"paranoid "

An optimist is a person who doesn't have all the facts. A pessimist is an optimist who does have all the facts. A cynic is a pessimist who has seen the facts in action. A paranoid is a cynic who has finally realized that the facts are after him.

What does watching TV make you do?

DOES HUGGING ON TV CAUSE VIOLENCE?

What does watching TV make you do?

Since we live in a violent society, we're constantly hearing arguments that seeing TV violence, particularly as kids, desensitises us so we accept real violence more off handedly maybe it even triggers real violence.

But TV also shows lots of hugging. The standard plot for most family sitcoms is;

(1) Problem causes family members to get mad at one another;

(2) Family members abuse each other in cute ways,

(3) All is forgiven by end of show and everybody hugs.

So television gives us a conflicting set of images: violence and hugging. Every popular medium has undergone the charge that it corrupts youth. The novel was attacked, then movies, radio, comics, rock and roll, and now TV, music videos, and rap.

The theory behind the attacks is always the same: if Johnny commits a crime, he's not responsible and his parents are not responsible: Something Else is responsible. The problem in this society isn't the easy availability of drugs, or guns, or pornography, or television, although all are scape goateed.

All are mere inanimate things: they do only what we have them do. All supposedly scientific studies on the subject of TV violence "causing" real violence are based on a theory of cause-and-effect that is contrary to humans having the capability of making responsible, moral choices. But we are volitional beings by nature: we choose what we do and what we make ourselves. You take two brothers from an identical lousy environment missing father, overworked mother, no money, rotten inner city neighbourhood.

One brother joins a gang and has committed his first murder within a couple of years. The other brother hides out from the gangs at the public library and learns to read out of boredom. Because of reading he manages to stay in school and takes a fast-food job while attending night college. Even if you postulate a deterministic model of human behaviour, comparing two specific phenomena in isolation tells us nothing useful.

How can you isolate one specific set of television images from the effects of the other available images? Further, how do you go inside the skulls of the people doing acts of violence and find out the actual causes, when even asking won't give you a sure answer?

Serial killer Ted Bundy claimed in a final death-row interview that reading pornography made him do it. But how did that screwed up psyche know what was cause and what was effect? It's just as likely that the same impulses that attracted him to pornography attracted him to violent acts, and there was a third (prior) cause.

Studies linking TV violence with real violence try to reduce human behaviour to stimulus and effect. It may work with rat psychology, but it doesn't work with human psychology. We aren't robots which are programmed.

We learn, choose what we focus upon, change our minds, ignore what we don't like or believe, focus on what we like and believe. If someone is prone to violence, then they will probably seek out and obtain violent images and if it isn't broadcast on TV, it will be sought and obtained otherwise. A mere statistical link between two phenomena TV and violence supposes a causal link which is unproven.

It's just as likely that TV violence, by providing a catharsis to those who would otherwise commit real violence, prevents real violence. Furthermore, TV violence is almost always part of a morality play. When criminals initiate violence on TV, cops use violence to make sure they don't get away with it. If TV drives home any lesson, it's that using violence for criminal purposes will bring you to a violent end. It's even more probable given that TV is demand driven that the increase in real violence is the cause of the increase of violence on TV.

The more violence there is in real life, the more reason there is to portray it on news and other "non-fiction" programs, and the more demand there is from violence interested individuals to see it portrayed. Showing that real violence causes TV violence is simple. But statistical correlations between any two particular phenomena, in the absence of a valid theory of human nature, prove so little that one could just as easily come up with a plausible sounding theory of how hugging on TV sitcoms causes real violence.

Try this on for size. Johnny is a latch-key kid whose father beat him every night before the age of five, then abandoned him and Johnny's mother. Johnny is left at home alone for hour upon hour, and watches TV. Johnny is fascinated by the TV sitcoms which show functional families. He watches them all: Family Ties, The Cosby Show, Roseanne, Who's the Boss?. Over and over again, young Johnny sees these families hugging each other. He watches these scenes of family hugging for years, and they have a cumulative effect.

