# enough is enough



## just2kicku (Sep 21, 2009)

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness? 

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything. 

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself. 

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them? 

So, what do you guys think?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.


 
That may well have been me, in the 'TKD & SD' thread, talking about the encounter that cost me an eye.



just2kicku said:


> It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?
> 
> I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.
> 
> ...


 
The problem lies in our litiginous society, where there are so many people who want to play the Lawsuit Lottery. If you teach this (although I agree with the principle whole heartedly) and someone gets hurt because they fought back, you can bet your last dollar (actually, you already did...) that some ambulance chaser will be there to sue you.

Now, before anybody reading this decides that I harbor a predjudice against lawyers, let me assure you that I do not think *all* laywers are scum sucking bottom feeders. I think prosecuters are, by and large, fine people.


----------



## Danjo (Sep 21, 2009)

The old _"Better to be a live chicken than a dead duck" _argument. Well, when muggers/robbers and highjackers used to just want the money and then they'd take off, I am not sure what the correct argument would be. 

However, given that they are just as likely as not to kill you anyways in many cases, I can think of worse approaches than Charles Brosnson used in Death Wish. 

I do know that the laws have done a hell of a lot to encourage us to become victims. the government would rather that you not be armed, than that you be safe.The concealed carry laws are absurd, and in areas where they have done away with the need for permits, the crime rate has dropped dramatically. All going to prove that if someone is worried that a person might be armed, then they are not likely to try anything. 

So we have the criminals not afraid to carry concealed and the citizens being afraid only because they are worried about getting in trouble with the law.

Nice.


----------



## just2kicku (Sep 21, 2009)

Dirty Dog said:


> That may well have been me, in the 'TKD & SD' thread, talking about the encounter that cost me an eye.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, you are right, that is where it was. And I am truly sorry to hear about your eye.

its just frustrating to have to back off all the time. And to have to train to back off


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.
> 
> It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?
> 
> ...


 
The suggestion to give up your wallet is based in the assumption that you value your life more than your material wealth and that you don't have a sufficient likelihood of success in the event that you choose to fight. For most people this is true. If you choose not to heed this advice, you may open yourself to risk of injury or death or the threat of legal action if you respond in a disproportionate manner. Like it or not, being a criminal doesn't automagically strip them of all their rights and you can't do anything you want to them. 

It's on you if that's the direction you want to go as a teacher, but there's one other consideration that you may want to discuss with your students: people learn from their failures. Suppose that in a certain area - around your school, say - the criminal element finds that they are experiencing a higher rate of failure due to the fact that their victims are fighting back. How will they adapt to this? By going legit? Using different strategies? Perhaps by shooting first and then taking your wallet? I'm not criticizing, just presenting some scenarios.


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 21, 2009)

A life is much harder to replace.  

The thing to remember here is that many of these ideals arise from necessity.  In today's society, the victim can quickly become the "attacker" in the legal system.  There are situations of a person being prosecuted for killing someone who broke into their home.  I believe that it comes to personal convictions.  Are your convictions strong enough to sacrifice your life or freedom for?

It also comes to a question of practicality.  What is the use of a life sacrificed in a futile effort?  If you resist that one mugger to "show him" that you won't take it and he shoots you - what is gained?  You stuck to your convictions and principles.  Good for you....but if you're dead, it means nothing.  In the grand scheme, it won't matter.

Now there are certainly situations where the practicality changes.  The American revolution for example.  The people stood up for their rights and convictions, but did so in a logical, organized, and meaningful way.  Many lives were lost, but they weren't lost without a purpose, they were all working toward a single, unified goal.

If you lose your life sticking up to a mugger - what has been gained?  Now....if EVERYONE changes their attitudes and starts to stick up for themselves, slowly over the course of time, things may change....but how many of the public are willing to give up their lives in that pursuit?  As long as there are still targets, it won't work.  The American revolution worked because EVERYONE was of the same mind, things were polarized.  If you didnt' support the revolution, you were a sympathizer and that wasn't a good thing to be.

Personally, I will give up my wallet to a guy with a gun.  My life isn't worth a bunch of credit cards that I can cancel and a few bucks.  But my recognition of the mugger, situational awareness and actions after the fact, may help to save another person.  Resisting would only get me hurt or killed and I would be another statistic.  As someone that got out, but saw his face - I can be useful.

And be aware, you may face consequence by telling your students to fight back.  If you tell them that, are you willing to have one of THEIR lives on your conscience?  I certainly am not.  Their lives are too important to me.  I'd rather have their pride hurt, but in class the next day.  

Not negotiating with terrorists is one that I'm FULLY in support of.  Particularly as someone who could possibly be a POW, I wouldn't want my government to negotiate.  Once we give concessions, the flood gate is open....and they will learn that when they want something - grab some solidiers or civilians and we'll pay up.  NOT the way to go.

So in short - while I agree with you....I see the logic in the "victim" way of thinking and I think that a large portion of it serves a purpose.


----------



## MJS (Sep 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.
> 
> It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?
> 
> ...


 
And this is why I personally disagree with the compliance that everyone talks about.  Last time I checked, I wasn't a mind reader, and I don't believe anyone else is either, so, therefore, I don't want to assume that if I hand over my wallet, my keys, the car, rings, watch, etc., that the guy is going to take them and run.  He could turn around and stab me or blow me away.  

People will say that against an armed attack, you're probably going to get hurt or worse, maybe get killed.  This is the reason why people say to comply.  But as I said, there is a 50/50 chance that if I comply, I'll die anyways, so that is why I would rather take the chance and attempt to defend myself.  

And yes, the other comments are usually, "Well, what about your wife and kids?"  What about them?  Again, I could die either way, so....

A while back, I started a thread on why people are afraid to use their martial arts in SD.  IMHO, I think its the fear of the aftermath that scares the hell out of people.  What if he sues me? What if this?  What if that?  Who gives a ****, is what I say!  I'm minding my own business, and some punk wants to rob me....**** him, he deserves what he gets.  He's going to sue me because of his injuries?  Fine, but I didn't tell him to hold a knife to my back and demand cash either, so anyone with half a brain, if this ended up going to court, should be able to see who is wrong and who is right.  

Then again, depending on location and time of day, there may not be any witnesses, and I'm certainly not staying around to check on this guys well being.


----------



## MJS (Sep 21, 2009)

Just thought of this.  Lets not forget about those that fought back on 9/11...the folks on that plane, which despite it going down, they prevented the original target from being hit.  Sure, they could have just sat back, put their head between their legs and kissed their *** goodbye, but they didn't.  Despite them knowing that they were probably going to die anyways, they still fought back with everything they had.  Sounds like a damn good mindset to me.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 21, 2009)

MJS said:


> And this is why I personally disagree with the compliance that everyone talks about. Last time I checked, I wasn't a mind reader, and I don't believe anyone else is either, so, therefore, I don't want to assume that if I hand over my wallet, my keys, the car, rings, watch, etc., that the guy is going to take them and run. He could turn around and stab me or blow me away.
> 
> People will say that against an armed attack, you're probably going to get hurt or worse, maybe get killed. This is the reason why people say to comply. But as I said, there is a 50/50 chance that if I comply, I'll die anyways, so that is why I would rather take the chance and attempt to defend myself.
> 
> ...


 
One reason to train to say things while you're being aggressive. 

Instad of the classic "Kiai" train to say things like, "Stop attacking me!" and "Help! I'm being attacked." 

When the police arrive and ask witnesses what happened they'll say, "That guy attacked the other guy and all he did was keep telling him to 'stop'." 

Get it? LOL 

It's true, just ask any LEO on here. When asked what they "saw" many times the witness relays what they "heard."


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.



I must have missed that training.



> It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?



I am not sure where you got the idea that we're 'supposed' to do anything of the sort.  Who told you that?



> I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.



That statement doesn't actually make much sense.  If a deer runs out in front of your car, you'll certainly be in fear of your life enough to swerve or stop, right?  Did that dear force you to do something? Sure it did.  Entirely reasonable, too.



> It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.



I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if you consulted one, you'd be told that you might be opening yourself up to some liability issues.



> That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?



Because it is easier to replace them than to replace your life.



> So, what do you guys think?



I think that I am not in control of when or if I will be attacked or mugged.  Training in self-defense is one of the ways in which I prepare myself against that eventuality.

I also think that the primary principle of self defense is encapsulated in the words 'self' and 'defense'.  I do not think my wallet is worth my life.  If I believe I can avoid giving up my life in exchange for my wallet, I will do so.  If I believe I can outrun a mugger, I will do so.  If I believe I can avoid being injured by handing over my car, I will do so.

If I do not believe I can avoid being further injured with the possibility of being killed, I will fight instead.

It's not about being macho to me.  It's about staying alive.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

Danjo said:


> However, given that they are just as likely as not to kill you anyways in many cases, I can think of worse approaches than Charles Brosnson used in Death Wish.



The problem is that the above is not a true statement.  It's only rhetoric.  In all the muggings and carjackings and etcetera that take place in the USA, only a tiny fraction result in the murder of the victim.  It is therefore not 'likely' at all to happen.

That does not mean that a person can assume they will NOT be injured during such an encounter, but it does mean that they cannot assume they WILL be injured or killed.


----------



## just2kicku (Sep 21, 2009)

MJS said:


> Just thought of this.  Lets not forget about those that fought back on 9/11...the folks on that plane, which despite it going down, they prevented the original target from being hit.  Sure, they could have just sat back, put their head between their legs and kissed their *** goodbye, but they didn't.  Despite them knowing that they were probably going to die anyways, they still fought back with everything they had.  Sounds like a damn good mindset to me.



 I'm a firm believer of, If your gonna die, die with your boots on and go down swinging!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I'm a firm believer of, If your gonna die, die with your boots on and go down swinging!



That's perfectly reasonable.

But if you're being mugged, the statistics say you're not going to die.  So making the encounter a violent one by attacking is to perhaps go down swinging when you could have walked away.

The people on the plane had no choices.  They even knew from phone calls what was about to happen to them.  They made a brave and wise choice.

A person being mugged has no such information.  There are a nearly infinite set of variables that they have no knowledge of and no control over.  Is this guy desperate enough to kill?  Has he killed before?  Is he just bluffing?  Is he a hardened criminal, a drug addict out of his head, or what?  Is he even armed?  If he has a gun, is it real, is it loaded?  Etc, etc.

Every situation is going to be different.  In some, the smart response might well be to attack with everything you have.  In others, the smart response might be to tell him to get stuffed and walk away.  But you don't know.  

I don't think there can be one set answer.  We have brains, we're trained as martial artists to analyze the situation.  "Hulk Smash!" isn't usually the smartest answer in every situation.


----------



## Danjo (Sep 21, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The problem is that the above is not a true statement. It's only rhetoric. In all the muggings and carjackings and etcetera that take place in the USA, only a tiny fraction result in the murder of the victim. It is therefore not 'likely' at all to happen.
> 
> That does not mean that a person can assume they will NOT be injured during such an encounter, but it does mean that they cannot assume they WILL be injured or killed.


 
The odds of getting killed or even shot during a robbery  are about 1% if the robbery is taking place in public and the robber is wearing some sort of disguise (even a pulled down baseball cap and flipped up collar and sunglasses). If the robber tries to kidnap you or rob you in private, the odds go to about 50/50. Use your own judgement, but the rule of thumb is to never get yourself herded into a meat locker, back room etc., or get into a robber's car. You have a greater chance of surving if you just flat out run and yell/scream since they are not likely to hit you with a bullet if you are moving away at a full run and zigzagging etc. than you do if you leave the location with him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

Danjo said:


> The odds of getting killed or even shot during a robbery  are about 1% if the robbery is taking place in public and the robber is wearing some sort of disguise (even a pulled down baseball cap and flipped up collar and sunglasses). If the robber tries to kidnap you or rob you in private, the odds go to about 50/50. Use your own judgement, but the rule of thumb is to never get yourself herded into a meat locker, back room etc., or get into a robber's car. You have a greater chance of surving if you just flat out run and yell/scream since they are not likely to hit you with a bullet if you are moving away at a full run and zigzagging etc. than you do if you leave the location with him.



I don't know where you got your numbers, but I would agree with your logic.  I once linked to a news story of what I thought was a 'perfect shoot' involving a private citizen who used a firearm in self-defense.  

He was eating in a Subway and was robbed.  He was armed, but turned over his wallet.  Then the robbers tried to herd him into the back room with the store employees.  He drew his weapon and killed the bad guys.  That was what I consider smart, given the circumstances.  Both the giving up the wallet and the later shooting.  Circumstances changed, and he reacted with intelligence and determination to both sets of circumstances.


----------



## MJS (Sep 21, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if you consulted one, you'd be told that you might be opening yourself up to some liability issues.


 
But like most martial arts instructors, isn't that the norm. with the lawyers as well?  I may be wrong in saying this, but it seems to me, that many who will be making the decision as to whether or not you're right or wrong in what you did, will be totally clueless or have a limited at best, knowledge of the arts.  





> I think that I am not in control of when or if I will be attacked or mugged. Training in self-defense is one of the ways in which I prepare myself against that eventuality.


 
I agree.  Hopefully with our training, came a heightened awareness of our surroundings. 



> I also think that the primary principle of self defense is encapsulated in the words 'self' and 'defense'. I do not think my wallet is worth my life. If I believe I can avoid giving up my life in exchange for my wallet, I will do so. If I believe I can outrun a mugger, I will do so. If I believe I can avoid being injured by handing over my car, I will do so.
> 
> If I do not believe I can avoid being further injured with the possibility of being killed, I will fight instead.
> 
> It's not about being macho to me. It's about staying alive.


 
I know we've had these discussions before, and at the risk of going down that same road again, I must ask...how can we be sure?  I mean, I may walk into the casino and 'believe' that I'm going to get a 'feeling' when I walk past a slot machine or table, sit down, and hit it big, when reality sets in, and I now realize that I just lost $100.  Its a gamble.  I can sit at the table and have a 50/50 shot at winning.  I may walk away from the mugging with my pants soiled..lol...or I may not walk away at all.  As much as losing $100 bucks kills me, I want to walk away with my life. 

As for being macho...I'm not superman, I'm not cocky and frankly, I hate to talk about my MA training with anyone thats not a MAist.  I certainly do my best to avoid trouble, so when it does come, it usually comes looking for me, not the other way around.   I always try to talk my way out first and fortunately, more times than not, that alone has worked.  For that, I'm thankful.  But, if I'm pressed, and talking is a) not working or b) not the option, right or wrong in the eyes of others, I'm going to defend myself and anyone that I'm with.  If someone thinks that I'm wrong for saying that, thats fine..to each their own. 





