Awareness

Ishiki [意識]

by CEJames & Akira Ichinose "Awareness is the opening move in all conflict and violence!" - unknown

Why awareness is the “opening move” advantage in conflict & violence

Awareness (situational awareness + self-awareness) is the advantage that happens before contact—before posture, words, distance, or force. It changes the entire “fight” by changing whether it happens, when it happens, and on whose terms.

1) Awareness buys the only resource you can’t brute-force: time

In real interpersonal violence, the “winner” often isn’t the better fighter—it’s the person who detects the problem earlier and therefore:

• avoids the situation entirely,

• exits sooner,

• positions better (angles, barriers, distance),

• primes their decision-making and language,

• and only if needed, acts first (initiative).

In human factors research, situation awareness is commonly framed as (1) perceiving cues, (2) comprehending what they mean, (3) projecting what’s likely next—and better SA supports better decisions and actions under time pressure.  

2) Most failures in dynamic danger start with missed or misread cues

If you don’t perceive or correctly interpret the important cues, everything downstream degrades—choices, timing, and execution.

Endsley’s work (and later reviews) emphasizes that perception breakdowns are a major source of SA failure in complex, fast-changing environments.  

That maps cleanly onto civilian violence: you can’t manage distance, tone, exits, or hands you never noticed.

3) Stress narrows attention—so awareness must be trained and structured

Under threat, humans tend toward:

• attentional narrowing (tunnel vision),

• fixation on the most salient cue,

• degraded scanning and working memory.

A well-studied example is the weapon focus effect: the presence of a weapon can capture attention and reduce memory/identification accuracy for other details. This is supported by classic meta-analysis and newer reviews.  

And even trained professionals can miss obvious threat cues when attention is engaged elsewhere: in a simulation study, many police officers and trainees failed to notice a gun in plain sight.  

Practical takeaway: awareness isn’t “just look around.” It’s attention management under load.

4) Awareness drives de-escalation and “non-contact wins”

A huge portion of civilian self-protection is preventing the physical phase:

• recognizing rising cues early,

• using space/exit/voice,

• de-escalating,

• or leaving.

Public-safety training and policy discussions increasingly center de-escalation as a safety tool (even acknowledging limits).  

Awareness is what makes de-escalation possible early enough to matter.

5) Awareness creates “initiative” (even when you don’t throw first)

Initiative isn’t only striking first; it’s being first to:

• choose the ground (literal and social),

• set distance,

• set boundaries,

• get behind cover/barriers,

• call for help,

• and make your decision before the other person completes theirs.

Many combatives and self-protection teachers stress that civilian violence is often pre-assault ritual + positioning + ambush, and that the pre-contact phase is where you win. (Example: emphasis on pre-emption as an escape facilitator rather than a “fight ender.”)  

6) A simple operational model: baseline awareness → threat specificity

One widely taught heuristic is Cooper’s “Color Code” (White/Yellow/Orange/Red): a way to keep a calm baseline while escalating attention and readiness only when cues justify it.  

Its value isn’t the colors—it’s the habit: live in calm awareness, shift to specific awareness when something doesn’t fit, then act decisively.

7) Awareness includes self-awareness (ego, scripts, adrenaline)

In conflict, your own internal state is part of “the situation”:

• ego injury (“face”), anger, shame,

• adrenaline spikes,

• cognitive tunneling,

• “must win” narratives.

Self-awareness is what lets you:

• recognize you’re escalating,

• use breath/voice control,

• keep language clean,

• avoid the “mutual combat” trap socially and legally.

What awareness can’t do (important)

Awareness is a probability amplifier, not a guarantee:

• some attacks are truly sudden/ambush,

• environments can limit perception,

• and attention is finite (you can’t monitor everything at once).

That’s why good awareness is paired with positioning, exits, boundaries, and decision rules, not paranoia or constant hypervigilance.  

Bibliography (starter set, high-utility)

Situation awareness / decision-making

• Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems.Human Factors.  

