Yelling at your attacker - Page 4


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > Yelling at your attacker

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2008, 06:10 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 333
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender View Post
"Anecdotal evidence"?! That's ALL you've got?! Keep humoring me, son.

Show me some HARD RESEARCH from military and police agencies.
The best "hard research" to be found is Colonel Jon Boyd's discussions on the OODA loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop.

Fortunately for you, there can be no hard evidence on this. The very nature of the needed research to get the hard evidence makes the crucial element of this equation, surprise, impossible to achieve.

The best thing we can do is watch people in unscripted Force on Force encounters, which I have done. Barring that, we can read After Action Reports on the subject. Both of these are anecdotal, because regardless of the desired outcomes, the results will be different every time, because of the human factor involved (being creatures of free-will and all that).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender View Post
Your Cooper example is IRRELEVANT, since it's completely different from what we're talking about. Cooper says NOTHING about "shouting at the top of your lungs" when you tell him the gun is on safe. He's clearly referring to CALMLY pointing out to the guy that it's on safe, hoping he'll look down at it, giving the defender the time to bring his own gun into play.

Cooper is also clearly recommending this to people who are having a gun held on them, and they have yet to access their own gun.

Try using a RELEVANT example next time, big guy!
It is relevant, if you expand your view of the issue. I know it is not the same, and admitted as such (which you conveniently edited out of your quote); but it falls into the same generalized category that I am suggesting, an element of surprise and resetting the OODA loop.

When the bad-guy is attacking you, he is in his Act phase of his loop. When you add new information, like drawing your pistol, you force him to go back to his Observation phase. The downfall of just doing one action is two-fold. If you are well-practiced in drawing, as I'm sure you are, he may not be able to see it, and he will continue to move in the Act phase. By adding a second form of sensory input, you increase the likelihood that he will be notice it.

The other downfall of just drawing is it is only one form of sensory input. He will be able to Observe this, then Orient and Decide significantly faster and change his Action faster. If we put another element into his Observation phase, like moving off of his line of attack, it will take him longer to process. If we put a different form of sensory input into the equation, in addition to the visual of drawing your gun and getting off of the X, he will have to process even more, using a different part of his brain (ideally, tactically soiling yourself would also help in the process, as he now has to process what that horrible stench is).

In short, by yelling at the attacker, or giving them a command, while drawing your pistol changes the entire view of the fight. It takes you from playing catch-up with the bad guy, and puts you in control of the action. He is playing catch up.

As I mentioned above, a single word command is better, both from the physiological standpoint and the legal standpoint. The single syllable, single word command is easier for a person to formulate. It is also less likely to be misunderstood by eyewitnesses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender View Post
Thanks, little buddy. But having been in law enforcement, I'm already up to speed on telling people to "stop". I don't need your advice on that.

And that's NOT what I was talking about, and I don't think the original poster was talking about that, but I can't speak for him.
There is a significant difference in the purposes of law enforcement and a civilian carrying a concealed weapon. As a police officer, your job was to either prevent crime, or apprehend the suspect after the fact. Police need to use their commands to more effectively do their job.

An armed citizen should not be trying to actively prevent crime, nor should he be attempting to apprehend a suspect after a crime has been committed. His primary goal is to win a fight. Winning a fight can be done in a multitude of ways, but all of them ultimately come down to needing to get ahead of the power curve. As I explained above, yelling "STOP!" getting off of his line of attack, and drawing your sidearm will most likely overload his decision process, getting you into the controlling position, mentally.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender View Post
How many times do I have to repeat myself?! I'm not talking about using the "stop" command, and I don't believe the original poster was either.

So you're rambling on with your usual irrelevancies.

