Violence: A Writer's Guide

by Rory Miller

  THE RUSSIAN MUGGING-Discussion

  The video shows a man, identified by Russian news sources as a crack addict, closely following a small woman into an elevator lobby. In the grainy film, the man looks tall and skinny and wears glasses. The woman is small. She walks to the far corner of the lobby. The man follows. He stands very close. The woman does not look at him, just stares at the bank of elevators. The man grabs her by the head, one hand covering her mouth and pulls/lifts/twists so that she hits the ground face up. He begins stomping on her head.

  I counted the takedown and eleven stomps in seven seconds, but the film is grainy. There could have been more stomps. He then bends down and either tries to take her purse or go through her pockets. He stands up and begins stomping her head again. According to news reports, this was because she wouldn’t stop screaming.

  This dynamic, search and stomp, is repeated. When the elevator arrives, he drags her limp body into the elevator. One of my students was Russian and followed the case in the news. She says that the girl, 15 years of age, was in a coma for months and then died, and that the perpetrator was caught because of the video.

  This is a good example because it is not special. It is a simple attack, a typical mugging.

  Addiction is huge in crimes like these because it is one of the few things that we experience in the modern era that imitates survival violence. Whatever you might do for food or water on the edge of death is what an addict will do to feed his addiction. There are some other mental gymnastics that beginners have to go through to justify that level of violence, but it becomes easier over time until with an experienced violent criminal there is NO psychological fall-out. If it is reinforced quickly enough with cravings satisfied, it becomes soothing.

  When you go back in history (or even folklore) people would do this and worse for food (Hansel and Gretel, anyone, as a cautionary tale to avoid cannibals?)

  This is not special!!!! He kept stomping her head because she wouldn't quit screaming. Not because he was afraid of being identified, not because he had rage issues, not because of psychosis or dementia brought on by his addiction. She was screaming. It bothered him. Head trauma shuts people up.

  Psychopath? Maybe. It doesn't take any mystical evil or Hollywood-style mental disorder to make people act this way. It only took a form of simple math: "I want X and don't care about you. What is the fastest way for me to get X?"

  This isn't a super-criminal. This is a skinny Russian crackhead. This is very much the way an average assault goes down. Look at the victim choice, the range, the choice of technique, the victim's body language ("There's something wrong here," she thinks, "but if I just don't make eye contact or antagonize him, it will be all right.") which was exactly what the threat was looking for.

  Psychopath and Sociopath have both been removed from the DSM-IV and are considered extreme Anti-Social Personality Disorder (APD). The terms psychopath and sociopath never had distinct definitions. There used to be a test that distinguished a true sociopath from an APD, but for whatever reason the APA (American Psychological Association) no longer recognizes it.

  The essence of a true sociopath (and mimicked to varying degrees by APDs) is that the world seems unreal. People are just pictures. The only real things are personal pain and personal pleasure and both of those are fleeting. Most are quite stupid, because by their nature they can't learn from others. They can be very good, even brilliant in a narrow field, but they learn largely through trial and error. That's why the character of Hannibal Lector rang so false. He was a good bogeyman, but a terrible depiction.

  A real Dexter (to name another great character that rings false to me) would casually rape his sister if the thought occurred to him and he had the urge. He would shut her up through fear, blackmail or violence-- whichever he thought would work with the least complications. And he wouldn't feel anything about it one way or the other the next morning.

  Once upon a time I had to read a child molester's journal to determine if it was evidence. It was. He was shocked and disturbed. His victim, after all, was his daughter. How is that different than his shoes? He could do what he wanted with his shoes. How was this different? Isn't that what 'his' means?

  No matter how disturbing you found this video, I have to remind you that you can't hear it and you can't smell it. Some of the things that stay with you forever are the smells.

  Chapter 2: Context

  There are seven things that surround any act of self-defense and almost any fight or use of force. If you want a fight scene to appear real or to seem like it happened in a living, breathing world, these seven things are the context that you must understand. A professional will have a working understanding of all of these aspects. An amateur, a character who is not a veteran of a violent world will be completely unprepared for most of what follows.

  1) Legal and ethical issues. Self-defense law is a specialty, and it is something that can screw up a character with the wrong training. It is also one of those things that can make the novel read wrong. Killings and beatings, justified or not, don’t happen in a vacuum. Cops show up. Lawyers get involved. Families of the deceased start suing. The tension is unbelievable. You will hear the deceased, no matter how violent and despicable a criminal (or how terrified your protagonist) described as a, “Good boy. He would never hurt anybody. He was just depressed. I don’t know why she called the police at all instead of an ambulance…”

  The legal stuff is very complex. I did a short sidebar on it in “Meditations on Violence” and Loren Christensen put a chapter in “Fighter’s Fact Book 2: The Street”. There will be extensive information in “Facing Violence” which is due out from YMAA in 2011.

  The basic things you must understand are, 1) that self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means that the defendant is admitting to the underlying crime (say, taking a life) and is claiming it is justified. It shifts the burden of proof largely to the defense. The defendant must prove that she had no choice.

