Whilst most of our personal models of violence probably involve single assailants, the reality of modern violence is that we are just as likely to be assaulted by more than one person. If we look at the social settings where violence occurs, such as in bars, pubs, and clubs, etc., it is likely that an aggressor will not be alone, but will be part of a group. It is also true that many predatory criminals work together, such as muggers, who find strength in numbers, and can use members of the group to act as lookouts, as well as to help locate and identify potential victims/targets. Because of this it is worth looking at group dynamics, and how these effect our solutions to violence.

A group can consist of two or more individuals, where there is some form of common bond and possible interdependence e.g. friends, who share a history of experiences together (common bond), and also watch each other’s backs/take responsibility for each other’s safety (interdependence) i.e. the group has a social relationship. When people come together as a group, they will often act and behave not as individuals, but as a single unit, adopting a certain set of characteristics across its members. If we are to be successful in dealing with group aggression and violence, we need to understand these dynamics.

The term “Groupthink” was first coined by William H Whyte Jr, in 1952, but was adopted by Irving Janis, who conducted many studies on the way that an individual’s critical thinking diminishes when they identify themselves as part of a group. Imagine a situation, in a bar or a club, where you accidentally bump into someone who is drinking with a group of friends, and as a consequence, they turn around and start threatening and shouting at you. Other members of the group may think that their friend’s behavior is over the top and an extreme reaction to what has just happened. However, if all of the individuals, strongly identify themselves as part of the group, it is likely that nobody will voice their own opinion, as this could possibly see them going against the group.

Irving Janis, identified three main characteristics of groups, these are:

 

  1. Overestimations of the group
  2. Close-mindedness
  3. Pressures towards uniformity

 

When we understand these things, we will be better positioned to find solutions to group aggression and violence. Groups tend to make overestimations about their invulnerability, with members believing that they are less likely to get hurt, which means that they are more likely to take risks e.g. a normally reserved and cautious member of a group, may be emboldened to act in ways they wouldn’t – such as making threats, and/or acting violently – because they feel that they enjoy the protection of the group, etc. Groups also tend to suppress an individual’s possible criticisms of the group’s actions, as no one wants to be seen to be offering an opinion contrary to other members of the group (a member’s silence will often be taken by members of the group to signify agreement). There is also the pressure of uniformity that makes members see any non-members of the group as an outsider. Just as groups join people together, they can also cause members to look on non-members as a potential threat or challenge to the group; when you are dealing with one member of the group, you are in fact dealing with them all.

Not all members of a group are the same as each other. There are basically three roles that a member of a group can assume when we are addressing a group’s violent behavior (identifying who plays which role is important when you are dealing with group aggression):

 

  1. Leaders
  2. Agitators
  3. Followers   

 

Leaders and Agitators, can be difficult to distinguish between: a Leader is somebody who’s decision-making process, influences and directs the group, whilst an Agitator is somebody who tries to influence the way in which the group acts and behaves e.g. possibly acting as a “Mindguard” suppressing any dissent within the group, and vocally encouraging certain actions – “You’re not going to let him get away with that”, “Hit him!”, etc. A Follower, is somebody who will go along with whatever activities the group thinks is appropriate, but will not initiate or encourage.

When you are dealing with a member of the group, you should look to isolate them from the group in some way – when I worked in bar security, we used to refer to this as “sheep dogging”, where you – like a sheepdog - try to separate one individual from the group/flock. One way to do this is by relative positioning. By taking a step backwards, you may be able to draw the individual you are talking with away from the group (which will also give you more time to deal with them, if the situation becomes violent, before the rest of the group become involved); without the relative close proximity of the group, they may not feel as sure of themselves, and so be less likely to act violently towards you. If you are able to identify the Leaders of the group, you may want to step back, and at an angle, so the rest of the group and/or the person you are dealing with, are lined up, this puts the Leader (one person) between you and the group, slowing down the others’ route to you – if things do become violent, it is the primary aggressor(s) who will be the first individual(s) to try to get involved, so it is better to deal with them as an individual, rather than as one of several members of the group. If it looks as though they are already getting into position, it is worth moving yourself towards them, as if you can pre-emptively take them out of the game, it can cause hesitancy on the part of the group (exposing vulnerabilities), which may allow you a good disengagement opportunity.

