Authors: Gavin de Becker,Thomas A. Taylor,Jeff Marquart
While this report focuses on the tactics of pie throwing groups, similar types of attacks have been used against executives and public figures using other foods, such as eggs. As discussed below, it is wise to have a response prepared for these types of attacks.
Tactics
In addition to reviewing the propaganda of several pie throwing groups, we've carefully analyzed pie attack incidents in order to provide insight to the tactics and strategies that are used.
They generally attack at public meetings, scheduled events, press conferences, or public appearances. They most often attack at a transit point (i.e. getting out of a car or coming out of a building), though a few incidents have occurred as a speaker left a stage after making a speech or participating in a press conference.
In planning their attacks, they seek intelligence about their target's schedule. They sometimes contact the target's organization under a ruse (media calling to check on an event), or they rely upon sympathizers within the organization to provide them information.
They operate in teams of at least four individuals, mixed male and female.
In order to deliver a pie, they have to get within 10 feet of the target.
When attacking people who employ security personnel, these groups have attempted to look "non-threatening."
They wear bulky clothes and backpacks in order to hide their pies and video cameras. One team member wearing a backpack faces the target, and stands in front of his associate. The associate then removes the pie out of view of the target and his security personnel.
Team member Number One distracts the target by asking a provocative question related to their cause d'jour. While the target is focused on the person who asked the question, team member number two will attempt to throw a pie directly into the target's face. Team member number three will be behind the target and, if the first attempt fails, he or she will deliver a pie upside down on the top of the target's head. Team member number four uses a camcorder to record the attack and the target's reaction.
To increase the chances of success, some attacks have involved additional pie throwers.
Pie throwers often run away or try to run away to avoid arrest.
They will release copies of their videotape of the pie attack to the media. They will also publish a "communique" on the Internet taking responsibility for the attack and stating their reasons for doing so.
If they are arrested, they have the support of activist lawyers and they attempt to gain additional publicity for their cause during the legal process.
Reaction
Having a protective detail certainly decreases the chances of a fully successful pie attack, and many have been prevented outright. Even aborted attacks can result in some pie landing on the Principal.
Accordingly, we suggest that the Principal always have an additional shirt, tie, and jacket available, so that in the event this ever occurs, it's possible to get quickly back to the public appearance.
Because pies in the face are associated with comedy and clowns, the media reports on these assaults somewhat irreverently. We consider the attacks a serious assault, but the general public does not -- mostly because pie is used. In contrast, attacks using animal blood are similar in all regards to pie attacks, except that animal blood does not stimulate the same kind of stories. With either, a degree of humiliation can be part of these incidents. For these reasons and others, one's reaction to a pie attack is important. French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy has reacted to his attacks with anger and challenging the attackers to fight. In part because of his reaction, he has been attacked five times.
Conversely, a French author who licked pie off his face and commented that it tasted good earned the media's respect for being a good sport. He has not been attacked again. In addition, Arnold Schwarzenegger also received favorable press reports when he joked about being hit by an egg by stating that the perpetrator owed him bacon.
We suggest having a quip in mind to be used in the event of a pie (or other food-type) attack. For example: "I ordered this pie a week ago," or "I ordered chocolate." Indeed, there is little humor to be found in such incidents, but the appearance of taking it lightly is important.
The pie throwers claim they are exercising free speech and are not committing an assault. Their goal is to humiliate powerful people and bring attention to their cause. None have attempted to harm anyone (beyond causing a momentary loss of dignity), though the attacks are alarming, disruptive, and can be feel fairly violent. For example, Mayor Brown and a pie thrower were both slightly injured a scuffle during and after a pie-throwing incident.
An attempted or successful pie throwing is not expected to receive a lot of publicity. Ironically, the more often the organizations throw pies, the less newsworthy such events become. However, if there are other elements to the story (a serious assault on a pie-thrower, an injury, lawsuits, etc.), publicity can continue for some time. The attacks on Mayor Brown continued to receive publicity because of jail terms imposed on several pie throwers. One claimed he was injured when tackled by one of the Mayor's aides.
Conclusion
Clearly, these incidents are worth avoiding, because in addition to the temporary embarrassment and disruption, we must also consider the larger consequences of a successful pie-attack, or other type of food attack. Permitting an attack to come off successfully would send a signal that you are vulnerable to attack. Future pursuers with more hostile intent might then be encouraged to pursue encounters with you.
Recommendations
Appendix 3
The Decision to Use Violence
JACA
The conscious or unconscious decision to use violence, or to do most anything, involves many mental and emotional processes, but they usually boil down to how a person perceives four fairly simple issues: justification, alternatives, consequences, and ability. My office abbreviates these elements as JACA, and an evaluation of them helps predict violence.
Perceived Justification (J)
Is there evidence the person feels justified in using violence? Perceived justification can be as simple as being sufficiently provoked ("Hey, you stepped on my foot!") or as convoluted as looking for an excuse to argue, as with the spouse that starts a disagreement in order to justify an angry response. The process of developing and manufacturing justification can be observed. A person who is seeking to feel justification for some action might move from "What you've done angers me" to "What you've done is wrong." Popular justifications include the moral high ground of righteous indignation and the more simple equation known by its biblical name: an eye for an eye.
