- This topic has 39 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is the next generation of \”Who’s on Candid Camera\”. It is a TV show that comes on Sci-Fi channel where someone is setup, put in a scary situation, and then after they wet their pants from fear, they are told \”ha-ha, you are on a TV show called Scare Tactics.\”
It came out a couple years ago, and when I first watched it I just thought it was another hidden camera show that was in poor taste. However, my TIVO recorded an episode the other day so I watched it last night. Some of the situations are surreal like a mutant midget attacking a kid who just took a job as a janitor at a genetic research lab.
However, there was this great setup where a kid was hired to help fix a clogged drain in an out-door pond. The pond was a decent size and had become cloudy due to the clogged drain. The actor helping the setup got pulled under water and eaten by pirahna. The kid who was being pranked ran out of the water only to be confronted by the owner of the pond. He tells the kid \”Get back in there and fix the clog!\” The kid refuses. The guy says something like \”They need to eat, get back in there.\” The guy takes a step towards the kid and the kid lifts his hands and says \”If you step up on me I am gonna knock you out.\”
I loved his reaction. I see other people on this show just freeze up, and if the situation would have been real they would have walked quietly like a lamb to the slaughter. It got me thinking about the other episodes I watched a couple years ago. Lot’s of people freeze up in these situations.
The show still isnt that great, but to analyze it from the psychological point of view of how people react (or fail to react) under threat of their lives is fascinating. I highly recommend this show if you can catch it.
EDIT – Oh, and here is a link to the show’s website http://www.scifi.com/scaretactics/
re:
I liked the one about the friends in the car in the desert at night. They witness lights and then there is an alien attacking them.
If they are in fear for their lives and think someone (even an alien) is attacking them, what if they hit that guy and seriously injure him, before they’re being told they are on TV? Could they end up going to prison, because it was \”just\” a TV show? Sounds interesting, but also a bit dangerous…
People in Fear.
I am very new to KM and LOVE IT. You make some good points on watching people and how they react, I’m going to keep a closer eye on details like that when watching various shows.
I too have seen this show. I have noticed on many other types of videos, the attacker gains immediate psycological advantage, and the victim acts like a victim. In my KM packet I got, under KM Techniques and Principles is states \”Do Not use victim words (no, please, don’t, help) use agressive, Strong words.\” This makes the attacker change his plans and makes him take time to rethink attacking you. I remember a few years ago, a couple being shot execution style in Seaside Oregon. They just complied with the attackers and payed with their lives. I hate to bring this up, and don’t have a clue what all happened, but on 9/11 how could a couple guys with box knives take on a whole plane load of passengers? It seems like people are trained to be good passive victims, that the bad guys won’t hurt you most of the time, if you just give them what they want.
I for one don’t want to have to guess if this knuckle head threatening me wants to just take my money, or take my money and kill me so there is now witness. As far as I’m concerned, if someone threatens me, they mean me harm.The victims of 9/11 had no reason to think the planes would be flown into buildings–there was no precedence for it. Things are of course different now, and it’s easy to second guess–the \”rules\” have changed.
Regarding the aggressive talk, it all depends on the circumstance. I’d rather, in most cases, lull the assailant into a false sense of security. I’d rather lower their guard and raise their ego by feigning compliance. It dosn’t seem tactically sound, in many cases at least, to \”prepare\” your assailant. I’d rather fight someone not expecting a fight.
aggression
Ryan I agree, the passive stance is for just that. You can still bring your arms up in a non-threatening passive way. Then use this to your advantage should a person persue an act of aggression. The split second advantage you may get, could be all you need to disspell the situation.
Ryan hit it right on the head……
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh please don’t hurt me, I have a new son, I have grandkids, my parrrrrrrents will miss me, then suddddddddenly, booooom, their windpipe emplodes……… Which is good, as it distracts them from the fact that they just had their Glock taken from them and a .40 cal bullet from their own weapon, just ended their life……
Just food for thought
JC
BTW, IF the sissy thing works, and you walk off alive, then, go with it, you did the right thing.
Unfortunately our society has grown soft and sheepish. We expect everything to be done for us, unlike a hundred years ago where we demanded to do our own things. We abuse alcohol and expect a liver transplant , we abuse and overuse and creat excess waste and just expect it o ‘go away’ somewhere; and the 911 system, as good as it is, lulls people into believing someone will be there for us when we don’t look before getting into a dark car, when we drive around with bald tires, and so on.
To some extent the government is responsible for the creation of sheeples by providing 911 and then telling us we can’t even sneeze on our own behalf. But also, we get lazy and don’t want to be responsible for ourselves.
Easy lives make weak people.
