough for you to get to my age because back in the ‘60s – that’s the 1960s, if you’re wondering – it was a lot less dangerous than it is today. If you expect to live to my age, start thinking about places we go, people we associate with, and when unpleasantness comes our way, how to disengage and separate politely but aggressively.
When I start a class, I tell students, we have two goals here in this class. Goal number one is that we all die of old age, and goal number two is not to spend a large portion of our adult lives in the penitentiary. I’m a good deal less worried about civil law than I am the criminal end.
Generally, you’re on pretty firm ground from a legal perspective when the fight comes to you through no invitation of your own and you take care of business in some kind of reasonable way. The problem is when you go to the fight, when you inject yourself into a circumstance in which you would not otherwise be involved. That becomes a problem.
Our colleague, Andrew Branca talks about innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness and the last one, probably the most important, is avoidance. When you get involved in a lethal force incident at 1:30 in the morning on a sidewalk in front of the Drunken Monkey Bar, how much sympathy do you think you’re going to get from a jury? Now, it’s not illegal for you to be there, but is it smart and in your best interests? I think we spend too much time worrying about what’s legal, what’s right, and what’s moral.
We all carry guns around and I’ve got my trump card right here. I’m not worried about losing the fight, but a lethal force incident in which I’m involved and in which I prevail is going to be very expensive no matter what the circumstances were. I can expect to be looked at very critically by prosecutors. I can expect to have social media and everything else I published looked at for threats and unpleasant comments.
Don’t get involved in a shooting during election year. There’s a lot of political pressure on these incidents. Look at the Zimmermann incident and the Rittenhouse incident. There’s a lot of political pressure to prosecute, even where maybe there’s no merit to the case. You might find yourself immersed in something like that. It’s going to be very expensive. It’s going to be emotionally traumatic. Your body and your mind are going to react to an incident like this and it’ll be part of you for the rest of your life.
eJournal: Many times, families don’t survive. You see divorces, you see separated families resulting from even very justifiable shootings. The after affects cascade beyond the individual involved.
Farnam: I teach police and when we have a young patrol officer out there who’s been working for a couple years involved in a fatal shooting, nine times out of 10 a year later the officer is out of law enforcement, doing something else.
I remember 50 years ago, if you wanted to be a chief of police of a major metro area, you had to have been involved in several fatal shootings to be considered for that job. They wanted to know you weren’t afraid to pull the trigger. Today, a fatal shooting is a career ender. You’re gone! It’s really a shame. It’s not anybody’s fault; we’re not doing anything any different. It’s just the way society has looked upon this, for better for worse.
Down here at the peon level, where we all live, we have no influence on any of this. You say, “Oh, I wish things were different,” well, I wish rainwater was beer [laughing], but as an instructor, instead, I have to tell you the things you need to know if you want to die of old age and stay out of penitentiaries. What’s in your best interest. As I tell my students, I’m not so much interested in the moral thing or the right thing nor even the legal thing. I am interested in the smart thing. I am interested in what represents your best interests. When something like this goes down, the first question you need to ask yourself right at the top of the list is, “What can I do to keep from getting hurt?”
Contrast that to the question a sworn police officer has to ask. That question is, “What must I do to fulfill my duty?” I took that oath. Yes, I will perform my duty though I may die. You want to sign up? This is serious business. When you become a police officer you have to think about that; you’re going to get paid to confront dangerous people.
If you’re not a police officer, you have no obligation for any of that. You don’t need to confront dangerous people. You don’t need to inject yourself into circumstances in which you otherwise are not involved. That is what’s going to represent your best interest.
I always have a student or two who raise their hand and say, “I get what you’re saying, it’s absolutely true, but when I see something terrible happen in which I’m not involved, my conscience will not permit me to remain silent!”
My response is, “God bless you, Bud. I think that’s great.” I’m not up here to tell you what to do; I’m here to tell you what’s going to happen when you do. Here’s what you can expect. What you’re going to do is going to result from a conversation you have with your own conscience.
eJournal: It would be good if you had thought it through ahead of time, so that conversation isn’t happening when the guy’s rushing at you.
Farnam: Yes, and you’ve heard me say in classes, particularly for my police students, no matter what level of bravery and courage and good judgment you display, don’t expect to be thanked. Don’t expect anyone to think you’re wonderful. Do expect endless criticism from all kinds of people saying you could have done it differently. Expect it; don’t become a victim of it.
eJournal: We’ve discussed talking to people and we’ve discussed people talking to us, saying, “Hey, have you got a cigarette, Bud? You got five bucks?” What if someone rushes at you across the parking lot while you’re loading your groceries in the car. No words have been exchanged. If you go into your tape loops, did you instigate the situation? To what extremes are you going to go to preserve distance or make a possible threat go away?
Farnam: I’m not sure I have any very good answers. You’re going to have to get off the line of force if he’s coming at you. Try to step to the side. You might yell, “Stay away, get away from me. I can’t help you,” and see if that’s any kind of deterrent.
