Handling the Irate Man

[JohnH1963]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPe_hf7aBXM

Consider the video above. A man who has been traveling for nearly 24 hours deprived of sleep and having little food is stranded for nearly 12 hours. He does not know English and is waiting in the wrong area for his ride. He has gotten to the point of mental and physical exhaustion/frustration having little sleep and is doing odd things. For example, he threw a chair on the floor and wondering about aimlessly. He starts to pick up a computer terminal and appears like he is going to smash it on the ground.

Lets say this is not happening at an airport, but in a remote public place where the police are not readily available. For example, a bus station somewhere in Montana. You are a citizen with 5 of your friends traveling as a group. The police are not available and you are concerned this individual might hurt himself or others. How would you handle this situation?

[The Tourist]

Your key phrase ices it for me. "Might hurt himself or others."

If that is your best assessment, than a professional LEO negotiator is the proper option. He's not a criminal in the traditional sense. Trying to restrain him might actually ignite the very thing you are trying to avoid.

Unless you're a doc with social-disorganization skills, the negotiator is the guy.

[MTT TL]

I would call the police and stay out of the way of flying objects. I imagine at the airport security would arrive quickly when called.

[JohnH1963]

I was thinking of something a little more sensible. I would simply go up to the man as an individual and ask him if anything is wrong with a smile. Furthermore, I would offer my assistance. Obviously, this man is not a criminal. He just seems lost and frustrated over something. I believe the men in this video had only thrown gasoline on the fire by approaching as a uniformed group in force. It only caused the man to be even more frustrated and angry then he already was. Someone in ordinary clothes acting as an individual could have calmed the man by simply asking the question "How can I help you?" I believe approaching the individual in a calm, kind manner and asking if anything was wrong would probably de-escalate the situation. You dont need a huge group of armed men or police negotiators to handle a man that is simply angry.

There is an artform to approaching unkind people. You cant simply approach them with force otherwise you just turn up the heat even higher then it already was. Approaching in a kind manner with a little sugar helps de-escalate things. The magic phrase "Can I help you with something?" would have saved the life of the man in the video.

[The Tourist]

John, you're a kind man. Thank you.

[jhenry]

John, that is a very sensible appraoch. For the majority of situations like this a simple kindness is usually suficient. If not, it will be evident pretty quick.

[JohnH1963]

Its not about being kind, but performing the action that will work best.

Now lets say after I asked the man "How can I help you?" then he took a swing or charged at me. I have been in fights before and I am not afraid of getting hit by a punch. I think the use of weaponry is sometimes because people are afraid of getting hit by a punch. I can tell you that bruises do heal quickly. Broken bones take months to heal. However, using a weapon may have fatal consequences to either party.

Before asking "How can I help you?", positioning yourself at a distance and getting ready for the man to charge at you is key. Its probably best to let him beat up the chairs against the floor first. The broken chairs can easily be replaced and he is probably just venting. Allowing him to exhaust himself before approaching is another key. Sometimes just ignoring the situation and allowing the man to beat up the chairs is the best avenue. Then when he is calmer after beating up the chairs, then you apprpach to ask how you can help.

[jhenry]

I said "kindness". One can perform a kindness with any internal thought one would like. A kindness is an action. Having the intent to be kind and having the intent to do what will work best are not mutually exclusive things.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'd call the police and get myself safe. Beyond that, his future actions are someone else's problem. If I was seriously worried then I'd leave. I most certainly would not confront him.

[JohnH1963]

I dont want to be argumentative or throw the thread off-topic, but I disagree with just walking away from the situation and leaving it up to the "authorities" because you are afraid of injury. History has proven that that tactic to be one of the worst options. I agree the police should probably handle these matters, but when they can't be there for whatever reason, then someone has to take control and find a solution. You can't just cut and run.

If you do cut and run and assume someone else will handle it, then the situation will get worse ultimately leading to a much worse result. Sometimes you just have to get up some courage and do whats right versus whats safe.

[MTT TL]

I disagree with just walking away from the situation and leaving it up to the "authorities" because you are afraid of injury. History has proven that that tactic to be one of the worst options.

