Element of surprise--who really has it?

[beatledog7]

A lot of THR threads discuss the element of surprise in a self defense context. Especially prevalent is the concept that a person who carries openly is surrendering the element of surprise. Some posters ask, "Surprise whom, and how exactly?"

Military strategists, sports coaches, and marketing managers all know the value of the element of surprise. They apply it in a context in which they know whom they want to surprise and in which they have a thorough understanding of that entity's own strategy and capability. They also have another major factor on their side--they can predict and sometimes even choose the timing and venue of their application of surprise, even when they are on defense.

However, in most situations in which this supposed element of surprise would be an advantage to a private citizen--aka, self defense situations--the person being attacked very often has zero control over context and zero knowledge of his or her attacker. He or she is already on the losing end of the element of surprise. Even for citizens who maintain diligent situational awareness, the element of surprise factor is firmly decided with little or no input from that citizen--on the side of the attacker.

By that I don't mean that the person being attacked is helpless--far from it, of course. I recognize that a person being attacked is far better off being armed and trained than not armed and trained. In other words, I acknowledge that the would-be victim who's willing and prepared to put up a fight obviously has a far better chance of fending off an attack.

I do mean that any element of surprise advantage that the person being attacked might believe he or she has by carrying a concealed weapon of some sort is far outweighed by the fact that the attacker alone chooses what he is going to do, to whom, and when. The attacker, plainly and simply, has the element of surprise on his side, and no amount of surprise defense can reliably shift the surprise balance back to the attacked. This is orders of magnitude more true when the attacker is drugged or otherwise desperate.

This thread could easily devolve into another CC vs. OC thread, but let's try to avoid it. My intent is to discuss whether carrying a weapon--concealed or openly--really does provide an exploitable element of surprise advantage once an attack has begun.

 

[bigfatdave]

I can't even make an educated guess at the attackers goals - determining their strategy and how to disrupt the plan is way past that.

But yes, there is some element of surprise to factor in, the average attacker isn't expecting a sudden violent response (or they would have picked someone else). That moment when you go from unaware/compliant to overwhelming violent reaction (AKA "shoot to stop") should be a surprise.
Picking a moment of distraction can help.
Shouting "SURPRISE" can't hurt.

 

[Mainsail]

Read The Five Stages of Violent Crime:

1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction

Now decide where you want to intervene in that timeline. If you wait until surprise has already been used against you, you're trying to interrupt that chain of events in step four. Carrying concealed pretty much limits you to reacting in step four, or taking revenge in step five. Open carry offers 'surprise' in step two or three, before the attacker has had a chance to surprise his victim. Surprise is primarily an offensive move, so you decide how best to utilize it for your personal safety plan.

As with all self defense situations, nothing is absolute so we cannot rely on either open or concealed carry to be the 'best' for all situations. It's up to you to examine the types of crime most typical for where you are, then make your choice based on that.

 

[Sam1911]

Surprise of timing? No.

Surprise of response? Possibly yes.

So there are different aspects we might view as unanticipated by one or both parties. To you, the timing of the altercation. To HIM, your violent reaction.

Once more, though, the entire debate will hang up on the existential question:
1) Is it best to deter attack by displaying a gun, thus potentially appearing as too hard a target to bother with? or,
2) Best to conceal the gun, accepting that you are not deterring an attack by appearing as a hard target, but giving the defender the benefit of a more capable response than the attacker had expected?

Option 1 should probably be expected to avoid some percentage of potential altercations in that it may help you fail the "victim selection process." On the other hand, anyone who does decide to attack you anyway knows exactly what his risks are going in and has determined his own strategy for defeating your response. (And believes he can do so without grave risk.) Also, in any potentially violent encounter, your gun IS involved, period. It IS a gunfight (a fight with, involving, or even OVER a gun) regardless of whether you would otherwise have drawn your weapon. Further, Option 1 presents the risk of various kinds of unpleasantness specifically because the gun is visible. (Cops, concerned citizens, playful fools, and certain kinds of violent assailants.)

Option 2 means you do not take advantage of any deterrent effects of being visibly armed. On the other hand, once you're confronted you do (or may) still have the option of some choice about how to react and whether or not to initially reveal and employ your sidearm. And revealing or drawing your gun may surprise some assailants enough to get inside their OODA loops and even startle them into breaking contact.
Of course Option 2 gives you the benefits of not having to interact with various non-threat social factors (cops, concerned citizens, curious fools, store policies, etc.).

