# Criminals will kill if you fight back



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2012)

For the record, I don't agree with this.  Posting for discussion purposes.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/criminals-will-kill-if-you-fight-back-1.1248125



> My advice is to co-operate because they (criminals) want to see you submit to their authority and hear you say they are in control. Do this and the chances of survival are much greater. Resist and they wont hesitate to kill you. They believe their lives are much more valuable than yours, Burger said.



Bear in mind that this story is from South Africa, where the criminal situation may be different than the West.


----------



## billc (Mar 4, 2012)

Sometimes they kill you anyway.  I saw a news show about a program where victims confronted their attackers at the prison.  The story shown was about a motel clerk who was robbed by 3 or 4 guys.  They had the money and left, the guy picked himself off the floor, where they told him to stay, then one of them ran back in and shot him.  Luckily, he was a body builder, and the bullet didn't penetrate far enough to kill him.  They had the money and were leaving and then they came back to kill him.  It happens that way as well.


----------



## MJS (Mar 4, 2012)

Well, I don't agree with it either.  Case in point:
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-new-britain-home-invasion-0302-20120301,0,289543.story

The women in this case, were cooperating, offered money and their car.  This happened a while ago, but earlier reports on this, said that the reason he decided to kill the women, is that they saw his face.  So despite full cooperation, he shot them both, one had to "play dead" and unfortunately, her friend was not so lucky, as she was raped, and then shot.  

Perhaps that is the best advice over there, where it seems the animals are running wild, but for me, I'm an advocate of fighting back, when the situation presents the opportunity to do so.  IMO, when that moment does present itself, I say go for it, because you may not get a second chance.


----------



## billc (Mar 4, 2012)

A good starting point is to make sure the bad guys aren't the only ones with guns.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 4, 2012)

And if I may add, it is something we should think about everyday. If we go over it in our mind, if or when it does happen, we will be better prepared to make a reasonable decision on the spot.....


----------



## Buka (Mar 4, 2012)

I guess it depends on who's being victimized. If someone has no skills, ill health, whatever, that's one thing.

But if someone does have skills, health, attitude etc, that's a whole different story. This whole "don't fight back" thing comes around every few years. Just as the "exercise isn't good for you" does every decade or so. 

As for South Africa, it's become the murder by stabbing capital of the world. I have many friends there who are in the arts, and who have killed in self defense in the last five years. I know just as many people there who have fought back successfully as here in the states.

As for that writer who wants me to cooperate with the bad guy - kiss my old, narrow mindedness, chump.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 4, 2012)

What alot of folks forget is that Criminals are under a ton of pressure. Imagine the rush and the constant racing of the mind, thinking of how everything needs to get done QUICKLY, You need to GO. And this person could do ANYTHING. They might beat YOU down if Youre not careful!
Criminals arent cool cucumbers who can be fitted into a niche. Alot of the time, Id say the unnecessary force, namely before, say, running off, is a kind of panic response under pressure.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 4, 2012)

Circumstance is everything.  Telling someone to fight back or not fight back in every case is moronic.  If someone has a gun and wants your money, best odds are to give it to him.  Yes, sometimes a criminal will shoot anyway, but best odds are to give the money.  If someone wants you to get in a vehicle, best odds are to fight back, because your chance of surviving go way down if they want you alone.  However, again it isn't an all or nothing thing.  Sometimes the criminal will let you go.

The one thing which is absolute is do not judge the situation with your ego.  A sure fire way to get hurt is start judging the situation with "I'm a martial artist and I should fight back."  The fact is most people are not trained to deal with live weapons, under the stress of a real self-defense situation.  So while your training isn't exactly helpless, it isn't for the situation at hand either.  It is all fine and good to train knife or even gun self-defense in the comforts of your school.  It is quite another to pull thse techniques off when not doing so perfectly can get you kiled.  

Telling someone they should fight back without an eye to differeing situations is niave and irresponsable, in my opinion.


----------



## Jenna (Mar 4, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Circumstance is everything.  Telling someone to fight back or not fight back *in every case* is moronic.



I think that is a key phrase exactly as you have outlined.


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2012)

it's a lose/lose deal.

When i go to town I drive past a place with 4 crosses in front. Used to be a Block buster video place...
Once fine day a guy walks in with a gun to rob the place. Points the gun at the 2 employees and 2 patrons...they give him their wallets, whatever else he wants...
only to die execution style on the floor of the store...

Would they have had a chance if they had fought? Who knows, but hitting a running target is harder than the back of the head of a kneeling person. 

Never say never...
Or always.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2012)

As I've said before, it's about self-defense, not about money defense or property defense or ego defense, and it's especially not about teaching someone a lesson, etc.

Remember the old bumper sticker _"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?"_  I hate that.  Once you're dead, you can defend no one else.  You can no longer defend yourself.  You can't ever be free, or be anything, again.  Living 'on your knees' means you're alive; where there is life, there is hope.  Eh, everyone has to make their own choices.

The fact is that most armed robberies do not end in murder.  Most rapes do not end in murder.  But some do.  So there are no guarantees.  However, based on the statistics, with no other information available, the odds favor compliance.  That doesn't mean 'always' or 'never'.  It means you must be able to analyze and decide, as quickly as possible, and act quickly.  It also doesn't mean you cannot change your mind, and your reactions, as the situation changes.

One thing is certain.  If you fight, fight with everything you have; failure to overcome your aggressor or escape them may mean your death.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 4, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Circumstance is everything.  Telling someone to fight back or not fight back in every case is moronic.  If someone has a gun and wants your money, best odds are to give it to him.



15 years ago, the Baskin Robbins a mile from me was robbed twice in two weeks at knife point. This was well before I began training in martial arts, but, then and there I decided something. If the bad guy has a gun, I will cheerfully load whatever he wants in his car for him, if someone has a knife, he's gonna have to cut me, because we are going to be fighting.
It is easy to kill someone with a gun, that is exactly what makes them good for self defense, point and click (BOOM).


