Endloop of repeated verbal commands, possibly a mental Freeze?

[voodoo_man]

Couldn't find it...my thoughts...both generally speaking for the average ccw citizen and for the LEO:

I have been in numerous situations where I had to use verbal commands and then force. There are a few things which should be immediately considered when having an open discussion about these types of situations.

First and foremost, are you willing to use whatever force is required to stop the person who you are yelling at. For LEO's that should not be an issue but it would surprise many non-LEO's how often it is. The fact that a person will use words which have nothing backing them up is one of the main contributors to this type of endless loop of commands/pointless yelling. Each of us needs to ask ourselves, are you willing to take action? What level of action are you willing to take? Are you willing to accept the consequences of those actions? To what extent? Have you thought this entire situation through, every single tier and order of effects which may manifest from your actions? That is the first step as interjecting yourself into the conflict may require you have already thought about every single one of these things beforehand. For most LEO's this is not really an issue as they already understand the process of an OIS or use of force, they understand that getting sued is possible and having the media go apeshit is always just around the corner. For the average ccw citizen, this is not however, a normal occurrence and getting involved into this type of situation may result in consequences which should have been considered beforehand.

For the average ccw citizen, there is also a moral/ethical angle to getting involved which needs to be resolved individually. This has to be done logically and that can only be done by a person inside their own minds. You have to set your own moral and ethical guidelines and boundaries (protocols) which you follow at all times. Most LEO's have done this already, some have flushed them out with repeated actions throughout their careers, others not so much. The average ccw citizen needs to really consider all the above before doing anything of this sort. All actions, as well as inactions, have their own consequences and they are not always immediate, physical or obvious. That is a totally different topic, however.

While I have spoken about the concept of a "shoot threshold" (or shoot condition in this context as we are trying to end the loop) I have not typed anything significant on this matter. Specifically because it will mean something different to everyone. My shoot threshold will be different than yours, a LEO's different than an average ccw citizen, a young LEO's different than an older LEO's, a man's different than a woman's. There is a process we should all go through in order to create what we will use as our "shoot threshold" protocol. Everyone's processes will be different as we all have different considerations, levels of training, awareness and preparedness. You can google what a process and protocol means, there has to be a set way of making these decisions without making it up as you go. Because if you are in that realm, and you go about your daily life and just make it up as you go then you are not only setting yourself up for failure but you are actively sabotaging yourself. The creation of processes and protocols can be very challenging as there is no blueprint to go by and the current standards which may be normal for you in your circle of friends/colleagues may not suffice, this mean you need to move outside of that realm (or comfort zone) to gain understanding and knowledge.

Shoot threshold is the representative name for a shooting condition, which would be more defined as "a line the sand." When someone says "a line in the sand" they could mean a lot of things, in this context many LEO's would just keep yelling at a subject either because they do not know where their personal shoot threshold is, or how thick their line in the sand, really is. In terms of shooting, the line in the sand should be razor thin, and it should not be broken down into any steps or tiers. When a shoot threshold is met, you should be shooting, not talking. It should be a hard-lined approach to shooting not a pliable one, as I referred to above.

What does all this mean?

I have been to numerous LE classes where this type of concept was brought up and the answers always differ. "Well, once he begins the draw, that's when I'll shoot him." "Once he goes into his pocket, I'll pull the trigger." "The moment he makes a movement which I may believe to be a draw stroke, then I'll start shooting." Well which one is it? Are they are all correct? Yes, to each of those people they are all correct because those are their personal shoot threshold's. Only you can determine which one works for you and then you have to stick to it. You should base your training around those circumstances and allow yourself to develop a natural response to that shoot threshold which you have developed for yourself.

What about physical confrontation? I have a good friend who had a very specific protocol he developed over years of violent contacts. He said once he goes to the ground with a subject, he will attempt one control hold/submission attempt. If they attempt fails or the subject does not submit, he will immediately begin to strike and not revert to control holds/submissions again. That is his protocol because he has gone through various processes to arrive at that specific protocol. Some LEO's will go right to strikes, some LEO's will do the whole rolling on the ground thing trying to submit the subject in eight different ways, maybe they thought this through, maybe they did not. He has and he is still here after numerous deadly force contacts.

Verbal commands are precursors to action. For LEO's, we use verbal commands mostly because it is frowned upon to just start shooting right away, or going hands on right away. Though it may be the only possible action the LEO can take without going hands on or shooting, that is just a stutter-step towards the completion of that particular situation. Most people comply, some people feign compliance and it is immediately obvious they are not complying - "yeah yeah I'm keeping my hands up" and they are clearly not, while others just completely disregard such commands entirely. At what point would a LEO, or an average ccw citizen, take action? Would it be smart to have a protocol in place which has been flushed out through training in order to properly apply force in these types of situations? What if I told you that it may be different for each person and that each person has to understand that, to not rely on another person's protocol, would that change the way you look at verbal and/or violent confrontations?

