# Curl Up In A Ball....



## MJS (Aug 27, 2013)

and let the bad guys win.  Well, at least that's what the Police Chief thinks.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/screw...ath-on-fighting-back-says-no-racism-involved/



> Doug Giles  So, I guess now (according to this dillweed), were supposed to  let black teenage thugs beat the crap out of us lest we become responsible for  our own death.  Should we curl up in the fetal position?  Should we  also pee our pants?  Straubs a disgrace.
> The 88-year-old World War II veteran who was randomly beaten to death  Wednesday likely died because he tried to fend off his attackers.
> Two teenage boys are charged in the bloody beating of Delbert Belton  outside a Spokane, Washington ice skating rink and investigators are now  suggesting the soldierwho took a bullet in the Battle of Okinawatried to stop  the apparent robbery.
> Police say that enraged the teens and turned their petty theft into  full-blown murder as they continued to beat him into submission with big, heavy  flashlights.
> ...



I agree with the person who wrote this article.  The chief is a disgrace, but what do you expect him to say...this is the typical, standard reply, when it comes to SD.  Even if the old man was fighting back....seriously...how much of a fight could he have been putting up?  I doubt it was enough to warrant getting killed by these punks.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2013)

> Doug Giles  So, I guess now (according to this dillweed), were supposed to  let *black *teenage thugs beat the crap out of us





MJS said:


> I agree with the person who wrote this article.



Ugh. Leaving aside the racism, it's absolutely true that sometimes fighting back makes things worse--which is one reason why most of us advise against doing that in a robbery if the robber(s) have not yet begun yes violence themselves. It's ignorant to say that that makes a person "responsible for [his] own death" in such a case--it's just good self-defense advice. It's why people who teach rape self-defense are reluctant to give one-size-fits-all advice on fighting back--every person makes their own choice about whether it's worth risking a more serious physical injury or death in such a situation. 



> Our  information is that the individual fought back and that may have made  this, you know, a worse situation, said Spokane Police Chief Frank  Straub in a Monday press conference.



That's just a flat statement of his opinion. It happens that way sometimes and it doesn't involve the aggressors of any responsibility or shift any to the victim to say that some actions will yield less bad outcomes than others in some circumstances.

Sometimes fighting back will get you killed. Sometimes it will save you. It's generally hard to know which situation you are in with any degree of certainty. But I can easily believe that this man might still be alive with his body and pride wounded had he let them take what they wanted. Perhaps he knew this and chose to fight back anyway; perhaps it just happened and he didn't have time to think about it. But this is not merely race-baiting, it's also worthless advice. He _did _fight back, and he _did _die--fighting back did not improve the situation for him. But your advice is that everyone should fight back against "black teenage thugs" anyway?


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Ugh. Leaving aside the racism, it's absolutely true that sometimes fighting back makes things worse--which is one reason why most of us advise against doing that in a robbery if the robber(s) have not yet begun yes violence themselves. It's ignorant to say that that makes a person "responsible for [his] own death" in such a case--it's just good self-defense advice. It's why people who teach rape self-defense are reluctant to give one-size-fits-all advice on fighting back--every person makes their own choice about whether it's worth risking a more serious physical injury or death in such a situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I remember one of my old teachers.  He had a saying...you wait too long, you wait wrong.  He usually applied this mainly to sparring.  That said, the following can happen:

We can comply and the bad guy will not harm us.

We can comply and the bad guy will harm us.

We can fight back and lose.

We can fight back and win.

How many times have we heard, in situations like this, ie: robbery, people will say they'll comply ONLY until the BG suggests taking the victim to another location.  Each situation has to be viewed differently, but IMO, if the opportunity presents itself, I'm going to fight back.  

You said in your opening line, "leaving aside the racism", but further down, you state that my advice is to fight back against 'black teenage thugs.'  Personally, I don't care what the race is.  This situation, just like many other recent ones, involved black teens.  We can insert purple aliens with red horns if you want.   Like I said, how much of a fight do you think this old man put up?  He was what...88yrs old?  Appeared to be small build.  If they wanted to rob him that bad, one could've grabbed him in a bearhug and held him while the other took his cash.  They hit this guy, no doubt he went down, and they kept hitting him.  

So, to answer your question....no, I'm not giving advice.  I'm simply stating what *I* prefer to do.  I work hard for what I have, and I don't feel like rolling over for the bad guy.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 27, 2013)

> &#8216;Our  information is that the individual  fought back and that may have made  this, you know, a worse situation,&#8217;  said Spokane Police Chief Frank  Straub in a Monday press conference.


Oh, the old "Lie back and think of England/Try to enjoy it" ploy. A Classic in idiocy. 
As for curling into the fetal position, that leaves your spine and a number of easily damaged organs, KIDNEYS!!! open...


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2013)

The chief was able to look back after the fact--a luxury one doesn't have in the moment--and render an opinion on whether fighting back was ultimately better or worse in this case. Since the person died, it couldn't have been better. So, I don't see what the complaint about the chief is--he didn't say never fight back, He observed that since the victim here died, it didn't help this time. How could you possibly dispute that?



> Doug Giles  So, I guess now (according to this dillweed), were supposed to  let *black *teenage thugs beat the crap out of us





MJS said:


> I agree with the person who wrote this article.





MJS said:


> Personally, I don't care what the race is.



(Emphasis mine.) Look, you quoted that line and then said you agreed with it. How many ways are you hoping to have this? You're the one who injected race. I find that offensive. You didn't say "I agree with the person who wrote this article (about a certain aspect)"; you said "I agree with the person who wrote this article." (full stop). Left to our imagination is his opinion on white teenage thugs and whether you'd also agree with him on that.

This is offensive, race-baiting stuff.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 27, 2013)

> &#8216;Our  information is that the individual  fought  back and that may have made  this, you know, a worse situation,&#8217;  said  Spokane Police Chief Frank  Straub in a Monday press conference.





Big Don said:


> Oh, the old "Lie back and think of England/Try to enjoy it" ploy. A Classic in idiocy.



Did fighting back help here? You are making a bizarre parody of his factual observation as to what did happen in this case, after the incident was over--making as though he said something he did not. It is a fact that fighting back is not the best strategy 100% of the time. That you can't know that in advance doesn't mean it can't be true in retrospect.