When Johnny is eleven years old, he's in a sporting goods store at a mall, when he sees a son hug his father, who has just bought the son a new baseball bat. Johnny goes over to the baseball bats, picks out a nice heavy one, then goes over to the father and son and smashes the bat into the son's head, fracturing his skull and instantly killing him. Now, what conclusions do we want to draw from this incident?

(1) Hugging on TV causes senseless violence, and the networks should be subject to greater regulation by the Censorship board?

(2) Baseball bats are dangerous and should require a fifteen-day waiting period and background check before they are sold, and they should never be allowed to be sold to minors.

(3) Johnny committed the act of violence because he was jealous that another boy had a father who loved him, which Johnny never had.

The trigger for the incident of violence, and the particular tool Johnny used to commit it, are more or less random. This is the sort of question that might appear on your average test in verbal logic to get a job. But I wonder how many members of Parliament, or sociologists, or journalists or lobbyists against pornography, rock videos, guns and TV violence could pass such a test?

If there is any valid criticism of TV, it's the same one that can be brought against drugs: both can be distractions designed to dull the pain of living in a stupid, painful, and hope destroying society. TV, not religion, is today's opiate of the masses. If you want to change TV, change the desire of the viewing public from distraction to intellectual stimulation.

Or you can just change the channel.

"The Wolf"

In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us.

Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know that government is no longer the servant of the people, but, at last, has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed first the weak, then the strays, the those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the whole flock belonged to the wolf.

We did not care much about the weak or about the strays. They were not apart of the flock. We did not care much about those on the edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way toward the centre of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye.

That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong. That none of us have felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members within the flock. We rejoiced when the wolf destroyed them, for they were our enemies.

We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the blizzards to rustle our food,and we did not care when the wolf took them. We argued that they deserved it. When a brave one of our flock faced the wolf alone it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we were not afraid. Indeed, the wolf helped us by destroying the weak and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But we were eaten just the same."

THE WILL TO SURVIVE

THE WILL TO SURVIVE

Shots are fired! One offender is down, and three police officers are wounded. Another armed offender appears in the doorway, and two of the officers, stunned at the sight of their wounds, are unable to defend themselves. But, the third officer fights on, firing until the second subject is incapacitated.
This scenario could be an excerpt from a movie, but unfortunately, it is all too real. Each day, law enforcement officers across the Nation face life-and-death situations.

Can law enforcement officers encounter a life-threatening, violent confrontation and go home at the end of the day? Do they have the will to survive and fight on when faced with death? The answers to these questions go beyond combat tactics and accuracy with a weapon. One element is still missing: Survivability--the mental preparation and personal will to survive.

In 1991 the Operations Resource and Assessment Unit (ORAU) at the FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, USA, conducted a pilot study and sought expert opinions in order to identify the human attributes associated with survivability. This article will discuss the available background research and will review the FBI's findings.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

In the media, astronauts and pilots have often been referred to as having "the right stuff"--personality characteristics that would aid their survival in critical situations. In fact, as part of their ongoing research, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the University of Texas attempted to identify "right stuff" personality traits in pilot selection. As a result, the following two prominent personality orientations were linked with successful pilot behaviour under dangerous flying conditions:

(1) Goal-oriented behaviour, and (2) the capacity to empathize with others.
Combat psychiatry also offers insight into human performance under battle conditions. Research in this area has examined the causes and prevention of combat stress reaction (CSR) in relation to surviving life-threatening circumstances. CSR, sometimes referred to as "battle fatigue" prevents soldiers from fighting and may be theoretically viewed as behaviour that opposes survival.
Further research identified leadership, devotion to duty, decisiveness, and perseverance under stress as significant attributes. And, in his studies into the area of survivability, S.E. Hobfol states, "...counting your losses when preserving resources is fatal....". In essence, preoccupation with thoughts about loss may negatively affect one's capacity to survive a possibly lethal confrontation. Thus, merely avoiding thoughts associated with loss may enhance survivability.

