UnderGround Forums
 

DantheWolfMan UnderGround >> Passenger Nonresistance


3/7/02 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ggbroad
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
 
A dear friend of my who is an experienced LEO (and member of his PD's on-call tactical unit) remarked to me recently that about the worst thing people can do in a bank robbery, for instance, is physically resist the robbers, because we know that in 99.99 percent of cases the robber simply walks out the door with the money and nobody gets hurt. Indeed, he said about the worst thing that can happen, from the perspective of the police, is to arrive before the robber is out of the bank, because that's when hostage situations , etc. occur and people get killed. Now, what happens if, in one case out of a million, the bank robber's real goal is not robbery but is to get the compliance of the people in the bank so that he can then plant a bomb and destroy the bank and everyone in it? Well, very suddenly, we're going to start asking questions about why the people in the bank didn?t weigh the odds and say, "hey, there's only one of him and dozens of us." But in doing so we're applying hindsight in an unrealistic way. Which brings me to September 11. In the United States alone, there are roughly 40,000 commercial flights per day, or about 15 million per year. Nearly 150 million commercial flights passed between the last attempted hijacking in the United States (1991) and the events of September 11. Statistically, then, an airplane cabin at cruising altitudes is among the very safest places anybody could be. Nearly all hijackings end with an airplane sitting on a runway somewhere, until such time as the hijackers get their publicity and give up. So nonresistance in the event of some kook pulling a knife or a gun or an apparent bomb on a flight is entirely comprehensible, for the same reason it's entirely comprehensible that a bank clerk simply turns over the money when somebody hands her a note across the counter. I think this fact needs to be factored in to all the myriad other reasons that have been offered here explaining the (apparent) non-resistance of the passengers on the flights that slammed into the World Trade Centres. Even after the terrorists began stabbing and slashing, no doubt many passengers believed that the situation could yet be resolved, and we must not forget that without foreknowledge of what was going to happen, they had good reason for believing this, because hijackings were almost always resolved that way even in those very rare cases where a somebody on board has been killed. I suspect that any future hijacker on a domestic flight in the United States will face a far less compliant group of passengers, as indeed the terrorists over Pennsylvania did. The difficult question for us, then, is this: what do we _want_ to start telling people to do? I don't agree that it's as easy as prescribing physical resistance in all cases of apparent hijacking (although for the time being it might be given the current political situation). For instance, if the bank scenario which I described above (one that ends in a bombing) had happened on September 11, would we want to start telling clerks to resist bank robbers? Just some thoughts, as I find this very difficult. Graham Broad
3/7/02 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truart
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
While you are waiting for Coach Blauer's reply I would like to parphrase him briefly and give you something to ponder. If you cooperate with a rapist, you get raped. If you cooperate with a robber, you get robbed. If you cooperate with a suicidal terrorist, you get terrifically suicided! It's a very personal and perhaps terminal decision, but one they must have the power to make. To have the power to decide they must have more than one option and em-powerment. Co-operation, meaning they OPERATE WITH, the terrorists is only one option, and not a very good one at that. Tony Torres Va Beach VA
3/7/02 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ggbroad
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Sorry, Tony, I wasn't suggesting that you were saying that the decision to use physical resistance was easy or in all cases appropriate, and I should have made that clear. But there has been an enormous of talk on the UG in general in the last few days about the nonresistance of the passengers, and most people have attributed it to the general pacification of society, the feminization of our male population, the litigiousness of our society, the rise of political correctness and whatever other alleged social ills they don't like. What sparked my inquiry was the fact that I was a little concerned about the glee expressed over the story of the pilot who (allegedly) told his passengers to attack any potential hijacker. That was an appropriate response on September 11, and perhaps on September 14, but is it always an appropriate response and how can people tell the difference? That's my point. For example, if I were the manager of a bank, a retail store, a McDonalds, or whatever, would it be appropriate for me to instruct my staff and customers to attack anyone who attempts to the rob the bank?
3/7/02 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
djl
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Graham, I see your point. Well taken. Yet, you did say: "people who can fight can choose pacifism" This is the key. I train. I study. I do the necessary research. I CHOOSE to do this, thus I have options. I choose NOT to live with a victim mind-set. I see it as a goal for those involved here to take responsibility and get this messege out there!! The work we and Tony are doing is so very important. We've got to transform MA training from within. This gets contagious. It spreads to our family, friends, community, society,... The principles are the same for all walks of life: Sit in the bleachers, or get out onto the field and play! I CHOOSE to be a participant. I hope you all join me in making that available for others as Tony has for us. Be well, stay aware, train smart. David Lepp, CPT PDR Team
