Reality of Violence?

Let me respond by saying that if I wasn’t interested in this stuff I would hardly have spent a lifetime in various martial arts, be a member of this forum, attend Senshido seminars, buy Rich’s DVD’s etc etc

If your interest is unhealthy then so is mine but where did I say or imply that? That accusation which may be perfectly valid and could perhaps be addressed elsewhere was raised, but not by me.

To quote from my previous post: “I am NOT denying that violent incidents occur and in some areas more frequently than others and that it is every individual’s responsibility to take whatever steps he considers appropriate so that he can deal with those incidents.”

Why you think that this is an attack on interest in self protection training/fighting I do not know.

I queried whether people here are actually experiencing frequent violent encounters and if they were did those encounters follow what I think has become the standard model based -for many of us at least- on GT’s work.

I did not find your support of the “interview” by absence of evidence compelling. I am not seeking to undermine that model. I am simply challenging what is my own and perhaps others preconceived notions based on second hand information.

My agenda was simply to explore wider issues other than “shall I hit with the open palm or closed fist” although that is of course a perfectly legitimate topic. I am sorry that you could only see that as a personal attack.

Hi peter.

I'm not sure who you think has taken this as a personal attack?

Peter, it was this remark that ired me:

I just was wondering about the extent to which there is actual involvement in violent encounters by those here which justifies such apparently serious sophisticated preparation.

Such statements are usually made in conjunction with disparaging views of enthusiasm for our topic of interest. I was applying the 'duck rule' (If it walks, sounds and looks...). My patience with people of that opinion was long ago exhausted, especially when they come into our territory to tell us as much. Now that misconceptions are laid to rest...

did those encounters follow what I think has become the standard model based -for many of us at least- on GT’s work.

Yes. Peyton Quinn's work on the 'interview' is also well worth reading ('The Bouncer's Guide to Bar-room Brawling' + 'Real Fighting') and runs parallel to Geoff's work (I think it may have been printed some years before Geoff's work). Two minds reaching the same conclusion in two continents did a lot to convince me that the street criminal operates the same strategem whereever he might be.

Insofar as the observation that you have "never been interviewed" goes, I still challenge it on the logical impossibility that you cannot prove a negative. Not all interviews are verbal. Drive by shootings are usually preceded by several back-and-forth/around the block trips for reconaissance purposes, before winding down the windows and letting rip with the Mac-10. Similarly, the famous study of prisoners who were given footage of people walking (from the waist down, as I recall. I may be wrong.) all picked the same individuals as victims. Yet another indication of a passive screening process for victims. Whether you define "interview" to include both active/passive processes is down to how you define your terms. I include both, hence my reasoning that you must have been considered for "food" by the criminal predator at least ONCE in your lifetime. If a bad guy standing ona street corner watch you walk past and decided "Nah. Not him" then I consider you interviewed, as you underwent a selection process. Failure to qualify as a victim does not disqualify you from the fact you were considered.
Because the active interview is largely a deceptive process, I would not assume that I pick up on all attempts. The bad guys do this as a full time job, and I appreciate that many of them are simply way better at it than I am. I catch a couple per year (outside of work), but I'll never claim to have a 100% detection rate.

One thought on interviews, expecially active ones:

In the small town that is close to where I live where I go to get groceries, etc., it has been months or more since I was "interviewed". Many months, at least.

When I went to the large city of Dallas a while ago, I was "interviewed" at least 4 times in a 15 minute walk from a restaurant back to the hotel.

JK

Richie - I work in Southwark, I know where the old kent road is - fancy training sometime mate?!

Let me know, Ed.

I am simply challenging what is my own and perhaps others preconceived notions based on second hand information.

i think it would be interesting to know how many people are accepting this as "recieved wisdom" rather than from personal points of reference

i always take it for granted that people are talking about things they have actually done/are doing

but as one of the posters here bashfully admitted to me in a recent PM "Im more of a thinker than a do-er"

which is still cool as this guys "thoughts" on training have made me thinner... so
think away i say!!!

Richie - I see you flagrantly ignored my polite offer of a training session - you leave me with no choice but to assume you are wetter than an otter's pocket and are the spiderman to my batman.

edbaker
yes mate
im back in schools as of spetember first but should be around evenings... do u know of any decent gyms round our way that let you train pay as u go? currently a member at Gymbox, but its expensive and quite a way away

slacky
surely you are wasted in your current role... a job as a solicitor i think... if i ever get nicked i'll be giving u a call

haha!
getting wetter than an otters pocket is best left to the ladies i find...
think we posted synchronistically! what do you? where do you train?
what times? etc

surely you are wasted in your current role... a job as a solicitor i think... if i ever get nicked i'll be giving u a call

People tell me I'm wasted all the time. Usually after I fall over my own feet, vomit on the carpet and scream something about "the pastry!". I always insist that I've only had "a few ales" and am currently suffering an ear infection, leaving me prone to dizziness and nausea.


If you ever call me from a police cell, I shall inform the Nozzers that you have been camping on my front lawn dressed as a gnome for the past fortnight. Furthermore, you displayed alarming knowledge of soviet arms and munitions of the 1960's and should be considered a threat to officer safety.

