Coincidence or attack avoided?

[casingpoint]

You want to break his immediate OODA Loop

LOL, I imagine nothing breaks an OODA loop like the sound of gunfire....

[Excaliber]

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.

Thanks, Skiprr, for bringing out expanded information on using the interview stance and scan along with the challenges, and the OODA loop aspect of using questions to momentarily disrupt a plan that's already in motion ahead of your own responses to give you a chance to "catch up." These are important points and a valuable addition to the discussion.

I agree with everything you said - except that I'd be much calmer than you. Thinking things through thoroughly ahead of time brings an "I've been here before and know what to do" feeling when a real situation presents itself. With the research and preplanning you've already done, I've got a feeling you'd be plenty calm enough and would execute well thought out tactics with efficiency and effectiveness.

[Photoman]

After they are about 30 feet behind us, they change direction and start following us.

Why did they decide to "hit" you? That's a good question to think about.

[Excaliber]

Why did they decide to "hit" you? That's a good question to think about.

The bad guys in this situation didn't decide to "hit" Sangiovese and his wife. The intended victims actively intervened before this decision point was reached.

Here's a process analysis of what happened:

Sangiovese unknowingly entered the bad guys' chosen hunting area for the evening. He and his wife were seen as potential targets of opportunity. The BG's then conducted an initial surveillance by walking past them to more closely assess their suitability as victims. Apparently they liked what they saw and reversed direction. The next steps would have been to close distance and announce a robbery. However, Sangiovese and his wife recognized the BGs' preattack behavior and executed an evasive maneuver. The BG's realized they had an alerted victim who was still outside their immediate strike zone (about 0 to 8 feet) which considerably diminishes the chances of success. They probably also "smelled" that Sangiovese wasn't looking terrified enough to be an unarmed victim, and they made the self preserving decision to abort that operation and look for better victims. (This is not "woo woo" stuff - cops and bad guys do this all the time, and can accurately identify each other at 50 yards or better regardless of how they are dressed. Criminals heavily depend upon this sense, which is really a conglomeration of subconscious observations being matched against stored patterns of posture, facial expressions, gait, eye contact, movement styles, etc., to stay in business and alive.) This all occurred during the last of the incident phases that precede a final decision to go ahead with the attack.

For an excellent explanation of how this all works, check out the Crime is a Process and the 5 Stages of Violent Crime on the Nononsenseselfdefense.com website. You'll see that in the language of that model, Sangiovese interrupted the process at stage 3 (positioning). If he hadn't actively intervened at that point, a final decision would have been made by the BG's and an attack would have occurred.

The bottom line: From the information provided, he did not "ask to be a victim" as your question implies in any way other than being present, and he handled the situation successfully and well.

[seamusTX]

The bad guys in this situation didn't decide to "hit" Sangiovese and his wife. The intended victims actively intervened before this decision point was reached.

Good point.

A cross-eyed drunk wearing an expensive suit and a Rolex is begging to be robbed. Other than that kind of situation, robbers choose their victims idiosyncratically. They rob old ladies who have nothing worth stealing, and they rob homeless people who often have quite a bit of cash.

The web site that you referred (http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/) contains a lot of worthwhile information.

There is a reason that most CHL holders die of old age without drawing their weapon to prevent a crime: Their confidence and situational awareness warn off all but lunatics and the most stupid or inexperienced criminals.

- Jim

[Excaliber]

There is a reason that most CHL holders die of old age without drawing their weapon to prevent a crime: Their confidence and situational awareness warn off all but lunatics and the most stupid or inexperienced criminals.

Another excellent and accurate point.

Bad guys don't attack people for the sporting challenge of taking on dangerous opponents - they look for easy pickings, and it doesn't take a whole lot to dissuade them from attacking a given person as long as early detection and good tactics are brought into play early before the decision to attack is finalized.

In random attacks, it's not personal, and one victim is as good as another, so picking on only "safe" ones is a good long term survival strategy in their business.

Thanks, Jim!

[seamusTX]

Bad guys don't attack people for the sporting challenge of taking on dangerous opponents...

There may be a few who specialize in picking fights, but IMO they target men who are broadcasting a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude. I saw a few of those go at it back when I wasted too much of my time in bars.

