# OK de escalaters get de escalating.



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

Just interested to see what tactics people use for de escalation. Me I just use a combination of sales pick up techniques and saying stuff.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 7, 2014)

Great question. I focus on trying to control my own emotions, speech, and body language so as to come across as calm, confident, but not aggressive. I try to ride the line between seeming weak (which can encourage the predator) and seeming belligerent (which can trigger the monkey dance). After that, I just go on instinct.

I'd love to hear what the experienced professionals have to say.

(Along those lines, I plan to pick up one of Ellis Amdur's books on the subject some time soon. I suspect he has some good things to offer.)


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 7, 2014)

There's a lot to discuss on this topic&#8230; I don't have the time now (about to head off), but hopefully will get back to it tomorrow.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 7, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Great question. I focus on trying to control my own emotions, speech, and body language so as to come across as calm, confident, but not aggressive. I try to ride the line between seeming weak (which can encourage the predator) and seeming belligerent (which can trigger the monkey dance). After that, I just go on instinct.
> 
> I'd love to hear what the experienced professionals have to say.
> 
> (Along those lines, I plan to pick up one of Ellis Amdur's books on the subject some time soon. I suspect he has some good things to offer.)



It is tricky there. For me a lot of aggression is due to them perceiving themselves as the victim. So getting into an Alfa competition in a head to head does not allways work very well.

The trick is you don't have to win the argument to avoid the fight.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 7, 2014)

Descalation only ends with one of two ways for me personally. The first is actually not having to act on the adrenalin rush, I stay composed and realise that the threat is just pathetic. The second is as I have got into my forties, is I do not react to threats. Just laugh it off, and the "yeah whatever man" just because I can. The one on one for me ten years ago, would have been a tear up. These days being retired from the door, you can still walk down the high street and experience people thinking on threat level, just veer past him. I like that because it means that I look uninterested and just want to reach my destination. Works with the mind too. But hey, we all have our lockers!


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 7, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> There's a lot to discuss on this topic&#8230; I don't have the time now (about to head off), but hopefully will get back to it tomorrow.



Yeah please do. I am intrigued as to what think on this?


----------



## geezer (Oct 7, 2014)

You are interested in _de escalator???_  Here are some novel approaches. Unfortunately, de-escalation doesn't always work out like planned:


----------



## K-man (Oct 7, 2014)

De-escalation is a combination of many factors some already mentioned. These range from the ability to leave, the assistance available, the ability to remain calm, your physical demeanour, your ability to express yourself clearly in a way that is easy to understand and your belief in your own ability if the brown stuff hits the rotating blades.
:asian:


----------



## Buka (Oct 8, 2014)

It's scenario specific and person specific. How any of us do it will vary with our skills and abilities to read people and read the situation.

I'm retired from wearing a badge, so I don't have to do it as part of my duties anymore. I don't really socialize like I used to, when we go out it's usually to nice bars/restaurants owned by long time friends (their staffs do what's needed, IF it's needed) or to each other's homes.

But there comes a time in life when you just don't go down the de escalating road anymore because you just don't care. Probably connected to senility, I don't know. Caveat emptor to the predators. F'em.  Seems stupid, but I don't care about that, either.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 8, 2014)

Buka said:


> It's scenario specific and person specific. How any of us do it will vary with our skills and abilities to read people and read the situation.
> 
> I'm retired from wearing a badge, so I don't have to do it as part of my duties anymore. I don't really socialize like I used to, when we go out it's usually to nice bars/restaurants owned by long time friends (their staffs do what's needed, IF it's needed) or to each other's homes.
> 
> But there comes a time in life when you just don't go down the de escalating road anymore because you just don't care. Probably connected to senility, I don't know. Caveat emptor to the predators. F'em.  Seems stupid, but I don't care about that, either.



*This?*


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 9, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> There's a lot to discuss on this topic&#8230; I don't have the time now (about to head off), but hopefully will get back to it tomorrow.