Bill Mattocks said:


> That's perfectly reasonable.
> 
> But if you're being mugged, the statistics say you're not going to die. So making the encounter a violent one by attacking is to perhaps go down swinging when you could have walked away.


 
And there are people that run around throwing out stats saying that all or 90% of all fights go to the ground.  Personally, I take stats with a grain of salt.  



> The people on the plane had no choices. They even knew from phone calls what was about to happen to them. They made a brave and wise choice.
> 
> A person being mugged has no such information. There are a nearly infinite set of variables that they have no knowledge of and no control over. Is this guy desperate enough to kill? Has he killed before? Is he just bluffing? Is he a hardened criminal, a drug addict out of his head, or what? Is he even armed? If he has a gun, is it real, is it loaded? Etc, etc.
> 
> ...


 
So, using the plane analogy, am I safe to assume that you're saying the following:  If death is imminent, if there is no other option for the victim, be it on a plane, or a mugging situation, if it looks like I'm going to die, then I should fight for all I'm worth.  But if I 'feel' that I may not die, that if I just give the badguy my cash, that I'll survive, then I should do nothing more than hand it over and hope that I can remember enough of what happened, to give a report to the police.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Sep 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I'm a firm believer of, If your gonna die, die with your boots on and go down swinging!


 

i concur.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

MJS said:


> But like most martial arts instructors, isn't that the norm. with the lawyers as well?  I may be wrong in saying this, but it seems to me, that many who will be making the decision as to whether or not you're right or wrong in what you did, will be totally clueless or have a limited at best, knowledge of the arts.



Yes, although of course, both sides will bring in 'experts'.  Anybody can be sued for anything, but I do think you might be opening yourself up unnecessarily.  Again, I'd consult an attorney before dispensing advice like that, but that's just me.



> I know we've had these discussions before, and at the risk of going down that same road again, I must ask...how can we be sure?  I mean, I may walk into the casino and 'believe' that I'm going to get a 'feeling' when I walk past a slot machine or table, sit down, and hit it big, when reality sets in, and I now realize that I just lost $100.  Its a gamble.  I can sit at the table and have a 50/50 shot at winning.  I may walk away from the mugging with my pants soiled..lol...or I may not walk away at all.  As much as losing $100 bucks kills me, I want to walk away with my life.



I don't think there is any way to 'know' what is going to happen.  I think that you have to use your best judgment in any self-defense situation.  I do think that an automatic assumption that you're about to be killed and that therefore you should respond with a maximum assault on the robber is perhaps not the best solution and is more likely to get you killed or seriously injured than complying.



> As for being macho...I'm not superman, I'm not cocky and frankly, I hate to talk about my MA training with anyone thats not a MAist.  I certainly do my best to avoid trouble, so when it does come, it usually comes looking for me, not the other way around.   I always try to talk my way out first and fortunately, more times than not, that alone has worked.  For that, I'm thankful.  But, if I'm pressed, and talking is a) not working or b) not the option, right or wrong in the eyes of others, I'm going to defend myself and anyone that I'm with.  If someone thinks that I'm wrong for saying that, thats fine..to each their own.



The purpose of self-defense is to defend the self.  Anytime an altercation becomes physical, the risk of someone (you or the aggressor) being injured or dying goes up a great deal.  I therefore believe that anything that can be done to terminate a confrontation short of violence is a good thing - in terms of self defense.

I also understand that some people put their self-image, or the negative idea of themselves as a compliant victim in front of their own safety.  That's their choice, but it's not, strictly speaking, self-defense at that point.  I don't know what you'd call it.  Ego-defense?  Self-image-defense?  I-dont-want-to-be-victimized defense?



> And there are people that run around throwing out stats saying that all or 90% of all fights go to the ground.  Personally, I take stats with a grain of salt.



Betting against the house is generally a losing proposition, although someone always wins against the house.  Chances are that it won't be you.  That's all.



> So, using the plane analogy, am I safe to assume that you're saying the following:  If death is imminent, if there is no other option for the victim, be it on a plane, or a mugging situation, if it looks like I'm going to die, then I should fight for all I'm worth.  But if I 'feel' that I may not die, that if I just give the badguy my cash, that I'll survive, then I should do nothing more than hand it over and hope that I can remember enough of what happened, to give a report to the police.



Perhaps not that hard and fast.  I don't believe in absolutes in self-defense.  Response is a continuum, from ignoring the guy and walking away, to knocking him down and jumping on his chest until it caves in.  If I truly believe I could retain my wallet and not put myself at undue risk by poking the guy's running lights out, perhaps I'd do that.  It really does depend on the situation.

In general terms, though:  If I believe that the alternative to being robbed is serious injury or death, then I will surrender my valuables.  If I believe that I am likely to be injured or killed despite handing over my valuables, I will fight.  My goal is one thing and one thing only - my survival.  I'll do whatever it takes to increase the odds of that happening as I see it at the time.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 21, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.
> 
> It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?
> 
> ...


I think it is not a black-and-white issue [that we either fight to the death or utterly acquiesce], there are infinite in-between scenarios.

I do not want to offend anybody and but I think to suggest a blanket response to this problem is imprudent.  Every situation is comprised of a vast melange of factors, many of which are unknown at the time we must make our decision to relinquish our property or fight on.  I think the irrationality in saying "I will always.." do the one thing or the other in this situation is unfortunately demonstrated when our estimation of how the mugging will goes down differs from what ACTUALLY happens.  I mean, we cannot always accurately predict the path of these situations.  Can you be sure you know what he is after off you?  Can you be certain of his capability to do damage to you?  

No I am not trying to offend anybody though I just imagine this is a situation where we might do better not to talk in absolutes one way or the other.  The one caveat is that a life is endangered in which case all debate is nullified.

Mind, I once had an attempt made to steal my car.  With me in it!  That was a bridge too far.  Man that was my car they were after it is all I have worth a coin.  It accelerates well!  And so if he is after your purse or wallet, run away! then there is no fight and there is no injury see all he is left with is dust and deflated ego 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Danjo (Sep 21, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know where you got your numbers, but I would agree with your logic.


 
I just googled robbery shootings and got some crime stats pages. They vary from year to year, but that's the average it seemed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 21, 2009)

Danjo said:


> I just googled robbery shootings and got some crime stats pages. They vary from year to year, but that's the average it seemed.



Works for me!


----------



## MJS (Sep 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, although of course, both sides will bring in 'experts'. Anybody can be sued for anything, but I do think you might be opening yourself up unnecessarily. Again, I'd consult an attorney before dispensing advice like that, but that's just me.


 
What advice am I dispensing?  I think its pretty safe to say that any LEO or person in the law field, will tell you the same thing.  How many times have we heard about people fighting back, and the cops say, "While the clerk was brave with what he did, he don't advise people to do that.  Its best to comply and give the badguy what they want."  





> I don't think there is any way to 'know' what is going to happen. I think that you have to use your best judgment in any self-defense situation. I do think that an automatic assumption that you're about to be killed and that therefore you should respond with a maximum assault on the robber is perhaps not the best solution and is more likely to get you killed or seriously injured than complying.


 
As I always say, assess the situation.  We, as MAists, should be able to control what we do to someone.  If I'm faced with deadly force, then yes, I'll respond in a similar fashion.  I'm no firearms expert, so I will have to assume the gun he's pointing at me is real, one that isn't fake but looks real, one that is a bb gun, but a real one.  No different than a cop shooting someone who points what looks like a gun at them.

Let me share 2 stories with you.  The first happened in Cheshire, Ct.  Home invasion.  The husband was beaten and tied up.  His wife and 2 daughters, the same, with 2 of them being sexually assaulted.  Of course, this was after the wife took one of the badguys to the bank to withdraw a large sum of cash.  They then proceeded to light the house on fire.  End result:  the 3 females died, and the husband was able to escape.  Badguys were caught and the trial is expected to start soon.  

Here you have someone who gives cash, yet look at the end result.  3 people dead.  

In another incident, a male broke into a home.  Female homeowner and a female friend.  The guy stated to both of them that he was going to have to kill them....because he was afraid they'd ID him.  He shot one in the house, but she survived.  The other, he took in a car, to another location, where he shot and killed her.  Yet they gave him whatever he wanted.

I'm sorry Bill, but I'm not going to gamble with my life.  





> The purpose of self-defense is to defend the self. Anytime an altercation becomes physical, the risk of someone (you or the aggressor) being injured or dying goes up a great deal. I therefore believe that anything that can be done to terminate a confrontation short of violence is a good thing - in terms of self defense.


 
I agree and have said that before, many times.  But, understand this...I am not going to play games.  If I can talk, then fine, but if I can't I'm not going to start running away, like a chicken, so he can come after me.  How long do we play these games?   No, once that person is within arms reach of me, he is no longer interested in talking.  Why?  Because if he was, he'd do it from a distance, not 2in. away from my face.  



> I also understand that some people put their self-image, or the negative idea of themselves as a compliant victim in front of their own safety. That's their choice, but it's not, strictly speaking, self-defense at that point. I don't know what you'd call it. Ego-defense? Self-image-defense? I-dont-want-to-be-victimized defense?


 
Again, has nothing to do with me being cocky or macho.  Cocky or macho would mean me walking around thinking I'm the ****, and can take anyone.  A good example of macho, would be Johnny or the bad Sensei from the Karate Kid.  

Being confident and sure of myself....nothing wrong with that.  When you're confident of yourself, you stand your ground, you're not intimidated and you're firm.  I gave an example of that from a personal incident that happened to me.  I mentioned it in the other thread...where I was walking my dog, and the car drove by, made eye contact with the passenger, he got out and asked if I had a problem.  I didn't cower, I didn't apologize...I said "No" and stood there.  Why should I apologize or cower?  I did nothing wrong.  If thats what you consider macho then I don't know what to tell you.  We obviously have differences of opinion on that, and thats fine.  Just dont make me out to be someone I'm not.  





> Perhaps not that hard and fast. I don't believe in absolutes in self-defense. Response is a continuum, from ignoring the guy and walking away, to knocking him down and jumping on his chest until it caves in. If I truly believe I could retain my wallet and not put myself at undue risk by poking the guy's running lights out, perhaps I'd do that. It really does depend on the situation.
> 
> In general terms, though: If I believe that the alternative to being robbed is serious injury or death, then I will surrender my valuables. If I believe that I am likely to be injured or killed despite handing over my valuables, I will fight. My goal is one thing and one thing only - my survival. I'll do whatever it takes to increase the odds of that happening as I see it at the time.


 
One of my old teachers used to have a saying:  "You wait too long, you wait wrong."  My best chance for defense, is when he's distracted by my supposed compliance.  In other words, he's got a knife on me.  He asks for my wallet.  As I'm handing it to him, his attention is on that wallet, at the moment, so of course, he knows I have to move to get it for him, so that is the time to act.  

Now, lets say I hand it over, pray that he leaves but he doesnt and instead tells me to get in the car with him, so we can drive somewhere else.  Thats the time to act?  

One thing we can agree on Bill, and thats that we don't know what'll happen.  Where we disagree is when we act.  Thats cool though man, to each his own.   I'm not holding any grudge against you Bill.  You're fully entitled to do what you want, as its you in the situation, so of course, you should do whats best for you, at the time.   

I guess its like the pre-emptive strike.  We could wait until the punch is being fired and then move, or....we could move as soon as we see him draw back.  That is when I'm going to move.  In this case, I'm going to make a move as soon as the threat is there.  Personally, I feel I stand a better chance of survival.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 22, 2009)

I was getting off the bus, on O'Connell street, on my way back from Tyrone in 1995. I had a rucksack on and was wearing a woolen sweater. I must've looked like a tourist. Some little git walked in front of me with his hand in his pocket and told me that he had a syringe in his pocket and he'd stick me with it if I did't give him my wallet. I stuck my face in his and told him to F off as I pushed him aside. My thoughts were, that if i did get stuck, it woudn't kill me (then at least), so I'd just pound the little bastard.

I don't know what I would do if I was held up with a knife/gun/ other deadly weapon on the street. I do know that fear would make me react one way or another. What I do know is that if someone comes into my house, all bets are off. If I get the chance, i'll use them for target practise and won't lose a wink of sleep because of their demise.


----------



## MJS (Sep 22, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I was getting off the bus, on O'Connell street, on my way back from Tyrone in 1995. I had a rucksack on and was wearing a woolen sweater. I must've looked like a tourist. Some little git walked in front of me with his hand in his pocket and told me that he had a syringe in his pocket and he'd stick me with it if I did't give him my wallet. I stuck my face in his and told him to F off as I pushed him aside. My thoughts were, that if i did get stuck, it woudn't kill me (then at least), so I'd just pound the little bastard.


 
Funny how quick the punks back down when they see that we're not as easily intimidated by their actions.  



> I don't know what I would do if I was held up with a knife/gun/ other deadly weapon on the street. I do know that fear would make me react one way or another. What I do know is that if someone comes into my house, all bets are off. If I get the chance, i'll use them for target practise and won't lose a wink of sleep because of their demise.


 
Amen!!!


----------



## just2kicku (Sep 22, 2009)

Personally, I choose to fight back. I think if everyone chose to fight back it would be a different story for the bad guy. I'm not willing to survive and give a description that will be filed somewhere between "not that important" and "got better things to do".

This mode for survival has made us sheep. I don't want to die or get hurt, but I'm also not willing to cower either. I have been cut and I was stuck with a knife, I'm still here by the grace of God. When do we stand up and say "no more"!

When do we put our fears aside, our fears of getting hurt, or being sued and just say **** it, I'm fighting back. If everyone does it, then what, they're gonna arrest everybody? I don't think so, and if they do, then so what. Where's that mentality? 

We do not live in a utopia where everyone gets along. Yes, there are different reactions to different situations. I'm not saying every situation is the same. Gun pointed at me from 6-8 feet away, more compliance than not. Gun stuck right in my face, I'm going for it.


----------



## Manny (Sep 22, 2009)

For me, my walltet (and the things inside it) does represent nothing to me compared to return to my home and family in one piece. For me loosing my TV and sound system and some jewelery in home burglary  does represent nothing if the life of wife, daugthers or mine is on danger.

However, this is why I avoid bad places, this is why always be in yellow condition and this is why my home is like a prission (full in bars).

