Avoidance As A Strategy

[Jeff White]

No one here is advising anyone to lock themselves in the home and build a moat. Avoidance simply means do a simple risk assessment before you decide what you are going to do. If a certain mall in the area has had a lot of violent incidents in the last few weeks, it might be prudent to shop somewhere else for awhile unless that mall is the only place you can source what you need. For instance I use an iPhone, the closest Apple Store is in the Galleria in St Louis. The Galleria is a posted gun free zone, yet they have a serious crime problem there including shootings. There was a shootout inside the Galleria just a few weeks ago. So I will delay any trips to the Apple Store or drive 30 miles farther to a different one.

If you are traveling on the interstate and need to use the restroom, then you have to use the rest area. So in that case avoidance means checking the area out before placing yourself in a compromising position, having a traveling companion keep watch while you are in the rest room then you watch out for him or her while they use the restroom.

Avoidance is not being out after 11pm unless you have to be. Nothing good happens after that time of night. I used to work what we called the power shift on the PD, 7p-3a. We had an extra officer on during those hours because that's when most of the bad things happen. Even if you are just out driving during those hours you have a higher chance of encountering an impaired driver.

Avoidance is trying to de-escalate an encounter that is forced on you if possible. There are plenty ways of de-escalating that won't let the "predator sense fear". If you are trained and confident in your abilities you can de-escalate without showing fear, and if the subject won't de-escalate then you have to to act. It's always easier to talk then it is to fight.

Avoidance is simply making a risk assessment and then acting accordingly.

Don't do stupid things! Don't hang out with people who do! Don't go to the places the people who do hang out! Those three simple rules will keep you out of most bad situations.

 

[Kleanbore]

violent criminal attacks is within the scope of this forum, slipping in the bathtub isn't.

Exactly.

And--we do not reasonably choose to not stay at home to avoid such risks.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Avoidance is not being out after 11pm unless you have to be. Nothing good happens after that time of night. I used to work what we called the power shift on the PD, 7p-3a. We had an extra officer on during those hours because that's when most of the bad things happen. Even if you are just out driving during those hours you have a higher chance of encountering an impaired driver.

I have a friend who spent his entire career practicing criminal law. First as a prosecuting Attorney and later as a Public Defender.

He says that based on his experience and other cases he's researched if you're outside your home after 9PM your chances of being involved in a homicide go up exponentially. He wasn't saying that your odds are really really high he was just saying that they get significantly higher after 9 p.m.

I worked as a security guard since June 2008 mostly nights. My experience has been that after about 10 p.m. the sewers open up and the vermin crawls out.

I've said it before but when I worked downtown, especially on the weekends, the fight started around 10 O'clock. The sexual assaults started around 10 O'clock. The car break ins. The muggings. It happened like clockwork every weekend. The police used to stage a mobile command post downtown because of it.

I've also said this before but based on my experience after about 10 p.m. the demographic on the street excuse pretty heavily towards vampires and your odds get worse as the night goes on.

When I'm not at work I am home NLT 10 pm. To be honest when I'm not at work I'm usually in bed by 9 p.m. anyway.

 

[zoldaman]

I work on the south side of town, so we have our fair share of flashing lights on a regular basis. The advice of one of the local LEOs was to always keep your head on a swivel when walking around outside and to lock the doors behind you when in the building.

 

[Elkins45]

Avoidance is a big part of my strategy and it’s been successful so far. When I can’t avoid I aim to be invisible. When invisibility isn’t an option I strive to be the least desirable victim.

In those cases where it’s just me and trouble one-on-one I try to make it clear they are about to make an unhealthy decision. Fortunately I’ve never had to prove that to someone.

 

[bearcreek]

I understand what you're saying but violent criminal attacks is within the scope of this forum, slipping in the bathtub isn't.

Having said that, I have a mat in the bottom of my bathtub to help me not slip so yes I do mitigate known risks. There's a fire extinguisher hanging right next to my stove.

Sure, but you don't just avoid taking baths though (I assume ) or using your stove.

It doesn't make sense to talk exclusively about avoiding criminal attacks without considering other, possibly greater and more likely, risks. If I avoid a bad area of town by taking a road that's closed because a bridge is out, I've avoided the bad area but have now introduced a new problem.

I'm curious if you have any stats on rest area violence?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

It doesn't make sense to talk exclusively about avoiding criminal attacks without considering other, possibly greater and more likely, risks.

It does when violent criminal attacks are within the scope of discussion for the forum and bathtub mats aren't.

I'm curious if you have any stats on rest area violence?