Okay, let's see what we can come up with here. There have been some good points made so far, so I'd like to add to them, then give my own answer in a more thorough fashion at the end.



drop bear said:


> Just interested to see what tactics people use for de escalation. Me I just use a combination of sales pick up techniques and saying stuff.



Okay, here's my first question&#8230; how is that a tactic? And, just to clarify, are you saying you use sales techniques, pick up techniques, and "say stuff", or is it that you use "sales pick up techniques" (presumably techniques to pick up sales?)&#8230; not sure with the punctuation there&#8230;?



Tony Dismukes said:


> Great question. I focus on trying to control my own emotions, speech, and body language so as to come across as calm, confident, but not aggressive. I try to ride the line between seeming weak (which can encourage the predator) and seeming belligerent (which can trigger the monkey dance). After that, I just go on instinct.



So, in essence, you try to maintain control (internally), and then simply use instinct, rather than have an established set of methods used, yeah?



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd love to hear what the experienced professionals have to say.
> 
> (Along those lines, I plan to pick up one of Ellis Amdur's books on the subject some time soon. I suspect he has some good things to offer.)



Ellis' books are great, and he certainly has a lot to offer&#8230; of course, the thing to remember with his books are that they are written for very specific target audiences&#8230; taking a look at the descriptions will tell you who each are intended for. As a result, while they all have some great and worthwhile material, I'd advise picking the one closest to your personal needs&#8230; I'd recommend a different book to JKS, or MJS than for yourself&#8230; or for my students, for example. For most here, I'd go for "In The Eye of the Hurricane" (http://edgework.info/docs/Eye-of-the-Hurricane.pdf), as it's the one most geared towards "regular people".



drop bear said:


> It is tricky there. For me a lot of aggression is due to them perceiving themselves as the victim. So getting into an Alfa competition in a head to head does not allways work very well.
> 
> The trick is you don't have to win the argument to avoid the fight.



An "Alfa" competition? You mean something like this:





To be a bit more serious, I believe you meant "alpha"&#8230; implying an idea of "alpha males" in competition with each other&#8230; but, I have to say, it's really not that either. What you're describing is actually pretty much the opposite of alpha behaviour, really&#8230; it's pretty text-book beta, when you get down to it&#8230; and the idea of them perceiving themselves as "the victim" is largely more about social protection and perception than anything else&#8230; and is something that a bouncer will see far more than "regular folks" (you'd get a different Ellis Amdur book than Tony&#8230, hence you seeing that as a big part of it. For others, it really isn't&#8230; in fact, that would be one of the rarer aspects they'd come up against.



Transk53 said:


> Descalation only ends with one of two ways for me personally. The first is actually not having to act on the adrenalin rush, I stay composed and realise that the threat is just pathetic. The second is as I have got into my forties, is I do not react to threats. Just laugh it off, and the "yeah whatever man" just because I can. The one on one for me ten years ago, would have been a tear up. These days being retired from the door, you can still walk down the high street and experience people thinking on threat level, just veer past him. I like that because it means that I look uninterested and just want to reach my destination. Works with the mind too. But hey, we all have our lockers!



Ah&#8230; that's more of an alpha behaviour&#8230; not entirely de-escalation, but a good approach and attitude. I like it.



K-man said:


> De-escalation is a combination of many factors some already mentioned. These range from the ability to leave, the assistance available, the ability to remain calm, your physical demeanour, your ability to express yourself clearly in a way that is easy to understand and your belief in your own ability if the brown stuff hits the rotating blades.
> :asian:



Hmm&#8230; I'm not sure if I'd agree with that definition&#8230; de-escalation is a tactical application of a range of methodologies, with the aim of lowering a threat to remove a potential physical encounter, and, while it does have a number of factors, and a number of factors go into the methods themselves, the list above isn't really it. What they are is a list of some aspects that go into some methods&#8230; and how to ascertain which you would employ.