But since you brought it up---the command of "stop" isn't meant to be "shouted at the top of your lungs", nor is it intended to "psyche out" or "unnerve" the perp. It should be always be used in a controlled, authoritative voice.
Once again, this is from the law enforcement viewpoint, not the armed citizens's viewpoint, as I clearly spelled out above. It can be a significant factor in surviving an armed encounter. If there is something that will help me win a fight, I will definitely give it some careful thought...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender View Post
You need to catch up on exactly what the OP and myself are talking about, because you don't have a clue.
Once again, you are stating things that aren't there. Twice in your last post, you say you don't know exactly what the OP was talking about, but now you do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender View Post
Is that a threat?
No, that is not a threat. A threat would read:
Quote:
If you don't shut up, I will kill your dog, stomp your kittens to death and burn your house down.
I was merely relaying to you that you haven't seen a personal attack yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender View Post
Calling somebody "mentally retarded" is a personal attack, even if you're not intelligent or honest enough to admit it. So your denial is irrelevant.
I did not call anyone mentally retarded. I merely stated that if you can't do two things at once, you are mentally retarded. For example, if you can't walk and chew bubblegum, you're mentally retarded. If the shoe fits, wear it.

If I wanted to make a personal attack, I would say something on the lines of:
Quote:
You are a worthless piece of human offal, who doesn't know his ear from a hole in the ground. Every time you open your mouth, I want to pound my head on the table, because everything you post is drivel, based upon your fantasy life of being a ninja. Your claims of being law enforcement are obvious lies; the closest thing you have ever come to being a law enforcement officer is working as an unarmed mall security guard, a job you consequently lost because you were too fat to fit into the uniform. You probably have poor personal hygeine, but that is understandable because it would take you 3 hours to wash yourself due to the rolls of fat. Your closest form of firearm training was playing Counter Strike, and reading every gun rag that comes down the pipe. You don't actually own any firearms, because of your fixed income, due to your "disability" of not being able to see your feet, so you leech off the taxpayers. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Do the world a favor and gargle a bucket of bleach and razor blades.
Such an attack would also be laced with profanities. Since all I posted was a simple "If:Then:Else" statement, it was not a personal threat.

NOTE: None of the above examples were personal attacks or threats directed at Defender nor anyone else on the board. These were examples of personal attacks and threats that I have seen on other boards, where such action is allowed. As a side note, the personal attack that I posted would be considered a great work of writing on a board I frequent...


__________________

Last edited by ranger_sxt; 02-27-2008 at 06:16 PM.
ranger_sxt is offline  
 
Old 02-28-2008, 01:45 PM   #32
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,200
Liked 2872 Times on 1496 Posts
Likes Given: 257

Default

This has gotten completely out of hand. I was of the opinion that this was supposed to be a forum to discuss, not argue. I don't care who cast the first stone, stop throwing, please!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are mostly opinions, though. What works for me may be completely wrong for the next person. I try to put my two cents worth in and let you make up your own mind. There are many tools available in a defensive situation. For the man who owns but a hammer, every problem is a nail.

When we digress into such stupid arguements, we turn off a number of new shooters. We should be able to express our viewpoint with out hostility toward one another.

If your view point is different than mine, it does not mean either one is wrong, just different.

We should be Brothers in Arms, not step-brothers punch each other in the arms.

__________________
robocop10mm is offline  
 
Old 02-28-2008, 01:49 PM   #33
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
This has gotten completely out of hand. I was of the opinion that this was supposed to be a forum to discuss, not argue. I don't care who cast the first stone, stop throwing, please!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are mostly opinions, though. What works for me may be completely wrong for the next person. I try to put my two cents worth in and let you make up your own mind. There are many tools available in a defensive situation. For the man who owns but a hammer, every problem is a nail.

When we digress into such stupid arguements, we turn off a number of new shooters. We should be able to express our viewpoint with out hostility toward one another.

If your view point is different than mine, it does not mean either one is wrong, just different.

We should be Brothers in Arms, not step-brothers punch each other in the arms.
I agree. I hope that we don't have to close another thread after this one.
__________________
matt g is offline  
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Disarming An Attacker dnthmn2004 Training & Safety 34 06-04-2009 01:15 AM
CNN video: victim shoots attacker Musket Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 01-17-2009 09:10 PM
Attacker Psychology: Appearance User1953 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 4 07-15-2008 01:39 PM
Eye Contact and Attacker Psychology SheridanB Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 21 12-17-2007 02:10 PM
Attacker Clothing? quetzalcoatl Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 9 11-08-2007 01:57 AM