Hangingrock
Member
I concur.
Profanity
- Thread starter Loosedhorse
- Start date
- Status
I concur.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
To any of you who feel that obscene language is acceptable in conversation with strangers
Darkbob,
We aren't talking about using profanity in a casual conversation with a stranger on the street here. Far from it. There are some cues as to what's going on that indicate something entirely different is likely to be happening. Any focused attention directed toward us from an absolute stranger on the street is the first of those cues. The appearance of that stranger and his subsequent actions will provide other cues.
We are discussing one possible strategy to interrupt what some indications already point to as a potential victimization process, aimed specifically at us, which seems to be evolving toward a physical attack.
If you haven't seen it already, please take a look at http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html .
What might be taking place - and what we want to interrupt, if possible - is the criminal interview. That's described in more detail at http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/interview.htm .
The interview is usually part of the positioning process - the VCA (violent criminal actor) has to get physically close enough to us to put into effect whatever plan he has already formulated. For more on positioning, see http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/positioning.htm .
We have already politely asked this stranger to keep his distance, if you recall. Please back off. That hasn't happened, and he is still trying to close physically with us.
And so we again ask, more emphatically, that this stranger stop closing the distance between us. I SAID back off! He's still coming, using whatever patter his plan called for him to use to distract us, confuse us, divert our attention and allow him to get closer.
At this point, in order to further emphasize our desire that this stranger cease approaching, the third level of verbal escalation might include profanity - BACK THE BLEEP OFF!!!
Or not, if you prefer not to use this particular methodology. No one is saying anyone has to do this, or anything else for that matter, in this sort of situation. It is but one possible approach to managing an unexpected and unprovoked contact with an unknown person on the street.
But what we are suggesting here actually involves several things at once. Number one, we are escalating our verbal use of force, from "soft words" through "loud words" to "hard words." We have assumed a very inoffensive defensive position that actually looks a lot like a surrender position, sometimes called a compressed fence, with hands up near the face and elbows in to protect the ribs. We are arcing carefully off the potential VCA's line of approach in whatever available direction gives us the most room to maneuver further. We are gaining space and time to further evaluate what the potential VCA is doing and saying, looking for possible accomplices, checking him for signs of concealed weapons and looking for other physical cues, also known as pre-attack cues, from the potential VCA that tell us a physical attack might be the next thing that happens.
Pre-attack cues? What are those? Well, they are situationally dependent, of course. That they are potentially a legal component of making a successful case for self defense is indicated here - http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?tag=expert-testimony . Being able to clearly articulate to a responding officer, DA, judge or jury the things we saw or heard that reasonably appeared to be pre-attack cues could be very important in establishing legal self defense.
This is getting kind of long, so I'm going to break it here for the time being...
Darkbob,
We aren't talking about using profanity in a casual conversation with a stranger on the street here. Far from it. There are some cues as to what's going on that indicate something entirely different is likely to be happening. Any focused attention directed toward us from an absolute stranger on the street is the first of those cues. The appearance of that stranger and his subsequent actions will provide other cues.
We are discussing one possible strategy to interrupt what some indications already point to as a potential victimization process, aimed specifically at us, which seems to be evolving toward a physical attack.
If you haven't seen it already, please take a look at http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/five_stages.html .
What might be taking place - and what we want to interrupt, if possible - is the criminal interview. That's described in more detail at http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/interview.htm .
The interview is usually part of the positioning process - the VCA (violent criminal actor) has to get physically close enough to us to put into effect whatever plan he has already formulated. For more on positioning, see http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/positioning.htm .
We have already politely asked this stranger to keep his distance, if you recall. Please back off. That hasn't happened, and he is still trying to close physically with us.
And so we again ask, more emphatically, that this stranger stop closing the distance between us. I SAID back off! He's still coming, using whatever patter his plan called for him to use to distract us, confuse us, divert our attention and allow him to get closer.
At this point, in order to further emphasize our desire that this stranger cease approaching, the third level of verbal escalation might include profanity - BACK THE BLEEP OFF!!!