If iI fail to recognize a terrible situasion and don't have time to prepare myself, for example a guy pointing at me with a knife or gun and demanding money I will give it to him. My life is worthy my wallet not.

Manny


----------



## MBuzzy (Sep 22, 2009)

You know, Manny has a really good point here.  The first step toward not being a victim is not making yourself a victim.  Don't put yourself in dangerous situations, don't behave like an easy target.  AVOID the confrontation in the first place.

Now of course, there are many situations when that is impossible, then it is up to your judgement and your skills to guide you out of it.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 22, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> You know, Manny has a really good point here. The first step toward not being a victim is not making yourself a victim. Don't put yourself in dangerous situations, don't behave like an easy target. AVOID the confrontation in the first place.
> 
> Now of course, there are many situations when that is impossible, then it is up to your judgement and your skills to guide you out of it.


 
Don't remember the exact quote, but Rory Miller described self defense as the art of getting yourself out of a situation you were too stupid to avoid in the first place.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Sep 22, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> You know, Manny has a really good point here. The first step toward not being a victim is not making yourself a victim. Don't put yourself in dangerous situations, don't behave like an easy target. AVOID the confrontation in the first place.
> 
> Now of course, there are many situations when that is impossible, then it is up to your judgement and your skills to guide you out of it.


 



i concur:
avoid rather than check

check rather than hurt

hurt rather than maim

maim rather than kill 
for all life is precious!

(i would avoid if i possibly could though!)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 22, 2009)

MJS said:


> What advice am I dispensing?  I think its pretty safe to say that any LEO or person in the law field, will tell you the same thing.  How many times have we heard about people fighting back, and the cops say, "While the clerk was brave with what he did, he don't advise people to do that.  Its best to comply and give the badguy what they want."



There is a difference between a lawyer on TV saying _"You should do XYZ"_ and a lawyer you hire saying _"You should do XYZ."_  Likewise, there is a difference when you as a paid instructor tell your students to do XYZ.  Hey, I'm not telling you want to do, I'm suggesting you ask an attorney if he thinks that's a wise idea.



> As I always say, assess the situation.  We, as MAists, should be able to control what we do to someone.  If I'm faced with deadly force, then yes, I'll respond in a similar fashion.  I'm no firearms expert, so I will have to assume the gun he's pointing at me is real, one that isn't fake but looks real, one that is a bb gun, but a real one.  No different than a cop shooting someone who points what looks like a gun at them.



Lots of fake guns have orange plastic tips on them.  If someone points an obviously-fake gun at me, I'm going to know that it's fake and respond based on that.

I agree that if you can't tell, you have to assume it is real.

I also would say that in general, if someone points what appears to be a real gun at me and demands my wallet, I'm going to give him my wallet.



> Let me share 2 stories with you.  The first happened in Cheshire, Ct.  Home invasion.  The husband was beaten and tied up.  His wife and 2 daughters, the same, with 2 of them being sexually assaulted.  Of course, this was after the wife took one of the badguys to the bank to withdraw a large sum of cash.  They then proceeded to light the house on fire.  End result:  the 3 females died, and the husband was able to escape.  Badguys were caught and the trial is expected to start soon.



These are anecdotal stories.  They do not apply to the majority of such situations.  I have to base my real-life response on what real-life situations generally are.



> Here you have someone who gives cash, yet look at the end result.  3 people dead.



Yes.  There is no certainty that any armed confrontation is going to end without people being dead.



> In another incident, a male broke into a home.  Female homeowner and a female friend.  The guy stated to both of them that he was going to have to kill them....because he was afraid they'd ID him.  He shot one in the house, but she survived.  The other, he took in a car, to another location, where he shot and killed her.  Yet they gave him whatever he wanted.



Again, anecdotal.  Will you quote the far more numerous stories of people who broke into houses, took what they wanted, and left?  Well no, because that would not support your point.  But that's more common, much more common.



> I'm sorry Bill, but I'm not going to gamble with my life.



Yes, you are going to gamble with your life.  And that's the point exactly.

I cannot control when I will be confronted by a criminal.  That is utterly outside of my control.  And the moment that confrontation occurs, I *am* gambling with my life, from that moment forward, no matter *what* I do.

But 'gamble' is a good choice of words.  Gambling has odds.  And while people win against odds all the time, normally they don't - or they would not be odds.

I cannot assume that a person confronting me is not going to kill me if I comply with them, nor can I assume that they will.  The odds say that they will not, but I do not rely on just numbers - I am an intelligent person and I have to also rely on my instincts and understanding of the situation as it unfolds, including changing my response if the situation changes.

My goal is one and only one - to survive.  I do not care what I have to do to make that happen.  Walk away, fight back, scream, hand over my wallet, whatever.  If I think at that moment that response a, b, or c, is going to save my life, that's the one I am going to pick.

 I do know this much - anytime an armed confrontation turns into a physical struggle, the odds that someone will get dead go up exponentially.  That someone might be the bad guy, but it also might be me.  So before I go down that road, I'm going to try to be sure that engaging in physical self-defense is the best bet I have.

There are no guarantees and no promises. I could surrender my wallet and get shot, or I could fight back and get shot.  All I have is a changing set of odds and my ability to determine which is the best response for me at the time.



> I agree and have said that before, many times.  But, understand this...I am not going to play games.  If I can talk, then fine, but if I can't I'm not going to start running away, like a chicken, so he can come after me.



I will run away like a chicken, flapping my wings and yelling _"Help me, Colonel Sanders,"_ if it is going to save my life.  The odds that a random mugger is going to track me down to attack me a second time are so low, I think I can risk it.

My survival is far more important to me that looking like a chicken.  If that's not important to you, I understand, but it's not properly 'self-defense', is it?



> How long do we play these games?   No, once that person is within arms reach of me, he is no longer interested in talking.  Why?  Because if he was, he'd do it from a distance, not 2in. away from my face.



How did that get into the discussion?



> Again, has nothing to do with me being cocky or macho.  Cocky or macho would mean me walking around thinking I'm the ****, and can take anyone.  A good example of macho, would be Johnny or the bad Sensei from the Karate Kid.



But you're concerned with looking like a chicken?



> Being confident and sure of myself....nothing wrong with that.  When you're confident of yourself, you stand your ground, you're not intimidated and you're firm.  I gave an example of that from a personal incident that happened to me.  I mentioned it in the other thread...where I was walking my dog, and the car drove by, made eye contact with the passenger, he got out and asked if I had a problem.  I didn't cower, I didn't apologize...I said "No" and stood there.  Why should I apologize or cower?  I did nothing wrong.  If thats what you consider macho then I don't know what to tell you.  We obviously have differences of opinion on that, and thats fine.  Just dont make me out to be someone I'm not.


 
 I have no comment to offer.



> One of my old teachers used to have a saying:  "You wait too long, you wait wrong."  My best chance for defense, is when he's distracted by my supposed compliance.  In other words, he's got a knife on me.  He asks for my wallet.  As I'm handing it to him, his attention is on that wallet, at the moment, so of course, he knows I have to move to get it for him, so that is the time to act.



That is correct if you're in a fight.  I'm not in a fight until I decide that handing over my wallet is not going to keep me from being killed.  I think we have different standards.  In your world, if someone pulls a knife on you and demands your wallet, there *will* be a fight, and you're just looking for the best opening.  Fine, no problem.  I'm looking to survive.  Fighting is my last option.



> Now, lets say I hand it over, pray that he leaves but he doesnt and instead tells me to get in the car with him, so we can drive somewhere else.  Thats the time to act?



It would be for me.  Your mileage may vary.



> One thing we can agree on Bill, and thats that we don't know what'll happen.  Where we disagree is when we act.  Thats cool though man, to each his own.   I'm not holding any grudge against you Bill.  You're fully entitled to do what you want, as its you in the situation, so of course, you should do whats best for you, at the time.



I would grant anyone the same option.



> I guess its like the pre-emptive strike.  We could wait until the punch is being fired and then move, or....we could move as soon as we see him draw back.  That is when I'm going to move.  In this case, I'm going to make a move as soon as the threat is there.  Personally, I feel I stand a better chance of survival.



I just don't think it is always so cut and dried.


----------



## MJS (Sep 22, 2009)

Manny said:


> However, this is why I avoid bad places, this is why always be in yellow condition and this is why my home is like a prission (full in bars).
> 
> Manny


 
Couldn't agree more!  Its funny how simple things can really make the difference between avoiding something before it happens, and getting jammed up.  I avoid bars/clubs, but if I do go, I make sure that at least someone in the group is someone that I trust to have my back if something happens.  Look around the parking lot as you're walking to your car, have keys in hand, take note of anything suspicious, lock your doors when you get in, leave some space between you and the car in front of you when you're at a light.  The list can go on and on.  IMO, a little common sense, go a very long way.


----------



## MJS (Sep 22, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a difference between a lawyer on TV saying _"You should do XYZ"_ and a lawyer you hire saying _"You should do XYZ."_ Likewise, there is a difference when you as a paid instructor tell your students to do XYZ. Hey, I'm not telling you want to do, I'm suggesting you ask an attorney if he thinks that's a wise idea.


 
If I'm in class, teaching a technique, I teach it by the book.  I make sure the student understands it and can do it.  I also don't sugar coat anything.  I have, many times, said to a student, "This is how you do this technique.  Now, if you want to supercharge it a bit, you can do this!"  They clearly know the difference between what I taught by the book, and what I taught afterwards.  Same thing with a lawyer.  I'd be shocked if you took a poll of 10 LEOs or lawyers, and more than half said to fight back.  They're all going to say the same thing...comply.





> Lots of fake guns have orange plastic tips on them. If someone points an obviously-fake gun at me, I'm going to know that it's fake and respond based on that.
> 
> I agree that if you can't tell, you have to assume it is real.


 
And that tip can easily be painted over.  For all I know, it could be a real gun thats not even loaded.  Who knows.  



> I also would say that in general, if someone points what appears to be a real gun at me and demands my wallet, I'm going to give him my wallet.


 
And thats your choice.  That is what YOU wish to do, and as I said, thats fine.  To each his own.  I, as well as a few others, feel otherwise.  





> These are anecdotal stories. They do not apply to the majority of such situations. I have to base my real-life response on what real-life situations generally are.


 
Those are 2 very real incidents that happened here in CT.  I don't want to assume that if someone comes into my house, that nothing bad will happen to me.  No, I'm sorry, you come into my home, uninvited, at an early hour, I can assure you that person will wish they had not.  





> Yes. There is no certainty that any armed confrontation is going to end without people being dead.


 
And hopefully it'll be the other guy. 





> Again, anecdotal. Will you quote the far more numerous stories of people who broke into houses, took what they wanted, and left? Well no, because that would not support your point. But that's more common, much more common.


 
Well, lets see, in those cases Bill, chances are nobody was home.  I take burglary calls all the time at work.  You really think that if someone breaks in, thinking the house is empty and its not, that the bg will always run off?  Maybe he will, or maybe he'll attack me.  Either way, I'm not taking the chance and assuming that I'll be unharmed.  





> Yes, you are going to gamble with your life. And that's the point exactly.
> 
> 
> I cannot control when I will be confronted by a criminal. That is utterly outside of my control. And the moment that confrontation occurs, I *am* gambling with my life, from that moment forward, no matter *what* I do.
> ...


 
Sorry Bill, but in your case, you're trying to assume and predict the future outcome.  You're assuming and hoping that if I comply, that'll end it.  What happens when it doesn't?  As I said before, the only difference between you and I, is that we choose to act at different times.  You'd rather wait and see what happens, I'd rather start fighting right away.  Either way Bill, I could end up shafted.  I'd rather die fighting, and die and not have attempt anything.





> I will run away like a chicken, flapping my wings and yelling _"Help me, Colonel Sanders,"_ if it is going to save my life. The odds that a random mugger is going to track me down to attack me a second time are so low, I think I can risk it.
> 
> My survival is far more important to me that looking like a chicken. If that's not important to you, I understand, but it's not properly 'self-defense', is it?


 
Typical reply...running away.  Sure, its a valid thing, but what if it doesnt work?  Got a back up plan?  I'm not leaving my wife, my kids, or anyone else behind, especially if they're not capable of running.  You seem to read what YOU want to read Bill.  If someone thinks I'm a *****, thats fine.  But here is the difference between you and I.  You seem to give the impression that you'll always run, apologize, cower, what ever.  Me, I'll be confident and sure of myself.  If that guy drove past you and asked you what the **** you were looking at, you'd probably start saying you're sorry for looking at him.  **** him.  I'll look where I want, and I did nothing wrong.  He started that confrontation with me, and I simply said I had no problem, but gave the impression that I was not going to buy into his intimidation, and ya know what...it worked!  

As I've said, which you've missed oh how many times....I'll always TRY to talk first, but if it dont work, then it dont work.  





> How did that get into the discussion?


 
You can't figure it out?  Let me explain.  This is what happens, when the talking no longer works...the guy will start moving in on you.  I'll always have my hands up, in a nondefensive posture.  If he wants to talk to me, he can do it from a distance.  Once he gets to my hands, he's invaded my personal space, and I'm responding to that.  You want to talk...fine, do it from a distance, not in my face.  





> But you're concerned with looking like a chicken?


 
Dude, can you read?  Or are you too busy mixing up my words to suit your needs?  I've walked away many times, the other guy calling me a *****.  But, notice, HE was the one who walked away, not me.  I again, was confident in my posture, my attitude and was not giving him the satisfaction of making me shake in my boots.  He can call me names all day long, I dont care.  Its how I react to him that will set the tone.  Trust me when I say, I've had guys bigger and badded than I, tell me they were going to kill me, and I just stood there.  Punks in the prison, thats all Bill, just punks.  If I cower and run like a chicken, they won.  They still think, in their dumbass mind, that they won, but they didn't, because their words meant nothing more than an idle threat.  

You say that you were a LEO Bill.  Didn't you speak to people with a firm, confident tone, when you wanted them to do something, or did you run and cower?  I've had guys refuse to let me pat them down.  I'd reply to them, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, but either way, I'm going to pat you down.  I can do it myself or bring others in to help me, so instead of acting like this, let me do my job." And that worked!  





> I have no comment to offer.


 
I'm shocked.





> That is correct if you're in a fight. I'm not in a fight until I decide that handing over my wallet is not going to keep me from being killed. I think we have different standards. In your world, if someone pulls a knife on you and demands your wallet, there *will* be a fight, and you're just looking for the best opening. Fine, no problem. I'm looking to survive. Fighting is my last option.


