How to Avoid Bar Fights by Ken Cook

The best way to avoid bar fights is to avoid bars entirely.

There are at least four great reasons for doing this.

1. Liquor is cheaper at home.
2. You don't have to drive home if you're already there.
3. Most people are swinish louts at the best of times. Adding alcohol doesn't help.
4. The carrying of arms in bars is illegal almost everywhere.

But if you find yourself in a bar and find yourself confronted by someone absolutely determined to get in a fight with you, "Verbal Jiu Jitsu" might work.

Might. In my younger years, I got in several altercations that I tried mightily to avoid using just the techniques shown above. One of them for no more reason than I won a game of pool the other fellow had expected to win himself. There were no stakes on the game but that did nothing to dissuade him from trying to fracture my skull with his pool cue.

He was drunk, I wasn't, and the bouncer knew me. After the altercation he came up to me and said, "Hey man, you'd better split, that girl who just walked out is using the pay phone (Yeah, I know, I'm dating myself) to call the cops."

"How do you know?" I asked.

He told me, "Because the bartender wouldn't let her use the bar phone to do it."

So, lessons learned?

• If you MUST drink in a bar, realize you are at risk no matter how nicely you behave.
• Be unfailingly nice anyway.
• Drink only in moderation. You may need your motor skills.
• Always be on good terms with the bartender and the bouncer!
• Always leave the instant an employee suggests it. It's in your own best interest.

---

WORDCOUNT

(This section I will not add towards November's tally as well as the header picture I used above... I will only use hand-drawn pictures or animated GIFs I've created towards Nov's totals):

This post: 289 words
November running tally: 42,587 words
Words left:  7,413

Read More

Verbal Judo's 5 Universal Truths for Home and Street

5 'Universal Truths' for home and street

Submitted by: Chuck Remsberg

Most cops are reluctant to bring the street home with them when they go off duty, but PoliceOne trainer Gary Klugiewicz believes there are certain rules of the street that you should post prominently on your family refrigerator, just as he has done.

These are what he calls the “Five Universal Truths” for interacting successfully with suspects, victims, and witnesses on the job — and with the occupants of your own household and others you encounter in your personal life.

First articulated by the late Dr. George Thompson — founder of the Verbal Judo Institute — “these principles are a powerful tool to help protect you on the street by making you more effective in de-escalating volatile confrontations, reducing complaints, and increasing compliance, cooperation, and collaboration,” Klugiewicz says.

“And they’ll make you more persuasive and influential in preventing or resolving conflicts off-duty as well, because they reflect the ways that all people like to be treated, regardless of their status or circumstances.”
Klugiewicz explained the concept during an officer safety/conflict resolution presentation at the annual ILEETA training conference earlier this year and elaborated on it during a recent interview. He is the director of the PoliceOne Training Network and teaches about Universal Truths in the Verbal Defense & Influence Training Program, the revised, updated, and expanded version of Thompson’s internationally acclaimed Verbal Judo course.

Here’s how he describes the truths that, recognized and used skillfully, can give you the edge in person-to-person interactions.


1) All people want to be treated with dignity and respect.


 “Many officer assaults occur in situations where people perceive that they’ve been treated disrespectfully, through taunting, belittlement, abusive language, unnecessarily rough handling, and so on,” Klugiewicz says. “Regardless of race, gender, age, social standing, or cultural background, people behave differently when they feel they’ve been disrespected, and that behavior generally won’t be to your advantage.

“In some situations, suspects may be so dangerous or disruptive that words are not appropriate and you may have to take immediate physical action against them—they need to get knocked down. But afterwards, respectful treatment—helping them up, brushing them off—can help you calm them and keep them under control.” In other words, “you’re nice until it’s time not to be nice, and afterward you’re nice again.”
The first Universal Truth — treating people with dignity and respect — is unconditional in all situations, Klugiewicz emphasizes. As for the other four truths, you act in harmony with them “whenever you can. And that depends on whether it seems safe for you to do so, based on your reasonable perception of threat.”


2) All people want to be asked rather than told to do something.  


“A request is much more palatable than an order,” Klugiewicz says. “The subject saves face by appearing to make his own decision to comply rather than being pushed around and forced against his will. Commands often set up an escalation of conflict. Not only the words are different, the voice tone and facial appearance tend to be different too and they send a whole different message.”


3) All people want to be told why they are being asked to do something. 


If a subject questions the reason for your request, “Because I said so” is not a useful answer, Klugiewicz says. “That only tends to deepen resistance. You may need to explain the law and the purpose behind the law, but your tone of voice needs to be matter of fact—devoid of emotion. You are merely explaining the rule, policy, or law that justifies your request. An angry response is evidence that you’re losing control.”


4.) All people want to be given options rather than threats. 


“If verbal resistance continues, now you need to move into salesmanship. You need to “sell” why they should comply with your request or direction. Start with the good options—what they’ll gain by cooperating with you. Then if necessary, move into negative options, like going to jail if they don’t comply. And end with a positive twist (‘But I don’t want that to happen’), which allows you to remind them of the possible positive resolution if they comply.