----------



## seasoned (Mar 4, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As I've said before, it's about self-defense, not about money defense or property defense or ego defense, and it's especially not about teaching someone a lesson, etc.
> 
> Remember the old bumper sticker _"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?"_  I hate that.  Once you're dead, you can defend no one else.  You can no longer defend yourself.  You can't ever be free, or be anything, again.  Living 'on your knees' means you're alive; where there is life, there is hope.  Eh, everyone has to make their own choices.
> 
> ...


This is key, Bill, and what I hope everone takes away with them from your great post.......

Side note:
When in training, train with all youe heart, and make it real in your mind. In the heat of battle when your mind goes blank, training is all you will have to fall back on.............................


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 4, 2012)

Someone tries to rob me now-a-days... they'd better pray that they don't stupidly put themselves in a position where I'm just going to unload on them and send THEIR asses to the hospital and eventually jail. Damned right I'm going to fight back. Most criminals are wimps and not as bad as some can be. I wonder if this guy Burger has ever been mugged?


----------



## decepticon (Mar 4, 2012)

I agree that the criminals don't value my life as much as their own. I agree that they want to see me submit and say they are in control. That's why I train to lift my hands, palms forward, in front of my face, to avert my gaze, and to say, "Please, I don't want any..." at which time my raised arms are already in blocking position and my hands are in the vicinity for a quick strike.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 4, 2012)

decepticon said:


> I agree that the criminals don't value my life as much as their own. I agree that they want to see me submit and say they are in control. That's why I train to lift my hands, palms forward, in front of my face, to avert my gaze, and to say, "Please, I don't want any..." at which time my raised arms are already in blocking position and my hands are in the vicinity for a quick strike.



That is commonly called a "Fence" and there are a few different types of fence.

The problem is a lot of people know the fence but do not spend nearly enough time training in attacking and defending from the fence position.

Techniques that will work from your normal guard position of whatever martial art it is that you do , will work slightly different from the fence position , and whilst you are getting used to that there will be a bit of a drop in normal performance.

In other words you have to be able to "Fight" from whichever particular type of fence you are using.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 4, 2012)

decepticon said:


> I agree that the criminals don't value my life as much as their own. I agree that they want to see me submit and say they are in control. That's why I train to lift my hands, palms forward, in front of my face, to avert my gaze, and to say, "Please, I don't want any..." at which time my raised arms are already in blocking position and my hands are in the vicinity for a quick strike.



Yeah and your hands are in perfect position for a blade to slash at them... particularly if you're averting your gaze.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 4, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> Yeah and your hands are in perfect position for a blade to slash at them... particularly if you're averting your gaze.


Or a...
How shall I put this.

Attacker: *Grabs Left Wrist with Left Hand* *Barrage of Right Hooks*


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 4, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Or a...
> How shall I put this.
> 
> Attacker: *Grabs Left Wrist with Left Hand* *Barrage of Right Hooks*



There is certainly a possibility that your hands could be slashed , but an argument could also be made that your hands are up there ready to parry or capture the knife wielding wrist.

As for arm grabs , that's why you learn quick release counter arm grab techniques.

Averting your gaze I do not like , it may help you appear submissive and help with the act , but really you want to have your eyes on them at all times in case they initiate.

The primary function of the fence is to control distance and enable you to have time to react , it doesn't matter how many years training you have under your belt, if you let them get too close and they initiate the attack you will be hit .


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 4, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> There is certainly a possibility that your hands could be slashed , but an argument could also be made that your hands are up there ready to parry or capture the knife wielding wrist.
> 
> As for arm grabs , that's why you learn quick release counter arm grab techniques.
> 
> ...


Of course - But lets not think Were indestructible just because We practice getting out of various grabs and strikes.

That said, I think its vastly more important to put one foot slightly back. Having Your Hands up is just an added bonus (A big, big bonus, mind).
That said again, its the averted gaze that factors out parrying the Knife, or nullifying a series of Punches and a Grab. With Eyes on Target, Your chance of success is exponentially better. You can just, say, lean Your head back and try to look wide eyed.

In its own fun kind of way, Sticking Hands (Specifically Archetypical of Your Signature) would probably work pretty well if the Attacker Grabbed the Wrist, then tried to Verbally Threaten You whilst, say, toting their other hand.


----------



## David43515 (Mar 4, 2012)

I think it comes down to the one and only never fail answer for self defense situations.....it depends. There are times to be a meek little lamb, times to run like a deer, and times to turn into a cornered bobcat and fight. Each of us has to decide which is which, and the answers that work for me might not work for you. The big advantage we have is that unlike so many people, we think, plan , train, and prepare for things before they happen. It`s not my job to make arrests or hand out well-deserved punishment.It`s not my job to be the ideal witness. It`s not even my job to keep my property and money intact. My only job is to live, and return home to my wife with as little injury as possible. If I can protect someone else in the process all the better. But no one is going to give me a medal or the key to the city for fighting off someone bent on hurting me.

           personally I beleive that fighting back helps far more than it hurts. Preditors aren`t looking for a fight, they`re looking for an easy victim. If they learn that the old fat guy can hit back (or cut and shoot) they may stop and run off to find easier prey. It`s not my place to judge anyone who complies with a crook`s demands. But I like to think I`ll fight more often than not.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 4, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> Averting your gaze I do not like , it may help you appear submissive and help with the act , but really you want to have your eyes on them at all times in case they initiate.
> 
> The primary function of the fence is to control distance and enable you to have time to react , it doesn't matter how many years training you have under your belt, if you let them get too close and they initiate the attack you will be hit .



Exactly on the eye thing. If a person is threatening me directly then I'm not taking my eyes off of them PERIOD unless he's not alone. I'll still use peripheral vision but I'm going to watch his center and be ready for anything. 
No, you don't let a person get that close... if they do then you strike first... on that I'll agree. Stay away from me if you intend to do harm because it's just going to backfire. Get within MY range and just forget about the rest of your day/evening.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 4, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> Someone tries to rob me now-a-days... they'd better pray that they don't stupidly put themselves in a position where I'm just going to unload on them and send THEIR asses to the hospital and eventually jail. Damned right I'm going to fight back. Most criminals are wimps and not as bad as some can be. I wonder if this guy Burger has ever been mugged?