Buka said:


> It's scenario specific and person specific. How any of us do it will vary with our skills and abilities to read people and read the situation.



The first part, true. The second part&#8230; partially. It also depends on what methods you've been trained with, and how you've been trained to determine your response.

Okay, so with all that said, here's my answer to the original post (what tactics are used for de-escalation)&#8230; which requires us to go back a bit, and look at some definitions.

The first is what de-escalation is itself. Commonly, the belief seems to be that it just means avoidance of a physical engagement&#8230; but, really, that's only a part of it. After all, simply running away can avoid a physical engagement&#8230; but that's escape, not de-escalation. De-escalation, along with it's close cousin de-fusion, is about reducing and heading off an aggressive approach during the pre-fight phase. 

The second aspect that requires definition is another commonly misunderstood one, and that is "tactics". Broadly speaking, the hierarchy is "Strategy-Tactics-Techniques"&#8230; with a strategy being an overall plan of action, a tactic being the way you decide to enact, or enable that plan of action, and the technique being the specific method. In this case, the strategy (for self defence) in our schools is fairly simple&#8230; "Get home safe". The tactic varies (de-escalation, escape, pre-emptive striking, close-quarters brawling, and so on), and then there are specific (and not so specific) techniques in each tactic. 

To that end, I'll be addressing tactics here&#8230; but will likely touch on some technique as well.

So, what are our tactics for de-escalation? There is a broad, single principle approach&#8230; but I've found it easier to highlight that after some grounding in the way we approach the tactic first. To that end, the first thing we do is identify when such a tactic is appropriate. In essence, there are times to use it, and times not to&#8230; when not to is pretty obvious&#8230; it's after the attack has already (physically) begun&#8230; although it can be employed again later in the engagement&#8230; but that's getting ahead of ourselves. 

The same way there are different forms of violence you can face (groups, weapons, ambushes, drunken brawls, close-quarters, ground, and far more, including combinations of the above), there are different ways that non-physical assaults start&#8230; both in social and asocial forms. In basic terms, we break the types of opponent that might be encountered into three categories&#8230; "Aggressive" (someone yelling, trying to intimidate, or bully you into submission in order to provide an opening to begin a physical assault), "Friendly" (feigned familiarity or some other ruse in order to get you to drop your guard, and get close enough to launch an attack), and "Sleazy" (think someone pushing drugs, or trying to lure you close by offering, or suggesting something you might be tempted by&#8230; again, the aim, as in the others, is to close distance and get you to drop your guard by distracting you with whatever they're talking about, in order to attack). As a result, we have different methods (although all following the same basic principles).

And this is where I feel a number of schools fall down&#8230; there simply isn't any real understanding, or real development of any distinction between different methods or even the requirements&#8230; most often, it seems, de-escalation is really little more than lip service (which, when you think about it, is really quite an irony&#8230, with comments that you can "talk your way out of it", but little to no real guidance on exactly how to do that. Within our schools, we cover a whole range of methods for differing contexts and forms, including both "passive" and "aggressive" forms, to cover the major approaches encountered. So let's start with what they are.

Now, I'm not going to give exactly what we do, but hopefully I can give enough of a hint to indicate some of what we cover&#8230; 

To begin with, we start with a script&#8230; the aggressor has a specific "type"&#8230; and, often to begin with, a specific line, or lines, used. The "defender" also gets specific lines&#8230; and a specific framework for the delivery. There's a different way of handling the "friendly" approach to the "aggressive" one&#8230; a big part of it is an understanding of the context (what's sometimes called the social calibration)&#8230; with each being largely based on creating a firm boundary (physically, emotionally), matching the intensity of the aggressor (but not the emotion), and so on. In other words, if someone's coming in "friendly", responding with aggressive methods will be seen as incongruent by those around (which might avoid the fight, but has other repercussions), and really doesn't suit the situation&#8230; so you'd respond with a "cold smile"&#8230; and so on. An "aggressive" opponent gets a much firmer response, in tone, word choice, and more. In addition to this, there are a number of physical methods taught, ranging from body language to distance management, to use of a fence, and so on.

