Kaze Uta Budo Kai Forum Archive

I copied this, in its entirety, from the MySpace blog of Marc "Animal" MacYoung. If you've ever read the credits of the Barry Eisler "Rain" series you will recognize the name. This is a long post, and I recommend you have your thinking cap on. This was sanitized by Marc for public consumption, but enough of the redacted text remains to figure the expletives out.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... =452752537

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Bullies, Intimidators And Rent-Free Space In Your Head

I'm doing a two DVD set called "Office Bullies: Behaviors and Tactics of Workplace Intimidators." The office bully DVDs will focus on how intimidation works, how intimidators do it, how to counter it and how to articulate to management what the person is doing. It's part of larger multi-set DVD project about patterns of violence (e.g., how to tell when you are about to be physically attacked ).

So you might wonder: Where does office politics have a place among such overt physical violence?

To start with, it isn't just office politics, it's about bullies, overt and covert. In the office, they tend to be more covert than they were in high school. And that often makes them harder to deal with. But the simple fact is that it's all on the same 'road.' On this road, there are mile markers that tell you where someone is in the process. And there are clear indicators that will tell you someone is willing to take it further than just intimidation. There are signs that it isn't just intimidation -- the person is about to become physical. Part of what makes intimidators scary is many people don't know where he is along the process. That is until someone like me shows up and explains how to tell where they are.

But what's really neat is, when you are familiar with this 'road,' intimidators actions become very clear. A HUGE part of their strategy is to get you to think they are going to attack you ... and then leave it at that. Not only do they not attack, but they never meant to in the first place. All they are looking for is to get you scared by thinking they might do something. When that happens, YOU do all the work for them. It's kind of like someone revving their engine so you think they're going to go racing down the road. When he does this, you all excited and scared. And yet, the person still operates within the speed limit! Sure he may make some aggressive feints and intimidating sounds, but he's not really putting the pedal to the metal. The intimidator's goal is to scare you -- not just about what IS happening, but to establish a bigger and longer lasting fear of what MIGHT happen.

In short, they're looking for what we call "rent-free space" in your head.

There's a big difference between someone trying to establish mental control and someone who really is about to attack you. Once you know how to spot this difference, run-of-the-mill bullies and intimidators lose all kinds of 'Ooooohh scary!!!!" points. On the other hand, "See that guy? Him you have to worry about. Because he really IS dangerous" The overall DVD project is to show you how to tell the difference between the two and what to do about it. This why 'Office Bullies' is part of this larger project. (And yes, the intimidator DVD set will be available separately. 1)

So here I was with this huge, three-set DVD project on my plate and along came a situation that was so chock full of intimidator tactics and behaviors, it was almost a cliché. Well, at least it was to me. Thing was, it was purdy durn' scary to the guy it was happening to.

A friend in Netherlands teaches historical European swordsmanship. He had to expel a bullying student. This student had a track record of not-so-nice behavior, but he finally crossed the line by showing up drunk to class, being obnoxious and disrespecting a female instructor. That did it! He was told to leave. After being banned from the school, the bullying student sent the instructor a threatening letter by a third person that, among other things, demanded money (a refund for fees never paid), blamed the instructor for overreacting, yada, yada, yada. In the letter, he also threatened to come looking for revenge.

Then -- after a week -- the ex-student showed up unexpectedly (and early) at the school to confront his instructor before class.

Well this is where the story changes tack from the way many such incidents go. The instructor dealt with the situation with a sharp verbal command of "BACK OFF!" before the bully closed the distance. Then, keeping the intimidator at a distance, the instructor controlled and 'resolved' the situation. Despite trying to take control of the situation through intimidation, the bully failed miserably. He was last seen riding his bicycle away (remember this is Europe) and yelling things over his shoulder.

Something that makes this incident of note is how -- despite all his worrying -- the whole affair was settled by simply showing the bully that the instructor wasn't going to put up with his BS -- on any level. What is of note is how stunned the instructor was that it had, in essence, been so easy. He was flabbergasted. Realize that he'd been hanging around with the 'wrong kind of people' for a while, and we members of our e-mail list had kind of rubbed off on him. We'd told him that there were certain things to do and, more importantly, not to do. He did those things during the confrontation, but even so his jaw hit the floor that things worked so well and easily.

If something has gotten to the point of a cliché, then by extension there are recognizable patterns. Once you know this, you can begin to spot when intimidators start playing their games. .