 
I'm in the situation from the moment it starts.  Once the guy comes up to me and makes a demand, the game is on.  I'm also looking to survive and will do what it takes.  If a weapon is involved, again, this confirms the fact that its already game on.  In your world, you want to roll the dice and hope that you end it by giving your cash.  In mine, when I roll, I'm looking at the worse case.  I dont want to bet that he wont shoot me or cut me.





> It would be for me. Your mileage may vary.


 
Sorry, I dont want it to get to that point.





> I would grant anyone the same option.


 
So you say, although your words suggest otherwise.





> I just don't think it is always so cut and dried.


 
So in this case, you'd rather wait until the punch is heading towards you?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 22, 2009)

MJS said:


> I don't want to assume that if someone comes into my house, that nothing bad will happen to me. No, I'm sorry, you come into my home, uninvited, at an early hour, I can assure you that person will wish they had not.
> 
> quote]
> My sentiments exactly. This whole mindset is not about machismo, it's about survival. Does anyone here want to put the control of their life in the hands of a violent criminal? I don't think so. I don't know about you but this is one of the reasons I train, so that I have a choice to fight or not fight. I do some form of conditioning everyday and I consider myself physically fit, so if I do happen to get myself shot or stabbed, I have more of a chance at survival than the average out of shape Joe.
> ...


----------



## Danjo (Sep 22, 2009)

shaolinmonkmark said:


> i concur:
> avoid rather than check
> 
> check rather than hurt
> ...


 
Thank you Master Po.:asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 22, 2009)

MJS said:


> If I'm in class, teaching a technique, I teach it by the book.  I make sure the student understands it and can do it.  I also don't sugar coat anything.  I have, many times, said to a student, "This is how you do this technique.  Now, if you want to supercharge it a bit, you can do this!"  They clearly know the difference between what I taught by the book, and what I taught afterwards.  Same thing with a lawyer.  I'd be shocked if you took a poll of 10 LEOs or lawyers, and more than half said to fight back.  They're all going to say the same thing...comply.



That's all I've said. An attorney might suggest you are opening yourself up to a liability lawsuit by telling them to always resist.  However, of course you should do as you wish.



> And that tip can easily be painted over.  For all I know, it could be a real gun thats not even loaded.  Who knows.



I think I said that.  If I can't determine if the gun is real, I'll have to assume it is.



> And thats your choice.  That is what YOU wish to do, and as I said, thats fine.  To each his own.  I, as well as a few others, feel otherwise.



That's fine with me.



> Those are 2 very real incidents that happened here in CT.  I don't want to assume that if someone comes into my house, that nothing bad will happen to me.  No, I'm sorry, you come into my home, uninvited, at an early hour, I can assure you that person will wish they had not.



I think I've said before, but I will repeat in this thread, that I take a home invasion as a very different circumstance than a public mugging.  My response would be different as well.  However, you continue to insist that I *assume* nothing bad will happen to me.  I do not.  I base my decisions on actual statistics and my own judgment.  I *assume* nothing - including that I do not *assume* something bad WILL happen to me.



> And hopefully it'll be the other guy.



Whichever it is, the chances are much higher that someone will be injured or killed once battle is enjoined.



> Well, lets see, in those cases Bill, chances are nobody was home.  I take burglary calls all the time at work.  You really think that if someone breaks in, thinking the house is empty and its not, that the bg will always run off?  Maybe he will, or maybe he'll attack me.  Either way, I'm not taking the chance and assuming that I'll be unharmed.



Your statement is incorrect.  FBI crime statistics clearly show that most home invasions do not end in injury, just as most muggings do not end in homicide.  We are both free to harbor our own opinions about how best to respond, but criminal statistics are what they are.



> Sorry Bill, but in your case, you're trying to assume and predict the future outcome.  You're assuming and hoping that if I comply, that'll end it.  What happens when it doesn't?  As I said before, the only difference between you and I, is that we choose to act at different times.  You'd rather wait and see what happens, I'd rather start fighting right away.  Either way Bill, I could end up shafted.  I'd rather die fighting, and die and not have attempt anything.



Math and probability is on my side, and it's easy to demonstrate.  If you don't want to see that, it's your issue.

 But your last statement is the controlling one for you.  You would rather fight and die than not do anything - even if doing nothing would not result in you being injured.  I get that.  I call it macho ********, and I'm sorry if that fashes you, but it's the term I use.  I don't 'get it' because I have no macho in me.



> Typical reply...running away.  Sure, its a valid thing, but what if it doesnt work?



Plan B, fighting.



> Got a back up plan?



Plan B, fighting.



> I'm not leaving my wife, my kids, or anyone else behind, especially if they're not capable of running.



I said nothing about leaving anyone behind.  If I have people with me whom I wish to defend, my responses will be different.  I believe I have said there are no set rules, just guidelines.  And plans change based on changing circumstances.



> You seem to read what YOU want to read Bill.  If someone thinks I'm a *****, thats fine.  But here is the difference between you and I.  You seem to give the impression that you'll always run, apologize, cower, what ever.



If that works, you bet.  I know that makes me less of a man in your eyes, and I really do not care at all. I only care about my own life (and yes, of course, the lives of those around me, but when I'm solo, then just me).



> Me, I'll be confident and sure of myself.  If that guy drove past you and asked you what the **** you were looking at, you'd probably start saying you're sorry for looking at him.  **** him.



You bet.  I did it the other night.  I came back from the dojo and climbed my apartment stairs and there was some local badass talking to his girlfriend and he saw me in my gi bottoms and tee-shirt and he blocked my way up the stairs.  I looked down, eased to one side, and said "Excuse me, buddy," and climbed past him, shouldering him only to the extent that I needed to in order to get past him.  I didn't puff up, lock gazes, challenge him, or make any hostile move.

I heard him laughing at me as I walked past.  He 'won' the show in front of his girlfriend.  Yay him.  I didn't have to knock his teeth out or risk getting mine knocked out.  I see no reason to have done anything differently.



> I'll look where I want, and I did nothing wrong.  He started that confrontation with me, and I simply said I had no problem, but gave the impression that I was not going to buy into his intimidation, and ya know what...it worked!



I risked less by responding as I did.  I say that's a better way to do it, but I support your right to do whatever you wish.



> As I've said, which you've missed oh how many times....I'll always TRY to talk first, but if it dont work, then it dont work.



Talk, yes, but not give up your wallet. You've said that, too.



> You can't figure it out?  Let me explain.  This is what happens, when the talking no longer works...the guy will start moving in on you.  I'll always have my hands up, in a nondefensive posture.  If he wants to talk to me, he can do it from a distance.  Once he gets to my hands, he's invaded my personal space, and I'm responding to that.  You want to talk...fine, do it from a distance, not in my face.



If I can avoid all of that nonsense by dropping my wallet on the ground and walking away, I think that is a better way to protect my own life.



> Dude, can you read?  Or are you too busy mixing up my words to suit your needs?  I've walked away many times, the other guy calling me a *****.  But, notice, HE was the one who walked away, not me.  I again, was confident in my posture, my attitude and was not giving him the satisfaction of making me shake in my boots.  He can call me names all day long, I dont care.  Its how I react to him that will set the tone.  Trust me when I say, I've had guys bigger and badded than I, tell me they were going to kill me, and I just stood there.  Punks in the prison, thats all Bill, just punks.  If I cower and run like a chicken, they won.  They still think, in their dumbass mind, that they won, but they didn't, because their words meant nothing more than an idle threat.



No.  If I cower and run like a coward (there's that word again, I'm a 'coward'), I win because I live.  Self-defense is about defending my life, not my ego.



> You say that you were a LEO Bill.



Please let me know if you're accusing me of lying. 



> Didn't you speak to people with a firm, confident tone, when you wanted them to do something, or did you run and cower?



In law enforcement, I had a job to do which required me to subordinate my own safety in favor of protecting the public.  As I am no longer in law enforcement, I have an obligation to save my own life first.  



> I've had guys refuse to let me pat them down.  I'd reply to them, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, but either way, I'm going to pat you down.  I can do it myself or bring others in to help me, so instead of acting like this, let me do my job." And that worked!


 
 I treated people who did not wish to be handcuffed in the exact same way. Our rule was _"Ask 'em, tell 'em, take 'em."_  I repeat that law enforcement personnel have a different set of priorities and responsibilities than civilians do.



> I'm in the situation from the moment it starts.  Once the guy comes up to me and makes a demand, the game is on.  I'm also looking to survive and will do what it takes.



Actually, you have stated the opposite. If the math proves that running away or complying is more likely to result in your survival, you will still reject it - you just said as much.  You are not in it to survive, you are in it to survive and protect your ego and self-image.



> If a weapon is involved, again, this confirms the fact that its already game on.  In your world, you want to roll the dice and hope that you end it by giving your cash.  In mine, when I roll, I'm looking at the worse case.  I dont want to bet that he wont shoot me or cut me.



If you go to Vegas and use your own logic, you will lose consistantly.  But that's what happens.  People go to Vegas and lose consistantly.  Most of them don't believe the odds.  If they did, they would not gamble.



> So in this case, you'd rather wait until the punch is heading towards you?



I would hope I would respond before the punch is thrown.  Once I believe it is going to be thrown would be a good time to attack, I think.  But every situation is different.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Sep 22, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Thank you Master Po.:asian:


 



thought you would get a kicker on that one!
LOL!!


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Sep 22, 2009)

I've been following this thread with interest, but I've hesitated to post before this because the comments back and forth have forced me to examine my own mindset and instinctive reactions. I think I've achieved some mental clarity, so here is my take on things:

1. Men typically attack unknown women on the street for 2 reasons: to take their belongings, or to rape/kill them. I don't know the stats on this, but it seems to me that the easiest way to mug a woman is to snatch her purse. Very difficult to guard against and prevent. So...if a man approaches me, brandishing a weapon, and wants my purse, should I assume that is all he wants? It would have been easier if he just ran past and snatched. Or is he testing my willingness to comply? If I comply, am I sending him a signal that I might comply with other demands? At this point, I can give him my purse, and hope he goes away, or I can refuse to comply. The refusal could take the form of simply saying no, or of backing up and screaming, or of taking his gun away and kicking his *** into the ground (as a beginner in MA, I'm not sure I could accomplish this last one). But I cannot assume that compliance will protect me, because his motivation may be VERY different from what motivates an attack on a male victim.

2. In this scenario, if the attacker grabs me or demands that I leave with him, then I will fight back with every single ounce of strength and skill I possess. I don't care of he has a gun, a knife, or a flamethrower. I will throw elbows, knees, bite, punch him in the throat, and never give up until I have pounded him into a bloody pulp on the ground. I won't be careful not to kill him. I will overreact, in a big way. At this stage in my MA, I don't have the skill to control my attack, or the mental clarity while under attack to judge the impact of my techniques. I will give him everything I have and let the jury decide if I went too far.

3. If someone comes into my home, I will shoot him dead.

I'm really glad I put some thought into this. Having made the decision before hand may save some time.

Jen


----------



## elder999 (Sep 22, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> 3. If someone comes into my home, I will shoot him dead.


 

Me too.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 22, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I've been following this thread with interest, but I've hesitated to post before this because the comments back and forth have forced me to examine my own mindset and instinctive reactions. I think I've achieved some mental clarity, so here is my take on things:
> 
> 1. Men typically attack unknown women on the street for 2 reasons: to take their belongings, or to rape/kill them. I don't know the stats on this, but it seems to me that the easiest way to mug a woman is to snatch her purse. Very difficult to guard against and prevent. So...if a man approaches me, brandishing a weapon, and wants my purse, should I assume that is all he wants? It would have been easier if he just ran past and snatched. Or is he testing my willingness to comply? If I comply, am I sending him a signal that I might comply with other demands? At this point, I can give him my purse, and hope he goes away, or I can refuse to comply. The refusal could take the form of simply saying no, or of backing up and screaming, or of taking his gun away and kicking his *** into the ground (as a beginner in MA, I'm not sure I could accomplish this last one). But I cannot assume that compliance will protect me, because his motivation may be VERY different from what motivates an attack on a male victim.
> 
> ...


 A great post among many!! My thanks isn't working, so don't think I'm snubbing anyone. My wife has been messing around with the cookies and I think that might have something to do with it. I know very little about computers. The only cookies I know of arwe the chocolate chip kind.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Sep 22, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> A great post among many!! My thanks isn't working, so don't think I'm snubbing anyone. My wife has been messing around with the cookies and I think that might have something to do with it. I know very little about computers. The only cookies I know of arwe the chocolate chip kind.


 
I will consider myself thanked.


----------



## Milt G. (Sep 22, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.
> 
> It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?
> 
> ...


 
Hello,

I fully agree...  Good points.

Sadly, liability, or the potential thereof, directs and orchastrates the responses that are recommended and sanctioned by society and law enforcement.  It is "safer" from a liability (only) standpoint for you to do nothing.  It is VERY sad.  If you go over the amount of force necessary, even slightly, to neutralize a threat you can be liable.  Criminally, or financially.  Often both!  
We all know it is difficult "in the moment" with the adrenalin pumping and "stuff happening" to gage what force is just enough, but not too much to protect ourselves.  That is the biggest concern and issue.  

I vote that one follows their heart and the situation at hand to decide what is "enough".  Let the courts figure it out later, if necessary.  You may well be sorry later but you, or your loved ones, may also still have their lives.  Train and live for keeps.  Sometimes the confidence, alone, you develop will lessen the chance you will become a potential target.

The criminal and anti-social elements are slowly getting a foothold in our society.  We, as law abiding citizens, have the obligation to do what we can to negate this situation.  The key phrase there is "what we can".   Perhaps that phrase means something different to each individual?

The Police are there to protect us.  Too bad that often there is not a good opportunity to summon them *before* a "problem" is truly upon us.  Not their fault, but a systems problem.  The system is more "reactive" rather then "proactive".  Sadly, more cost effective that way. 

Thank you,
Milt G.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 22, 2009)

OK...  A couple of things.

Let's begin with the simple observation that there can be no hard and fast rule -- except that you absolutely never ever want to let an assailant/robber/ogre move you from where you started.  (And I know half a dozen cases off the top of my head that the victim did this, and survived, and, in one case, even were able to get the bad guy arrested by doing so!  These are the exceptions, however.)

