Went to Condition Yellow at a resturant

[Yoda]

I went to a buffet-style restaurant in Sunnyvale CA with my wife (we're both in our 60s), my 91-year-old father, and a 50-something friend. It was well after lunch, and the place was deserted, except for us and the staff.

We get our food and sit down, placing the now-empty trays on the table beside us. All of the other tables in the restaurant are clean and empty.

A single large man (mid-20s) comes in, picks up the trays we had put on the adjacent table, and asks us to put them somewhere else. Odd, but no problem so far.

He gets his food and a pile of napkins. He places his tray on a third table, then proceeds to cover his original table with napkins, each one laid out in a square grid, with great precision.

Then he starts stirring his water with a spoon, licking the spoon, then stirring his water, licking his spoon again, then closely examining the water, then stirring again. He kept this up for about three minutes.

OK, he hadn't shown any hostile intent, but he WAS acting erratically. Then he takes all the food on one overflowing plate and plops it onto the food in another overflowing plate. Then he pours his soup over it. Then he goes back to the stirring water/licking spoon/examining water glass routine.

At this point, I discretely talk to the restaurant manager. I told him that the guy isn't threatening us and we're not upset to have him sitting beside us in an empty restaurant, but he seems disturbed. He may be having a crisis of some sort, and he may need some help or intervention.

The manager explains to me that this person does this every day.

OK.

When I get back to our table, the guy got three overflowing PLATES of ice cream with mounds of nuts and whipped cream. He stirs one up into a mess, then starts sorting thru the nuts, putting some apparent defects in a saucer.

And that's how things were going when we left.

This being California, and us being visitors, concealed carry was not an issue. However, I do think that going to a higher state of awareness was justified. Condition Yellow for sure, but certainly not Condition Red.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ARMED TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND YOU. IN FACT, WHEN YOU'RE NOT ARMED, YOU HAVE TO BE EVEN MORE AWARE.

I also wonder if this guy is going to be in the news someday. There is obviously something amiss there.

- - - Yoda

 

[NavyLCDR]

I would suggest you watch "As Good As It Gets" with Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt....

 

[1KPerDay]

Wow...

I'm hungry

 

[beatledog7]

If I were this restaurant manager, I'd start thinking about some way to manage this patron's meal schedule. I realize this might be PC, but if I were having lunch next to this guy, I'd relocate. And if I learned he does this every day, I'd have lunch somewhere else.

Kind of creeps me out. Not in a SD sort of way, just not my kind of lunch experience.

 

[conw]

You should obviously keep an eye on anyone suspicious or exhibiting unusual behavior. However, it's a fallacy that mental illness is a cause for concern over violence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/). My concern seeing him would have been more that he was on some type of drug, which to me is more of a cause for concern.

IN FACT, WHEN YOU'RE NOT ARMED, YOU HAVE TO BE EVEN MORE AWARE.

I disagree...being armed is of course a priority of mine, but if your statement is true, the converse would be true: When you're armed, you don't need to be as aware as when you're unarmed. I couldn't disagree more with that.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Went to Condition Yellow?

I thought we're always supposed to be in condition yellow.

 

[Beaux Nehr]

Sounds like every single day I spent in LA

 

[Frank Ettin]

I thought we're always supposed to be in condition yellow.

My thought exactly. Condition Yellow is the base level of preparedness when out in public.

A good run down of the Color Code (in the form used at Gunsite) may be found here:

White - Relaxed, unaware, and unprepared. If attacked in this state the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy and ineptitude of your attacker. When confronted by something nasty your reaction will probably be, "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."

Yellow - Relaxed alertness. No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself." There is no specific threat but you are aware that the world is an unfriendly place and that you are prepared to do something if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and your carriage says "I am alert." You don't have to be armed in this state but if you are armed you must be in yellow. When confronted by something nasty your reaction will probably be, "I thought this might happen some day." You can live in this state indefinitely.

Orange - Specific alert. Something not quite right has gotten your attention and you shift your primary focus to that thing. Something is "wrong" with a person or object. Something may happen. Your mindset is that "I may have to shoot that person." Your pistol is usually holstered in this state. You can maintain this state for several hours with ease, or a day or so with effort.

Red - Fight trigger. This is your mental trigger. "If that person does "x" I will shoot them." Your pistol may, but not necessarily, be in your hand.

