Non-verbal communication and hostile intent

[Texas Dan Mosby]

After seeing yet another post involving a criminal attack that clearly displayed intent prior to the attack itself, I believe that the discussion of non-verbal communication merits a separate thread, especially during this time of year when a lot of folks will be out shopping at all hours.

Most opportunistic criminals become very adept at observing and interpreting non-verbal communication signals in order to select an appropriate target, and while having a physical advantage over a target is an important factor, strength is meaningless without the will to use it, and that will (or lack there of) can usually be assessed prior to launching an attack.

While there are many different takes on the same process (a process shared with 4 legged predators), criminals usually undergo a process that revolves around the following:

1. Target selection
2. Target approach (movement to / wait for)
3. Final target assessment
4. Assume attack position
5. Launch attack

Throughout this process, the criminal is using non-verbal communication signals sent by the target to determine whether or not to continue the process and launch an attack. As a potential target, the goal is to first, send non-verbal communication signals that project strength of body AND mind, and second, to identify and recognize those displaying and exhibiting predatory non-verbal communication signals.

These two vids were posted here before, and clearly show how this process is applied by the criminal:

1. This criminal goes through each step prior to launching his attack, and each phase can be easily identified.

http://fox.daytonsnewssource.com/shared ... d_47.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


2. This criminal does the same thing, but much more quickly, and he is much more subtle in his approach. However, despite trying to mask his intent, he clearly gives non-verbal communication signals of hostile intent with his gaze, and his movement. Notice as he walks in, he stares at the target from behind (first assessment), than he stares again beside the target as they have what looks like a small trivial verbal exchange (final target assessment, he saw no suspicion or signs of resistance in the eyes of the target, and the target body language does not project strength), he looks AGAIN just prior to assuming his attack position and makes a final position shift for the attack (final target check, target completely ignoring the threat), since all of his criteria has been met, he launches his attack.

[youtube][/youtube]
Every criminal is different, and there are no doubt some who use violence simply because they LIKE to use violence. However, most criminals are looking for the easy target, and will not waste an attack on a target that is likely to offer resistance, REGARDLESS of any physical advantage they may have over their target, and it is this type of criminal that we can more easily deter through the recognition and use of non-verbal communication.

Think about, and practice, using non-verbal countermeasures to the predatory / criminal process:

1. Target selection - Looking for weakness and the ability to surprise the target.

Citizen counter: Project strength of body and mind through confident posture and awareness. LOOK at those around you, and view those staring at you like a piece of meat with suspicion, and gaze at them long enough so that THEY know that YOU know they are watching you.

2. Target approach (movement to / wait for) - Looks to see if target notices them and their reaction (fear/suspicion/anger/defensive posture), tries to maintain element of surprise.

Citizen counter: Monitor the approach while projecting confidence (won't be intimidated), assume a defensive, but not overtly aggressive, posture (interview stance, firing side protected and accessible). Protect and maintain your personal space. (Move to a better position if needed. I use my extended arm with palm faced out in a "stop" signal and TELL them "what's up", this sends a clear message and pretty much stops their forward movement in an instant)

3. Final target assessment - Tests mental resolve with banter, assesses whether or not target can be intimidated and if it will resist. Tests to see if personal space can be breached and what the reaction is.

Citizen counter: PROTECT your personal space, and look for signs of them intentionally invading it. (Move. TELL them to back up or BACK them up if you are able) Be, confident and direct but courteous. "NO thank you." "I'm NOT interested, thank you." "BACK UP, please."


4. Assume attack position - Attempts to secure position to launch successful attack with weapon of choice (hand, gun, knife, whatever) Attempts to block line of retreat or reinforcement.

Citizen counter: Recognize this positioning, and counter position yourself to prevent and defend against it. After an initial warning, I consider a deliberate breach of my personal space hostile intent, and will immediately defend myself accordingly in order to prevent any attack, and this defense MAY include the use of force depending on the situation. There are only two reasons strangers deliberately share personal space, and both reasons start with the letter "F", and since I am fully clothed in public, ONE of those "F" words is simply not practical, so I assume their intent is to perform the other...

5. Launch attack - Self explanatory....

Citizen counter: Do the best you can with what you can.

Long post, I know, but I believe it is an important topic and worthy of discussion.

