People are these days generally unfamiliar with violence, certainly the
actualities of violence, as in
their day to day lives they have no contact with it, at least in the higher end physical format. They generally therefore base the "knowledge" upon the fantasy that is sold to us in movies or the modified versions in combat sports.
Often when teaching or working on a production, when I ask what the objective or Intent is, I receive the answer, "They want to kill so and so". Sometimes this is true but more often it is not and I will address some reasons below. Even if the outcome is that someone dies, that of itself does not mean that the Intent from the beginning was to kill. More often than not a death is a side effect, accepted or unforeseen of attempting to achieve other outcomes through the application of violence.
Sometimes I will get answer, "no they don't want to kill". While in these circumstances the answer is generally right, the person doesn't really know why, they can't explain it clearly. Again what is listed below is an attempt to give some parameters to these questions.
As I have mentioned in other posts human use aggression, the threat of violence, and violence for many reasons, and will often go to great ,lengths to avoid it, even if it is the best or only solution to the situation they find themselves in.
What follows was inspired by Marc MacYoung , and my thanks go to him in this for putting a frame work that I could build upon, ideas that I have been expressing for years.
While an easy claim to make if one has been on receiving of a violent act, in all likelihood they were not intending to kill you. For that claim to have real justification at least of or more of the following six outcomes need to be true
The Six Possible Outcomes
The most likely outcome of someone actually trying to kill you is,
-1.You die.
People whose Intent is to kill will generally need to be in an extreme state of emotional arousal, so they are likely to act forcefully and aggressively. Even without the emotional state, in fact it is more likely with out the emotional state, the would be killer will have done al they can to stack the odds in their favour to insure they succeed. In these cases you are unlikely to know they Intend to kill you before it is too late or you will think that you are involved in some other form of lower level social violence or activity,until it too late to do much about, In these cases the person it likely to be dead or dying before they realise that is what is happening
The second possible outcome is
-2. You end up in the hospital or similar
This will be along time of being tended, weeks or months. If medical treatment allows in the time period, then it is likely that some form of extensive surgery would have been needed. In the days prior to antibiotics this where more people would die than as an immediate result of the actual violence. However people did survive extreme wounds
The third option is someone - usually the person on the receiving end of the attack,
-3. Ran away.
Logically there is no adverse effect to the this option, and it is a good and long lasting survival tactic, It is basically the Flight as opposed to the Fight, which will only kick in if the Flight response is not an option . The earlier one applies this tactic generally the better. As we say, running away is the easiest and cheapest martial art to learn. However many people leave it to late and by the time they decide to run they can't. We also have to consider that historically the option to run would mark one as a coward or dishonourable and the sense of self that this engendered could lead people to override their survival instincts
The Fourth option
-4. You attack back with equal force, you "Fight".
Using same or similar weapons you attack back, generally the involvement of weapons is a prime indicator that death/killing is a accepted possibility. If you raise the stakes and produce a weapon to counter theirs, which may just be a threat display, you have brought the situation closer to being a deadly encounter. However the flip side is, if they did intend to kill you this and the next two options have a good chance of inducing the flight (running) response in an attacker.
One needs to understand that most would-be killer have the intent for you to die. They are generally not willing to die themselves themselves This is why countering with what they are trying to do to you is a good game changer.
In effect what we are talking about here is fighting back, you are doing something but not really enough given the situation, though something is better than nothing
The fifth option is you
-5. Retaliate with such ferocity that the other person is injured, killed or runs away.
This is not fighting, this is counter assault or counter ambush. Here you have gone in to Full FIGHT mode, and are responding with a greater level of violence or aggression and rage than the attacker. Your Intent, concious or not has become to kill your attacker as well. Even if you do not succeed in actually killing them, they stop because they have taken sufficient damage to render them incapable of continuing. Normally however most would-be murderers will not wait that long. When suddenly faced with the same options they gave you, death or hospitalization or running, the would-be killer opts for running away or giving up, if they can when they have decided they have taken enough damage.
The sixth option is
-6. Someone else intervenes.
This intervention on their behalf or yours changes the dynamic and the power in the situation and results in some combination of options 1-5 listed above happening to you or your attacker. The intervention can be by more than one person. People may intervene in other acts of violence, but normally once the main act of violence is over. When it is clear the Intent is to kill people will often intervene because part of our hard wiring realises that killing, is bad and seeks to stop it.
