On this page:
Our approach to the subject | What is de-escalation based on? | Why do people become violent?  | What NOT to say | Personal vs. Institutional Authority | Four types of violence | Further Resources

Our violence de-escalation program is not for use on a harried businessman who, late for a meeting, becomes verbally abusive when pulled over for speeding. Nor is it for handling an obnoxious and dissatisfied customer in a store. There are plenty of other programs that can and do equip you to handle those kinds of minor problems. Our program is designed for confronting a truly dangerous and violent person and preventing him from attempting to rip your throat out with his teeth 

Unlike many verbal de-escalation programs the No Nonsense Self-defense Control Presence  program doesn't care that a violent person fell off his tricycle when he was a child. While working out a long term resolution would be nice, our two main concerns are 
A) to keep him from attacking and 
B) to keep you in control of the situation -- even if it does go violent. 

Our approach to the subject
Our approach can be summed up simply as: Don't give him a reason to go off, but do give him lots of reason not to. 

Those reasons not to attack aren't just because you are talking to him. They include the simple fact that if he does attack, he will lose.  As the quote at the top of the page states it is the violent type's very belief in the effectiveness of violence that makes them susceptible to deterrence of a opposing force. When dealing with violent people your ability to foil violence  is a critical part of  your ability to de-escalate.

To us, de-escalation is not just a stage in a use of force continuum.  It is an integrated tactical component of a much larger strategy. A strategy that ensures your safety when using it.  This is because: A critical component of de-escalation is both the willingness to use force if necessary and the ability to do it effectively. Your ability to respond tactically is not only a deterrent, but an assisting element in de-escalation.

And that's how we approach this subject. We're talking about  a system for dealing with the multiple felon gang-banger -- who knows where to slide a knife through your vest -- and is about a half inch from deciding that ramming a shiv into you  is a good idea. Your ability to convince him not to attack is, by and large, based in making sure he doesn't get what he needs to successfully attack you.  

In dealing with such a person, physical force is not your last option, because it is his first choice.  You may have a preferred option (de-escalation/ communication), but you are ready for other options. 

But having said that let us also say: In cases like this, de-escalation isn't intimidating him into submission. It is manipulating him into choosing a second or third choice. And doing so because he realizes his first choice won't work.  How you do that without escalating the situation yourself  is what the control presence system is about. 

Let us state unequivocally that de-escalation works better when he knows he can't successfully attack you.  Superior firepower is an invaluable tool when entering into negotiations. This means a reliable defensive tactics program must be the back up for the negotiations. Without this ability you aren't necessarily begging him not to attack, but you are definitely trying to trick him into not attacking. And there's a good chance he will know that. This increases your chances of being attacked. That's because someone who doesn't believe that he/she could 'take' the violent person will display non-verbal cues communicating this to the violent person. This non-verbal leakage is not something that the person doing it is aware of, but it IS happening. And it tells the violent person that you are afraid of him -- even if you are doing your best  and loudest command presence display.

As the threat of violence is immediate, so too needs to be your ability to counter if the perp decides to attack. When you can do this you are not begging or tricking someone into not attacking someone that he know he could take.   Look closely at that last part. Never think that a violent person doesn't know who he can and can't safely attack.  A large part of successful de-escalation is making sure he knows you are in the "not safe to attack" category. Therefore, the other alternatives you present him are more appealing.

Although, our program works within institutional goals and departmental guidelines, our main concern is the safety of the line officer.  Having said this, it's a win-win situation for everyone. A secondary benefit for the officer is the ease/effectiveness of handling potentially violent situations without them escalating -- less violence, less paperwork. The fourth and fifth benefits are it reduces the chances of the department from being sued or paying out disability costs on injured officers. A sixth benefit is the increase of officer confidence results in a decrease of use of force situations.
Return to top of page

Why do people become violent?
Before we continue we would like to ask you two simple questions. First: Why do people become violent? Think of at least three different reason and write them down.. (Please do this before continuing)

Look at those three reasons and ask yourself the second question: Are those the core reasons? What's underneath? Or, like symptoms, are they indicative of a disease, but not the disease itself? 