Second, there is a vast difference between a robbery and a predatory attack like a rape or some sort of beating.  Note that the predatory attack may precede and be a tool for committing the robbery -- but the dynamics are very different.  A robber must communicate with you, if his goal is to get your stuff through threat or display of force.  If he's just going to pound you, then find your wallet -- there's not much you can do.  You may talk your way out of many encounters -- but not the true predator's attack.  A lion waiting to pounce on an antelope isn't going to meow or purr at it; it waits and pounces from ambush.  Predatory attacks work the same way.

My personal suggestion is simple: Make the call that you think, in your evaluation of the circumstances gives you the best chances to get out in one piece.  If that's giving up material stuff... give it up.  If it's telling the bad guy/ogre to do something that's anatomically unlikely... then do that.  And if it's defending with everything you've got, and eliminating any need for a trial... go for it.

Rather than try to collect a perfect answer, develop the tools and understanding to help you assess and respond appropriately and within the law.


----------



## MJS (Sep 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's all I've said. An attorney might suggest you are opening yourself up to a liability lawsuit by telling them to always resist. However, of course you should do as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ok.





> I think I've said before, but I will repeat in this thread, that I take a home invasion as a very different circumstance than a public mugging. My response would be different as well. However, you continue to insist that I *assume* nothing bad will happen to me. I do not. I base my decisions on actual statistics and my own judgment. I *assume* nothing - including that I do not *assume* something bad WILL happen to me.


 
Different locations really.  I'm at the ATM, getting into my car or sleeping in my home.  In all of those cases, someone is invading my personal space, or my home, with the intent to forcefully take something of mine.  Chances are they'll be armed.  Bill, as I've said before, the main difference between you and I, is when we will act.  You choose to wait and see what happens if you comply and if it heats up then you act.  I choose to act as soon as the threat is made.  





> Whichever it is, the chances are much higher that someone will be injured or killed once battle is enjoined.


 
Probably.





> Your statement is incorrect. FBI crime statistics clearly show that most home invasions do not end in injury, just as most muggings do not end in homicide. We are both free to harbor our own opinions about how best to respond, but criminal statistics are what they are.


 
As I said, I take all stats with a grain of salt.  Of course, a simple google search will show that there are many invasions in which injury did happen.  





> Math and probability is on my side, and it's easy to demonstrate. If you don't want to see that, it's your issue.
> 
> But your last statement is the controlling one for you. You would rather fight and die than not do anything - even if doing nothing would not result in you being injured. I get that. I call it macho ********, and I'm sorry if that fashes you, but it's the term I use. I don't 'get it' because I have no macho in me.


 
Bill, I really don't think that you know me.  You're reading what I say and are twisting it around, making me out to be macho.  I'm macho in your eyes because instead of trying to run or apologizing until I'm blue in the face, I choose to still use verbal methods, but I'm giving a confident attitude.  Lets use this as an example:  Im in a bar.  I get accused of looking at a guys girl.  He comes up to me and asks what I'm looking at.  So, instead of me saying, "Please man, dont hit me, I'm really, really, really, really, really sorry.  I didn't mean to.  It was an accident, and I'll never do it again."  So, I'm macho because I say, "Hey man, I'm waiting for a friend to show up, your girl is sitting right near the entrance.  Tell ya what, the next round is on me."  I'm showing this guy that I'm not afraid of him, I really have nothing to say I'm sorry for, and all it costs me....hopefully is a few bucks for a round of beers. 

I'm macho in your eyes because when that guy in my condo complex asked what I was looking at, I didnt show fear or intimidation, and simply replied no.  I dont see why I have to beg and plead with the guy, when I did nothing wrong in the first place.  

I'm macho in your eyes, because I dont want to give up my car.  Stop and think about it Bill...if I give the guy the car, and he tells me to get in with him, then you're telling me that you would then fight.  Isnt that being macho?  Why not just get into the car and see what happens next?  I mean, if your thinking is that odds are good if you comply, just comply and get in the car.  Just comply when he takes you to a house with 5 other people there.  Just comply when they tell you to get on your knees so they can blow your head off.  

So lemme get this straight....I'm macho if I fight first, but not macho if I comply and then fight afterwards, if I'm attacked further?  





> Plan B, fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Plan B, fighting.


 
Which is.......???????





> I said nothing about leaving anyone behind. If I have people with me whom I wish to defend, my responses will be different. I believe I have said there are no set rules, just guidelines. And plans change based on changing circumstances.


 
So, I'm macho if I'm by myself and choose to fight, but suddenly I'm allowed to be macho if my wife is with me?  Lemme ask you this...if someone is with you, would you a) still comply or b) fight back right away?





> If that works, you bet. I know that makes me less of a man in your eyes, and I really do not care at all. I only care about my own life (and yes, of course, the lives of those around me, but when I'm solo, then just me).


 
Likewise, I dont care if someone thinks I'm a ***** either.  Difference is again, that because I'm confident or in your eyes macho, and choose to let them walk away, without me kissing their ***, you frown upon that.  Why?  I've had more success than you can imagine, by talking my way out of a bad situation.  But its the attitude that I present.  Yes Bill, I've tried the begging for forgiveness routine many times, and it didnt work for me.  I've found for me, that you can still be firm, get your point across, without sounding like some chicken **** *****.





> You bet. I did it the other night. I came back from the dojo and climbed my apartment stairs and there was some local badass talking to his girlfriend and he saw me in my gi bottoms and tee-shirt and he blocked my way up the stairs. I looked down, eased to one side, and said "Excuse me, buddy," and climbed past him, shouldering him only to the extent that I needed to in order to get past him. I didn't puff up, lock gazes, challenge him, or make any hostile move.


 
And I didn't puff up or challenge the guy that confront me either.  I stood there.  I didn't get all defensive and ball my hands into a fist.  I stood there with the dog.  Why is that so wrong in your eyes?  Christ, I guess we can't even look at someone anymore without making is seem like we're macho.  I'm addressing the person blocking my way, not the ground.  



> I heard him laughing at me as I walked past. He 'won' the show in front of his girlfriend. Yay him. I didn't have to knock his teeth out or risk getting mine knocked out. I see no reason to have done anything differently.


 
Likewise, I've been there.  Whats funny though, is the people who've done that to me, are the ones that're always walking away.  I'm sitting somewhere, minding my own business, I see no reason to have to run away.  If I had a dollar for everytime someone said that I was a *****, a wimp, said that they could kick my ***, I'd be a very rich man.  I"ve had people laugh at my training, saying that they could kick my ***.  My reply of, "Yup, you're probably right." shocks the hell out of them, and leaves them speechless.  Why?  Because I was confident in my reply and didn't give them the reply they thought I would.  I won, and they walked away. 





> I risked less by responding as I did. I say that's a better way to do it, but I support your right to do whatever you wish.


 
Likewise, you're free to do what you want as well.  Notice though, how I'm asking you why you feel I'm macho.  I'm not saying you should do this or that, like you're making it sound.  You're coming across as if your way is "The way" when in reality, it isn't.  Its Your way, thats all.  To each his own.





> Talk, yes, but not give up your wallet. You've said that, too.


 
I'd go so far as to reach for it and hand it to him, but yes, as soon as he goes for it, as soon as he's distracted, that is when I'm doing something.  I'm not just going to hand it over and pray that nothing else happens.  Oh ****..theres that machoness coming out again. 





> If I can avoid all of that nonsense by dropping my wallet on the ground and walking away, I think that is a better way to protect my own life.


 
To each his own.





> No. If I cower and run like a coward (there's that word again, I'm a 'coward'), I win because I live. Self-defense is about defending my life, not my ego.


 
My above posts have addressed this.





> Please let me know if you're accusing me of lying.


 
Is that how it sounds?  Thats how you're reading it, but no, thats not the case.  No worries, I'm not saying you're lying. 





> In law enforcement, I had a job to do which required me to subordinate my own safety in favor of protecting the public. As I am no longer in law enforcement, I have an obligation to save my own life first.


 
And my obligation is to save my *** and anyone thats with me, and if that means defending myself, yes, I will do it.  






> Actually, you have stated the opposite. If the math proves that running away or complying is more likely to result in your survival, you will still reject it - you just said as much. You are not in it to survive, you are in it to survive and protect your ego and self-image.


 
Where is the proof?  Please show me stats that say that if you comply that you will be unharmed.  And yes, I'm in it to survive.  The other parts of your statement is your distorted image of me, and a shot as well.  But thats ok.  I'm familiar with your tactics from that other thread.  Oddly enough, there're a few others on this thread that have the same ideas as I, yet you're not hounding them like you are me.  Why is that Bill??





> If you go to Vegas and use your own logic, you will lose consistantly. But that's what happens. People go to Vegas and lose consistantly. Most of them don't believe the odds. If they did, they would not gamble.


 
More talk about stats and odds.  Proof please, as I asked above.





> I would hope I would respond before the punch is thrown. Once I believe it is going to be thrown would be a good time to attack, I think. But every situation is different.


 
Why wouldn't you just wait until it was half way to your face?


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Sep 23, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Me too.


 


i concur!


----------



## mwd0818 (Sep 23, 2009)

[/LIST]





Jenny_in_Chico said:


> ...
> 
> I'm really glad I put some thought into this. Having made the decision before hand may save some time.
> 
> Jen



Regardless of your decision (to fight back in most case, to stand your ground, to run if need be, to talk out of everything, to comply at first, etc.), it is important that you understand the implications of your actions and have thought about them before it is necessary to act on them.  In the moment is not the time to consider your options and what you "feel comfortable" doing.

Women do have different concerns from men in many cases, and those with families have different concerns as well.  Manny also apparently has different concerns too, because my sound system IS worth protecting.    (Just kidding - I got it free, but it is nice!)

In any case, to the original post, I do agree that it gets annoying to always be presented with the victim mentality - comply comply comply and you'll survive.  That is not ALWAYS the case.  At the same time, fighting back all the time isn't the right option either.  Everyday I find further proof that Siddhartha had the right idea - moderation and the middle way.  Black and white only exist as shades of grey.

I have been fortunate to not have been faced with a ton of circumstances to draw from, but I think I've had my share.  I've dealt with them in the entire spectrum.

1) I've used humor to diffuse a situation and trump my ego with his to diffuse it.
2) I've held my ground and used my confidence and unwavering assuredness to make him back down.
3) I've walked away and gave up a position that I saw no reason to fight for.
4) I've struck first and never even thought of talking.

Why the variance?  I've had to trust my instincts and go with the best option at the time.  I do appreciate the idea of "not being the victim" but at the same time, my ultimate goal is to get out of the situation with least amount of harm done to me or people in my protection.  I don't care about what happens to the criminal that initiates it, but a fight does increase the odds that injury happens to me.  If I really think that giving him the wallet and pulling an impression of Jesse Owens will get me out of the situation, then guess what?  I do it because it's the least risk to me.  If I don't think it will stop there, you had better be assured that I'm only going to feign compliance in order to regain the initiative.  But I'm going to be constantly assessing what the attacker is doing to figure out the best and most effective way of ending the confrontation.  If that involves me completely destroying my opponent, then sure.  Hopefully, there will be a better, safer alternative, but I will do what it takes to survive and continue on.  It's not about my ego, his safety, my wallet, vigilante justice (teaching him a lesson), etc.  It's my survival, and I will play the comedian, the egotistical a**, the sprinter, the meek, the gunslinger, or Steven Seagal as needed - I'm going to do what it takes to move on from the encounter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 23, 2009)

MJS said:


> Chances are they'll be armed.  Bill, as I've said before, the main difference between you and I, is when we will act.  You choose to wait and see what happens if you comply and if it heats up then you act.  I choose to act as soon as the threat is made.



I agree that's where we are different.

I believe the chances are they won't be armed.  My source is the Bureau of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#violent

_



			In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon            was present.
		
Click to expand...





			Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with            22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in            2005.
		
Click to expand...

 _


> As I said, I take all stats with a grain of salt.  Of course, a simple google search will show that there are many invasions in which injury did happen.


All statistics are subject to error, accidental and intentional.  The Bureau of Justice statistics are most likely the best we have.  Certainly better than Google.



> Bill, I really don't think that you know me.


Back atcha.



> You're reading what I say and are twisting it around, making me out to be macho.


You're reading what I say and twisting it around, making me out to be a coward.



> Where is the proof?  Please show me stats that say that if you comply that you will be unharmed.


Again, the BoJ provides convincing evidence.  There are far more robberies than murders or assaults resulting in injuries.  That would indicate that more robberies result in no murder or injury than the opposite.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ivc98.htm
_



			Of the violent crimes measured by the NCVS, a higher percentage involved injury when committed by an intimate partner (48%) or a family member (32%) than when *committed by a stranger (20%)*.
		
Click to expand...

_These stats do not show that if you comply you'll be unharmed.  And I have not said that.  They say that the chances are you will be unharmed in any case.

There have been books written attempting to divine whether it is better to resist or comply, and no one has come up with a catch-all general answer yes or no.

What I said was that when you engage in a physical struggle with an attacker, the chances are much higher that you will be injured than if you do not.  That's simple and easy to grasp.   If I walk up to you and throw a punch, the chances are 100% that one of us will be injured.  If I walk past you and do not, then the chances are 0% that either of us will be injured.  Likewise, if confronted by an attacker, there is a chance I'll be injured.  If I immediately attack him, the chances are 100% that someone will be injured, and it might well be me.  As long as I believe the chances are lower that I'll be seriously injured or killed by complying, I will comply.  *If I cease to believe that the odds favor compliance, I will stop complying.*

I do not know how else to put it.


----------



## Xinglu (Sep 23, 2009)

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Dirty Lies, and Statistics.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 23, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Dirty Lies, and Statistics.


You forgot advertising, corporate accounting and political spin!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 23, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Dirty Lies, and Statistics.



What sort of data would you find acceptable?


----------



## Xinglu (Sep 23, 2009)

Jenna said:


> You forgot advertising, corporate accounting and political spin!



No, no, those fall under the others: Advertising = Lies, Corporate accounting = Lies, and Political spin is somewhere between Damn Dirty Lies and Statistics.  :wink:


----------



## Xinglu (Sep 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What sort of data would you find acceptable?



Just adding levity.  

However, there is wisdom in not putting too much stock in statistics, they are not an accurate reflection of all cases, only those reported and/or those solved.

