getting chl soon. advice on de-escalating?

Most unfortunate situations really can be avoided - I agree with that 100%. What sometimes can't be avoided is an ambush style attack. This is when a person or people seemingly come out of nowhere with the intent of doing you harm to get your car, wallet, complete some kind of gang initiation, etc. That's really the only reason I carry a gun. Pulling money out of ATM's especially at night, gas stations at night and parking lots at night can be dangerous. People hang around looking to score some money - mostly harmless beggars, but not always harmless.

I just think its crazy to think in terms of "de-escalation" when a real bad guy(s) (not just some hot-head) has a pre-planned agenda to make you his next Meth ticket.
 
Last edited:
There are very few problems heading your way, in a normal day, in normal activity's.

Using our normal activity's, on a normal day, for my Wife and I, place us, arising, not early (9 am) having breakfast, bed making, Lap Top use, and other mundane home style things. Going to shops/Supermarket, Gas up.

Living in Orlando, since Dec 2003, only one incident that could have ended badly. Even this was not normal in our neighborhood, two would be gang banger's followed my Wife around Publix, neither one had a basket or cart.

Me waiting outside, next to our Security Vehicle caused both of them to leave, in a hurry. Now that one incident is in its self was very unusual, no one else I have spoken to, has ever encountered this kind of possible? car jacking?

Any one else here can duplicate a similar event?

In approximately 4,200 days, one rather strange incident. With two people involved.

So how do you avoid being followed in a large Supermarket? Hard to do, but having a Cell phone is important. Scan, be observant, in this case, I was outside, reading. And armed. And my Wife is observant.

Seek out the Manager, point out the individuals, be armed.

Dr. Phillips is not a bad area? Bad chaps have transport too.
 
Now, to address your comment above. Disputes with a store clerk or dealing with an aggressive driver - neither of these, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE that I can possibly imagine would ever cause me to touch my concealed handgun.
Click to expand...

Okay. So your vision of a valid self defense scenario ALWAYS and IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE will involve the threat that comes out of nowhere, an "ambush type attack." That being the case, in your view, absolutely no soft skills (such as verbal de-escalation of angry others) could possibly help you avoid needing to save your life with the gun.

That's a rather limited view of how violence happens, and a very limited understanding of how deadly force attacks can play out.

pax
 
So your vision of a valid self defense scenario ALWAYS and IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE will involve the threat that comes out of nowhere, an "ambush type attack.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much that's correct; or at least what I said is I will not be using my firearm with regard to an aggressive driver or dispute with a store clerk. I really don't know what kind of other circumstances you are alluding to. Domestic squabbles? Dispute between friends? Fight with business partner? Dispute with next door neighbor? I would never even consider using a gun in any of these situations! It's not even an option!

I carry a gun for one reason - to defend myself (or family who happens to be with me) from attacks by strangers who would seek to do me (or family member) serious physical harm for profit, gang initiation, or just for kicks and giggles. That's it. Yes, I am absolute about this - it is where I draw the line. And in these scenarios de-escalation is not an option.

I'm a married man. I am not going to be raped or beaten by my spouse. I have no "girlfriends" who might attack me for any reason. I have never used drugs and drink very little, and my friends don't use drugs and drink very little. I don't associate with anyone who would ever threaten me with violence. While, I am sure that there are other scenarios where life threatening violence can erupt between someone and a non-stranger; this simply does not apply to me.

Look Pax, you said it yourself - you need to know precisely under what circumstances you will deploy your weapon, shoot and possibly kill someone. Ultimately, everyone will have to draw that line for themselves, within reason. I have a very limited set of scenarios where I will deploy my weapon and shoot. Outside of a pre-planned attack by strangers, using a gun is not an option.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Skans:
I carry a gun for one reason - to defend myself (or family who happens to be with me) from attacks by strangers who would seek to do me (or family member) serious physical harm for profit, gang initiation, or just for kicks and giggles. That's it. Yes, I am absolute about this - it is where I draw the line. And in these scenarios de-escalation is not an option.
Click to expand...
De-escalation per se in its traditional sense may not be an option, but one can learn a lot about the different ways in which violence can occur, and how one might avoid having to pull a gun, from the book linked in Post #4.
 
De-escalation of conflicts or potential conflict situations is a great skill to develop, I don't debate that at all Oldmarksman. And, I looked at the book linked in #4 as well as the other links and all of this material is worth reading.

My worry is that someone will take the de-escalation thing to heart and try to use it in the wrong scenario; a scenario which really does require that you use force to quickly defend yourself. De-escalation (as I understand it) is used where two non-bad guys (or girls) have gotten angry or combative with each other to the point where one might use a gun out of shear anger. Personally, I would never let things get that out of hand. There are many other things I can do other than stand face-to-face (or car-to-car) with someone engaging in an argument that would cause the other person to become enraged. Perhaps I naturally engage in de-escalation all the time without even being aware of it.
 
I whole heartedly suggest training, training training at a school that specializes in self defense/use of force.