To me this is just not realistic thinking.  A criminal who is using force or the threat of force is probably NOT a wimp.  In all likelyhood they are prepared to use force and have done so in the past.  Even if they are not prepared to use force, you should assume they are.  All good and well if you can unload on them and you walk away, but just assuming they are "wimps" is naive.



Big Don said:


> 15 years ago, the Baskin Robbins a mile from me was robbed twice in two weeks at knife point. This was well before I began training in martial arts, but, then and there I decided something. If the bad guy has a gun, I will cheerfully load whatever he wants in his car for him, if someone has a knife, he's gonna have to cut me, because we are going to be fighting.
> It is easy to kill someone with a gun, that is exactly what makes them good for self defense, point and click (BOOM).



It is also very easy to kill someone with a knife.  Don't think so?  Ask any ER doc from high crime nieghborhoods.  Speaking as someone who has more than one scar from someone else's knife, it does not pay to underestimate a knife as a weapon.  I've been lucky, I walked away with nothing worse than scars.  Just a little difference in placement and two of those occasions would have been fatal.  Thinking a knife is not a VERY dangerous weapon is niave.

In my opinion, both of these quotes highlight what I meant by starting out judging a situation from the ego. They start out with a belief in thier abilities as fighters, not in a realistic judgement of either the situation or the attacker.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 5, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Of course - But lets not think Were indestructible just because We practice getting out of various grabs and strikes.
> 
> That said, I think its vastly more important to put one foot slightly back. Having Your Hands up is just an added bonus (A big, big bonus, mind).
> That said again, its the averted gaze that factors out parrying the Knife, or nullifying a series of Punches and a Grab. With Eyes on Target, Your chance of success is exponentially better. You can just, say, lean Your head back and try to look wide eyed.
> ...



Many sticking hands counters to grabs , work by using a technique that simulataneously leverages the grabbers arm and body into a weak position as well as deflecting and trapping his other limb , which leaves the Wing Chun practitioner free to strike through the defensive area that has been opened up.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 5, 2012)

I found an article some time ago ... a paper co-written by Todd Ellner ... delineating statistics in the 90's which showed that women who fought back were less likely to be killed, their wounds/injuries more apt to be slighter and the length of the altercation shorter. I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.

I have to agree - committed self-defense is a gamble. There is no panacea, there is no guarantee.


----------



## MJS (Mar 5, 2012)

Regarding the hands up...personally, I like the use of the fence.  IMHO, its better to have your hands up already, in a non-threatening manner.  Of course, as it was said, if you're going to do this, then you better be training things from this position as well, ie: strikes, blocks, etc.  As for the risk of them being grabbed, slashed or something else...well, yeah, thats the risk you take.  You'd run that risk if your hands were down.  

As for the badguy being a pushover or a tough guy...well, IMO, I'd rather assume the worst.  No, not everyone is going to be a profighter, nor are they always going to be a chicken **** either..lol.  This is why I feel that its good to be confident with the way that you carry yourself.  Now, this isn't to be mistaken for being cocky.  I feel theres a big difference between the two.  I think that in some cases, the 'tough guy act' is just that...an act....to intimidate you.  Not always the case, but I think in many cases, when the guy sees that you're not buying into what he's saying/doing, they tend to realize you're not as easy a target as they thought.  

As for not fighting back, vs. fighting back, vs. not fighting back until you're asked to get in a car to be taken to another area.  I've often wondered about that.  You feel that its better to comply first, hoping that things go ok.  Fine, I can accept that.  Some would rather comply and then if things keep going south, then fight back.  That too I can accept.  Told to get in a car, and now you're going to fight back right away.  I can understand that too.  But given that nothing says you wont be hurt and/or killed even if you do comply, why not just fight back from the get go?  Again, I see numerous points of view and respect them all, but for me, once the opportunity presents itself, I say fight back.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 5, 2012)

One of the things I teach my students is that martial arts and perhaps all violent acts aren't about winning or losing.  It's about cost.  You have to make it costly for your attacker.  At some point the price for attacking somebody is too high to make it worthwhile.

If a thug threatens you and asks for compliance.  If you simply comply the cost is low for the thug and the reward is high.  However if you mount an effective resistance, make the attacker hurt a little, he will think twice before doing it again.

I use the example of the porcupine.  Plenty of animals can kill and eat a porcupine, coyotes, wolves, bears, etc.  But porcupines are rarely ever killed, it's because the cost of attacking one is so high.  In a fight between a wolf and a porcupine, if the wolf is determined the porcupine will surely die.  But the wolf would be so completely miserable afterwards that he would likely never attack a porcupine again.

I tell them you don't have to win, merely survive and make your attacker rue the day.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

With regard to predicting the reactions of someone who is intent on robbing or raping via direct armed confrontation, we have to realize that the person is already well off the chart of normal human behavior; mentally healthy people don't do what he is doing.  So already he's outside the norm and probably unpredictable.

We also do not know what his motivations are, how determined he is, even to what extent he understands what he's doing or the consequences of his actions.  He may very well be so mentally ill or drugged up that he has no concept of fear, and no real self-preservation instinct remaining.  Alternatively, he may be fully understanding of his circumstances and may wish to conclude his act and depart as quickly as possible with a minimum of drama.  I don't know how you can know what's in his mind at the time of confrontation.

Some of these people are very crazy, and very dangerous. What you think a normal person would do in their situation may not apply.  By definition, they're not 'normal', and it only gets worse from there.