Or not, if you prefer not to use this particular methodology. No one is saying anyone has to do this, or anything else for that matter, in this sort of situation. It is but one possible approach to managing an unexpected and unprovoked contact with an unknown person on the street.
But what we are suggesting here actually involves several things at once. Number one, we are escalating our verbal use of force, from "soft words" through "loud words" to "hard words." We have assumed a very inoffensive defensive position that actually looks a lot like a surrender position, sometimes called a compressed fence, with hands up near the face and elbows in to protect the ribs. We are arcing carefully off the potential VCA's line of approach in whatever available direction gives us the most room to maneuver further. We are gaining space and time to further evaluate what the potential VCA is doing and saying, looking for possible accomplices, checking him for signs of concealed weapons and looking for other physical cues, also known as pre-attack cues, from the potential VCA that tell us a physical attack might be the next thing that happens.
Pre-attack cues? What are those? Well, they are situationally dependent, of course. That they are potentially a legal component of making a successful case for self defense is indicated here - http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?tag=expert-testimony . Being able to clearly articulate to a responding officer, DA, judge or jury the things we saw or heard that reasonably appeared to be pre-attack cues could be very important in establishing legal self defense.
This is getting kind of long, so I'm going to break it here for the time being...
PowerG
Member
...
Loosedhorse
member
mgmorden said:
Agreed. This is not about being in a situation where you "couldn't care less" if profanity has an effect on someone. This is about being in a situation where (if you choose to use it) you are expecting it to have an effect.Lee Lapin said:
But can you predict that effect? What if it makes your potential attacker angry, and things escalate? Are you going to make the tactical assessment, "Oops--profanity didn't work. He's escalating. Maybe, now, I should try the "meek apology" strategy..."
Or will you also escalate?
My guess is once you have embarked on a strategy of verbal domination, you will continue down the "domination" path, even if it is not working. What witnesses may later recall is "two guys cursing and screaming at each other, then pushing and shoving each other...and then that guy shot the other guy." Not really the narrative you want "your "witnesses to be telling police about your "defensive" shooting, is it?
If this is about discouraging a "professional" bad guy, I might suggest that shouting, ordering--and perhaps using the word "Sir", as suggested--is just as likely to discourage and less likely to anger. We are also (still, I hope) accustomed to being addressed as "Sir" or "Ma'am" by police officers, so your use of these words might suggest that to the aggressor or witnesses.
A few here seem to think that, in a nascent confrontation, profanity has NO emotional content at all. The rest of us are debating whether the chief emotion produced will be:
- fear or shock in your attacker
- anger and aggressiveness in your attacker
- prejudice against you in witnesses
- aggressiveness, confidence--or reduced confidence--in you
Does anyone think profanity will prejudice witnesses in your favor, the way the use of "Sir" might?
Last edited:
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
For other pre-assault cues we should be aware of and looking for in this sort of situation, take a look at the document at http://www.safeism.com/pdfs/SNContacts.pdf - complete with pictures.
The most telling pre-assault cues are:
Grooming - any movement of the potential VCA's hand or hands toward his face, hair, the back of his neck, covering the mouth etc. It has been speculated that these movements might be an unconscious attempt to cover deception.
Target Glancing - the potential VCA will glance around as if to see if anyone is watching, looking for approaching LEOs, checking to see if his partner is in position, etc.
Discernible Weight Shift - the potential VCA will almost always 'set himself up' physically prior to launching an attack, once he is within range. This might mean changing his stance, shifting a foot, shifting his balance etc. This is usually a dependable cue that a physical assault is about to be launched.
Furtive Movement Of A Hand Toward the Waistband - might well indicate the presence of some sort of weapon carried in the most common place. It may come earlier in the contact as well, as the potential VCA checks to see if 'whatever' is still where it's supposed to be.
A different approach, on video (nsfw) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6WtiaF-4SI
Body language and threat recognition - http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob87.html
Discernible weight shift, on video - http://covertress.blogspot.com/2011/04/pre-assault-cue-weight-shift.html
Pre-Assault Indicators - http://www.tacticalintelligence.net/blog/pre-assaultive-indicators.htm
Etc...
