Reading The Threat

Detecting violence in social settings can sometimes see us walking a very thin line: we don’t want to escalate a situation where there may not be any actual harmful intent, and at the same time we don’t want to find ourselves failing to react and respond because we’ve discounted or denied a threat e.g. is somebody simply posturing in order to impress a third-party, but aren’t looking to go beyond this, or are they setting themselves up physically and emotionally to launch an attack/assault, etc? If we act too submissively, or try to deal with them rationally, are they going to interpret this as weakness? Or, if we try to enforce a boundary are they going to interpret this as us posturing to them, and is this going to escalate things? If we spend too long trying to answer these questions, because we get caught in a decision loop, we may find that the other party has already moved things along and is in the process of making their attack, before we can reach decision. Being able to quickly assess a person’s real intent towards us, means that we will have the time to put our strategies into action before they can act against us; which may involve making a pre-emptive strike (if somebody is going to be throwing the first punch/strike, it should be us, rather than the other person — I have written in other articles about how to set the conditions so that you are legally entitled to do this).

One of the things I hear a lot when people have been attacked during some form of verbal exchange is that they knew the other person was going to do it; and when recalling this, they are usually baffled and confused that they didn’t do something. Our fear system will often “instruct” us not to do anything to change a situation if we’re not experiencing pain in that moment i.e. we psychologically freeze, and although we know pain might be coming somewhere down the line, at least we’re not experiencing it now. One of the things that can help us over come this is to recognize our own body-language, and interpret what it is telling us, rather than simply try to rationally work out what is happening in the situation. Emotional responses are constructed and contextual. Our traditional understanding of emotional responses is that they’re fixed and set e.g. we smile when we’re happy, we grimace when we’re angry, etc. Paul Ekman did several anthropological studies in the 1960’s and 1970’s, which suggested that such facial expressions are universal across all cultures, and that they can be globally recognized and interpreted, without any context. However recent findings suggest that this may not be the case, and that emotions are constructed within context. If you think about the typical soccer player, who has just scored a goal, and look at their facial expression as they celebrate, although they are in a euphoric mood, if you isolated their face you’d think they were extremely angry, aggressive and violent; it’s only the context of the situation that lets you know that they’re actually extremely happy. Equally, you may find yourself smiling (something associated with happiness), when you’re scared and nervous; your response is based on the context of the situation. Many people will misinterpret their own physical responses, and body language, when it’s telling them that they are in danger. If you find yourself making an “inappropriate” response in an aggressive situation – smiling, nervous laughter, dark humor etc. - it’s a good sign that the danger’s real. Being able to interpret what your fear system is telling you, will help you interpret whether a threat is real or not, and prevent you getting stuck in a state of denial.

When I first started working on the door, I searched out everything I could about warning signs and pre-violence indicators, etc. The “experts” would talk about physiological changes to look for, such as a person’s face becoming paler, as blood was moved to the larger muscle groups as part of the fight or flight response, etc. — something which is extremely difficult to pick up on when working in low or artificial light. Great in theory, pretty useless in practice. Also, considering the speed at which real-life violence happens in such settings, it’s not an indicator that is immediately apparent i.e. you have to know what their color was before the blood started to drain, and monitor their complexion as it’s happening. I’ve always found it much easier to detect harmful intent verbally, than through such physiological changes. Periods of silence in a conversation, are a good indicator that somebody is considering actual violence. Normal conversations don’t really include these gaps, aggressive conversations do, even when conducted in a seemingly polite and non-threatening way. Both parties require and use these gaps to interpret the developing situation, and let their decision-making processes decide how to precede. This is one of the warning signs I take most seriously when it’s not yet evident if the person I’m dealing with is actually considering becoming more openly aggressive and possibly violent. Obviously, as I’m seeing how the situation develops, I’m controlling the space between us, and positioning myself in a better position to respond – things I’ve written about before. By asking questions of the other person, I can keep the conversation moving, and monitor their speech pattern for these relatively long pauses, and also to see if they’re actually listening to what I’m saying i.e. if they’re not really responding, then then they have an agenda that they’re working to. When it goes silent for a long time and I see their body position shift – they shift weight to their rear leg, and look away, etc. — I can be pretty sure that their next response will be a physical one.   

Sometimes the actions and behaviors of an individual, are more overtly aggressive e.g. they have picked us as a target, to demonstrate that they are a few places above us in the pecking order, to satisfy their own ego, and perhaps play to the crowd, or because they do want to physically harm us, etc. In these situations, I base my decisions on their movement. In all of these situations, I want to step back. I do so for two reasons, one to give myself more time to respond, and also to satisfy the legal conditions and requirements for assault; if the person is acting aggressively, making threats to my safety, and moves to a position where they can cause me physical harm, then I’m being assaulted and have the right to defend myself (under US/UK law) – my first choice being in a state that allows me to carry OC/Pepper spray, is to spray them (there are a lot of good use of force reasons why this is preferable to striking/punching), my second choice is to go hands-on, in a way that creates for me a disengagement opportunity, such as a quick hand in the face, allowing me to stun-and-run, etc. As I step back, I’m running through my de-escalation process e.g. asking them what I can do to sort this situation out, etc., and judging from their response(s) if they have enough mental bandwidth to consider alternatives to violence. However, if they don’t then I’m looking to be the first one to go physical in some way. If they were only joking around, posturing for their ego or engaging in horse-play, bad luck for them; they committed an assault, and I have the right to defend myself with an appropriate level of force. Such overt displays of aggression should be treated as real and dealt with accordingly, regardless of the individual’s actual motivation(s).

Working out whether somebody has actual harmful/violent intent towards us, isn’t always obvious, and we need to be able to both understand and discern our own responses in a situation, as well as identify the actions and behaviors of the individual(s) we are dealing with; both through their conversation, and their physical actions. There is always the risk of over-thinking, as to who and what we are dealing with, and this can see us getting caught in a decision-loop where we run out of time, considering alternative options. When we recognize the warning signs, we need to be decisive and act.