There just are not any hard-and-fast rules on which one can depend.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/02/25/stabbing-victim-fought-back



> It was an inner-city assault in which the victim gave it back as good as he got it.
> 
> The man and a thug suspected of assaulting him in an attempted street robbery are in hospital after the attack early Friday in Winnipeg's West Broadway area.
> 
> The 29-year-old male victim remained in critical condition with a stab wound early Saturday, while the 18-year-old male alleged assailant had also been critical before his condition was upgraded to stable.



http://www.fox43.com/news/lancaster/wpmt-lancaster-prince-street-shooting,0,2355302.story



> LANCASTER&#8212;
> A man who fought back against two men trying to rob him was hit in the head with a handgun and then shot in the shoulder. It happened around 1am on the 100 block of South Prince Street. The victim, a 54 year-old Lancaster resident, was approached by the suspects, described as black males in their twenties, who demanded money. While the victim struggled with one of the bandits, the other struck him in the head with the gun, causing a cut, then shot him in the shoulder. Police describe the wound as a grazing-type wound. He was transported to a local hospital for treatment. Nothing was stolen in this robbery attempt.




http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/Victim_Fights_Crooks_Suffers_Serious_Injuries_140891663.html


> Two males demanded a third man's wallet overnight, but were foiled when the victim fought back.
> 
> Colorado Springs Police say the 53-year-old victim was approached on the 4000 block of Ruskin Way around 12:53 a.m. The victim told officers he was walking out to his car when the two suspects demanded his wallet.
> 
> The man refused, and was hit in the face. Still, the victim continued to fight back and eventually the two would-be robbers left empty-handed. The two ran away westbound on Ruskin Way.



http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/03/two_in_custody_third_suspect_s.html



> Authorities are searching for an attempted murder suspect who conspired with two others to lure a man to a Fat City apartment complex for a robbery but ended up shooting him when he unexpectedly fought back. The victim, a 34-year-old River Ridge man, was wounded in the chest during the struggle, which occurred Feb. 25 about 1:30 a.m. at 3105 Edenborn Ave., Metairie, Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office reports said.



http://www.nbc12.com/story/17005559/teen-fights-back-and-escapes-man-who-tries-to-rape-her



> RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) - -
> 
> A 13-year-old Richmond girl fought back against her attacker when he tried to rape her on the way home from the bus stop. It happened in broad daylight Wednesday, around 3 p.m. in the 2700 block of Alexander Avenue. That's on the same block as Summer Hill Elementary.
> 
> ...



Any search of Google News for the terms 'victim fought back' will reveal recent news stories that go many different ways.  Victims fight back and escape, they fight back and die, the fight back and are injured but do not die, and so on.  Just as many do not fight back and are not injured, or do not fight back and are killed or do not fight back and are severely injured but not killed.

I just don't see any way of predicting what is going to happen, and I also do not subscribe to the theory that one must assume that the assailant intends the worst.  That predicates fighting back, and there is no guarantee that one will survive that, nor is it any proof that the assailant would have killed their victim anyway even if they had no fought back.  I think it's just bad logic, and sadly, it's bad logic that can end in tragedy.

I also don't buy the concept that a trained martial artist is going to win or even survive unscathed if they decide to fight back.  Certainly being trained increases one's odds.  It also increases one's confidence, which is good, but it may also increase one's ego, which could be bad.  Personally, I'm no expert martial artist, but with 3 1/2 years training, I have gained a certain level of confidence.  Still, sometimes a white belt gets a shot in on me when we spar, know what I mean?  It only takes one lucky shot; or a man with a gun who isn't impressed by your training and knows enough to stay well back as he shoots you.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 5, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> To me this is just not realistic thinking.  A criminal who is using force or the threat of force is probably NOT a wimp.  In all likelyhood they are prepared to use force and have done so in the past.  Even if they are not prepared to use force, you should assume they are.  All good and well if you can unload on them and you walk away, but just assuming they are "wimps" is naive.



Have you lived among them? Broken bread with them? Laughed, cried, drank, planned, plotted, with them? ... I have and I can tell you that a majority are indeed wimps... some aren't. Some are the toughest mugs you'll ever dare come across. But a majority... will scatter at the first sign of a cop, gun, resistance. They'll act tough and they'll TRY to put on the brave face, but once they start losing the fight... it's cry cry cry all night long baby. 
The problem is... not knowing the wimps from the true tough guys. 

Until it's too late.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree completely, and I think that's  dangerous thinking.  You assume that the attacker is a reasonable,  logical, being, capable of weighing risk.  The fact that they are  robbing you indicates that they are not that already.  And they only get  worse from there.  Many criminals are psychotic, have no fear of being  killed, captured, or injured, or they may be so befuddled by drugs that  they hardly know where they are.  You are not likely to make them 'think  twice,' you're not even likely to get them to think once.  These are  not 'thinking' people to a large extent.


Thank you Bill. Exactly that.
In high-school I was able to get away with fighting back and afterwards (some of) those guys never messed with me again. Others... they just kept on and on. Relishing in the fact that I WAS fighting back, giving them a challenge and something to take their mad out on. 
Outside of school when I started living on the streets, there were those aforementioned "tough-guys" sure, and then the wimps. Some of those wimps were emboldened in the first place by drugs/alcohol. 
Some that were defeated, would lick their wounds and never try anything like that again. Others would lick their wounds and analyze what went wrong and recruit 1 or 2 others to ensure victory next time. Others would lick their wounds and vow revenge, Gawd awful revenge and it's not necessarily against YOU who had hurt them. Which is why we hear/read stories about sudden brutal violent bloody attacks for seemingly no reason at all... they weren't even robbed. 

Put the suckers down, put them down as permanently as possible. Do not ever fool yourself with "well, I'd say they've had enough." You take them down to an inch of death and then say it's enough. 
As the saying goes... better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

Instructor said:


> One of the things I teach my students is that martial arts and perhaps all violent acts aren't about winning or losing.  It's about cost.  You have to make it costly for your attacker.  At some point the price for attacking somebody is too high to make it worthwhile.
> 
> If a thug threatens you and asks for compliance.  If you simply comply the cost is low for the thug and the reward is high.  However if you mount an effective resistance, make the attacker hurt a little, he will think twice before doing it again.
> 
> ...



I disagree completely, and I think that's dangerous thinking.  You assume that the attacker is a reasonable, logical, being, capable of weighing risk.  The fact that they are robbing you indicates that they are not that already.  And they only get worse from there.  Many criminals are psychotic, have no fear of being killed, captured, or injured, or they may be so befuddled by drugs that they hardly know where they are.  You are not likely to make them 'think twice,' you're not even likely to get them to think once.  These are not 'thinking' people to a large extent.