Everyone is outraged that this man was killed, but not everyone is trying to manufacture additional outrage by putting words in the mouths of others.


----------



## Carol (Aug 28, 2013)

NH Fish and Game states that when encountering a black bear, you should remain facing the bear, and slowly back away.  Don't turn and run as that may give the bear reason to give chase.  But when a hiking friend of mine decided to take one last walk under the stars before going to bed...and found a bear in her camp, she took a different tactic.  She screamed and chased the bear out of camp. She and her campmates spent the rest of the night in peace -- perhaps after confirming their bags were properly hung 

I think an aggressive action swift and direct is a valuable response in a variety of situations.  Naturally one doesn't want to be stupid about choosing aggression, but it is not necessarily wise to stand and wait, either.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Did fighting back help here? You are making a bizarre parody of his factual observation as to what did happen in this case, after the incident was over--making as though he said something he did not. It is a fact that fighting back is not the best strategy 100% of the time. That you can't know that in advance doesn't mean it can't be true in retrospect.
> 
> Everyone is outraged that this man was killed, but not everyone is trying to manufacture additional outrage by putting words in the mouths of others.


A shame Shorty didn't have a gun...
Here are some words from the mouth of another named Zapata: 





> It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees


----------



## arnisador (Aug 28, 2013)

> It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees



He may well have thought that, and I respect his choice (assuming he was of sound mind to make it). How does that change the chief's assessment? The chief simply said fighting back didn't work and may have made things worse. He never said you couldn't or shouldn't. You're arguing with actual, after-the-fact, verifiable occurrences. He fought back and died. 

You're arguing with reality in favor of your gunslinger's fantasy.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 28, 2013)

Here is a website which I find has some good advice on surviving violence, pay particular attention to; 'know what is worth fighting for (4)' 'know your resistance point (5)' and ' never give up (8)".

http://www.miyamaryu.org/freejujutsubook.html


----------



## MJS (Aug 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The chief was able to look back after the fact--a luxury one doesn't have in the moment--and render an opinion on whether fighting back was ultimately better or worse in this case. Since the person died, it couldn't have been better. So, I don't see what the complaint about the chief is--he didn't say never fight back, He observed that since the victim here died, it didn't help this time. How could you possibly dispute that?



No, he didn't say that in so many words, however, his words implied that by fighting back, one can assume that death is a high possibility.  THAT is what I disagree with.  As I said, in cases like this, what this guy said, is the standard SOP.  Oh, and FWIW, the punks and their lawyer are now claiming the old man was selling crack! LOL! LOL! LOL!  Yeah, big bad 88yr old crack dealer. 









> (Emphasis mine.)



Again, the emphasis you're harping on, was NOT something I said.  Its something the author of the article said.  



> Look, you quoted that line and then said you agreed with it.



Ummm....no...I quoted the entire article.  I agreed with the point that we should not just bow down and kiss the *** of the bad guys.  YOU are the one who's getting off on twisting things to suit your needs.  



> How many ways are you hoping to have this?



WTF are you talking about?? My points are pretty clear.  



> You're the one who injected race. I find that offensive.



Then report the posts!  You're not a stranger to how things work around here, and you should know that staff isn't 'above the law'.  Again, instead of twisting and assuming Arni, get things right!  I injected NOTHING, as I didn't write the article.  If you go back, you'll see that I have said that I don't care what the race is...black, white, Hispanic, or purple aliens with red horns.  My point, AGAIN, is that *I* don't care what the race is...we shouldn't be paranoid to defend ourselves!!!



> You didn't say "I agree with the person who wrote this article (about a certain aspect)"; you said "I agree with the person who wrote this article." (full stop). Left to our imagination is his opinion on white teenage thugs and whether you'd also agree with him on that.



Sigh...there you go again, twisting stuff.  That wasn't the case at all.  In this case, it was 2 black kids.  It could be 2 white kids.  Bottom line is...the guy writing the article is making the point that we shouldn't have to curl up and be a victim.  



> This is offensive, race-baiting stuff.



Then stop acting like a God damn child Arni and hit the RTM!  If it's offending you that much, report me.  This is no more offensive than any of the other topics in the study, and I'd be more than happy to point them out to you.  Hell, that long *** Martin/Zimmerman thread is a classic example.  Oh, and FWIW, if you're that fragile Arni, then let me ask you....why are you posting in the thread?  To troll?  I mean, if you're not going to contribute anything useful, why are you here????

I posted this in the SELF DEFENSE section, NOT the study.  Why?  Because I want to discuss the aspect of SD, NOT race.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 28, 2013)

MJS said:


> No, he didn't say that in so many words, however, his words implied that  by fighting back, one can assume that death is a high possibility.   THAT is what I disagree with.



I think you're seeing what you expect to see here--but what he said was specific to this one case. I always advise handing over the wallet rather than fighting back when avoiding fighting is possible (and in this case he may not have had the chance--I'm not clear on that). I think it's safest and that safety, not pride, is the goal. One must use one's own judgment but in a mugging my general advice is let them take what they want if you judge that that'll end it. Do you advise differently? Fight if possible?



> Then stop acting like a God damn child Arni and hit the RTM!  If it's offending you that much, report me.



I didn't say you violated any rules. I said that quoting and agreeing with race-baiting ("were supposed to  let black teenage thugs beat the crap out of us") offends me. Offending me is not in and of itself a reportable offense, but I'd sure have edited out the racial angle rather than posting it and agreeing with it...if I quoted a racist at all.



> I posted this in the SELF DEFENSE section, NOT the study.  Why?  Because I want to discuss the aspect of SD, NOT race.



I would advise leaving race out of the discussion if you don't want race in the discussion. I would not have wanted to associate myself with the kind of person who would write "were supposed to  let black teenage thugs beat the crap out of us" even if I agreed with the other stuff he had to say (which I don't). Sorry, but you can't go around posting this kind of offensive material and then declare its discussion off-limits. It appears that the author of the piece feel the fact that these were _black _teenage thugs is relevant. You brought this to the dance, dude, but I don't believe in letting this sort of thing pass without commentary, as though it's a normal thing for someone to say.