Accepting the fact this is online and these lessons are much better described and installed face to face, on a range or with FoF, the real lesson here should be allowing yourself to open your mind to consider that your current protocols for such circumstances may be inadequate. Constantly challenging yourself to determine which actions are appropriate and allowing yourself to play these "what-if" games in your head is absolutely necessary and required for, not just your physical survival, but your emotional, financial, and social survival.

Earlier this year we had a video posted about a guy who was walking around with a gun and the officer's, though guns ready, on target did not take the shot, instead they just followed him around until he took a hostage which forced them into a hard "shoot threshold" with a very immediate need for resolution. One which could have been completely avoided if one of those officer's had a protocol which included that subject's complete lack of reaction to commands while walking around with a gun. I posted my thoughts on my site in a short article De-escalation and worst case scenario. I did not mention the concept of "shoot threshold" there because I was going to write an article on that topic at a later time.

[octagon]

Coming from a LEO and now retired I believe the "Line in the sand" and Shoot threshold comments by VDM are critical and part of the reasoning behind looping verbal and even physical actions in high stress situations. IIRC the Dinkeller incident is where the officer faced the Vietnam combat vet? If so I believe the officer may not have had a line in the sand clearly worked out beforehand or his line was too far along for the weirdness of the behavior of the suspect (dancing,calmly arming himself etc) It also could be the officer never wanted to and struggled to shoot another person because of personal beliefs and only worked through it to shoot when the situation was too far along against him tactically. I don't fault the officer for some delay but he paid the ultimate price for his response farther into the incident.

With that said there is a time to talk and a time to act. Mixing the two or using talk when acting is the right choice is where things can get ugly. I read and used some of Verbal Judo and he states a similar talk or act theory and not to repeat yourself too much or make threats that you then don't act on. These can sound like a nag if the situation is not threatening and if it is warn the other person what you are going to do allowing them to prepare. That is not to say warnings are not useful and appropriate but when used properly. It is a good book with good info but has some weaknesses too and just part of the solution not the whole solution. Another book and video is "the Missing Link" which is about verbal and non verbal communication in stressfull circumstances. More good info and ideas there that work for CC citizens,women and LEOs and he covers the looping some.

Some personal examples on verbal looping and line in the sand/shoot threshold.

One of my Shoot thresholds was if a person ever had a hand on a handgun I would shoot them and not attempt verbal warning. This played out when I was at Simunitions Instructor school. We had a Hotel hostage incident scenario where the suspect exits a room with hostage coming out first then suspect and his right side comes into view last. He is holding a gun pointed down by his side in his right hand and the hostage is fully clear of the suspect not held except by the left hand of the suspect holding the right arm of the hostage. As soon as the gun was visible I shot him. The scenario ended and a couple people asked why I shot. I explained my thoughts and experience on action vs reaction and why I didn't give any verbal warning other than when the hostage first appeared before seeing the gun in hand. I would shoot in a real situation the same way as that is my line in the sand as much as drawing motion from the waistband or reaching for a handgun within reach. More seriously I have put my finger on the trigger and started rearward pressure twice in my career while pointed at a person. This is very different from the hundreds of times I pointed a gun at a suspect and gave verbal commands or not and kept my finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard indexed. The times were when a gun was seen and within reach but the suspects actions were unclear on whether he was complying with commands or about to move to grab the gun. One the person was knocked around by the end of a pursuit collision and was just too dazed to comply, one was a replica gun the person stupidly started to reach for under the seat but complied before I shot, and one was a suspect who looked at me while I was giving commands and appeared like he was going to grab it anyways but for some reason stopped moving toward it slowly. The last was the closest I came and was at the wall on a Glock.

Also related to the legal,ethical,dept. support issue with using force and verbalization I often shouted "Stop resisting" repeatedly when I was fighting with a suspect giving repeated knee strikes,punches etc... This was not just SOP in our dept general orders by my personal procedure. I used this to comply with policy and to sound good for anyone viewing the incident in person or video. It also helped to get me breathing. It was a loop of verbage but appropriate in the context of the situations. I had no trouble changing it to "stop fucking resisting you dumb ass" or similar comments so I wasn't locked into one phrase repeated as if frozen.

I went to a training program called dealing with difficult people, communication skills and in the program as well as the Verbal Judo and Missing Link programs they all mention using alternate phrases to communicate the same desired response. Stop, Don't move,keep your hands where I can see them being just 1 example of three different ways to basically say the same thing to respond of no movement or action wanted.

[mc1911]

This reminds me of the video that's been posted on here before of the guy walking down the street with a long gun and a cop following in a car bumbling around on the radio with a play-by-play and telling all the other cops to stay away. Then another cop rips up the street in his car and plows the guy, sending him flying.

One cop had his threshold clearly defined and the situation was already way past it, and the cop yapping on the radio did not.

[CleverNickname]

This reminds me of the video that's been posted on here before of the guy walking down the street with a long gun and a cop following in a car bumbling around on the radio with a play-by-play and telling all the other cops to stay away. Then another cop rips up the street in his car and plows the guy, sending him flying.

One cop had his threshold clearly defined and the situation was already way past it, and the cop yapping on the radio did not.

For those who haven't seen it...

