Keyboard shortcuts

Press ← or → to navigate between chapters

Press S or / to search in the book

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

Handling Threats of Violence: A Complete Walkthrough

Sometimes, despite everything you’ve done right as a facilitator—the pre-framing, the promise, the clear agreements—someone makes a good-faith mistake, and someone else responds with death threats.

This is one of the hardest situations you’ll face — because it sits at the intersection of consent culture, facilitation ethics, and physical safety all at once. A good-faith mistake escalating to violence. The person being threatened is also the person who made the mistake — experiencing top vulnerability at its most extreme. The crowd is primed to moralize. And you have to navigate all of it while preserving the container’s integrity and the promise you made at the start.

There’s no version of it that feels clean. But there are versions that preserve trust, safety, and the integrity of your container — and versions that destroy all three.

This page walks through the entire scenario: what to do, what to say, to whom, in what order, and why. It covers the immediate crisis, the aftermath, and the follow-up that most facilitators forget about.

The Scenario

A participant makes a mistake. It might be a boundary crossing, a miscommunication, an accidental touch—something covered by the promise. A good-faith error. The kind of thing that’s supposed to be protected.

Another participant reacts to that mistake with threats of violence. Death threats. Physical intimidation. “I’ll kill you.” Getting in their face. The kind of behavior that must be stopped immediately.

Now you have two problems:

  1. A person who made a mistake and is now in physical danger
  2. A person making death threats who needs to be removed

And they’re both in your room.

What Death Threats Usually Are

Before you act, understand what you’re looking at.

Most people who make death threats in these spaces are not planning to kill anyone. They’re righteous predators — terrified, certain they’re protecting someone, and causing harm in the process. They don’t know how else to communicate the severity of what they’re feeling. “I’ll kill you” is often the only language their nervous system has for “stay back, I’m serious, I need you to take this seriously, I don’t know what else to do.”

It’s posturing — making yourself look big and dangerous when you’re actually scared and overwhelmed. Think about it: if this person has a family, a life, people who depend on them — actually following through would destroy everything they care about. They’d lose their freedom, their family, their future. That’s not protecting anyone. That’s indulging rage at the cost of everything they say matters to them.

This doesn’t mean you treat death threats casually. You never test whether a threat is real by waiting to see what happens. Every threat gets the same response: immediate separation, removal from the container, real consequences. The distinction matters not for your actions — which stay the same regardless — but for your understanding. When you know the person across from you is scared, not evil, you can hold the boundary firmly without dehumanizing them. That’s the difference between a facilitator who handles a crisis and a facilitator who creates a second one.

The Order of Operations

Your instinct might be to remove the violent person first. They’re the one breaking the rules. They’re the one the promise says should leave.

But here’s the problem: if you tell someone who’s making death threats that they need to leave, they might not go quietly. They might lash out. They might attack the person they’ve been threatening. And now you have a physical assault in your container because you prioritized principle over safety.

Safety comes before principle.

Step 1: Remove the Mistake-Maker First

Not as punishment. As protection.

Go to the person being threatened: “Hey, I need you to leave right now. Not because your mistake wasn’t okay—it was. But I’m not confident you’re safe here, and I need to get you out before I handle the situation. Go home. I’ll be in touch.”

Get them out. Make sure they’re traveling, that they have a ride, that the violent person can’t follow them.

Step 2: Keep the Violent Person Contained

While the mistake-maker is getting to safety, the violent person stays. Not because they’re welcome—because removing them right now might trigger the very violence you’re trying to prevent, and you need the potential victim out of range first.

Step 3: Remove the Violent Person

Once the mistake-maker is safely away, you address the person who made threats:

“I can see you’re in a lot of pain right now, and I take that seriously. AND threats of violence are outside the agreements of this container. You need to leave. We can talk about what happened after you’ve had time to come down, but right now, you cannot be here.”

This isn’t moralizing. You’re not telling them they’re a bad person. You’re enforcing the agreement. And by offering to talk later, you’re showing that you care about them while holding the boundary. That’s the thing that might actually make them reflect—not being screamed at, not being shamed, but being held accountable by someone who clearly isn’t enjoying it.

Step 4: Address the Crowd

After both parties have left, you talk to everyone else. (See: What to Say to the Crowd.)

The Dangerous Gap

Between Step 1 and Step 3, there’s a window where the violent person is still in the room and the mistake-maker is the one who just left. This is the most turbulent moment.

People are watching. They saw you remove the person who made a mistake and not the person making death threats. That looks like the opposite of what you promised.

Pre-Frame Emergency Protocols

This is why you pre-frame at the beginning of every container:

“In an emergency, we may need to act in a certain order to keep people safe. We might not explain ourselves in the moment, because safety sometimes requires speed. But we will explain afterward, and every agreement we’ve made will be honored—fully—by the end of this container.”