For example rape statistics are unreliable due to the high volume of unreported rapes.  The same is true for all violent crimes, many just simply do not get reported.  Therefore statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 23, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> Just adding levity.
> 
> However, there is wisdom in not putting too much stock in statistics, they are not an accurate reflection of all cases, only those reported and/or those solved.
> 
> For example rape statistics are unreliable due to the high volume of unreported rapes.  The same is true for all violent crimes, many just simply do not get reported.  Therefore statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.



Indeed, the crime statistics are only as good as the reporting of those crimes.  And I believe I said that in my statements previously.  However, they are the best we have, and considerably better than Google.


----------



## MJS (Sep 23, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> Just adding levity.
> 
> However, there is wisdom in not putting too much stock in statistics, they are not an accurate reflection of all cases, only those reported and/or those solved.
> 
> For example rape statistics are unreliable due to the high volume of unreported rapes. The same is true for all violent crimes, many just simply do not get reported. Therefore statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.


 
Thank you.  I noticed that there was a 3-4 year gap, depending on what was looked at, on those stats, in addition to what you said....crimes that go unreported.


----------



## MJS (Sep 23, 2009)

Regarding google...there is alot that you can find there.  Things such as real incidents, such as the home invasions, that have happened.  As for the rest of my post that was quoted, I'll comment on that when I have a bit more time.


----------



## MJS (Sep 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that's where we are different.
> 
> I believe the chances are they won't be armed. My source is the Bureau of Justice.
> 
> ...




I commented on google in another post.  I still stand on what I said regarding the stats.  I may be wrong,but those stats seem to be a compilation of many areas.  The town where I live is going to have different stats than a larger city, even though we live in the same state.  

_



			Back atcha.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
Touche'   I'm sure you're a nice guy Bill, and despite what you think about me, I'm really not the hot headed macho guy you think I am.  I am passionate about SD though, and as I've said, we all train for different reasons.  Just because you don't like mine, doesnt make then wrong.  Notice how you're coming across as me being wrong, yet I've said to you that you're free to do as you wish.  We're not clones Bill, who all are programmed to be the same.  

_



			You're reading what I say and twisting it around, making me out to be a coward.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
I'm reading it as I see it Bill.  You're making me sound like the bad guy, because you disagree with my views.  So many others are saying the same things, yet you're focusing on me.  Interesting.  

_Again, the BoJ provides convincing evidence. There are far more robberies than murders or assaults resulting in injuries. That would indicate that more robberies result in no murder or injury than the opposite._

_



http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ivc98.htm

Click to expand...

_


> _
> These stats do not show that if you comply you'll be unharmed. And I have not said that. They say that the chances are you will be unharmed in any case.
> 
> There have been books written attempting to divine whether it is better to resist or comply, and no one has come up with a catch-all general answer yes or no.
> ...


_

As I've said, oh...how many times now....we agree on certain parts.  What we disagree on, is when we will act.  What I'm curious about is...why do you care when I choose to act?  We are 2 different people.  What makes your methods so much more superior?  Notice how, at least I dont think I have, not said that my way is the best way.  You state your reason for doing what you do, but tell me...what makes your way so much better?  I'm listening. _


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 23, 2009)

MJS said:


> As I've said, oh...how many times now....we agree on certain parts.  What we disagree on, is when we will act.  What I'm curious about is...why do you care when I choose to act?



I don't really.  You offered your input, and I offered mine, and we differed, which led to a discussion.  I have no reason to care how you react to a threat, other than to hope that if anything like that should happen, you would not be hurt.



> We are 2 different people.  What makes your methods so much more superior?  Notice how, at least I dont think I have, not said that my way is the best way.  You state your reason for doing what you do, but tell me...what makes your way so much better?  I'm listening.



I have tried to explain it, but I think I must be doing a poor job.   But I've been giving it a lot of thought about how I could more properly explain it.

What if I were facing a dangerous critter rather than a human being?

I am out walking through the park at night, and I come around a thicket, and there in my path is a dangerous critter.  I recognize immediately that it has the ability to injure or kill human beings and it appears that the dangerous critter is not going to retreat or get out of my way.  Instead, it makes threatening noises and advances on me.

I am already at risk of serious injury or death.  The amount of risk I am incurring is unknown, but it more than zero.

Now, I have several choices.  I could attack the dangerous critter before it can attack me.  Or I can retreat.

Let's say that I have a gun with me, and no easy escape route.  Plus, I am pretty sure the dangerous critter can outrun me and will give chase if I run.  That's not from statistics on dangerous critters, it is just an assessment I have made in that moment, like anyone would.  So I draw my gun and shoot that critter right between the running lights.

Now let's say I have no gun, but I am reasonably sure that the critter cannot run as fast as I can, so I turn tail and take off like an Olympic sprinter, given extra speed by my fear.  The dangerous critter is unhappy, but is unable to keep up with me, and so I escape.

Now let's say I have no gun, and I'm not sure if I can outrun the critter, and yes, it can climb trees too.   But I happen to be carrying a doggy-bag from a nice restaurant with me, and I know the dangerous critter eats nice restaurant food.  So I toss the bag to the critter and wait to see if it will take the food and ignore me, or if what it really wants to do is eat me instead.  If it takes the food, I'm out of there.  If it does not, and retreat is not an option in my opinion, then I have to steel myself and attack the creature and hope that I can prevail.  But I know that the chances are high that win or lose, I'm going to get hurt.

Why am I referring to a dangerous critter and not a human being?

Because I wanted to remove notions that seem to be irrelevant to a logical decision-making process.  Those notions are what I have termed 'macho' and what you have termed 'cowardly'.

There is no cowardice in fleeing from a dangerous animal that can't catch you, nor is there machismo in attacking a dangerous animal when you believe you have no choice but to fight.  They are just logical results of a rational decision-making process.

Why do I think my way is 'right'?  Mainly because by choosing the response that I believe is lower-risk for my health and life, I am not giving up the option of attacking, so at the very least, I've delayed the moment that I will have to attack or defend myself physically.  The moment I engage in violent struggle, my risks go up.

What is different between us?  I see it as where we draw the line over what we will not do in order to lower the risk to ourselves.  I will hand over my wallet.  You won't.  I will run away, you won't.

You don't simply say you won't do those things because you don't think they'll work, or you don't think they'll be safer responses, but because you see them (in your words) as cowardly, groveling, pleading, praying, and hoping.  Those are emotionally-charged words that tell the tale - you hold those sorts of actions in disdain.  That's not a logical response, it's an emotional response.  Hence, my statement that I believe you hold your machismo in higher regard than your safety.  it's not unusual, but I don't, for whatever reason, have that gene.

If your threat was a dangerous critter instead of a human being, you would not consider climbing a nearby tree as 'cowardly', but if it was a bad guy, you would see it as cowardly, and therefore would not do it.  I see them as basically the same thing, and ignore my feelings about my self-esteem to do what I think is most likely to save my life.

And that is the difference I see between us.

As to why I respond to you and not everyone else in this thread, it's probably because you are responding to me and we're having a discussion.  The other comments I've read are along the lines of 'BS' or 'Fricken A, d00d.'  I really can't comment on those sorts of statements.  You're intelligent and therefore we can sharpen our swords on each other's logic.  I certainly bear you no ill will.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.
> 
> It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?
> 
> ...


Right! part of the whole point of training is to decide what you will fight and die for. If its for a pair of shoes, your priorities are all messed up.... a Mountain Bike? is it a Wallmart brand or a Shwin?
Sean


----------



## just2kicku (Sep 24, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Right! part of the whole point of training is to decide what you will fight and die for. If its for a pair of shoes, your priorities are all messed up.... a Mountain Bike? is it a Wallmart brand or a Shwin?
> Sean


 
It's not about a pair of shoes or a bike or anything else for that matter, it's about the fighting back. 

If you get mugged, what are the chances this guy will be caught? 1 out of 10 or maybe 1 out of 20? When do we fight back? Oh let's just wait for the next guy, I'll comply, but maybe the next guy is willing to sacrifice a little to try and stop this. That to me makes about as much sense as not voting, yet crying about political issues you don't like.

And this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 25, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> and this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.


qft!!!


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Sep 25, 2009)

was actually looking at Arizona's statistics!
Gee, they have the right to carry!
Hmmm, think we are on to soemthing here!


----------



## MJS (Sep 25, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't really. You offered your input, and I offered mine, and we differed, which led to a discussion. I have no reason to care how you react to a threat, other than to hope that if anything like that should happen, you would not be hurt.


 
Ok. 





> I have tried to explain it, but I think I must be doing a poor job. But I've been giving it a lot of thought about how I could more properly explain it.
> 
> What if I were facing a dangerous critter rather than a human being?
> 
> ...


 
Points taken.   Regarding being a coward...I guess my main difference is this:  We're faced with the guy in the bar who wants to knock our head into the middle of next week for looking at his girl.  I can a) apologize profusely and really give him the impression, whether we are really sincere or not, that we are extremely sorry for what we did, we 'act' like we couldn't defend ourselves out of a paperbag, even if we really can, in a nutshell, we do whatever it takes to talk our way out. He accepts this, walks away, thinking we're a whimp, but we survived with doing nothing more than talking.  Then we have B.  Our tone, our confidence, is up there, we're sure of ourselves.  I'm telling him that I'm sorry that he thinks that I was looking at his girl, even if I really was, but at the same time, I'm calm, I'm talking to him in a normal tone.  I tell him the next round is on me.  He can sit down with me and still think I'm a chicken, I dont care.  I still didn't fight, I only spoke.  Only difference is how I spoke.

When I was working in the prison, I was constantly outnumbered.  When it was time to lock up, of course these guys would take their time, so I'd have to walk down the hall, 17/1, get them in the cell and lock their doors.  I'd have guys tell me that they weren't going to.  I'd be lying if I said the thought of being outnumbered wasn't going thru my head.  But I didn't beg and plead with them to lock up.  I was calm, sure of myself, and told them that that was what I needed them to do.  I'd get the "Yeah, you're lucky I did it this time, cuz next time you wont be so lucky and I'll kick your ***." comments, but that was ok.  I got them to do what I wanted.  

Can we apply this to real life?  I think so, and I dont see why we shouldn't.  But thats me.   Regarding handing over my cash, keys, etc.  We mentioned gambling with our lives in another post.  While we are both taking a gamble, I don't want to gamble on whether or not the guy will take my stuff and leave.  Maybe he will, but what if he doesn't?  Either way I have to fight, but I see what you're saying...why fight if you dont have to?  Maybe I'll get my car back in one piece, maybe he just needed a ride and felt he had to steal a car to get it.  Maybe the car will be stripped and burned to a crisp.  Either way I still have my life, although I'll have more headaches now that I have to replace it.  If I'm sparring in class, and I see a huge opening for a sidekick, why not take it?  Instead, I wait a few seconds, and now that opening is gone, but there are no other openings.  Maybe the sparring example is a bad one to use, but my point was, I'd rather take the chance to defend sooner than later.  

Maybe as I'm getting into my car, I could hand the guy my keys and then run for the hills.  But maybe I have my wife with me, my mother or grandmother, none of which, other than my wife, would stand a chance to run, and my wife is no track star, so I can't leave her behind.  So now, I'm complying, I want to get the hell away, but can't.  I look at this situation as what I would do if I were alone.  Do I want to comply and stand there, seeing what happens next or comply and get the hell away?  No matter how we look at it, the situation stinks.



> As to why I respond to you and not everyone else in this thread, it's probably because you are responding to me and we're having a discussion. The other comments I've read are along the lines of 'BS' or 'Fricken A, d00d.' I really can't comment on those sorts of statements. You're intelligent and therefore we can sharpen our swords on each other's logic. I certainly bear you no ill will.


 
Thank you, and likewise it is an interesting debate with you.


----------



## MJS (Sep 25, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> It's not about a pair of shoes or a bike or anything else for that matter, it's about the fighting back.
> 
> If you get mugged, what are the chances this guy will be caught? 1 out of 10 or maybe 1 out of 20? When do we fight back? Oh let's just wait for the next guy, I'll comply, but maybe the next guy is willing to sacrifice a little to try and stop this. That to me makes about as much sense as not voting, yet crying about political issues you don't like.
> 
> And this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.


 
Well, that was my thinking as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 25, 2009)

MJS said:


> Points taken.   Regarding being a coward...I guess my main difference is this:  We're faced with the guy in the bar who wants to knock our head into the middle of next week for looking at his girl.  I can a) apologize profusely and really give him the impression, whether we are really sincere or not, that we are extremely sorry for what we did, we 'act' like we couldn't defend ourselves out of a paperbag, even if we really can, in a nutshell, we do whatever it takes to talk our way out. He accepts this, walks away, thinking we're a whimp, but we survived with doing nothing more than talking.  Then we have B.  Our tone, our confidence, is up there, we're sure of ourselves.  I'm telling him that I'm sorry that he thinks that I was looking at his girl, even if I really was, but at the same time, I'm calm, I'm talking to him in a normal tone.  I tell him the next round is on me.  He can sit down with me and still think I'm a chicken, I dont care.  I still didn't fight, I only spoke.  Only difference is how I spoke.



My experience is not that different from yours here, but when I wore a badge and had to deal with bar fights or disturbances, there wasn't a great need for me to know much about the psychology of the guys I was dealing with.  We went in to stop the disturbance, and if we had to break heads to do it, oh well.

As a civilian, I don't spend much time in bars, but I have spent a lot of time around drunks whilst being sober myself.  I have what I believe is some understanding of the basic psychology of the belligerent drunk, and I find I can generally defuse a situation by giving the drunk what he wants - overt respect of his 'authority' or 'power'.

I understand your way, but I feel it depends upon the drunk recognizing that his own safety is in danger because you do not behave as 'prey'.  I am not that certain that seriously drunk people are capable of recognizing the danger you pose to them, or that they can withstand the peer pressure of their drunk compadres egging them on (and when isn't that true?).

By appearing to kowtow, by being overly and overtly humble and submissive, I give the belligerent drunk what he is demanding - respect due to a superior being.  I do not think he is superior, nor do I necessarily think he can whup my butt in a fight (even novice sober fighters can often destroy drunken brawlers).  But I can (I believe) avoid having him even cock his fist back at me by appearing to knuckle under to his authority.  This pleases the drunk, and makes him look like a big man to his drunken buddies.  And I leave with them all seeing me as a coward and a wimp, but without having had to fight, in which I might be injured or killed.

 If I lived in a closed society, where I could not escape the stigma of being seen as a victim, coward, or wimp, my response would be different.  In such a society, my place in the pecking order is very important to my long-term well-being. In a bar (and I'm not really a 'bar' person anymore), not so much.  My standing is only social and only for the time I'm there.  So everyone at the bar thinks I'm a wimp and a coward.  OK with me!