Then there's the distinction between "aggressive" and "passive" de-escalation&#8230; as well as an understanding of when each is appropriate (social or asocial situations, forms of aggressors, and so on), including how to "escalate" your "de-escalation"&#8230; why&#8230; when&#8230; and more.

Another important thing to remember is the cultural reality&#8230; a number of years ago, Richard Dmitri (founder of Senshido, and the "Shredder" method) was out here doing some seminars&#8230; part of which covered verbal de-escalation. His method was largely apologetic&#8230; hands in a supplicating formation, apologising language, backing away, and so on&#8230; the reason being that, in the US, especially in some states, the likelihood of the other guy carrying a weapon, such as a firearm, could be fairly high. An Australian RBSD instructor, Deane Lawler, who grew up on some of the rougher streets in Sydney's North, noted that, although such an approach might work for some areas in the US, where Deane was from, such behaviour would be seen as weakness, and an invitation to attack, rather than actually be effective as any form of de-escalation.

Obviously, there's a lot I'm leaving out of this, but that's a good start&#8230; I feel&#8230;


----------



## Buka (Oct 9, 2014)

In order to deescalate you have to allow the  opponent to save face. Not just with you, but with those he is with.  It's more common for a male to get into it with another male when  there's a group, small or large, watching or being part of it. Usually,  straight one on ones are either they knew each other in one way, shape  or form - or it's a straight out crime scenario. If it is a straight out  crime - there's less chance of deescalation, especially a peaceful  deescalation.

Different places have different feels,  both geographically and socially. Yes, bad situations are always  similar, but there's nuances that make them different. In cities, with  groups of young men, they're big on fighting if they feel disrespected.  The fact that they know little about what respect actually is, is  irrelevant. They have their own meaning to the word based on their own  social circumstances. A lot of times, an apologetic response, be it  self-servient or matter of fact, with a "I meant no disrespect" in a  believable tone of voice, can save a lot of trouble. And I think tone is  important when trying to deescalate a situation. I've watched folks  trying to deescalate situations and sometimes they speak too fast,  rushing to get the words out due to stress, and their tone changes with  the speed of speech, it usually rises in octaves. It usually comes off  as scared. Just what you don't want. Now, that's not to say that some  can't play that "scared card" marvelously, but most can't get away with  it.

The nice thing about deescalation, or maybe I  should say the tactical upside of deescalation, is the element of  surprise. I feel that everyone here knows how to fight. It's kind of  hard not to if you train all the time. When you are verbalizing  specifically to calm down the situation, it either works - or it  doesn't. When it doesn't you've allowed the opposition the luxury of  field interrogation - the interview he was looking for to feel you out.  He's gained confidence in that weaselly little mind of his - then,  WHAM...it's suddenly different. The element of surprise should be  practiced every bit as much as deescalation, IMO.

As Chris originally said, "_there's a lot to discuss on this topic_". Indeed.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Oct 9, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Just interested to see what tactics people use for de escalation. Me I just use a combination of sales pick up techniques and saying stuff.



Back in 1991 I came within a hair's breath of having to shoot an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) while on-duty. Fast forward to 1999 where I'm off duty and walking into a resturant with my (then) eight month pregnant wife. From across the road I hear someone screaming at me. I look up and it's the same guy, running across the road while cars are slamming their brakes on trying to avoid him. I'm thinking what are the odds of being in this situation again with the same guy? I send my wife in and as he approaches me he's screaming, "you're that F'ing cop!". I calmly tell him that no I'm not, that I get mistaken fairly often for someone that works for a local agency and that I'm actually an Allstate Insurance agent. He stops, looks at me close and then says, 'really'. I say 'yeah, you know...the good hands people'. He goes, 'oh' and turns around and walks away. Never saw him after that but thought it was a pretty good way to deal with the situation. Didn't have to pull my gun this time and everyone walked away happy.


----------



## Carol (Oct 9, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> The second is as I have got into my forties, is I do not react to threats. Just laugh it off, and the "yeah whatever man" just because I can.



THIS.  This 1000x over.  So many people complain about the drawbacks of aging...its bloody refreshing to hear about the benefits 

I still play music on a semi-professional basis, and while that doesn't exactly bring me to violent places, it does take me to bars where I wouldn't normally go.  Its a risk/reward scenario.   The ability to laugh it off, to walk away, to leave and go someplace else....the ability to not take the bait.   Huge.


----------



## Buka (Oct 9, 2014)

Carol said:


> THIS.  This 1000x over.  So many people complain about the drawbacks of aging...its bloody refreshing to hear about the benefits
> 
> I still play music on a semi-professional basis, and while that doesn't exactly bring me to violent places, it does take me to bars where I wouldn't normally go.  Its a risk/reward scenario.   The ability to laugh it off, to walk away, to leave and go someplace else....the ability to not take the bait.   Huge.



What Transk and Carol say is true. There are some great advantages.
 I play my age quite well, thank you. I appear as no threat, not even to a puppy dog. It's a beautiful thing, not just in safety, but in convenience. When you're older, the public is on your side, witnesses, the cops, just society at large. They feel for you.

Tactically, the appearance of old allows you to get closer to what's going on without the bad guy caring, or even noticing in some cases.
 Never trust old people if they're Martial Artists. They've been sneakier than you for a long time, and many of them carry.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 9, 2014)

Chris Parker said:
			
		

> Ah&#8230; that's more of an alpha behaviour&#8230; not entirely de-escalation, but a good approach and attitude. I like it.



I can only say "Hats of Sir"  Maybe Alpha, maybe not, at least in that context. I do run my own shift, but I like to think that fear is always there, but channelled. For obvious UK reasons, defending oneself usually means taking a strike. If they want a fight, even then it would be the minimum. However, yeah I would consider an Alpha strike. So you are right, but in this little world of mine, my aggression is towards my flock, but just in SD. Sorry, but sometimes an answer can be a thousand words. Thank you, you have cheered me up


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 9, 2014)

Buka said:


> What Transk and Carol say is true. There are some great advantages.
> I play my age quite well, thank you. I appear as no threat, not even to a puppy dog. It's a beautiful thing, not just in safety, but in convenience. When you're older, the public is on your side, witnesses, the cops, just society at large. They feel for you.
> 
> Tactically, the appearance of old allows you to get closer to what's going on without the bad guy caring, or even noticing in some cases.
> Never trust old people if they're Martial Artists. They've been sneakier than you for a long time, and many of them carry.




Hey listen man I do not disagree with you, but the aged (no insult) in the UK are viewed as a bad convenience. And yeah maybe 20 odd years for now, but no guns in the main.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 9, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Hey listen man I do not disagree with you, but the aged (no insult) in the UK are viewed as a bad convenience. And yeah maybe 20 odd years for now, but no guns in the main.



Could you elaborate on what you mean exactly by the aged being viewed as a bad convenience?  Not wanted?  Not needed?  Weak, target, etc?


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 10, 2014)

Buka said:


> In order to deescalate you have to allow the  opponent to save face. Not just with you, but with those he is with.  It's more common for a male to get into it with another male when  there's a group, small or large, watching or being part of it. Usually,  straight one on ones are either they knew each other in one way, shape  or form - or it's a straight out crime scenario. If it is a straight out  crime - there's less chance of deescalation, especially a peaceful  deescalation.