----------



## MJS (Aug 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I think you're seeing what you expect to see here--but what he said was specific to this one case. I always advise handing over the wallet rather than fighting back when avoiding fighting is possible (and in this case he may not have had the chance--I'm not clear on that). I think it's safest and that safety, not pride, is the goal. One must use one's own judgment but in a mugging my general advice is let them take what they want if you judge that that'll end it. Do you advise differently? Fight if possible?



In this case the kids were black.  But as I said, any race can be inserted.  Whatever the case may be, the bottom line is...they were thugs, they were punks, and they should be locked up for a long time!  Oh as for fighting back...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...rpetrators-who-learned-a-very-painful-lesson/



> Two suspected robbers left the scene of their own crime looking like the victims of a brutal attack after their would-be victims fought back.
> Johnny Calderon Jr., 19, and Gerald Allen, 18, attempted to rob two University of Virginia students at gunpoint, which turned out to be a huge, painful mistake, according to police in Charlottesville, Va.
> Police arrived on the scene to find the two students had beaten up and detained the suspects.
> 
> ...



A friend of mine posted this on FB.  Those pieces of **** got what they deserved!  18 and 19yrs old, and you've got NOTHING better to do, than go out and rob someone?  Go get a ****ing job!  Go give something back to your community.  Do SOMETHING, ANYTHING productive!  Oh, check out the video clip.  Notice how the reporter makes the same SOP statement that the other cop did.  





> I didn't say you violated any rules. I said that quoting and agreeing with race-baiting ("we&#8217;re supposed to  let black teenage thugs beat the crap out of us") offends me. Offending me is not in and of itself a reportable offense, but I'd sure have edited out the racial angle rather than posting it and agreeing with it...if I quoted a racist at all.



Ok, your offended.  Then let me ask you...if it offends you, why did you reply in the first place?  If it was that bad, I'd have figured that you would've just passed the thread by.  OTOH, there was quite a bit of race discussion in the TM/GZ thread.  You were active in that, weren't you?  So, in your opinion, I should've edited out the word 'black' from the original article?





> I would advise leaving race out of the discussion if you don't want race in the discussion. I would not have wanted to associate myself with the kind of person who would write "we&#8217;re supposed to  let black teenage thugs beat the crap out of us" even if I agreed with the other stuff he had to say (which I don't). Sorry, but you can't go around posting this kind of offensive material and then declare its discussion off-limits. It appears that the author of the piece feel the fact that these were _black _teenage thugs is relevant. You brought this to the dance, dude, but I don't believe in letting this sort of thing pass without commentary, as though it's a normal thing for someone to say.



But that's my point....I'm not talking about race...you are!  I quoted an article.  I mean, its a no brainer that the kids were black, so, IMO, whether or not I made an edit or not, is moot.  My point of posting this, was to talk about fighting back, and whether or not it really played a part, as the sheriff is claiming, was the cause of the guys death.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 30, 2013)

MJS said:


> Ok, your offended.  Then let me ask you...if it offends you, why did you reply in the first place?  If it was that bad, I'd have figured that you would've just passed the thread by.



Eh...just let offensive race-baiting slide by without comment? I think remaining silent in a case like that is cowardly. When people say racist things in front of me in real-life, I generally call them on it--as I would have for something like this, and as I did here in print. 



> OTOH, there was quite a bit of race discussion in the TM/GZ thread.  You were active in that, weren't you?  So, in your opinion, I should've edited out the word 'black' from the original article?



You quoted him as saying, in his opening sentence, "_So, I guess now (according to this dillweed), were supposed to  let black teenage thugs beat the crap out of us_" and then said "I agree with the person who wrote this article." I'm not sure what conclusion you were expecting me to draw when you wrote that--I concluded that you agreed with the person who wrote this article. I don't think you should let any teenage thugs beat the crap out of you if you can reasonably avoid it. In the TM/GZ thread there was a national discussion on whether racial issues were a factor. Why is it reasonable to want to inject race here? I haven't seen any indication that the victim was targeted because of his race or that the teenagers--and this is really the implication of the material you posted--acted this way because of theirs.



> My point of posting this, was to talk about fighting back, and whether or not it really played a part, as the sheriff is claiming, was the cause of the guys death.



Sometimes people comment on various parts of your post, not just one part of it. I commented on both your claim that "The chief is a disgrace" for saying what he did--which I read differently than you, I think--and on your posting offensively race-baiting material in the quoted text and flatly saying that you agree with what the author wrote. Would you disagree with me that the material you quoted contains racially charged language for no reason relevant to the issue of self-defense?

But if you really want to drop the racial aspect--feel free to do so. I've said my piece on it.


----------



## MJS (Aug 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Eh...just let offensive race-baiting slide by without comment? I think remaining silent in a case like that is cowardly. When people say racist things in front of me in real-life, I generally call them on it--as I would have for something like this, and as I did here in print.



Hmm...as I said, YOU, not me, was the one that brought up the race issue.  What did I say that was racist?  That I agreed with the author, that we shouldn't let thugs beat us up? LOL!  Are you hinting that I'm a racist Arni?  Because if that's the case, you're so far out in left field its not funny. LOL!  I'm far from racist.  I have black friends, Hispanic friends, even gay friends.  





> You quoted him as saying, in his opening sentence, "_So, I guess now (according to this dillweed), we&#8217;re supposed to  let black teenage thugs beat the crap out of us_" and then said "I agree with the person who wrote this article." I'm not sure what conclusion you were expecting me to draw when you wrote that--I concluded that you agreed with the person who wrote this article. I don't think you should let any teenage thugs beat the crap out of you if you can reasonably avoid it. In the TM/GZ thread there was a national discussion on whether racial issues were a factor. Why is it reasonable to want to inject race here? I haven't seen any indication that the victim was targeted because of his race or that the teenagers--and this is really the implication of the material you posted--acted this way because of theirs.



Its not reasonable to inject race here, because while this too, is a national thing, I'm talking about the SD side.  You're the one sidetracking the thread.  Perhaps I should report YOU for being so far off topic!  I mean really dude, if you're going to keep dragging this more off track, while I'm trying to have a discussion on the SD side, why don't you just go away and troll another thread/forum.  Oh, just so you know, trolling is a no no here.   As for the race issue:

*1.8 Threats, Racism, Sexism, and Challenges:


*Messages that are openly hostile, defamatory, sexual, vulgar, or harassing, will not be tolerated, and may be in violation of the law.  Threads or replies promoting or expressing intolerant views towards any group (race, religion, sexual preference, interracial couples, etc.) will not be tolerated. 