----------



## MJS (Mar 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> With regard to predicting the reactions of someone who is intent on robbing or raping via direct armed confrontation, we have to realize that the person is already well off the chart of normal human behavior; mentally healthy people don't do what he is doing.  So already he's outside the norm and probably unpredictable.
> 
> We also do not know what his motivations are, how determined he is, even to what extent he understands what he's doing or the consequences of his actions.  He may very well be so mentally ill or drugged up that he has no concept of fear, and no real self-preservation instinct remaining.  Alternatively, he may be fully understanding of his circumstances and may wish to conclude his act and depart as quickly as possible with a minimum of drama.  I don't know how you can know what's in his mind at the time of confrontation.
> 
> ...



Nice post Bill!   One thing that I noticed about the links that you posted, is that pretty much every single one, with the exception of the last one, happened late at night, ie: 1am, etc.  Obviously not everyone has a 9-5 job, so some people may be forced to walk to their cars at that hour.  Sadly, this is when alot of the dirtbag criminals are just waking up to go to their job...robbing people.  All the more reason to avoid, if possible, being in suspect areas at that hour, and if you do, do your best to know whats going on.  

And you're 110% correct..its impossible to predict what could happen.  I'm certainly not a mind reader.   I also have said myself many times, that just because we train, it doesnt make us Superman.  Gives us the edge, sure, but we can bleed and die just like everyone else.  

As for me assuming the worst...well, to each his own.  If someone comes up to me and shows a knife, demanding my keys, well, I'm not going to assume that he wants to drive me to a restaurant for coffee..lol.  Until the situation is done and over, I'm going to assume the worst.  OTOH, lets look at law enforcement.  Any time they do a MV stop, go to a domestic, until they're sure things are ok, anything less than assuming the worst, is foolish, IMO.  Until they start interacting with me, they know nothing.  I could have a weapon, would have warrants, maybe I just robbed a store the next town over.  The few times I've been stopped, I've done everything I could, to help ease their mind.  Thats kinda my point here....if the guy could be as crazy as you described, well.......


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

MJS said:


> Until the situation is done and over, I'm going to assume the worst.



Good point; I would modify my statement to 'assume the worst *and then act on it*.'  For example, I may assume the worst when a robber points a knife at my gut.  But my reaction has to be different if I assume he is about to plunge it into my stomach and therefore immediately attack.  Yes, I'll assume the worst could happen; but I still have to gauge my reaction.



> OTOH, lets look at law enforcement.  Any time they do a MV stop, go to a domestic, until they're sure things are ok, anything less than assuming the worst, is foolish, IMO.  Until they start interacting with me, they know nothing.  I could have a weapon, would have warrants, maybe I just robbed a store the next town over.  The few times I've been stopped, I've done everything I could, to help ease their mind.  Thats kinda my point here....if the guy could be as crazy as you described, well.......



Assume a felony hot-stop.  We pull the driver over, run the plates or his license, and get a code 5 frank response - he's wanted on a felony.  We draw our weapons, take a defensive position, and order him out of the vehicle and onto his face via PA, then we approach and cuff him.  If we assumed the worst, we'd assume he was about to shoot us and shoot him first.  That's kind of what I meant.  We assume he is armed and dangerous and COULD shoot us, which is why we take such precautions.  But we do not assume the next thing that happens is he is going to open fire; if we did, we'd be dumb not so open fire first!


----------



## Buka (Mar 5, 2012)

With some people....I think a lot of this depends on attitude. You can have the attitude of a predator, or you can have the attitude of prey. That being said, even a predator will "git" when the "gittin" is good.

But I like to keep in mind that turnabout is fair play in crime. Resisting is one thing, attacking the attacker and overwhelming him, is another. Screw bad guys. Cowards. All of them.


----------



## MJS (Mar 5, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Good point; I would modify my statement to 'assume the worst *and then act on it*.'  For example, I may assume the worst when a robber points a knife at my gut.  But my reaction has to be different if I assume he is about to plunge it into my stomach and therefore immediately attack.  Yes, I'll assume the worst could happen; but I still have to gauge my reaction.



Of course.   Yes, by all means, think before we act.  Won't have a hell of alot of time, but if you're not guaging  properly.....





> Assume a felony hot-stop.  We pull the driver over, run the plates or his license, and get a code 5 frank response - he's wanted on a felony.  We draw our weapons, take a defensive position, and order him out of the vehicle and onto his face via PA, then we approach and cuff him.  If we assumed the worst, we'd assume he was about to shoot us and shoot him first.  That's kind of what I meant.  We assume he is armed and dangerous and COULD shoot us, which is why we take such precautions.  But we do not assume the next thing that happens is he is going to open fire; if we did, we'd be dumb not so open fire first!



Ok, I see what you're saying.  I was looking at it slightly different.  I'll use your example:  I would assume that he would shoot, so yes, the show of force is necessary.  But obviously we're not going to shoot unless they gave a reason to.  But after reading your analogy....lol..yeah, thats how I'm making it out to sound...shoot first, ask questions later..lol.  

This is definately one of those types of situations that're all open ended.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 5, 2012)

MJS said:


> Of course.   Yes, by all means, think before we act.  Won't have a hell of alot of time, but if you're not guaging  properly.....
> 
> Ok, I see what you're saying.  I was looking at it slightly different.  I'll use your example:  I would assume that he would shoot, so yes, the show of force is necessary.  But obviously we're not going to shoot unless they gave a reason to.  But after reading your analogy....lol..yeah, thats how I'm making it out to sound...shoot first, ask questions later..lol.
> 
> This is definately one of those types of situations that're all open ended.