Bottom line: LOOK for non-verbal signals of hostile intent, as they are evident prior to almost EVERY attack in a gaze, a posture, or a movement. PROJECT non-verbal signals that make you look like a tough target, and should you encounter a threat, act decisively and with confidence BEFORE they can launch their attack.

Stay safe folks.

[Jumping Frog]

I like the analysis.

It's like the old saying about bears. I don't have to outrun the bear, I simply have to outgun the other guy.

Similarly, I just need to make a predator think long enough that the next target will be easier.

Here is another case study in victim selection:

I thought the video linked below was interesting not because the dirtbag victimized a 91 year old lady (unfortunately I think that is too common to be remarkable), but because the video captured the entire mugging sequence -- mugger looking for victims, victim selection, stalking, mugging, escape -- and it is all fairly clear. In broad daylight. Usually the security cameras seem to only capture a small part of the event, and its too far away, fuzzy, dark, and crammed into the lower left corner or something.

An alert (or bored!) security guard monitoring security cameras at a museum noticed a pickup park in front of the museum and it piqued his interest. Happily he was able to pan and zoom the camera, so he followed the guy who got out of the truck, and stuck with him as he did more interesting things. Eventually the guy spots a couple older ladies getting out of a car, turns around and follows them, then grabs one of their purses, knocking down both ladies in the process (the younger one -- 67 -- got a broken arm). He then runs away. However, police caught him later in the day when he came back to retrieve his truck -- thanks to the security guard and his camera.

The mugger was recently sentenced to 6-15 years.

Story: http://www.unionleader.com/article/2011 ... /706019947" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

[RHenriksen]

Excellent post, thank you

[brewer90]

Looks like the sucker puncher's history caught up with him and he is now serving life.

[youtube][/youtube]

[speedsix]

...more training in these subjects here than I got from the City when I was on the force...excellent and appreciated!!!

[texanron]

Nice post Texas Dan!

[The Annoyed Man]

Texas Dan, excellent summary!

1. Target selection
2. Target approach (movement to / wait for)
3. Final target assessment
4. Assume attack position
5. Launch attack

The first thing I thought of when I read this list was "sharks." Sharks are usually very cautious in assessing their target before launching their attacks on humans. People who have survived shark attacks often describe being "bumped" by the shark, often more than once, before the shark suddenly turns and closes in for the kill. The reason is that a common 6-7 foot long shark is deciding whether or not to attack a prey that is very nearly its own size. The exception? When the shark is overwhelmingly larger than its prey. A 18 foot great white doesn't need to assess a 6 foot human before attack it. In fact, a human is roughly the same size and shape as the great white's favorite prey: seals/sea lions. Survivors of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis report that the gathering sharks brushed against them and bumped them numerous times before concluding that the prey would not fight back and they started attacking. These sharks were much smaller than great whites.

In the security camera footage that catches the purse snatcher in the act, the "land shark" spots his prey from a block away and moves in very directly and without hesitation. He has already determined that he is the 18 foot great white, because he does not make any kind of exploratory contact with the prey before making the hit. In other words, instead of lingering near the prey and "bumping" it, the shark has identified the prey from a distance, turned and closed on the prey, confirming assessment as it closes, and strikes without hesitation, almost not caring if it is identified as an approaching predator because it is confident of overwhelming strength.

In the sucker punch video, the shark is about the same size as its prey. The shark knows its own capabilities, but it is not certain of the prey's capabilities. Through non-verbal communication, it bumps the prey....more than once. Then, having determined that the prey won't try to reverse the tables and eat the shark, and waiting for the moment that will maximize the strike, the shark attacks.

Here is another interesting shark/human comparison..... Apparently, sharks that operate just off shore are territorial. They stake a claim to a certain length of beach, and they will defend it against other sharks. Shark specialists believe that many human victims who are attacked in the water near the surfline may be the victims of territorial defense attacks rather than feeding attacks. In studies, Sharks have been caught on video in the water along beaches performing threat displays against other sharks. These displays are very specific. Here is an image which shows the threat/not threat versions of the same types of movements:

In threat displays, the sharks extend their pectoral fins downward, hump their backs and arch their heads backward, trying to appear larger than they are. When an invader shark wanders into the territorial claim of another shark, the territorial shark puts on the threat display. If the other shark does not back down and leave his territory, the shark will attack the invader to repel it. This threat display behavior has apparently been observed by third parties just before a victim playing in the surf is attacked by a shark—leading to the theory that the shark may simply trying to repel an invader rather than eat a human.

