# Pre-Attack Indicators: By Marc MacYoung



## MJS (Jan 26, 2012)

http://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.com/



> People are always asking me about pre-attack indicators Here is the #1 pre-attack indicator: YOU'RE BEING AN *******!With that simple line, I figured out something that has been bothering me for years. Something that it took Conflict Communications (http://www.conflictcommunications.com ) to put into perspective.
> When it comes to violence, there has always been something about Gavin DeBecker's approach that bothered me. From a 'victimized by an asocial predator' perspective, it made sense. People knew something was wrong, but they didn't want to appear rude. They allowed the bad guy to develop the situation, and bad things happened. OK, no problem, no disagreement. Seen it happen.
> Except I've seen a lot of violence in my life. And like 1970s porn -- where an incredibly hot chick just decides to jump some stranger's bones -- that isn't how things usually happen.
> Yes, there is one-sided predation out there. But like the difference between porn and the real world, there's a difference between DeBecker's model and most violence. In order for violence to happen, things are interactive, slower to develop, and there are a lot of things you can do to keep it from occurring. It's also more participatory.
> When it comes to the way violence happens, this I have seen -- not just more of but a thunderin' herd more.



Thoughts?  I have my own views on this, but will wait for others to comment first.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 27, 2012)

Hey Mike,

I'm with Marc on this one. I don't know that it's really something that isn't covered because instructors don't think about it, I think it may be more that those who attend self defence classes are (assumed to be) "nice" people, who wouldn't deliberately antagonize a situation. Of course, that only really applies when they're still in control of themselves... which is a lot rarer than most think. And decreases once you add in social stimulus such as peer groups, ego, alcohol, and more.

I was watching a video of the black belt grading of a modern, highly eclectic "jiu jitsu" system (in quotation marks as they do a lot of other stuff... often without much basis or reality to it, but with the idea that it is all good for self defence[?]), and one part of it was de-escalation. It had a "bad guy" approach our perspective dan grade student somewhat aggressively, the student then got aggressive themselves, and tried to dominate the "bad guy", moving forward towards them. All the while he was gesticulating, primarily by pointing his finger of his right hand above and outside his right shoulder. The "bad guy" then adopted a submissive body language (hands up, open, facing out, and backing away while making his body appear smaller). Lovely. Well done, really.

But here are the issues.

By moving forward aggressively, he is basically challenging someone who was already adrenalised and ready for action, as well as moving straight into the range for him to be hit. Bad idea. There was no actual defensive actions or preparations, so if he was attacked. His hand being up and outside his body frame (I kinda mentioned that deliberately...) indicates a lack of confidence in his own actions. Not a good sign to give out when entering into an aggressors range of attack, I feel. And if there are witnesses (say, in a bar, or security, or whatever), there's a very good chance that they won't notice until his "de-escalation" begins, as that would need to be more aggressive than the initial approach from the bad guy... which means that when it turns physical, he'll be cited as the aggressor, and the instigator of the fight. All in all, a complete fail. But the assembled students applauded, so at least he felt good about it.

The catch with Marc's take on thing is that it can be taken too far, as anything can. There are times when aggressive de-escalation is the best choice... which includes distancing, amongst other things. If you're trying too hard not to be a "monkey-brain", you can get stuck being overly apologetic, which can be seen as a very weak position to be holding, and makes you a very inviting target. When Richard Dmitri (Senshido, with his "Shredder" concept) came to Australia, he presented his de-escalation techniques and tactics. And, being based in the idea that, particularly in the US, the aggressor may have a firearm, it was very apologetic. And honestly, that grated against the Australian approach to social situations. Deane Lawler, an Australian RBSD instructor (R-SULT) basically pointed out that anyone acting in such a weak manner where he was from (Sydney) was basically asking to be hit about the head several times, possibly with some interesting objects. The thing is to find the balance between confident and being a "hard" target and not being an aggressive and antagonistic individual who creates a violent situation where it doesn't need to be, and that can mean different things according to the social (cultural) situation surrounding the event itself... what works in the US can get you beaten here, and what works here can get you shot in the US. To use Marc's example of a mugging, being overly submissive can lead them to then push further in some instances, in others it ends it quicker and safer... honestly, there's too many nuances to each individual situation that makes them impossible to predict, the best that can be done is to have a good set of principles and concepts that you can work with.