The last time I stopped at a rest stop I had to because I was falling asleep at the wheel. I don't remember what time I stopped but I know it was still dark. I woke up in broad daylight and there was a guy trying to get into my car. That's really all the stats I need.

Look, you don't have to justify yourself to me. If you want to hang out at rest stops go right ahead. The ones in my part of the country are usually empty, have no services and are a long way from anyting including help

 

[Kleanbore]

Just a reminder: in the legal sense, "avoidance" means retreat.

We have been discussing something different.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/avoidance-and-the-other-things.872446/

 

[Kleanbore]

If I avoid a bad area of town by taking a road that's closed

Who in the world would do that?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Who in the world would do that?

Somebody who wants to win a debate on the internet

 

[MistWolf]

No one here is advising anyone to lock themselves in the home and build a moat....

Heh! After reading some posts in this thread, it's easy to get the impression this is exactly what is proposed

Avoidance simply means do a simple risk assessment before you decide what you are going to do...Don't do stupid things! Don't hang out with people who do! Don't go to the places the people who do hang out!

This, in a nutshell, is what I was going to say. Aviation leaves little room for error and is unforgiving. Yet, it's a safe way to travel because good SOPs and regulations are followed & common sense and good judgement are exercised. When we don't follow SOPs, regulations, exercise coomon sense or good judgement, people die. But that doesn't stop us from flying everyday. Exercising good safety practices and due diligence allows us to control the risk and live relatively risk free lives.

I have travelled by motor vehicle all across this nation and have had little trouble simply by paying attention, assessing the situation and taking steps to control the risks. I listen to my spidey sense. I think I've avoided more problems than I realize by simply avoiding situations that made me uncomfortable. I've done so without being deprived of enjoying the adventure that's my life.

When traveling by motor vehicle, it's our rule of thumb to stop every hour or two, use truckstops like Flying J, Maverick or Pilot for gas, food & restroom stops. When I traveled with my young sons, I'd also find places where they could get out & safely burn off excess energy. All our trips were fun and by taking a few precautions, safe.

 

[stevebla]

Starbucks has nice clean gender neutral restrooms that beat the interstate highway ones in California by a mile.
"The Rules of Stupid state that you should never (1) go to Stupid places, (2) with Stupid people, (3) at Stupid times, and (4) do Stupid things. You can usually get away with breaking one of the Rules of Stupid, but two or more really increase the odds of bad things happening."

 

[Bama59]

I just returned from Gulf Shores with family from Iowa, told them to to be extra careful driving home and avoid the cities . Didn't do any good they went downtown Memphis last night with kids.

 

[GEM]

The last time I was in Memphis and went to a BBQ place, it was with a large group of heavily armed, concealed folks who were highly trained.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

The last time I was in Memphis and went to a BBQ place, it was with a large group of heavily armed, concealed folks who were highly trained.

If the folks were concealed how did they get seats?

 

[MistWolf]

If the folks were concealed how did they get seats?

Under concealment, of course!

 

[bearcreek]

Who in the world would do that?

That depends. Obviously you missed the point of what I was saying if that's what you're focusing on.

The last time I stopped at a rest stop I had to because I was falling asleep at the wheel. I don't remember what time I stopped but I know it was still dark. I woke up in broad daylight and there was a guy trying to get into my car. That's really all the stats I need.

This explains a lot. It's natural for someone who had a traumatic experience to associate things from that experience with danger, even if the risk is statistically very low. My step mother refuses to be around dogs because she was attacked by one when she was young. Hopefully you understand why someone might be skeptical of a statement when the evidence doesn't seem to back it up?

Somebody who wants to win a debate on the internet

No one "wins" debates on internet forums man.

 

[Ghost In The Fog]

Just a small example: I strive to keep gas in my car all the time; I have conditioned myself to see having 1/4 tank as riding on E. As a result, I can generally fill up at my convenience. I don't get gas when and where I have to, I get it when and where I choose to. Therefore avoiding the sketchy gas station with what my wife refers to as "types" loitering about. Because I don't have to get gas right now, I can mosey on down the street to the nice place. And do it during the day./QUOTE]

Great advice. I am like you except as soon as I get to just under half a tank. My car holds 26 gallons and my truck 30 so my stops are less frequent. I firmly believe in this principal and whether or not anything happened, I have pulled into plenty of gas stations and pulled right back out after viewing the situation. My families life is not worth seeing how far I can go on a tank of gas and having to take whatever is available.

 

[748]

Sometimes the best way to avoid losing a battle is to deny battle.