> When I was working in the prison, I was constantly outnumbered.  When it was time to lock up, of course these guys would take their time, so I'd have to walk down the hall, 17/1, get them in the cell and lock their doors.  I'd have guys tell me that they weren't going to.  I'd be lying if I said the thought of being outnumbered wasn't going thru my head.  But I didn't beg and plead with them to lock up.  I was calm, sure of myself, and told them that that was what I needed them to do.  I'd get the "Yeah, you're lucky I did it this time, cuz next time you wont be so lucky and I'll kick your ***." comments, but that was ok.  I got them to do what I wanted.
> 
> Can we apply this to real life?  I think so, and I dont see why we shouldn't.  But thats me.   Regarding handing over my cash, keys, etc.  We mentioned gambling with our lives in another post.  While we are both taking a gamble, I don't want to gamble on whether or not the guy will take my stuff and leave.  Maybe he will, but what if he doesn't?  Either way I have to fight, but I see what you're saying...why fight if you dont have to?  Maybe I'll get my car back in one piece, maybe he just needed a ride and felt he had to steal a car to get it.  Maybe the car will be stripped and burned to a crisp.  Either way I still have my life, although I'll have more headaches now that I have to replace it.  If I'm sparring in class, and I see a huge opening for a sidekick, why not take it?  Instead, I wait a few seconds, and now that opening is gone, but there are no other openings.  Maybe the sparring example is a bad one to use, but my point was, I'd rather take the chance to defend sooner than later.
> 
> Maybe as I'm getting into my car, I could hand the guy my keys and then run for the hills.  But maybe I have my wife with me, my mother or grandmother, none of which, other than my wife, would stand a chance to run, and my wife is no track star, so I can't leave her behind.  So now, I'm complying, I want to get the hell away, but can't.  I look at this situation as what I would do if I were alone.  Do I want to comply and stand there, seeing what happens next or comply and get the hell away?  No matter how we look at it, the situation stinks.



I totally see where you are coming from.  I have not worked detention, but I get it.

I think I am taking my understanding of 'best response' based on what I have experienced, and you are taking yours from what you have experienced.

In my experience, bad guys are not surrounded by and locked into a forced society where they are constantly being evaluated by their peers, and where perceived weakness will get them killed (prisoners).  In that environment, it would make perfect sense to respond as you do - because weakness or perceived weakness will get exploited, and you'll lose control.  Also, as we've discussed before, as a CO, you have a responsibility that overrides your own personal priorities (remaining uninjured and unkilled).

In my experience, with bad guys on the street, they are not brave people unless in a crowd of their own kind.  They are worried, nervous, and freaked out.  They are keenly aware of their environment and they generally have an instinctive understanding that every moment spent doing the crime increases the chances they'll be caught.  They want to get what they want and leave.

They might be stoned, drunk, or stupid (or all three), but they are generally not in a peer-pressure situation where they have to perform in a specified way to gain or maintain stature.  A gang situation might be different, and I would react differently if confronted in that manner.  I would see a fight as inevietable and attack with everything I had immediately, most likely.

In the situation I described yesterday - I was coming home from dojo and a young tough blocked my way on the stairwell of my apartment building - I had to make some decisions.

First, I noted that he was with his girlfriend.  This to me made the situation more dangerous for me.  He would be required not to back down, or his girlfriend would lose respect for him.  So whatever happened, if we started doing verbal posturing and posing, it would escalate to violence, since he would not be allowed by the situation to back down.

Second, I noticed that he was skinny, had a serious smoker's cough, and was pock-marked with acne scars.  He was also covered in bling, and I live on the outskirts of a bad area of Detroit.  I figured I could take him if it came to that - hell, I'd knock him through a wall with my size alone.  So I knew I could win if I had to fight.

Third, I am not a member of the social community of the people who live in the apartment complex.  I come and go, and people see me and I see them, but I don't associate with them or party with them, etc.  My family lives in NC for now, so I'm here alone.  I have little to worry about with regard to follow-on harrassment or loss of face or status in the community.

Given all that, I decided that the best way for me to deal with this situation was to hand the guy a win.  I lowered my eyes.  That's a cue that the brain picks up on subconciously - it indicates submission.  I edged to one side and made a show of it - I was 'bowing and scraping' from that point of view.  I apologized and asked if I could get by - that's 'begging' from that point of view.

This made him a big man in the eyes of his girlfriend, and it was a huge win for him.  He could afford to step aside and let me pass, because he had already won and he knew it.  I was a big old guy in a karate uniform and I had given him respect in the form of submission. He probably had a chubby from it.

This cost me nothing.  And it kept me from having to explain to the police why I knocked him down three flights of stairs and then back up again.  It also kept me from being hurt when his girlfriend pulled out a shiv and stuck me in the back whilst I pummelled her zit-faced creep boyfriend.  And this guy will not be gathering up his pals and seeking revenge against that 'old dude' who thinks he's Rambo.  It's over, he won.

If he had NOT let me pass, then I may have chosen to blast him.  But I did not lose that option by trying the 'submission' route.  And in so doing, I gave myself a better chance (my opinion) of not being injured.

This is what I mean when I say that I will cower, back down, and otherwise run away from a fight if I feel I can.  This costs me nothing - unless I decide that my ego or my self-image cannot tolerate the concept of doing it.  And I realize that some people just cannot do this.  And I do not mean 'ego' like it is a bad thing. I mean it like I understand that it is part of who we are, and some people cannot bring themselves to subvert it for the sake of remaining out of a fight.

I still have the option of fighting if the guy decides to do something else.  If he blocks my way again, I may respond differently.  But it depends on what I think the safest approach for me is at that time.

Law enforcement types are generally 'Type A' personalities.  They seek thrills and adventure, and they live on adrenalin.  I was a borderline Type A for a long time, but I've come to realize that's not really me.  I'm much more a Type B sort of person.  I have no desire to live on the edge, and I tend to be analytical and pre-think situations.  Knowing that an attacker has a goal, and that if he gets that goal he is *likely* (but not guaranteed) to go away, provides me with the information I need to make a (I hope) rational decision about how to respond.


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Sep 25, 2009)

Quote:

" When I was working in the prison, I was constantly outnumbered. When it was time to lock up, of course these guys would take their time, so I'd have to walk down the hall, 17/1, get them in the cell and lock their doors. I'd have guys tell me that they weren't going to. I'd be lying if I said the thought of being outnumbered wasn't going thru my head. But I didn't beg and plead with them to lock up. I was calm, sure of myself, and told them that that was what I needed them to do. I'd get the "Yeah, you're lucky I did it this time, cuz next time you wont be so lucky and I'll kick your ***." comments, but that was ok. I got them to do what I wanted. "



i have a friend who works in Vegas prison, and once every 6 weeks, they practice the "Fetal-cover up-defense  position"
While 4 of his buddies pound the crap out of him for 5 minutes, as he is on the ground, and cannot get up !!!
LOL( yeah, they like to "take it" and "Give it" type"!)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 25, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> It's not about a pair of shoes or a bike or anything else for that matter, it's about the fighting back.
> 
> If you get mugged, what are the chances this guy will be caught? 1 out of 10 or maybe 1 out of 20? When do we fight back? Oh let's just wait for the next guy, I'll comply, but maybe the next guy is willing to sacrifice a little to try and stop this. That to me makes about as much sense as not voting, yet crying about political issues you don't like.
> 
> And this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.



I don't fault you for your logic, but I note that this is 'social responsibility' and not strictly self-defense.

As an example, people who are concerned about the environment might make choices that do not benefit themselves directly, or which even impose hardships on themselves - because they feel a responsibility to the planet which overrides their personal needs.

When it comes to 'standing up' to bad guys, I do understand that all of society incurs greater risk when bad guys think that they have free reign to do as they please, and that no one will stand up to them.  I also understand that if everyone did refuse to knuckle under or give up their valuables, etc, crime would most likely drop in the long term, as criminals would realize that people just refused to be victims anymore.

However, I take a more pragmatic and selfish view when it comes to self-defense.  I have done my bit for God and Country, in the military and as a civilian in law enforcement.  Whilst I still feel a responsibility to my country and my society, I also feel a strong responsibility to my wife and family.  I owe them a debt to - to remain alive and continue to provide for them.  And of course, I selfishly want to keep breathing too.

So my response when faced with an attacker is based not on what good it will do society, but on what good it will do me and my family.  My scurrying away from a confrontation or my giving up my wallet to an armed thug might do society no good, but it does me a great deal of good.

I realize that's not an easy thing to admit, but I'm honest with myself.  I place my needs over those of society at this point in my life.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The problem is that the above is not a true statement. It's only rhetoric. In all the muggings and carjackings and etcetera that take place in the USA, only a tiny fraction result in the murder of the victim. It is therefore not 'likely' at all to happen.
> 
> That does not mean that a person can assume they will NOT be injured during such an encounter, but it does mean that they cannot assume they WILL be injured or killed.


 
While your use of statistics is admirable, it's not quite _strategic_. 

An application of game theory pretty clearly shows that in almost all situations, the best way to guarantee some control of the situation is to respond with force. Granted, it can be somewhere along the response continuum, dependent upon the situation, but one can't base a _conjecture_ on another person's behavior on statistical averages and norms-one has to assume the worst, and be prepared to counter the worst. 

If someone breaks into my house, and I'm home-they get one warning:_Get out of my house, or I will shoot you._And I *will. *In fact, in that situation the warning was more in case I knew the person in question-like my then teenage son. 

If I'm mugged, I'll resist-I may _feign_ compliance as an initial _tactic_, depending on the situation, but I'm going to resist.

THis isn't bravado, or for the good of society-it's what's good for me, strategically. It's my best way of ensuring that I'm in control of the outcome in most situations. Doesn't necessarily mean it'll turn out the way I want it to, but it does mean I won't be herded into the freezer with everyone else in the restaurant and executed, like these people were,either.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2009)

elder999 said:


> While your use of statistics is admirable, it's not quite _strategic_.
> 
> An application of game theory pretty clearly shows that in almost all situations, the best way to guarantee some control of the situation is to respond with force. Granted, it can be somewhere along the response continuum, dependent upon the situation, but one can't base a _conjecture_ on another person's behavior on statistical averages and norms-one has to assume the worst, and be prepared to counter the worst.



If one is being strategic, then one must also be able to make an assessment of the capabilities of their opponent and also be brutally honest with themselves.

If one feels that they might not be able to dominate the situation physically, then other tactics are called for.  If one feels they might not be able to outrun the adversary, then other tactics are called for. 

In addition, one must be able to strategically look at the overall situation. Does the terrain favor you or the adversary?  Are there avenues of escape available?  Weapons of opportunity?  Nearby people liable to be friends or additional foes?



> If someone breaks into my house, and I'm home-they get one warning:_Get out of my house, or I will shoot you._And I *will. *In fact, in that situation the warning was more in case I knew the person in question-like my then teenage son.



I agree.  But the situation is radically different, too.  In my home, I have the advantage in terrain - I know the layout.  I know where to take cover and where I can fire from.  I will be armed.  I know if my way is blocked to known escape routes.  I know how far I am from the central alarm keypad and where my dogs are.  Etc.  I don't see a home invasion as a situation where retreat is generally advisable, although in the case of multiple invaders, a safe room to fight from is not a bad thing to have.



> If I'm mugged, I'll resist-I may _feign_ compliance as an initial _tactic_, depending on the situation, but I'm going to resist.



I just don't have any hard-and-fast answers regarding what I will do.  Depending upon the circumstances, I may fight, I may flee, I may comply with the mugger's demands.  I am, as I've said before, not a master of the martial arts, and my abilities at subduing drunks and quelling fights and arresting a-holes is nearly twenty years and 30 pounds ago.  I'll fight if I feel that the situation calls for it, but I will base that on my assessment of the situation at that time, and change my response if conditions change.



> THis isn't bravado, or for the good of society-it's what's good for me, strategically. It's my best way of ensuring that I'm in control of the outcome in most situations. Doesn't necessarily mean it'll turn out the way I want it to, but it does mean I won't be herded into the freezer with everyone else in the restaurant and executed, like these people were,either.



And you should know that I've never recommended either allowing oneself to be herded into a back room or always surrendering.  Nor have I said that once one has chosen a course of action, one must adhere to it.  Situations change, responses change with them.

A while ago, in another thread, I posted the link to the story about the retired Marine who was eating at a local Subway at night and the store was robbed.  The two robbers demanded his wallet and he gave it to them, although he was armed.  He was prepared to take no further action, but they tried to herd the employees and customers into the back room, and at that point, he drew his weapon and fired, killing one and severely wounding the other.  I cited that as a classic 'good shoot' in which he understood the statistics, continuously analyzed the situation, and adapted his response to the changing threat level he felt existed.  It was a thing of beauty.

When choosing the path of responding with violence, two things happen.  First, the odds that someone is going to be seriously hurt or killed go up exponentially; and two, chances are the previous options (compliance, running away, etc) are now removed from the table.  That's why I view it as a last resort.  I may use violent resistance first, but I will have already decided that other methods won't work.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My experience is not that different from yours here, but when I wore a badge and had to deal with bar fights or disturbances, there wasn't a great need for me to know much about the psychology of the guys I was dealing with. We went in to stop the disturbance, and if we had to break heads to do it, oh well.


 
I was applying this to the outside world not in a LEO capacity.  But I do see your point. 



> As a civilian, I don't spend much time in bars, but I have spent a lot of time around drunks whilst being sober myself. I have what I believe is some understanding of the basic psychology of the belligerent drunk, and I find I can generally defuse a situation by giving the drunk what he wants - overt respect of his 'authority' or 'power'.
> 
> I understand your way, but I feel it depends upon the drunk recognizing that his own safety is in danger because you do not behave as 'prey'. I am not that certain that seriously drunk people are capable of recognizing the danger you pose to them, or that they can withstand the peer pressure of their drunk compadres egging them on (and when isn't that true?).
> 
> ...


 
Likewise, I don't frequent bars or clubs.  If I do, I try to make sure at least one of the people I'm with is capable of taking my back, should the need arise.  Of course, I think that depending on the person in question, appearing weak or kowtowing, etc., may continue to give them more fuel to keep up their beligerant tone.  Now, if I take my route, that may piss him off too, but from past experience, its seemed to have worked so far, so...