For CHL holders, the key is to have a "don't toy with me" demeanor, rather than a chip on the shoulder. You can see this attitude in effective cops and military officers.

- Jim

[Photoman]

The bottom line: From the information provided, he did not "ask to be a victim" as your question implies in any way other than being present, and he handled the situation successfully and well.

Being familiar with Marc's work is the very reason I ask the question. I do not subscribe to the notion that criminals attack people in some willy-nilly fashion. As you say, the OP was interviewd and, for whatever reason (my question), the interviewers decided to proceed. The OP would do well to try and understand why the two persons decided to proceed after the first contact.

I do hope the OP does not consider my question to be an insult as you imply. That was not my intention.

[seamusTX]

Someone leaving a movie theater and going to the parking lot obviously has the keys to a vehicle. That alone is enough reason for a robber to take a closer look.

- Jim

[Excaliber]

The bottom line: From the information provided, he did not "ask to be a victim" as your question implies in any way other than being present, and he handled the situation successfully and well.

Being familiar with Marc's work is the very reason I ask the question. I do not subscribe to the notion that criminals attack people in some willy-nilly fashion. As you say, the OP was interviewd and, for whatever reason (my question), the interviewers decided to proceed. The OP would do well to try and understand why the two persons decided to proceed after the first contact.

I do hope the OP does not consider my question to be an insult as you imply. That was not my intention.

Thanks for the clarification, photoman. I wasn't aware that you were familiar with the OP. Some folks do take the position that in cases of criminal attack, the victim must have done something to invite it. I'm glad you're not among them.

Although we'll likely never know for sure why the BG's made the initial decision to try for approach positioning, from the information we have I suspect it's because Sangiovese and his wife didn't take evasive action as the two pairs walked toward each other on the sidewalk, and the BG's didn't see any danger signs as they passed. The BG's may have interpreted this as a lack of alertness and an indication the intended victims were not prepared to take countermeasures and figured they should be good to go if they made their final approach from behind. They were forced to reassess when the intended victims showed they were alerted and took evasive action.

Sangiovese is fortunate that the BG's were a little slow in their assessment process. If they had arrived at a decision as the two pairs moved toward each other on the sidewalk, the BG's probably would have split up right in front of the victims, passed both on their outboard sides, and initiated the attack as soon as they passed.

Another simple and obvious factor may have also been that Sangiovese and his wife were the only non BG's on the street and the only available targets at that time.

[Skiprr]

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...)

[catwoman]

Interesting end to an evening out...reminds me of about 6-8 years ago when my then-early-teenage son were leaving the mall, back in the days before I carried. It was dark, but I wasn't really worried. I had the second parking slot straight out from Dillard's front door. The first spot across the aisle was a red Porsche...don't see too many of those at the Port Arthur mall!! As we stepped off the sidewalk, a couple of young men got out of the Porsche and started walking, not toward the mall, but across the aisle to the lane my car was parked in, as if to intercept us. I stopped, looked at the car and the men, and commented on what a gorgeous vehicle it was. They immediately changed directions and went into the mall instead. I've sometimes wondered...

[Excaliber]

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.

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.

[Sangiovese]

wow.. I take off for a couple days and my thread explodes :)

Lots of good discussion here. Thanks!

There was a good question about why we may have been targeted in the first place. Other than our Oscars, we were the only ones in view so that didn't help us. We weren't dressed up in expensive clothes or anything (I'm pretty sure I was wearing shorts and an untucked tee shirt and a ballcap). Neither of us had been drinking and we weren't messing with wallets or anything like that. I am overweight and am sure that I'm not a real imposing figure... so that might have fit their profile.

As for the initial pass. We did move over well to the side before they walked past us, so if they had split to go on both sides of us it would have been a pretty obvious aggressive maneuver on their part.

As for them hearing the wife's warning... it was pretty soft so I doubt that they did.

[KD5NRH]

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.

Also, "Head or gut?" while soon-to-be satisfying, isn't going to look good in the police report.

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.

Having worked in sales, I try to be ready with equally distracting answers for many of those questions. It's a great way to get the point across to a pushy salesman that you won't tolerate a hard sell. It's pretty effective against anybody else that's trying to use similar tactics to persuade you as well.