  The second basic is that the criminal and civil courts and processes are not the same. You can be found “not guilty” or “justified” in a criminal court and still be sued and lose in a civil court.

  Self-defense laws are usually written into state statutes. Most of the state statutes are available on line. Do a search for “justification”. If self-defense has not been written into state law as a justification (as in Massachusetts) you may have to search for “jury instructions” and “self-defense.”

  The ethical issues make for interesting character development. Everyone has issues with using force on a human. (Even some of the most extreme criminals will have lines they will not cross—not because of feelings, in some cases, but to protect a self-image.) No one, until they do it, knows exactly where that line is. Many can’t kill. Some can’t bring themselves to hurt. Some will protect their self-image even at great cost. Long ago a friend told me that she would never hurt a human being, even to save her own life or the life of a child. Would she cling to that image, to her own death?

  Warning: the article in the following link is pretty disturbing. Ms. Davis writes with remarkable courage about her rape. I recommend it, but be prepared.

  “Betrayed by the Angel”

  Many professionals have work-arounds. It is easier to do dangerous jobs if you don’t have much of a survival instinct. That gives you the detachment to go in. To get back out, you need to find your survival motivation. My motivation is my kids. I will die someday. I accept that. I will, however, do everything in my power to keep my kids from being orphaned. Works for me.

  2) Violence dynamics. There are social and asocial types of violence. Social violence is for status, territory, or the good of the group. Asocial is hunting, and the victim is not seen as a person at all.

  Social violence breaks down into the Monkey Dance (MD), Group Monkey Dance (GMD), Educational Beat Down (EBD) and Status Seeking Show (SSS).

  The Monkey Dance is a status ritual almost always between young men. The basic pattern
is a hard stare, followed by a verbal challenge (“What you lookin’ at?”) followed by an approach, often trying to look bigger and tougher, then contact, either a two-handed push on the chest or a finger poke, then a punch, usually a wild, looping overhand swing. Both people play. The stares, verbal challenges and chest pushing are often mutual. Sometimes the punches are tentative and followed by a step back.

  The ideal is for friends to step in and separate the ‘fighters’ so that they have established a reputation for being willing to fight without actually getting hurt. Hitting the head with a fist is far more likely to damage the fist than the head. Other then the medial metacarpal breaking (called a “boxer’s fracture”) if someone gets hurt in this scenario it is because he fell and hit his head. Like bighorn sheep butting heads, it’s a safe way to establish dominance in a group, and is probably biologically determined.

  The Group Monkey Dance establishes boundaries and loyalties. The low level is when an outsider tries to interfere in a group’s activities and the group turns on the outsider. This happens frequently when people try to break up fights and the audience turns on the person trying to help or when cops show up to a domestic violence call and the victim turns on the cops.

  The higher level of the GMD is when an outsider or an insider believed to have betrayed the group is savagely beaten, tortured and/or murdered by the group. It turns into a contest of proving loyalty by doing damage. The bodies dragged through Fallujah, the wildings in Central Park or the gang roving Seattle randomly attacking people are all examples. Committing violence together, whether hunting a mammoth or doing a drive-by, is intensely bonding.

  The Educational Beat Down is simply enforcing the rules of the group. It’s a spanking for adults. In both redneck and some inner-city cultures, a thwack on the back of the head (always from a higher status to lower status member) is a reminder to watch manners. In some societies, the EBD can be relatively savage. Many people honestly feel that beating a spouse or child is teaching. It is not a euphemism or an excuse. It is what they believe.

  In dysfunctional groups or groups with an insecure leader, the EBDs can be extreme, e.g. Al Capone murdering his lieutenant at the dinner table with a baseball bat. It wasn’t intended to teach the dead guy, it was to send a message.

  The Status Seeking Show is what happens when someone decides to get a reputation for being ‘hard’ or ‘crazy’. Such a reputation is a very valuable thing in certain circles. An SSS is one or more acts of extreme public violence—shooting a stranger, picking a fight and beating someone to a pulp (ignoring the stops built into the Monkey Dance,) using a weapon in a Monkey Dance, etc. Ambushing a cop is a great way to get a reputation.

  In asocial, or predatory violence, the threat has already put the victim into a “non-human” category and there are no internal limits on the force the threat can use. The limits are imposed externally—chance of getting caught, chance to do prison time, amount of prison time (with very experienced violent criminals sentencing minimums do act as a deterrent).

  There are two types of predatory violence: resource, and process.

  A resource predator wants something tangible and the victim is merely a source: usually money or something that can be turned into money, sometimes a car. He will use the level of violence that has the best pay-off-to-risk ratio. Merely threatening violence works most of the time. Aggressive panhandling is one of the lowest levels of implied aggression, but it often works.

  If the threat (‘Threat’ is the law enforcement term for an individual who may require force—it sounds more professional than saying ‘the bad guy.’) judges that violence is his best option, it will be fast, hard and from surprise. The entire goal is that the victim has no time to respond and will be frozen, trying to figure out what is happening. This tactic is almost always successful.