The most telling pre-assault cues are:
Grooming - any movement of the potential VCA's hand or hands toward his face, hair, the back of his neck, covering the mouth etc. It has been speculated that these movements might be an unconscious attempt to cover deception.
Target Glancing - the potential VCA will glance around as if to see if anyone is watching, looking for approaching LEOs, checking to see if his partner is in position, etc.
Discernible Weight Shift - the potential VCA will almost always 'set himself up' physically prior to launching an attack, once he is within range. This might mean changing his stance, shifting a foot, shifting his balance etc. This is usually a dependable cue that a physical assault is about to be launched.
Furtive Movement Of A Hand Toward the Waistband - might well indicate the presence of some sort of weapon carried in the most common place. It may come earlier in the contact as well, as the potential VCA checks to see if 'whatever' is still where it's supposed to be.
A different approach, on video (nsfw) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6WtiaF-4SI
Body language and threat recognition - http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob87.html
Discernible weight shift, on video - http://covertress.blogspot.com/2011/04/pre-assault-cue-weight-shift.html
Pre-Assault Indicators - http://www.tacticalintelligence.net/blog/pre-assaultive-indicators.htm
Etc...
Loosedhorse...again, context. The profanity is a last resort after trying "could you please back up?"
...and yelling BACK UP!
Attaching sir is a bad idea because you're going to be much slower with an additional branch in your decision tree based solely on gender.
...and yelling BACK UP!
Attaching sir is a bad idea because you're going to be much slower with an additional branch in your decision tree based solely on gender.
Loosedhorse
member
Good point. Maybe I should insert "Sir" or Ma'am" earlier, when I'm still at the "please" stage--but have already raised my voice (to collect witnesses and...who knows? The aggressor might be hard of hearing).
But your point also suggests: unless profanity is a standard part of my language, my inserting it into my confrontation strategy is going to slow me down. Unless I practice it enough for it to become a near-reflex.
Unlikely, for some; not for others.
I personally find the mismatch of tone and words (saying please while the tone says DO IT NOW) tends to get attention.
But your point also suggests: unless profanity is a standard part of my language, my inserting it into my confrontation strategy is going to slow me down. Unless I practice it enough for it to become a near-reflex.
Unlikely, for some; not for others.
I personally find the mismatch of tone and words (saying please while the tone says DO IT NOW) tends to get attention.
Loosedhorse said:
You don't want ANY unnecessary complexity, so IMO ditch the gender specific pronouns altogether. This is about as useful as practicing saying "Hey, you in the white shirt, back up please."
I made this point earlier. Southnarc makes the point as well: You don't want to add it in if it's unnatural for you. But like I've been saying - and like we've been discussing - there are implications past whether Loosedhorse should use profanity in his personal playlist.
As for the underlined sentence...why would you not practice it that much anyway? Like I keep saying the pre-fight positioning and verbal skills are as important or more important (depending on how you weight each - pre-fight stuff can prevent fights or set you up to win them), so they ought to be automatic and broadly applicable.
Agreed...again no one was trying to say it wasn't.
1) Polite request
2) Volume escalates, request is repeated
3) (Optional) Profanity is added
This is basically a way of forcing someone's hand. MOST people will respond to a polite request. Those who are hard of hearing or determined will probably respond to a very loud request. At that point anyone still approaching LIKELY has ill intent. The profanity may snap him or her out of it if it's a matter of head in the clouds...or may potentially slow down a criminal slightly.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
If nothing else, a deliberate method of verbal escalation, whatever it is, provides us with a useful sorting mechanism that will help us determine the intent of a stranger who insists on approaching us on the street. Anyone who keeps coming at us, repeatedly offering some sort of apparently nonthreatening request ("Got the time?" "Can I get a light?" "Got change for a dollar?" "Did you drop your wallet, is this it?" or whatever it might be) in the face of REPEATED AND ESCALATING requests to stop approaching, can pretty safely be evaluated as being up to something.
That is the purpose for the verbal escalation, period. It buys us time and space, allows us to arc sufficiently to check the periphery for additional threats while keeping our main focus on the apparent threat, and gives us the maximum opportunity to solve the apparent problem verbally before any escalation to physical force gets under way, no matter who initiates it.
