TexasCHLforum.com

Oh yeah, and it might be elevated to the level of a hate crime.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Dr. Kevorkian used to recommend "breathing deeply." Equally good advice.

Then in the pause after a relaxed exhale, slowly increase pressure on the trigger until the suprise break.

I hate to say this, but I think several people fundamentally misread what I wrote.

Keith B wrote:You bet they can. This type of behavior would potentially show you were not just a victim, but an aggressor and were not attempting to defuse the situation, but egging it on.

Jumping Frog wrote:You realize yelling that language at someone is committing a crime in and of itself? That is language that by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

olafpfj wrote:I have found much success using a silent icy stare.
The few times I've had to de-escalate I've used the icy stare of death right after I abruptly stop talking.

Longshot38 wrote:That is a horrible tactic. I don't know where he came up with that but it is dangerous and ridiculous. Lets start with nonviolent situation resolution. This should always be ones first line of defense.

Keith, there is no "defusing" an armed robbery in progress. This is a planned heist. I was trapped from behind, trapped from the front, nowhere to go with my car, 5 guys armed with bats coming at me. Nothing to defuse there. This isn't a so-called "monkey dance" (as Rory Miller calls it), where some monkey brained guys compete for social dominance, and giving the other guy a face-saving exit will usually be enough to deter violence. This is a straight up crime-in-progress, with criminals ready to do violence (hence the bats) to obtain what they want. The time for de-escalation didn't only pass, it was never there. This is the time for self-defense and survival. It's time to go into fight-or-flight mode and make sure you make it out alive.

Frog, if I was standing in line at the check-out register at Albertson's, and I uttered those words to the guy in front of me, then, and only THEN, would it be a breach of peace. When I'm being attacked by 5 guys with bats who have trapped my car and clearly intend to rob me and/or do harm to me, it's hardly a "breach of peace." It's debatable (and that's why we're having this conversation) whether or not it would be smart or effective to employ that tactic, but at that point, the one thing it is not is a "breach of peace."

Olaf, try staring icily at 5 guys coming at you with bats. Good luck.

Longshot, "nonviolent situation resolution?" Read what I said to Keith.

P.S. I do not endorse the approach I outlined in my initial post. It's just something I thought was worth discussing, and the replies I got prove me right in that. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I would never engage in the behavior described in my initial post myself.

rcasady wrote:why are we talking about this "tactic " we all carry weapons , lol should i be carrying a bag of rocks to throw first ?

That is actually a very good question. When I read about this stuff in the book, it wasn't necessarily a situation where a gun was involved. It was just a general type of thing, where you had to defend your life from a really bad guy. Another thing I remember along the same lines was, as Mr. Miller put it (and I'm paraphrasing), if the bad guy punched you or inflicted some harm on you, you could turn around, look him right in the eye, and give him a big grin immediately followed by a maniacal laugh... Come on, that would be pretty creepy. Who laughs after getting punched? The idea is to get in the bad guy's head and make him think that you're worse than him, so that he would leave you alone. You know, the whole thing about victim selection, and if the bad guy realizes that the person he selected isn't willing to be a victim, he thinks better of it and moves on to greener pastures...

matriculated wrote:I hate to say this, but I think several people fundamentally misread what I wrote.

Keith B wrote:You bet they can. This type of behavior would potentially show you were not just a victim, but an aggressor and were not attempting to defuse the situation, but egging it on.

Jumping Frog wrote:You realize yelling that language at someone is committing a crime in and of itself? That is language that by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

olafpfj wrote:I have found much success using a silent icy stare.
The few times I've had to de-escalate I've used the icy stare of death right after I abruptly stop talking.

Longshot38 wrote:That is a horrible tactic. I don't know where he came up with that but it is dangerous and ridiculous. Lets start with nonviolent situation resolution. This should always be ones first line of defense.

Keith, there is no "defusing" an armed robbery in progress. This is a planned heist. I was trapped from behind, trapped from the front, nowhere to go with my car, 5 guys armed with bats coming at me. Nothing to defuse there. This isn't a so-called "monkey dance" (as Rory Miller calls it), where some monkey brained guys compete for social dominance, and giving the other guy a face-saving exit will usually be enough to deter violence. This is a straight up crime-in-progress, with criminals ready to do violence (hence the bats) to obtain what they want. The time for de-escalation didn't only pass, it was never there. This is the time for self-defense and survival. It's time to go into fight-or-flight mode and make sure you make it out alive.