This concept of preserving resources can be exemplified best through the comments of Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired). Hathcock is credited with 93 confirmed kills as a sniper during two combat tours in South Vietnam.

A soft-spoken, unassuming man of honour, Hathcock compared his behaviour just prior to and during an operation as isolating himself into an "invisible bubble". This state of mind would "block thoughts of physiological needs, home, family, etc., except the target". The amount of time in the "bubble," lasting from a few hours to several consecutive days, depended not only on the circumstances surrounding his objective but also on adjusting to conditions where a trivial mistake could cost him his life. As he reflected on his distinguished military career, Hathcock also mentioned a number of other attributes he considered necessary for survival. Among these were patience, discipline, and the ability to concentrate completely on a specific task.

THEORY

Cognitive/behavioural psychological theory offers insight into the benefits of mentally rehearsing possible reactions to life-threatening situations. According to one theory, developing a plan of action could enhance one's perception of effectiveness, and therefore, affect an officer's ability to survive. In fact, as A. Bandura states:

"People who believe they can exercise control over potential threats do not conjure up apprehensive cognitions and, therefore, are not perturbed by them....those who believe they cannot manage potential threats experience high levels of stress and anxiety arousal. They tend to dwell on their coping deficiencies and view many aspects of their environment as fraught with danger. Through some inefficacious thought they distress themselves and constrain and impair their level of functioning".

A classic example of cognitive rehearsal in law enforcement is provided by C.R. Skillen. According to Skillen, successful patrol officers imagine the best approach to emergencies that could occur during a tour of duty. They then decide upon the best and fastest route from one location to another, should the need arise. These Officers also imagine "what if" situations and develop effective responses in case a similar confrontation occurs.

This type of cognitive rehearsal activity has proven to be effective in relieving fears and in enhancing performance in stressful encounters. However, mental preparation can work against officers who believe that if shot, they will certainly die. When reinforced by appropriate training and one's value system, these attributes and behaviours may provide a law enforcement officer with the ability to survive a life-threatening situation.

FBI'S RESEARCH AND PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

Behaviour identified in the background research and theoretically linked to survivability was later summarized to develop a pilot study questionnaire. The FBI then distributed this questionnaire in late 1989 and early 1990 to a broad group of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers attending the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, USA. The questionnaire was also administered at work or training sites in Illinois and California. In all, a total of 207 questionnaires were administered and completed.

QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire asked respondents to rank various behaviours and traits, developed from background research. Not all the behaviours and traits are associated with law enforcement, but everyone has been linked to survival. Ranking ranged from little or no importance to extremely important. Law enforcement officers rated each factor in terms of its overall importance for effective performance in a short-term, violent law enforcement confrontation. Effective performance was defined as a violent confrontation that requires a lawful, combative response where the officer continued to function even though the final outcome could be death for the officer or adversary.

FINDINGS

Analyses of the pilot study data revealed the items listed below as those perceived to be most critical to officer survival. The items appear in order of importance, except for items (3) through (5), which are of equal value.

(1) Self-confidence in performance--The officer's belief that a critical task can be performed effectively with a high probability of success.

(2) Training--The officer's belief that prior training has been effective, and if applied, will increase the possibility of survival in deadly confrontations.

(3) Effectiveness in combat--The officer's mental frame of reference in which the officer can visualize victory in a deadly confrontation.

(4) Decisiveness--The Officer's ability to make rapid and accurate decisions when confronted with a critical situation.

(5) Perseverance under stress--The officer's ability to continue to perform critical tasks mentally and physically when confronted with stressful situations.

PSYCHOLOGY OF CONFRONTATION

There was a popular country song that talked about being a lover, not a fighter. And I think that's true for most people, including Police Officers. No one wants to hurt anybody. Police become hardened to street values over time, but it's not human nature.