Remember that VCAs are operating off of mental scripts as well. The point to this kind of response is to attempt to disrupt their playlist, throw them off their script, get inside their OODA loop or however you care to put it.
Loosedhorse, what would you do next if a stranger just keeps coming at you, even after you have exhausted whatever your own verbal escalation script might be?
That is the purpose for the verbal escalation, period. It buys us time and space, allows us to arc sufficiently to check the periphery for additional threats while keeping our main focus on the apparent threat, and gives us the maximum opportunity to solve the apparent problem verbally before any escalation to physical force gets under way, no matter who initiates it.
Remember that VCAs are operating off of mental scripts as well. The point to this kind of response is to attempt to disrupt their playlist, throw them off their script, get inside their OODA loop or however you care to put it.
Loosedhorse, what would you do next if a stranger just keeps coming at you, even after you have exhausted whatever your own verbal escalation script might be?
Maple_City_Woodsman
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 430
Swearing at random strangers is vastly different than banter among friends.
Making statements to the effect of "If you use profanity, its a bad idea to go armed" is the epitome of logical fallacy - As it is to assume that everyone who uses profanity just saunters about spewing foul speech in public.
Making statements to the effect of "If you use profanity, its a bad idea to go armed" is the epitome of logical fallacy - As it is to assume that everyone who uses profanity just saunters about spewing foul speech in public.
Captain*kirk
Member
A guy swore at me once.
I kept walking and didn't give it another thought until just now.
Didn't lose any sleep that night and I won't tonight.
I kept walking and didn't give it another thought until just now.
Didn't lose any sleep that night and I won't tonight.
mgmorden
Member
There are a lot of oddball laws on the books. In my state its illegal for a woman to buy pantyhose on a Sunday and there are a few other laws regarding body positions during intercourse.
The simple fact of the matter is that most are outdated or have never been challenged. They remain there because no one is charged with them. If they were, then any lawyer worth his salt would quickly have the law declared unconstitutional.
PowerG
Member
There has been at least one conviction under this law reversed on appeal, but I believe arrests are still made under it. The problem with challenging a law is that in most cases it's going to cost money, far more than the possible $100 fine mandated by this one.
Loosedhorse
member
Conclude the time for talking has passed. My next options are physical, and include my absolute favorite: running away.
Likely while screaming "HELP!" Like I said: high traffic area, with security employees about.(Of course, I've been backing up and making distance this whole time, while looking for accomplices. So it's almost like I have a head-start on running away!)
Wow! You knocked that strawman over hard!
(Talk about logical fallacies!
)
mgmorden
Member
Under the profanity portion? The public drunkeness clause I'd say is far more likely to still be used. I can guarantee you that any person who wanted to challenge the profanity portion could have the law invalidated as unconstitutional.
LH...I want to seriously suggest you train with Craig (Southnarc). It could give you some valuable feedback about certain ideas you have, e.g. the viability of backing straight up, or other things we've discussed here.
Believe it or not the "You must do this" is pretty minimal in his classes. Most of the teaching is done with "Here is how I think it should be done and here's why, nothing is mandatory." The learning however takes place in the force on force scenarios.
Believe it or not the "You must do this" is pretty minimal in his classes. Most of the teaching is done with "Here is how I think it should be done and here's why, nothing is mandatory." The learning however takes place in the force on force scenarios.
Loosedhorse
member
It must be tiresome for you: it seems you know everything that I don't know but should know! By the way, where did I discuss the "viability" of backing "straight" up? How many instructors agree that "backing up and making distance...while looking for accomplices" is not viable while one attempts to verbally persuade/command a not-yet-committed aggressor to disengage?
Perhaps just the same "I seriously suggest" and implication that my ideas are not viable that is coming from you? Perhaps his teaching style rubs off?
Hey, if you want to open a thread "After the profanity fails, what then?" be my guest.