Unfortunately, none of us can know what kind of threat will ever come our way and what, if anything, will be the best deterrent or answer to that threat.

It's kind of like buying a truck. Do you pick the high horsepower gas big block model or the high torque diesel? Some tasks are better served by one, some by the other. Many tasks can be dealt with by either. Which is best for you? It may be hard to tell but you think about your life and your needs, pick one that you think you can live with and work with the strengths and weaknesses as best as you can.

 

[Al Thompson]

Interesting topic. I would note that "Surprise!" is a state of mind where someone or something resets the others OODA loop, IMHO.

Buddy of mine was the typical small stature gray haired older guy. Dude robbing the cashier at the local Jiffy Mart was very surprised when the "little old man" threw a cup of hot coffee in his face, then kicked him to the floor.

What is it Fred says? Something about "mindset, skillset, etc., etc."?

 

[boom boom]

I knew a a hardware storeowner that had gotten robbed at gunpoint in the past. He decided to carry his gun openly at that point--to my knowledge, he never got robbed again. However, most gun stores, jewelry store, and many pawnshops have employees openly carrying and they get hit by armed robbers from time to time.

Note this is the best case of open carry as the business owner is almost always allowed by law to carry in this fashion, second, the owner has the home field advantage which may include staging multiple firearms as well as a safe room to retreat to, and third, the general public will not call in a Man with a Gun to the police on these storeowners.

That being said, the greater the booty to be gained by robbers (jewelry, cash, guns, drugs)--I speculate the less likelihood that a storeowner carrying a weapon openly will dissuade robbers.

Low value targets such as barbershops, hardware stores, etc. might benefit more from deterrence. This assumes rationality from the robber which is not always present.

What does that say about the individual who open carries? I believe that you should do what Farnam says by avoiding bad places and bad people at bad times, have a very low profile (carrying a gun openly doesn't help that but you can camoflage your carry somewhat), and try not to appear being prey. For average joes, I personally don't believe that open carry really causes much of a deterrance factor to muggers. First, they generally rely on surprise as a tactic as mentioned above and may not even see your open carried weapon until the confrontation occurs. This assumes of course that you are not wearing the traditional gunslinger's outfit of the old West with dual holster rigs.

 

[Kleanbore]

The OP does not contain a question. It does set forth several assertions, some self evident, and some without substantiation. I'm not sure of the intended purpose.

This, for example, is obvious:

--the person being attacked very often has zero control over context and zero knowledge of his or her attacker. He or she is already on the losing end of the element of surprise. Even for citizens who maintain diligent situational awareness, the element of surprise factor is firmly decided with little or no input from that citizen--on the side of the attacker.

This one may be true, but only due to the inclusion of the word "reliably":

The attacker, plainly and simply, has the element of surprise on his side, and no amount of surprise defense can reliably shift the surprise balance back to the attacked.

One might consider the account in Tom Givens' Lessons from the Street of the person who was captured by two men and taken home to get valuables for them.

He surprised the first by getting a gun out of a drawer and shooting him. The second, believing that his partner had shot the victim, was also surprised when he walked into the room.

 

[Sam1911]

...Tom Given's Lessons from the Street...

That is one of the great lesson-stories from that DVD!

Now, the "surprise" contingent would say that's a great example of using a hidden weapon to produce an unexpected response and end the altercation well.

The "deterrent" contingent would ask if the guy had been wearing a gun or had had openly displayed that he probably had access to arms, would those criminals have selected him to begin with?

I certainly don't know that answer and no one else could proport to either, I don't believe.

I can surmise that if they HAD selected him anyway, knowing he was armed, then he'd have been given no opportunity to access his weapons and win the day.

However, they may have just chosen someone else to begin with, never risking his life at all and avoiding the cleaning bill.

Diesel or big block? You roll the dice and take your chances!

 

[beatledog7]

My post does not pose a question containing an actual question mark, but it clearly describes the discussion point in a questioning manner...

My intent is to discuss whether carrying a weapon--concealed or openly--really does provide an exploitable element of surprise advantage once an attack has begun.

Reliability is a way of expressing whether the person using a tool or tactic can count on the effectiveness of that tool or tactic; i.e., it's the probability that the tool or tactic will produce the desired effect.