A popular misconception is that all you have to do is 'stand up to a bully,' and he'll back down. That isn't necessarily true. In fact, quite often just 'standing up for yourself isn't enough. You have to communicate to the bully that you're willing to do a whole lot more than just tell him that he's misbehaving. Telling him not to trespass isn't enough. You have show him that you're willing to throw him off your land, too. While a lot of times you can do that by just using your voice and body language, it isn't the same thing as 'standing up' to a bully. Granted there's a lot of overlap. But without certain elements, just 'standing up for yourself' usually is going to fail.

What you're about to read is my response to the instructor and the situation. I talk about WHY what he did worked. I also address another issue. One of the bigger things you need to understand about bullies is that they are almost never a one-time deal. In the same way that they don't just bully you once if they are successful, the odds are against there being a single solution. Bullies are repeat offenders. If you shut them down on one level, odds are good they're going to try something else. This repeating pattern is what makes bullies and intimidators scary, but at the same time it also makes them predictable. Once you KNOW they're going to try something different next time, you can get ready for it. The simple fact is that these 'other' strategies are about as predictable as their first one.

What's REALLY neat about this, however, is that once you know these secondary strategies, you can prepare for them. When you do that, two things happen. First, it takes the fear out of the equation. Now instead of being scared of an ill-defined and vague 'what he might do,' you have knowledge of the common strategies and are taking counter measures. Second, you seriously lessen the chances of their happening. The bully is going to see that you're prepared for his plans B and C. About 95 percent of the time, he's going to suffer an attack of common sense and just back off.

So here's what I said to him. Oh BTW, the e-mail was my being casual. That means my typically course language is rampant. But, I've deleted the expletives before I stuck it up as a blog. Also I should warn you that this is a complex subject, so it's a big chunk of reading. So you may want to go get a cup of coffee. But if you have had trouble with bullies, it is well worth the time and skull sweat to read.
******************************

A term I picked up from my wife (about her ex) is "rent-free space in my head." As in: 'Nobody gets rent-free space in my head anymore' or 'You're giving him rent-free space in your head.'

Rent-free space is a big issue when it comes to intimidation. There are those who will try and take it, and there are those who will give it away free. And in any situation, it's ALWAYS a question of how much of both is going on. And usually it IS both.

But as you just saw, when there's a "No Vacancy" sign up, situations tend to end PDQ (pretty damned quick). What you did was show there was no room in your head for his bulls**t.

Let me give you a premise that is simple, but profound. So profound that it will hopefully forever change your perspective and strategies.

Bullies and intimidators are ALWAYS looking to establish themselves in YOUR mind.

Learn it, live it, love it. Because your first step in stopping them dead in their tracks is making sure the "No Vacancy" sign is lit up.

What does 'No Vacancy' mean? I'm saying the situation never even becomes a situation. That's because it ends right there with just a look. A look that doesn't say "back off," but instead, "just keep on traveling down the road because you're not going to get what you want here."

By the time it gets to 'back off,' it's about five steps into the process. And by that time, there's a huge "it ain't as if you weren't warned" factor. (That's important, and we'll get back to it.) But before we go there, let's look at previous stages.

Two things told me he was going after rent-free space:
a) when he gave the letter to someone else to deliver to you
b) the tone of the letter

If someone is an outright danger, he'll be coming for you without warning. And this can come in one of two ways.

First, right then and there. You tell him to leave, and you have the SOB lunging for your throat. "Kick me out of the school for being drunk? I think not." Viola! Instant attack, just add intense emotion to the violent a**hole package mix.

The second type, is when he leaves and either comes back with a gun or is waiting for you in the shadows with a baseball bat when you leave. Still, that is rather immediate don't you think?

A subset of this is when you throw the guy out, and within a few days someone takes a shot at you. Now while this may sound terrifying, it's no wait, no muss, no fuss. He wants you mauled or dead, and he acts immediately on it. This is a truly dangerous person.

Most people aren't that dangerous. Actually let me rephrase that, most bullies aren't that dangerous. Like other people, they NEED to work themselves up to acting. That doesn't mean he won't act, but with intimidators there's a lot of time there for you to derail the process.

In the DVD, StreetSafe, I talk about escalating interviews (as part of the Five Stages of Crime). Well this strategy isn't only limited to crime, it is a big part of the bag of tricks used by intimidators and bullies. Escalating interviews have two key components.

First is it allows the guy to whip himself up into attacking. He knows he is out of line for doing it, and he needs an excuse to misbehave. The escalation is his way of working himself up to act. A truly dangerous person doesn't need this excuse, his emotions and perceptions are enough to goad him into action. An 'escalator' however, often has to whip himself into a frenzy that can override his inhibitions. And usually it's over things that are pretty wonky. The trick is to spot when the opening gambit is only pretending to be reasonable; so it can then be taken out into barking moonbat land. (Hint: It will usually revolve around how YOU wronged him 2.)

