TexasCHLforum.com

yerasimos wrote: In my opinion, "Can I help you?" is not as useful as, "Hold up, dude."

The tone you use is far more important that the words you choose. The words you choose, however, can be used against you by witnesses to paint *you* as the aggressor. "Can I help you?" in an commanding tone could potentially paint you in a much better light after the fact, but convey the same meaning to a predator as "Hold up, dude."

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

fm2 wrote:Looks like a good job of awareness to me.

...my plan was to turn toward them and challenge them with a loud, "Can I help you?"

My suggestion is to not "invite" a conversation with your verbal challenge. Maybe something like "Could you hold up right there?" .

Since they were pacing/following you, maybe you just keep moving, like you were. Working to improve your position and checking on them to see if they were closing distance and watching to see if you were being pushed into an ambush.

I agree that this sounds like Sangiovese successfully "failed" the selection process for an attack. And I like his planned challenge just fine. I know John Farnam would be proud. Asking "Can I help you?" with a firm command presence in your stance and demeanor will work just fine for queuing up BGs to the fact you aren't food. As John would say, "…courteous to all, friendly to none…”

On the other hand, "Could you hold up right there?" is no less of an "invite" for a conversation. Knowing the mindset of the knuckleheads I've grown up with on the east side of Houston, I know that sort of opener can and will come off as a straight up challenge. It gets even worse if you seem "cocky" at the time because there will be some moron willing to try you. The result is you may initiate a confrontation that will just keep going downhill once it starts.

YMMV, but that's my experience.

yerasimos wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote:On the other hand, "Could you hold up right there?" is no less of an "invite" for a conversation.

In my opinion, "Can I help you?" is not as useful as, "Hold up, dude."

The words said are not nearly as important as the message conveyed, and both are minor compared to the reaction.

A stern "Can I help you?" or a "Could you hold up right there?" (or any variation, up to a "Stop right there!" complete with hand gestures, will all illicit the same response: a sudden stop or change of path, no matter if the "oscar" is criminally minded or just walking the same direction.

Unless, of course, he decides to push matters by being more aggressive, at which time you know what you have to do.

The professional panhandler, especially if chemically impaired, is likely to ignore all warnings, because he's heard them all. Even with a .45 pointed at his face, he might just smoothly ooze on up with either his "Say man, can I hold a dolla for a minute?" or "God bless you, sir, may I have a moment of your time?" or anything in between. Panhandlers don't tend to be violent, but you do have to answer them in a way that lets them know you won't tolerate your personal comfort zone being invaded.

Xander wrote:

yerasimos wrote: In my opinion, "Can I help you?" is not as useful as, "Hold up, dude."

The tone you use is far more important that the words you choose. The words you choose, however, can be used against you by witnesses to paint *you* as the aggressor. "Can I help you?" in an commanding tone could potentially paint you in a much better light after the fact, but convey the same meaning to a predator as "Hold up, dude."

Please elaborate on this.

Xander wrote:

yerasimos wrote: In my opinion, "Can I help you?" is not as useful as, "Hold up, dude."

The tone you use is far more important that the words you choose. The words you choose, however, can be used against you by witnesses to paint *you* as the aggressor. "Can I help you?" in an commanding tone could potentially paint you in a much better light after the fact, but convey the same meaning to a predator as "Hold up, dude."

I can see how "Hold up, dude," might be twisted by a slick attorney into an insinuation that you were announcing a "hold up" or mugging of the other person, and consequently this would disqualify the use of that exact phrase. "Hold there for me," or "That's close enough," might accomplish the same intended effect, without being too inviting or creating an additional legal aftermath problem.

After I establish some proxemic control over the encounter and look after my own safety, then I can (seriously) consider helping the other guy.

If I ever hear a woman say "Oscar Six", I will drop everything and run away screaming like a little girl!

yerasimos wrote:

Xander wrote:

yerasimos wrote: In my opinion, "Can I help you?" is not as useful as, "Hold up, dude."

The tone you use is far more important that the words you choose. The words you choose, however, can be used against you by witnesses to paint *you* as the aggressor. "Can I help you?" in an commanding tone could potentially paint you in a much better light after the fact, but convey the same meaning to a predator as "Hold up, dude."

I can see how "Hold up, dude," might be twisted by a slick attorney into an insinuation that you were announcing a "hold up" or mugging of the other person, and consequently this would disqualify the use of that exact phrase. "Hold there for me," or "That's close enough," might accomplish the same intended effect, without being too inviting or creating an additional legal aftermath problem.

After I establish some proxemic control over the encounter and look after my own safety, then I can (seriously) consider helping the other guy.

I agree with both Xander's and yerasimos' line of thinking here.

The words you use need to be chosen carefully for both their immediate effect as well as for their aftermath value. It's just as easy to use a phrase that will deliver the results you want in both circumstances as not if you plan ahead. Therefore, this is a good discussion point.