• Endsley, M. R. (Chapter/PDF). Situation Awareness: Analysis and Measurement (incl. discussion of SA levels and error sources).  

• Thilakarathne, D. J. (2015). Modelling of situation awareness with perception, attention, and prior and retrospective awareness. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures.  

Attention limits under threat

• Simons, D. J. (2017). Inattentional blindness for a gun during a simulated police vehicle stop. (PMC).  

• Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior.  

• Körner, H. M., et al. (2023). Revisiting the role of attention in the weapon focus effect.(PMC).  

Applied self-protection / pre-contact cues

• Abernethy, I. (2024). Essay on pre-emption and training implications (self-protection framing).  

• De Becker, G. (1997). The Gift of Fear. (Popular but influential; introduces “pre-incident indicators”).  

Awareness heuristics

• Cooper “Color Code” overviews (training heuristic lineage to Jeff Cooper).  

Fact check (audit of the key claims above)

1. Claim: Situation awareness can be modeled as perceiving, comprehending, and projecting.

Status: Supported. Endsley’s Level 1/2/3 SA framework is widely cited and reproduced.  

2. Claim: Many operational errors trace back to failures in perception/attention.

Status: Supported (with proper scope). Endsley’s SA measurement literature discusses substantial error contributions from perception problems (in studied domains like aviation/complex operations).  

Note: Exact percentages can vary by domain/study; the general principle is well-supported.

3. Claim: Under stress, attention narrows and salient cues can dominate.

Status: Supported. Modern reviews of the weapon focus effect explicitly discuss attention narrowing / cue utilization accounts (alongside alternative explanations).  

4. Claim: Weapon presence can impair eyewitness identification accuracy (weapon focus effect).

Status: Supported, with nuance. A classic meta-analysis found an overall negative effect on identification when a weapon is present; newer work revisits moderators and boundary conditions.  

5. Claim: Even trained officers can miss a visible gun when attention is engaged elsewhere.

Status: Supported. The Simons (2017) simulation study reports many trainees and officers failed to notice a gun in plain sight.  

6. Claim: De-escalation training is a major contemporary emphasis in policing and is framed as improving safety (though not always applicable).

Status: Supported. DOJ/COPS program materials describe federal efforts to identify/develop effective de-escalation training; DOJ/OJP materials discuss benefits and limits.  

7. Claim: Cooper’s Color Code is a commonly taught situational awareness heuristic.

Status: Supported (as a training heuristic). Multiple training-oriented sources summarize it and attribute it to Jeff Cooper.  

Note: This is a pedagogy tool, not a validated scientific “scale.”

“Awareness Opening Move” Doctrine 

Here’s a 1-page “Awareness Opening Move” doctrine card you can copy/paste and print (or I can reformat it into a pocket-card style next).

AWARENESS = THE OPENING MOVE (Doctrine Card)

1) The Prime Directive

Win before contact.

Awareness exists to buy time + options: avoid → exit → de-escalate → act.

Working definition (Endsley SA):

1. Perceive (what’s happening)

2. Comprehend (what it means)

3. Project (what happens next)  (I’m citing the earlier Endsley source you already saw; if you want, I’ll re-pull fresh links.)

2) Baseline: Calm Scanning, Not Paranoia

Default state: “Yellow” (relaxed, noticing).

Shift to “Orange” when something is “off” (specific concern).

“Red” = decision made (act/leave).

(Cooper’s Color Code as a training heuristic—useful as a mental gearshift, not science.)

3) The 10-Second Loop (repeat quietly)

1. Where are my exits? (2 ways out)

2. Where is cover / a barrier? (car, counter, aisle, doorway)

3. Who is closest? (distance + angles)

4. Hands + waistband + face (hands tell the truth)

5. What changed? (the cue that didn’t fit)

Rule: if you can’t name what changed, you’re probably just anxious. Reset.