Frog, if I was standing in line at the check-out register at Albertson's, and I uttered those words to the guy in front of me, then, and only THEN, would it be a breach of peace. When I'm being attacked by 5 guys with bats who have trapped my car and clearly intend to rob me and/or do harm to me, it's hardly a "breach of peace." It's debatable (and that's why we're having this conversation) whether or not it would be smart or effective to employ that tactic, but at that point, the one thing it is not is a "breach of peace."

Olaf, try staring icily at 5 guys coming at you with bats. Good luck.

Longshot, "nonviolent situation resolution?" Read what I said to Keith.

P.S. I do not endorse the approach I outlined in my initial post. It's just something I thought was worth discussing, and the replies I got prove me right in that. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I would never engage in the behavior described in my initial post myself.

None of us misread anything that you wrote. The comments were focused on the tactic not the scenario. And while the situation dictates the tactics and one does not know how they will react to a given situation until they are put in it what yo presented represents a clear a immediate threat to life or limb which by state law is enough to justify lethal force. However the tactic you presented does not fit the situation. You are talking about an incident that would very much take place in the public eye, thus public opinion and interpretation would be a big factor. Thus as a matter of not giving people reason to complain or additional ammunition for the prosecuting attorney in the civil case the tactic you mentioned would be a complete and utter failure. You have to understand that in that scenario the best thing you can do is keep quite and take care of the business at hand. Then when it is over tell the police that you will be happy to give a statement after consulting with an attorney.

The tactic you presented as a whole is fatally flawed and should never be imploded. Personally if this is the advise that the author of your SD book is giving I would immediately destroy the book and never buy another one of his publishing. You have to understand that when it is time to use lethal force then time for warnings and psychological games is long over and done. Forget about saying anything, draw you weapon, and start concerning yourself with putting rounds on target in a rapid fashion.

C-dub wrote:That's probably worked so well because instinctively, before a person or animal is about to or preparing to attack they will usually become silent and may stare at their prey while going over their options and preparing their body for action. This is body language and I think many police are taught this as something to watch out for when dealing with suspects.

C-dub, last time I looked, the police yell at the top of their lungs, things like "Get down!" "Hands behind you back" "On your knees" "Stop ..vulgar word.." etc. etc. Your scenario applies to animals quite well. If I was leopard, I would definitely want to keep my snout shut until I'm ready to sever the carotid artery... Human interactions? A bit more complex.

Longshot38 wrote:None of us misread anything that you wrote. The comments were focused on the tactic not the scenario.

But of course, the "tactic" is only even debatably appropriate given a scenario, that is to say a context. I feel like several people tackled that "tactic" out of context, making even its mere description sound ridiculous. Context is everything.

matriculated wrote: ... This is a planned heist. I was trapped from behind, trapped from the front, nowhere to go with my car, 5 guys armed with bats coming at me. ...

If you find yourself in such a situation your planning is not the acme of excellence.

matriculated wrote:

C-dub wrote:That's probably worked so well because instinctively, before a person or animal is about to or preparing to attack they will usually become silent and may stare at their prey while going over their options and preparing their body for action. This is body language and I think many police are taught this as something to watch out for when dealing with suspects.

C-dub, last time I looked, the police yell at the top of their lungs, things like "Get down!" "Hands behind you back" "On your knees" "Stop ..vulgar word.." etc. etc. Your scenario applies to animals quite well. If I was leopard, I would definitely want to keep my snout shut until I'm ready to sever the carotid artery... Human interactions? A bit more complex.

No no no. The police don't do it. It is something they are taught to watch for. I've seen it in training videos. A BG that sees that they are trapped, but isn't willing to give up or is high on something acts very similar to a cornered animal.

matriculated wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:None of us misread anything that you wrote. The comments were focused on the tactic not the scenario.

But of course, the "tactic" is only even debatably appropriate given a scenario, that is to say a context. I feel like several people tackled that "tactic" out of context, making even its mere description sound ridiculous. Context is everything.

Monty python's argument clinic is starting to come to mind.

Self defense for a private citizen is vastly different than police trying to control someone who they ultimately have to approach to arrest. Either way if you charge a cop, or me, with murder in your eyes and a bat in your hand it will end poorly and I will probably not say a word.