In our experience, when asked when asked why people become violent even most professionals (including many people certified in psychology), list symptoms, not the disease.   This brings us to the second question: What is both a much simpler and consistent  motivation? 

Take it down a level more. Believe it or not, the most common response by line officers is closer to the motivation than the deeper explanations many psychologists come up with. That's because they see it every day. When, instead of looking at it from an institutional perspective, you look at the question of violence from an individual standpoint, a startling revelation becomes clear. Our answer to why does someone become violent  is simple: 

He wants something.

Something that he thinks he can get by being violent. With this in mind, look again at the three reasons you wrote down and see if they would -- while still being true --  fit into this much bigger category. In other words, are the three motivations you wrote down the cause of violence or do they actually define what the person wants? 

Anger? Does he want to punish you and/or stop unacceptable behavior? Fear? Does he want the object of his fear (you) to go away or does he want to stop you before you hurt him? Profit? He wants your money or possessions so he can get money. Control? What is that except getting what he wants from you through the act or the threat of violence? Pride? He wants his self-esteem back. Punishment? Often very much a matter of getting his self-esteem back and control. Again and again, no matter what the motivation for violence is,  that verb "want" keeps on cropping up. 

We find that significant, especially when you are standing between him and what he wants. 

Understanding this fundamental about the nature of violence is critical for effective de-escalation. If you ever lose sight of this foundation of violence, then you greatly increase your chances of being attacked. That is because verbal de-escalation is  negotiation and communication. It is not command, control or manipulation (although all of these are important strategies within it) De-escalation is convincing the person that he cannot get what he wants through violence. But, if he truly wants it, the way to get it is through other means.  That is what we mean when we say "get him choose option 2 or 3"

Effective de-escalation also means that you are working with him to achieve something that --  while maybe it won't be exactly what he wants -- is a viable alternative. This leaves him the choice, co-operate with you to at least get something or lose badly. An example of this is our much loved line for getting someone to settle down and start behaving: Don't make it easier for me to arrest you than leave you out.
Return to top of page

Why doesn't he want to attack you?
A point overlooked by many verbal de-escalation programs, he may not want to be talked down. He, in fact, may be pretty sure he can get what he wants through violence. If that is the case, you had better have something up your sleeve that will make him want to be talked down. 

Or, if he decides to go anyway, something that will immediately convince him "bad decision."

Trusting an effective control system is a critical component in effective verbal de-escalation. The connection between de-escalation and control tactics is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" issue. If violence erupts, the officer must have a defensive tactics that he/she must have faith in to keep him/her safe and allow for easy control of an aggressive suspect. If it goes physical, you must "know"-- down to your bones -- that you will win. In the same breath, having the ability to easily put a violent perp down will often deter violence -- especially when used as an adjunct to de-escalation. Therefore, your verbal de-escalation is based on a choice, you're talking because that is your preferred option. You are not pleading to the guy hoping that he won't become violent.

We cannot stress enough the importance of the connection between de-escalation and effective defensive tactics. Defensive tactics that the officer will trust when facing an enraged 250 pound aggressive suspect. If your officers don't have that faith don't expect them to be able to effectively de-escalate.  It is that 'faith' that will allow the officer to confidently step up to handle the danger. It doesn't matter if the officer's defensive tactics training has the departmental seal-of-approval, the officer must know it works.  This must work on the deepest level of the brain. Although management certainly can spell it, the "puppy brain cannot spell d-e-n-i-a-l(2)" when it comes to facing a violent offender with ineffective defensive tactics    The telling question about the effectiveness of departmentally approved tactics is simple: Would YOU trust your life to them? If  not, then how can a department realistically expect their line officers to do so? This creates a secondary problem however, if the line officer doesn't have faith in it, there will be the non-verbal leakage of this doubt. Uncertainty that the potentially violent person will sense and react to, thereby making de-escalation more difficult, if not impossible.