If someone flags it in the moment—“Hey, aren’t you supposed to remove the violent person?”—you can say: “You’re right to point that out, and I’m glad you are. We’re in emergency protocols right now. This will be addressed. Please bear with me.”

That’s not dodging. That’s acknowledging their concern while keeping the operation moving.

Don’t Do This Alone

This is where your first officer is critical. One person escorts the mistake-maker to safety. The other stays with the group and the violent person. Trying to manage both solo creates gaps where things can go very wrong—the violent person is unsupervised, or the crowd is unmanaged, or the mistake-maker is alone and vulnerable.

If you’re facilitating without a co-facilitator and this happens, you’re in a genuinely difficult spot. Do the best you can with what you have—but this is exactly why having a trusted second is worth the investment.

What NOT to Do

Don’t Remove the Mistake-Maker and Keep the Violent Person

Short of doing nothing and letting the situation escalate to actual violence, this is the single worst way to handle it. The mistake-maker is gone, the violent person stays, and here’s what everyone just learned:

  • Mistakes get you expelled
  • Death threats are tolerated
  • The angriest person runs the container
  • The facilitator is afraid
  • The promise (if they made one) was empty

And now the container is dead. Not officially—you might still run the schedule, do the exercises, hold the sharing circles. But they’re not real sharing circles anymore. Every share from that point forward is filtered through one question: will this upset the person who makes death threats? Nobody is going to say their authentic feelings when they just watched the facilitators tolerate violence and remove the person who made a mistake instead. The angry person’s story becomes the only safe story to agree with—“oh my god, that person was such a predator, thank god they’re gone”—because no one is willing to stand up and say “this is bullshit” when standing up might make them the next target.

If the violent person walked up to someone aggressively—got in their face, used their body to communicate “I will hurt you”—and the facilitators either did nothing or stepped in after the person was already in striking range, everyone saw something very specific: if you disagree with the angry person, the facilitators won’t stop them from hurting you. They might deal with it after. They might retroactively address it. But they won’t actually protect you in the moment it matters. And that’s enough to silence every honest voice in the room.

This is fawning. You’re scared of the violent person, so you sacrifice the easier target. You might tell yourself you’re “de-escalating” or “being strategic,” but what you’re actually doing is letting fear decide who stays and who goes.

And if the violent person stays, has a good time, and faces zero consequences — everyone watching learns that violence is not only tolerated but rewarded.

Don’t Do Nothing

Also fawning. Pretending death threats didn’t happen because you’re afraid of what happens if you address them. The container is now unsafe for everyone, and the violent person knows they can do whatever they want.

Both Are Fawning

You should listen to the others. Just leave me. It’ll be easier for all of us.

Maybe. Being easier doesn’t make it right.

— Secret Level, Season 1, Episode 1.

Whether you do nothing or remove the wrong person, the underlying pattern is the same: you’re avoiding confrontation with the threatening person because you’re afraid of them. The mistake-maker is easier to handle, so they become the casualty. That’s not facilitation. That’s survival mode wearing a facilitator shirt.

What to Say to the Crowd

After both parties have left:

“Here’s what happened. [Name/Person A] made a mistake. That mistake is protected under our agreements—it was good-faith, and they did nothing that warrants removal. I asked them to leave because threats were being made against their life, and I determined they weren’t safe. Their removal was a safety action, not a consequence.

After they were safely away, I asked [Name/Person B] to leave because threats of violence violate the agreements of this container. That behavior is not tolerated here—regardless of what prompted it.

[Person B] was clearly in a lot of pain. That pain is real. AND the way they expressed it crossed a line I can’t allow in this space. Both of those things are true at the same time.“

This matters more than almost anything else you do. Without this communication, stories fill the vacuum. People assume the mistake-maker was a predator. They assume the violent person was justified. They assume the facilitator played favorites. You have to narrate what happened and why—clearly, impartially, without moralizing—so the container can make sense of it.

The Refund (Show, Don’t Tell)

This is where actions communicate louder than any speech.

Refund the mistake-maker. They had to leave an event they paid for—not because they broke the rules, but because an emergency made it unsafe for them to stay. Refunding them says: “What happened to you was not standard. Your mistake was protected, and I’m putting my money behind that.”

Refund the violent person’s partner (or any innocent party connected to them who has to leave through no fault of their own). They didn’t do anything wrong. They’re collateral.

Do not refund the violent person. They violated the agreements. The differential treatment is the point.

Tell the Crowd

This is a judgment call, but I lean toward transparency. Tell the group that the mistake-maker was refunded. Tell them the violent person was not.