From the rules.  If you're offended, if you think something is offensive, report it!  But if you're not going to, then unless you've got something constructive to add, please, stop posting in this thread.






> Sometimes people comment on various parts of your post, not just one part of it. I commented on both your claim that "The chief is a disgrace" for saying what he did--which I read differently than you, I think--and on your posting offensively race-baiting material in the quoted text and flatly saying that you agree with what the author wrote. Would you disagree with me that the material you quoted contains racially charged language for no reason relevant to the issue of self-defense?
> 
> But if you really want to drop the racial aspect--feel free to do so. I've said my piece on it.



Hmm...tell me something I don't know.  LOL!  You're doing your best to take this off track intentionally, and you know it.  And perhaps you should take your own advice and drop the racial aspect, seeing that I'm not the one talking about it..you are!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 30, 2013)

In keeping with the idea of discussing the SD aspects of the case...


Those who have read the story of how I lost an eye won't be surprised to hear that I am *not* in favor of 'going along'. 

There's no one-size-fits-all answer, but I am pretty well convinced that allowing the criminal to decide when things get physical is often not a good choice. My personal plan is to play along just as long as it takes for the bad guy to be distracted for one moment, and then do everything in my power to drop them like a bad habit.

Want my wallet? Here it is. But I'll drop it when I pass it over. When your eyes reflexively follow it down, don't be surprised if I decide to change the direction of our encounter...


----------



## arnisador (Aug 30, 2013)

MJS said:


> What did I say that was racist?  That I agreed with the author, that we shouldn't let *black *thugs beat us up?



I've *edited *your comment to reflect what you actually did have in the original post rather than your sanitized version here.



> Are you hinting that I'm a racist Arni?  Because if that's the case, you're so far out in left field its not funny. LOL!  I'm far from racist.  I have black friends, Hispanic friends, even gay friends.



 Are they some of your best friends? Because that would be especially convincing.



> drop the racial aspect, seeing that I'm not the one talking about it..



Yes, you seem to be not talking about it at great length.

I don't particularly care to continue discussing this.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 30, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Those who have read the story of how I lost an eye won't be surprised to hear that I am *not* in favor of 'going along'.
> 
> There's no one-size-fits-all answer, but I am pretty well convinced that allowing the criminal to decide when things get physical is often not a good choice. My personal plan is to play along just as long as it takes for the bad guy to be distracted for one moment, and then do everything in my power to drop them like a bad habit.
> 
> Want my wallet? Here it is. But I'll drop it when I pass it over. When your eyes reflexively follow it down, don't be surprised if I decide to change the direction of our encounter...



Everyone must make their own decision on something like this. It's hard to know when showing resistance will engender fear and when it will heighten the tension and lead to a greater level of violence. In the case of an 88 year old man facing multiple armed (with heavy flashlights, I gather?) opponents, I'm less convinced this was the best gamble--and in this case it certainly wasn't. If his pride wouldn't let him go down without a fight, I certainly respect his decision; but since he died, he can't be said to be better off for having fought back. He shouldn't have been put in this position' he had every right to fight back; but the police chief's comment that he was worse off for it seems objectively accurate, however unsettling as it may be.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 30, 2013)

*WARNING*

Gents, you've made your points and derailed the thread.  Enough. This isn't the Study. Stick to the Self Defence aspect. Next one off topic gets infracted.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2013)

Maybe kids should be trained not to rob and murder people...maybe they didn't know it was wrong. Religion is passe so I guess classroom instruction is required. 

As to fighting or not...are you a fighter or not? I'm thinking this old soldier preferred going out swinging. Sure fighting could escalate the situation...and acquiesceing could result in getting killed without ever putting up a fight. Id like to think Id go down swinging too.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Aug 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> As to fighting or not...are you a fighter or not? I'm thinking this old soldier preferred going out swinging. Sure fighting could escalate the situation...and acquiesceing could result in getting killed without ever putting up a fight. Id like to think Id go down swinging too.



That may well have been what he was thinking--if he had time to think it through--and to my mind that's a personal decision. But the question is, did it help? I think the answer is a clear no. Whether fighting back is or is not a good general rule, and whether it is or is not a person's personal philosophy, is one thing--but a big part of the message here is that it _can _make things worse, and that appears to have been the case here. I see the chief's comments as simply factual, not a prescription for others in future events.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 30, 2013)

Its not about "thinking" about it IMO...that decision was probably formed in him many years ago. 

Id take my chances making things "worse" compared to going out without a fight. Of course you should fight "smart". But this was a combat vet...his actions are what he was.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> That may well have been what he was thinking--if he had time to think it through--and to my mind that's a personal decision. But the question is, did it help? I think the answer is a clear no. Whether fighting back is or is not a good general rule, and whether it is or is not a person's personal philosophy, is one thing--but a big part of the message here is that it _can _make things worse, and that appears to have been the case here. I see the chief's comments as simply factual, not a prescription for others in future events.



I don't think it's anything resembling "a clear no". If your preference is to go down a fighter, not a victim, then the old soldier got his (last) wish. In the grand scheme of things, he's also protected others with his death, since a conviction now will certainly lead to these thugs being off the street for longer.


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

deleted because I skipped ahead and didn't see Bob's post first...I'll private message this post instead...if you saw this post before I deleted it...please un-see it...


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

I saw a case where three guys robbed a motel clerk. There was a security camera that caught the whole event.  The clerk didn't fight back, gave them the money and they left.  Then, as the clerk got up off the floor from behind the counter, one of the criminals ran back in and shot him.  Luckily, he was a body builder and the layer of muscle in his abdomen kept the bullet from killing him.  Sometines even not fighting back will get you killed.


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

Here is a different story of a 73 year old defending a neighbor...