This behavior compares interestingly to threat behaviors between gang members over territorial disputes—particularly the practice of puffing up and flexing and "mad-dogging" to look bigger or more dangerous. Also, predators tend to recognize other predators, but for almost every predator, there is another predator that considers the first predator to be prey. Orcas look at great white sharks and see a fish fillet on a platter. Hyenas have been known to kill and eat lions. Cripps kill Bloods.

One has only to consider these things dispassionately to come to the conclusion that A) 21st century humans are not much more evolved than early homo erectus; and B) predatory humans lack a soul, and are therefore not human and should be dealt with the same way as one would with any 4 legged predator—with awareness, preparedness, and ruthlessness—because predators are aware of their victims, prepared to attack, and ruthless in the execution of their attacks. I'm willing to throw down a $2 wallet containing $6 if it will distract an attacker and divert his attentions from me and to the wallet; and I'm not willing to shoot someone over the loss of that $6. But when the distraction is not enough to divert and attack, then I will be as ruthless as I need to be in my own defense. In the meantime, I try to consciously exist in Condition Yellow whenever I step outside my house so that I might be able to recognize a predator in time to have options.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

Similarly, I just need to make a predator think long enough that the next target will be easier.

Exactly.

In this example, the criminal has completed phase 1 (Target selection) and 2 (Target approach), and is in the process of phase 3 (Final target assessment) where the film begins. Examine the non-verbal communication between the two, in particular the posture and distance, and you can see why the target was selected, and why the threats' intentions should have been perfectly clear long before he launches his attack.

[youtube][/youtube]

Lets look at it from the criminals point of view first:

1. Target selection - Target seems smaller physically and could be overpowered or intimidated. Target has possessions that may be of worth. Target is alone, and in location conducive to an attack. [attack conditions met = yes]

2. Target approach - Target is non-responsive to the approach. Target is displaying passive body language and does not look like it will resist. Target appears to be intimidated and is keeping its head down and won't look at me, possibly out of fear. [attack conditions met = yes]

3. Final target assessment - Target remains completely passive. Target does NOT defend personal space, and probably won't resist much. [attack conditions met = yes]

4. Assume attack position - Make final position adjustment, attempt to distract, and attack. [attack conditions met = yes]

5. Launch attack - SUCCESS! I'M THE MAN!!!.....WHOA....wait a min....what the....holy! Oh no, I think I'm getting chok..ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............. [attack = FAIL]

Now lets examine it from the citizen perspective:

1. Target selection - Why is this dude eyeing me up and down, and why is he alone and hanging out in a subway? The dude looks like a thug. (Course of action: project confidence and strength in body language. LOOK at the potential threat and gauge their reaction to YOUR look. If they have the "crap, they see me..." expression on their face, something is up.

2. Target approach - Why is this dude closing the distance toward me? I better keep this dude at arms length. (Course of action: Observe the approach, identify avenues of possible retreat, prepare for defense in place, assume non-threatening defensive posture, extend arm and tell the dude to hold outside of personal space)

3. Final target selection - Why is this dude trying to "square up" to me / breach my personal space / not complying with my request to leave? (Course of action: Maintain distance and defensive posture conveying you consider them a threat and WILL defend your personal space, TELL them to beat feet, non-compliance combined with intentional breach of personal space means hostile intent and the immediate need to defend yourself accordingly, which may or may not include the use of force.

Bottom line: Even if the target DID project strength, he would more than likely have been approached, HOWEVER, had he recognized the non-verbal communication displayed by the threat and acted on it, he could have challenged the threat at arms length, which would have required the attacker to reveal his intent to attack. That challenge may have been enough to convince the attacker it wasn't worth the trouble.

[Jumping Frog]

Interesting video.

5. Launch attack - SUCCESS! I'M THE MAN!!!.....WHOA....wait a min....what the....holy! Oh no, I think I'm getting chok..ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............. [attack = FAIL]

When I was watching the fighting going on, I was reminded about the old saying, "don't start something with an old man, because he won't fight you, he'll just kill you."