  (When a former bad guy read “Meditations on Violence” he said I got one thing wrong: “You gave ‘em too much hope, Sarge. I used to come up on ‘em just like that and none of ‘em ever had a chance.”)

  A Process Predator enjoys the act of the crime. The pain and dominance are the fun part. Rapists. Serial killers and torture murderers. People who get addicted to the Status-Seeking Show.

  Predators use two types of tactics, charm and blitz. Read Gavin DeBecker’s “The Gift of Fear” for the best list I’ve ever seen of the specific tactics that charm predators use to get close to you or even to get access to your living space. Once they have established privacy, the predator will go to work.

  A blitz predator attacks with overwhelming force from surprise. A charm approach is often followed by a blitz assault.

  3) The third basic of violence is prevention. Avoidance is merely staying out of places where bad things happen. Staying away from three kinds of places (where people get their minds altered by drugs, alcohol or ritual; where young men gather in groups; where territory is in dispute) will reduce the chance of encountering violence to almost zero.

  A professional knows this and avoids those places. If she can’t avoid them or needs something there, she is aware of the situation and takes precautions—stays alert, brings a weapon and back-up if possible.

  Escape and Evasion is the habit of constantly revising a plan for how to get out of here now. Pros often walk the perimeter of a new building before going in, noticing traffic flow and exits. They keep track of ways to leave a room and what routes are concealed (a bad guy couldn’t see you) or covered (something between you and the bad guy that could stop a bullet.) Beginners look at doors and stairwells. Some remember to look at windows they could break. A few are experienced or concerned enough to check which walls are drywall and could be smashed in a few seconds or minutes. Sub ceilings are sometimes an option, but they won’t cross the load-bearing walls, are fragile and tend to make a mess of dust when lifted.

  The one time I actually found an air-duct big enough for an adult, it sucked pretty bad. They are screwed together and have the sharp ends of the screws protruding inside everywhere. I was cut to ribbons.

  The third element of avoidance is de-escalation. Sometimes mere presence can do it. People are usually quick to stop being bad when a cop shows up. The presence of witnesses will also discourage most criminals.

  Usually, de-escalation refers to talking someone down. This is one of the things that authors and screenwriters get really, really wrong.

  The psychologist Abraham Maslow postulated that there are five levels of need that all humans have. These needs must be addressed in order, in other words, if you are being eaten by a lion you don’t worry about getting stores for the winter or whether your faction will be running the tribe.

  The quick run down:

  People need to live: they need food and water and must avoid being killed or freezing to death.

  Only if the previous level is taken care of do people start to worry about security: Having enough food for tomorrow; building a barrier to keep the tigers out of the cave.

  If the first two are stable, humans want to be in a group. They want to belong.

  Once they belong, they want to be established, to have a place in the group and maybe a little love.

  Once they achieve stability within a group, they can pursue their dreams, become what Maslow called “self actualized.”

  In our society, very few people have ever experienced deprivation of the first two levels. Physical security was taken care of by out ancestors long ago, to the extent that the normal way to deal with the possibility of hunger (and that itself is a far cry from starvation) involves paperwork and not snares or spears.

  We have been conditioned to believe that self-actualization is a good thing, that it allows those who achieve it the security to act on their altruistic impulses.

  This means that almost all of the conflict that most modern people experience has been driven by problems at the 3rd and 4th levels, the social levels. So citizens, including authors and counselors and teachers and specialists, draw from their experience with social confli
ct to write scenes of criminal violence. It comes out with very nice, poignant dialogues where someone touches the inner pain in the violent criminal and turns things around… poignant dialogues that in real life would leave the criminal laughing and the speaker bleeding.

  People using violence for level 1 are in a survival mindset. This is where a lot of incidents with the mentally ill or excited delirium go bad. No one is going to make a connection with your inner child when you are panicked and drowning in a raging sea (not a metaphor--drowning is one of the few times a citizen will encounter this. The most mild-mannered person in the world will drown a rescuer by trying to climb up on the rescuer and get another breath of air.)

  People using violence for level 2 are very common. These are usually junkies trying to get money for drugs. It may not seem like a survival issue to your logical brain, but it feels like one to an addict. They need money. They need it now. If your talking gets them the money, fine. Just be quick about it. If it doesn’t, they will shut you up, fast and hard. Their need outweighs your humanity. Their tortured past is not even on their minds compared to their present pain. You can make a connection here, but it is not easy and I haven’t seen it done well in fiction or cinema.

  An addict will be willing to do whatever you would do to keep yourself or your family from starving. That is how strong the drive is, and one way that you can, slightly, understand an addict’s worldview. Conversely, if something (like talking about your childhood) would fail to dissuade you from feeding your children, it won’t work on the addict either.

  Lastly, Process Predators are about as self-actualized as they can be. They are being who they are and doing what they love, maybe the only thing that makes them feel alive. Trying to make a deep connection only amuses them. Some will play along, because the look of betrayal when the victim realizes that she has just wasted a bunch of time instead of fighting is pretty delicious…