“People generally have their self-interest at heart. We all listen to radio station WII-FM — What’s In It for Me. Use the Greed Principle: If someone has something to gain or lose in a situation, you have something to work with.”


5) All people want a second chance.  


If things appear to be headed unalterably toward your telling a subject what to do and backing it up with assertive action, give him/her one last opportunity to comply if that’s safely possible. Maintaining a collaborative tone, ask whether there’s “anything I can say at this time” to gain cooperation, repeating “in very specific terms” what you want the person to do.

“If you can’t persuade them to cooperate, this confirms their noncompliance and justifies your taking whatever action is appropriate,” Klugiewicz says.

The Five Universal Truths don’t require extensive conversation or argument; “You can move very quickly through them,” Klugiewicz explains. Even if the dialog ultimately proves ineffective, “you look good doing it.” And in today’s ultra-transparent world of cell phone cameras and media saturation, that can be vitally important in justifying your enforcement actions.

“If you don’t want to end up on YouTube, act professionally. Where officers tend to go off the rails of decency and common sense,” he says, “is that they make the mistake of treating people in the same disrespectful ways that people sometimes treat them. That only makes things worse.”

The same mistakes that heighten conflict on the street can heighten it at home, he says. That’s why he has posted the 5 Universal Truths on the refrigerator in his kitchen. “It’s a reminder to the whole family that respect benefits everyone by producing much better results.”

For more information on Verbal Defense & Influence training, contact Gary Klugiewicz at: gtKlugiewicz@cs.com.

Copied from http://www.policeone.com/

---

Some Verbal Judo related articles I've archived to this site:

• THE WISDOM OF ... Dr. George Thompson (creator of Verbal Judo)
• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 1
• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 2
• Talking the talk of peace: The Peace Warrior
• Using tactical communication effectively
• Verbal Judo: Diffusing Conflict Through Conversation

Read More

THE WISDOM OF ... Dr. George Thompson (creator of Verbal Judo)

Dr. George Thompson created Verbal Judo to teach LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) how to tactically communicate with civilians. One need not be a LEO to use Verbal Judo to one's advantage.

Many arguments are a result of any (and all) of the 5 universal truths not being observed. Think about how a LEO may speak to you and your first reaction. Suppose an officer made you feel inferior to him/her and showed no respect to you? How would that make you feel? Odds are you would take offense.

Suppose it's you talking to someone that worked for you or reports to you. Suppose it's you talking to your loved one or child? Suppose you are a teacher talking to your student? Now turn the tables around:  suppose you are the child that the parent is talking to? Or the student that the teacher is talking to? Or the spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend? Or the subordinate being spoken to by their manager/superior?

Run through Dr. Thompson's 5 Universal Truths of Human Interaction and see how it can help you as well as the person you are speaking to.

There is a lot of wisdom in the 5 Universal Truths! Read on for the wisdom of Dr. Thompson.

Hope these help you on your sojourn of septillion steps!

---

The 5 Universal Truths of Human Interaction

Dr. George Thompson explains the five universal truths of human interaction which remain true across the board, regardless of cultural background, gender, etc. People feel the need to be respected (Unconditional respect and dignity.) People would rather be asked than be told (Asked to do something, not told.) People have a desire to know why (Told Why.) People prefer to have options over threats (Options given instead of threats.) People want to have a second chance

---

Some of Dr. Thompson's Verbal Judo articles I've archived to this site:

• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 1
• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 2
• Talking the talk of peace: The Peace Warrior
• Using tactical communication effectively
• Verbal Judo: Diffusing Conflict Through Conversation

---

For related entries in this series, please check out:

• THE WISDOM OF ...

Read More

Dr. George Thompson - The Use of Deadly Force

George Thompson, Ph.D., Verbal Judo Institute

How much is too much? The key is always REASONABLE force. You are allowed to use that force which is considered reasonable for the situation you are faced with. That reason is based upon the reasonable person theory. What would a reasonable person in the same situation do? Not a person out of control, trying to kill everyone, but a reasonable person.

I have included a training outline from a department on the use of Deadly Force. I hope this helps.

THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

In order to justify the use of deadly force two requirements must be present. Those two requirements are imminent danger and preclusion. Imminent danger consists of the following four elements: intent, means, opportunity, and ability. Preclusion represents that all other reasonable options have been exhausted or inappropriate.

To establish imminent danger all four of the elements that make up imminent danger must be present. If one element is missing, imminent danger does not exist. Without imminent danger the need to justify preclusion does not exist, and deadly force is not justifiable. In determining whether or not deadly force is justified, the first step is to determine if imminent danger exists.

Elements of Imminent Danger:

• Intent
• Means
• Opportunity
• Ability

Elements Defined:

• Intent can be defined as an attacker’s apparent desire to cause great bodily injury or death.
• Means can be defined as the device used by the attacker to cause great bodily injury or death.
• Opportunity can be defined as the attacker’s opportunity to use the means to cause great bodily injury of death.
• Ability can be defined as the attacker’s ability to use the means to cause great bodily injury or death.