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx



> A 73-year-old retired teacher was at home in Oakland Park, Fla. when a burglar smashed a window to gain access to the house. The homeowner retrieved a gun, went to investigate, and discovered the thief just outside the home, carrying a TV and attacking a neighbor intent on reporting the crime. The homeowner fired at the criminal, striking him several times and causing him to flee to a nearby getaway vehicle. A short time later, police found the getaway vehicle wrecked, with the thief still inside it, about a mile away. The homeowner made clear to a local media outlet that he did not relish being forced to defend himself and his neighbor, but one of his friends offered effusive praise, stating, &#8220;Good for him; wonderful. I wish more people would do that. It&#8217;s ridiculous for people to break into homes and think they can get away with it.&#8221;


----------



## arnisador (Aug 31, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't think it's anything resembling "a clear no". If your preference is to go down a fighter, not a victim, then the old soldier got his (last) wish. In the grand scheme of things, he's also protected others with his death, since a conviction now will certainly lead to these thugs being off the street for longer.



That's a nice way to look at it.

I do wonder if there is some projection going on, though, in those saying (in essence) that because he was a veteran he would rather die fighting than let this happen without fighting back. I know veterans who would rather live and lose what's in their wallet. I know a cadet who was jumped by a couple of guys last year on Spring Break (by general trouble-makers more than muggers, apparently) and literally did the curl-up-in-a-ball to protect himself--he was a senior with a lot to look forward to and didn't want to lose it to random violence. He missed several classes due to (minor) surgeries but was glad he was still going to be commissioned rather than losing out due to an injury suffered in a one-off event like this. He holed up and weathered the blows until they moved on and is now a happy 2Lt. Sometimes living well is the best revenge.

It'd be interesting to hear what the 88 year old victim's family would say about his attitude toward this type of thing.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 31, 2013)

billc said:


> I saw a case where three guys robbed a motel clerk. There was a security camera that caught the whole event.  The clerk didn't fight back, gave them the money and they left.  Then, as the clerk got up off the floor from behind the counter, one of the criminals ran back in and shot him.  Luckily, he was a body builder and the layer of muscle in his abdomen kept the bullet from killing him.  Sometines even not fighting back will get you killed.



I don't think you can ever know, and I don't give one-size-fits-all advice to my arnis students. I don't judge anyone who has to make a snap decision in a dangerous situation with inadequate information. I recall reading once that for sexual assault cases fighting back significantly decreases the odds of the attack being successful--good--and significantly increases the odds of suffering a more severe physical injury--bad. How can I judge someone who makes their own decision on winning vs. surviving?


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

> I know a cadet who was jumped by a couple of guys last year on Spring Break (by general trouble-makers more than muggers, apparently) and literally did the curl-up-in-a-ball to protect himself--he was a senior with a lot to look forward to and didn't want to lose it to random violence. He missed several classes due to (minor) surgeries but was glad he was still going to be commissioned rather than losing out due to an injury suffered in a one-off event like this.



See, that is the problem with something like this...if you curl up in a ball...the violent criminal controls the entire outcome of the situation and it is up to his good will or you being lucky that determines the level of injury you sustain.  He was "lucky," that the injuries were only minor, after all he still had injuries that required surgery so the attack was actually pretty severe, and the fact that the criminal didn't escalate and do worse was left entirely up to the criminal and his whims.  You can never know the outcome of a decision until it is made...but leaving your fate in the hands of a person who has decided that violently attacking you is a viable way to have fun or make a living is something to really think about.  Curling up in a ball is giving control entirely to that kind of person...


----------



## arnisador (Aug 31, 2013)

Yeah, but fighting back against several guys is also not a winning proposition. This worked for him and he's going on happily with his life so I mark it a self-defense success. In a lot of cases fighting back would've been better.

I was mugged by 3 guys in 1989 (!) and fought back--they just started swinging at me so I had little choice. I ran around, managed to keep only one on me at a time (I couldn't outrun them), knocked one down with a strike and fazed another. Eventually they got frustrated enough that one pulled out a knife that they hadn't brought out initially and they tried to crowd me up against a wall. I got out from that trap--blocking a stab at my abdomen--and said Hey, here's my wallet! I tossed it at them and took off. Three guys with a knife? No thanks--I had too much to live for at that time. When I told the grandmaster of our art (the very next day, as it turned out--I had already had plans to attend a camp starting that day), I thought he'd be disappointed that I couldn't say they were all in the hospital. He was very, very proud of me though--for being able to defend myself when they were unarmed and for being smart enough to just give them my wallet (containing, no joke, $2 in it) and get out when I got the chance. Within the next 5 months I expected to get my black belt (that week, in fact), graduate college, start my first-ever full-time job, and marry my fiancee. I don't regret at all not going a few more rounds with them. And had the three of them, apparently unarmed, walked up to me and demanded my wallet, I likely would've swallowed my pride, angled to be able to make an escape as I talked to them, tossed it at their feet and taken off in the other direction. It wouldn't be worth it to me to have even a permanent facial scar over two bucks.


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

Well, I'm glad you made it out okay.  Looking at the case from the thread though, how much of a struggle could this man have given them at his age...and they still killed him.  This isn't the only story recently of teenagers killing people.  I think decades of children raising children may be reaching the point where killing is just not that big of a deal to these teenagers...the Australian ballplayer was just shot, and there are some of the other stories out there...


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

I just saw this story...

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...n-gang-raped-by-juveniles-in-wilmington-park/



> Police say two women, ages 32 and 24, were reportedly attacked and sexually assaulted by a group of 10 to 12 black male juveniles in Kosciuszko Park at about 6:54 p.m. Thursday. According to police, the suspects, who range in age from 12 to 17-years-old, remain on the loose.
> The victims were transported to Christiana Hospital for treatment.
> Wilmington police increased patrols Friday in the park which is located in the 600 block of South Franklin Street in the Hedgeville Community.
> The women were released from the hospital Friday, but as of Friday night, police had no suspects and no witnesses.
> ...



By the way...I will not edit content for the purposes of political correctness...

There is also this story...

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013...-smash-grab-incident-involving-elderly-woman/



> An 82-year-old woman went home Thursday after spending two weeks first in the hospital, and then in rehab.
> She was discharged hours after 18-year-old Michael Duku of the North Side was taken into custody on charges including robbery, assault and conspiracy.
> Police say Duku and another man shoved the elderly woman to the sidewalk two weeks ago after she attended Sunday church services in Homestead. Duku ran off with her purse.



All they did was shove her and she fell...and this is how badly she was injured...