The second component is that it is STILL an interview to see if you are safe to attack! If he gets the green light signals he's looking for, he'll attack. Remember, this is an interview you want to fail. If you give the 'wrong' return signals, the light turns from green to yellow to red. As in 'continue' (green); whoops, slow down and proceed with caution (yellow); and STOP! ABORT! ABORT! BACK OFF! (red).

I'm going to switch analogies. Intimidators and bullies like to 'plow the field' by trying to get rent-free space in your head. This is an integral part of the early stages of their strategy. If they succeed with that, they will progress. Basically, since they spend so much time in their own head 'spinning out,' they are going to try to create the same effect in yours. That's what I mean by 'plowing the field." They want to turn the soil (throw you off balance) and plant the seed (get you worrying about them). THEN and only then will they try to escalate.

Having dealt with enough people who ... well ... let's just say they really were truly dangerous and acted accordingly. Anyway, having dealt with enough of those people, I know that they don't bother plowing the field, they just attack. Basically they don't want you alerted because surprise is a big part of their strategy for success. By the time you realize you're under attack, it's too late. The higher the level of predation, the more you'll see this because those guys play for keeps.

So when you see someone plowing the field, you know you're dealing with someone who:
a) isn't sure if he can take you and/or
b) is playing for other stakes

As much as my wife hates the and/or tag, it is REALLY appropriate here. There are all kinds of complex dynamics going on. Often such a person really isn't that concerned with you, but is motivated more by personal ... well for lack of a better word ... dynamics. If you want to call being as f**ked up as a football bat, incredible rage and self-loathing mixed with megalomania 'personal dynamics.' As intense as it is, to him, you are just this week's trauma drama.

The reason I say and/or is that there are two very different sets of dynamics between some guy who is trying to undermine your confidence so you'll be safe to attack, and someone who knows he can take you any time and is torturing you.

That's the difference between this guy (the student) and ... say ... someone stalking a woman. A stalker knows he can take her anytime and is playing with her head. This guy WAS messing with your head, but at the same he was trying to undermine your confidence so you'd be safe to escalate on.

I want you to look at his giving the letter to someone else to deliver in this context. That strategy was to get you thinking about 'what he might do.' If you're sure of your 'cause,' you don't arrange for a janitor to deliver a letter, you confront the person directly. And when you do, you win or lose right there ... which is NOT what he wanted.

Instead, he gave the letter to someone else, so you could BOTH brood about it. Him to work his way up to confronting you. You so you'd worry about it and get distracted. This undermines your confidence and stability. And that makes it safer for him to misbehave. (Notice any rent-free space strategy going on there?)

The second point is the it's on you nature of the letter. People like this ALWAYS excuse or minimize their own bad behavior (take for example his trivializing his drunkenness by claiming he "had only one glass of wine"). Then they turn it around and blame you for worse (e.g., ripping him off for class fees). This is both the self-motivation AND the interview to see if you're safe to pursue with this behavior. If you 'accept delivery' on this, he's got you.

And the opening volley is -- as I said earlier -- to accuse you of wrong doing (with a whiff of trauma-drama in the air).

People (with whom bullies can get rent-free space in their heads) too often accept delivery on this strategy by second-guessing themselves. Often they sit back and think to themselves, "Ohmahgawd, did I do something wrong?'" Then they start frantically searching for potential wrong doing on their part.

And believe it or not, this includes a 'THAT'S BULLS**T!' reaction. Because that tends to follow a first and fear-based 'maybe I did do something wrong' reaction. There's an emotional component there based on anger that you had to review your behavior to find if the charge is valid AND hurt pride that someone would accuse you of that. As odd as it may sound, the sheer left-field nature of the charges is what lends them this 'credibility.' And then you get pissed, not for him making the charge, but at yourself for even considering it. THEN it mutates to 'he's the problem, not me.'

Right here, though, I want you to realize, he's got you. His outrageous charges have kicked you into your limbic system (emotional part of the brain, instead of the rational part). You're into what Rory Miller calls 'a monkey dance.(3)' It's not at a screaming and throwing feces point yet, but the monkeys are getting tense. And that means you're not thinking. What you are doing is emotionally processing and believing that you're thinking rationally.

A HUGE part of 'plowing the field' is to get you into that pre-obvious monkey dance state. It's a state where you THINK you are being reasonable and logical, but you are -- in reality -- operating emotionally.

Once he has you there, he's got you. Bullies know that when they get most people to that point, they're going to lead them around like the Pied Piper. That's because YOU feel you're being reasonable -- when in fact, you are emotional. By being fixated on how unreasonable he is being, you overlook what's happening with you. It's a real short trip from being logical to a monkey tying on his dancing shoes because it all happens in the same place. Your brain.