----------



## WingChunIan (Jan 27, 2012)

I agree with Chris, the subject is too complex to have a one size fits all answer, but if you look at the percentages I'd say the highest percentage of success comes from remaining calm, confident (even if inside you're shaking like a leaf) and composed. Being overly aggressive can escalate a situation (or even create one) and I suspect Marc's comments are more based upon the fact that most violent confrontations happen between testosterone fueled young men who each refuse to back down than the purely predatory attack. The situation should determine the response but until you know the right choice adopting a middle ground as described above will allow any ego trippers to leave suitably bolstered whilst also deterring them from pursuing it any further as you have not appeared a victim. If despite gestures of apology and remaining calm and polite the agressor increases their level of threat then you can be pretty sure that there is no talking your way out and should ready yourself for whatever your go signal is.


----------



## decepticon (Jan 27, 2012)

I am just starting a study of women's self defense. Am I interpreting Marc MY correctly in that he advises going along with an aggressor's warning statements? "Give me your wallet or I'll blow your head off" = obey and keep your head on.

How does that fit in with the hollow promises, such as "Get in the car and I won't hurt you", "Don't scream and I will let you go", "If you bring me the valuables, I will release your child unharmed? 

Can anyone clarify the difference for me?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2012)

decepticon said:


> I am just starting a study of women's self defense. Am I interpreting Marc MY correctly in that he advises going along with an aggressor's warning statements? "Give me your wallet or I'll blow your head off" = obey and keep your head on.
> 
> How does that fit in with the hollow promises, such as "Get in the car and I won't hurt you", "Don't scream and I will let you go", "If you bring me the valuables, I will release your child unharmed?
> 
> Can anyone clarify the difference for me?



The way I read Marc's piece there is that the path to avoid violence is given in the context.  Whether that's a path you want to take is a situational question.  If simply giving up my wallet will get me out of there in one piece, with no violence done to me or anyone else, in some circumstances, I might make that trade.  Money & credit cards and the like can be replaced... But if it's getting into a car or otherwise being moved to a secondary crime scene?  Hell no!  Under no circumstances do I consider that a reasonable deal.  It's too easy to be killed in the aggressor's comfort zone.  You're at a party, and a guy looks at you and says "Quit staring at my girl before I break your nose!"...  That's the trade:  avert your gaze and avoid violence.  But if he's beating her up, and says "butt out or I'll pound you too...", well -- I'm probably not butting out.

De-escalation definitely has a cultural component, as well.  Actions that in one culture may send the signal that you're an equal, and aren't involved can send the opposite signal in another.  Eye contact is a simple example; in some cultures, making firm eye contact is a signal of equality and readiness, when in others it's a challenge.  (I'd even say it goes as far as sub-cultures...  Conduct that'll get your *** beat in a frat party is just normal stuff at a biker party...)


----------



## budogeek (Jan 28, 2012)

Marc added some seriously interesting thought to this for the Guardian Angels yesterday:

http://laguardianangels.org/fear-pride-monkey-brain-and-not-stepping-on-your-dick/


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 28, 2012)

I nearly got into a fight a few months ago.
It was a bunch of doped up youths.

How did I avoid it?
I locked my car doors.
Had I not done that?
Suffice to say it wouldnt have been a nearly, because they did actively try and open each door, and smack their palms in frustration against the windows.

The Lesson?
They had a choice between Me, and all the other vehicles lined up where we were stopped. It was completely random on their part.
Assuming You can just predict an Attack is foolish. Because you never know when someone/s are just going to come out of nowere and try to pull your door open, before immediately exhibiting violent behavior.

This Article mostly applies to You provoking a situation, which is an extremely narrow spectrum.

And Violence being slow to develop? Thats another hasty guess. I wasnt aware that when People get beaten up after the Publicans close, that there was actually a slow development taking place, in the few seconds it took someone to dare look at someone else, before theyre taught a lesson.