We want to help you learn how to establish a violence deterring Control Presence. This as opposed to the current -- and less effective -- ideology of a command presence. Command presence without the confidence to back it up comes across as scared posturing. To put it in criminal terms, the officer is coming across as a punk. Without a solid set of skills for effectively handle violence, a command presence is just bluster and fear. And the potential attacker knows it. The officer's understanding of  the physical act of violence -- and what it takes to attack -- is integral to effective de-escalation and prevention of violence. It  is extremely difficult to prevent someone who knows "he can take you" from becoming violent -- especially if he has already Shadowdanced you and is in position to successfully attack you.
Return to top of page 

What NOT to say
Ever notice how some people just seem to piss off a potentially violent person? It almost seems like these folks have a checklist of ways to provoke an attack. Believe it or not, there really is a checklist. There are certain behaviors that will get you attacked! This page will help you prevent from running down that list.

Personal vs. Institutional Authority
The underlying concepts of this idea are more thoroughly explored on Institutional vs Individual goals page. In this context, however, what we are talking about is your ability to make sure the guy loses on at least two fronts if he decides he doesn't want to be talked down. And make no mistake, the choice to go off is most definitely a conscious decision -- even among the mentally ill.

To really increase your chances to de-escalate a situation teetering on the edge of violence  you need to be double trouble for him. That is to say, if the person decides to go off on you, he is going to lose on two ways, short term (a smack down with no secondary victory) and long term (the repercussions for his actions)

On your side, the ability to de-escalate a situation will be based on three core issues. 1) Your ability to deescalate rather than further enrage. 2) Your ability to do a smack down on him IF you were to chose to do so (Your personal  or individual authority).  2) The authority you represent and the repercussions that will come down on him for violating it. If you do not have all three, or go into a potentially violent situation as though you are representin' the institution, then at the very least things will be far more difficult than things need to be. That is of course if it doesn't explode.

Unfortunately, too many people rely on the last and fail to develop the first two. Functionally these people are just bodies in uniform  to fill the administrative needs and quotas. But in case of a situation going violent these people are often gawkers. If they attempt to help in the quelling and controlling of a violent individuals they are often more a hindrance than help.  This is assuming of course assuming that their previous behaviors didn't escalate the situation to begin with.
Return to top of page

The Four Types of Violence
In the book Ending Violence Quickly we discuss the model of the Four Types of Violence. This fast, effective, down-and-dirty means for preventing violence has been taught to LEO's of nine different countries. It is based on recognizing the type of violence you are facing and by extension knowing the most effective strategy to de-escalate.

To begin with, people tend to follow general patterns or habits in their everyday life. This makes them somewhat predictable. Situations that are developing towards violence tend to take four basic patterns. For the lack of a better word, each way has a certain flavor  that makes it immediately recognizable. Furthermore, each of these types of violence has a specific counter that is most likely to work to prevent that type from exploding. 

As the intent of violence is to get something, these responses -- in effect -- present the person with a "You can't get there from here" response. This is important for two reasons. First, they don't get what they need to proceed with violence. This causes a form of pattern interruption that you can use. When the desired (or a known) response is not given the person must drop out of the emotionally driven state and back into a thinking state This is the first stage in preventing violence. Once you have demonstrated that he can't get what he wants through violence, then you give him alternate choices. This is the second stage. Giving him the ability to pick and choose is a critical component to preventing him from returning to violence.

What all that means: People tend to be violent in predictable ways and expect they certain responses. What you're doing is going to trip up his plans. When something isn't working right and he needs to slow down and figure out what's going on.  Right there this reduces the chances of him attacking.  When you have him back to thinking, you give him choices.  Choices that while he picks and chooses, you control. The  illusionary sense of control you give him further reduces the chances of his attacking.