When all four elements of imminent danger are present then one of two requirements has been established for the use of deadly force. The second and final requirement needed to justify the use of deadly force is that all other reasonable options have been exhausted or inappropriate. This requirement is defined as preclusion.

Elements of Preclusion: 

• All other options have been exhausted, ineffective, or are inappropriate

Elements Defined: 
 
The elements of preclusion are departmental specific and determined by your department’s use of force continuum and availability or resources. 

Imminent Danger Examples: 

To further explain the elements of imminent danger consider the following:

The attacker’s intent can be expressed through words like, “I’m going to kill you,” or through actions like pointing a gun or knife at you or another person.

The means an attacker uses to cause great bodily harm or death can be an easily identifiable weapon like a knife or gun, but in reality, can be any instrument capable of causing great bodily injury or death. A brick, large rock, tire iron, screwdriver, and so on are all instruments that can be used as a deadly weapon.

Opportunity refers to the attacker’s opportunity to use the means to cause great bodily harm or death. The attacker could easily close a 12 foot distance and stab you with a knife or screwdriver. So, the opportunity is there for them to use the means to carry out the threat. However, if the attacker was 45 feet a way holding a knife in their hand or the two of you were separated by an 8 foot wall, the opportunity for them to use the means to carry out the act would not be present.

The ability refers to the attacker’s ability to use the means to carry out the threat. Let’s say the attacker is standing 6 feet in front of you with a tire iron in their hand and threatens to kill you with it. You have intent (threats to kill), means (tire iron), and opportunity (6 feet away), but the attacker is only 7 years old and 45lbs.

Based upon this example, the attacker does not have the physical ability to use the weapon to the point where they could cause great bodily injury or death. Ability is missing, so imminent danger does not exist.

Let’s say everything was the same, but the attacker is 30 years old, 5’10” and 180lbs, making him physically able to use the tire iron in a capacity that could cause great bodily injury or death. With all four elements present imminent danger would be established. If you take away anyone of the elements, remember, you do not have imminent danger.

Imminent danger by itself is not enough to justify the use of deadly force. You must also establish preclusion which amounts to showing that all other reasonable options have been exhausted or inappropriate.

You walk up to the scene of a domestic violence call. As you near the residence the front door fly’s open and a 25 year old man of average size rushes from the doorway right at you. The man is holding a large kitchen knife in his right hand and says, “Not you bastards again!” You draw your firearm as he closes the distance and you fire until the attacker is no longer a threat.

Your decision to shoot was justified since all the elements of imminent danger were present and you had no other reasonable options based upon your force continuum. Since a knife is a deadly weapon comparable to a firearm, and we do not go down the force continuum but a level higher, the use of your firearm would be the appropriate response. As far as options, your only real options in a situation like this besides firing your weapon would be to run or drop to the ground. Since both of these options expose you to danger they are not appropriate. The use of deadly force is justifiable.

Imminent Danger without Preclusion: 

An example of where you can have imminent danger but not be justified in using deadly force is as follows:

You stop your patrol car near a vacant warehouse in a secluded area of the city. You hear a gunshot and feel something hit your car. You see a man holding a hand gun standing on the second story balcony approximately 50 feet from you. The person yells, “I hate the police,”

You have imminent danger. The attacker’s words, plus his actions equal intent. His weapon is the means. The round hitting your car demonstrates that you are within his kill zone, so he has the opportunity to shoot you. The attacker demonstrated he could pull the trigger of the weapon, so they have the ability to use the means.

As you position yourself to return fire, the attacker walks back into the building through an open doorway and closes the door. You immediately move to the side of a brick building for cover. Although you have imminent danger, you may not have preclusion. If your place of cover adequately protects you from harm, you now have other options available.

A situation like this is commonly referred to as a barricaded suspect. So, if no one else is at risk and you have secure place of cover that protects you, a situation like this would lead to a perimeter, HNT, and Entry Team call out. If you shot into the building and by chance killed the attacker, the courts would discuss whether or not you exhausted all other options. In this case you will be hard-pressed to show you did.

In order to justify the use of deadly force, the courts have concluded both imminent danger and preclusion must be present. In a deadly force situation all four elements of imminent danger must be present to constitute imminent danger. Minus any of the elements, imminent danger does not exist. Imminent danger by itself is also not enough. Preclusion must be established to complete the requirements to justify the use of deadly force.

Reference:
George Thompson, Ph.D., Verbal Judo Institute, Instructor’s Course (2000), West Sacramento Police Department

---

NOTES:

My sincerest appreciation to Guro Ben Fajardo for the share.

---

Some of Dr. Thompson's Verbal Judo articles I've archived to this site:

• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 1
• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 2
• Talking the talk of peace: The Peace Warrior
• Using tactical communication effectively
• Verbal Judo: Diffusing Conflict Through Conversation (video)

Read More

Verbal Judo: Diffusing Conflict Through Conversation

Please check out this video clip of Dr. George Thompson speaking about Verbal Judo/Tactical Language at the Columbia Business School. It is 91 mins 12 seconds long.