This falls under what Bruce Lee was working on near the end of his life. He was under the philosophy that it's better to strike first than be struck. Almost being telepathic in watching your supposed opponent/attacker's body language and any other clues that would lead to a strike, but laying in the first blow before they do. It wasn't perfect, yet I feel that if he had lived and continued to work on it he'd managed to perfect it or get near as perfect. 
In my own personal experience I've had guys swear up and down right and left, backwards and forwards that they were going to kick my *** royally... but they never did. What would've happened if I struck out first? Who knows? Then again, in my personal experience I've had guys walk right up and belt me one without any preamble or warning what-so-ever, and it wasn't a sucker punch either. They stood for a good 2 seconds and before I could even ask "wha- ?" BAM and then we were into it. So you never ever can say this person will do this and that person will do that. There's no guarantee at all. I could point a loaded and cocked pistol at you... but can you guarantee that I will or will NOT pull the trigger? 
I say no. 

But of course better to err on the side of caution. Someone points a loaded and cocked gun at me, they have X# of seconds to pull their trigger or put the gun down and release the hammer,  before I either shoot them or attack them... (depending upon the range of course heh :uhyeah: ). Put the gun down and we're going to have a nice chat. Don't put the gun down... and we're going to chat anyway.


----------



## David43515 (Mar 5, 2012)

Instructor said:


> One of the things I teach my students is that martial arts and perhaps all violent acts aren't about winning or losing. It's about cost. You have to make it costly for your attacker. At some point the price for attacking somebody is too high to make it worthwhile.
> 
> If a thug threatens you and asks for compliance. If you simply comply the cost is low for the thug and the reward is high. However if you mount an effective resistance, make the attacker hurt a little, he will think twice before doing it again.
> 
> ...



I couldn`t have put it better. By fighting back I don`t have to "beat" you, I just have to A) make you want to be somewhere else, B) make enough room for me to get away. The first option could be pain for my attacker or just making it take too much time and attract too much attention.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2012)

David43515 said:


> I couldn`t have put it better. By fighting back I don`t have to "beat" you, I just have to A) make you want to be somewhere else, B) make enough room for me to get away. The first option could be pain for my attacker or just making it take too much time and attract too much attention.



If the man has a gun pointed at you and shoots you dead, then you attack nothing and do not teach him any lessons.  I feel it's about the most foolish advice I can imagine.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 5, 2012)

Self defense is not teaching the other guy a lesson.  It isn't all about fighting either.  It is doing what is needed to do to walk away uninjured from an encounter.  Last resort is violence, because violence is usually the least safe of all options.  If a guy is attempting to mug you and you think giving him your wallet will get you out of the situation unharmed, then that is the best self defense.  Resorting to violence because you are insulted that he is mugging you is putting your ego ahead of your health.  Making up your mind that you will reort to violence before you are ever in a situation is even worst, and in most cases will not fit the reality of the sitauation if you are unfortunate enough to be there.

The world is not a safe place.  People are put into situations where violence is the most apropriate answer.  It just doesn't seem smart to me to predetermine that you would use violence when there might be a safer alternative in a given situation.  It smacks of someone living in a fantasy world where they are the hero, where the bad guy never wins.  That just is not reality.  Being prepared for violence is a hallmark of a good martial artist.  Believing violence is your first and best recourse to confrontation is not.


----------



## Jason Striker II (Mar 6, 2012)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...fight-fight-back-during-cookie-money-robbery/


Comments?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

Jason Striker II said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...fight-fight-back-during-cookie-money-robbery/
> 
> 
> Comments?



I think those girls were very brave.  I also think they were foolish to pursue the men.  One of them was reportedly dragged by the vehicle.  Here in Michigan, just down the road from the apartment I used to live in, a security guard tried to stop a shoplifter in the parking lot of the local K-Mart.  The shoplifter dragged him and then 'scraped him off' by intentionally driving alongside a phone pole, which not only killed him, but bisected his body; he died in extreme agony with a crowd of onlookers able to do nothing for him, as his body was in two actual parts.

Tell the parents of those girls scouts that they were 'very brave' as they weep over the pieces of their daughters, dead for cookie money.

I think you know what my opinion on that is.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> This falls under what Bruce Lee was working on near the end of his life. He was under the philosophy that it's better to strike first than be struck. Almost being telepathic in watching your supposed opponent/attacker's body language and any other clues that would lead to a strike, but laying in the first blow before they do. It wasn't perfect, yet I feel that if he had lived and continued to work on it he'd managed to perfect it or get near as perfect.
> In my own personal experience I've had guys swear up and down right and left, backwards and forwards that they were going to kick my *** royally... but they never did. What would've happened if I struck out first? Who knows? Then again, in my personal experience I've had guys walk right up and belt me one without any preamble or warning what-so-ever, and it wasn't a sucker punch either. They stood for a good 2 seconds and before I could even ask "wha- ?" BAM and then we were into it. So you never ever can say this person will do this and that person will do that. There's no guarantee at all. I could point a loaded and cocked pistol at you... but can you guarantee that I will or will NOT pull the trigger?
> I say no.
> 
> But of course better to err on the side of caution. Someone points a loaded and cocked gun at me, they have X# of seconds to pull their trigger or put the gun down and release the hammer,  before I either shoot them or attack them... (depending upon the range of course heh :uhyeah: ). Put the gun down and we're going to have a nice chat. Don't put the gun down... and we're going to chat anyway.



Yup!   You hit the nail on the head.  And yeah, thats pretty much where my thinking was with what I said to Bill.  But now that I read what I said again...and who knows, maybe it'll still not sound right...but my views are....you can yell, scream, stomp your feet, whatever, from a distance.  Once you start moving closer to me, draw your hand back, pull a weapon...I just dont see anything good happening.


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think those girls were very brave.  I also think they were foolish to pursue the men.  One of them was reportedly dragged by the vehicle.  Here in Michigan, just down the road from the apartment I used to live in, a security guard tried to stop a shoplifter in the parking lot of the local K-Mart.  The shoplifter dragged him and then 'scraped him off' by intentionally driving alongside a phone pole, which not only killed him, but bisected his body; he died in extreme agony with a crowd of onlookers able to do nothing for him, as his body was in two actual parts.
> 
> Tell the parents of those girls scouts that they were 'very brave' as they weep over the pieces of their daughters, dead for cookie money.
> 
> I think you know what my opinion on that is.