> Buczak told KDKA-TV&#8217;s Ralph Iannotti that she&#8217;s in good spirits, adding, &#8220;She suffered a broken shoulder, broken orbital bones in her face and a big cut above her eye. She&#8217;ll be in a sling for six to eight weeks now.&#8221;



And then what do you do if the attack is done with a weapon...

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...sered-sexually-assaulted-forest-park-cops-say



> A 69-year-old woman jogging in Forest Parkwas Tasered and sexually assaulted just months after a similar attack, police said.
> The woman was running in the park Monday around 4:30 p.m. when a man Tasered her, pushed her to the ground and sexually assaulted her, police said.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 31, 2013)

billc said:


> Looking at the case from the thread though, how much of a struggle could this man have given them at his age...and they still killed him



I've wondered that too. We'll never know for sure if it could've been made less bad.


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> In keeping with the idea of discussing the SD aspects of the case...
> 
> 
> Those who have read the story of how I lost an eye won't be surprised to hear that I am *not* in favor of 'going along'.
> ...



Finally, some posts that should've been here in the first place.  Before I comment any further, I'd like to apologize for taking this a bit off track.  Despite resistance from one person, I did attempt to make my point clear, as to what I wanted to discuss.  Apparently it failed early on, but hey, we're all human, and now at least we're getting somewhere.

Anyways...you're right...there is no 1 size fits all solution, thus why I always talk about assessing each situation accordingly.  I think a lot of the time, when people hear 'fight back' they think it's 'on' from the get go.  I like and agree with what you said in regards to handing over the wallet.  If you're going to do something, take advantage of that opportunity, when handing over the wallet, the keys, etc.


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2013)

billc said:


> I saw a case where three guys robbed a motel clerk. There was a security camera that caught the whole event.  The clerk didn't fight back, gave them the money and they left.  Then, as the clerk got up off the floor from behind the counter, one of the criminals ran back in and shot him.  Luckily, he was a body builder and the layer of muscle in his abdomen kept the bullet from killing him.  Sometines even not fighting back will get you killed.



Same thing happened in this case
http://articles.courant.com/2012-06..._meriden-robbery-police-officers-dark-t-shirt

"A witness who was inside the store at the time of the shooting told police a man entered the store with a gun and demanded money. The witness said that once the man got the money, he shot the clerk in the chest and left."


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

How do you guess the intention of the criminal?  How do you know that he isn't just going to kill you after you hand the money over?

Another story from one of the detective shows on the Discovery Channel...

Three guys go to a bank president's home at 3 in the morning and take him hostage.  He goes with them to the bank, opens the safe and gives them all the money.  They then take him to a bridge, duct tape him to a chair with a cement block duct taped to it and toss him, alive, into the river, where he drowns to death.  At the beginning of the attack at his house he did try to escape out the back door.  His biggest mistake is that 1) he answered his door at 3 a.m. without knowing who was knocking and 2) he answered his door at 3 a.m. without a gun in his hand or on his belt...a gun may have saved his life...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2013)

Then there was that horror story of the two men who raped and a mother and two daughters and set their house on fire killing them...the father was bound and beat with a hammer but survived. The criminals said that if the father had faught when they first entered the home they likely would have fled...they are *******s and liars of course....

I also don't know if I support the whole "you have to evaluate the situation" meme either. You have a split second to "evaluate"....a guy with a gun demanding your wallet? Yes...give it up. Two guys pushing you around? Trying to "evaluate" only pushes you into down the OODA loop without taking action.

In the end I think my issue with THIS case is a police chief manking ANY statement about defending oneself. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Aug 31, 2013)

I guess it is a go with your gut situation and hope that it turns out the right way...after all, it isn't your fault that these thugs decided to put you in that position...they deserve whatever they get...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2013)

billc said:


> I guess it is a go with your gut situation and hope that it turns out the right way...after all, it isn't your fault that these thugs decided to put you in that position...they deserve whatever they get...



Where this discussion naturally leads to is pre-conflict planning.

Something taught to LEOs...and something I try to do...is to think through as many scenarios as I can, sometimes right as I am approaching a scene, and mentally rehearse what I would do. 

The time to think about what you would do if two men walk through your front door is not during the moment they actually do it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Aug 31, 2013)

Tgace said:


> In the end I think my issue with THIS case is a police chief manking ANY statement about defending oneself.



I disagree in two ways: First, I should be able to turn to the law enforcement establishment for evidence-based advice on what happens in actual, not theoretical, conflicts. And don't police often give self-defense talks--to kids, women's groups, seniors? Second, looking at the actual text of what this police said about this case:_ Our information is that the  individual fought back and that may have  made this, you know, a worse  situation, said Spokane Police Chief  Frank Straub_. He seems to me to be making a factual statement about a single case that is being read by others as general advice, and I think that's unfair. He gave no advice; he stated that they believed in this one case, fighting back aggravated the situation. Unless you believe that resistance can _never _make a bad situation worse, then I don't see what the basis is for jumping on him--especially since he knows more about what happened than we do at this point.

(I say this despite knowing that Frank Straub resigned in disgrace as Director of Public Safety--an odd sort-of parallel police chief position created as an aspect of the city-county unigov merger-- for nearby Indianapolis after a string of police "errors" that resulted in the destruction of evidence against a police officer who killed someone while apparently driving drunk. I was glad to see him go--it was an infuriating situation, and he not only failed to control it but made matters worse.)





Tgace said:


> Where this discussion naturally leads to is pre-conflict planning.
> 
> Something taught to LEOs...and something I try to do...is to think  through as many scenarios as I can, sometimes right as I am approaching a  scene, and mentally rehearse what I would do.
> 
> The time to think about what you would do if two men walk through your front door is not during the moment they actually do it.



This is important advice for all martial artists, and I certainly do it and discuss it in class.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 31, 2013)

Let's look at the police chief's full quote rather than the out-of-context quote in the article from the original post. Here's the source that was given in the quoted article:
*World War II veteran, 88, 'who was randomly beaten to death by two teens only died because he tried to defend himself'*



> Our information is that the  individual fought back and that may have made this, you know, a worse  situation, said Spokane Police Chief Frank Straub in a Monday press  conference.
> 
> Straub was quick to maintain Beltons innocence in the matter.
> 
> I'm  not being critical of Mr. Belton, he clarified. We certainly  encourage individuals to fight back, and he should have. But it  shouldn't have happened to begin with.