Academic-turned-cop and best-selling author George Doc Thompson describes how tactical language allows leaders to achieve their goals. Daniel Ames, the Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Associate Professor of Leadership and Ethics, confirms that managing conflict is a critical predictor of leadership success and shows how what works in the streets converges with recent findings in social science. The workshop was part of the Program on Social Intelligences Science Meets Practice series, which pairs hands-on leadership training with breaking insights in psychology research.

 

Some of Dr. Thompson's Verbal Judo articles I've archived to this site:

• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 1
• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 2
• Talking the talk of peace: The Peace Warrior
• Using tactical communication effectively

Read More

IN MEMORY OF: Dr. George Thompson ( - June 7, 2011)

Two years ago today marks the passing of Dr. George Thompson. His contribution to Law Enforcement (as well as to anyone who needs to speak to people) cannot be overstated enough. He created Verbal Judo which essentially is a blueprint on how Law Enforcement should speak to the general public. I'm not Law Enforcement nor know anyone personally, but his Verbal Judo book/teachings has opened a new dimension for my Self-Defense thinking as well as my day-to-day life,

AUBURN, N.Y. — Dr. George Thompson, the English professor-turned-street-cop who ultimately taught one million professionals the art of verbally redirecting negative behavior, passed away June 7 at his home in Auburn, New York. He was 69.

Here at PoliceOne, Doc Thompson contributed columns for many years, beginning in 2005. He helped our community examine how conscious communication impacts the job. He regularly contributed tactical tips, too, and had us thinking about human interaction as a tool for police.

Dr. Thompson was affectionally called “Doc” by the professionals he trained in his methodology of Verbal Judo. To develop his tactics, he would watch police officers participate in real-time crisis situations and observe strategies for talking down violence.

Using what he observed from the “salty old dogs,” as he liked to call the LEOs, he assembled a legion of global trainers who brought the lessons to police forces. He trained departments large and small, including the NYPD and LAPD. He also worked with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Private enterprises outside of law enforcement have been trained in his methodology, too, in order to protect employees from verbal assault and physical violence. Verbal conflict mitigation can be applied to harassment and bullying in general as well as the issues that are more specific to police.

Dr. Thompson held a B.A. from Colgate University and a Master’s and Doctorate in English from the University of Connecticut. He completed post-doctoral work at Princeton University in Rhetoric and Persuasion and went on to author four books, also publishing work that appears in magazines and periodicals. Major networks like 48 Hours and Inside Edition have reported on his training techniques.
Doc often called his communications strategy “martial art of the mind and mouth,” and was a fan of martial arts himself. He achieved a 2nd Dan in Judo.

Doc Thompson survived throat cancer for many years, and staunchly committed himself to a busy speaking and training schedule despite his condition, which reduced his ability to speak for extended periods of time.
He had recently received treatment to enhance his breathing, and he passed away unexpectedly. Doc’s family includes his wife, Pam, their nine-year-old son Tommy Rhyno Thompson, two adult children, Kelley (Ronald) Monach and Taylor (Valerie) Thompson, and five grandchildren.

---

Dr. George J. Thompson is the President and Founder of the Verbal Judo Institute, a tactical training and management firm based in Auburn, NY. He has trained more than 700,000 police, corrections, and security professionals and his Verbal Judo course is required in numerous states. The course has been tailored for other organizations, including mental health, the gaming industry, and hospitals.

Doc received his B.A. from Colgate University (1963), his Masters and Doctorate in English from the University of Connecticut (1972), and he completed post-doctoral work at Princeton University in Rhetoric & Persuasion (1979). Widely published in magazines and periodicals, his training has been highlighted in such national media outlets as NBC, ABC, & CBS News, CNN, 48 Hours, Inside Edition, LETN, In the Line of Duty, and Fox news, as well as in the LA Times, NY Post, Sacramento Bee, and other publications.

Doc has created the only "Tactical Communication" course in the world and he has written five books on Verbal Judo, each analyzing ways to defuse conflict and redirect behavior into more positive channels. The Verbal Judo Institute, offers Basic & Advanced courses in the Tactics of Verbal Judo, and a five-day Instructor Training option.

As of July of 2009, several new online Verbal Judo resources are available:

For free audio newsletter for police, corrections and security professionals click here.

To obtain the free multi-media newsletter for civilians click here.

Online and telephone coaching program for individuals who have received prior training in Verbal Judo are available as well.  Simply click here.

On a personal note, Doc and Pam are the proud parents of seven-year old, Tommy Rhyno Thompson, and Doc, a survivor of throat cancer, has returned to active teaching. You can contact Doc via e-mail at doc@VerbalJudo.com at VJI, Inc., 2009 W. Genesee St. Rd., Auburn, NY 13021, 315-253-0007.