----------



## MJS (Jan 30, 2012)

Glad to see some good replies here!  I read Marcs  post a few times and each time I read, I picture the same thing.  Perhaps I'm missing something, I dont know.  This reads to me that the victim, in order to not let his 'monkey' get the better of him and take over, is basically STFU!  Don't say anything!  Opening your mouth could lead to getting your *** kicked!  Now, IMHO, this is sage advice.  However, Chris hit the nail of the head with something he said in his post:



> The catch with Marc's take on thing is that it can be taken too far, as anything can. There are times when aggressive de-escalation is the best choice... which includes distancing, amongst other things. If you're trying too hard not to be a "monkey-brain", you can get stuck being overly apologetic, which can be seen as a very weak position to be holding, and makes you a very inviting target. When Richard Dmitri (Senshido, with his "Shredder" concept) came to Australia, he presented his de-escalation techniques and tactics. And, being based in the idea that, particularly in the US, the aggressor may have a firearm, it was very apologetic. And honestly, that grated against the Australian approach to social situations. Deane Lawler, an Australian RBSD instructor (R-SULT) basically pointed out that anyone acting in such a weak manner where he was from (Sydney) was basically asking to be hit about the head several times, possibly with some interesting objects. The thing is to find the balance between confident and being a "hard" target and not being an aggressive and antagonistic individual who creates a violent situation where it doesn't need to be, and that can mean different things according to the social (cultural) situation surrounding the event itself... what works in the US can get you beaten here, and what works here can get you shot in the US. To use Marc's example of a mugging, being overly submissive can lead them to then push further in some instances, in others it ends it quicker and safer... honestly, there's too many nuances to each individual situation that makes them impossible to predict, the best that can be done is to have a good set of principles and concepts that you can work with.



I was thinking the same thing.  Being too compliant, IMO, could be just as bad or worse, than sticking up for yourself.  Now, I do agree....someone in a bar looks over at you and says, "Hey *******!  Stop looking at my girl!" and you reply with, "Hey, **** you pal, I'll look wherever the **** I want!" is probably a sure shot ticket to a brawl.  Now, compared to, "Hey! Stop looking at my girl!" and the reply of, "Hey, no problem man.  Actually, I thought I saw a friend of mine in the same area you both were.  Its cool.  Here, why dont I buy a round of beers for ya."  I'm not being an ***, I'm not being a coward, I'm being confident, and talking my way out of a situation.  

That story I've told, that happened to me a few years ago, when I was out walking my dog.  Car passed by with 2 young guys, passenger looks at me.  Thinking that it was someone who knew me or that I knew, I look back....only to hear a few seconds later..."Hey! You have a ****ing problem?"  to which I said, "Nope, no problem." and continued to stand there.  I did nothing wrong.  I don't feel that I should've dropped to my knees, apologize endlessly, praying for his forgiveness. LOL!  I replied nicely, maintained my cool, but at the same time, was confident.  

IMO, it all comes down to the wording that you use.  Personally, I'd rather opt for the calm, confident tone, rather than saying nothing or just being a jerk.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 30, 2012)

It is really hard to say that doing any one thing will guarantee success.  Certainly keeping quiet in many instances will serve you well.  However, in another instance a verbal response may be just what you need to do.  It all depends on the situation and the people involved in it.  Lots of variables!


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 31, 2012)

There are too many variables in possible violence for one thing to be the all encompassing answer.  However, Marc has good solid advice.   If a possible confrontation is due to the "monkey dance' then it can usually be de-esculated without violence.  However, if it is a predator who is choosing a target, things get dicier.  In my experience, most fights I have seen have been between two ego driven males, so if you can avoid being an ego driven male, you reduce your odds of violence.

Obviously situational awareness, a calm confident manner, and not putting yourself in places where violence happens also reduce the odds of encountering violence.  Sometimes crap happens and it can't be avoided though.


----------



## Zero (Feb 10, 2012)

I agree with WC-Lun, too many variables for one overview or approach, best to have good grounding to draw on and to be able to adopt to situations.  Sometimes saying nothing may lead to, "hey, I'm talking to you d--- head" and a wooping in any event.  It also depends on your knowledge of the surroundings, how many are involved and where and how you read your potential assailant or aggressor.

