Things aren't always what they appear to be, but then sometimes they are!
Michael W.
CP Provider for over 40 years Private and Govt. contracts. Well travelled. CP training, Local Liaison, investigation services for CP Teams travelling to Iberian peninsula+LATAM Physical combative solutions. Educator
He wasn’t expecting that was he ?
BREAKDOWN:
So as promised my "breakdown" or analysis of the actions of all involved, looking on the same event from 4 different Perspectives.?
1. From a self-defence point of view.
2. From a legal point of view
3. From a moral point of view
4. From an inquisitive and purely subjective point of view social point of view.
The facts are before our eyes, but as can be easily gleaned from the many comments received over various social media platforms, the interpretation of those facts is very much based on little more than emotion.
I will share my opinion based on more than 45 years immersed in anti-social behaviour, aggression violence including 30 years+ studying asocial predatory violence on 5 continents and the penal systems of three of those. I have conducted well over 6000 hours of interviews with convicted violent criminals. Murderers, terrorists, rapists, home invaders who killed the occupants and cartel hitmen. Street robbers who prefer violence to stealth and gang members.
As an individual and as a senior member of a Spanish defense and security contractor I have implemented changes for the safety of staff and inmates in some of the most dangerous penitentiaries in the world. I have been surrounded by violence my whole life, applying and later teaching both its avoidance, and its application in varying forms to professionals who rely on these skills on a daily basis for their survival.
If anyone's #PERSPECTIVE differs from mine I look forward to discussing your theories, this topic and others with you or anyone who wishes to raise valid arguments in support or indeed who wish to contradict my opinions. Any educated arguments will be well received and debated, here or in another post.?
SELF-DEFENCE:
Starts with avoidance.
Be "in the moment" and atmospherically in tune. Sound and motion provide context, so be aware of changes in either or both in your environment, near and far.
OK, I know, I know Victim blaming is bad, but the victim got hit for something. Probably something he said. So know, who you are talking to, or, to keep your comments to yourself.?Not everyone will receive you comments or advice as you might like!
Like it or not, some level of fault lies with the victim.?Take responsibility, learn, and move on.?
By the way when all was said and done, when everyone had gone home and only the victim and No1 remained the victim tried to help the bully, and he got attacked again for his trouble, shame and embarrassment I would say, as the second attack was weak...It seems neither of them learned anything from this encounter.
SELF-DEFENCE REQUIRES YOUR PARTICIPATION
Self-defence was non-existent in the victim.?He had no idea he was in trouble, may have been intoxicated, was slow to recognise and slow to react. His defence, typical in such situations, was to grab the hands of his attacker. Surrendering his only weapons of attack for a pseudo defensive technique and leaving his head and face open to a street fighters "go-to", the headbutt. So on a scale of 1 to 10 the victims Self-defense skills can be rated at 1...at least he got out of his chair!
No1 lacked all basic self-defense skills when his time came, and that could be explained by over-confidence or the reputation that preceded No2. I will investigate that a little later.
In the initial attack, the attacker led with 'closest weapon closest target', that's good, (often taught in classes now and it has been long used by the criminal fraternity and the socially aggressive), but had no immediate defensive cover, and could have been easily overpowered had the victim had any knowledge of violence.
He got in a reasonable head butt, however, all his aggression was social, it was not meant to do damage other than (playful) cuts and bruises and the psychological, he was making a point, claiming his place in his imagined hierarchy. He was a social bully, not a violent predator. Lucky for the victim.
The same could be said for aggressor No2, the guy in the blue coat. Also, a status-seeking bully, if for, on this occasion different reasons. Many have praised his actions, going to the rescue, of a victim, from No1 bully, and had it stopped there I may have agreed, but it didn't.
RETRIBUTION IS NOT SELF DEFENCE...EVER!
Not morally and not legally.?
That is why the justice systems of the world supersede the mob culture of Shelly's Frankenstein era!?The mob, generally acts before it thinks in the 'real' and the 'virtual' alike.
