Most violent incidents are spontaneous in nature. That is, they result from social conflicts e.g., everyday interactions that have taken a turn for the worse. These can include specific things such as disputes over parking spaces or accidentally knocking into a person, and can be as vague as someone feeling that they have been disrespected in some way; a common motivation/theme concerning aggression amongst teenagers I worked with in London, though nobody could actually articulate what this meant. Through his research, the psychiatrist Heinz Kohut found that many of our psychological issues are the result of our reactions to attacks - whether real or perceived - on our self-esteem. Whilst Freud believed that aggression was innate (internal), Kohut saw aggression as being reactive (the result of external factors). In spontaneous situations, aggression is largely used in order to reduce a threat to a person’s self-respect. Most of these types of incidents, before they turn violent, are preceded by some form of verbal interaction, where the aggrieved/disrespected individual voices – sometimes loudly - their frustration(s) and the injustices etc. In many cases due to their emotional state, they lack any clear “goals” which would rectify the situation for them. When this is the case de-escalation can be a viable strategy. I have written before about the use of open-ended questions, giving people the opportunity to be wrong, and active-listening etc., however in this article I want to look at two general tactics that can be used to help de-escalate these types of incidents.

               The first thing to bear in mind when engaged in any form of de-escalation is to work from the assumption that it’s not going to be successful. Whilst engaging in a de-escalation process, you should at the same time be making yourself physically safer, and assessing the other person’s emotional state e.g., can they understand what you are saying and verbally respond; if they can’t there’s a good chance that the faculties they need to verbally communicate are shutting down and they are getting ready to act violently. Those who have become highly emotional due to a perceived/real injustice/frustration become caught up in the moment, and are unable to get past it e.g., one time during the COVID pandemic, due to someone’s extreme social distancing in a shopping line, I inadvertently took a place in front of them. As soon as they started shouting at me and pointing this out, I apologized for my mistake and moved behind them. For the next five minutes as we waited in line, every 10-15 seconds, they’d turn around and shout at me. When they got to the till, they then continued to voice their complaint to the person scanning their groceries. Even though the “injustice” had been addressed, they couldn’t emotionally get past the moment.

This was never a situation that was going to turn physical, i.e., they weren’t trying to get physically close to me (I was never in imminent danger) and having spent enough years on the door having people throw obscenities at me etc., I repeatedly acknowledged their complaint(s) and simply waited in line. If the situation had required a need for de-escalation, one of the general strategies I would have employed would have been “future talk”. The aim of “future talk” is to help move the person past the moment. This is one of the reasons why “What can I do to sort this out?” is such an effective statement. As well as forcing a person to start thinking of solutions and alternatives to violence, it helps move their thinking on and away from the moment to a future – better - time after the injustice/frustration that they’re currently experiencing. One of the “tools” that can be used in workplace settings when dealing with angry clients, such as a confused individual in a healthcare setting who is frustrated by the process they are having to go through etc., is to simply say “Let’s sit down and we can try and figure this out.” When Jimmy Hill was the managing director/chairman of Coventry City FC, he advocated for the club to eliminate standing areas and become an all-seater stadium. His argument was that people sitting down were less likely to engage in violence (this was in the 1970’s when English football was plagued by football hooligans). When people are able to stand, move around etc., it feeds into the fight-or-flight response. Using a phrase like “we can try to figure this out”, demonstrates empathy and also gets the person to think less about their present moment and more about the future.

Another thing that can be extremely useful is getting an emotional/aggressive person to say “yes”. When someone says “yes” they are agreeing with you on something, and it is far harder for them to hold an aggressive/violent attitude towards someone they are agreeing with. This is a tactic that is used in highly volatile barricade/hostage incidents e.g., a question such as “You must be extremely hungry can I send you some food?” is most likely to be met with a “yes” than a “no”. Once a person is in a “habit” of saying/responding “yes” it becomes far harder for them to start saying “no”. In my time working security dealing with aggressive individuals, I would sometimes ask an irrelevant question just to elicit a yes e.g., I’d say/ask, “Is it OK if I move to here? I’m hard of hearing in my left ear and I’ll be better able to understand what you’re saying if I’m standing here.” It’s a hard question to say no to, as doing so would be self-defeating; if I can’t hear you, I can’t solve your problem/issue.

Neither of these things i.e., engaging in “future talk” and/or getting a person to start saying “yes” will on their own de-escalate an aggressive/emotional and potentially violent situation, but they can be useful tactics to employ alongside more specific methods. Using questions to get someone to say “yes” should be used judiciously and be reserved for questions where saying “yes” is in the other person’s best interests and definitely doesn’t harm them. As soon as a person starts saying “no”, it becomes easier for them to keep saying “no”. No is often a simpler and easier response to yes. Yes, opens up possibilities, whereas no, is more defensive, and when it comes to dealing with a threat, more predictable i.e., you know the outcome of saying no to something, whereas you don’t know what saying yes to might lead to. However, when used judiciously, both tactics can be useful in de-escalating potentially dangerous situations.