Yet, the Police are told they have the authority and responsibility to do whatever is necessary to protect and to serve our citizenry.

During wartime, a soldier's mind is conditioned to hate the enemy. He's the one who gassed our men in the trenches, sank the hospital ships, torpedoed the ferry in Sydney harbour, blitzed Poland, bombed Pearl Harbor, crossed the 49th Parallel, and invaded those nice people in South Viet Nam.He set up concentration camps and death camps to slaughter the Jews, raped the women, killed the children, tortured prisoners, and committed all kinds of atrocities for which he deserves to DIE. But the soldier is either at home in a rear echelon or he's in the battlefield. He cant be in both at the same time. But for the policeman, the rear echelon is the battlefield.

You might pull over the little old lady who ran a red light and a few minutes later face a terrorist group robbing a bank with automatic weapons. The policeman is one minute a father figure and the next an "exterminator". What does that do to a cop's head? Andrew Casavant of the Midwest Tactical Training Institute in the USA has pondered this question, queried qualified psychiatrists and psychologists, let me share with you his consensus.

Mental perspective are critical to your surviving any confrontation. And these mental attitudes must be habitual, instinctive. All the physical skills in the world will be fruitless if your head is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Physical skills alone do not insure success.

There are a host of elements that insure your success in a confrontation, beyond the simple attributes of ability, power, speed, strength, balance, and reaction time. These elements are to be found in your mind. Merely knowing remembering, or attempting defensive control techniques will neither defuse an assault nor guarantee your personal protection. Mental conditioning is as necessary as the physical involvement.

According to Casavant. Violent confrontations require the participants to be involved both physically and mentally. You must react with both mind and body if you are to be effective. Without the mental involvement, the physical technique is less effective, or totally useless. If you aren't mentally prepared, you are as useless as the little old lady who knows nothing will ever happen to her.

Mental preparedness, mental conditioning, the mental trigger, it has been called many things. But what does it mean? The mentality that one needs to survive must begin at an early time and continue throughout training until the thoughts and subsequent actions become habitual even in combat.
How do you develop this mentality and maintain it? Of what importance is it in confrontational situation? Casavant's theory is that before you can become physically skilful in defensive control techniques, there must be a transition from "what was" to "what is".

"What was" is how one views his past experience and perspectives on use of force in dealing with physical assaults. Before you became a cop, your life experiences were hardly aggressive. Now, those experiences interfere with your new role as a law enforcer.

"What is" reflects the environment in which you now operate. The Marquis of Queensberry rules don't matter any more. There's no referee to count to ten. No umpire to confirm that was a strike. There isn't even a union arbitrator to negotiate your grievances. Once you accept the fact that no one is there to call the shots, to help out, you are well on the way to understanding what mental awareness is, and how it can enhance your physical skills. Even if help is by your side, they likely won't or cant do what needs to be done. You've got to take care of Number One: yourself.

What mentality is needed to insure your survival? Casavant has organised these attitudes in terms of what you face on the street.

ALERTNESS

Alertness is the overriding theme. If you're not ready when it's time to act, your skills won't help. Presume that you can and probably will be assaulted. You immediately assess the threat. That's part of awareness, an awareness of where you are in relation to all things in your environment.

It's a fact that most people are unaware of their surroundings. Why should you be any different? Yes, training and experience prepares you. That can give you an edge. But only if you recognise what you are up against. Jeff Cooper, a well-known combat shooting instructor in the United States came up with a colour code scheme that police trainers have adopted with fervour.

Colour Codes

1. WHITE: When you are home watching television, sleep-walking, totally unaware of your surroundings. Unfortunately, this is where most of the population spends its time. This is having the "victim" mentality, Casavant says; the "I cant believe it's happening to me" syndrome.

2. YELLOW: Now you are aware of your surroundings. You are relaxed but alert. You anticipate, rather than expect, something to happen. You are simply prepared.

3. ORANGE: Now you are aware of something specific in your surroundings that has caught your attention. Perhaps it will be a threat. You analyse the threat potential and potential risks to you and others.