The second reason You can't get there from here approach is important is it takes you out of the adversarial position. You are not the reason he can't get what he wants. You are simply the bearer of bad news. The problem is both bigger than you and not your fault. As such, kicking your ass is not going to solve the problem. In fact, the blending of your personal and institutional authority will only cause him bigger problems if he does attack. In other types, you become his only hope of getting what he wants -- but only if he remains non-violent.

People about to go off will be looking for certain responses. These responses will feed the pattern. This causes the situation to escalate instead of wind down. This is why with the Four Types de-escalation system: What you do not do is just as important as what you do. The response that will de-escalate a particular situation will cause another to explode.  This, incidentally, explains why the actions of some officers will cause  situations to blow up. Usually such individuals only have one tactic. And they try to apply it across the board. While this approach works with one type of violence, it causes the other three to escalate.

When an officer recognizes the type of violence he is facing, he can customize his tactics for de-escalating it on the spot. By taking  a general strategy and customizing it to specific tactics,  he meets the needs of the moment. In doing this he greatly increases the odds of the situation being resolved without violence.

The four types of violence are:
1) Fear
2) Frenzy
3) Tantrum
4) Extortion

Fear type violence is what occurs when someone is afraid of being hurt or losing something important.  It is also what  motivates people to try and get away.  It is their fear of being hurt that prompts them to violence. While this might seem like self-defense, their fear actually goads them into being an aggressor. In a very real sense this type of fear arises from being "trapped inside one's own head." He is fixating on the internal fear, more than the external circumstances. So it isn't the actual circumstances he is reacting to, but rather his imagination

Counter: The way to talk someone down from a fear type situation is that you have to keep pace with them and then begin to slowly bring them down. In a very real sense you become excited with them instead of against them.  You do this in a manner that is not threatening.  Your body posture, speech pattern and reflect back to them their excitement. You are not projecting fear, but your 'supposed' excitement  is running parallel to his real excitement.  By doing this behavior you give them something that they can fixate onto that does not intimidate them or feed their fear. Once you have their attention, you can lead them back into being calm.

The easiest way to explain why this works is to think of a loud TV in the kid's room. But,  instead of trying to shout over the noise, you lower the volume from the bottom of the stairs, using the universal remote. Then they can hear you. In the same way  instead of trying to overpower his internal 'spin out' with your own message (comply or else) you first get him to a point where he can hear you by getting him out of his own head and paying attention to you. You get compliance by getting him to listen to you.

Do NOT attempt to intimidate or threaten a person in a fear state.  Nor should you yell at them or display that you are not safe to attack. That will only convince them that they are correct about the danger you pose. You want the spin out to slow down, not speed up. In attempting to establish "forceful control" over the person, you often will only crank up the rpm's of their spin out. Such actions of your part only convinces them that they have something to fear and that violence on their part is warranted. Also, it is not wise to respond to a Fear type the same way you do with a Tantrum, as such response will only result in the person freaking out more.

Frenzy type violence occurs when someone has lost their boundaries.  They are mentally and emotionally lost out in an emotionally stormy sea. 

The way the word "boundaries" is usually thought of is from an external point of view. That is to say, what someone will not accept from other people. And while that is true, boundaries also work from an internal perspective. They also serve as a sense of self and standards of conduct (e.g. what you won't do to others).  With this in mind, what they are more like is property lines. Standards that define who you are and your place in the world.  When these are lost, you sort of lose your world. Frenzy type violence is  someone trying to put the world back together and to regain control. He's trying to get things back into shape by using violence.

Frenzy type of violence is often accompanied by anger. What makes Frenzy violence easily distinguishable from Tantrum type is the cause is easily identifiable -- usually because the person will tell you what set him off. Something happened, he's pissed off and he's telling you -- and everybody else -- about it. Yelling, shouting, flailing of the arms and a fixation on the source of his anger are common behaviors.