Very. Well. Put.
They were taking on people bigger and stronger than They were. And sadly for their egos, those punches probably did zilch.
It sounds to Me like They were in a hurry from the get-go. And that may have saved the Girls lives.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Self defense is not teaching the other guy a lesson.  It isn't all about fighting either.  It is doing what is needed to do to walk away uninjured from an encounter.  Last resort is violence, because violence is usually the least safe of all options.  If a guy is attempting to mug you and you think giving him your wallet will get you out of the situation unharmed, then that is the best self defense.  Resorting to violence because you are insulted that he is mugging you is putting your ego ahead of your health.  Making up your mind that you will reort to violence before you are ever in a situation is even worst, and in most cases will not fit the reality of the sitauation if you are unfortunate enough to be there.
> 
> The world is not a safe place.  People are put into situations where violence is the most apropriate answer.  It just doesn't seem smart to me to predetermine that you would use violence when there might be a safer alternative in a given situation.  It smacks of someone living in a fantasy world where they are the hero, where the bad guy never wins.  That just is not reality.  Being prepared for violence is a hallmark of a good martial artist.  Believing violence is your first and best recourse to confrontation is not.



Just to clarify my stand...I know in many cases, it seems like I'm all for kicking the guys ***.  Not the case.  More times than not, I've maintained a calm, confident attitude, and talked my way out.  Can't get any less violent than that..lol.   This is why I like to say, assess the situation and act accordingly.  Or like Bill said in a post to me...assume the worst and then act on it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

My idea of 'perfect' self-defense has always been this 'Gold Standard' self-defense shooting.  IMHO, this man did everything right.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/subway.asp

Let's review.

Lovell, age 71 was eating dinner at a Subway restaurant in Florida.  He was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and indeed, he was carrying a .45 ACP pistol concealed.

** Lesson One: If you have a CCW, carry.  A weapon left in the car or at home because it's too heavy or too big or you just don't feel like you'll need it is the day you will die from not having it.*

Two armed men enter, approach the cashier and demand the register receipts.  The clerk gives it to them and dives for the floor.

** Lesson Two: Note your surroundings.  You are not the only innocent person present.  What you do or do not do may affect them and their lives as well.  When you choose to act, be aware that they are not part of your decision, but they will be affected by your actions. (Kempo Hakku: You Must See (sense) Beyond the Obvious.*

One of the armed men goes to the employee room in the back, the other approaches Lovell and demands his wallet.  He rises, raises his hands, and surrenders all the case he has on him (about $500), despite being armed.

** Lesson Three: Money is not worth your life.  Honor is not worth your life.  Dead people have use for neither.*

The armed man facing Lovell decides that he is going to herd Lovell, the clerk, and other customers into the employee room in the back, and orders Lovell to go into the back room.

** Lesson Four: Know when the situation is no longer about money.  Lovell correctly understood that having given up his money voluntarily, being moved to a less visible location was prelude to being killed.  He correctly feared for his life.*

Lovell noticed that the armed man facing him was momentarily distracted by his accomplice emerging from the employee room in back.  He drew his weapon and fired, striking the man who had just robbed him twice in the head and missing once.  He then turned and fired at the armed man emerging from the employee room in the back, striking him once in the chest and missing once.  The man shot in the head died instantly.  The man shot in the chest got up and ran away, being found in the bushes later on by responding police.

** Lesson Five: Know how to shoot your damned weapon.  If you carry, you'd damned well better be proficient, or you're a damned menace to everyone.
*
** Lesson Six: Learn to recognize when the situation changes.  There is no 'one rule' regarding armed robbery.  Different situations require different responses, and as the situation changes, so do the appropriate responses.*

** Lesson Seven: The time to strike is when the opportunity presents itself (also, a good part of the Kempo Hakku, the Eight Laws of the Fist). http://noxdojo.com/articles/kempo-hakku/*

The man left alive was charged with Murder in the First Degree.  That is because even though he did not shoot his partner, his partner was killed by the actions the two of them took.  He is legally responsible for the result and was charged accordingly.

*Lesson Eight: As you sow, so shall ye reap.*

I could apply the Lovell Lessons to any self-defense situation; but it is important to understand that the outcome could be different each time.   And there are *STILL no guarantees*.

Let's explore what MIGHT have happened.

1) Lovell refuses to turn over his cash and draws his weapon and fires instead.
a) Lovell kills assailant(s).  Robbery over.
b) Lovell is killed.  Robbery over, victim dead.
c) Both exchange gunfire, clerk and/or other patrons dead.

2) Lovell turns over wallet and complies when herded into the back room.
a) Robbers ties customers up and leave.
b) Robbers execute customers.

In other words, anything might have happened, and there is no way to predict with certainty what might have occurred had things gone even a little differently.  Even in the original scenario, Lovell might have drawn and fired and missed, or the assailant might have shot first and killed Lovell.  There are no guarantees.

However, in my opinion, Lovell did exactly what he should have.  He understood that money was not worth his life; even though he might have been shot anyway, he decided that the chances of it were lower than the risk of drawing his weapon when his wallet was demanded, so he complied.  When the situation changed, however, he also realized that being herded into the back room was a Bad Thing, and might well signal that he was about to be executed.  At that point, he felt that his chances were better drawing his weapon and firing than passively accepting whatever fate had in store for him.  He might have guessed wrong; the armed men might have not been planning to kill him; but he could not know that, and the potential was obvious; any intelligent man would immediately suspect if not believe that he was about to die.  Because his situation had changed, so did his response.  He watched the gunman; when his attention was distracted, he took advantage of that without hesitation.  Once he had decided to act, he found his moment and acted without stopping to think about it.  He did not stop responding until the threat was ended (the second man ran away after Lovell plugged him in the chest).

That, to me, is picture-perfect.  He could not have done it better, even though the outcome might have been very different than it was.  His skill and training were in evidence as well as his common sense and ability to judge a threat correctly; as without being able to accurately draw and fire his weapon, his correct decisions might have been for naught.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If the man has a gun pointed at you and shoots you dead, then you attack nothing and do not teach him any lessons.  I feel it's about the most foolish advice I can imagine.