Here’s why: the refund and the transparency are both acts of making it right. You asked someone to leave who didn’t violate the agreements — that’s a deviation from the promise, even if it was necessary for their safety. The refund acknowledges that. The transparency protects their reputation — because without it, every person in that room fills the vacuum with “they must have done something wrong if they had to leave.” Telling the crowd openly that this person was protected, refunded, and removed only for their safety is how you stay in the spirit of the promise even when the emergency forced you outside the letter of it.

It also does something words alone can’t. It shows — through a concrete, material action — that mistakes are genuinely protected and that threats of violence have real consequences. Every person in that room now knows: if I make a mistake and the worst happens, the facilitator will actually take care of me. And if I threaten someone’s life, it will cost me.

That’s not just handling a crisis. That’s teaching your container how crises should be handled — so if any of them ever hold space themselves, they’ve seen what it looks like done right.

Follow-Up After the Event

The crisis itself is only the first half. What happens afterward determines whether the trust holds.

With the Mistake-Maker

Reach out the next day. Check in. “How are you doing? I wanted to make sure you’re okay.”

Then give them information:

  1. They’re welcome at future events. Not the same ongoing retreat (the violent person could figure out they’re back and return), but future containers. Their standing hasn’t changed.

  2. Tell them how you’re handling the violent person. What boundaries you’ve set, what consequences you’ve enforced. They need to know you took action—that you didn’t just move on once they were out of sight. This is critical. If they don’t hear this, they’ll carry the story that the violent person faced no consequences.

  3. Safety planning. Does the violent person live in their area? Could they be found, harassed, or attacked outside the container? If you know where your participants live, flag this risk proactively. If the violent person is local to them, they may need to take steps: being cautious about sharing their address in community spaces, being aware that the violent person might try to damage their reputation locally.

  4. Notification about future attendance. If the violent person is eventually allowed back into your events, let the mistake-maker know. Give them the tools to keep themselves safe — like being able to check with facilitators before registering whether that person will be attending. The mistake-maker taking responsibility for checking is also 100% control in action.

With the Violent Person

Clear communication about their standing:

  • They are not welcome back until repair has been done (see: Re-Entry Policy)
  • This isn’t permanent exile (unless their behavior warrants it)—it’s a consequence with a path back
  • The path back is specific: not just time passing, but actual accountability

Re-Entry Policy

The violent person doesn’t get to come back just because time passed and everyone forgot.

The Conditions

They’re excluded from future containers until one of two conditions is met:

  1. Sufficient time has passed (a year is a reasonable minimum) AND they’ve demonstrated reflection—not just cooling off, but actual understanding of what happened.

  2. They’ve undergone a genuine repair process. This means:

    • Acknowledging what they did (not “I was just protecting people”)
    • Making it right with the facilitators and the container
    • Making it right with the person they threatened—not just apologizing, but actual repair
    • Seeing through the story that justified their behavior

That last point matters most. If they still believe they were righteous—“there was a dangerous predator and I was protecting everyone”—they’ll do the same thing in the next container. Their nervous system is tuned to see threats that aren’t there, and they’ll escalate again the moment someone makes a mistake. Letting them back in without genuine insight isn’t compassion. It’s negligence.

Tell the Crowd

Tell the group that the violent person isn’t welcome back until real repair is done—especially with the person they threatened.

This shows everyone: threats of violence have lasting consequences. You are safe here. We won’t quietly let this person back in and hope nobody notices.

The Boundary Example

“You’re not welcome in our containers right now. We can talk about coming back after [timeframe], but only if you’ve done real work on what happened—including making it right with the person you threatened. This isn’t permanent. But it’s real, and it’s not negotiable.”

What You Tolerate Persists

If you don’t set a boundary after an incident, the behavior doesn’t stop. It grows. The person who made death threats learns they can do it again. The community learns that threats are acceptable. The people who saw clearly and said nothing learn that speaking up isn’t safe. And the next time it happens — and it will happen — it’ll be worse, because now there’s precedent.

Every failure on this list is a version of the same pattern: avoiding the hard conversation because you’re afraid of the reaction. That’s fawning as a facilitator. And what you fawn to, you feed.

Here’s how it happens in practice:

Do not:

  • Set no boundaries at all. Act like it happened and move on. Never tell them what they did was unacceptable. Never communicate consequences. This teaches them that death threats have no cost—and teaches your community the same.

  • Let them back into containers without repair or a cooling-off period. No conversation, no accountability, no time. They just show up at the next event like nothing happened. Their stories are intact. Their activation patterns haven’t changed. They will do it again.

  • Put them on your staff or assistant team. If someone made death threats in your container and hasn’t seen through the stories that caused it, putting them in a position of power is one of the most dangerous things you can do. They’re liable to attack participants who don’t deserve it, moralize from a position of authority, and see predators where there are none. A person who’s still running on “I was right to threaten someone’s life because they were dangerous” should not be holding space for others. Period.