Usually Frenzy violence is based on a perceived wrong done to the person. Quite often this is a legitimate complaint (e.g. the guy's wife slept with someone else, something was taken from him, another guy cheated or insulted him, etc.). In short, something has happened to the Frenzy type that has rocked his world.  The way he thought the world is...or should be...has been proven false (this is where the lost at sea idea comes into play). The person is trying to get things back under control through  frenzied actions, yelling, screaming, posturing and quite possibly violence.

Counter:  In the movie Hellboy, John Hurt looks at a young FBI agent and says "There are things that go bump in the night, Agent Meyers. We are the ones that bump back." This attitude sums up how to handle a Frenzy type. He's pushing, you push back. Since the person in a frenzy has lost his boundaries, you give him some. You tell him what to do and how to act. And you do it in a way that cuts through his internal frenzy.

The most effective response to a frenzy type of violence is up-in-his-face-pissed-off -drill-instructor orders to comply. Orders that if he doesn't follow he will be put there. For example: If you tell him to sit down, then you sit him down -- then you start talking again. Even though it looks like you are ready to rock and roll you're main weapon is still your mouth. The small physical brush is only to give him a taste of what he will face if he doesn't comply

There are however, three important conditions of using the drill instructor approach. First: Compliance must be a condition of being heard. You'll listen to him, but not like this. When he complies, then you'll listen. If he wants his grievances heard he has to calm down. This both gives him a choice on ways to get what he wants (one of which isn't working so hot) AND it gets him to start self-regulating. In order to get his point across he has to slow down and start working with you.

Second: If he is not attacking, you only do what you say and nothing more. For example: If you tell him to sit down as a condition of being heard and he doesn't, you sit him down.  You do not throw him to the ground and cuff him for failure to comply. That is unless he tries to stand up again. But that is the penalty for failing to comply, not because you are a bully who is beating him up. You do not need to dominate him, you only need to get him back to self-regulating.

The reason doing nothing more than you said is important is that it is critical component in him finding boundaries again.  While it is not exactly establishing trust, it is establishing consistency. It is cause and effect. You said this, he refused, it happened anyway. Working closely with this idea is you tell him what is going to happen if he doesn't stay put. You said sit, he didn't, you sat him down. Then you tell him in no uncertain terms what is going to happen if he tries to stand up. Namely he's going to be chewing floor.  Now he's got a choice, talk to you or sniff floor polish.

Third: As you get compliance, ease off. There is a concept in driving called threshold braking. In short, you adjust the pressure on the brake as you slow down. As the vehicle slows down you don't need to push as hard. You always stay under the threshold where you will be thrown forward. The lack of this skill is why when riding with inexperienced drivers you will be rocketed forward when they stop the car. They are applying the same brake pressure at 5 mph that they were applying at 35.

The same goes for getting compliance from a Frenzy type. Remember your goal is not to establish dominance, but rather to get him back to self-regulating. If you continue to come on too strong, you will only blow him further out in his emotionally stormy sea.

Do not try to reason with a Frenzy type until after the initial compliance is achieved. They need boundaries set NOW! Attempting to talk and reason with them as an opening gambit  fails to get them on the path towards self-regulation. In fact, it is often perceived as added aggravation. Nor should you "go cold" on a Frenzy type as they need the emotional feedback to push them back to good behavior.

Tantrum type of violence is different from Frenzy type in a significant way. While the Frenzy type has a reason to go off, the Tantrum type is looking for an excuse to go off. And any excuse will do.

Tantrum types  are also anger based. Unlike Frenzy types however (who can be Average Joes that something happens to set them off), Tantrum types tend to be chronically angry. They are like a boiling pot always inches away from boiling over. As such they use violence as a form of self-regulation. For these types, violence is a means to release the constant pressure their world view puts them under. In other words the world is constantly not behaving the way they want it to and this is the source of their chronic anger. Instead of changing their expectations, they vent this anger through regular violent episodes. When the pressure is too much inside of them, they go looking for an excuse to go off on someone.