No1 again proved to lack predatory mindset, no guard. 'All show-no go'.
Reputation may have played a part here. He may have been willing to pay some cost for his actions against his victim. No2 might be a big fish in that pond. Alternatively he may have thought that No2 was bluff, either way he had no guard, no defence and lacked the speed to defend or attack No2.
No2 although it is obvious to me saw no threat in the situation had no defence to talk of. Had No1 had the predator mindset, he could have easily attacked first and No2 had no defence applicable. No1 didn't attack and we can only surmise that his subconscious had told him, this was not winnable, suck it up and hope they go easy on you!!
LEGALLY, of course, neither No1 nor No2 have any defense.
No1 Regardless of what was said to offend him, legally (and morally) words don't provide the necessary justification or level of violence to warrant a physical rebuttal, if intent cannot be proven. It could have been the drink talking or a good guy having a bad day. Empathise, ignore, walk away or, behind the green door 'go physical'!
Threats can be made verbally but to legally use physical contact as a defence it must be clear that those words are backed by MEANS, INTENTION and ABILITY.
"I will kill you", is a threat that can be laughed off unless whoever said, has just killed someone else, has a history of killing people, or is holding the means to kill you (a gun machete etc). Words alone are not enough. So the victim had shown no means, no intent, and honestly, his ability was not apparent.?
领英推荐
No1 was legally an aggressor. He could face legal actions, fines and or imprisonment are a likely conclusion to his night. I wonder if his sentence was discussed prior to the event, would he have chosen a different path? Probably not because it has been shown time and again people seldom ponder the consequences of their actions prior to committing the act.
No2 came into the fray, and was a hero at that point. He stopped the possible continued physical aggression, the victim was safe and protected and aggressor No1 knew his place.?All good shake hands, kiss and make up. My hero.
Rules of social engagement meant that No1 could not just back down and walk away. Any good nightclub doorman will tell you that. It is common when de-escalating a situation to offer a way out, a back door a method of backing down without losing face.?" I know you could probably beat me to a pulp, but there are cameras recording this and the company will press charges even if I don't). Leave here tonight mate and come back next week, no harm done". Has been used more than once to give an embarrassment free back door. But, not by No2 Mr. Blue-coat!
No one likes to be embarrassed, many have been seriously injured in preference to it. The white feathers of Victorian Britain, sent men to war, to the horrors of the trenches, because the embarrassment of staying home and being ridiculed as a coward was believed to be worse!
THEN HE ATTACKED:
All the physical had stopped, it was No2 who chose to reinitiate physical contact. It could of all stopped there, but it didn't. A show of force seemed necessary at least to No2 and his crew! The attack by No2 "blue coat man" on No1 was not warranted or necessary. Necessary is, well necessary, for self defence should things go legal!
He did what he thought he needed to do in the moment but in the cold light of day was it really necessary? I don't think so for the same reason as the initial contact. Words might have been spoken but there was no imminent danger. No2 has played this role before and was not in fear of anything in that situation. However, he may wish to claim, after speaking to his legal defence team that he was in fear, that he thought a weapon might have been concealed, for example etc. But that will just be bluff for the judge and jury.?
No2 had ulterior motives, above and beyond saving a poor victim, of that I have no doubt. No2 cannot, in most modern societies, claim self-defence nor defence of a third party on the evidence produced.?
From a moral point of view, the victim remains the victim, possibly an innocent party.?
I repeat that in my opinion, both the others were morally social bullies.?
All the physical could have been avoided with a little empathy, a little understanding and a little less ego!
But this next line is important so pay attention:
NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO AVOID VIOLENCE!
Those people will not be de-escalated, or verbally judo'd, they will need to be restrained, possibly detained. If that is not achieved quickly and professionally using a controlled physical intervention it will get messy and possibly very dangerous.
Last but not least Social responses during the melee.