 

[Ghost In The Fog]

I realize that I probably go a little overboard on this but I make it a rule to avoid places that I know are trouble. I realize that I can't avoid all of the trouble spots but rest areas, ATMs (really always but especially after dark.) I don't close bars and even when I'm working nights I stay out of convenience stores in the wee hours.
So my question is how much of a part does risk avoidance play in your overall self defense strategy?

Not overboard at all and makes a lot of good sense.
We all have to do what is best for us individually. We have all had different experiences- even in the same places. I have driven through every state including through Canada, Alaska and the Yukon (Hawaii too but no driving) and have seen a lot and firmly believe I have avoided some bad situations by just not stopping and not exercising my right to do whatever the heck I want, whenever I want.
You be you and I'll be me. Someone can walk into a situation they know is bad and probably nothing will happen. I say why take that chance? With the way the laws are now, the good guy just about always pays a heavy price for "being right" and the 5h!t bag walks.
Although we are all armed and hopefully trained in self-defense and deescalation but as the old saying goes, the best way to avoid a gun fight is to not show up. I live by that and avoid a situation as I determine necessary.Have I walked into a potential bad situation unwittingly? Absolutely. We still have to live.
Always carry something bright, sharp, deadly and medical on your body at all times. Flashlight, knife, gun and IFAK
Overboard? Nope-
Prepared? Yes.
Be aware. Go home in the same condition you left in.

 

[Kleanbore]

Hopefully you understand why someone might be skeptical of a statement when the evidence doesn't seem to back it up?

What evidence?

The number of reported criminal attacks at rest stops would tell us nothing.

One would also have to know the number of instances in which people stop at rest stops. That would give use a measure of the risk exposure.

We do not have that.

We would also have to know how many encounters have not been reported, and how many reports were not cataloged. If a motorist sees a threatening person, and departs unharmed, what is the likelihood that he will take the time report it? If the Highway Patrol does receive a call that is not realistically actionable, what is the likelihood that the report of the event will make it into a database?

No, for practical reasons, it would be abundantly clear that we cannot make any risk assessments based on a statistical analysis crime reports.

We can, however, us the little gray cells and try to reason.

What more inviting target is there than the lone motorist who has stopped at a primitive rest stop on a rural highway?

I have known people who were threatened and who barely escaped.

That and a tactical analysis of the risk are enough for me.

 

[BCC1]

What evidence?

The number of reported criminal attacks at rest stops would tell us nothing.

One would also have to know the number of instances in which people stop at rest stops. That would give use a measure of the risk exposure.

We do not have that.

We would also have to know how many encounters have not been reported, and how many reports were not cataloged. If a motorist sees a threatening person, and departs unharmed, what is the likelihood that he will take the time report it? If the Highway Patrol does receive a call that is not realistically actionable, what is the likelihood that the report of the event will make it into a database?

No, for practical reasons, it would be abundantly clear that we cannot make any risk assessments based on a statistical analysis crime reports.

We can, however, us the little gray cells and try to reason.

What more inviting target is there than the lone motorist who has stopped at a primitive rest stop on a rural highway?

I have known people who were threatened and who barely escaped.

That and a tactical analysis of the risk are enough for me.

Not trying to be argumentative, and I’m sure you realize your points can equally support a lack of aggressive instances at rural rest stops.

With no data to support a view, all that’s left is opinion.

 

[entropy]

Sometimes the best way to avoid losing a battle is to deny battle.

Sun Tzu.

As far as Trunk Monkey's experience at the rest stop, it was a balance of risks. Likely results had he continued on driving when falling asleep at the wheel vs. potential attack. I think he made the better choice. I'd suggest were he to face the same situation in the future, to set the alarm on his phone to 15-20 minutes; you'd be surprised how even that little sleep will refresh you, and it would reduce the attack potential window.

 

[Kleanbore]

I’m sure you realize your points can equally support a lack of aggressive instances at rural rest stops.

I do not what know that a "lack of aggressive instances at rural rest stops" might mean, but a lack of data cannot support a conclusion that stopping at rural risk stops would not be risky.

Further, no realistic evaluation of how or whether a person stopping at one might represent an inviting target for an attacker would support such a conclusion.

To me, it supports the opposite very persuasively.

"Opinion"? Well, there are ways in which a meaningful scientific experiment could be designed to evaluate the issue, but that shouldn't be necessary for anyone who can think.

Actual data can have their uses, but people often have to employ other means of analysis .

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...comings-of-statistics-and-actual-data.869921/

 

[Outlaw75]

Sometimes the best way to avoid losing a battle is to deny battle.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious. -- Sun Tzu