4. RED: You are ready to do what needs to be done. You may decide to move in or back off, depending on the circumstance. But do you have a plan? If you don't, you'll probably lose, unless Lady Luck is sitting in your corner. If you do, your reaction will be quick and sure.

5. BLACK: You've got no choice. An assault is in progress. If you aren't mentally prepared, you PANIC. You must go from White (totally unaware) to Black (he shoots) in a fraction of a second. If you haven't followed the crucial self-training of always anticipating an attack, you add to the sad statistics. With anticipation comes preparedness. It is critical to your survival that your own attitude is to be prepared when your wildest anticipation comes true.

DECISIVENESS

Once you commit to a reaction to a threat, be decisive about it, Casavant says. Hesitation, when the situation calls for action, can be fatal. A mind cluttered with liability issues, department policies, and other such diversions, will cause hesitation when you need to ACT. Make up your mind about those "what if" things beforehand, so that your decision is already made when the situation arises. When you are called upon to act, you can. When the compliant "yes" person turns into a "maybe", then resists, he's a "no" person. You have to do something. Whatever you decide to do, DO IT.

AGGRESSIVENESS

You've decided to do it. so do it like you mean it. Be aggressive. You decide on a course of action-to apply a pain compliance technique, to use enough force to make it work. If you draw your baton, USE IT, hard-and properly. Don't pussyfoot around. End the confrontation with whatever force is necessary, as quickly as you can. This minimises the risks to all involved. But "aggressiveness" must be taught. It's not our human nature. And certainly not the nature of smaller statued male or petite female officers. You must learn to be assertive. That's part of defensive tactics training.

SPEED

To execute any defensive tactics technique, to gain the advantage of surprise, you must act quickly. Speed is essential. First, speed of thought. Don't stop to ask yourself if he really meant to swing that lead pipe at you. Quick thinking is as important as quick hands or feet. Without speed of thought actions are simply movements with no direction.

CALMNESS

Remaining cool and calm in any confrontation, both mentally and physically, is paramount to success. Through realistic training, you must learn to control your emotions through such sound physiological principles as adrenalin flow and respiration. When you are involved in defending yourself or others, the seriousness of the situation is under your control. If you can decide a confrontation quickly and without injury, you minimise the seriousness of the attack. Controlling yourself lets you control the situation before it gets out of hand or controls you.

RUTHLESSNESS

While it seems harsh, ruthlessness has a place in describing the mentality of a conflict. Ruthless means that we will win, and we will do whatever it takes to win, and survive. We will continue to fight, even if hurt, and we will never give up. When the situation calls for it, we will get "junkyard dog mean".
Ruthlessness is a state of mind that must be short lived. If you cant let go after the need for force is past, you're being brutal. Being ruthless. when you must be ruthless, gives you the spirit for combat.

SURPRISE

If you strike when least expected take your assailant down without warning, you gain the element of surprise. And that makes your technique even more effective.

PERSPECTIVE ON DEFENCE

The psychology of personal protection is neither sensational nor lackadaisical. It is as intense and as serious as your motivation for professionalism. it does not lie in peer attitudes or department requirements (if any). The responsibility is yours. Only you will determine your ability to respond to a threat. If you achieve the tactical transition of mind and body, of skill and psyche, you will succeed.

You will survive. Your desire to learn will determine your capacity for learning. If the class you attend is a "requirement", you might not get much out of it. If you recognise that the class may help you get home to your wife after work, you will benefit. Do you want to win and survive? Training is a small price to pay to develop the skills and habits that enable you to win and survive. The old adage that you will do under stress what you've trained to do is really not quite correct. You will probably perform much worse in a serious confrontation than you ever did in training. So, to survive a street confrontation, you need to continually exercise the skills you learned in class. And you can do it in your head.

