TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote:Victims of statistically smaller groups of offenders grouped by external characteristics are just as traumatized as those victimized by BG's in the mainstream. I think the key is not to look for a criminal profile based on age, ethnicity, or any other external factor. I advocate training to observe and respond to behaviors that are consistent with criminal activity. This picks up all practitioners, and keeps one from being blinded when their physical characteristics don't fit the profile of the majority of offenders.

Absolutely. I knew I was hopping off-Topic, and probably shouldn't have posted.

I just accidentally came across those numbers while searching for the aggression data I mentioned, and I never fail to be a little staggered when I see them...not about profiling the likelihood of a possible assault, but by the fact that, if we want to reduce violence, it looks pretty obvious that all the money thrown at promoting gun control would be better directed at promoting effective parenting.

I wish I could find the stats, but I can't. What I was looking for were data (although I know what I had, or used to have, were old, as in circa the early '90s) that indicated one male accompanied by one female was the least likely guy in the various permutations to become aggressive. For example, a guy with two male friends might be emboldened and respond quickly with aggression. Even a male by himself might be quicker to resist than one male with one female.

That Sangiovese was alone with his wife might have upped their target value. If the intent of the two bad guys was robbery, which seems very probable, they might have preferred a lone target. They found a couple in their "hunting ground" instead, but all the other conditions were correct. That may explain the initial recon walk-by: they preferred a lone target and wanted to assess the couple. The decision may have been that the guy would almost certainly give up his cash and watch rather than risk harm to his lady.

I can't help but wonder if the BGs heard Sangiovese's wife say, "Oscar six!" after turning to look at them. The immediate change in direction may have been the thing that called them off, but I have to smile when I wonder if two low-lifes chasing drug money suddenly thought they might be facing two FBI agents.

Speaking of the FBI--and this doesn't affect Sangiovese's incident directly, and may be off-topic (not that I've ever done that before)--in looking for that missing data about aggressive response I came across a summary I did from the 2006 FBI's UCR data. You can't replace individual awareness with a "criminal profile," but the same data points have been around for years, and likely will be again when the full 2007 analysis is released.

I'm of the generation that used to say, "Never trust anyone over 30." Well, I got disturbing news for ya. Admittedly, the FBI's data reflects only arrests so is subject to the same scrutiny we give to DPS's CHL stats, but the trend lines are definitive. Based on 2006 data (overall national numbers, not state or municipality):

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: The VCA will be male 89.1% of the time. He will most likely be 17-20 years of age (24.4%), secondarily 21-24 years of age (19.9%).

Forcible rape: The VCA will be male 98.7% of the time. He will most likely be 17-20 years of age (18.2%), secondarily 21-24 years of age (14.9%).

Robbery: The VCA will be male 88.7% of the time. He will most likely be 17-20 years of age (29.4%), secondarily 21-24 years of age (15.3%).

Aggravated assault: The VCA will be male 79.3% of the time. He will most likely be 25-29 years of age (15.3%), secondarily 21-24 years of age (15%).

Burglary: The VCA will be male 85.5% of the time. He will most likely be 17-20 years of age (24.6%), secondarily 21-24 years of age (13.3%).

These are frightening, and depressing, numbers. In America today you are most likely to be murdered, raped, assaulted, or burgled by someone under 20 years old. Yep; if you add the under-17 age group arrests for aggravated assaults it pumps up the under-20 crowd to account for 24.7% of all arrests, trumping the older boys.

What I've known for a long time is a glaring impediment to my personal preparedness is the notion of having to defend myself against...well, against a kid. And it's something I have no idea how to train for.

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 18 and younger, 1,623. Ages 40 and over, 1,571.

Robbery: 18 and younger, 34,017. Ages 40 and over, 15,961.

Overall violent crime: 18 and younger, 95,674. Ages 40 and over, 92,456.

So the mantra should have been: Trust people over 40. Gang violence swings this pendulum, but still: it is what it is.

(Edited to correct one data point. Typos-R-Us...)

Just to expand a bit on what G.C. said about John Farnam and the, "Can I help you?" question. Excalibur has it exactly correct: John recommends this as an initial verbalization, and Excalibur's example of considering it a 21-foot threat sphere is valid. Couple this with Farnam's training that early verbalizations are always accompanied by his "interview stance": slightly bladed body position; off-hand not fully extended in a "stop" gesture, but raised at mid-chest and arm half-extended, palm and fingers up; gun-hand held near the edge of the cover garment, not touching or exposing anything yet, but ready to. The body posture is clearly a prepared one to an experienced eye (and don't assume your street felon isn't experienced, even if he looks young), and the tone used is a firm one.

The issue of using a question--beyond that of what witnesses might or might not hear and recall--deals with the OODA Loop. If you've been targeted, a plan is already in motion. What you want to do at this point is interrupt the potential assailant's thought pattern for a split second. Your goal is to pause him long enough for you to scan 360, identify possible cover or escape, and understand if you're dealing with additional assailants. At this stage you're having to react to his action, so you want to introduce a momentary hiccup in his pattern that allows you to Observe and Orient yourself, and Decide quickly about your options. You're playing catch-up.

A declarative statement actually doesn't work as well as a question. An unexpected question disrupts cognitive processing and introduces a subconscious reply/delay factor. As an example, if you're about to take a swing at me and I say, "Hold up, dude," not only is it unlikely to disrupt your cognitive process, but it might actually trigger the next step. On the other hand, if I say, "What's your name?" it's likely that, if even for a millisecond, "What'd he ask that for?" is going to flash in between your last thought and your next.

This is a tried and true tactic in human interactions. Think about the last time you haggled with a salesman over a new car. Odds are, at several points during the proceedings he used a question to regain control of the conversation, used that brief disruption in your cognitive processing.

When you say, "What do you want?" you really don't care what he wants, and you have no interest in hearing his response or engaging in conversation. You want to break his immediate OODA Loop so you can catch up and be more aware and prepared if things escalate.

Your pre-patterned follow-up might be, "Sorry, I can't help you," your off-hand now turned fully palm-forward in an unmistakable "stay back" gesture."

Deciding in advance on your next verbalizations, as Excalibur described, is the right thing to do. Mine are simpler than the ones he mentioned, but he'd be less ruffled and much calmer than me.