And if you're stressed by something that you aren't sure how to handle (or wondering even if you can deal with it) then the monkey has stood up and done a couple of quick steps to check out his shoes. Now he's ready to dance. Often it's the belief that you're being reasonable while he's not that hampers you. There's a lot of fear, anger and frustration over his not being reasonable. And that's going to hamper your ability to actually be reasonable. Basically that's because you're driving as you push both the brake and the gas pedal while denying that you're fighting the monkey for the steering wheel. That puts the bully way ahead of the game.

By charging you with misconduct, he puts forward the facade of it being a reasonable situation. As in YOU have to be reasonable and answer his charges -- even though his charges are not reasonable. You say to yourself, '"Okay, how am I going to explain to this guy that I didn't do what he claims I did?" And that's a hell of a stressor on you, becaaaaaause....?

His charges are NOT reasonable.

How do you rationally answer charges that are not reasonable? You can't. In fact, you don't even bother. Because he ISN'T looking for a reasonable answer. His mind already is made up. All he's looking for is getting you into monkey dance mode.

You DO have to have reasonable answers you can provide to people (especially those who want to talk with you about cracking his skull), but those answers are not for him. What's on the table has nothing to do with the reasonableness of his charges OR your answers. What's on the table is rent-free space in your head.

This is the equivalent of his ignoring the 'No Vacancy' sign, walking into the front office and claiming that he had a reservation (which he didn't) that YOU lost. All of a sudden, you're the one to blame because you don't have a room for him. And then he's going to start demanding that you not only find him a room, but not charge him for it.

The average person will think "oh s**t, maybe one of my staff DID screw up and not put it down" or "maybe he did call, and I dropped the ball on his reservation." And that is going to give him more footing to demand free lodging. The LAST thing he wants is to have someone look him dead in the eye and say, "Nice try, Boyo. But I handle all reservations, and I've never heard of your wobbly a**."

Putting this back in the context of the student, the equivalent would be: "Not only are your charges without merit, but they're a set up for more bulls**t trauma-drama." There is a skill to spotting 'red herring' arguments, but it's an art to spot them when they're the opening gambit in -- what the intimidator hopes will be -- an escalating trauma-drama.

With most people, the options of "maybe the screw up is on my part" is always on the table. Maybe, they'll go so far as 'this other person is wrong.' But their basic premise is that it is a misunderstanding that can be worked out.

What many people DON'T have on the table is "'maybe this mo'fo is outright lying and trying to pull some s**t." OR "this situation cannot be resolved reasonably so I might as well just crack him upside the head right now and save myself a half hour of grief." Since they don't want conflict (which sucks) they are at a great disadvantage. That's because the other guy DOES want the trauma-drama of a conflict. And more importantly, it will be a conflict that HE controls. Did you notice some emphasis in that last sentence? The reason is that the bully/intimidator doesn't want to fight you. He wants to have his way, get his imagined power and feelings of superiority to combat the darkness and weakness he feels inside of himself. The absolute LAST thing he wants is to be spitting teeth. He wants to gain his desires through bluff, intimidation and, most importantly, without significant cost to himself.

That last part is the tricky bit. Because what someone considers significant cost can be radically different to him compared to what you think. To you a night in jail may be unacceptable, but to him it is. His losing his job might not be a big deal (this is often the case with low-level bullies). But as long as he is in control of the level of conflict (picking and choosing when to act out) he's going to feel pretty safe because he believes he is safe. You are the one with the limits, not him.

That's the art part I was talking about. Hell, I'll talk like a Dutch uncle to keep a situation from going sideways IF I believe that there's a slight chance of it being solved reasonably. But if the guy ISN'T interested in that, then fine. I can be unreasonable, too. Oh yeah, BTW, I'm better at being unreasonable than you. Or, as a button of mine reads, "Mess with me and I'll drop a house on your sister." (Think Wizard of Oz, except I wasn't as sweet and innocent as Dorothy.)

What I'm saying is that his 'reasonable demands' can be met reasonably. That is appropriate. When someone's demands are NOT reasonable, however, you shift gears, too. I can guarantee you if you get a 'what the f**k?' feeling when confronted with someone's wonky-a**ed demands, you're in "I want to sucker you into a monkey-dance territory. " In other words the dude is looking for free lodgings inside your head. And if you go into emotional monkey dance mode, you've given it to him.