Here are a couple of my thoughts:

"Can I help you?" is the gentlest and most aftermath friendly phrase considered here. Delivered in the correct tone and with a "stop" hand gesture, it will be understood as "Stop right there" but would not be awkward if quoted in a police report. The drawbacks are that the subject may not stop at all (he hasn't been verbally asked to) and it could be interpreted as an invitation to come closer and continue conversation. My take: It's a good 21 foot opener. If it gets the subject stopped or diverted, all well and good. If not, you can escalate the verbiage.

"That's close enough - stop there and state your business." This is a direct, challenging command that should be delivered with the "stop" hand gesture (both for added effect with the subject and for the benefit of distant witnesses who are too far away to hear your conversation) and won't be mistaken for anything else. It also reads reasonably in a report, especially if it follows "Can I help you?" I see it as a good 15 foot tactic. The subject here now has to decide whether to stop and converse, ignore and continue, initiate his attack earlier than he planned, or abort his plans. At that point he'll either be stopped and subject to a discussion of his intentions, or his intentions will be clear. In this last case, what you need to do will be also.

"Back up or be treated as a threat." This is a last warning before action, and should ideally be accompanied with a move to the nearest available cover. It will stop anyone who isn't deaf and whose intentions may be unusual but benign. Anyone who continues to approach after this has revealed himself to be a reasonably perceived threat of some type (though not necessarily a deadly one at that point.) I see it as a viable 10 foot tactic, especially if it follows the first two above.

I've given this some thought, and modified my approach a number of times. I consider this procedure the best I have come up with so far, but certainly not the last word on the subject. I'd appreciate hearing what the rest of the members think of this verbal notification / challenge sequence.

Excaliber wrote: "Back up or be treated as a threat." This is a last warning before action, and should ideally be accompanied with a move to the nearest available cover. It will stop anyone who isn't deaf and whose intentions may be unusual but benign.

A "stop" hand gesture will stop anyone who is deaf.

I wonder though how this all plays out with someone who is listening to their iPod with the earphones and cables obscured by their hoodie.

I use in-ear monitors with custom molds for work and also with my iPod and they are nearly invisible enough that I get people coming up and talking to me all the time while I am wearing them and I can't hear a thing they say until I take them out.

mr.72 wrote:
I use in-ear monitors with custom molds for work and also with my iPod and they are nearly invisible enough that I get people coming up and talking to me all the time while I am wearing them and I can't hear a thing they say until I take them out.

I am curious.

How can you maintain adequate situational awareness when you are deaf to your surroundings? I am near to the point of needing hearing aids and it bothers me. I am constantly checking around because I "almost" hear something and the tinnitus is difficult to deal with sometimes.

Anygunanywhere

Anyone who continues to approach after this has revealed himself to be a reasonably perceived threat of some type

I wouldn't count on that for a legal defense.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it-Yogi Berra

anygunanywhere wrote: How can you maintain adequate situational awareness when you are deaf to your surroundings?

Well you can't. So you use something like this only in a controlled environment where unimpeded hearing of ambient sound is not important.

casingpoint wrote:

Anyone who continues to approach after this has revealed himself to be a reasonably perceived threat of some type

I wouldn't count on that for a legal defense.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it-Yogi Berra

In your selective editing of my post, you left out the words that immediately followed the ones you quoted: "(though not necessarily a deadly one at that point.)"

People who do not intend harm generally do not continue to approach when ordered to stop and being advised that they will be treated as a threat if they don't. If the situation advanced further, I would most certainly include my challenges and the subject's responses to them in my criminal complaint to document and establish the reasonableness of the assessment process I used to determine whether the subject represented a threat or not. In this role, this information would constitute elements supporting my assessment process and any subsequent action, not a complete defense in an of itself.

Keep in mind that the subsequent action might be retreat, use of an OC defense product, etc. Use of a firearm is often thought of first in this forum, but it's important to remember that it is a last, not a first resort, and nonforcible and lesser force options have lower justification thresholds for their use.

mr.72 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: How can you maintain adequate situational awareness when you are deaf to your surroundings?

Well you can't. So you use something like this only in a controlled environment where unimpeded hearing of ambient sound is not important.

Thank you for clarifying. I did not think you were one of the numb minded people walking around with their ithings in their ears all the time.

Anygunanywhere

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.

Skiprr wrote:The issue of using a question--beyond that of what witnesses might or might not hear and recall--deals with the OODA Loop. ... 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.

Many years ago I heard an excellent lecture on self-defense by a Chicago police officer. One of his suggestions for women who thought they were being eyed by an assailant was to ask, "How is your mother?" Possibly followed up by, "I missed her at Bible study."

The suggestion that you know and can identify the assailant is a powerful deterrent.

The second part might not be such a good idea, IMHO, because the assailant's mother might never have attended Bible study or been inclined to do so.

Of course, no one can legally carry a weapon in Chicago, so verbal judo, real judo, and pepper spray are all ya got.

- Jim