Copied from http://www.policeone.com/police-trainers/articles/3801352-Police-trainer-Dr-George-Thompson-dies/

http://www.policeone.com/columnists/George-Thompson/




I've archived some of Dr. Thompson's articles:

• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 1
• 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 2
• Talking the talk of peace: The Peace Warrior
• Using tactical communication effectively

May Dr. Thompson's Verbal Judo help you in your communications with others!

Read More

Dr. George Thompson - Using tactical communication effectively

Street truth #1: 

The Peace Officer knows what phrases create peace and what phrases create conflict (see my previous columns) but the Peace Warrior also knows some "hidden truths" unknown to most.

Perhaps the most important of these is what we teach in TAC COM (Verbal Judo):

When upset, people never say what they mean!

 
This knowledge keeps us safer.

When we answer calls, for example, upset and angry people often berate us. I once answered a "see the man about a burglary past" call with another Deputy. The call had come in hours earlier, but we had been too busy with emergency calls to get there.

Once we arrived, the RP screamed insults at us for being incompetent, late, and wholly unhelpful! The lead Deputy got angry and we left.

Hours later we were before the Captain trying to explain what had happened out there. There was no explanation, and an hour later we were back, handling the call a second time!

We didn't have time to do it right, only time to do it twice!

Had the deputy been trained in TAC COM he would have known that "Words fly out, meanings lie behind." People never say what they mean!

In our case, the RP said one thing-all negatives-but what he meant was:

1. Help me!
2. What about my stuff?
3. How do I handle the feelings of fear and insecurity I now feel?
4. How do I handle feeling 'Raped!'? And…
5. How come you're late?

The last element-time--is really the minor one, but when upset, that was all he could voice. The Deputy reacted to the words and hence was incapable of responding to the meanings!

When we REact, the 'act' controls us; when we REspond, we re-answer, suggesting control and assertiveness.

Let me present three Laws of Field Contact. I call them Thompson's Laws because cops from across the country taught them to me over the years.

As we teach in TAC COM, the Deputy should have swiftly deflected the insults: "Sir, I can see you're upset and I can 'preciate that,' but I can help you here. Let me come in. . . "--and then focused his dialogue on the professional goal at hand. In this manner, the call would have been handled quickly, effectively and efficiently, the "QEE Principle" of good field contact.


Thompson's Law of Field Contact #1:

All calls for service should obey this principle, thus leading to better response time and more calls answered per shift! Good stats for any department!

Now, what might motivate a Deputy to make an effort to deflect and handle verbal abuse well? What's the "W.I.I.F.M." hook (the "What's in it for me" hook?)

Two crucial police benefits, aside from the obvious PR benefit:

If we treat people well when they do not handle themselves well, they remember that and they remember being treated with REspect. Consider the possible benefit…

What if the Deputy, three months later, is looking for a certain vehicle wanted in a series of hit & run burglaries and he recognizes that the area in question is the same area as the one he answered the burglary report call earlier?

If he handled the subject well then, he can return to that home, knock on the door, and ask the subject to keep an eye out for the vehicle in question. Because he had treated the subject well, there is a good chance the subject will agree to be his "eyes" now. You cannot be everywhere, but your people can be!


Thompson's Law of Field Contact 2: 

"Whenever you contact someone, see to it you develop a "pair of eyes", a pair of contacts!"
Put another way, treating people well is good for you because it 'softens people up' for the next possible encounter.

By contrast, insults and harsh treatment close the eyes and increase the resistance! Rude cops are indeed stupid cops! Such cops are indeed a crook's best friend, for the blinder the public I,s the freer the crook is to ply his trade! Tactical civility is one powerful weapon against such people!


Thompson's Law of Field Contact #3: 

The Closure Principle: "Leave people better than you found them, at their worst!"

It is impossible to "leave people better than we find them," for usually we deliver bad news-"you're under arrest, your son was killed in an accident, your daughter arrested for prostitution"-but we can always leave them better than we found them at their worst!" 

For example, you might have to physically throw someone down to make the arrest, but when you leave him at the jail you can suggest to him that next time, talking would be better. Fighting is not necessary! Only the officer can suggest not fighting and not lose face.

If you think about it, we are paid to say this! If the officer does, there is a good chance the next meeting will be peaceable! "Let's not fight" is one of those great "Peace Phrases" but hard for a young officer to say. Get ego out of the way, and such words will flow forth.

And everyone is SAFER if you do!

If you remember that people never say what they mean, particularly when they are upset, you will never find yourself reacting to their careless, abusive words, and hence you will be smarter, safer, and more professional at all times! 

Good for you, for others, good for everyone!

Read More

Dr. George Thompson - Talking the talk of peace: The Peace Warrior

In my last piece, I talked about 7 things never to say ( Part 1 & Part 2 ), and why. Now I want to provide a balance by presenting some phrases that should be said...often!

We teach in Tactical Communication (Verbal Judo) that "Natural Language" is disastrous. If, as peace officers, we allow words to rise readily to our lips, we are liable to create speeches we live to regret! Our 'inner voice' expresses our real feelings, and since much of what we see is negative, any time we let that voice out, it can cause us great trouble!