The third factor is about the 'timing' of the situation. First off, his letter was designed to get you fretting and faunching about his showing up. He tried to give you time so you'd get all kinds of nervous about when he might suddenly materialize out of the mist. So you're going to be looking over your shoulder and distracted while teaching. That tactic not only puts all the power of when it's going to occur in his hands, but it drains your power because you're worrying about when it might happen.

Again, look at the 'ooooooh I'm so scary' aspect of a letter. You NEVER got to see him face to face to tell him to 'back off.' His delay after a delivered-by-a-third-party letter was to plow the field and make you nervous about confronting him. When is it coming? In the next few days. Then after the lull when you let your guard down, POOF! he appears unexpectedly.

THEN he shows up way before class. That's another way to catch you off guard. Because most people would expect him to show up during or after class. By popping up the second you got there (and before you had a chance to get ready), he hoped to throw you further off balance.

ALSO -- and this is important -- by showing up that early, it gives him a lot of time to work himself up into a lather. He's there and has been for a while, so when you step out of your car, he's prepared and in now familiar territory. Whereas you've had no time to prepare. You're suddenly confronted with a slobbering, barking, drooling, self-righteous roaring giant in what he has 'made' his territory.

Except you and your folks showed up an hour early. And that blew his build-up out of the water. He had to act without the chance to work himself up to a full, self-righteous roll. And instead of being firmly entrenched in his territory, your unexpected appearance did to him what he wanted to do to you.

And then you were rude enough not to try to argue with him, but to tell him to back off. That, by implication and inference, says that HE'S the one who's being overly aggressive. Remember, he not only has to be the one in control of the situation, but he has to be the good guy. In order for him to be self-righteous enough to justify his bad behavior, he has to be the wronged party.

Worse, your response showed him that his plowing the field DIDN'T work. At least not the way he hoped it would. Had you reacted fearfully or in a confused manner (ohmahgawdhe'sherenow!) he would have known that his plowing had worked. Knowing that, he would also know he could push the issue. A sharp BACK OFF! showed him that you knew this wasn't going to be solved rationally. AND that you aren't afraid of it blowing up.

That's a BIG deal. It literally is like chopping two legs out from his charging horse as your first move. ("I got myself a claymore(4). So you bring your a** AND your horse's over here. IF you survive me taking your horse out, then I'm going to start on YOU!") By telling him to 'back off,' you're not challenging him, you're not insulting him. You ARE telling him you are ready to react if he kicks that horse.

Recognize though, this is not a threat, it's a promise. As in: You kick that horse forward -- for whatever reason -- and I'm going to start weed whacking with my claymore. This puts the responsibility for whatever happens for kicking his horse into a charge on him.

The problem such people have when faced by such a reaction is that their game has been recognized. Two things are very important to such people. One is their game not being recognized for what it is. Two is their not being held accountable for playing that game. Someone establishing a boundary and showing they are ready to defend it changes the dynamic of the situation. They are no longer leading the dance. To use a crude analogy that means the person whose hair is getting pulled as he's getting f**ked could very well be him. And that is not what he wants to risk happening.

That is where the "he's not sure he can take you" comes back to haunt him.

Taking it back to your incident, instead of facing an already intimidated opponent, he found himself facing someone who was alert, ready, willing and able to meet him on whatever terms he wanted to try to take it. (Read: The role of being the one saying 'Who's your daddy?' was NOT guaranteed to be him.)

See all of this stuff (before that crude analogy) is what happens if he can establish rent-free space in your head. The crude analogy is what can happen if he doesn't establish rent-free space and still proceeds with his misbehavior. The fact that he had failed to do so was transmitted with a sharp "BACK OFF!"

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that he came there expecting to be the one doing all the yelling and ordering. The fact that you took control of the situation immediately showed him his plan hadn't worked the way he wanted it to.

Oh yeah, that's another thing to know about a certain subset of intimidators, they often try to bully you by barking at, criticizing you or coming at you with contempt just dripping from their words. This triggers all kinds of monkey dance reactions in a lot of people. But the simple fact is there is no physical threat. It's all verbal. But once you get in monkey dance mode, it's easy to imagine that physical will follow. That's another form of rent-free space in your head.

There are lots of ways to counter verbal intimidators. One of my personal favorites is when someone walks up and opens a conversation with a bark (designed to intimidate): Calmly stop, slowly turn to face the person and quietly ask/growl, "Excuse me, but WHAT did you just say to me?" As in 'tell me I didn't hear what I just thought I heard ... because if I did, we're going to have a serious f**kin' problem.' You'd be AMAZED at how fast the tone and phrasing of a barker changes when he or she encounters a growler(5).

Intimidators and bullies tend to get away with pushing because most people don't want to push back. More specifically they don't want to push back because they are afraid of the situation escalating.