[Mike C]

Tagged for interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Erick Gelhaus]

The Marana / Walmast gun thief / Leeroy Jenkins event isn't it. Though its a good teaching video for DF decision making.

Hearne's standing me up on this is harshing my calm.

Never seen "this" before and the endless loop is the outcome? Makes sense.

Not willing to do what this requires and you get the loop? Not processing for me.

Not getting the outcome I thought the commands would create? And trying to change the likely outcome to the one I want? That is pretty close to what came up in the original phone call. A phrase i've used in writing that didn't cause me drama is "audible" as in football & changing the play at the line of scrimmage. When I still a working cop, before promotion, I spent time on the audible concept with my trainees. But to call the audible, you have to have called a play in the huddle (developed a plan) and then at the scrimmage (as you were ready to execute it) realized via awareness the defense wasn't going to allow it. Then you call the audible. That audible lets you work towards solving the problem you have rather than the one you want.

Is the endless loop a product of not being able to call the audible, i.e: not being able to reorient on the world as it is rather than what you wanted?

[Coyotesfan97]

For those who haven't seen it...

LEEEEROOOY JEEEENNNKKKINNS!

[BehindBlueI's]

To throw another thought in there, we are trained to repeat ourselves and that must be considered. I was trained to keep at the "stop resisting" even though it's obvious they are going to continue to resist, both as a way to make sure you're not holding your breath and for the benefit of all the "ear witnesses" and eye witnesses. I'd rather hear "the officer told him to stop resisting/drop the gun/put his hands behind his back at least a dozen times" in the grand jury. It was ingrained in us to the point that during a pretty serious struggle I didn't think I'd said a word but the recording showed I'd kept right on yelling at the guy to stop resisting/put his hands behind his back, etc. He ended up dying shortly afterward of excited delirium, but he had a lot of injuries from our fight as well (as did I, including a broken hand), and that recording (and verbiage I used) was strong evidence in my favor per City Legal. The wrongful death lawsuit claimed I beat him to death, excessive force, etc. etc. Repeated commands even while fighting mattered in the court room survival stage.

So at least with cops who are trained similarly, we'd have to separate "verbal freeze" from "verbal auto pilot" and look more simply at can/did they elevate force as necessary?

[Tamara]

'Line in the sand' is a chronological concept just as much as a geographic one. A lot of people don't get that.

That's a really great way to put that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not being an officer or in such scenarios, my opinion is worth spit but since I was mentioned I will spit up some. I would like to add some other perspectives. These are taken from a book by Collins (who studied many instances when police or military didn't act to their detriment).

Collins (2008) – Violence – Oxford Press – Inhibition of Initiating Violence – Freezing in FOF – Another Take.
Aggressing is actually a very hard thing to do at close ranges for some.
Aggressor has to overcome a pairing of tension and fear to act
People reluctant to act aggressively unless the right conditions are met.
Seen in military, 25 % firing (post Marshall studies as his are suspect) – training can overcome this
Police interaction – sometimes firearms are not used – when attacked
Complex matrix of emotional dominance necessary for aggressive action.
Tension/fear complex must be overcome for firing to take place.
Military guns that act at distance more easily fired than close range guns
Forward Panic! Once overcome, you get forward panic – when more aggression than necessary – might be related to contagious or sympathetic shooting

Also from other sources:

People have a need to achieve dominance and want the opponent to become submissive as compared to destroying them.

-- Thus, besides getting stuck in a loop, the freeze,fight,fear, flight systems - a person may want the opponent to just surrender as they want the dominance. This is a subtle difference than wanting compliance for the practical reasons of the incident. They have a hard time (for some) moving to aggression and just want the 'surrender' of the other. They find it hard to break away from that not occurring. Usually in fights in the school yard or in past experience, we just want to 'win' and not destroy.

Since I have no experience with this outside of FOF and classes, these anecdotes are worth what you paid for them. John Holschen in an Insights class made the point that when you (being the civilian home defender or almost victim on the street) gets the drop on the opponent, instead of backing away, they approach the opponent, and yell for compliance. Get down, blah - too much TV and the need for dominance?

In another class in Dallas, one guy was a martial artist (as he claimed). In a FOF, the instructor kept on approaching him and despite the threat, he backed up and up till he fell on his butt (to the derision of the other instructors whom I was standing near - he was called a name of a genital). Failure to be able to act? He could just have run away - there was plenty of room.

At the NTI - we were to challenge folks in exercises. In the shoot house, where I found a bad guy - I just shot him. I was chastised as not challenging. My response was that he was an adult in my house and close in - not a time for chat. That was OK as a rationale. Another time, a very well known instructor was a terrorist in a court house attack. Said terrorist had the drop on me and told me to get down. Then said instructor was standing near me, and I disarmed said instructor (we had a protocol to do that without a physical fight). Getting the sims gun, I shot the terrorist instructor. I asked why by state troopers who were playing arriving saviors. I said, the person was a terrorist who had shot others, the person was trying to get the gun back. That worked for them in the AAR.

Last, my wife is annoyed with me when we watch Law and Order SVU together and I opine - PULL THE TRIGGER!

Great discussions.

Great discussion.