In this culture there is an assumption of sanity. That is to say, normally, when you are dealing with someone you grant them the assumption that they are sane. As such we expect a degree of consistency and reason from a person. When someone doesn't, we end up being lost and confused.The violation of this expectation is the earmark of a Tantrum type. Tantrum types thrive on escalating, unrealistic and erratic demands from other people. The failure to meet these demands, the most common forms of refusal or fear will provide the excuses they need to become violent. Creating fear and confusion within their victims is part of the tantrum types enjoyment, control over the situation and power.

Dealing with a Tantrum Type is like handling a poisonous snake, it requires specialized protocols and a good supply of anti-venom. The anti-venom for Tantrum types is extremely effective defensive tactics. These are required to rob the Tantrum type from achieving a secondary victory. Still, anti-venom is not nearly as good as not getting bit in the first place.

Tantrum types feed on emotional responses; this includes anger created by their actions. Normal responses and tactics do not work with a tantrum type because these responses only feed into the Tantrum type's perception that they have control over you. And when they think that, then they will attack.  Any emotional response or tactical response is further complicated by the Tantrum thrower's constant zig zagging and changing of direction. When he encounters resistance on one front, all he has to do is change directions. Most people cannot move their defenses that fast.

This is further complicated by the constant underlying theme of pending violence with Tantrum types. While Fear and Frenzy types can work their way up to violence, often the Tantrum type is already there. As we said earlier, he's just looking for an excuse. Tantrum types will often feint or do aborted lunges at you in order to provoke a defensive reaction from you. The truth is that these movements aren't even close to being real attacks yet as they are out of range. But, IF you react to these feints, he will know he has gotten over on you. He now knows that you are scared of him and he's going to run with it. In order to deal with Tantrum types you must know how to Shadowdance.

Another complication for dealing with Tantrum types is that often they are putting on a show for others. This fact is especially important to recognize in an inmate population. Where they aren't just concerned with venting their hostility, but they are also reinforcing their status and their "props." Remember that Tantrum type is looking for an emotional response, he's not particular from whom. While public display is not always the case, understanding the importance of an audience is critical for how to handle them.

Tantrum types might seem erratic and unpredictable, but in a very real sense they are extremely predictable. Once you know their goal, all the crazy and random zig-zagging from topic to topic becomes far more understandable. Frenzy types are trying to regain the status quo through violence. Tantrums are looking for a change in their emotional state. And they're not necessarily picky about how they do it, just so long as it changes. And that is why they seem so unpredictable. They are jack-rabbiting around inside their own head as much as much as their external behavior. But once you remember that he's trying to change his emotional state, he becomes much more predictable.

Counter: Since a Tantrum type is looking for an emotional reaction, don't give it to him. You become the Terminator. An impassive, cold, simple response machine that, if necessary, will engage in effective violence. In this manner you remove the audience of you from him. Your flat toned, impassive responses do not give him anything to feed off of. His feints and short lunges do not cause you to react in a startled or defensive manner.

Another way of removing emotional response is to remove the audience of others from his little show. Either by ordering everyone out or ordering him into a secluded area. In this way he has no one to perform for. As such he can not get other encouragement or support for his actions when you do not respond how he wants.

Again the purpose of de-escalation is to offer him the choice to get what he wants through different means than violence. Like the Frenzy type the condition he must meet to get what he wants is to calm down. You will deal with him, but only after he has calmed down. This is the message that your "broken record" approach must follow. As he jack-rabbits from outrage to outrage, you keep on returning to this point.

Unlike Frenzy types the force you use against Tantrums is immediate and overwhelming.  Although you do not react to his feints when he does come close enough to be a threat you put him down ASAP. (Note: It is important to be able to articulate what he was doing that justified dropping him).  You set a verbal boundary and when he violates it he is immediately and physically put down. The reason for this is that it puts you ahead of his escalation. Instead of you waiting for attack, you establish a reasonable order to ensure your safety and it is his violation of this order is the casus belli  (reason for war). Although not politically correct to say, when dealing with Tantrum types is very much your willingness to do a smack down on them that influences their decision to de-escalate. If they sense hesitation on your part -- for whatever reason -- they will escalate. 