Generally speaking, I dont consider my firearm to be the means to solve disputes. If my life is in peril, I will go to the gun as a means to use force to protect life. If the threat happens to dissolve in the face of a firearm and force is not needed.. great. My go-to method of defusing hostile situations is to not participate and leave.

I have said many times on the forums.. I do not believe that every personal trespass is a gun pulling situation. I think it is a very good idea to simply obtain the formal training and knowledge which will allow you to make those difficult distinctions.
 
what I will say about these de-escalation scenarios is that it typically involves you staying engaged to some degree with the hostile person to effect some sort of resolution. When dealing with a hostile stranger, I would simply prefer to put distance between me and the hostile and not engage in some static communication in a parking lot. In many instances.. distance is your friend, not word play.

I do think that learning verbal techniques to avoid confrontation is a good thing, I simply dont see it as something I would use as opposed to avoidance altogether. If you are trapped on an elevator with the person, ok.. I get it but I am not sure how some goofball in a parking lot is going to prevent me [absent physical force], from just leaving the area.
 
Posted by Skans:
My worry is that someone will take the de-escalation thing to heart and try to use it in the wrong scenario;
Click to expand...
That could happen, but what is your suggestion?

....a scenario which really does require that you use force to quickly defend yourself.
Click to expand...
That may be one kind of instance in which de-escalation may fail.

De-escalation (as I understand it) is used where two non-bad guys (or girls) have gotten angry or combative with each other to the point where one might use a gun out of shear anger.
Click to expand...
I think that is a gross oversimplification.

Personally, I would never let things get that out of hand.
Click to expand...
Sure!

There are many other things I can do other than stand face-to-face (or car-to-car) with someone engaging in an argument that would cause the other person to become enraged.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear it, but reading that is no substitute for studying the material linked at the beginning of the tread and thinking about it.

One of the many things that one will likely learn from the MacYoung book is that the events that culminate in a serious violent encounter may be nothing at all like what people may have in mind when they head out into the world.
 
De-escalation is a good skill.
Detecting escalation is an equally vital one. If you can cut off the escalation before it becomes physically threatening, all the better. (Probably easier, too!)
 
That could happen, but what is your suggestion?
Click to expand...

My only suggestion, other than some of the good things many others have already mentioned, is know where your line in the sand is, and make it a bright line.. Think about why you carry a gun. Think about where you go with it. Most of us follow the same travel patterns day after day probably more than 90% of the time. I don't believe that violent attacks are all that random and unpredictable. That would be like saying shark attacks are completely random and unpredictable. If you know your travel and activity patterns it allows you to think through more likely scenarios where you may be confronted with violence.

For me, my quick bright line test is (outside of my house): Threat of serious violence must be great; must be someone I don't know (a stranger); must be no "easy escape" for me; possible "threats" greater than 20 feet away are not "imminent" to me, so I wouldn't be shooting at distances greater than this.

Some folks might not like my "stranger" qualification - I'm not telling anyone to make this their own; it's simply part of my bright line. I just believe that when it comes to people I know (even if we hate each other), I refuse to use a firearm to defend myself" It's a moral issue with me.
 
Gary, I looked it up - here is the first thing I found:

Five Universal Truths of Verbal Judo

ALL cultures want to be treated with Dignity and Respect
ALL people would rather be asked than told what to do
ALL people want to know why they are asked or told to do something
ALL people would rather have options than threats
ALL people want a second chance to make matters right

From my perspective, in a split decision on whether I need to use a gun or not to defend myself, I don't find this applicable.

1. Wanting to be treated with Dignity and Respect have nothing to do with a person who is determined to carjack you.

2. Being asked or told what to do is irrelevant to the guy waiting in the bushes to jump you at the ATM machine.

3. Providing someone with options or second chances to make things right - not a factor when a couple of armed individuals are quickly approaching you in a dark parking lot.

Now, if you accidentally verbally insult someone and they get angry with you - the above premises may be perfectly valid.
 
Skans - if one is down to a split second decision whether their life is in danger and whether deadly force is justifiable, then verbal judo is inapplicable and should not even come to mind. However, the question was asked about deescalating a situation to avoid it from escalating into one requiring deadly force. That's where verbal judo comes in and if nothing else, beat feet (unless it's a deadly force situation in which retreat is not feasible).

I wasn't taught those five steps of verbal judo but showed respect and addressed things in a manner so as not to personalize the issue. I tried to empower the individual towards a peaceful resolution. "What would you like done?" If nothing else, as a patrol officer, I'd throw down the gauntlet. I'd ask, "Now, you're the boss and you're in control."

(This makes the other guy feel very happy and empowered).

"I'm going to take my orders from you."

(This really makes them feel good)

"Either you're going to tell me that I'm going to leave you alone and that you're going to walk away."

(Hobson's choice coming up).

"Or that I have take you before the magistrate at which point I'm going to have to arrest you and toss you in jail."

(Now the shoe dropped and they know I hold the ace card; but they decide whether I play that card. Still, (s)he may walk away with their dignity intact).

"Which of the two orders are you going to give me, Sir?"