"we demand cake... and the finest wine known to humanity!"

SB,

That statement applies to me and possibly many others. I was wondering out aloud whether the extent to which we involve ourselves is an actual reflection of the reality we face. For some it will be. Others not.

I cannot recall how GT defines “the interview” but Quinn in The Bouncers Guide (“Real fighting” may cover it more extensively) refers principally to “the Ambush” and while he makes some reference to “the interview” he never defines it. In either case, in the examples he uses, it is a fairly obvious verbal prelude to an intended violent encounter.

I take it to mean a potentially violent encounter with a deceptive verbal approach –something to which Alan alluded in his first post although that may not be his definition.

Of course you can seek to define any terms how you want but I think it is a stretch to include a generalised distant screening and elimination process in that definition. The word interview as understood by common usage connotes a face to face encounter or meeting unless otherwise specially defined.

The word interview as understood by common usage connotes a face to face encounter or meeting unless otherwise specially defined.

Yet again, definition of terms raises its ugly head. A job interview is never a purely verbal process -otherwise they'd happen over the phone. You're expected to dress smartly, speak confidently, behave in a manner that befits the job description and present a favourable image. In my eyes, an interview in any format is a process that encompasses the whole gamut of communication (actual word, tonality, body language and so forth) coupled with a selection process.

*shrug* It is of no conseqence. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe.

You must be kidding.

An interview means a formal face to face meeting/questionning. The definition does not need further elaboration. A "telephone interview" is a modified form of interview that is specially defined to cover a questionning which is not face to face.

You have it the wrong way round. An interview does not encompass the process of communication with selection; it is part of it.

Definitions are important to have meaningful communication. You cannot make them up as you go along.

A "telephone interview" is a modified form of interview that is specially defined to cover a questionning which is not face to face.

I've never heard of that, but then I haven't been in the job market long, principally blue collar work at that.

An interview means a formal face to face meeting/questionning. The definition does not need further elaboration.

I beg to differ. Specialist terms within a topic often take on meanings that radically differ from the common usage. The "fence" is an excellent example - common usage denots a white, picketed thing. On this forum, the word means something different entirely. "Pre-emptive striking" means hitting somebody first, but not in the sense that you're thugging everyday folks before they've considered hitting you. Both are examples of the specialist vocabulary that exists in any subculture.

I've explained to you what "Interview" means to myself, as learned from Quinn and Thompson. Its the first time I've had to codify such a concept in a long while, hence the fractured method of delivery. Whether or not you accept this definition is of no odds to me. The fact remains that passive screening remains part of the victim selection process. I choose to include that process under the umbrella term "interview" (rather like RADAR includes active and passive modes) and you do not. No big deal.

Both are examples of the specialist vocabulary that exists in any subculture.

In NLP we define the word "trance" to include states of daydreaming, or even just remembering someones face... i gave a lecture on this to a group of teachers at the edn of last term and one came up to me and said:

she:"i think you are using the term 'trance' incorrectly"

me:"but thats how it used within NLP and Hypnosis circles"

she:"well thats not how i use it"

me:"are you an NLP practitioner or hypnotherapist?"

she:"i think youre being facetious, everbody knows what it means..."

its like some medical terms, if i say "schizophrenia" you might think "muliple personality disorder"- which in common laymens terms it is... but to a psychiatrist "schizophrenia" is an umbrella term which encompasses "multiple personality disorder"...

... damn! im even boring myself now

Of course a term may have a different meaning from that in common usage. That is why I said .."unless specifically defined"

If you are departing from common usage the onus is on you to define what you mean and sometimes to justify the need for the departure.

You said an interview "in any format" comprises communication and selection. You did of course mean as defined by you.

As it happens I think that the words selection and interview -the latter being confined to a face to face prelude to a potentially violent encounter-are more usefully descriptive of the whole process.

OK Rich it is boring but a lot of the difference of opinion has been due to
use of terms and interpretation of language.

That probably ends it- to everyone's relief.

I lived in Manchester for 10 years or so, most of it in Hulme or Whalley Range (Whalley Range being just the other side of Moss Side from Hulme). During that time I was definitely aware of interviews as common precursors to violence (both mugging-type violence and pub violence). Here's some examples of stuff I saw, was victim of, or had friends who were victims of:

Interview as victim selection in a nightclub (Rockworld) -- aggressor trying to wind people up enough that they responded verbally so that the aggressor and his mates could then feel "justified" in punching them to the floor & kicking them in.

Interview as victim selection & distraction for mugging (Fallowfield) -- mugger asking a passer-by for 20p, engaging him in dialogue while his accomplice approached from another direction, then demanding money.

Interview as a ploy & distraction for mugging (Hulme) -- muggers feign acquaintance then pull knives out & demand money & also info (they weren't really after pocket change, they were mugging people till they found someone with either a load of drug money, a load of drugs, or knowledge of where a dealer -- any dealer -- lived).