While it is easy -- and it may seem dramatic -- to decide that the Intention was to kill it is very rarely the case. However if any combination of these six options, were not the results then person person was not trying to kill. It should also be borne in mind that in the performance, one can not play the Intention to kill as that becomes dangerous to the performers
We say this no matter what the target, or witnesses may claim after the fact. Be careful;
-What your (the performer) emotional brain tells you.
-What someone claims, a character in play or an actor, director or fight director
-What a fear monger tries to convince you. That is someone who does not understand violence or who has a specific agenda that rests on an over inflating the terrible nature of violence
If the six outcomes were not in play then the Intent to kill was not there.
So be careful of using information from later in the story to give insight into the attackers motivation, unless it was the attacker themselves. Rather apply the list.
Be aware. It is extremely common that someone may engage in life-threatening behaviour such as a brandishing a weapon or beating someone severely. The fact is that the person is not trying to kill you, as if that was their Intent they would have used these things to kill you. It is common for someone to do something that can cause extreme harm or even to be deadly, without the intention to kill. This is especially true with threat displays (which I will have to write a post about) and certainly when fighting with weapons was accepted or common place and when society accepted "duelling" with weapons as a way to solve differences and challenges to status and or dominance, in effect armed and formalised Monkey Dancing.
A good way to tell the difference between a threat display and a real Intent to kill is the number of times the behaviour/action is repeated. One wildly aimed shot with a firearm is different than someone clearly and deliberately aiming the gun at you and pulling the trigger repeatedly. Or someone swing a weapon a sword or weapon at you wildly or out of distance and closing purposely and cutting or stabbing repeatedly without pause. With the later options, sooner or later, it will change from being shot or stabbed/cut at to being shot, stabbed or cut. If the person means to kill you, they will in all likelihood keep shooting, stabbing or cut and will continue to do so multiple times and direct the attacks at vital parts of the body.
People with the clear Intent to kill usually will not stop until;
They've succeeded,
They believe they have succeeded or
The danger to them becomes too great to continue.
So next time you watch or read a scene where there is violence, consider the characters Intent, and ask yourself was it really to kill!?
their day to day lives they have no contact with it, at least in the higher end physical format. They generally therefore base the "knowledge" upon the fantasy that is sold to us in movies or the modified versions in combat sports.
Often when teaching or working on a production, when I ask what the objective or Intent is, I receive the answer, "They want to kill so and so". Sometimes this is true but more often it is not and I will address some reasons below. Even if the outcome is that someone dies, that of itself does not mean that the Intent from the beginning was to kill. More often than not a death is a side effect, accepted or unforeseen of attempting to achieve other outcomes through the application of violence.
Sometimes I will get answer, "no they don't want to kill". While in these circumstances the answer is generally right, the person doesn't really know why, they can't explain it clearly. Again what is listed below is an attempt to give some parameters to these questions.
As I have mentioned in other posts human use aggression, the threat of violence, and violence for many reasons, and will often go to great ,lengths to avoid it, even if it is the best or only solution to the situation they find themselves in.
What follows was inspired by Marc MacYoung , and my thanks go to him in this for putting a frame work that I could build upon, ideas that I have been expressing for years.
While an easy claim to make if one has been on receiving of a violent act, in all likelihood they were not intending to kill you. For that claim to have real justification at least of or more of the following six outcomes need to be true
The Six Possible Outcomes
The most likely outcome of someone actually trying to kill you is,
-1.You die.
People whose Intent is to kill will generally need to be in an extreme state of emotional arousal, so they are likely to act forcefully and aggressively. Even without the emotional state, in fact it is more likely with out the emotional state, the would be killer will have done al they can to stack the odds in their favour to insure they succeed. In these cases you are unlikely to know they Intend to kill you before it is too late or you will think that you are involved in some other form of lower level social violence or activity,until it too late to do much about, In these cases the person it likely to be dead or dying before they realise that is what is happening
The second possible outcome is
-2. You end up in the hospital or similar
This will be along time of being tended, weeks or months. If medical treatment allows in the time period, then it is likely that some form of extensive surgery would have been needed. In the days prior to antibiotics this where more people would die than as an immediate result of the actual violence. However people did survive extreme wounds
The third option is someone - usually the person on the receiving end of the attack,
-3. Ran away.