Last edited:
PowerG
Member
"Any person"? Short answer, no. It would depend on the circumstances. All speech is not protected. Several states have similar laws, and they are still on the books. And as I pointed out before, most would pay the fine rather than pay hundreds of hours in attorney costs for an appeal, or more likely a series of appeals. Or maybe you could get the ACLU to do it pro bono.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
If there was one technique or tactic that worked for everything, then we could all just learn that one thing, and shut this place down.
But it doesn't work that way - people vary, laws vary, situations vary, circumstances vary and so we have to be prepared to deal with a variety of problems in a variety of ways.
We're here to help each other with that. Let's don't lose sight of why we are here, please.
But it doesn't work that way - people vary, laws vary, situations vary, circumstances vary and so we have to be prepared to deal with a variety of problems in a variety of ways.
We're here to help each other with that. Let's don't lose sight of why we are here, please.
It must be tiresome for you: it seems you know everything that I don't know but should know! By the way, where did I discuss the "viability" of backing "straight" up? How many instructors agree that "backing up and making distance...while looking for accomplices" is not viable while one attempts to verbally persuade/command a not-yet-committed aggressor to disengage?Perhaps just the same "I seriously suggest" and implication that my ideas are not viable that is coming from you? Perhaps his teaching style rubs off?
Hey, if you want to open a thread "After the profanity fails, what then?" be my guest.
You do a great job of splitting hairs. I'm trying to point out that any backing up whatsoever is probably usually a bad idea.
I am pretty sure I comprehend your strategies here and I do suggest some skill auditing in FOF. Your gender specific pronoun requests being one of about three or four "very bad ideas" I've heard. On the other hand because I am trying to convey strategies for complex situations that are taught over several days...well, this just isn't a medium that is conducive to getting the point across and driving it home. So it is a little frustrating when you make this personal and split hairs.
Am I being blunt...absolutely. This is a public forum where a lot of osmosis occurs. You sound awfully self assured with some of your "bad ideas" and those who don't have any measuring stick could easily take you as an authority.
It goes deeper than "I'm right, you're wrong" and since that's how you want to see it I'm done discussing.
Last edited:
Loosedhorse
member
Who knew we would be so fortunate to have with us the undisputed arbiter of bad and very bad--on topics that have little to do with this thread.
You label my ideas "very bad", but give no rationale, no explanation, and no better suggestion. I shouldn't create distance and space from a threat because...you say so. A lot of attitude (again) that you know what's best for me. Only one right answer, and you know it--even though you've never met or seen me.
That's called destructive criticism. It is a miserable communication technique. And tends to assure that any point you may have had is obscured and ignored.
Last edited:
(Why am I responding still?...)
Hint, the specific criticisms of your methods are in this thread.
Key words to look for are "gender specific," "arcing," (as opposed to backing up - see Lee's post) and "practice" (in response to your statement implying that you do not practice your verbal skills).
Hint, the specific criticisms of your methods are in this thread.
Key words to look for are "gender specific," "arcing," (as opposed to backing up - see Lee's post) and "practice" (in response to your statement implying that you do not practice your verbal skills).
Loosedhorse
member
Pedantic, supercilious, and disingenuous. You already know I responded to your suggestion of deleting the "sir" with "Good point." You already know that you decided to interpret my "back away" to exclude whatever movement you think is better. Your "arcing" either includes the idea of creating distance and space while monitoring the opponent and your surroundings; or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then I'm not interested, especially as you have made no effort to explain why I should be. Well, except to tell me I have the very bad ideas, and you presumably know the better ones.
You haven't had the courtesy to specify your better ideas (like what precisely you mean by "arcing," and if it doesn't create space why I should do it) preferring to let me (and most everyone else) guess--another ineffective communication technique.
All in a thread about profanity.
Because you wanted to get one more dig in at me. It certainly was not to supply more info about your ideas, which you chose not to do. Even though I have twice invited you to open a thread about it.
I made no such implication, and in fact clearly stated the opposite.
If that's done: anyone else have any thoughts on the tactical implications of profanity?
Last edited:
TwoWheelFiend
Member
I've always been a firm believer that it is not what you say, but how you say it.
:2cents
:2cents
- Status