 

[97guns]

i think everyone here would have had a bead on that guy from the getgo, everywhere i go i see whack jobs and they definately get my attention.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yep, practice living your whole life in Condition Yellow. OP was in Orange.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Red - Fight trigger. This is your mental trigger. "If that person does "x" I will shoot them."

I understand Orange and Red differently.

From Cooper's Commentaries 13, 1:

When you detect the presence of a target who may be the one you will have to engage, you shift from Yellow to Orange. In Yellow your mind-set is "I may have to shoot today." In Orange it is "I may have to shoot him today." At this point your normal reluctance becomes easier to overcome. Legal and moral aspects of the conflict are lowered and have been dismissed from your mind. Your attitude is dictated by the presence of that enemy standing there. You may have to shoot him, now, today. What is needed is a trigger. The trigger is the act establishing that the situation is indeed a matter of lethal conflict. This is Condition Red, and in Red you have solved the psychological problem and have no further concerns beyond the technical. In Red you are go, and your mind is concerned only with front-sight and surprise.

So, for me, one establishes a mental trigger, "If x, I shoot him," in Condition Orange. In Condition Red, the trigger has been tripped (x has already happened), and you are fighting: you do no await a second trigger.

It may be that those at Gunsite have improved the color code, and that's fine. One of Cooper's principles of self-defense is "ruthlessness." Well, while I think I understand his point, I'm not sure I'm willing (given that Meriam-Webster defines "ruthless" as "having no pity : merciless, cruel") to adopt ruthlessness as one of my principles.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It may be that those at Gunsite have improved the color code, and that's fine.

The current doctrine does indeed have Red as "If x, then I shoot" so they don't define Red as actively fighting. They DO say that it's possible you will have the gun out if you are in Red, waiting on that one act that says "shoot now".

Many folks using the color codes have added "Black" to describe the condition of being actively in a fight. One thing about Coopers writings, he was not completely consistent and he wrote with a bit of a "stream of thought" flow. If you read what he wrote about the 4 rules over the years you will see minor differences each time as he seemed to think about things more and more.

So, who knows lol. The concept is what's important I guess.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well, the description of the Color Code I quoted is from John Schaefer's website. He's an old student of Col. Cooper's and runs the Gunsite email list. It's pretty much as outlined in the course materials I have from the 250 (General Pistol) class I took at Gunsite some years ago and as I recall it being presented in the lecture on the Color Code as given by Jeff Cooper himself.

I think what Col. Cooper wrote in the Commentary you quoted maybe a bit ambiguous. Let's have another look at what you quoted (emphasis added by me):

When you detect the presence of a target who may be the one you will have to engage, you shift from Yellow to Orange. In Yellow your mind-set is "I may have to shoot today." In Orange it is "I may have to shoot him today." At this point your normal reluctance becomes easier to overcome. Legal and moral aspects of the conflict are lowered and have been dismissed from your mind. Your attitude is dictated by the presence of that enemy standing there. You may have to shoot him, now, today. What is needed is a trigger. The trigger is the act establishing that the situation is indeed a matter of lethal conflict. This is Condition Red, and in Red you have solved the psychological problem and have no further concerns beyond the technical. In Red you are go, and your mind is concerned only with front-sight and surprise.

So as Schaefer put it, Red is the trigger. At that point you have overcome any psychological barrier to using lethal force and all that's left is the technical process of actually unleashing that force.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Many folks using the color codes have added "Black"

True, but Cooper specifically rejected black:

Please let us knock off this basura about "Condition Black". The color code, as I created it, refers not to the degree of hazard in which the shooter may find himself, but rather to his readiness to take the irrevocable homicidal step. In Condition Red he is ready to do that, and there is no need to go beyond that condition.

Red is the trigger.

Well, we may be saying the same thing, and perhaps what Schaefer wrote is also ambiguous. If the passage you quoted means that the conditional "If that person does 'x' I will shoot them" defines Condition Red, I disagree. For me, Red is: "That person DID do x, so now I will shoot him."

Until then, I'm still in Orange: "I may have to shoot him today." I'm not sure if others think of Red as "I may have to shoot him in a moment or two, if he does 'x'"; I don't. Since there are no Cooperian stages beyond Red, Red to me means shooting or trying to (until the threat is no longer a threat).

 

[TexasRifleman]

In Condition Red he is ready to do that, and there is no need to go beyond that condition.

Red to me means shooting or trying to (until the threat is no longer a threat).