It is worth noting, when you are dealing with an aggressor who is part of a group, the reactions and responses of the other members e.g. who appears vocal and nervous, but doesn’t move into a position where they could do something (possibly an Agitator), and who looks like they want to get actively involved, (a Leader). It is often easy to get a feel for whether the person you are dealing with is confident in themselves, or seems to be seeking the direction and support of the group.

You should be aware that peer pressure also plays a part in any group and an individual may feel pressure to act violently towards you, if they feel that this is what the group expects. If it feels like the person you are dealing with is forcing themselves to become emotional and aggressive towards you, it is likely that you are dealing with somebody who feels that they have to act violently.

In any group situation where the incident occurred spontaneously and was not premeditated, you should first attempt to de-escalate the situation (if you have an easy disengagement opportunity, take it). If it’s a pre-meditated situation, where all the group wants of you are your possessions, you should acquiesce, if they want you, then the fight is about survival, and you should act pre-emptively. In a spontaneous situation, where there is no chance of de-escalating or disengaging from the situation, you should also look to act pre-emptively. Your goal in acting pre-emptively is to get the members of the group to question their invulnerability; to demonstrate that they may get hurt and seriously injured. Your goal is to work with extreme violence against the Leader, or one of the Leaders of the group, causing them extreme pain, so that the rest of the group witness it, and start to have doubts about their invulnerability – that they start to question what might happen to them rather than trust in the invincibility of the group.

If you are unable to dissuade other members of the group from getting involved, and you are involved in a group fracas, your goal should be to exit the scene as soon as possible. It is unlikely you will have the opportunity to spend any length of time dealing with each individual, unless you can line everybody up (which becomes extremely difficult if you are dealing with more than two people, or are not in a situation where the environment prevents access to you). In such instances, disrupting strikes to the groin and eyes, rather than power shots which are hard to perform when moving in certain directions, should be used to help you clear a path/route which will allow you to disengage safely.

In a prolonged fight, where disengagement isn’t an option, you will need to look at nullifying each member of the group, and taking each member of the group out of action, one at a time. There will come a point in a multiple assailant assault where you will need to focus your efforts on one individual, rather than having your attention divided by the group, and after dealing with them, moving on to the next, etc. This approach realistically is the only way to successfully conclude the fight, as otherwise you run the risk of prolonging the altercation by only doing enough to disrupt each member of the group, rather than taking any of them out of the picture. This approach will mean that you have to take punches and strikes, and can’t retaliate to every attack made. This is where pain management, and an understanding of pain versus danger really comes in.

One of the strange phenomena of group violence is that it is often the Followers and Agitators who inflict the most pain and injury during group violence. Primary aggressors have a fairly distinct role that they play, and a very clear goal to fulfill, which is to prevent the person they are dealing with from being able to threaten them and members of the group, whilst at the same time confirming their social status within the group. This often means that once they have, for example, put somebody on the ground, they will walk away. In many instances, it is the Followers and Agitators who will continue the assault, beating and assaulting their victim, as they try to demonstrate their allegiance and value to the group. Because of this, it is important to keep fighting, however convinced you may be that the main aggressor will back away if you capitulate. Once, when I was working the door (bar security), I came across two guys in a bathroom who were kicking an unconscious man, lying on the floor. At first glance, it looked like they were the primary aggressors, however when we replayed the CCTV footage, it came to light that there had initially been three attackers – the one who had knocked the man unconscious had left after throwing a couple of punches, leaving his two accomplices who then set about kicking and stomping the victim.

Group violence is never pretty and always volatile and unpredictable, this is why it is best dealt with through de-escalation, even if this means taking a hit to your ego. If violence seems inevitable, it is normally best to go pre-emptive, and look to disrupt the group, before they are ready to fight. In my next article, I will look at how groups operate in pre-meditated acts of violence, such as muggings, and coordinated and planned “beatdowns“ of victims.