That is a really subtle, but important point. Most people have a kind of glass ceiling about how far they want a situation to escalate. That gives the bully a distinct advantage. Normal people are looking for a win/win situation, whereas the bully is looking for a win/lose -- with the other person doing all the losing. Trying to find a win/win situation when someone is playing a win/lose game puts you at a disadvantage. See, win/wins are great ways to keep things from escalating. People are scared of escalation because it usually turns into win/lose.

The bullies advantage is that he IS playing win/lose in situations where everyone else is trying for a win/win. This is like being the only one at the card table who's cheating. The bully's weakness is that he can't get caught 'cheating' too early. If he does, he loses control. And the game still is win/lose. Your barked "BACK OFF!" showed him that you were aware it had become a win/lose situation, and you were ready to play for those stakes. This was a game he did not want to play.

I'm a firm believer of win/win situations. But when someone wants to play win/lose, I can play that, too. But, because I know that's the game we're playing from the beginning, there's a good chance the person who's going to lose is the bully. Bullies don't like losing. But what they really don't like is when someone recognizes their game early on, shrugs and says, "Okay if you insist we can play that way."

Realize an important point here. It's not an "I'm going to throw you a beating no matter what you do." It's an "if you cross this line -- no matter how justified you think you are -- I will hand you a smack down (whether it is physical or otherwise). And the responsibility for that will be entirely on you because you chose to cross this line." They have a chance to safely walk away without any real loss. If they try to continue, they are going to risk actual loss.

I mentioned earlier the 'it ain't as if you weren't warned' factor when it comes to the intimidator suffering the consequences of pushing the situation. There is an interesting point about people throwing tantrums and trying to intimidate you. They're looking for an excuse to misbehave. They know their behavior is out of line, but what they want is something that can drive them over the edge so they justify what they want to do.

That excuse is critical to them because what they 'do' is no longer their fault. They have a justification for whatever amount of damage they cause AT the same time they try to reap the benefits (among other things, perceived power). Gaining these benefits, however, is dependant on their 'winning' -- which they expect to do by throwing the tantrum.

Here's the flip side to that, however. Most bullies and intimidators are operating under a nearly crushing weight of self-loathing and perceived weakness. This is often why they spend so much time trying to build themselves up by tearing others down. The problem with that is they have a hole in the bottom of their psyches where any self-esteem they have drains out. Often this results in them continually having to tear others down. With this constant drain, you can imagine what a crushing blow losing is to them.

They hate losing. Not just the losing, but that they suffer more because the responsibility of losing -- in circumstances like this -- is entirely on them. By that I mean being warned that you are willing to play win/lose, but if the game continues it's because they decide to charge in after they were warned. If they throw a tantrum and win, grrrrrrreat. If they throw a tantrum and get a beating, it seriously jacks them up. Because they know they took a beating because THEY chose to misbehave.

Believe it or not, this is absolute poison to these kinds of people. It not only takes away their role of the aggressor, but there is no escaping the fact that the reason they took a beat down was because they chose to act a certain way. This reinforces that lack of self esteem that they work so hard to hide by attacking others.

These folks ONLY want the benefits of their bad behavior. They are so shamed-based(6), they cannot handle the responsibility for the negative consequences. If you're defending your boundaries, but not feeding him the inflammatory comments that he needs to justify his bad behavior, he can't emotionally give himself the excuse for crossing the line. While he may still do it, he lacks his normal self-righteousness. And that is going to make a defeat even more terrible to his psyche. Just setting up this dynamic often shuts the whole situation down.

Now having said all this, let me warn you that there's a 50/50 chance that this situation is over. Often bullies and intimidators, when they are called on their game, switch tactics -- especially in situations where they have to remain in proximity with people they have tried to bully, but failed (e.g., at the workplace). Other times, even if they aren't 'forced' to be there, they will take it on themselves to try and get at you another way.

Let me say, it may be over. But the 'oh s**t I misread this guy!' option is very much there. He might realize that he stepped on his dick and crawl off to sulk. He'll brood, rationalize how it wasn't his fault and in the end he will do .... nothing. A lot of times, this is what happens.

However, often such people 'live by the feud.' As odd as it may sound, keeping a long list of vendettas, outrages, pet peeves and plans to avenge themselves against all those who have wronged them, keeps them out of therapy. Basically a constant string of trauma-dramas and vendettas keep them from having to look at themselves and realize how f**ked up they are.

I tell you this because one direction he may take is that he'll fall back, sulk, brood, plot his revenge -- and then by some miraculous coincidence somebody ELSE will do him wrong. That person will then get his undivided attention (and a lot of the frustration that he built up over you). But if that's the case I can guarantee you, it will be folks who allow him to establish rent-free space in their heads.