But as has been pointed out, the gunman may shoot you whether you comply or not.  For myself I would rather my obit reads went down fighting than shot even though he handed over wallet.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2012)

Instructor said:


> But as has been pointed out, the gunman may shoot you whether you comply or not.  For myself I would rather my obit reads went down fighting than shot even though he handed over wallet.



Exactly!  Oh and you mean like in this case:
http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-armed-robbery-0305-20120304,0,611434.story

21yo punk piece of **** pulls a gun, puts it to the guys back, says he'll kill him if he doesnt comply, guy complies, and still gets punched in the face.  Yes, I know, really no fighting involved here, and I do see/agree with your point.  Just pointing out that this guy still got hit.  On the plus side, at least the punk was caught.  Sadly, he probably won't spend much, if any, time in prison, and will most likely learn nothing from this, and go back out again.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 6, 2012)

Instructor said:


> But as has been pointed out, the gunman may shoot you whether you comply or not. For myself I would rather my obit reads went down fighting than shot even though he handing over wallet.



I'd rather mine read "went down having sex at the age of 109," but that's me.....:lfao:

In all seriousness, at the end of the day it boils down to game theory.

If you think or believe the intention isn't to kill you,  then comply *or* resist, based on other circumstances-proximity, etc. Odds are good, though, that if what you believe is true-the intention isn't to kill you-then compliance is a safe bet.

If you think or believe the intention is to kill you, then _resist_,* no matter the circumstances*. Feign compliance if necessary, but be preparing to act-*they're going to try to kill you either way.*

It's also worth pointing out that completely untrained people successfully resist and disarm gun bearing criminals every year.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

Instructor said:


> But as has been pointed out, the gunman may shoot you whether you comply or not.  For myself I would rather my obit reads went down fighting than shot even though he handed over wallet.



I do not believe that is a wise, clever, or even true statement.

First, your response posits that you will be killed whether or not you hand over your wallet.  The facts are that most armed robbers do not kill their victims.  Those are the facts, you cannot change them.  So your assumption is incorrect.  You **may** be killed even if you turn over your wallet, but the odds are very much against it.  Hugely against it.  That doesn't mean you won't be killed anyway, but that's why we have common sense and the ability to decide if this is one of those situations or not; there are no hard and fast rules, and even if you try to judge wisely, you can still be wrong and still be killed.  There are no promises and no guarantees; but there are some really stupid assumptions that should probably be avoided.  This being one of them -> always attack because you will be killed if you don't.

Second, self-defense is about defense of self, not defense of wallet.  You are confusing the two.

Third, once you are dead, you no longer possess the capability to defend yourself (which no longer matters, of course) or anyone else.  Your family and loved ones, if you have any, will suffer because of your (IMHO) poorly-reasoned decision.  _"Well, we have no food in the house, but daddy went down swinging, that's good."_  Yeah, that's what I want my kids saying.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I'd rather mine read "went down having sex at the age of 109," but that's me.....:lfao:



LMAO!! QFT!!!!!



> In all seriousness, at the end of the day it boils down to game theory.
> 
> If you think or believe the intention isn't to kill you,  then comply *or* resist, based on other circumstances-proximity, etc. Odds are good, though, that if what you believe is true-the intention isn't to kill you-then compliance is a safe bet.
> 
> ...



Can't disagree with anything here!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2012)

MJS said:


> Exactly!  Oh and you mean like in this case:
> http://www.courant.com/community/new-haven/hc-new-haven-armed-robbery-0305-20120304,0,611434.story
> 
> 21yo punk piece of **** pulls a gun, puts it to the guys back, says he'll kill him if he doesnt comply, guy complies, and still gets punched in the face.  Yes, I know, really no fighting involved here, and I do see/agree with your point.  Just pointing out that this guy still got hit.  On the plus side, at least the punk was caught.  Sadly, he probably won't spend much, if any, time in prison, and will most likely learn nothing from this, and go back out again.



As Elder correctly noted, it is game theory.  However, it's not hard to break it down logically.

1) Robbed, do not resist, not killed.
2) Robbed, resist, not killed.
3) Robbed, do not resist, killed.
4) Robbed, resist, killed.

Now, of these, FBI stats say that most armed robberies do not end in murder; and by a huge margin.  So option 1 is the *single most likely to occur*.  That only applies to the aggregate, not to individual situations, though.  Like car insurance; the insurance industry can predict very reliably how much loss they will incur when insuring a given risk group; but they cannot say if YOU will have an accident or not.  That's why there is no 'one size fits all' answer to armed robbery or the appropriate response to it.

However, I believe it can also be said truthfully that once violence ensues - from the robber or from the victim - the odds of the victim being injured or killed go up.  That means in option 2 above, the risk of being injured or killed is higher than option 1.

Given that, *if I knew nothing else* about the situation, I would choose option 1 - do not resist.  However, and again as I have insisted in the past (and had my words twisted), that does not mean I have a cookie-cutter one-size-fits all solution to being robbed.  It means I realize that I am generally less likely to be killed if I comply, but I must evaluate the situation I am in and make my own mind up, then act accordingly.  It does help to know that most armed robbers do not kill their victims.  And it helps to know that once the violence starts, the chances are much higher that someone will be hurt or killed.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 6, 2012)

I respect your opinion Bill and I will ponder it more.  At the moment I don't happen to agree with you, but you have given me something to think about.  You make a very strong argument.


----------



## MJS (Mar 12, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As Elder correctly noted, it is game theory.  However, it's not hard to break it down logically.
> 
> 1) Robbed, do not resist, not killed.
> 2) Robbed, resist, not killed.
> ...



Absolutely.  There are too many options to really give a definate, "Id do this or I'd do that" type of answer.  However, in some recent articles I've read about street robberies, the victim was immediately assaulted by the badguy.  IMO, when that happens, I'd be more inclined to think that the odds of you getting hurt further, go up.  But thats just my opinion.  I say that because if they're not even going to give you the chance to comply, before they punch you in the face or hit you with a blunt object, that tells me that they're not thinking twice about violence.


----------