MENTAL EXERCISES

Suppose that little old lady were to swing her umbrella at your head. What would you do? Imagine yourself doing what you need to do to parry her blow. Suppose someone leaped out from the dark corner with a gun in his hand. What would you do? Draw and shoot? Or dive for cover? and where is the cover?

If you can actually see yourself going through the motions of your newly learned techniques, it will improve your ability to respond quickly. While there's no substitute for good, hard, comprehensive physical practice, you still need the mental conditioning to enhance your response and keep you alert in more mundane circumstances.

Mental conditioning requires you to practice in as realistic a situation as possible. Draw on your own experience, or that of others, as scenarios for mental exercises.

The one emotion you can t conceive is the one that makes the greatest difference in a real threat FEAR. Unlike fights on television, real confrontations aren't logical, patterned, give-and-take brawls. They are a flurry of hitting and screaming, kicking and shoving. You must mentally train for the attack that is certain to be sudden, vicious, and perhaps overwhelming.

KINDS OF REACTIONS

Confrontational opponents can be categorised by their way of thinking. So can we. The bully is mechanical. He intimidates by brute strength. But the guy who thinks about what he's doing is intellectual. He's unpredictable. When someone grabs the gun on your right hip, handgun retention might teach you to secure the gun in the holster with your left hand, cock your right arm and CHOP to the rear as you turn to the right. That gets the offender's hand off your gun fast.

However you could turn to the left instead, the grabber's hand would have forced the trigger guard back under the shroud retaining the gun, as the Officer's left forearm delivered a blow to the offender's head. Now I'm not saying one procedure is better than the other. Both can be correct. The one that works is the right one. While you must repeat the mechanical routines time and again to make them habitual, you must never hesitate to change your strategy to accommodate the situation. Situations aren't scripted, they develop minute to minute, in an infinite variety. If you practised parrying the pipe swung by a right hander, you'd better be flexible enough to switch if the offender is left handed.

PLAN

When a situation first presents itself, your mental conditioning is anticipating the subject's first move and planning a countermove by positioning, blocking, or attacking. Your mind runs like a machine gun, thinking of all the possible moves he might make and how you would respond. But what do you do next?

Focusing on the most probable attack he might make, you counter; and then you should be thinking two or three steps ahead so you have an alternative, should your first attempt fail.

The prevailing mentality today is much as it is portrayed in cowboy movies. The marshal waits for the bad guy to draw first. We wait to be attacked before we can defend. If this person is challenging us and threatens a grievous assault, why wait? Surprise him. Gain the initiative and prevent his assault. It might convince him his challenge was a bad idea. If it doesn't, you've got him at a disadvantage.

You've taken the initiative away from him. You've let him know that you have the advantage. Make him realise the risk to HIM of pursuing his aggressive behaviour. Human behaviourists call it "risk aversion". When someone recognises the high risk of doing something, he avoids doing it.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of all this is for you to realise that violent confrontations and personal defence can involve more than just the physical element. You need a mental awareness of every aspect. Training, applied successfully in real life, builds confidence and confidence enhances your ability to handle whatever challenge is put to you by an adversary.

DISCUSSION

The concept of survivability represents a dynamic set of behaviours that should be considered in relation to certain law enforcement environments. Life-threatening events associated with uniformed patrol, undercover operations, SPG operations, hostage response and other specific hazardous law enforcement missions, require personnel who can survive the virulent stressors associated with these unique operations.

Self-confidence in performance, training, effectiveness in combat, decisiveness, and perseverance under stress were identified in this pilot study as tantamount to law enforcement officer survival. Officers should be offered the chance to undertake further training focusing on the five behaviours mentioned previously that are most often associated with survivability.

It is hoped that law enforcement officers who have been exposed to such training opportunities will increase their potential for survival in life-or-death situations. Only through proper training in behaviours that ensure survival can law enforcement prepare to meet the anticipated occupational challenges of the future.

Part of the Departments responsibilities can also be addressed by ensuring all Officers have confidence in their equipment (firearms) and suitable training to go with along with it.