The other direction he may try to come at you will be from another angle. Now here, too, we come to a various possibilities. If he knows he can't take you head on, he may:
a) try to ambush you
b) trash your property
c) turn his attention onto your students
d) try to trash your student's property
e) try to sic someone else on you

How well you counter these options will convince him to drop it and move on.

The up side of an ambush is he can get the drop on you. The down side is that against someone who knows that game, if the ambush is blown, the ambusher can expect no mercy (e.g., my infamous line, "If I ever see you in my neighborhood, I'll assume it's self-defense and start shooting."). This puts a VERY big onus on him to get it right the first time.

Because if he doesn't, it's going to be major league suckage for him, too. For example, if he steps out from around the corner with a bat, you draw your knife and charge him. (And trust me, at that range, he doesn't want to be trading a hit for a disemboweling thrust.)

The nice thing about this option is how tight you have your fecal matter wired for the next few weeks will send him the "DON'T TRY IT" message. Come to think of it, it will have the same effect on ALL the options.

But for the moment let's look at getting an ambush scratched off the list. If, for example, you drive around the block looking for loiterers before you park. When you show up to class, you carryi live steel among your other stuff that can be deployed. During class, you have it within reach. You look around before you devote your attention to things like loading gear into cars. You have a flashlight with you that you can use to check shadows before you get close to them. These are little things that people looking to ambush you take into consideration before deciding to act.

Ambushes require proximity. The problem with proximity is found in the Murphy's Law of Combat: If the enemy is in range SO ARE YOU! If you're close enough to ambush someone that also means you're close enough to get hurt. The LAST (did I emphasize that enough?) thing a would-be ambusher wants to do is get close to someone who is not only willing to hurt him, but aware of his presence in time to prepare to do so. That just takes the fun right out of it.

It doesn't matter if you see the guy loitering at a distance, what you don't want is not seeing him until he's closing in on you. After a number of "I see you lurking over there, and I'm ready if you try to close" incidents, most of these folks decide ixnay on the ambush plan. Enough so that they decide to ply their games elsewhere. Even if he has a really good hiding spot far away, he's going to see you looking around up close. And that will tell him that trying to get closer brings him into Murphy's Law of Combat range.

Option C is a bit more of a pest. You need to tell your students to be on their toes for the next few weeks. And this also includes sending students into the parking lot every 10 or 15 minutes to make sure nobody is messing with cars or taking up a position to watch the building (flashlights are handy). That handles options B and D as well. If numb nuts shows up, the cops are called.

In addition, I know you went to the police on the first round and showed them the letter. This is good (nothing like him leaving an evidence trail, eh?). But you also need to go to the police and report this last incident. Do NOT walk out of the station without getting it written down that you encountered him once already. This is critical for establishing a paper trail not just for you, but your students. NOW if he goes after anyone else in the school, it can be linked to the original incident. And since, as you said, the local 5-0 knows this guy, it'll just be another nail in his coffin.

The best thing you can tell your students is DO NOT try to engage this guy. He's still looking to get someone into monkey dance mode so they will play with him. Their best defense is 911 on the speed dial of their cell phones. They call in to report that this guy is harassing them as part of a bigger plot to harass you and the school. The cops are really going to get interested in his doing that.

That's why it's so important that they know, if he tries to start something with them, they walk away and call the cops. If he follows, they inform him that the cops have been called ... what happens after that is on him. But the race to the phone is over. All they have to do is stay in public. The more witnesses they have that he was the problem, the better. (Hell, recording him on the cell is pretty fun when it comes to him getting into deep kim chee.)

Basically you have about two weeks of this and as more time passes, the more the odds will dwindle on his take any physical action. That doesn't mean that he still won't try something, though.

Option E is expect him to bad mouth you. I seriously doubt that he has the connections to send anyone to physically attack you. But expect that in the small circle of people who listen to him, he will talk s**t about you. Part of this is actually to your benefit. Realistically, you probably don't want people who consider him to be a reliable source of information in your school. This is the most likely scenario or that he'll start an Internet smear campaign.

A second version of option E needs to be, well, if not expected, then at least not a surprise if it comes about. That is that some folks will try to get you by sending authorities after you.

If someone from some agency comes in and says they have a complaint against you, don't freak out. Laugh and ask, "Is so-and-so behind this?" Usually the response will be, "We can't tell you who filed the complaint" or "It was an anonymous complaint." When in fact the name IS on the report. You laughing and immediately asking about that very name tells the inspector there's a good chance the agency is being used to settle a personal score. This agencies do NOT like. And it goes double if you are polite, helpful and provide the inspector with any information he or she needs to close the matter ... oh yeah ... and somewhere along the line you mention the fact that this incident is on record with the police. Would they like the officer's name? With a little bit of help, this kind of behavior can boomerang right back on him.