I just got a video of a recent incident that just happened at an anti-Israeli protest. The police had the pro-Israel and the anti-Israel sides separated. Of course, they’re exchanging unflattering comments, as you might imagine. An individual on the “anti” side was shouting accusations and apparently there were a couple of accusations shouted back, although it wasn’t clear on the video, what they were saying. The next thing that happened, this guy charges across the street and tackles a guy. I don’t think the guy he tackled had said anything! I think there was a woman standing next to him saying all the unflattering things. As they were on the ground, one got a gun out and the guy who came across the street got shot in the abdomen.
I’m not sure about the “shootee,” but the shooter has been charged. I don’t like to render opinions after watching just a short video – I don’t know enough about the incident to really have an opinion. As you know, I provide expert testimony in cases, and I have to provide opinions under oath. I have to be very careful that before articulating an opinion. I have taken in all the information, not just watch a five-second video and decide what was wrong.
As I watched the video, I was thinking, this is a physical assault. He was tackled and taken down to the ground. It looked as if he had an arm around his neck, although it wasn’t entirely clear. It could have been dangerous.
What could the guy have done? I don’t know. I’m not sure he could have done anything to prevent it, except don’t be there. This was an election year and I know some people listening to this may have very strong opinions about these various divisive issues. Let me assure you, I do, too.
Anytime you’re in a place where highly volatile people are on the simmering edge of violence and you’re carrying a gun, you’re in a bad place. You need to get out of there. You need not be there to begin with, but if you are, you need to get out of there.
This would apply to sporting events where there’s alcohol involved. It’s a recipe for disaster. There are people with guns and people who are very emotionally involved. Since I go armed everywhere, that’s not a place you’d probably find me, nor would you find me at some kind of political event like a rally, for instance. If your favorite political candidate is in town and you want to attend a rally to show your support, I get it. I’ll watch it on TV. That’s as close as I get. I don’t want to go over there.
This is going to get a little controversial. We’re seeing a lot of violent events taking place in churches and synagogues especially, the high-profile churches. Unstable people are attracted by flamboyant events.
Same thing goes for bars; talk to a bartender some time. Bars are the gathering point for all the world’s most miserable people. That’s where they end up. They’re miserable; they’re unhappy; they’re unstable and sometimes they’re violent. If you carry gun around, a bar is not a good place to be. As you know, I don’t drink, but when you enjoy a cocktail now and then, my suggestion is you confine it to your home. If you have a cocktail, make it the last thing you have before you go to bed.
eJournal: I’m pondering what you said about churches and meeting places and emotional people. In public, it’s not unusual to encounter someone who’s mentally deranged. This is a fact that you’ve written about – viewers, if you’re not aware of John’s DTI quips, you should read them. We will put a link on the show notes to them. I’m a regular follower!
Farnam: A couple of times a week, I feel a lecture coming on. I can’t help myself, you know, so I write a Quip.
eJournal: Quips are pithy and they’re funny and usually there’s a quote from somebody else, then [grinning] John tells us what he thinks about the world. A couple of months ago, you Quipped about a blitz attack: no approach, no subtlety, just bam! I’m wondering, first, how do we recognize this coming and then, what can we do? (See https://defense-training.com/affirmation-without-discipline and https://defense-training.com/airports )
Farnam: Nothing. There nothing you can do. I don’t really have a good answer. The incident I wrote about at the end of August took place at the Newark Airport, EWR. I have flown in and out of Newark many times. More than once, I’ve been in the very spot where that attack happened. He and the woman who was stabbed didn’t know each other. Why he selected her, Heaven knows. If that were me, I suspect the same thing would have happened. I never would have seen it coming.
City officials unwisely allow homeless in the airport, where they have absolutely no business. They’re not flying anywhere. Sometimes they even get into so-called secure areas, past TSA.
A person with a knife? You’ll be stabbed or cut before you know it. You may take some defensive actions after that, but no, I’m not sure I have a very good answer. I tell you stay out of sleazy bars, stay away from political events and all these emotional events, but I can’t tell you to stay away from airports, can I? We have to go some of these places.
eJournal: How important is the language barrier? We’re a nation of immigrants and right now we’ve got very porous borders so there’s a chance of encountering someone with whom we don’t share a common language or even gestures, and we may not share the same value system. What can we project? How can we physically communicate?
Farnam: I think the best answer to that question is keep your head up and keep looking around. When they see that you’re alert and looking around, they’ll probably choose someone else. The people that are typically selected for victimization by mugging suspects are walking along with their head down, not paying attention to where they’re going. Those are typically selected for victimization. This is why, for instance, in our civilization the two most dangerous places in terms of physical violence are driveways and parking lots.
Driveways and parking lots are the most dangerous places in this country. Why? Because people aren’t paying attention. They are fumbling with keys, they’ve got their arms full of stuff, and they’re not paying attention.
In our society right now car theft is way down because new cars from the past last couple of years are fundamentally impossible to steal when you don’t have the fob. It’s not going to start. Your brand-new Cadillac Escalade sitting at a parking lot by itself is worth nothing. It’s worthless. They can put it up on a flat bed and haul it away, it still won’t start! So, while car thefts are way down, carjacking is way up, because the only way to steal your car is to steal you, too.