RPB wrote:Having been in situations/armed robberies.When a gun was at my head, I looked around and saw his partner and asked if he planned to lock us in that room over there>>>>

What do you mean? You mean you actually had a gun to your head and asked one of the 2 bad guys if they were going to lock you up in that room over there? If that's the case, why in the world did you do that? I mean, what if they weren't and you just gave them that idea...? You know that, generally speaking, people who get taken to back rooms get shot? According to my research, and I've done quite a bit of it, you should never allow yourself to get taken/locked up in a back room, because it's usually bad news. Obviously you survived your ordeal. Would you mind sharing a bit more about the circumstances and how you survived?

RPB wrote:Here's my money clip <reaching>
hold a sec and I'll give you my cell phone, <reaching>
and hold on and I'll get you some gold I have (gold dots) <drawing>

HI-larious! lol

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Dr. Kevorkian used to recommend "breathing deeply." Equally good advice.

Chas.

Why Charles! Did you just make a joke?

DocV wrote:

matriculated wrote: ... This is a planned heist. I was trapped from behind, trapped from the front, nowhere to go with my car, 5 guys armed with bats coming at me. ...

If you find yourself in such a situation your planning is not the acme of excellence.

It can happen to anybody, Doc.

matriculated wrote:

DocV wrote:

matriculated wrote: ... This is a planned heist. I was trapped from behind, trapped from the front, nowhere to go with my car, 5 guys armed with bats coming at me. ...

If you find yourself in such a situation your planning is not the acme of excellence.

It can happen to anybody, Doc.

You seem less interested in a discussion and more interested in trolling responses.

Racial epithets are a no go as a tactic...there...I've answered your question as have others.

In somewhat reverse order...

I think matriculated has an excellent point in that a tactic cannot be fairly evaluated without considering the context in which it is used, and your overall goals for the situation. As an example that Rory Miller does use, if your goal is to get away and survive (which I think would be the goal of most one-citizen-vs-violent-criminal-actor-mugging-type-scenario) then why would you practice joint locks that require to you stay in contact? However, I think you might do so if you envision a scenario where you cannot leave because you (can't physically run, can't leave your spouse, wheel chair bound parent, etc} and lethal force is not justified/the only option.

Yelling as a tactic does have some things to offer in the right situation, and again, context is important. It can be useful for drawing the attention of others, to gain help, to identify to witness that you are the victim not the aggressor (providing you shout the right things), to make sure you keep breathing, to amp yourself up, to help give yourself permission to engage in brutal violence (another key Rory Miller point). But it is something that you should practice, including the specific phrases, because as someone noted above you don't want to be thinking about what to say when you should be thinking about how to get out of whatever you've gotten into. John Farnam calls it a "tape loop"; something you just push the button on and it automatically comes out of your mouth without you having to think about it, so your brain can engage in other things.

I have recently read two of Rory Miller's books: Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected, and Meditations on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Techniques and Real World Violence. Both are excellent, Meditations is more useful to me, and in any case I think everyone who contemplates self-defense (and especially those who do not) should read them. These are mind-set books, but not theoretical books. He has written a number of others that I have not read yet.

While Rory Miller has noted the use of acting mentally disturbed to avoid getting into a fight (he is big on doing anything to avoid getting physical), it was AGAIN in a very specific CONTEXT, and it could be counter productive in other contexts. He notes that different kinds of violence and impending violence call for different tactics, and what works for one type will make matters worse in the other.

However, given the overall tone of the two books I have read, I find it hard to believe he actually advocated using racial slurs or other trigger-type words, even once actual physical violence has been started, due to the negatives that others have covered above. I recall he noted that while shouting during a fight can be good, it is for the purposes I covered above -- to help yourself and engage others outside the fight, because it will very likely have no effect on your opponent whatsoever, and he may not even hear what you are saying. If he really did advocate such a thing (bad words), I would like to see the reference and the exact context where it is recommended.

Rory Miller is big on avoiding, de-escalating, not engaging in monkey dances, escaping and evading, and so forth, if at all possible, and trigger words don't seem to fit into this. But when there is no other option left but violence, he thinks it should be ruthless and in sufficient quantity and force to make you safe from the threat.