What "that" are you talking about?
This: "If that group then decides to attack (despite my changing direction away from them [indicating that you were aware of them] ), that's also not completely unexpected;...".
I mentioned that the possibility of being attacked is the reason I go armed.
That's why most of us do. You seemed to imply that you go armed to prepare for situations in which a group may start to follow you or move to intercept you, which would not be completely unexpected. You said "it's exactly what I was looking for", and that if that group were to then decide to attack (despite your changing direction away from them) that possibility is why you decided to go armed in the first place,
I know how many times I've been approached in a threatening way, ...
You know how many times you were
aware of having been approached in a threatening way.
...how many times I've been attacked...and how many times I've been surprised.
"Past performance is no guarantee..."
(Hmm. I wonder if we're using the words "completely unexpected" differently. I take it to mean that, until the moment I'm receiving my attacker's first blows, or he's making his first overt, credible threat of violence, I had no idea he was a possible threat, nor even perhaps that he was there. I do believe that is not "most likely."
That may be the crux.
No. It means, in defensive training parlance, that the attack is an
ambush, made
without warning. Your scenario of a "hostile approach" that can reasonably be detected in advance, when "a group then starts to follow...or moves to intercept ..." would not reasonably be characterized as "completely unexpected".
What
would be completely unexpected, as I intended the words to mean, is, to describe one example, when you notice the reflection of someone walking behind you when you are using gas pump, your realizing as he nears that he has a hand behind his leg. You did not "expect" it at all, and you would not say "it's exactly what I was looking for ".
It should be one of the things you are
prepared for , but that would not make it
expected.
Sure--keeping both eyes open, noticing things that don't look right, changing direction or crossing the street and back are excellent strategies. They would be very helpful in some situations.
But they won't work when someone charges out for behind the dumpster past which you have just strolled.
Let's try to apply a little common sense. Do you
really believe that a couple of violent criminal actors intent on attacking you would behave in such manner as to give you a timely indication of the danger? Would that be a success oriented strategy? Don't you think that they might understand the risk of getting shot?
The I.C. E. PDN Combat Focus Shooting training curriculum describes what is more likely as a
Dynamic Critical Incident--any event that is:
1. Surprising – A sudden event that you did not expect or anticipate
2. Chaotic – Things are happening rapidly and you have no idea what is going to happen next
3. Threatening – With physical violence that could cause grave bodily injury or death
That's not the same thing as seeing someone out ahead of you and making assessments and preparing to avoid them. But it is more likely. And it requires a different response.
I suggest taking the course.
Interestingly, the subject of "situational awareness" came up during lunch between sessions. Th instructor showed several ways in which the people at the table might have been attacked without warning even as they thought they were ware of averaging in their surroundings. One comment that I remember is "you were not reading a Braille menu".