As I have watched officers work the streets over the last 25 years, those who were most successful at calming and redirecting others talked differently than the rest of us. As Peace Officers, they talked like Peace Officers. They use what I now call "Tactical Peace Phrases" --  language tailored and shaped to bring peace out of disorder.

Such peace language is not "natural" to most of us but it can be learned and should be employed by all of us. Certainly we should teach this in the recruit academies!

Let me discuss several of the most potent phrases.


"Can you go along with us here?" vs. "Do it or else!"
 
Police are authority figures and as such tend to order rather than to ask. Indeed, in the academies we hear for 16 plus weeks during our training, "Verbal commands, verbal commands," so when we leave the academy few of us remember to ASK!

Asking people for their cooperation shows them REspect and allows them to save personal face in front of their peers, where 'Do it or else' almost forces the other to resist to save face.

Hint: when you ask, if you turn your palm up, it reinforces the question; if you keep your palm down, it becomes closer to an order. Palm up softens people up! Using the interrogative tone softens people up. Good for everyone!


"You don't need this kind of trouble, sir" vs. "You want a problem?"
 
The first is tactical, the second more natural, hence worse! The aggressive officer uses the second, the assertive officer the first.

The first phrase has a positive impact, hence "assertive," because it shows a concern for the welfare of the subject.

The second is "aggressive" because it is pushy and combative and encourages resistance. In all cases "Peace Language" is professional language because it enhances the opportunities for achieving voluntary compliance and masks any inner feelings that might be naturally negative.

Any language that stimulates conflict is unprofessional. The utterance of, "You want a problem?" or the closely allied phrase, "You want trouble?" clearly reveals the officer's desire for conflict rather than peace, and generates it! Such phrases are also much closer to the natural inner feelings the officer may have towards a resistance subject.

Remember, the rule of thumb is, never give voice to your inner voice!


"Let me be sure I understand what you're telling me" vs. "Quiet down!"
 
This former phrase is the most powerful peace sentence because it projects empathy -- "I am trying to understand your position" -- while simultaneously shutting the other person up! The word empathy means to see through the eyes of the other, and it is perhaps the most powerful English word. Hence any phrase that suggests it will likewise be powerful.

If you need to interrupt someone, for example, "Quiet down!" doesn't work! It only exacerbates the situation, making the other more resistant.

To interrupt someone effectively, use the other phrase because no one continues to talk when you say it. All people want to hear their point being given back to them! You are now in control, talking, and they are actually listening rather than just waiting!

People calm down when they think you are trying to understand them and, when you paraphrase back to them what you heard, in calmer language, they almost always modify their original, extreme statements, thus becoming more reasonable! A wonderful verbal tactic!

Consider, the more someone thinks you will not understand them, the harder they will listen to prove it! This is a great example of a judo principle, using someone's negative energy against them and redirecting it into more positive channels!

'I appreciate you doing what you were asked' is a phrase calculated to help a subject save personal face in front of others, particularly after having been resistant! It's the last thing an officer might want to say (naturally), given a resistant subject, but it works, partly because it does not make the subject look as if he gave in. Compliance was his choice! It thus calms the subject and stifles future resistance-almost every time! Hence it makes the officer SAFER!

'For your safety and mine' is a phrase I encourage officers to use every time they meet any kind of resistance. It's good to emphasize both the "yours" and the "mine" so it isn't heard as a threat. It also places the event in a context where officer safety and public safety are the key issue -- not personalities!
For example, if you stop a car, contact the driver, and then plan to return to your vehicle to further conduct business, the last sentence you should say to the driver is, "For your safety and mine I will ask you to remain in your car until my return. Thank you!" Now should the subject later get out as you are trying to write the ticket, he would be in violation of your lawful, legal order based on public safety. Had the officer not said it, or had he just said, "Stay in the car," and the subject had gotten out, the officer would find himself in civil rights argument -- "I have the right to stand outside and smoke!" for example.

Moreover, the phrase always sounds good to those gathered around because it does not sound personal, only professional. I would go so far as to suggest that anytime you give an order, or ask someone to do something they might not wish to do, use this phrase. It's the peace officer talking peace and public safety!
'Can you help me help you' is another Peace Phrase calculated to make the subject see you as a helper rather than as an enforcer. The focus is on "we" not just "you," and the stress is on working together -- a parity of effort rather than in opposition.

The phrase shows concern for the welfare of the other and minimizes the officer as the only real force at the moment. The subject can suggest something and not lose any personal face. Anytime you can help a subject save personal face you greatly increase the chance of generating voluntary compliance!
Indeed, Peace Officers should make themselves experts at finding ways to help others save personal face if for no other reason than their own personal safety! We know that if you can help someone save face you almost never have to fight him!

And finally, that marvelous phrase, "Is there anything I can say to get you to do X,Y & Z? I'd like to think so!"
 
