When I teach self-protection/personal safety I do so from a situational perspective, identifying five situational components that define a situation. These are: location (where does the incident occur e.g. on the street, in a parking lot, in your home etc.), relationship e.g. is the assailant a stranger, an acquaintance, a family member etc. The assailant’s motive – do they want money, to sexually assault you? Etc. Your state of mind/level of preparedness and those third parties who are with you (friends, acquaintances, family members such as children etc.) Whenever I do scenario based training these are the factors/components I change e.g. the same “situation” or scenario but in a different location, or with an assailant who has a different motive etc.

The two variables/components that are most interconnected are location and relationship. If an assault is committed by a stranger, location is more important than the relationship the attacker has with the victim. In my time teaching self-defense I have seen many people over-estimate the importance of location e.g. when someone of a certain demographic and socio-economic class is abducted from their home and killed, everyone who shares similar traits such as age and gender, and who lives in the same area, automatically assumes that they are at a similar risk and it was simply by chance and luck that it wasn’t them who was abducted. This is not automatically the case; if the assailant and the victim had a prior relationship, then the locational component becomes less important; it is just the place where the assault “happens”. However where stranger violence occurs, location becomes a defining factor.

A location has certain attributes that make it a place of choice for violence to occur. It has to have, what are referred to as “Crime Attractors” e.g. what brings a violent criminal to a particular location. A mugger is going to be attracted to an area which has a good supply of “Cash Rich” victims (forget deserted alleyways etc. these places by definition are deserted and have no potential victims in them), such as ATM’s, Shopping Malls, Parking Lots etc. However there may well be locations that although attractive to certain criminals, have a number of “Crime Preventers”, which dissuade them from operating in these seemingly attractive locations. A certain shopping mall, may at first glance appear to be an area which supplies a good number of potential victims, however if it enjoys a good CCTV (Closed Circuit TV) system, then a mugger may decide that the risk of getting caught is too great and may choose to find another more suitable  location. As well as there being “Crime Preventers” there are also “Crime Promoters”.

Certain locations may have factors in them, which promote crime. An “attractive” area that has certain features will “score” higher on a predator’s radar than other attractive areas. One of the main things a criminal looks for is the numeracy of escape routes e.g. burglars are much more likely to break in to a corner house, which is located on two roads, than a house in a cul-de-sac where there is only one way in and out. Muggers work to a similar protocol, choosing locations with a variety of escape routes. Muggers will also look for areas, where people either have to slow down and/or stop – such as crossing points across a road. Basically, you are more at risk when you are stationary, than when you are moving. Areas which enjoy natural surveillance are also less likely to be crime hotspots than those which don’t; a car parked in a parking lot near the entrance, where there is a lot of traffic is less likely to be broken into, than one parked in a more remote spot – even if it is better lit.

Many of a city’s crime hotspots are located in its less affluent districts, and there are a variety of reasons. Most street crime such as muggings and robberies, are committed by those individuals looking for immediate cash, not credit cards, jewelry etc. These items need to be converted into cash and this requires both time, and access to a criminal network, something that most muggers lack – especially if they are committing robberies in order to support a drug habit. Poorer neighborhoods are likely to contain people with bad or no credit, who don’t use credit or debit cards, but do most of their transactions in cash. A mugger targeting such individuals may get more cash of a person who deals exclusively with this form of exchange, than a more affluent person who uses cash less frequently. If you are in a location where there are “Check Cashing” businesses, pawn shops and similar, you are in an area where people are more likely to use cash than credit cards, and this makes it a more attractive area to muggers than a more affluent district. If you couple this with the lack of “crime preventers” e.g. a more affluent area or town is more likely to be able to afford more and better policing/security, such places become more attractive to muggers etc.     

We don’t always have control over the places we find ourselves in e.g. we may live in an area that suffers from high crime rates, or work in one etc. We cannot always avoid being in areas that are attractive to certain criminals however when we understand those things which promote crime and those which prevent it, we may be able to adjust our behavior and the routes we chose to take when moving through such locations. We may take practical measures, such as timing the moment we get to intersections so as to be able to immediately cross because the traffic has stopped, than have to wait at the junction for an opportunity. These might not be steps we take in all locations but just in the ones we understand have a higher threat level.