Interview as victim selection in aggressive begging / mugging / random violence (bus stop outside Victoria Station). Aggressor approached target, asked for money, then demanded money, threatened violence (specifically headbutt), demonstrated effectiveness of headbutt on bus shelter... seemed to decide it wasn't worth it, left.

There were a lot more, similar to the above. I'd say that living in Hulme I'd get some kind of victim selection style interview targeting me at least once a week -- mostly in the street or on the stairwells, but sometimes at clubs and even parties too.

I've also been aware of pure ambush type assaults but not so many of those. They seemed to happen more often to my friends in London (I worked in London for a couple of years too) than in Manchester.

My boss (London) was mugged while walking home through Clapham Common. No dialogue, just a gang of youths punching him repeatedly (breaking his nose) and making a grab for his mobile phone.

A friend (London) was stabbed in broad daylight, from behind. Police believed it was part of some kind of gang initiation thing. (Edit: i.e. the attacker had to knife a random stranger to get in the gang, or get promoted, or whatever).

The Manchester one was a guy who'd been jumped by a gang of youths over some kind of vendetta. I didn't know him till we found him in our front garden, being beaten up with bits of our fence by about 6 lads.

I only got 2 interviews I was aware of in London, despite working in Clapham and staying in Brixton a couple of times a week. Both were in Brixton, one of them an attempt to start a fight, the other almost certainly a precursor to a mugging (I just kept moving both times and evaded them).

All the above was well before I was ever consciously aware of Geoff's work, this forum, etc. So I wasn't consciously looking out for "interviews" but in retrospect that's exactly what most of them were.

If you think its going to rain you take a coat, you dont wait until it rains then realise you left your coat at home.

I see violence first hand and the effects first hand, it is a reality, even though I have only have got a little wet in the past.

Hey PeterM,

If your statement was aimed at me I only posted some of the reasons why I practice RBSD. At the time it felt like that was were the tread was going.

peterM wrote:I cannot recall how GT defines “the interview” but Quinn in The Bouncers Guide (“Real fighting” may cover it more extensively) refers principally to “the Ambush” and while he makes some reference to “the interview” he never defines it. In either case, in the examples he uses, it is a fairly obvious verbal prelude to an intended violent encounter.

I think you are right Peter, but it is a little more than that.

What Quinn is getting at (I've spent some time with him in the past and this was a subject we discussed at length) is the interview is the BG's method of dynamically profiling a potential victim, on the spot and then assessing if he has a victim based on that. That being the case, the verbal pre-curser might be of a violent nature (to see if the victim freezes) or something with more guile (as he tries to manipulate the victim into the position/location the BG wants).

I don't think Mr Q actually discusses what he believes is an 'interview' to much, as he wants people to sign up for his courses - and who can blame him for that

Coops

Peter M.
Is one being prudent, or paranoid by having a spare tire in their trunk. I normally don't obsess on treadwear, yet I always carry one. I just like being prepared.

G'day Guys ( and Girls if there are any)

Fellas don't stress too much over definitions, it's more important to understand what actually happens rather then what you call it. After all, a rose by any other name still has thorns ( except for those thornless kinds but then again it just proves there's exceptions to rules )

Regardless of where in the entire process, from selection to escape, the interview starts and finishes, according to any definition, is not as important as knowing that the process exists and that there are steps you can take to prevent the process from moving through to its end. ( wow that was a long sentence)

Personally I define the Interview as the face to face or the verbal section of the process, where there is interaction between both attacker and victim ( not just one reading the other). Why?? Because thats what every day people who haven't spent years studying RBSD associate to the word, and they are the people i generally deal with, they are my students/clients.

Remember the KISS principle, why make something more difficult then necessary.

And Just for fun, heres the steps I include in the process.

The 7 Stages of an Attack

1. Victim Selection
2. Victim Stalking/Casing
3. Positioning/Set up
4. The Interview
5. Use of Threats and Intimidation
6. Act of Violence, Physical Attack
7. His Escape

Each step blends into the next, and some steps may be omitted. The entire process can take as little as 6 seconds or as long as 6 months ( or even years in some cases) depending on the type of attack.

Sorry drifted of topic there, the point i was making is that Who cares if someone includes steps 2,3,4 & 5, or any other combination, as a single step called the interview or not. It's not the important thing, the process is.

CANT WE SIMPLIFY IT A BIT..

I usually teach ..
INTENT .. The 'thought' that someone makes to decide on attacking another
APPROACH ... how to cover the distance and angles etc in order to get within attack range via ANY form of subterfuge
ATTACK .. the ATTACKER will pre-empt, has to, or it isnt an attack.. then whatever the attack is

so ALL attacks must follow those three principles..
INTENT ... APPROACH .. ATTACK

Agreed, and the only part of the three stages which we can really help people with is the approach stage. We don't have any control over 'intent' apart from making ourselves a difficult target so that the BG becomes intent on attacking someone else

Similarly, although people like to think they can do something about the 'attack' stage, it's much to late by then.

In fact that makes the job much easier for us - getting people to understand the nuances of the 'approach' stage is really the important part, because if people are switched on to it, the approach can be avoided.

Coops