Re:
quote \”Ryan\:The victims of 9/11 had no reason to think the planes would be flown into buildings–there was no precedence for it. Things are of course different now, and it’s easy to second guess–the \”rules\” have changed.Regarding the aggressive talk, it all depends on the circumstance. I’d rather, in most cases, lull the assailant into a false sense of security. I’d rather lower their guard and raise their ego by feigning compliance. It dosn’t seem tactically sound, in many cases at least, to \”prepare\” your assailant. I’d rather fight someone not expecting a fight.
Regarding the victims of 9/11 in the planes, here are a couple things:First I seem to recall that some of them called home to say goodbye, a good indicator they knew they were going to be killed, in an Article about The Fight for Flight 93
\”I know we’re all going to die. There’s three of us who are going to do something about it.\” That’s what Tom Burnett told his wife Deena.Burnett was one of 38 passengers and seven crew members aboard hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, and he was not the only person to relay information to a loved one. In first-class seat 4D, public relations executive Mark Bingham used an airplane phone to call his mother. \”Mom, this is Mark Bingham,\” he said, so rattled that he included his last name. \”Three guys have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb.\”
This tells me at least on one of they flights they knew, and probably on all flights they knew.
Second, you backed my point when you said \”The victims of 9/11 had no reason to think the planes would be flown into buildings–\” That point being, people trusting Bad guys to not hurt them or kill them. When do you attack? If you wait for the plane to hit the building or after they pull the trigger… too late. This is something I need more training on.
You did make good sense about de-esscallating the attacker. I’m going by what I’ve read by the \”experts\” as far as not talking like a victim. They must say this for a reason. I admit I have a lot to learn and appreciate all replies. Thank you
Brian, the only reason that they knew on the last flight was because they got information about what happened to the other flights. It was then that the price of inaction was higher then action.
In regards to precendence being set, in air hostage situations, the risk vs. reward for defending wasn’t worth it. They were better served by complying, then fighting in the situation.Well Brian most of the experts nowadays actually encourage appearing passive, submissive even. In most cases it de-escalates the fight much better than \”Standing up for yourself!\” Talking like a victim usually satisfies the attacker and makes it harder for him to go physical. If you see that the situation will go physical then if he perceives you as a victim you are more likely to hit with your attack since he is not expecting it.
Now if you take a bit more firm stance and with a loud voice tell him to stop or back off or something like that in most cases that will only escalate the situation.I understand that 9/11 and the media blasting the war on terror changes the ways people are thinking about violence.
The truth is guys that the threats in the US are still far from terrorists. Muggers, ego-maniacs, road rage, rapists, substance abusers, spousal violence, stuff like that. Not AK-47 toting suicide bombers.
Andre is right btw, before 9/11 if a plane was hijacked statistically the best thing to do was…absolutely nothing.
Using 9/11 as an example about violence is pretty far fetched IMO.I saw a clip on America’s Funniest Home Videos that was similar to the Scare Tactics thing. Its Halloween, and a dad is trick or treating with his kid. One house has a person sitting in a chair like a mannequin, and while they’re trying to tell if its a real person or not, the person in the chair leaps up and screams at them. The dad is startled, and in one quick motion he puts his hands up and lands a straight right on the guy’s face, and the guy falls back.
Thank you everyone for the input!
Maybe I need to clarify what I’m talking about. By being agressive, I don’t mean being confrontational. An example would be to say loudly while in a guard position (hands raised in a \”don’t hurt me\” palms outward fingers spread in front of face somewhat) and feet in fight stance, saying loudly, \”Hey whoa, I don’t want any trouble here.\” That way you draw attention that YOU aren’t the one instigating the confrontation and it does one thing attackers usually don’t want draws attention to them. I would never do the \”I’m gonna kick your butt,\” or \”Bring it on sucker,\” type of stuff. But I absolutly see your point about putting an attacker off guard by acting passive. I guess each situation warrants it’s own reaction. If I could get out of any physical confrontation with talking, bonus. But I don’t know if I would waste precious time if they had a gun or knife and I saw no viable way to retreat.Again about 9/11 I know we are more likely to be attacked by a mugger or some other kook, my point was people tend to believe they wont be murdered and place trust in the person meaning them harm, and entrusting their lives and safety to those who couldn’t care less about their wellbeing.
Thanks again for the replies.In the video I got with my Krav Maga class, this is discussed.
A lot depends on the two people. If the perp is a 240 lb cokehead male, and the victim is a 5 foot 90 lb 70 year old, well…
A lot depends on what you’re guessing that they want. If all they want seems to be your wallet and watch, why fight back over that. Property crimes usually don’t result in serous injury or death, or at least the attackers don’t want that. But if they want to hurt you, or if they don’t seem to want any property but they want something to do with your person, (that’s what 911 was about, crimes against persons) you’ve nothing to lose by fighting back, you likely gonna get killed anyway.
It’s all about an educated guessing game.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