We could point out isolated examples of anything--people get hit by lightning; women give birth to quads, a truck that has fired up every day for 10 years fails to start, a pistol that has never malfunctioned suddenly does--but these outcomes are rare. Reliability is about what will happen in most cases. The fact that the rare outcome sometimes manifests itself does not disprove the reliability premise.

So, for the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase:

I propose we discuss whether having a weapon produces an effective/exploitable element of surprise effect on an attacker once the attack is launched.

 

[JohnBiltz]

To me the problem with open carry is you do not have eyes in the back of your head. While the known presence of a gun will discourage some attackers its also going to invite others and those are going to come hard in a way you will not see.

 

[beatledog7]

The "deterrent" contingent would ask if the guy had been wearing a gun or had openly displayed that he probably had access to arms, would those criminals have selected him to begin with?

I certainly don't know that answer and no one else could proport to either, I don't believe.

I agree. There are no statistics on the deterrent value of an openly displayed firearm, knife, can of pepper spray, etc. There never will be because it's virtually impossible to reach scientific conclusions regarding cases of non-occurence.

Put simply, we cannot know with certainty that any given factor made an attack not happen anymore than we can prove the nonexistence of something. My belief in deterrence comes from my study of political science. I find it rational that a potential attacker would be able to discern that the risk is greater than the likely gain. Yes, that does hinge on the attacker being rational enough to see my firearm as a threat to him and on his self value.

 

[beatledog7]

To me the problem with open carry is you do not have eyes in the back of your head. While the known presence of a gun will discourage some attackers its also going to invite others and those are going to come hard in a way you will not see.

Many agree with this, and with good reason. But what does it have to do with the original question about whether the element of surprise is useful once the attack has commenced?

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, that does hinge on the attacker being rational enough to see my firearm as a threat to him and on his self value.

And not confident enough in his (or their) ability to take you by surprise, and/or prevent you from drawing your weapon, and/or simply defeat you regardless.

Don't forget that there are plenty of even petty street criminals who have far more practice at violence than any of us here and probably far less fear of weapons and injury. They may make a perfectly rational assessment that they can victimize you regardless of the gun they know you have on your belt.

 

[Mainsail]

I propose we discuss whether having a weapon produces an effective/exploitable element of surprise effect on an attacker once the attack is launched.

That may well depend on where you live. In some states the robber might be ‘surprised’ if you’re not armed. Other states where carry is difficult or practically impossible (IOW, impractical due to onerous requirements for legal carry) an armed victim will likely be a surprise.

Here in Washington I’d say it’s about evenly split, sadly. We have a lot of people with concealed carry licenses but it seems few exercise them. There was a double stabbing in Seattle last week- totally random victim selection- crazy started stabbing a woman- her man came to her defense (defenselessly) and was stabled to death.

The criminal element is well aware of concealed carry, more so in states where it’s practiced. So you’re talking about an unstable person who himself is worried you might be carrying, with no regard for the Four Rules, adrenaline pumping, finger on the trigger, sweeping you and your party. Do you want to try to surprise such a person?

 

[Bobson]

Many agree with this, and with good reason. But what does it have to do with the original question about whether the element of surprise is useful once the attack has commenced?

It has everything to do with it. The only consistent manner in which one could gain an advantage in an attack - without physically overpowering an attacker - is by disrupting his OODA loop, which Al Thompson addressed briefly in Post #5. Seems to me that this topic has evrrything to do with the OODA loop, so I'm surprised it hasn't been covered in detail.

IIRC, the OODA Loop is attributed to Col. John Boyd (USAF Ret.). The OODA Loop is the thought and action sequence that really just gives us a name and a step for what's going on at a given stage in a violent encounter. As the name implies, it loops constantly, until the encounter is over. The steps of the OODA loop are as follows:

1. Observe
2. Orient
3. Decide
4. Act

The idea is that every attack begins in step 1 - Observe. This refers to an attacker's observation, not yours. The implication here is that as a law-abiding citizen on the defense in any violent encounter, you'll always enter the situation with a disadvantage. Typically, you'll enter the situation upon noticing something is aloof - somewhere after step 3, depending in the circumstances.

The whole point of understanding the OODA loop is to use it to your advantage, obviously. Once Step 1 begins, things progress naturally through the next three steps - unless you do something that causes your attacker to Orient all over again. And of course, that's the key. You want to surprise your attacker as often as possible. If you can keep him in the first three stages, he'll never be able to act. Of course he'll do something, but you can keep it from ever being a well thought-out, proper response.