What history? I see security handling irate people all the time. It is their job. Never seen a shoot out develop from it.

I agree the police should probably handle these matters, but when they can't be there for whatever reason, then someone has to take control and find a solution.

I can't walk more than 200 meters in an airport in the US without seeing at least one uniformed security of some kind. Given the parameters of the question the course of action seems reasonable.

[win-lose]

You folks probably don't live in big cities. This was a multiple time a day thing when I was living in NYC.

Here's what I do....

1 - Keep plenty of distance from the person.
2 - If person is in need of immediate care or restraint, I call 911
3 - If person is actively endangering a defenseless, I get involved.

[Water-Man]

The best course of action would be to shoot him. No more worries about what he might or might not do thereafter.

[Danielcan]

i live in that city and have been to that air port a few times, its not that big. i can't see a man of reasonable intelegence watching people get off plains then get their bags, where he was, then walk out the door for 12 hours and not figure it out, i mean the doors only open one way in any arival terminal. the royal canadian mounted police killed that man that day, in court they led the public to belive they tazerd him once, it was 4 times, proven by video. the corp. in charge killed a guy on a motor bike while drunk driving while on paid suspension. the rcmp planed to use there new tazers on the guy before they got there. it could have been handled better. look out for you and yours.

[T. O'Heir]

"...the video above..." That's footage of the guy that died as a result of being tazered, multiple times, for no apparent reason, by our RCMP. Manslaughter charges for the rest of us. They should have contained the guy and called for an interpreter. One of 'em just calmly approaching the guy would have made a difference.
In any case, in answer to your question, it doesn't take a lot of smarts to defuse a scary situation and help somebody who doesn't speak the Queen's English. A non-confrontational, calm, demeanour with a great big smile goes a very long way. The guy is usually frightened because he doesn't know what is being said to him. A friendly smiling face usually makes that go away.
Robert Dziekanski, the guy who was murdered, would still be alive if somebody stepped up.
"...Unless you're a doc with social-disorganization skills..." Bartenders do that regularly with no psyche training. It's people skills. It ain't that hard.

[Skans]

I would first be inclined to try and help the guy. If I could figure out what he did wrong, maybe I could set him on the right course so that he can get where he's trying to go.

If the guy started to threaten me, I'd back off - leave him alone. If the guy pursued being threatening to me, I'd probably exchange some not-so-nice words with him. During this time I'd also be sizing him up and preparing myself mentally for a fight and for taking him down and subduing him.

FWIW, using a firearm would not be an option for me in this situation.

[skidmark]

There are just too many signs of mental distress/impending physical activity for me to be willing to approach him very closely. The breathing, shoulder movement, the girlish throwing of (at the moment) relatively weapon-useless objects, and the pacing & head movements tell me this is a crisis about to happen. Besides, and this is important so pay attention, since he is not threatening me or mine or any other innocent it is not my duty/obligation to get involved with what I perceive to be a dangerous and easily escalated situation. If anything, becauseuse of my training and experience in working with mentally inpaired persons I would see my obligation/duty to keep all others -- like that crazy lady -- away from him until some assistance could be summoned. The airport employees (??) who wandered by also did not help and may in fact have worsened the situation by their crow/retreat behavior.

That does not mean that he ought to have been tazed once, let alone 4 times, for not immediately complying with whatever verbal or psychic commands the cops were giving while circling him like wolves closing in for the kill on a wounded/sick deer.

The open-handed - hands extended with fingers splayed apart - approah of one cop talking is a calm voice might have resolved the need for the use of force. Trapping him into a flight-or-fight response merely indicates a lack of training in dealing with mentally impaired persons. Most cop uniforms have common recognizable elements and cops can be seen as either good or bad guys based on the initial approach. Unfortunately, I saw no initial approach in this situation. All I saw a bunch of cops start circling some seriously distressed guy and then applying the second (or third - depending on how your department writes the force continuum) highest level of force.