4) “Pre-Contact” Red Flags (civilian reality)

Look for clusters, not single cues:

• Target-glance (eyes “mark” you, then environment)

• Unnatural approach (closing distance without purpose)

• Boundary tests (ignoring “no,” crowding, blocking)

• Grooming gestures (waistband touch, pocket check)

• Forced teaming / interview (questions to pin you)

• Positioning to your blind side (angle hunting)

• Sudden silence / stillness (decision point)

If 2+ cues stack: go “Orange” and move.

5) Positioning: Make the Environment Fight for You

• Distance is a weapon. Create it early.

• Put barriers between you and them.

• Avoid being pinned (walls, cars, aisles, bathrooms).

• Keep your exit behind you when possible.

• Don’t let them herd you.

6) Verbal Boundaries (clean, brief, repeatable)

Use a calm command voice, not anger.

Script A (space):

“Stop right there.” (hand up)

Script B (direction):

“Back up.” / “Stay back.”

Script C (exit):

“I can’t help you.” (move toward exit)

Script D (public anchor):

“I don’t know you. Stay back.” (loud enough for witnesses)

Broken record rule: repeat the same line while moving.

7) Decision Triggers (when awareness becomes action)

Pick one trigger now so you don’t negotiate later:

Trigger options:

• They keep closing after “Stop.”

• They block your exit.

• Their hands disappear (pockets/waistband) during approach.

• They touch you or grab clothing.

• You see a weapon or weapon-shaped behavior.

When a trigger hits: leave now or act now (depending on legal/ethical necessity).

8) Stress Reality Check (what your brain will do)

Under threat, attention narrows; you can miss obvious cues—even trained people can.

So: structure your scan (hands/exits/closest person) and keep it simple.

9) After-Action (30 seconds)

As soon as safe:

• Breathe (slow nasal inhale, longer exhale)

• Note details: location, clothing, direction of travel

• Call for help if needed

• Write 5 bullet points while memory is fresh

Note: it's worth a mention that professionals, LEO's etc., often give themselves a period after an incident to ensure they are past the effects of the chemical dump before doing an AAR.

Micro-Drills (5 minutes/day)

1. Exit habit: name 2 exits every time you enter a place.

2. Hands habit: casually check hands/waistband of nearest 3 people.

3. Barrier habit: stand where a barrier is between you and others.

4. Boundary reps: practice “Stop right there” out loud at home.

A Nevada-friendly legal framing add-on you can literally staple to the doctrine card. This is written in plain English, aligned with how Nevada self-defense law is actually argued, not how martial artists wish it worked.

(Not legal advice—this is practical framing based on Nevada statutes, jury instructions, and prosecutor patterns.)

NEVADA SELF-DEFENSE LEGAL FRAMING

What to say • What NOT to say • Mutual combat traps • Witness language

1) Nevada’s core self-defense standard (plain language)

In Nevada, use of force is justified when a reasonable person in your position would believe it was immediately necessary to prevent unlawful force against them.

Three ideas matter most in court:

1. Immediacy (happening now, not later)

2. Reasonableness (what a normal person would believe)

3. Necessity (no clearly safer alternative at that moment)

Your awareness behaviors are what prove all three.

2) What awareness looks like legally (this is huge)

Awareness supports your case because it shows:

• You noticed danger early

• You attempted avoidance

• You created distance

• You used verbal boundaries

• You acted only when those failed

To a jury, this looks like reluctance + restraint, not eagerness.

3) What to say (initial statements that help you)

Use sensory facts, not conclusions

Say what you saw, heard, and did, in order.

Good language:

• “I noticed him closing distance quickly.”

• “He ignored my commands to stop.”

• “I tried to move away and he blocked me.”

• “I was afraid he was about to hurt me.”

• “I acted to stop the threat and get away.”

Anchor to defensive purpose

• “I was trying to leave.”

• “I only used enough force to break contact.”

• “Once I could get away, I stopped.”

Use ordinary human fear

• “I was scared.”

• “I didn’t know what he was going to do next.”

Fear + uncertainty + immediacy = juror-friendly.