I don't think Cooper means Red is actively fighting at that moment, I think he means that physically you will fight upon seeing the "trigger' act, but mentally you are already in fight mode.

Since he didn't see a need for anything beyond Red that makes sense, mentally you are already in a fight so you don't' need another color, even though you physically may not have begun to fight yet.

The colors are mental state, not physical acts. So Red is "in the fight" even if you haven't had reason to pull the trigger yet. Seems he's saying the fight starts for you before you pull the trigger. That makes sense really if you think about it. Not pulling the trigger doesn't mean you have stopped fighting, it just means your fight tactic does not include pulling the trigger right now.

 

[Loosedhorse]

So Red is "in the fight" even if you haven't had reason to pull the trigger yet.

To me, that doesn't make sense. I have never been "in" a fight before I had a reason to throw a punch. Being ready to punch, but waiting (while also looking for escape) is to me a different mindset than actually throwing (and taking) punches. YMMV

Cooper said, "In Red you are go, and your mind is concerned only with front-sight and surprise." He did not say you were also concerned with decision, or looking for reason, to shoot. After all, how are you going to even see that reason to shoot while that big ol' front sight is blocking your view?

Not pulling the trigger doesn't mean you have stopped fighting, it just means your fight tactic does not include pulling the trigger right now.

If I'm in (what I consider) Red, there are two reasons I'm not pulling the trigger:
1. I'm unable (I don't have my gun out yet, I'm out of ammo or I'm out of the fight).
2. I don't have a shot (I can't see the threat or there are intervening innocents.)

Once he's down (and I'm covering him while reloading and scanning for other threats), I'm back to "if he does 'x', I'll shoot."

 

[TexasRifleman]

But that doesn't jive with Coopers own words, where he speaks of "readiness".

but rather to his readiness to take the irrevocable homicidal step. In Condition Red he is ready to do that,

Still seems to me the color code is mental state, not physical acts. You are mentally "in the fight" before you pull the trigger or you are already behind the curve. You can't pull the trigger until you are in the fight mentally so "fight mode" MUST precede the act of pulling the trigger. There are plenty of cases where you can be in fight mode and not pull the trigger. To say or do otherwise may get you a murder conviction.

If I am mentally in the fight, Condition Red, and I draw the gun because I saw my trigger, X, performed by a bad guy, and he sees my gun then drops his own screaming "Don't shoot me!!!" and I still shoot, I may go to prison. I was still in the fight, my gun presentation was active fighting. That there was no need for me to proceed to pulling the trigger does not mean I wasn't fighting or in full on fight mode mentally.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't think Cooper means Red is actively fighting at that moment, I think he means that physically you will fight upon seeing the "trigger' act, but mentally you are already in fight mode.

Since he didn't see a need for anything beyond Red that makes sense, mentally you are already in a fight so you don't' need another color, even though you physically may not have begun to fight yet.

The colors are mental state, not physical acts. So Red is "in the fight" even if you haven't had reason to pull the trigger yet. Seems he's saying the fight starts for you before you pull the trigger. That makes sense really if you think about it. Not pulling the trigger doesn't mean you have stopped fighting, it just means your fight tactic does not include pulling the trigger right now.

FWIW, I agree. That's pretty much the way I've understood it and the way Jeff Cooper explained it in his lecture to the class I was in.

...Still seems to me the color code is mental state, not physical acts.

Absolutely.

 

[Loosedhorse]

As fiddletown said, there is ambiguity; you correctly point out the word "ready," just as I correctly point out "front sight." Perhaps Cooper (as I think you believe) considered the mental state for aiming at an attacker but not shooting the same as that for actually shooting. Perhaps we can find another source where the color sequence is described in more detail, in Cooper's own words.

As I implied, my interpretation is based in part on my experience (which is hard for me to shake off): there is a different mental state in fighting compared to being ready to fight but not fighting. Similarly, I think there'd be a difference in holding my fire because I don't have a shot yet, versus because I don't have reason to fire yet.

What should we suppose that Cooper meant by "surprise" (the other thing besides front sight that concerns us in Code Red)? I'm not sure how much "tactical surprise" we have left if we draw, put our front sight on target...and then don't shoot.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I think this is exactly the problem with falling too much into the "Church of Cooper" and taking every word as holy writ

I suspect that we'll find Cooper saying different things at different times depending on what he was thinking at that moment.