3/7/02 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truart
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Graham, "but I reject the idea that it's always easy to know what the best option is." Please re-read my post(I just did) and didn't see anything about the decision being easy. Just a very personal one. And a very dangerous one. A decision that is better made as an informed one. My main point is,if you have not prepared(mentally, emotionally, physically) you limit your options to one, co-operation. "I used the bank robber analogy..." OPERATING WITH today's (seemingly trustworthy??)robbers may just get you robbed, but what if the victim suddenly realizes that death has entered the equation. All the conditioning they have received from the UN-informed media, their supervisors, their friends has always been "If you OPERATE WITH, you wont get hurt." And now they abruptly realize this is not true. CALL 1-877-DIAL-A-VICTIM. "Ah, but there's that problem of hindsight again..." I try not to use hindsight but insight, I believe a decision of this grave importance can only be made in the present tense. I Presently use IN-SIGHT to create a directive, train and prepare, and should my present ever be IN-SITE of a scenario as dangerous as a terrorist take-over, I will have options, tools, tactics and my decision will be informed. Tony Torres Va Beach, VA
3/7/02 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ggbroad
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Ah, but there's that problem of hindsight again, which is why I used the bank robber analogy. In most cases when a person pulls a gun and says hand over the money, handing over the money is the smart thing to do, because it's more likely to keep people alive. Now, in one case in ten thousand the bank robber starts shooting for no reason and the right to do would have been for everyone in the bank to rush him the moment they saw the gun. And it's always been that way with hijacking - most such instances end with an airplane sitting on a runway somewhere and a hijacker surrendering. In those cases, compliance is more likely to keep people alive, and I doubt if any experts on hijacking would disagree with me. In the case on September 11, that wasn't the case, obviously, but we say that with hindsight. What are we to tell people about future cases? Clearly it's better to have an option (a silat instructor in Colorado has a nice saying: people who can fight can choose pacifism, but others are doomed to it) but I reject the idea that it's always easy to know what the best option is.
3/7/02 8:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truart
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Sean, 8-) Nice 8-) Tony T. VBPD
3/7/02 8:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Sean Mulligan
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
My two cents... Firstly, as was previously indicated, it is going to be a personal decision based on the facts in issue. For example; If a group of armed individuals wearing masks rush into a bank demanding money and during the process are continuously glancing back and forth from the time to their escape route, chances are they are in and out for the money. If you were to interfere and delay their agenda, chances are you'd escalate the situation and deter it from what it initially was. However if a group unmasked entered calmly wearing explosives and began to herd the employees and customers, identifying who was important and who wasn't, chances are they are prepared to do more then just obtain money. Both are robberies, but in which scenario would you likely do something. Quoting Mr. Blauer, "When death is the alternate, injury has it's appeal", "Failure Expected Action Required" and "Do Something". Every situation will be different, however it is the scenario which will dictate what and/or whether or not something should be done. Mr. Blauer makes it a habit not to tell people what they have to do, but through his own way, gives the individuals the three-dimension tools needed to give themselves permission to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. Sean
3/7/02 8:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1385 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Graham, I think I understand your point, and Tony's, but I still have questions. With your indulgence: 1. In your bank example, what is "physically resisting"? If an employee depresses a silent alarm, have they resisted? If someone flees the bank, running out the fire exit, have they resisted? From within the vault, if someone uses a cell phone to call for help, have they resisted? 2. Again in your bank example, is it a "robbery" if employees are herded into the vault? Is it a "robbery" if an employee is forced into the vault? Beaten then thrown into the vault? I'm asking because, frankly, I'm not sure. I've personally been told by LE to surrender my valuables in a robbery, but not to allow myself to be forced to another location with the robber, even if it means being shot or stabbed. Curious, Paul
3/7/02 8:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tony Blauer
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Mar-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Blauer Tactical Systems, Inc.
Quick note: the 'Injury/death' line that Sean quoted is from Col. George Day [USAF ret.]. The Power of Three's: ===================== Three T's. Tools. Targets. Tactics. ========== Three I's. Instincts. Intuition. Intelligence. ============ The Three Golden Rules: 1. Acceptance 2. Get Challenged 3. Don't stop thinking T

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.