The closer you get to your car, the more dangerous it becomes. When you pull into a parking lot, get out of your car, and get away from it right away. Get away from your car! When you approach your car, get in and get in motion immediately. Your safety is in motion. Get rolling. Do not sit in a car that’s not moving, particularly if you’re not paying attention. That’s very, very dangerous.
Probably the best answer to your question is keep your head up and be alert, especially in places that are more dangerous than others. The comeback, of course, is, “Well I got three kids I’m trying to keep track of two dogs and arms full of groceries.” I don’t know what to tell you, you know?
eJournal: Well, you can still keep your head up. Don’t think it is impossible or it will be.
Farnam: You are going to have vulnerable times in your life. Do the best you can.
eJournal: You mentioned that it’s an election year. One really cool thing about Network member education materials is their long shelf. As we look forward into 2025, I wonder what if any changes may come. I don’t think interpersonal violence has changed a lot – there’s always been violence and evil committed against innocent people. Do you foresee changes coming once we get past the election season? To what kinds of threats are you warning us to be alert?
Farnam: Quite frankly, I’m not optimistic. I make no predictions. I don’t see any reversal of these trends in the immediate future. Right now, we have an entire political party that caters to criminals. We have pro-criminal mayors, who are a little more than communists, we have pro-criminal chiefs of police and prosecutors, who themselves are a little more than criminals. They have no connection with decent people because they’re not good or decent. They’re sleazy criminals. I hate to put it that way, but I don’t know how else to put it. They’re in high office and what we’re seeing is their agenda.
As our society and especially the metro areas go downhill, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Despite the media myths, violent crime is at all-time high. When we plan on living through this, we have to be all that much more alert. We have to look at our lifestyle and more critically than we ever have, look at what kind of people are we associating with, what kind of places are we going, our mode of transportation, whether or not we go armed, and what kind of guns we have with us.
When I became a police officer in 1970, I carried a six-shot revolver and when I wasn’t working – when I was off-watch – I carried a five shot snubby. Today I’m surely not comfortable carrying a five shot snubby, although if that’s all I had, I suppose I would. Today, we’re all carrying bigger, more powerful guns, 17-shooters. Now, when I go anywhere, I’ve got an M4 rifle in the back seat of my car. That’s something I never worried about before but now when I travel away from home, my M4 is not far away. Of course, we have pistols on us all the time. I carry at least two.
30, 40, or 50 years ago, people would have thought you’re really going overboard. Back then, it would have been overboard. Today, it is not.
I entertain no delusions about immortality. I’ve been shot and I have shot people. I have been on both ends. I’m getting too old to get hurt, so I’m going to take – and I encourage my student to take – what you calculate are reasonable precautions for living through the next day of your life. I wish I had better news.
eJournal: As you said earlier, we must do our best. What principles would you like Network members to take away from sharing this conversation with us today?
Farnam: This is the bottom line, I think, but I’m not sure I’m going to articulate it particularly eloquently.
eJournal: Give it to us straight.
Farnam: We have to strive to be good people. We will fail over and over, but we have to strive to be good people. We’re all far from perfect, Heaven knows, but we have to be good people. We’re going to fail but we have to continue to strive. If you get knocked down seven times, you get up eight times: I think that’s the key
I think bad people are going to be bad people and changing their environment doesn’t change that. These people were bad people in Mexico, or they were bad people in Venezuela. When they come here, are they going to change? No, when they come here, they’re going to be bad people here, too. “Bad people” is one title that I want to avoid.
We all make our share of mistakes, don’t we? We have to strive to be good people – good and decent people in spite of our failures. That’s our duty of citizens. I consider that my duty as a human being is to try to be a good person, however you define it.
The time to think about this is now. Sit down in front of a mirror and have a serious discussion with your conscience. We can’t plan exactly, but ask, “What’s my blueprint?” When something terrible happens to someone else, your lawyer is going to tell you get out of there. You may say, “Well, no, I think I have an obligation to help other innocent people.” Ask yourself now to what degree are you going to do that, how you think you’re going to do that and what are you willing to endure as the consequences of doing that.
I’m not a lawyer, as you know, but as your instructor, I’m always going to tell you that your best interests are served by, number one to begin with, not being there. Get out of there when things start going downhill. Do not involve yourself in things you’re not involved in. In other words, be very good at minding your own business.
That conflicts with the moral makeup of some people so you have to find wherever your compromises are going to be. You have to have a blueprint. As good citizens, we have to strive to be good people. [Wryly] In the end, the bacteria win, anyway.
eJournal: Thank you for all the years that you have worked, helping us draft good blueprints, John. You have made our lives ever so much better, and you continue to make lives better through your contributions to the Network member education programs like this one.
Farnam: This Network is wonderful. It is my honor and privilege to have been a small part of it.
________
John Farnam is president of Defensive Training International and has personally trained thousands of federal, state and local law enforcement personnel, as well as non-police, in the serious use of firearms. The DTI class schedule is posted at https://defense-training.com/schedule/.