This most powerful of Peace Phrases puts the ball of verbalization back into the other's court, sounds caring and concerned that words will work, and allows the other to save face should he wish. Those of you who know Verbal Judo know that this is the last verbal attempt in our Five Steps to Persuasion, Step #4, and immediately precedes action should the answer be a resounding NO!

The phrase indicates the officer's hope that words will work and physical force can be avoided. As an opinion-seeking question it allows the other to suggest a verbal resolution, giving him some power as to the direction of the event, thus allowing him to save personal face. Those of us trained in Tactical Communication also know this to be a sign that action is about to happen should the subject continue to resist, so no one is caught by surprise when the officer moves beyond words.

The argument is simple: Peace Officers must not talk as all others do. They must talk the talk of peace, always and under all conditions, and this requires training and practice.



NOTES

Dr. George J. Thompson was the President and Founder of the Verbal Judo Institute, a tactical training and management firm now based in Auburn, NY. For full details on Dr. Thompson's work and training, please visit the Verbal Judo Web Site. He passed away in June of 2011.

Source image from verbaldefenseandinfluence.com.

Copied from http://www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/122067-Talking-the-talk-of-peace-The-Peace-Warrior/

Read More

Dr. George Thompson - 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 2

Introduction

In Part 1 of this special PoliceOne.com series, I shared the first four of seven things I suggest you never say to anyone:

1. "Hey you! Come here!"
2. "Calm down!"
3. "I'm not going to tell you again!"
4. "Be more reasonable!"

Now, I'll share three more…


5. "BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES" (or "THAT'S THE LAW!") 

If ever there was a phrase that irritates people and makes you look weak, this is it!

If you are enforcing rules/laws that exist for good reason, don't be afraid to explain that! Your audience may not agree with or like it, but at least they have been honored with an explanation. Note, a true sign of REspect is to tell people why, and telling people why generates voluntary compliance. Indeed, we know that at least 70% of resistant or difficult people will do what you want them to do if you will just tell them why!
When you tell people why, you establish a ground to stand on, and one for them as well! Your declaration of why defines the limits of the issue at hand, defines your real authority, but also gives the other good reason for complying, not just because you said so! Tactically, telling people why gets your ego out of it and put in its place a solid, professional reason for action.

Even at home, if all you can do is repeat, "those are the rules," you sound and look weak because you apparently cannot support your order/request with logic or good reason. Indeed, if you can put rules or policies into context and explain how the rules or policies are good for everyone, you not only help people understand, you help them save face. Hence, you are much more likely to generate voluntary compliance, which is your goal!


6. "WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?" 

This snotty, useless phrase turns the problem back on the person needing assistance. It signals this is a "you-versus-me" battle rather than an "us" discussion. The typical reaction is, "It's not my problem. You're the problem!"

The problem with the word problem is that it makes people feel deficient or even helpless. It can even transport people back to grade school where they felt misunderstood and underrated. Nobody likes to admit h/she has a problem. That's a weakness! When asked, "what's your problem?" the other already feels a failure. So the immediate natural reaction is, "I don't have one, you do!" which is a reaction that now hides a real need for help.

Substitute tactical phrases designed to soften and open someone up, like "What's the matter?", "How can I help?", or "I can see you're upset, let me suggest . . . ."

Remember, as an officer of peace, it is your business to find ways to gather good intel and to help those in need, not to pass judgments


7. "WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO ABOUT IT?" 

A great cop-out (no pun…)! This pseudo-question, always accompanied by sarcasm, is clearly an evasion of responsibility and a clear sign of a lack of creativity! The phrase really reveals the speaker's exasperation and lack of knowledge. Often heard from untrained sales clerks and young officers tasked with figuring out how to help someone when the rules are not clear.

When you say, "What do you want me to do about it?" you can count on two problems: the one you started with and the one you just created by appearing to duck responsibility.

Instead, tactically offer to help sort out the problem and work toward a solution. If it truly is not in your area of responsibility, point the subject to the right department or persons that might be able to solve the problem.
If you are unable or unqualified to assist and you haven't a clue as to how to help the person, apologize. Such an apology almost always gains you an ally, one you may need at same later date. Beat cops need to remember it is important to "develop a pair of eyes" (contacts) every time they interact with the public. Had the officer said to the complainant, for example, "I'm sorry, I really do not know what to recommend, but I wish I did, I'd like to help you," and coupled that statement with a concerned tone of voice and a face of concern, he would have gone a long way toward making that person more malleable and compliant for the police later down the road.

Remember, insult strengthens resistance and shuts the eyes. Civility weakens resistance and opens the eyes!
It's tactical to be nice!





NOTES

Dr. George J. Thompson was the President and Founder of the Verbal Judo Institute, a tactical training and management firm now based in Auburn, NY. For full details on Dr. Thompson's work and training, please visit the Verbal Judo Web Site. He passed away in June of 2011.

Source image from verbaldefenseandinfluence.com.