(Reaffirmed that they now control their own fate and that I remain respectful of them.)

No one ever demanded to be taken before a magistrate. Thankfully that saved me a lot of paperwork.
 
Skans, you seem to assume that the only cases you'll encounter will be clear-cut pre-meditated violent assaults.

While you may not be stupid enough to wind up in a situation like the Trayvon Martin case, look at how that went from two people making assumptions about relatively innocuous things to a lethal force encounter. Neither person was committing a crime at the start. Both seemed to think they were in the right. Neither stepped back to de-escalate...one wound up dead, and the other had his life turned upside down.
Life is messy. Sure, there are some clear-cut cases, and those are much easier to mentally prepare for. Yet, there are plenty of cases each year where both parties knowingly or unknowingly escalate things until physical violence occurs. Seeing that and knowing how to avoid it is a good skill to have.
 
Raimius said:
Skans, you seem to assume that the only cases you'll encounter will be clear-cut pre-meditated violent assaults.
...
Life is messy. Sure, there are some clear-cut cases, and those are much easier to mentally prepare for. Yet, there are plenty of cases each year where both parties knowingly or unknowingly escalate things until physical violence occurs. Seeing that and knowing how to avoid it is a good skill to have.
Click to expand...

Spot on!

It's not as if criminals never interview their potential victims before deciding to attack. Or as if life-threatening violence always and only happens in one very narrow and specific set of circumstances, and cannot possibly happen in any other.

This very limited view of violence leaves out huge swathes of potentially deadly situations and because it does, it is deeply flawed.

pax
 
The article, "Interview" pretty much makes my point, Pax. Let's look at its highlights:

1. Regular Interview (most common for muggers) - other than saying "no" to the interviewee's requests, it advises you to keep your distance.
"This is why you should always be careful when someone approaches you in a fringe area and asks for something. Your answer should always be "no" and insist on him keeping his distance. Both muggers and stranger rapists often use this technique."
Click to expand...
Nothing in here about de-escalation, much of it has to do with being aware of your surroundings, recognizing what's really going on and being determined to defend yourself.

2. Hot Interview (sudden and unexpected emotional blitzkriegs against you). These just "pop out of nowhere". "You are minding your own business one minute, and the next you have a threatening, obscenity-spouting, screaming person charging down on you" for the purpose of sizing you up as his next victim. "You must be willing to immediately shift into an extreme of physical violence to fail such interviews." Nothing here either about de-escalation; you are taking action to show that you are not going to be an easy target. I've been in this situation before and did just that.

3. Escalating Interview - seen in date rape attacks and loitering group of thugs "jest messin" with you. No advice given on conversations or verbal judo that will de-escalate the situation.

4. Silent Interview - basically a hidden stalker observing you waiting to pounce. No talking going on in this one.

5. Prolonged Interview - Serial rapists and people looking to conduct a fraud or scam. Serial rapist is not applicable to me and frauds/scams are not something you can shoot at to save your life.

Don't get me wrong, I thought the cited article was actually very good. It just tends to support my position than it does a position for engaging in de-escalation conversations to stop an attack.
 
Posted by Skans:
The article, "Interview" pretty much makes my point,.... ...Don't get me wrong, I thought the cited article was actually very good. It just tends to support my position than it does a position for engaging in de-escalation conversations to stop an attack.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that neither your "point" nor your "position" not clear. your thoughts seem to be based on the assumption, as raimus pointed out, that the only cases you'll encounter will be clear-cut pre-meditated violent assaults.

Or, as pax put it,
Okay. So your vision of a valid self defense scenario ALWAYS and IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE will involve the threat that comes out of nowhere, an "ambush type attack." That being the case, in your view, absolutely no soft skills (such as verbal de-escalation of angry others) could possibly help you avoid needing to save your life with the gun.

That's a rather limited view of how violence happens, and a very limited understanding of how deadly force attacks can play out.
Click to expand...

As I have said already, one of the things that one will see immediately from reading the book linked in Post # 4 is the error inherent in that assumption.

That book will take you a long time to read, but it will give you greater benefit than just continuing to imagine what might happen to you in a violent encounter.
 
On average, violence is totally foreign to the average person. They have never been involved in it since they were 8 years of age, or thereabouts.
Take this average person, if there even is such an animal, have them obtain a CCW, a pistol, and training in the use of this weapon, and have them continue living their life, as they have done up to this time.
Locking the house behind them, setting an alarm (hopefully!) and with a significant other, set off to go about the business of living in peace and tranquility, day by day. For instance a retired couple.

Pushing a grocery cart, heading back to your parked vehicle, in an area you have frequented many, maybe a hundred times before, two young men, leaned against a car, ahead of you, take note of you approaching, straighten up, and stand in your way!

"Got a cigarette Pops?"

This is how attacks happen! Right out of the blue. A mundane activity suddenly going all to hell.

Am I going to spout solutions here? No, not at all, but this kind of situation happens all over America, every day.

Are we more able to deal with it, because we are Glock'd up? Or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top