4) What NOT to say (even if it’s true)

These phrases are prosecutor candy:

❌ “I’m trained in martial arts.”

❌ “I knew exactly what to do.”

❌ “I neutralized him.”

❌ “I went into fight mode.”

❌ “I wasn’t afraid.”

❌ “I had no choice but to hurt him.”

❌ “I could’ve killed him, but didn’t.”

Why?

• Training → higher standard of control

• Confidence → less perceived fear

• Combat language → intent to dominate

• Absolutes → easy cross-examination

5) The mutual combat trap (Nevada reality)

Nevada does not protect “fair fights.”

You lose self-defense protection if it looks like:

• You accepted the fight

• You escalated when disengagement was available

• You stayed engaged after the threat stopped

• You pursued instead of escaping

How mutual combat is created (even accidentally)

• Trading insults

• Squaring up

• Chasing after separation

• Continuing strikes after the attacker disengages

• Saying “He deserved it” or “He started it”

Awareness doctrine prevents this by design:

• Early exit attempts

• Verbal boundaries

• Environmental positioning

• Clear stop point

6) The “last strike” problem

In Nevada cases, the last action often defines guilt.

If the other person:

• Falls

• Turns away

• Stops advancing

• Is no longer capable of continuing

…and you continue force → your self-defense claim weakens fast.

Doctrine rule:

The moment escape is possible, force must stop.

That rule isn’t just ethical—it’s legal armor.

7) Witness language (what bystanders should hear)

Jurors trust neutral witnesses more than you.

What you want witnesses to remember:

• You said “Stop” or “Stay back”

• You tried to leave

• You sounded firm, not angry

• You disengaged and moved away

• You didn’t posture or taunt

That’s why public verbal boundaries matter:

“I don’t know you. Stay back.”

“I’m trying to leave.”

Those phrases sound defensive, not aggressive, when repeated in court.

8) Post-incident checklist (Nevada-smart)

After you’re safe:

1. Call 911 first if possible

• “I was threatened and defended myself.”

• “I’m safe now. I need police and medical help.”

2. Identify evidence

• “There are witnesses.”

• “There are cameras.”

3. Minimal facts

• Point out injuries

• Identify attacker

• State fear and necessity

4. Then stop

• “I’m shaken and would like to speak to counsel before giving a detailed statement.”

This is not evasion. It’s standard self-protection.

9) Why awareness is your best legal shield

Awareness creates a story arc juries understand:

I noticed something was wrong → I tried to avoid it → I set boundaries → I was forced to act → I stopped when I could → I left.

That arc defeats:

• Vigilante narratives

• “He wanted to fight” claims

• Training-as-weapon arguments

• Mutual combat accusations

10) One-line doctrine summary (memorize this)

“I noticed danger early, tried to avoid it, acted only when I had to, and stopped as soon as I could safely get away.”

That sentence aligns awareness, morality, and Nevada law.

Perfect. Here are all three, written as court-safe, Nevada-specific tools you can actually use—not theory, not dojo talk.

You’ll notice a theme: everything protects your awareness narrative and keeps you out of the expert / mutual-combat / aggressor boxes prosecutors love.

1) COURT-SAFE LANGUAGE CARD

(Exact phrases. Memorize. Use verbatim.)

The only four things you are ever trying to communicate

1. I noticed danger

2. I tried to avoid it

3. I was afraid and had to act

4. I stopped as soon as I could escape

What to say (safe, boring, human)

Perception

• “I noticed him closing distance.”

• “Something felt wrong and I paid attention.”

Avoidance

• “I tried to move away.”

• “I was looking for a way out.”

Boundary

• “I told him to stop.”

• “I told him to stay back.”

Fear

• “I was scared.”

• “I didn’t know what he was going to do next.”

Necessity

• “I acted to stop the threat.”

• “I only did what I needed to get away.”

Termination

• “Once I could get away, I stopped.”

• “I disengaged and left.”