Anger is a very seductive emotion because it is profoundly energizing and exhilarating. Sometimes people feel their anger is justified by past unfairnesses, and with the slightest excuse, they bring forth resentments unrelated to the present situation. You could say such a person has prejustified hostility, more commonly known as having a chip on his shoulder.
The degree of provocation is, of course, in the eye of the provoked. John Monahan notes that "how a person appraises an event may have a great influence on whether he or she ultimately responds to it in a violent manner." What he calls "perceived intentionality" (e.g., "You didn't just bump into me, you meant to hit me") is perhaps the clearest example of a person looking for justification.
Perceived Alternatives (A)
Is there evidence the person perceives that he has available alternatives to violence that will move him toward the outcome he wants? Since violence, like any behavior, has a purpose, it's valuable to know the goal of the actor. For example, if a person wants his job back, violence is not the most effective strategy, since it precludes the very outcome he seeks. Conversely, if he wants revenge, violence is a viable strategy, though usually not the only one. Alternatives to violence might be ridicule, smear campaigns, lawsuits, or inflicting some other nonphysical harm on the targeted person or organization. Knowing the desired outcome is the key. If a person's desired outcome is to inflict physical injury, then there are few alternatives to violence. If the desired outcome is to punish someone, there might be many. It is when he perceives no alternatives that violence is most likely. David wouldn't have fought Goliath if he perceived alternatives. Justification alone wouldn't have been enough to compensate for his low ability to prevail over his adversary. More than anything, he fought because he had no choice. A person (or an animal) who feels there are no alternatives will fight even when violence isn't justified, even when the consequences are perceived as unfavorable, and even when the ability to prevail is low.
Perceived Consequences (C)
How does the person appear to view the consequences associated with using violence? Before resorting to force, people weigh the likely consequences, even if unconsciously or very quickly. Consequences might be intolerable, such as for a person whose identity and self-image would be too damaged if he used violence. Context can change that, as with the person who is normally passive but becomes violent in a crowd or mob. Violence can be made tolerable by the support or encouragement of others. It is when consequences are perceived as favorable, such as for an assassin who wants attention and has little to lose, that violence is likely.
Perceived Ability (A)
Is there evidence the person believes he can successfully deliver the blows or bullet or bomb? People who have successfully used violence in the past have a higher appraisal of their ability to prevail using violence again. People with weapons or other advantages perceive (often correctly) a high ability to use violence.
Appendix 4
Public Posture on Security, a memo to the Protectee from Gavin de Becker
While every public figure maintains a unique approach to safety and privacy, and while the personality of each influences that approach, you are in a fairly small fraternity whose members do face special challenges and who are wise to meet at least a minimum standard of precaution.
Whether or not the general public is ever aware of one's security and privacy precautions, it is important to communicate the fact that attention is paid to safety and privacy. The way the topic is promoted or presented in the media is itself a precaution. Some public figures believe information about personal safety and family safety should not ever be reported on, but in your situation, the topic will occasionally be on the agenda for journalists regardless of whether you place it there: "... walks around without guards; shuns security precautions; lives like a regular person; resists security advice; says 'If someone wants to harm you, there's nothing that can be done to stop them'; drives himself to and from work; on a typical day, walks through the park near his home."
How a wealthy and interesting person lives, what he does, where he goes, how he approaches famousness will all be explored and speculated upon by journalists. The question is, How can it be presented so that it serves safety and deters unwanted pursuers -- instead of inviting them?
I used to believe that the subject of security should never appear in the press; research and new information makes clear to me (and many others who have studied the topic) that
the target selection process is significantly influenced by the pursuer's perception of a potential victim's approachability.
Assassin Robert Bardo murdered the young actress Rebecca Schaeffer. Advising for the prosecution in his case, I learned that Bardo had stalked several famous people, including a client of mine whom he decided was too
inaccessible.
He gave up on her and switched his attention to Rebecca Schaeffer. For assassins, it is the act and not the target, the destination and not the journey, that matters.
Because targets are interchangeable, I asked Bardo how the security precautions taken by some public figures affected his choice. He said,
"If I read in an article that they have security and they have bodyguards, it makes you look at that celebrity different and makes a person like me stand back."
Like nearly all modern-day assassins, Bardo had studied those who came before him. He even wrote to assassin Mark Chapman (killer of John Lennon), who was in prison. Bardo had also studied everything he could find on the Arthur Jackson case (attacker of Theresa Saldana) in which I also testified for the prosecution. Jackson had hired a private detective to locate his victim, so Bardo did too. Jackson used a knife, so on one of his earlier trips to kill Schaeffer, Bardo brought one along. Jackson traveled thousands of miles in pursuit of his target, sometimes in a crisscross fashion -- as do nearly all assassins -- and Bardo did too.
In a videotaped interview done by the defense months before Bardo knew I was working on the case, he revealed the extent of his research into public-figure attack. Describing the lack of security he had encountered around Rebecca Schaeffer, he said: "It's not like she had Gavin de Becker or anything." His reference to me reflected his perception that public figures that took the topic seriously, whose public persona had a boundary, were less attractive as targets. Among criminals, the nature of deterrence is different with public figure attackers. Put plainly, they do not fear they are going to jail -- they fear they are going to fail. Accordingly, the public figures that offer the greatest likelihood of successful surveillance, successful pursuit, and successful encounters are most likely to be selected.