No one at all seemed bothered about what was happening, even the ladies moved away slowly and continued eating, why?
No one took out their phones to video the event, an almost unheard-of phenomenon these days, in that age group, why?
THEN THERE IS THIS!
I am sure everyone saw this! (Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but I love it!!) However, as not a single person in over a thousand comments on 4 social media platforms mentioned it, I will.
One bystander blocked No1's escape route, another tried hitting him from behind, several times and actually pushed him toward No2 when No1 seemed to be backing off.
No1 after the initial attack was caught in a typical street ambush formation, apparently without his knowledge. One behind him, to his left, another behind to his right, a third to his right whilst No2, blue coat man was in front. The takeaway cabin is on his left.
Those who appear to be with him in the first instance appear to be against him as the action progresses. Again something any nightclub doorman worth his salt has seen a hundred times!
One question to ask might be, could he have been provoked into this confrontation? Was he suckered? Was this as simple as it at first appears, just a bully getting his comeuppance?
This video, like so many others, contains so much information to help us improve our predatory mindset, situational awareness our preparation for violence. Often I have been criticised for posting similar material, usually by the people who need this information the most. If we go beyond the shock value, the who's right and who is wrong, if we stop arguing and examine these events with a critical trained eye and an open mind we can often see so much more.
Have a great, safe weekend
We provide Governmental, professional, and civilian security training in Spain and Latin America. Options are available to those who wish to increase their personal safety, the safety of their loved ones or clients, or who wish to advance their careers in Close protection with professional no-nonsense skillsets.
I teach private online classes, and I teach in-person; private, family, and group classes in Cádiz province in Spain. The subject matter I cover includes but is not limited to: My D.A.D.A. program. Detect, Avoid, Distract, Attack (CQC). Situational awareness and avoiding problematic situations; People profiling for your personal safety; Situational control and tactical conversation; Physical solutions for violent situations; Home security and protection solutions.
In-person classes can include in-depth physical combative training in the use of physical violence for your safety and security.
If you would like information on any of the above subjects feel free to DM me and we can have an informal "chat" old school style!
Alternatively contact me at: www.insafehands.net
Divisional Trainer, Self Defense Instructor
6 个月That is why Self-defense is important to learn, to protect yourself and others.
Cert. Security Consultant & Founder - FORTIFY SECURITY CONSULTING
7 个月Cut off the threat from causing more damage, cordon the area and people away from the threat, coerce the threat to follow options laid by you, control the situation once the threat agrees to your options, constrict movement in the area and of people till the threat is moved to a legal holding area which is under law enforcement's control. This whole process is very stressful and requires a monk-like approach. Hopefully if a violent scenario can be controlled like this, it would be a red letter day in crime prevention. This is possible but entirely hinges on how calm and confident the crime management team is.
Setting standards to prevent and manage violence and aggression
7 个月In approaching this from the four perspectives you indicate in your opening, you start to give people an insight into the the issues related to the subjective versus the objective review of a set of circumstances. Leaving the emotion to one-side (not always easy for people to do) the 'reasonable persons' test of measurement comes into it.. This test is used as a benchmark for measuring whether something is reasonable or not; it a made-up concept used to try and apply consistency to the law. As you open to discussion with people who have a different point of view(s) - I hope you get some take-up on this offer. Always good to have professional discussion.
Security Program Manager | Cartographer ??? | U.S. Army Reserve Intelligence Officer ???? | Military Spouse & Dad ??
7 个月Why did you tag me in this post?
Public Sector Security, Logistics and Information Managment Services, Government Advisor and service provider.
7 个月The four perspectives and the search for the truth or fact in a situation is very subjective and dependent on point of view. Once again Michael a really precise piece of analytical dissection of an event through different lenses. Bias unconscious or otherwise plays a part in how we view these things, but violence is violence and any chance to deescelate should for a professional negotiator or peace maker be the initial course of action.