What NOT to say (even casually, even later)

❌ “I’m trained.”

❌ “I assessed the situation.”

❌ “I neutralized him.”

❌ “I controlled him.”

❌ “I wasn’t afraid.”

❌ “I knew I could handle it.”

❌ “I showed restraint.”

❌ “I could’ve done worse.”

Why:

These imply confidence, control, superiority, or intent—all of which undermine fear and necessity under Nevada law.

The safest single sentence (gold standard)

“I noticed he kept coming toward me, I tried to move away and told him to stop, I was afraid he was about to hurt me, and I acted to stop the threat and get away.”

That sentence survives cross-examination.

2) PROSECUTOR CROSS-EXAMINATION DEFENSE MAP

(What they try → where you anchor)

This is the part most trained people lose.

Attack 1: “You’re trained, right?”

Their goal: Raise your standard of care.

Your anchor:

“I’ve taken general classes, but this happened fast and I reacted like any scared person would.”

Never say martial artist, black belt, combatives, dojo, tactics.

Attack 2: “So you knew what you were doing?”

Their goal: Kill fear and uncertainty.

Your anchor:

“No. I was scared and trying to get away.”

Repeat fear + escape. Always.

Attack 3: “You chose to use force.”

Their goal: Make it a preference, not necessity.

Your anchor:

“I tried to avoid it, but he kept coming and I was afraid.”

Avoid the word choice. Use forced without saying “forced.”

Attack 4: “You could have walked away.”

Their goal: Undermine necessity.

Your anchor:

“I was trying to leave, but he blocked me.”

If you moved at all → say so.

Attack 5: “You continued after he went down.”

Their goal: Mutual combat / excess force.

Your anchor:

“I stopped once I could safely disengage.”

If there was any pause, escape, or break—name it.

Attack 6: “You didn’t call the police immediately.”

Their goal: Consciousness of guilt.

Your anchor:

“I was shaken and focused on getting safe.”

Human reactions beat tactical explanations every time.

Attack 7: “You didn’t tell officers everything right away.”

Their goal: Inconsistency.

Your anchor:

“I gave the basic facts and said I would give a full statement after speaking with counsel.”

This is normal, not suspicious.

3) MARTIAL ARTIST–SPECIFIC RISK MITIGATION GUIDE

(This is where awareness protects you long before any incident)

This section is critical for trained people.

A) Training disclosures (how much is too much?)

Safe:

• “I exercise.”

• “I’ve taken general self-defense classes.”

Dangerous:

• “I train to incapacitate.”

• “I practice lethal techniques.”

• “I specialize in close-quarters combat.”

• “I train pressure-point or nerve strikes.”

Rule:

If it sounds impressive, don’t say it!

B) Social media (the silent prosecutor)

Delete or avoid:

• Fight clips

• “Warrior mindset” quotes

• “Better judged by 12” memes

• Training videos showing domination

• Statements about restraint, control, or damage

Prosecutors absolutely use this to show mindset.

Awareness means future-proofing your narrative.

C) Dojo language that can hurt you later

Avoid internalizing phrases like:

• “Finish the fight”

• “End the threat”

• “Control the opponent”

• “Neutralize the attacker”

Under stress, people repeat what they’ve rehearsed.

Replace with:

• “Create space”

• “Break contact”

• “Get out”

• “Protect myself”

D) Mutual combat prevention for trained people

Because you look capable, juries assume you had options.

So you must visibly reject combat:

• Clear verbal boundaries

• Movement away

• Public disengagement

• Stopping early

Awareness → optics, not ego.

E) The “expert paradox”

The more skilled you are:

• The earlier you must disengage

• The less force you must use

• The cleaner your behavior must look

This is unfair—but it’s reality.

Awareness lets you exit before skill becomes a liability.

FINAL DOCTRINE (memorize this)

Awareness keeps me from fighting.

If I must act, it proves I had no reasonable alternative.

And it tells me when to stop.

That doctrine protects:

• your body

• your freedom

• your future