My professional (and yes, I am one and certified by the highest court in my state to give opinions) opinion is that the cops caused the escalation of the situation and may in fact have been not negligent but malicious in their behavior.

stay safe.

skidmark

[shafter]

Just stay out of the way and mind your own business.......until flying objects start coming your way

[youp]

That the man is under some type of duress is a given. Putting myself in his shoes... at an airport, approached by uniformed people that I am unable to communicate with would not put me in a fight or flight state. It would put me in a lay down and submit state of mind. Survival don't you know?

If I was in a remote situation as originally posted, I would stay back, stay safe, warn others, make the phone call and let people trained in the use of Tasers take care of the problem. I do not want him thinking that I am baring my teeth at him! Survival don't you know?

John, I am assuming you are a 1963 model. When you were about 7 or 8 years old there was some sappy antiwar love song thing. Part of the refrain was "Billy don't be a hero, don't be a fool with your life" Oh yea, Billy did do the hero thing and won a posthumous Purple Heart. Stupid song.

[JohnH1963]

Why would a weapon of any kind be appropriate to arrest the man? The man went through metal detectors and it was obvious he did not have a weapon.

They had a large group of officers. Why didnt they assign each man to a limb and take him down versus using a weapon to incapacitate him? Its an easy procedure to overwhelm a person. One man gets an arm and another man gets the leg, etc.

[skidmark]

Why do "they" need a group of officers is where the question ought to begin.

Until and unless the person initiates anything it needs only one officer to assess and gather intelligence and relay that to others off-scene who can advise him of possible next steps.

However, there seems to be amongst both the police and a fair portion of the population a belief that the cops are there to assert authority and to force compliance with demands whether or not those demands have any possible chance of resolving anything except the assertion of police authority. This is not a cop bash but a complaint about the misunderstanding of the role of police in dealing with the mentally disturbed individual.

But to get back to the OP's question of what the armed or unarmed citizen ought to do -- I really do wonder why so many folks are stepping up to say they would insert themselves in a situation they have already recognized as being risky if not outright dangerous. I thought that the first rule of a gunfight was to avoid attending one if at all possible. Everybody talks about situational awareness and then a whole bunch of folks seem to throw it away. Could anyone explain that to me?

stay safe.

skidmark

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by skidmark

Everybody talks about situational awareness and then a whole bunch of folks seem to throw it away. Could anyone explain that to me?

At the face, it seems quite easy to explain. If you get a chance, find the segment in the movie "Easy Rider" where Jack Nicholson discusses issues with Dennis Hopper around a campfire. They do it better than I can.

The ultimate issue is that people all think that "life" is a panarama where they are the star in a movie that is about only them. They will debate you silly about freedom, until someone actually does something free and avant guarde. Then their safe little world collapses.

"If you drive slower you're an impediment, if you drive faster you're reckless." You must drive like "they" do, at precisely 54 MPH, and in the wrong lane.

Frankly, I don't know where this silly macho dojo attitude started. The US Army is starving for manpower, but it seems like the only people who want to fight are in shopping malls.

Skidmark, at the end of the day, someone needs to explain it to me, too.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why would a weapon of any kind be appropriate to arrest the man? The man went through metal detectors and it was obvious he did not have a weapon.

Where have you been:

1. Exploding underpants
2. There are all kinds of nonmetallic edge weapons

-- Not to argue pro or con the action here but just commenting on reality.

[bigJ]

Interesting question. First of all I assume the individual is armed and capable of inflicting harm. Despite metal detectors and searches we all know it's not a perfect system. Every human being has the capacity to inflict bodily harm. So I would start from there.

If we always wait on the authorities we will witness violent crimes being committed. By all means LE should be summoned but I would likely approach the guy trying to talk in a measured tone but on high alert. If no one is in danger, in the vicinity, I would stay back and watch from a safe area providing cover until LE arrived.

[Kyo]

first I would ask what language he spoke, or where he was from. a language barrier is the most frustrating thing ever.
Then, it would have gone from there.
Watching that movie is scary. And screw the guards there for taking that video away from the guy who was shooting it.
Tasers are less "lethal" but still can be. Thats not the first time I have seen someone get tasered until they died. I remember this guy in GA in the same county I live in kept getting it until he literally stopped moving and then some. It is very sad.