The moment a Florida man shot at school board members

[Leif]

Par contre le lien avec le grand banditisme me semble, par contre, plus fumeux.

cela va dependre de la demande, a un moment de ta vie tu es pris a la gorge par les institutions bancaires ou autres et qu'une personne te demande un service qui va te permettre de sortir la tete de l'eau, et bien tu acceptes.

juste laisser le temps pour la demande.

la plupart des personnes vont tout simplement aimer "le monde" comme "le monde" les aimes.

ensuite de moins en moins de suite concernant les attaques aux personnes, comme si cela rentré dans les moeurs.

cela devient tolérable de cracher sur  ou insulter une personne derrière un guichet.

bon c'est un point de vue.

[** Serge **]

Une intervention télévisuelle de l'officier de sécurité ayant mis fin à l'incident :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40699403#40701523

Réactions et commentaires :

Better verbal skills may very well have averted gunfire.

You can tell this guy doesn't believe ANYTHING these people are saying. The school board are politicians and administrative douchebags. From the way these people speak to someone else it's obvious that they are used to being in charge and getting their way. They failed in creating any kind human connection with the gunman.

Key mistakes:

When the gunman said "She was fired" and the super countered with "What did she do". The immediate assumption is that the guy's wife did something wrong. My gut feeling is that he immediately recognized that was the wrong thing to say and changed the context by adding "....was she a teacher, a bus driver, did she work in the cafeteria, etc. etc." You can see the tempo change in pre-assault cues right after the super says this.

Big heads-up on how this is going to go down is when he squares on the super and starts Target Glancing. Watch around 5:34 and forward. During this time the super is doing most of the talking and even has the balls to say "Now just listen to me for a minute". Wrong thing to say. Let dude know he has your attention. When he says "I'm going to die today" First thing out of his mouth should be something like "Buddy I don't want to die, I don't want you to die, and I don't want anyone else to die. I believe life is a precious gift. I want to listen to what you have to say and do whatever you want me to do to keep anyone from dying". Empower him and keep him talking.

I don't think that the super really ever thought he was in danger until the gunman actually pointed the pistol at him. That is when it became a reality. When he says "I'm the one who signs the paperwork not them...." it's almost like he's just trying to win a debate. I'm not sure if that was a brave act or just an argumentative small town politician trying to get his way. His tone throughout is condescending.

The guy in the red jacket does a much better job. Note the difference in the body language of the gunman when the guy is saying that he'll help gunman's wife find a job and that he doesn't want to die and has grandkids. The guy visibly deflates.

I can't say definitively that better language would have averted a shooting, but in my professional opinion, the observable verbal interaction between the super and the gunman certainly didn't contribute to a better outcome.

On pourrait échanger le mot TPI par la rubrique Survie en milieu urbain du forum de David Manise :

Compare the number of people exposed to entertainment media created fictionalized 'scenes' of violence, to the tiny fraction who seek to study and learn from actual violent assaults. The ratio is likely incalculable.

That microscopic group is Us.

When our 'TPI mind-set' internal dialog expresses the incredulous, "How Could the victims not have realized??" or, "Why did the Vics react that way??"" -- we are transferring our core perspectives into people so far alien to our mind-frames, no common translation reference exists.

My armchair take is that pacification, and expectation that some other entity will solve all of One's problem, is so deeply ingrained in the vast majority, that when true violent threat presents, the default mode is the same mode these people use for everyday interactions.

The Super is the best example. He's doing is everyday interaction mode, because threat of violence does not even register in his consciousness. His exposure to violence is based in fiction -- where it always works out for the good guys. So NO mental transition occurs in his interaction mode.

Us TPI folks are All concerned about counter violence transition modes. We study it, we work to 'read' people and situations to see possible solutions.

And, we are dumbfounded when people, are so nullified, as not even comprehend a real threat. Much less change their mode of interaction.

Instead of another redundant "guns solve everything" thread...let's actually talk about the dialogue used. Normally I wouldn't want to comment on the tactics used by the intended victims, but seeing as there is video and audio for this event, I think it could actually be a very good teaching point. No judgments, just observations on how they approached the situation, knowing full well that nothing is perfect and I can't imagine the sudden stress and overload they must have felt.

What we know from the beginning of the video I watched (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga_noudWTIY&NR=1) First, he's obviously very emotionally disturbed. He's already stating he intends to die. He is attacked by one female, and appears unhurt.

Remember, do not challenge, do not command, do not imply they are wrong, do not threaten. I am almost done with the 6 minute video, and though I see the two men on the right hand of the long desk as actively engaging the EDI, I also see them challenging him. They repeatedly argue with him. They do a good job at not playing too much the victim, and just agreeing with whatever he says (that could also be seen as a challenge)...and the supervisor valiantly tries to exchange his culpability in the EDI's believed situation for the release of the other board members. He then goes on the command the EDI, telling him what HE wants to happen or not happen, oh and I guess he does threaten the guy in some way as he says he "feels" the EDI wants the cops to come in and kill him. None of that is stated by the EDI. And you'll notice that after the supervisor says all that, the guy looks around the room, looks at the camera, his brain is processing everything and he's heard enough and decides to shoot the supervisor. He basically does the tried and true pre sucker punch psych up on himself, just used a gun.

So, can't fault anyone for doing what they did...I was impressed the other people left the room so quickly. The asshat that asks the EDI if he has a "real gun" and then says "I don't think its a real gun" when he's leaving the back of the room should be smacked around a bit.

There's my analysis.