The OODA Loop applies equally well in aerial dogfights, active shooter scenarios, and fist-fights.

I hadn't planned on such a long post. I'll let others cover the rest, as I know there are members with a more thorough knowledge on the subject than me.

 

[BullfrogKen]

But what does it have to do with the original question about whether the element of surprise is useful once the attack has commenced?

What makes you think the element of surprise is lost once the violent criminal actor begins his attack?


I think you really need to put aside all that you think you know about how criminals work their craft and study how these events actually play out. Very few people are actually surprised and only realize they're about to be a victim of a crime when they see a gun in their face.

Unless someone is totally oblivious to their surroundings - someone buried in a newspaper, or fussing with a child, or otherwise walking around life with his head in his butt - the clues something is being set up are not very subtle.

If you listen to what victims say, many times you'll hear two similar themes. One is, "I knew something wasn't right about this guy, and what he was doing made me uncomfortable, but by the time I could do anything it was too late."

Which isn't true. The time to do something was when their gut feeling told them something wasn't right about the guy who was getting himself ready to victimize them. It only feels like it was too late, because they let themselves be put into a vunerable position, and that psychological prison told them there was nothing they could do now.


The other scenario was, "He just appeared out of no where." Which again isn't true. Star Trek transporters don't exist, nor do invisibility rings. Invariably, when footage exists for attacks like these, you'll see someone crossed a parking lot to other large distance in his approach to the victim. The victim just never paid attention to the guy who just made a headcheck to confirm they were alone, and deliberately made his way to intercept that victim.

Guys step out in front of busses, and strike motorcycles that they never saw while driving, too. What can you say?


But even in a situation like that the criminal expects a certain response from his victim. When he doesn't get it, it surprises him, and he's got to adjust to an unexpected response. Any time you make someone react to you, the momentum of control swings in your favor. When you react to someone else, the momentum swings in his favor.

It's not so much about the element of surprise. It's about the pattern of stimulus and response, and who maintains that momentum.


It's pretty surprising when a criminal approaches someone he's clearly pegged as a victim and finds out he's grossly misjudged a fighter for prey.

 

[Sam1911]

I think, perhaps maybe what beetledog07 is asking us to contemplate is whether or not -- once someone has selected you and approached you and attacked you (regardless of how all that transpired) -- are you better off surprising him with a gun, or having him know that you had the gun all along?

If that's the question, then I think the answer is quite obvious, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable trying to made a strategy decision solely on that very narrow, "horse-has-left-the-stable," aspect of the incident.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

It must have been 15 years ago but I won the victim selection lottery (or the mugger lost it depending on your perspective) right outside my apartment one night. While the mugger achieved tactical surprise I definitely turned the tables on him and achieved operational surprise when I drew. He broke off the attack as my gun cleared the holster and took off.

Now would he have attacked at all if he knew I was armed? I can’t say but I can tell you for sure that he was surprised that I was armed and it threw his plan completely off.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by beatledog7: I propose we discuss whether having a weapon produces an effective/exploitable element of surprise effect on an attacker once the attack is launched.

I'm afraid I still do not understand the issue.

Having a weapon can provide a means for threatening or using deadly force for the defense of person; whether the display or use of the weapon will be sufficiently effective after an attack has actually been initiated will depend on a number of variables.

What that might have to do with producing an "effective/exploitable element of surprise", I do not know, since I do not know what that means in the first place.

One may have to shoot, or not, and it may work, or not.

If the attacker has some way of predicting the defender's likely defensive tactics, and perhaps that is another way of saying that he is not "surprised", the defender is less likely to succeed in his own defense.

 

[GoWolfpack]

I want to follow this thread. I'm interested.

 

[beatledog7]

Let's try this again. People argue all the time that OCing surrenders the element of surprise. By that they mean that the bad guy will be surprised by the fact that his victim is armed and will therefore suffer some sort of disadvantage that he would not have suffered had he known all along that his victim was armed.

That has nothing at all to do with the victim being surprised, and never did. Sorry, Ken.

...what beetledog07 is asking us to contemplate is whether or not -- once someone has selected you and approached you and attacked you (regardless of how all that transpired) -- are you better off surprising him with a gun, or having him know that you had the gun all along?