Finally, there's another way to sic someone on you. And this involves something you really should have anyway. Do you have an attorney? Although an attorney on retainer is nice, that costs(7). But have you shopped around FOR an attorney? I have, in fact, multiple attorneys for different fields. I've done business with them, and if something comes up, all I have to do is pick up the phone and say, "You're on the clock." And if you think I'm a nasty f**ker in a fight, you ought to try tangling with my attorneys.

Now this may sound like paranoia, but let me tell you how cool it is to have an attorney in your back pocket. "Oh you're going to sue me? My attorney's name is Scott Atwell. Would you like his number?" You'd be amazed at how fast that takes the wind out of people's sails when they threaten to sue you. Add to this just how fun it is to tell someone, "From now on any contact you want to make with me goes through my attorney." All of a sudden the fun and games depart because your attorney isn't going to put up with his s**t.

It's critical that this guy know that you'll meet him on any level he wants to play. Not only because you told him to back off, but for your own peace of mind.

You've established that you can meet him on one level. That may be enough, and this is the end of the whole affair. But now that you show you can meet him on one, you have to be ready for him to try another level. And if he tries another, you'll need to be ready for that. And if he does, he needs to recognize that the stakes are much higher if he tries something else. There is an old phrase in the English language (as in I don't know how old it is), but it goes: "Don't call the tune if you aren't willing to dance." This is a much stronger version of the watered-down "all you have to do is stand up to a bully."

The latter often fails because the person doesn't realize that it takes more than just standing up to this kind of person. You have to be willing to dance WHEN you stand up.

But more importantly, you're going to discover how many people who are calling that tune aren't ready to dance when you stand up and say, "I know this tune. Let's dance." See most of the time, their calling of that tune was a bluff to get you to chicken out. They don't want to play at that level with someone who knows the stakes.

In conclusion, let me say that most people who try to get rent-free space in your head ONLY want to dance if they can get you doubting yourself. That's the purpose of their trying to plow the field. The more solid you are in making sure the "No Vacancy" sign is lit, the more likely these kinds of folks are to keep on going on down the road to find someone else they can pull this s**t on (8)

Marc

1) There will be a total of three DVD sets (two DVDs each). The first set is about identifying when a conflict is going to turn into a physical assault (or just as importantly when it isn't). The second set is for professionals. It's about how to use tactical positioning when de-escalating a potentially violent person. There's all kinds of body language that lets violent people know you're better at it than they are. And someone who knows you can stomp him like bug is usually a WHOLE lot more willing to be de-escalated.
Return

2) Watch for the personalization. It isn't just that you did (or are doing) something wrong. Some way or the other, you've brought great distress to the person because of what you did 'wrong.' Realistically, even if you did make a mistake, most errors are easily fixed. But not so personalized ones. Long before the demand of a pound of flesh, there's a sense of building trauma-drama to their charges of your misconduct.Return

3) Rory Miller: Meditations On Violence. The 'monkey dance' is human adrenalized, emotional, primate conflict and threat display behavior. Rory's summation of "you don't control the monkey dance, it controls you" is perhaps the most profound observation in a book stuffed full of great information. Return

4) Remember I was talking to a sword instructor. Claymores are one of two Scottish sword types. The type I was talking about was a large (5 feet or so) two-handed sword that could kill a charging horse. And this tended to complicate the life of the fully armoured guy riding the horse. Return

5) There's an old Roman saying: A barking dog isn't biting. If you've spent any time around dogs, you'll have seen this. In contrast, however, a growling dog is a lot closer to biting than a barking one. That's why a growled "excuse me..." tends to make barkers back off. Return

6) Shamed based personality or other personality disorders are very common. Return

7) Besides you really don't need to have a lawyer on retainer unless you expect to be arrested and need to have someone come down and bail you out. OR if you already have a pending court case. Just having found a lawyer that you deal with during regular business hours is usually enough. And then it is a pay as you go relationship. Return

😎 For you computer savvy people, another analogy is a firewall. One of the things I was told when I first put up a firewall was don't panic. Sure you're going to get pings. But pings AREN'T attacks, they're pings. They're looking for weaknesses. If they find one, then they'll attack. A ping against a strong firewall, however, tells them not to bother and to keep on looking. Return

this is quite good -- dovetails great with peyton quinn's work on "interviewing" --well worth the long read-- particularly like the adivce on growling, not barking --thanks for posting it Kyle-- nick