Copied from http://www.policeone.com/corrections/articles/120715-7-things-never-to-say-to-anyone-and-why-Part-2/

Read More

Dr. George Thompson - 7 Things Never to Say to Anyone, and Why Part 1

Introduction

Safety lies in knowledge. If you deal with cagey street people, or indeed difficult people at all, anywhere, you need to watch your tongue! The "cocked tongue" can be more lethal than the 9 millimeter or the 45.
In part one of this special two-part series for PoliceOne.com, I'll share the first four of a total of seven commonly used statements that can work against you.


1. "HEY YOU! COME HERE!"
 
Consider, you are on patrol and you see someone suspicious you want to talk with, so you most naturally say, "Hey you! Come here!" Verbal Judo teaches that "natural language is disastrous!" and this provides a wonderful example. You have just warned the subject that he is in trouble. "Come here" means to you, "Over here, you are under my authority." But to the subject it means, "Go away-quickly!" The words are not tactical for they have provided a warning and possibly precipitated a chase that would not have been necessary had you, instead, walked casually in his direction and once close said, "Excuse me. Could I chat with momentarily?" Notice this question is polite, professional, and calm.

Also notice, you have gotten in close, in his "space" though not his "face," and now you are too close for him to back off, giving you a ration of verbal trouble, as could have easily been the case with the "Hey you! Come here!" opening.

The ancient samurai knew never to let an opponent pick the place of battle for then the sun would always be in your eyes! "Come here" is loose, lazy, and ineffective language. Easy, but wrong. Tactically, "May I chat with you" is far better, for not only have you picked the place to talk, but anything the subject says, other than yes or no-the question you asked-provides you with intelligence regarding his emotional and/or mental state. Let him start any 'dance' of resistance.

Point: Polite civility can be a weapon of immense power!


2. "CALM DOWN!"
 
Consider this verbal blunder. You approach some angry folks and you most naturally say, "Hey, calm down!" This command never works, so why do we always use it? Because it flows naturally from our lips!

What's wrong with it? One, the phrase is a criticism of their behavior and suggests that they have no legitimate right to be upset! Hence, rather than reassuring them that things will improve, which should be your goal, you have created a new problem! Not only is there the matter they were upset about to begin with, but now they need to defend their reaction to you! Double the trouble!

Better, put on a calming face and demeanor-in Verbal Judo we say, 'Chameleon up'-look the person in the eye and say, gently, "It's going to be all right. Talk to me. What's the matter?" The phrase "What's the matter?' softens the person up to talk and calm down; where 'Calm down' hardens the resistance. The choice is yours!


3. "I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU AGAIN!"
 
We teach in Verbal Judo that 'repetition is weakness on the streets!' and you and I both know that this phrase is almost always a lie. You will say it again, and possibly again and again!

Parents do it all the time with their kids, and street cops do it with resistant subjects, all the time! The phrase is, of course, a threat, and voicing it leaves you only one viable option-action! If you are not prepared to act, or cannot at the time, you lose credibility, and with the loss of creditability comes the loss of power and safety!

Even if you are prepared to act, you have warned the subject that you are about to do so and forewarned is forearmed! Another tactical blunder! Like the rattlesnake you have made noise, and noise can get you hurt or killed. Better to be more like the cobra and strike when least suspected!

If you want to stress the seriousness of your words, say something like, 'Listen, it's important that you get this point, so pay close attention to what I'm about to tell you.'

If you have used Verbal Judo's Five Steps of Persuasion you know that we act after asking our "nicest, most polite question,"

"Sir, is there anything I could say that would get you to do A, B and C? I'd like to think so?"

If the answer is NO, we act while the subject is still talking! We do not telegraph our actions nor threaten people, but we do act when verbal persuasion fails.


4. "BE MORE REASONABLE!" 

Telling people "be more reasonable" has many of the same problems as "Calm Down!" Everyone thinks h/she is plenty reasonable given the present circumstances! I never have had anyone run up to me and say, "Hey, I know I'm stupid and wrong, but here's what I think!" although I have been confronted by stupid and wrong people! You only invite conflict when you tell people to "be more reasonable!"

Instead, make people more reasonable by the way in which you handle them, tactically! Use the language of reassurance-"Let me see if I understand your position," and then paraphrase-another VJ tactic!-back to them their meaning, as you see it, in your words! Using your words will calm them and make them more reasonable because your words will (or better be!) more professional and less emotional.

This approach absorbs the other's tension and makes him feel your support. Now you can help them think more logically and less destructively, without making the insulting charge implied in your statement, "Be more reasonable!"

Again, tactics over natural reaction!

Next:  3 more statements to avoid!





NOTES

Dr. George J. Thompson was the President and Founder of the Verbal Judo Institute, a tactical training and management firm now based in Auburn, NY. For full details on Dr. Thompson's work and training, please visit the Verbal Judo Web Site. He passed away in June of 2011.

Source image from verbaldefenseandinfluence.com.

Copied from http://www.policeone.com/communications/articles/120708-7-things-never-to-say-to-anyone-and-why-Part-1/

Read More