Exactly. Surprise was never on the victim's side in the first place. The element of surprise always belonged to the attacker, so how can the victim surrender it to the attacker? Once the attacker commences, his OODA cycle is complete. The victim's response might or might not surprise the attacker, thereby forcing him back into an Orientation phase. If it doesn't, then the victim faces an attacker who is locked into the Action phase, and the victim can only respond. The victim has no ability to apply surprise to any effect.

Having a weapon can provide a means for threatening or using deadly force for the defense of person; whether the display or use of the weapon will be sufficiently effective after an attack has actually been initiated will depend on a number of variables.

What that might have to do with producing an "effective/exploitable element of surprise", I do not know, since I do not know what that means in the first place.

Yes, many variable come into play. My point is that the victim's ability to surprise his attacker, whether he has a weapon with which to fight back or not, is not the thing that will save him. If he survives the attack it will be due to his ability and willingness to fight back, not because he possessed an element of surprise due to having a weapon the attacker didn't know about. I created the term "effective/exploitable element of surprise" to describe the concept that even if the attacker is in some way surprised by the presence of the victim's weapon, that factor will not be decisive. The victim's skill in defending himself or herself will be what saves him of her, not the element of surprise.

In plain English, the element of surprise that so many people say is lost when one carries openly, even if present, is ineffective in ending the attack and cannot be exploited in any useful way by the victim once the attack has started.

Instead of believing we can survive or ward off an attack by surprising the attacker when we draw a previously hidden gun, we'd be better off doing anything in our power to help avoid the attack in the first place, and maybe open carry is one of those things.

 

[JohnBiltz]

If you listen to what victims say, many times you'll hear two similar themes. One is, "I knew something wasn't right about this guy, and what he was doing made me uncomfortable, but by the time I could do anything it was too late."

Which isn't true. The time to do something was when their gut feeling told them something wasn't right about the guy who was getting himself ready to victimize them. It only feels like it was too late, because they let themselves be put into a vunerable position, and that psychological prison told them there was nothing they could do now.

I walk every day a couple of miles, living in Phoenix in the summer I walk around 4 in the morning to avoid the heat. I've got various routes but one day something just said in my head "get out of here". I got out of there, didn't hesitate I just got gone. Was there anything there? Did I see something I did not process consciously. Did I hear something without being aware of it? I don't know, never will know. I'll do the same thing again though. Listen to your instincts.

 

[beatledog7]

JohnBlitz, you completely missed the point of the thread.

It's not focused on having SA and discernment regarding the people around us, though that is certainly important. It's about whether a victim is able to use surprise to useful effect while he is being attacked.

 

[JohnBiltz]

In plain English, the element of surprise that so many people say is lost when one carries openly, even if present, is ineffective in ending the attack and cannot be exploited in any useful way by the victim once the attack has started.

Instead of believing we can survive or ward off an attack by surprising the attacker when we draw a previously hidden gun, we'd be better off doing anything in our power to help avoid the attack in the first place, and maybe open carry is one of those things.

I could not disagree more. When I was 18 I was mugged. 3 people with knives they did not close rather they isolated me where egress was limited to forward and back and cut those off, they asked for my wallet and I gave it to them, then they ran off. They were professional about the whole thing. If I had a gun concealed I could have drawn and no doubt they would have run. They wanted money not trouble.

Taking a guy with a gun in open carry means you have to disable him instantly, say a pipe to the head or do a gun grab on him.

I don't believe guns are infallible, every soldier killed had a gun on him.

 

[CA Raider]

"What makes you think the element of surprise is lost once the violent criminal actor begins his attack?"

the guys here who mentioned the OODA loop are going in the right direction.

The problem with the discussions here is that it's not so hard to sit in front of a computer and reason out what you think yo would do. BUT that is not going to happen in practice. In practice, as you step through the entrance of your hallway some big guy is going to slam you against a wall and stick a gun in your face. You're in shock because you didn't even know he was there. Your mind is reacting at the subconscious level, and there is absolutely no time to reason on how you are going to respond.

You're ONLY solution is what you do in training.
How you train yourself is how you will react.
But how many people at a firing range train themselves to be slammed into a wall first, before they draw their weapon?

How you train is how you will react.
And when it goes down ... you won't even realize later what you did.
You wont even remember making half of the moves.

CA R