The Doug Giles article that started this thread quoted only the first sentence here and omitted the remainder. So, Frank Straub encourages people to fight back but in general and thought it was the right idea in this particular case but acknowledges that that sometimes isn't a successful strategy, and people are throwing a fit about it?!? The article is just typical right-wing hysteria, carefully edited to obtain outrage.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 31, 2013)

'Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!' - Jeff Cooper, 1993 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Aug 31, 2013)

That's just what the police chief said ("We certainly  encourage individuals to fight back, and he should have.")--what's the beef, I continue to ask?


----------



## arnisador (Sep 1, 2013)

A great example where fighting back (combined with luck) was a successful strategy:
*Pregnant Woman Wards Off Kidnapper
*



> around 11:30 p.m. Thursday night [while this pregnant woman was taking a walk] He grabbed me. I fought and I just screamed about my baby, because he was hurting my stomach, [she] said.
> 
> As she was struggling to get away, [she] said a driver passed by and she believes that scared the attacker away.



This is a case where the police chief's advice--"We certainly  encourage individuals to fight back"--was solid. It sounds as though she isn't sure she could've escaped on her own, but she bought time and unwanted (by the assailant) attention that let the good luck of a passing car help her out. Given the statistics on what happens to those abducted into cars, in my opinion it _always _makes sense to resist someone who is attempting to drive you to a remote area. Knowing about those statistics and the outcomes seen in practice is one reason I _do _look to the police for general advice on what to do in the case of a criminal assault. Of course, some of that advice is meant to be liability-lowering for them and you do have to sort that out.

Of course, even successful self-defense incidents can leave their mark: 



> I used to come outside. Now, Im on a porch, scared. I just want him  caught. I dont want this to happen to anybody else, [she] added


----------



## Argus (Sep 1, 2013)

Reading through this thread has made me consider a few points that I hadn't before, actually.

It occurs to me that perhaps I expect aggressors to act more logically than is safe to bet on. The story about senselessly shooting a clerk at a convenience store robbery after being handed the money, for example, makes no sense at all, and isn't something that I'd ever expect to happen really. I suppose if someone is going so far as to rob you at gun-point, you can't expect them to necessarily act sensibly.

Also, several people have illustrated a point that I hadn't thought of much until now; that if you do choose to comply, use that opportunity. Don't just hand over your wallet and expect them to go away; throw the thing and high tail it out of there. It's pretty common sense I suppose, but maybe not something that a lot have people have taken the time to consider.


----------



## MJS (Sep 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Then there was that horror story of the two men who raped and a mother and two daughters and set their house on fire killing them...the father was bound and beat with a hammer but survived. The criminals said that if the father had faught when they first entered the home they likely would have fled...they are *******s and liars of course....
> 
> I also don't know if I support the whole "you have to evaluate the situation" meme either. You have a split second to "evaluate"....a guy with a gun demanding your wallet? Yes...give it up. Two guys pushing you around? Trying to "evaluate" only pushes you into down the OODA loop without taking action.
> 
> ...



Yup, the Cheshire, Ct home invasion.  Both of those animals are on death row.  As for the comment they made about fleeing if the father fought back...I raise the BS flag on that.  They ambushed the guy while he was sleeping and hit him with a baseball bat.  They're full of ****.


----------



## MJS (Sep 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I disagree in two ways: First, I should be able to turn to the law enforcement establishment for evidence-based advice on what happens in actual, not theoretical, conflicts. And don't police often give self-defense talks--to kids, women's groups, seniors?



And while they do give 'advice' they also have to be careful of what they say.  I don't give advice on the phone.  Why?  Because it can, it has, and will, bite you in the ***!  In case you haven't noticed, in todays world, nobody wants to take responsibility or blame for their own actions.  Instead, they look for someone else to pawn it off on.  For example: If someone calls to report a fire in their house and I tell them to get everyone out, and in the process, the person dies, you can bet a surviving family member will blame ME for telling them to get everyone out.  "Well, if the dispatcher didn't tell my son to go back into the burning house, he'd still be alive today!"  Now, in case you're wondering, yes I've taken those types of calls, and choose my words very carefully, as far as telling them what to do.  "If its safe to do so" is much better than saying, "YES, get them out!!!"  

The bottom line here, is simply...if the cops tell someone to fight back...period...imagine what'll happen when people do and die?  The majority of the time, we hear the same thing..."While what the clerk did was very brave, we don't advise people to fight back, but instead, comply and give the bad guy what he wants.  It's not worth your life."  



> Second, looking at the actual text of what this police said about this case:_ &#8216;Our information is that the  individual fought back and that may have  made this, you know, a worse  situation,&#8217; said Spokane Police Chief  Frank Straub_. He seems to me to be making a factual statement about a single case that is being read by others as general advice, and I think that's unfair. He gave no advice; he stated that they believed in this one case, fighting back aggravated the situation. Unless you believe that resistance can _never _make a bad situation worse, then I don't see what the basis is for jumping on him--especially since he knows more about what happened than we do at this point.



You didn't expect him to actually say "Yes, fighting back was the cause", do you?  And out of curiosity, I wonder how the Chief knows the old man fought back.  The old man either fought back or he didn't...what's the deal with the 'might have' comments?  I mean, if they're going to put out info, why not put this out?  Fighting or not fighting back, isn't detrimental to the case, as far as sensitive info goes.





> This is important advice for all martial artists, and I certainly do it and discuss it in class.



And this I agree with.  IMHO, it's something that's often neglected in many schools.


----------



## MJS (Sep 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Let's look at the police chief's full quote rather than the out-of-context quote in the article from the original post. Here's the source that was given in the quoted article:
> *World War II veteran, 88, 'who was randomly beaten to death by two teens only died because he tried to defend himself'*
> 
> 
> ...



Right wing? LOL!  Don't lump me into the right, the left or anything in between please.  Fact is, there're numerous articles about this, so I wouldn't put all my eggs into one article.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

MJS said:


> The majority of the time, we hear the same thing..."While what the clerk did was very brave, we don't advise people to fight back, but instead, comply and give the bad guy what he wants.  It's not worth your life."



