Group Violence (Part 2)

Violent criminals aren’t stupid, they know how to stack the odds in their favor – this is why they may choose to carry a weapon and/or commit their crimes as part of a group. There are three assumptions I always make when dealing with an aggressive individual: that they are armed, they are able to effectively respond to what I do, and that they are assisted by others. The fact that criminals often don’t work alone is one of the reasons that it is imperative to exit the environment at the earliest opportunity. You may believe that you are only dealing with one person, however more may be present, and the longer you stay in a particular location, the more time you give them to get involved. One of the things that often gets left out of training is this “disengagement” piece e.g. a person practices a gun disarm, steps back, motions to tap and rack it (possibly mimicking the clearing of a jam), and then stands there, pointing the firearm at their training partner- and the scene ends there. Without going into all the reasons you shouldn’t trust your safety to a firearm you know nothing about, the location you are in is obviously not a safe one – so why stay around, even if the firearm you’ve just disarmed is working and operable? This is unfortunately when ego, rather than survival, infects our training. When the scene ends, with one person standing pointing a weapon they’ve just disarmed, they are in a position of supposed control and dominance. If they leave, and exit the scene, then who’s come out “on top” in the scenario is unclear. Really, the safest option in any such scenario, is to exit before a third party can become involved.

A student of mine was once mugged by a teenage kid who was armed with a gun. She did the right thing and complied, handing over her wallet and phone. The kid then walked 10 paces or so, to an adult who was sitting in a car observing the whole scene, who then drove them both off. Whilst she was being robbed, she was unaware that there was an accomplice involved. Could she have performed a disarm? Yes. Could she have stood pointing the gun at her assailant, telling him to “back away”? Yes. These were all options, yet she hadn’t noticed an accomplice, and even if she had, she had no knowledge about how he would act/respond if she attempted to disarm her assailant. If her attacker hadn’t backed off, and remained pointing the gun at her – no longer adhering to the script of the mugger – a physical response would have been necessary, and once performed, she would have needed to exit the location before the accomplice would have time to get involved. It is also worth noting, that there may well have been others who were positioned ready to get involved. She only spotted one accomplice. If we assume, and factor in, that the person we are dealing with is always assisted, then we should be more willing to comply with demands and actions that don’t affect our survival (such as complying with a mugger), and quick to disengage and exit the location/environment as soon as we can. A great piece of advice that was given to me on a tactical driving course I took many years ago, concerning how you deal with hazardous situations was, “Slow in, fast out.” When dealing with violence I have found this to be extremely useful; try to slow what will be a fast-moving situation, and once you’ve dealt with it, exit quickly. There is rarely a good reason to stay in a place where you have just been assaulted, especially when you assume your assailant can be assisted further.

Exiting the environment to avoid third parties, who could come and assist your primary assailant, stays true, even if you still have skin in the game, after you’ve dealt with the initial assault/threat. If you are assaulted as you return to your car in the parking lot, depending on the situation it may be safer to exit the lot, rather than continue moving towards your car. Leaving and returning with the support of law enforcement/security may be a safer option. Just because one phase of the conflict seems to have ended, doesn’t mean that you are safe.

Accomplices may make themselves visible from the outset, rather than remain hidden. Criminals in groups can use each other to create barriers that block people and restrict their movement, and obscure whatever criminal activity they are engaging in. A fairly common mugging tactic, on the London tube network, was for a group to converge on somebody who was standing on a platform, and surround them. As well as being intimidating, having so many aggressors surrounding you at such a close distance, the actual robbery would be obscured from CCTV cameras, and any individuals who might inform security, of what was happening. One simple tactic to avoid being a victim of such a mugging, is to keep changing your position on the platform, so that it is difficult for a group to form around you. Other criminals who worked the tube network, such as pickpockets, would use accomplices, and members of their group, to cause bottlenecks that slow movement down, allowing the person who is targeting the victim/mark to have more time to commit their crimes e.g. a group on an escalator, would get off it very slowly, so that the actual pickpocket had more time to target someone who was behind them, etc.

Groups and gangs intent on causing you harm, may also give a warning as to their intent, by fanning out as they approach you. If there is a group of five people who are closely grouped, and they start to spread themselves out across your path, they are effectively “fanning” out. Fanning out accomplishes a few things. Firstly, it restricts the intended target’s movement, meaning that it will be difficult for a person to move around the group and will instead have to continue through them – if they intend to keep moving in the same direction. The other benefit to the group in fanning out is that it can bring all of their members into the fight, rather than having some stuck behind others. For those interested in military history, this approach of spreading individuals out, rather than grouping people together was a deciding factor in the battle of Waterloo. The British used to fight using the “line”. This saw their infantry spread out along a line, with each soldier being able to fire, without being obstructed by a person in front of them. By contrast the French, marched in ranks, meaning that it was only possible for the first few ranks to fire, as the ones behind them were being blocked by those in front. Because of the differences in these formations the British were able to bring greater firepower to the battle. The sensible option when you see a group start to fan out, is to put ego aside, and move away.

Avoiding group violence is preferable to having to deal with it, and understanding how a group operates, and what situations they favor is key in doing this. Even if you are dealing with someone who looks as though they are operating on their own, you should assume they have third parties who can assist them – and the longer you stay in a compromised location, the more likely this is.