To me the most important take away from the color code is the concept of living full time in yellow.

I don't think we are disagreeing with each other or with Cooper, it's that the whole thing is very fluid and subjective. That we talk it through for ourselves ahead of time seems to be one of the best uses of the doctrine so that if we ever ARE at that moment we've already had our dry runs.

 

[Loosedhorse]

the "Church of Cooper" and taking every word as holy writ

Agreed: I am far from a disciple. I have even questioned the Four Rules.

But Cooper would remain the authority on what he meant by the Color Code. And if we should beware of the "Church of Cooper", then we should be similarly wary of taking any other SD teacher's doctrine as unquestionable, too.

And we agree on the Yellow part!

 

[BullfrogKen]

Anyway . . . back to the original point of consideration.


If you stayed long enough to watch the fellow go get desert, you stayed there way too freakin' long. If you hadn't finished your meals yet, and decided you needed to remain to finish them, it would probably be a real good idea to move to another table. Preferably one close to an exit.

That conversation with the manager would be a perfect opportunity to move yourselves. You could even tell him you didn't want to make it look like it was your decision. Tell him to come out, announce to the table your waitress had ended her shift, and would you and your family move to another table . . . one far away from him.


It is much more difficult to involuntarily commit the mentally ill in the modern era. Used to be the state could commit someone if he posed a danger to himself or others. That is no longer true. You have no idea if he is or isn't. But we all need to know is that the population living in mental hospitals shrank considerably during the 70's and early 80's after the burden for proof for involuntarily commitment was raised to a higher standard.

Is he just someone with mental retardation, or is he a dangerous mentally ill person? You don't need to hang around to figure it out. You just need to know that the dangerously ill have much more personal liberty and freedom today, and he could be one of them.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Sounds like a guy I knew (not personally) when I was in college back in the 80's. A guy was a Vietnam Vet (according to the campus grapevine) and he wore a rice paddy hat around campus and hauled around half a dozen large jars of water with him along with his books in what I now know as some kind of ALICE pack. Everyday around lunch time he would sit down near the psych building (ironic, eh), take out the water and surround himself with the jars, sit cross legged and have his lunch - usually it was some weird smelling stuff from a tupperware. Nobody messed with him and he didn't mess with anyone else.

The thing is, most folks like that are pretty harmless...until they get agitated that is. So the best thing to do is leave 'em alone. Going back to the guy, kinda makes me wonder what hell he must have gone through.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I actually went to "condition red" this morning. My Mom has been in the hospital for a few days and is comming home in the morning. I stopped by her house this morning to feed the dogs and pick up a few things. I was in the back bedroom for a while when, for no apparant reason, a glass fell from a cabinet and smashed on the dining room floor. Within secons I had my knife open and had moved to concealment behind the door ready to ambush whoever came through it. No one did. After a while I realized that the dogs were not barking and no one could have come in without setting them off. I still don't know what mase that glass fall.

 

[Strykervet]

Well, that is the problem with threat color codes. Nobody agrees. Even the government ones don't work.

Sounds like the guy in the restaurant is just OCD. Maybe something else too, I'm not a doctor. I've seen a guy walking down the street in Capitol Hill Seattle that was carrying his grocery bags, looked normal, he was at least 6'4" and built, and he looked EXTREMELY ANGRY! He kept yelling about FBI and CIA trailing him, every other word would offend adults with baby ears, and all in all, he looked VERY dangerous. But he wasn't. He was just a guy with a mental illness dealing with it and living his life.

I've seen plenty of weird stuff. Like a guy in a store checking all the eggs (like in Clerks) and another that dresses as a baby, diaper, bonnet, bottle, no shirt or pants. He goes out in public like this and goes to parties and loves for the women to hold him and feed him a bottle. He falls right asleep. The guy is a NASA engineer on Redstone Arsenal. A pretty good one I understand (but this was ten or more years ago; based on his age then, I suspect he's still doing it). I saw a guy have a complete conversation with hungup public phone in Chicago, he got arrested because the phone got aggressive (at least that was how it looked to me) and a British guy in Holland that was in love with a fireplug. They were having a GREAT time.

All of it heightened my awareness, but none of it made me particularly nervous. Most folks that live in their own worlds don't invite others, it is the others you have to worry about. Strangers walking up to me in parking lots, innocently asking for a light, are much more of a concern to me than the guy doing odd stuff in public.