Yes, as I said, I know that liability concerns play a role here. But the point that was made was that police should not give advice at all on these matters, and as a citizen that is not what I want.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

MJS said:


> Fact is, there're numerous articles about this, so I wouldn't put all my eggs into one article.



I'm not following you here. I was referring to the Doug Giles article that you quoted to start the thread, which selectively quoted what Doug Giles gave as his source in order to create a false impression. The police chief said "fight back" not "don't fight back". This is information straight from the article you were using--shouldn't we be discussing it? My point is that that article was misleading and that the whole point of the thread--that the chief gave don't fight back/blame the victim advice--is completely wrong.


----------



## MJS (Sep 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Yes, as I said, I know that liability concerns play a role here. But the point that was made was that police should not give advice at all on these matters, and as a citizen that is not what I want.



Will they give advice?  Sure.  Should they?  Sure.  When dealing with things of this subject, will be typically hear the same thing? Yes.  Anyone is free to do as they choose, as long as they understand the potential consequences.  With all the heat that the cops usually take, mainly from the armchair QBs in the world, do you really think they wouldn't be careful?


----------



## MJS (Sep 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm not following you here. I was referring to the Doug Giles article that you quoted to start the thread, which selectively quoted what Doug Giles gave as his source in order to create a false impression. The police chief said "fight back" not "don't fight back". This is information straight from the article you were using--shouldn't we be discussing it? My point is that that article was misleading and that the whole point of the thread--that the chief gave don't fight back/blame the victim advice--is completely wrong.



Yup, and then you posted another link, stating that it was in the full context of what the chief said, rather than the out of context article, which I assume you're talking about the one I posted.  My point was simply:  We can watch 3 different news stations, and read articles in 3 different papers, but it's fairly safe to say that we'll get different versions in each.  

In the article I posted, he hinted that perhaps the old man was killed was because he fought back.  In the link you posted, he stated that he encourages people to fight.  How is this info from what I posted?

To recap...why point of this article was to discuss whether or not we should fight back.  I went on to say that more often than not, we'll hear the police discourage fighting back.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 3, 2013)

MJS said:


> In the article I posted, he hinted that perhaps the old man was killed was because he fought back.  In the link you posted, he stated that he encourages people to fight.  How is this info from what I posted?



It's from what you posted. 

You posted this link to an opinion piece: 
http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/screw...ath-on-fighting-back-says-no-racism-involved/



> The  88-year-old World War II veteran who was randomly beaten to death  Wednesday likely died because he tried to fend off his attackers.
> 
> Two teenage boys are charged in the bloody beating of Delbert Belton  outside a Spokane, Washington ice skating rink and investigators are now  suggesting the soldierwho took a bullet in the Battle of Okinawatried  to stop the apparent robbery.
> 
> ...



Note the Daily Mail link, where your writer gives the source from which he is quoting. It's the only line from his article that you did _not _quote here on MT. I followed that link from the article you posted to read more about the story on which the opinion piece was commenting. At that link it says:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-died-tried-defend-himself.html#ixzz2dB4nHEfW



> The 88-year-old World War II veteran  who was randomly beaten to death Wednesday likely died because he tried  to fend off his attackers.
> 
> Two  teenage boys are charged in the bloody beating of Delbert Belton  outside a Spokane, Washington ice skating rink and investigators are now  suggesting the soldierwho took a bullet in the Battle of Okinawatried  to stop the apparent robbery.
> 
> ...



This was the source used by the article you posted. But the article you posted omitted the last two paragraphs above in order to create the false impression that the police chief was saying don't fight back/it's your fault when, if you read his whole statement, he actually said do fight back/it's not your fault.

This isn't a different source--it's the source your article claims to have used. It's just that the author you quoted selectively quoted from it so as to misrepresent the chief's views. We're watching the same station, but I watched the whole show.

Given this, do you still disagree with the police chief?


----------



## MJS (Sep 5, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It's from what you posted.
> 
> You posted this link to an opinion piece:
> http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/screw...ath-on-fighting-back-says-no-racism-involved/
> ...



To be honest, I didn't even click on the 2nd link.  As you know, there are often many links on 1 story.  For example, I was just reading on msnbc, an article about Ariel Castro.  At the bottom of the page, there were a few other links under the heading "Related".  The Chief hinted that fighting back was the cause of the beating, which is no doubt what led to the other article.  Of course, it almost sounds like he's contradicting himself, when he goes on to say that the very thing that may've been the cause of the old mans death, is the very thing that we should do.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 5, 2013)

MJS said:


> To be honest, I didn't even click on the 2nd link.



It was the only link in the article--and it's a good idea to do a little fact-checking if you're going to quote Doug Giles, whose brag page includes these references:
http://clashdaily.com/about-doug-giles/



> Doug Giles must be some kind of a great guy if CNN wants to impugn him.
> - Rush Limbaugh
> 
> 
> ...





> Of course, it almost sounds like he's contradicting himself, when he goes on to say that the very thing that may've been the cause of the old mans death, is the very thing that we should do.



This has been the point from the beginning and I still don't get it--unless you think fighting back is 100% successful, it could be good advice to fight back but still fail at times. When they say "Never draw to an inside straight" they don't mean you cannot make the straight--just that it's not a good bet. In principle you _could _invade Russia in the winter and win. The chief said you should fight back--which everyone here seems to largely agree with--but that in this one case it may have made matters worse rather than better. What is contradictory about that? 

The chief said people should fight back and people castigated him for not saying people should fight back, and now are apparently blaming him for thinking it's not a foolproof strategy.


----------



## MJS (Sep 5, 2013)

> This has been the point from the beginning and I still don't get it--unless you think fighting back is 100% successful, it could be good advice to fight back but still fail at times. When they say "Never draw to an inside straight" they don't mean you cannot make the straight--just that it's not a good bet. In principle you _could _invade Russia in the winter and win. The chief said you should fight back--which everyone here seems to largely agree with--but that in this one case it may have made matters worse rather than better. What is contradictory about that?
> 
> The chief said people should fight back and people castigated him for not saying people should fight back, and now are apparently blaming him for thinking it's not a foolproof strategy.



Nevermind....it's no longer worth replying to.


----------