This is why you must take control on whether or not it goes physical. An added advantage is that when you set a boundary like this seldom will the Tantrum type move directly into violence. Instead he will commonly, like a defiant child, step into the very area that you told him not to. This gives you a split second advantage because he believes that he is in control of whether or not it will go violent.  Suddenly being put down comes as a surprise. A surprise you never let him recover from. (In long term incarceration situations, this also has long term benefits for your reputation among the inmates and how safe it is to mess with you when you are being reasonable and operating within procedural guidelines).

Extortion type violence is basically the violent person giving a someone a choice: Give me/do this or I will hurt you.

Of all the types of violence, this is the one least likely to be directed at LEOs/correctional officers. Even though they deal with people who use it all the time, this type of violence is usually directed at non-authority victims. The two exceptions are, one, a hostage situation, where the criminal demands something in exchange for not hurting the hostage. Two, is more territorial. This when entering a home and the officers are told to leave or they will be attacked.

It is the threat of violence for failing to comply that defines this violence type. More to the point however, is it is the violent person attempting behavior modification of another. This is why extortion violence is the foundation of robberies. But the far more common manifestation of this violence types is fights and assaults. The person uses it as method to change  unacceptable behavior of another person. In these cases, it is the other person's failure to comply that results in the violence 

This type of violence can be either predatorial,  territorial or behavioral. That is to say that it can be used to remove a person's options (e.g. give me your wallet or I will hurt you), predatorial. Or it can give someone the option to withdraw from an area (leave or else), territorial.  Another way it can be used to give people options is to curb unacceptable behavior, (e.g. knock it off or I'll hit you). In any case it implies a contract. Do this and I will not hurt you.

Counter: As Extortion type is a negotiation, the counter is to renegotiate the contract. When he says "Do this or I will hurt you" you reply "If you try you won't like what happens"

Notice the difference between "you won't like what happens" and "Oh yeah? I'll kick YOUR butt!" The latter is a challenge. The former is an unspecified counter offer. What's more is it is dependant on his attempt to use violence on you. You are not offering a counter threat, you are telling him he will not get what he wants if he tries to use violence.  This is important for three reasons. First because you cannot threaten anything worse than what his own imagination can come up with (i.e. you get him thinking "exactly how much won't I like it?"). Second, by using this approach  you do not directly challenge or insult him (e.g. "Oh yeah m********er, I'll kick YOUR ass" both challenges AND insults him). Third it leaves the door open to both individual and institutional repercussions.

As an aside, violent people use vague threats all the time. They do this not only so it will prey on your mind, but also so they cannot be called on the mat for their behavior. This turns their own game back on them. Since they do not like it when this happens, they will often try to get you to commit to a specific that they can use against you. Therefore when they ask "What do you mean by that?" an effective answer is "Let's not find out.

When the threat of physical violence has been foiled, then you move the conversation towards a more reasonable form of negotiation.

This is a very shorthand version of the de-escalation aspect of the No Nonsense Self-Defense Control Presence system. As we said it was originally published in A Professional's Guide To Ending Violence Quickly. More information on non violent verbal defense and de-escalation can be found on the  NNSD bookshelf.

Return to top

1) Literally "Danish gold." In Viking times a tribute/bribe/extortion paid to the Danish jarls (kings) to prevent Viking raids...with limited success. The bribes actually encouraged more raiding, not only by the "bought off" jarl, but by every other Viking jarl wanting riches, who knew as well as the plunder they had already stolen, they would be paid even more to stop looting.
Return to top of page

2) Lt. Col Dave Grossman in a private conversation about faith in one's training and overcoming the 'unstoppable opponent/malfunctioning gun' nightmare so common to those in high risk situations
Return to top of page