Hmm&#8230; sometimes, yeah&#8230; sometimes, no. That's the thing&#8230; as with the rest, it really is completely context dependant&#8230; often, in a social violence situation, yes, it's essential&#8230; to get them to "lose face" could actually incite an attack&#8230; in other cases, it's a way to psychologically dominate them&#8230; which is a big part of "aggressive de-escalation"&#8230; this is one of the reasons we cover such a range of methods.



Buka said:


> Different places have different feels,  both geographically and socially. Yes, bad situations are always  similar, but there's nuances that make them different. In cities, with  groups of young men, they're big on fighting if they feel disrespected.  The fact that they know little about what respect actually is, is  irrelevant. They have their own meaning to the word based on their own  social circumstances. A lot of times, an apologetic response, be it  self-servient or matter of fact, with a "I meant no disrespect" in a  believable tone of voice, can save a lot of trouble. And I think tone is  important when trying to deescalate a situation. I've watched folks  trying to deescalate situations and sometimes they speak too fast,  rushing to get the words out due to stress, and their tone changes with  the speed of speech, it usually rises in octaves. It usually comes off  as scared. Just what you don't want. Now, that's not to say that some  can't play that "scared card" marvelously, but most can't get away with  it.



Sure&#8230; and in other cases, depending on where you are, being apologetic can be seen as weakness, and get you attacked&#8230; the comments on tone are completely correct, of course&#8230; with slight alterations depending on context...



Buka said:


> The nice thing about deescalation, or maybe I  should say the tactical upside of deescalation, is the element of  surprise. I feel that everyone here knows how to fight. It's kind of  hard not to if you train all the time. When you are verbalizing  specifically to calm down the situation, it either works - or it  doesn't. When it doesn't you've allowed the opposition the luxury of  field interrogation - the interview he was looking for to feel you out.  He's gained confidence in that weaselly little mind of his - then,  WHAM...it's suddenly different. The element of surprise should be  practiced every bit as much as deescalation, IMO.



Potentially, yeah&#8230; of course, I'd say they tactical upside of de-escalation is that it de-escalates&#8230; it takes you away from a physical confrontation. What you're discussing here is more the potential tactical upside to it failing&#8230; which can be done tactically (deliberately) as well, for the record&#8230; 



Buka said:


> As Chris originally said, "_there's a lot to discuss on this topic_". Indeed.



Ha, we've hardly scratched the surface&#8230; 



Transk53 said:


> I can only say "Hats of Sir"  Maybe Alpha, maybe not, at least in that context. I do run my own shift, but I like to think that fear is always there, but channelled. For obvious UK reasons, defending oneself usually means taking a strike. If they want a fight, even then it would be the minimum. However, yeah I would consider an Alpha strike. So you are right, but in this little world of mine, my aggression is towards my flock, but just in SD. Sorry, but sometimes an answer can be a thousand words. Thank you, you have cheered me up



A true Alpha Male is someone who is confident in themselves, has firm boundaries and social understanding, and strong character. All of which are shown in the behaviour you describe.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2014)

In the UK the law states you can attack first if you are in fear of your life, you can use reasonable force ie KO them but not kick them in the head when they are on the floor out cold. You can also use a weapon even a gun if you are defending yourself and others. The law is a lot more 'allowing' than people imagine, like the 'health and safety' stuff a lot of it is what people imagine or hear from others erroneously. The media of course and certain political parties like to muddy the waters too but the law is clear, we can, must defend yourself and no you don't have to take the hit first.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 10, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Could you elaborate on what you mean exactly by the aged being viewed as a bad convenience?  Not wanted?  Not needed?  Weak, target, etc?



IE, I watched a seriously loved family member die in a nursing home. It is nothng that I will expand on further, other than the fact she served in WW2. My late and great, and very much missed Nan!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 10, 2014)

Sorry to hear that Transk53.


----------



## Transk53 (Oct 11, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Sorry to hear that Transk53.



No worries. Just as a personal opinion, I just felt that she the deserved better as a vet. Anyway thanks for the kind words


----------