  • Let them host events for your organization. Directly — making them a lead facilitator or co-facilitator — is the worst version of this. You now have someone who is primed to see predators everywhere, hasn’t seen through the blind spots that created harm, and is making real-time decisions over participants from the highest position of authority in the room. Even indirectly — like having your organization run events at a retreat center they own — gives them structural power over the container whether they’re on the staff team or not. They control access and they’re physically present. Someone who’s already shown they’ll escalate to death threats over a mistake in a container can just as easily decide to eject someone from their property over something that happens in your container — overriding your facilitation decisions because they own the land you’re on. They don’t need to be on the staff team to run your container if they hold the keys to the building. Don’t let someone who hasn’t done repair gain power over your containers in any form.

  • Fawn your way into normalcy. This is the pattern underneath all of the above: you didn’t set boundaries because it was uncomfortable, then time passed, and now it feels too late to bring it up. So you just… don’t. And their role in your community quietly grows. And nobody says anything. And the person who made death threats gains more access, more power, more trust — without ever being given a boundary about what happened.

When Staff Make the Mistake

Everything above still applies when the mistake-maker is a staff member or assistant. Mistakes are protected regardless of role. Staff are human. It happens.

But staff carry additional responsibility. They’re in a position of trust, and there’s often a power differential between staff and participants. A participant’s mistake and a staff member’s identical mistake land differently—not because the action is different, but because the context is.

Higher Standard, Same Protection

Staff are expected to make fewer mistakes. That’s part of what “trained and experienced” means. But the promise still covers them. A good-faith mistake by a staff member doesn’t result in removal, shaming, or punishment—just as it wouldn’t for a participant.

What might look different: accountability measures that reflect the higher standard. If a staff member makes a mistake, they might step back from certain responsibilities for the remainder of the event—not playing in the play space that night, for example. Not as punishment, but as a demonstration that the container takes staff responsibility seriously.

This isn’t about making the staff member suffer. It’s about showing participants that when someone with more power makes a mistake, the response is proportional to the responsibility they carry.

Pre-Framing Staff Mistakes

At the beginning of the container, say something like:

“Our staff are trained, experienced, and held to high standards. They’re also human. If a staff member makes a mistake, it’s handled with the same framework as any other mistake: transparency, accountability, and repair.”

This isn’t scary. It’s credible. The facilitator who says “my staff are perfect and nothing will ever go wrong” hasn’t thought about failure modes—and that makes them less trustworthy, not more. It’s the same pattern as a participant who says “I would never do that”—the certainty itself is the red flag.

Think about airline safety briefings. Nobody gets off the plane because the flight attendant mentions emergency exits. They feel safer knowing there’s a plan. The same principle applies here: pre-framing what happens when things go wrong increases confidence that you’ve also thought about preventing things from going wrong.

Aftercare for the Container

After both parties have left and you’ve addressed the crowd, the container needs care.

People are shaken. They saw something intense. Even if you handled everything well, the energy is disrupted. Some people might be scared. Some might be questioning whether they’re safe. Some might be processing their own trauma responses.

And every person in the room is seeing what happened through their own filters. Some will be in a story that the mistake-maker was a predator and the violent person was a hero. Some will think the violent person was an asshole and the mistake-maker was the real victim who didn’t deserve any of what happened to them. Some will have opinions about the decisions you made as a facilitator. Most people have not done the work to see clearly — they haven’t examined their own stories, and they don’t yet realize that you should “never assume malice, where belief will do.” You’re not going to change fifty people’s filters in one conversation, and you don’t have to.

What you can do is be transparent. Your communication — the explanation, the refund disclosure, the re-entry policy — is itself a form of aftercare. It gives people a framework to understand what happened, which is far better than leaving them to construct their own stories.

This is also where the promise pays off. If you told everyone at the start of the container what would happen in a crisis, and then you followed through exactly as you said you would, then your authority holds — even if people disagree with your specific calls. They might have opinions about how things could be handled differently in the future, and that’s fine. But they can see you have integrity because you walked your talk. You did what you said you were going to do. That’s not something people can easily argue with, even through their own stories. And it means they’re less likely to question the authority of the container itself — which is what keeps everyone else safe.

Check in with the group. Ask how people are doing. Create space for processing without letting it become a referendum on whether you made the right calls. The calls have been made. Now the container needs to metabolize what happened and find its footing again.

This is a genuinely painful situation. Even handled perfectly, it’s disruptive. The goal isn’t to make it painless — it’s to make it clear, fair, and safe. And to show everyone that when the worst happens, the container holds.