Recognition Primed Decision-making (part V)

By tacticalprofessor on

As stated in Part IV https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2021/07/31/recognition-primed-decision-making-part-iv/ of the series:

A predator also has a group of Options/Reactions when the intended victim begins to Confront or Resist rather than being caught up in the Victim Mix.

Since Boyd’s Process is iterative and interactive rather than static, a predator takes a ‘turn’ in the process after the intended victim’s response. If the intended victim Freezes or Complies, the predator will exploit the opportunity. Even if the intended victim chooses to Confront or Resist, the predator still has a group of Options/Reactions available, unless he has been instantly put out of action by the intended victim’s Resist choice. These options are similar, but not identical, to the intended victim’s list.

  • Fight
  • Flight
  • Comply
  • Freeze
  • Increment

An example of the criminal’s possibilities would be if an Armed Citizen responded to an armed predator by shooting the predator. If the predator was incapacitated by the shot, it would be a version of Comply because they are no longer threatening the Citizen. If the predator wasn’t incapacitated, he could also choose Flight, which is probably the most common response to armed resistance. In either case, the incident is no longer a gunfight. The Citizen must choose a different response than if the predator chose to Fight.

The sad case of Caroline Schollaert https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2021/08/12/suspect-held-at-gunpoint-temporarily/ makes clear that sometimes predators do choose the Fight option. Fight and Flight are not mutually exclusive. The unfortunate incident involving Lieutenant Williams in Chicargo https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2021/02/26/using-cover-effectively/ makes this abundantly evident. The lack of mutual exclusivity is another reason why chasing a predator who has taken flight can be dangerous.

Another possibility to consider is that youthful or first time predators may simply Freeze in response to an Armed Citizen Confronting or Resisting. When this happens, it’s neither Fighting nor Failing to Comply but rather simply becoming overwhelmed mentally when the predation doesn’t go according to plan. Initially, this may look like Compliance, say, to a command of “Don’t Move” or “Freeze,” but then when further commands are given, there is no response. We need to recognize the possibility that predators may not be completely in control of their own bodies once actual conflict begins. The attempted home invader in Hesperia, California https://www.foxla.com/news/shocking-video-captures-shootout-between-suspect-who-tried-to-break-into-home-homeowner-in-hesperia probably did not intend to pee in his pants during the gunfight. Even though he had enough presence of mind to use cover and to recover ammunition he had ejected on the ground, he wasn’t completely in control of his body.

Consequently, commands like “Get on the Ground” or “Hands up, Manos Arriba!” may not result in the predator doing what he’s told to do even if he wants to. The predator may not be able to do what he’s being told to. One of the best commands may be “Get out of here.” The idea that a predator will then intentionally flee to ‘a position of cover’ or ‘circle around’ to continue the fight is probably a figbar of gunwriter imagination. We can also give the “Get out of here” command to ourselves, if only mentally.

An experienced predator may choose the Increment response when Confronted. This is a dangerous situation for those Armed Citizens who lack experience at dealing with predators. It is the predator’s equivalent of the Negotiate response by a defender. However, the predator’s intent is to close the distance to the defender and gain a more advantageous position for a takedown or weapon takeaway. Two tactics can help prevent a Negative Outcome from such a situation. The first is that a verbal Confrontation must be forcefully delivered. Most people need to practice delivering commands before they actually need to. The saying “He who hesitates is lost” applies here. Hesitation is not necessarily in terms of time but also to being tentative when delivering a command. The second tactic is to have a ‘line in the sand.’ The concept of a line in the sand is the real utility of the Tueller Principle https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/44-our-journal/86-the-tueller-drill-revisited.

It’s also worthy of note that at any time after the beginning of the predation, third parties can and do inject themselves into the action. The recent case of an Armed Citizen who stopped an Active Killer event but then was shot by a responding Officer is an excellent, although unfortunate, example. Boyd’s Process is far more involved than the simplistic circular diagram usually depicted. Rather, the process then becomes an intricate flowchart that can be very hard to navigate.

Predators have their own array of options that are similar, but not identical, to the Armed Citizen’s. We need to bear in mind what those options are before we initiate our response to the initial predation. Knowing the predator’s possible reactions then allows us to be prepared for their response to Confrontation or Resistance. That response may not be what we want it to be and we will have to either counter it or take advantage of it.

Tactical Professor Information Products

STOPP Presentation at Rangemaster Tactical Conference
https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2021/09/14/stopp-presentation-now-available/

https://www.payloadz.com/go?id=3381307

Books (all PDF)

Posted in: decision making, Negative Outcomes, practice, skills
%d bloggers like this: