[Fait divers] Un couteau sous la gorge : elle mord la main de l’agresseur

[Heimdall]

Entièrement d'accord! Mais un accident peut arriver et on passe de la "simple" agression à l'homicide...

[Thanos]

C'est bien là le problème ! Ça et l'OODA !!   

[H.H.L]

C'est bien là le problème ! Ça et l'OODA !!

Ce qu'on appelle aussi le cycle de Boyd ?

Je suis pas très familier avec ce concept, peux tu m'expliquer en quoi il intervient dans cette situation ?

[Thanos]

C'est bien ça !

Les sujets qui m'ont aidé à appréhender le concept  :

http://www.davidmanise.com/forum/index.php?topic=13018.0

http://www.davidmanise.com/forum/index.php/topic,4727.0.html

[** Serge **]

Une version de l'Ooda loop et des règles d'engagement, celle de Mick Coup - C2 Core Combatives © - 2010 :

Threat management should start with a definition or two, just to set the tone. I class a threat as an 'active' risk, and define 'risk' as something that can cause harm, and/or the likelihood of such a thing occuring. Various definitions exist, but these are all the terms that I use.

A threat then becomes a risk looking to happen, if opportunity, capability and intent are all in evidence. If only 2 are present, a potential threat exists only. I refer to these 3 as threat factors, and therefore threat management is the act of controlling, reducing or removing one or all threat factors until the risk is within acceptable limits or absent altogether.

By far the easiest factor to influence is always 'opportunity' - this is the only threat factor that an individual tends to have some form of direct control over and can therefore exert some measure to prevent anything(-one) possessing capability and intent gaining an opportunity to cause harm. Capability is reduced through some form of direct action usually - messy and generally illegal, often outside of the scope that most people possess. Intent is the tricky one, if some person has intent to cause harm it is very hard to counter this factor alone, and where there is intent, capability and opportunity can be obtained without too much trouble.

Most threat management revolves around reducing opportunity as its mainstay, but I'd like to examine how intent progresses into and attack, and how to combat this process.

Any attack starts with intent - be it a mugging or an invasion, there has to be that base idea first, to want to do it for whatever reason.

Next on the attack process is selection, using whatever criteria - complex or not - a target has to be selected that will give the best chance of success.

Once selected, the target has to be surveilled, to gather enough information in order to plan the attack - this can all take seconds, in the case of a mugging or break-in, or months for a full-scale operation.

When there is enough information, a plan will be produced based on it, again this can be a split-second choice of action, or something much more deliberate - however it is formed, no matter how detailed or not, this is an integral part of the attack process.

Once the plan has been established, positioning is next - then the attack itself.

The whole attack process goes a little like this:

INTENT -> SELECTION -> SURVEILLANCE -> PLANNING -> POSITIONING -> ATTACK

If an attack is broken down on a timeline in such a manner, you can see the options to effect the outcome are far easier at the onset.

Obviously we have already covered that to change or affect intent is very difficult, but we can possibly redirect it if the threat is non-specific, and any target will do.

Best time to change this is during the selection phase - put simply, don't be the target that the bad-guy is looking for!

If you are unfortunate to fit the victim profile, be hard to surveil - don't give anything away to help form a plan of attack. Don't just think about visual surveillance either, what do you look like in the phone directory, online, in your dustbin etc...use your imagination, believe me - bad guys do!

Try and make yourself a hard option, something difficult and undesirable - reduce the bad-guy's perception of success - make him look elsewhere as early as possible.

The last real chance to effectively beat an attack is during the positioning phase - spotting pre-attack indicators is easiest at this point due to proximity and the more obvious personal nature of them, flip-side is that the further the bad-guy travels along the attack process, the more he invests and the more momentum is developed until even a poor plan will be executed.

Dealing with a threat at the actual attack phase is lunacy if you have an alternative - hospitals are full off tough guys, and graveyards are full of heroes.

As before, this whole process can take mere seconds to unfurl - but all the phases will be evident. Somewhere on that attack process timeline is a point where you can affect the outcome - find it fast!

This is only a very brief idea of how I conduct threat management, but the above is generic enough to be used throughout a wide range of possible scenarios.

I work around a 'Threat Management Cycle' of ongoing Awareness - Assessment - Action with each successive phase influenced by the preceeding one.

For Awareness, divide this into General, Specific and Direct. General Awareness is knowing how attacks are executed, what the threats are in broad terms etc. Specific Awareness places more focus on your personal scenario - the environmental situation you are in, known problems within such an area, previous and/or current threats etc. Finally Direct Awareness is observation-based, concerned with spotting indicators in your immediate vicinity at the earliest opportunity.

Assessment addresses the information obtained from Awareness, weighing up two main issues - likelihood of danger, and severity of danger. Even a minor risk poses a serious problem if the chances of it occurring are very high, and the opposite is true regarding serious risk that has only a very slight probability.

Based on your Awareness-fuelled Assessment, you take Action - this might be to stay put, go now or avoid completely.

This cycle works as a constant, whilst Assessing you are still using Awareness, and whilst committing to an Action you are still Assessing and so on.

A very relevant, but abstract, exercise is to use the above model in a scenario such as crossing the road.

Your General Awareness tells you what the main threats are going to be to your safety - in this case getting hit by a car! The Specific Awareness you employ takes into account the road you intend to cross, and the exact crossing point. Now you're looking at suitability, history of accidents etc. Direct Awareness reveals the presence and volume of traffic, which leads you into making an Assessment upon which an Action can be taken - in this case GO/NO GO.

Using the cyclical nature of the model, you update your Assessment contantly using Awareness and take Action accordingly.

Consider the above, but transferred to a less desirable part of town that must be negotiated instead of a busy road, and various scumbags replace the vehicles - the abstract application then gains some relevance!

A very brief introduction to what I term the 'Threat Management Cycle' - I hope it's of some use.

If you have a clean shot, together with the ability to capitalise upon it and the justification to back it up, then my advice is always to take the opportunity without wasting time - the window of availability is generally small in any real case of potential attack, ignoring instances of someone merely verbalising hostility that can by and large be ignored unless you really need to flex your ego!

Such chances of a clean KO can be, and usually are, fleeting - in my opinion, and it's a considered one backed by a little experience from here and there, anyone who can be engaged and dispatched so easily generally doesn't need to be. Consider instead the aggressive individual who really does need putting away, and a lot changes - add the dynamic of constantly changing positions, forward pressure, obstructing limbs, rapid and unpredictable target shift - and don't forget the biggest real factor that is often left out, the other party is actively preparing and positioning to KO you, not just standing there like a dummy waiting to get hit!

Due to these factors, as previously mentioned, the window of opportunity to land that perfect strike is actually pretty small - especially if most of your training for this actuality revolves around hitting static objects as and when you want to. Once more this creates training effect, that insidious false progress that you have to actively avoid and instead seek combat effect - you have to make the effort to train as you need to fight, not try to fight as you have been training. Adding a touch of 'negative assumption' works wonders in real fights, and being aware of limitations - personal, situational and environmental - highlights your capabilities. Remember, when your neck is on the line proof means a lot more than faith, and hope is overshadowed by reality each and every time.

If you don't have the best opportunity, or the capability to make it happen - or both - then using some form of interrupt prior to firing that full shot can significantly widen that available 'window' and facilitate a successfull pre-emptive strike in the less than perfect conditions that reality unfortunately insists upon.

One of the hardest things to establish during any form of contact management is exactly when to engage. Being told 'you'll know when the time is right' isn't enough, and just an excuse to say 'I don't know' using more words. It really cannot be codified with any blanket theory - not if you don't want to see inside a prison anyway!

Engaging too soon leads to legal problems, and 'too soon' is often 'don't need to' in other words, and I'm tired of hearing this excused by the age-old "rather be judged by strangers than carried by friends" cop-out. There needs to be clear and present justification, not the 'punch-happy' approach too-often seen. Just because a man might scream abuse at me, or pushes me, makes threats to hurt me - am I justified in hitting him? The answer is 'maybe' as much as 'maybe not' because there are a whole load of other factors to consider. I've seen and experienced all manner of hostility that resulted in - surprise, surprise - nothing violent happening at all. All the blanket theories commonly espoused would have resulted in violence and all the complications that accompany it if they had been adhered to in such situations - so there has to be more to it than simply following such general rules of engagement.

Another point worth considering is the cultural aspect - what is acceptable regarding inter-personal contact in one culture is certainly not in another, and vice versa, so again you cannot cling to generalised and definite 'trigger' events.

Violence is always premeditated, it isn't an accidental act to punch someone - the only variable factor in this context is the timeframe from intent to application. This deliberate act creates certain indicators - these might present over the period of hours or fractions of seconds, but they will still present in some form.

There will be a whole host of what I term general indicators that provide no justification or reason to engage physically, but they can and should get you interested in looking for more specific critical indicators that show preparation and positioning for an imminent assault - typically scanning, bringing the hands to a centralised location and angling the body to favour one side. Think eyes, hands and feet - in no particular order, but if these indicators start lighting up, now is the time to act before it's too late.

Fail to identify and 'act' on these critical indicators and the last chance you might get is to 'react' to the final indicator - sudden head movement that precedes the rapid weight shift of an incoming attack.

Acting on presentation of such critical indicators must be backed with justification, and it's worth considering how you can articulate your reasons for hitting someone objectively, beyond "I felt threatened, so I hit him...." if you want to avoid problem two - legal aftermath. You may not have a duty to retreat, under the law, but it will certainly help your case if it appears that the other person did all the work up to the point where he got dropped! Having the ability and presence of mind to objectively articulate your reluctance to use force, and highlight his progressively aggressive behaviour will work wonders post-incident. The bottom line is that you should be reluctant to use force on another person - unless you are some kind of cretin perhaps - so don't take the above as a means to deceive the authorities when you feel a little 'punchy' on occasion. So what if someone insults you or bruises your ego? Best response is to work on that thicker skin, somewhat elusive amongst some 'warrior-types' it seems, especially if you're working security and in regular contact with hostile individuals - it'll be worth the effort!

[Thanos]

Super intéressant !! 

Ça vaudrait le coup de faire une traduction pour les ceusses qui n'entravent pas l'anglais d'ailleurs !!

Je vais essayer de m'y coller ce soir tiens ! (avec mes maigres moyens)

[H.H.L]

Merci.