Logically there is no adverse effect to the this option, and it is a good and long lasting survival tactic, It is basically the Flight as opposed to the Fight, which will only kick in if the Flight response is not an option . The earlier one applies this tactic generally the better. As we say, running away is the easiest and cheapest martial art to learn. However many people leave it to late and by the time they decide to run they can't. We also have to consider that historically the option to run would mark one as a coward or dishonourable and the sense of self that this engendered could lead people to override their survival instincts
The Fourth option
-4. You attack back with equal force, you "Fight".
Using same or similar weapons you attack back, generally the involvement of weapons is a prime indicator that death/killing is a accepted possibility. If you raise the stakes and produce a weapon to counter theirs, which may just be a threat display, you have brought the situation closer to being a deadly encounter. However the flip side is, if they did intend to kill you this and the next two options have a good chance of inducing the flight (running) response in an attacker.
One needs to understand that most would-be killer have the intent for you to die. They are generally not willing to die themselves themselves This is why countering with what they are trying to do to you is a good game changer.
In effect what we are talking about here is fighting back, you are doing something but not really enough given the situation, though something is better than nothing
The fifth option is you
-5. Retaliate with such ferocity that the other person is injured, killed or runs away.
This is not fighting, this is counter assault or counter ambush. Here you have gone in to Full FIGHT mode, and are responding with a greater level of violence or aggression and rage than the attacker. Your Intent, concious or not has become to kill your attacker as well. Even if you do not succeed in actually killing them, they stop because they have taken sufficient damage to render them incapable of continuing. Normally however most would-be murderers will not wait that long. When suddenly faced with the same options they gave you, death or hospitalization or running, the would-be killer opts for running away or giving up, if they can when they have decided they have taken enough damage.
The sixth option is
-6. Someone else intervenes.
This intervention on their behalf or yours changes the dynamic and the power in the situation and results in some combination of options 1-5 listed above happening to you or your attacker. The intervention can be by more than one person. People may intervene in other acts of violence, but normally once the main act of violence is over. When it is clear the Intent is to kill people will often intervene because part of our hard wiring realises that killing, is bad and seeks to stop it.
While it is easy -- and it may seem dramatic -- to decide that the Intention was to kill it is very rarely the case. However if any combination of these six options, were not the results then person person was not trying to kill. It should also be borne in mind that in the performance, one can not play the Intention to kill as that becomes dangerous to the performers
We say this no matter what the target, or witnesses may claim after the fact. Be careful;
-What your (the performer) emotional brain tells you.
-What someone claims, a character in play or an actor, director or fight director
-What a fear monger tries to convince you. That is someone who does not understand violence or who has a specific agenda that rests on an over inflating the terrible nature of violence
If the six outcomes were not in play then the Intent to kill was not there.
So be careful of using information from later in the story to give insight into the attackers motivation, unless it was the attacker themselves. Rather apply the list.
Be aware. It is extremely common that someone may engage in life-threatening behaviour such as a brandishing a weapon or beating someone severely. The fact is that the person is not trying to kill you, as if that was their Intent they would have used these things to kill you. It is common for someone to do something that can cause extreme harm or even to be deadly, without the intention to kill. This is especially true with threat displays (which I will have to write a post about) and certainly when fighting with weapons was accepted or common place and when society accepted "duelling" with weapons as a way to solve differences and challenges to status and or dominance, in effect armed and formalised Monkey Dancing.
A good way to tell the difference between a threat display and a real Intent to kill is the number of times the behaviour/action is repeated. One wildly aimed shot with a firearm is different than someone clearly and deliberately aiming the gun at you and pulling the trigger repeatedly. Or someone swing a weapon a sword or weapon at you wildly or out of distance and closing purposely and cutting or stabbing repeatedly without pause. With the later options, sooner or later, it will change from being shot or stabbed/cut at to being shot, stabbed or cut. If the person means to kill you, they will in all likelihood keep shooting, stabbing or cut and will continue to do so multiple times and direct the attacks at vital parts of the body.
People with the clear Intent to kill usually will not stop until;
They've succeeded,
They believe they have succeeded or
The danger to them becomes too great to continue.
So next time you watch or read a scene where there is violence, consider the characters Intent, and ask yourself was it really to kill!?
No comments:
Post a Comment