I generally disengage the ego these days and let things slide, who really cares? But I think remaining calm and aware with a confident or neutral (not smug) attitude is a decent enough starting point.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 10, 2012)

MJS said:


> Glad to see some good replies here!  I read Marcs  post a few times and each time I read, I picture the same thing.  Perhaps I'm missing something, I dont know.  This reads to me that the victim, in order to not let his 'monkey' get the better of him and take over, is basically STFU!  Don't say anything!  Opening your mouth could lead to getting your *** kicked!  Now, IMHO, this is sage advice.  However, Chris hit the nail of the head with something he said in his post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would sooner get punched in the face before I start buying people beer. LOL
Sean


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 10, 2012)

My own personal experience out on the streets (being homeless, et al.) I can say that a majority of attacks are without warning. I've seen two guys (at a homeless shelter) talking and laughing, sharing a bottle/smoke, and no hint of any underlying aggression and BAM one guy is whaling on the other. I've watched one guy happily bee-bopping along even being nice to people (in broad daylight), walking down the street then the next person he passes, he turns on them... and the motive wasn't even robbery. Then I watched one angry fella rail and rant and rave at another but narry a punch was thrown or even a feint, and he was bigger/heavier than the other guy. It's *nearly* impossible to tell if this or that person is going to go close-quarter combat with you (or anyone else). 

Acting like a victim, acting like you got a few hundred bucks that you want to hang on to does attract attention. Constantly looking over your shoulder and veering wide of door/alleyways and the like draws attention. Situational awareness is only half the battle of getting from point A to point B in one piece. How lions pick out the weakest member of the herd is as instinctual as how an addict, robber will pick out someone who won't give them much fuss... (though sometimes they, both lions and bad-guys) get it wrong. 
Which is why learning a MA or taking long term SD classes will pay off.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 10, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> My own personal experience out on the streets (being homeless, et al.) I can say that a majority of attacks are without warning. I've seen two guys (at a homeless shelter) talking and laughing, sharing a bottle/smoke, and no hint of any underlying aggression and BAM one guy is whaling on the other. I've watched one guy happily bee-bopping along even being nice to people (in broad daylight), walking down the street then the next person he passes, he turns on them... and the motive wasn't even robbery. Then I watched one angry fella rail and rant and rave at another but narry a punch was thrown or even a feint, and he was bigger/heavier than the other guy. It's *nearly* impossible to tell if this or that person is going to go close-quarter combat with you (or anyone else).
> 
> Acting like a victim, acting like you got a few hundred bucks that you want to hang on to does attract attention. Constantly looking over your shoulder and veering wide of door/alleyways and the like draws attention. Situational awareness is only half the battle of getting from point A to point B in one piece. How lions pick out the weakest member of the herd is as instinctual as how an addict, robber will pick out someone who won't give them much fuss... (though sometimes they, both lions and bad-guys) get it wrong.
> Which is why learning a MA or taking long term SD classes will pay off.



In my experience, attacks without any precursor or warning are rare, except in cases of the mentally ill.  Attacks with precursors or warnings that were ignored, missed, or simply misunderstood are quite common.  It's quite possible that the homeless people you described were mentally ill, but my guess is that there were signs.


----------



## MJS (Feb 10, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> I would sooner get punched in the face before I start buying people beer. LOL
> Sean



LMAO!  I suppose we could just go with what I said originally, minus the beer part.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 11, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> In my experience, attacks without any precursor or warning are rare, except in cases of the mentally ill.  Attacks with precursors or warnings that were ignored, missed, or simply misunderstood are quite common.


I appreciate the differentiation.  

Without wanting to digress (apologies) there have been a number of racially-motivated attacks around here lately which can fit into either category depending upon one's outlook.  Looking at it from that perspective (as opposed to two guys fighting over a piece of pavement real estate) then in ethnically mixed areas one's very ethnicity is sufficient precursor for some to become aggressive.  I think this is an unfortunate fact of life.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 11, 2012)

Generally, there will still be some kind of preattack indicator. People tend to have to ramp up to the attack.  The visible part immediately before may not be much more than "get him!" But they will have some sort of build up.  

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk


----------