> I totally see where you are coming from. I have not worked detention, but I get it.


 
Its certainly not for everyone, and there were more than a few days when I was thinking, "WTF am I doing?!?!?!" LOL!  I'm happy with what I do now, and I only have to deal with the jerks on the phone, not in person. LOL!  



> I think I am taking my understanding of 'best response' based on what I have experienced, and you are taking yours from what you have experienced.
> 
> In my experience, bad guys are not surrounded by and locked into a forced society where they are constantly being evaluated by their peers, and where perceived weakness will get them killed (prisoners). In that environment, it would make perfect sense to respond as you do - because weakness or perceived weakness will get exploited, and you'll lose control. Also, as we've discussed before, as a CO, you have a responsibility that overrides your own personal priorities (remaining uninjured and unkilled).
> 
> ...


 
I dont know, I'd say there are some pretty ballsy punks on the street, that even when alone, still put up a fight.  



> In the situation I described yesterday - I was coming home from dojo and a young tough blocked my way on the stairwell of my apartment building - I had to make some decisions.
> 
> First, I noted that he was with his girlfriend. This to me made the situation more dangerous for me. He would be required not to back down, or his girlfriend would lose respect for him. So whatever happened, if we started doing verbal posturing and posing, it would escalate to violence, since he would not be allowed by the situation to back down.
> 
> ...


 
To expand on your situation in comparison to what happened to me....this guy was also skinny in build, he was with another male, and appeared to be younger.  I probably didn't have to look at him as he continued to pass, but I did, as I thought I knew him, so I didn't take anything I did, as bad.  He apparently didn't like me looking at him.  Maybe I should've winked and blew him a kiss...that would've feaked him out. LOL!  Seriously though....maybe instead of me continuing to stand there, looked like a challenge.  I could have simply replied, "Nope, no problem man" and kept walking.  

If I had to wager a bet, this kid is your typical punk.  He gets off on bullying people.  I crossed paths with him, he took offense and felt that he had to bully me.  What this kid fails to see, and probably never will see, if the fact that there may come a day when he faces someone that is not intimidated.  He had that day when I just stood there.  I didn't posture up, swear or do anything that would be offensive IMO.  

Lets look at this in another situation...what if there were a group of punks hanging near the exit/entrance doors to the local mall.  I could find another door to walk out or I could walk out that door, as its closer to where my car is parked.  Should I get half way out the door, see them and turn around?  Should I keep walking out that door?  IMO, that is what they want...to have someone feel intimidated and find another means of exit.  I say, **** them.  Why should I let some 14yo piece of ****, dictate how I leave the mall?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2009)

MJS said:


> Lets look at this in another situation...what if there were a group of punks hanging near the exit/entrance doors to the local mall.  I could find another door to walk out or I could walk out that door, as its closer to where my car is parked.  Should I get half way out the door, see them and turn around?  Should I keep walking out that door?  IMO, that is what they want...to have someone feel intimidated and find another means of exit.  I say, **** them.  Why should I let some 14yo piece of ****, dictate how I leave the mall?



Since you asked 'why should I', I'll reply!

You should not have to - that goes without saying.  It is most galling to have punks like that have any control over your life.  And of course, they are craving confrontation, or they would not be blocking the exits.

I have been in similar situations in malls, and if as you say, I've already committed myself by walking out the first set of doors, I'll generally keep to my path and shoulder my way through the punks, albeit without making comments except _"Excuse me, guys, coming through."_

If I knew they were there before they saw me coming out the doors, I might well take another exit, depending on how much it inconvenienced me.

The reason I would do that addresses your question of _"Why should I have to ..."_  You should not have to, but you know what?  Not everything is under our control.  I should not have to give up my wallet to a punk with a gun, but I can't control when a punk with a gun is going to demand it, and if given the choice, I'd prefer to give it up than to die fighting for it.  You're talking about principles.  I'm talking about self-defense.  I don't like giving in to punks, but I'm a pragmatist.  Some things are more important to me than my principles sometimes.


----------



## MJS (Sep 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Since you asked 'why should I', I'll reply!
> 
> You should not have to - that goes without saying. It is most galling to have punks like that have any control over your life. And of course, they are craving confrontation, or they would not be blocking the exits.
> 
> ...


 
I think this goes back to what just2kicku was saying about if more people just went out the door, rather than finding another way, maybe the intimidation that these people thrive on, would diminish.  Likewise, I would not say anything or if I did, it'd be just what you said...a simple, "Excuse me" and keep walking.  



> The reason I would do that addresses your question of _"Why should I have to ..."_ You should not have to, but you know what? Not everything is under our control. I should not have to give up my wallet to a punk with a gun, but I can't control when a punk with a gun is going to demand it, and if given the choice, I'd prefer to give it up than to die fighting for it. You're talking about principles. I'm talking about self-defense. I don't like giving in to punks, but I'm a pragmatist. Some things are more important to me than my principles sometimes.


 
I know what I'm going to say is something we've already talked about, but I gotta say it again....even if I give up my possessions I may very well die anyways.  I have a 50-50 chance...I may walk away if I hand it over, I may not.  Likewise, I may survive or not if I choose to fight back right away.  I would rather do what Elder said...feign compliance and then fight back, during that brief moment that he's distracted.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2009)

MJS said:


> I know what I'm going to say is something we've already talked about, but I gotta say it again....even if I give up my possessions I may very well die anyways.  I have a 50-50 chance...I may walk away if I hand it over, I may not.  Likewise, I may survive or not if I choose to fight back right away.  I would rather do what Elder said...feign compliance and then fight back, during that brief moment that he's distracted.



I disagree on the '50-50' chance, but otherwise, I think we've pretty much beat this thing to death, don't you?

I would ask that as a mental exercise, consider how often you use the term _'why should I have to'_ as a reason to do or not do something.

I have three sisters, and growing up, two of them constantly fought.  One of them asked me to help them settle it, and when we got to talking, it was clear that neither of them *wanted* to stop fighting.  One would say something snotty, and instead of ignoring it, the other would say something snotty back.  The reason was always the same, _"Why should I have to put up with that?"_  Well, you shouldn't have to, sis.  But if you want to stop fighting with each other, you have to anyway.

Then I heard it again for years and years dealing with domestic disturbances.  Hubbie and Wife could not stop fighting - and always the same.  Neither one could let go, neither one could just NOT RESPOND when the other provoked, saying _"Why should I have to?"_  And oh my God it was not just one domestic, it was over and over and over again until you want to puke.

If you are ever in the mood, just think about that term sometime.  To me, the use of it implies a person willing to cut off their nose to spite their face - willing to do the thing least likely to result in their own safety, because they don't feel they _'should have to'_ back down.

Well nobody should_ 'have to'_ put up with crap.  But I personally don't want to have to explain to St Peter that the reason I'm dead is because I refused to put up with some drunken idiot with a gun demanding my wallet, and decided to take a poke at him instead - because I _'shouldn't have to put up with it.'_


----------



## elder999 (Sep 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If one is being strategic, then one must also be able to make an assessment of the capabilities of their opponent and also be brutally honest with themselves.
> 
> If one feels that they might not be able to dominate the situation physically, then other tactics are called for. If one feels they might not be able to outrun the adversary, then other tactics are called for.
> 
> In addition, one must be able to strategically look at the overall situation. Does the terrain favor you or the adversary? Are there avenues of escape available? Weapons of opportunity? Nearby people liable to be friends or additional foes?.


 

I'll agree. As someone who has "been there and done that" somewhat, my assessment of the same situation might be entirely different from yours-it's part of why my answers in were so much in defense of the person complying  in the videotaped Subway robbery thread: we don't know_ what_ was going through *his *mind, or why. For myself, most of the time I'm armed, and that's a factor in and of itself. On the other hand, I'm only occasionally in areas where I have to worry about muggings or carjackings-in fact, my primary concern is a home invasion or burglary, but a friend laughingly pointed out that between the dogs, Rita (that's the wife), and me, he kind of pitied anyone who tried it......

In the end, while I think we disagree on some points here, I can see _some_ of the logic in _your_ decision tree......:asian:


----------



## MJS (Sep 27, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree on the '50-50' chance, but otherwise, I think we've pretty much beat this thing to death, don't you?


 
Yes and no.  Yes, because this is like one of those my art vs your art threads....they never die and pop up all the time.   No, because its interesting to hear other view points, and talk about why people do what they do. 



> I would ask that as a mental exercise, consider how often you use the term _'why should I have to'_ as a reason to do or not do something.
> 
> I have three sisters, and growing up, two of them constantly fought. One of them asked me to help them settle it, and when we got to talking, it was clear that neither of them *wanted* to stop fighting. One would say something snotty, and instead of ignoring it, the other would say something snotty back. The reason was always the same, _"Why should I have to put up with that?"_ Well, you shouldn't have to, sis. But if you want to stop fighting with each other, you have to anyway.
> 
> ...


 
IMO, I think there is a difference.  There are things that would fall into the category of "Why should I have to" that we have no choice on.  Going to work, taking a shower, eating, driving the speed limit.  I mean, we'd get fired, smell, starve and get a ticket.  Thats why we have to.  

On the other hand, why should anyone have to be a victim?  Why should someone have to put up with being bullied in school, being raped, mugged, beaten in a domestic?  A fight amongst siblings...sure, I've argued with my sister.  9 times out of 10, it was a childish thing.  There was no method behind it.  Depending on the circumstances, a domestic could be the same thing.  I mean, I think theres a difference between arguing because the wife thought the husband had enough in the checkbook to cover the mortgage, light and phone bill, but hubby forgot to write a few things in and now a check may bounce, vs. the wife not being able to breath right, without the husband getting pissed off and beating her.  A controlling, demanding spouse, one who beats his wife because she didn't place the staek and corn just so, on the plate, doesnt wash the dishes to HIS specifications...those are the things that do not and should not be put up with.

By your logic, I'm taking this as if we no longer want to be a victim, then we have to comply.  Why should I have to be a victim?  You shouldn't have to but if you want to survive, then you need to comply.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but thats how I'm reading that.  I have a right to keep things that belong to me.  This is akin to a kid in school having to hand over his lunch money and going hungry because the school bully demands it.  Sorry, a line needs to be drawn somewhere.  People rob and steal because they're too damn lazy and irresponsible to get off their lazy *** and make something of themselves, so they find it necessary to take from others.  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let someone take something, such as my cash, keys, watch, ring, etc. from me without a fight.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 27, 2009)

MJS said:


> By your logic, I'm taking this as if we no longer want to be a victim, then we have to comply.  Why should I have to be a victim?  You shouldn't have to but if you want to survive, then you need to comply.



Close.  I'm saying that if putting up a fight escalates the danger to that of life-or-death or serious injury, then we have to decide if not being a victim is more important than potentially escaping injury by complying (I put in the 'potentially' for you ;-) since I know we're not of the same mind on this issue).



> Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but thats how I'm reading that.  I have a right to keep things that belong to me.  This is akin to a kid in school having to hand over his lunch money and going hungry because the school bully demands it.  Sorry, a line needs to be drawn somewhere.  People rob and steal because they're too damn lazy and irresponsible to get off their lazy *** and make something of themselves, so they find it necessary to take from others.  I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let someone take something, such as my cash, keys, watch, ring, etc. from me without a fight.



I certainly agree with the underlying philosophy.  I just see a difference between a kid in school risking being given a black eye or losing a tooth, and being shot to death by a drug-crazed psychopath because I fought to avoid giving up my wallet.  My principles take second place to my keeping the same number of holes in me that I woke up with this morning.

I know we still disagree on whether fighting the drug-crazed psychopath demanding my wallet is more or less likely to get us shot.  But if we set that aside, my reasoning is just that principle is not something I'll fight for if the stakes are my life (mostly; I reserve the right to waffle on that if the Russkies invade or something).


----------



## MJS (Sep 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Close. I'm saying that if putting up a fight escalates the danger to that of life-or-death or serious injury, then we have to decide if not being a victim is more important than potentially escaping injury by complying (I put in the 'potentially' for you ;-) since I know we're not of the same mind on this issue).


 
I normally don't carry alot of cash in my wallet.  I primarily use my debit card, so sure, there're times when I may only have a few bucks in cash on me.  So, its possible for the badguy, once I hand over my wallet, for him to get upset that theres only a few bucks in there.  Now what?  He tries to assault me?  He wants me to get into a car with him to drive to the ATM, if I'm not there already, to get more out?  I guess my point is, and has been, nothing will ensure that my handing stuff over will suffice.  Yes, I know that we can fight back after, but as we've discussed, I'd rather not wait to find out.

On a side note....its very rare that I go to an ATM at night, and if I do, I use the drive up one.  That doesnt meant that someone couldnt come up to me, but a) if its that late, I lock the doors.  That prevents someone from getting into the passenger doors, b) due to how close you need to pull your car up to the machine, it would be difficult for someone to approach on the drivers side.  





> I certainly agree with the underlying philosophy. I just see a difference between a kid in school risking being given a black eye or losing a tooth, and being shot to death by a drug-crazed psychopath because I fought to avoid giving up my wallet. My principles take second place to my keeping the same number of holes in me that I woke up with this morning.
> 
> I know we still disagree on whether fighting the drug-crazed psychopath demanding my wallet is more or less likely to get us shot. But if we set that aside, my reasoning is just that principle is not something I'll fight for if the stakes are my life (mostly; I reserve the right to waffle on that if the Russkies invade or something).


 
Of course, in todays world, school violence can escalate more than just a black eye or knocked out tooth.  Todays kids seem to be carrying weapons.  I know we'll probably never agree 100% on everything, and thats fine.   Hopefully, if we just use common sense, and some basic awareness principles, we will hopefully avoid violence.


----------



## MJS (Sep 30, 2009)

Not sure how long this'll be up, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

http://www.courant.com/community/coventry/hc-copdigbrf0930.art5sep30,0,260115.story



> COVENTRY - A car owner caught someone in the act of breaking into his vehicle early Tuesday, police said, and now officers are trying to determine if the suspect has been involved in other area break-ins.
> 
> Shortly before 2 a.m. Tuesday, police responded to a complaint that someone had been trying to break into a car parked at a Lake Street home. The car's owner had the person detained, police said in a press release.
> 
> Police arrested Steven Banfield, 24, of Stafford Road in Mansfield, and charged him with criminal attempt to commit third-degree burglary, possession of burglary tools and simple trespass, they said.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2009)

MJS said:


> Not sure how long this'll be up, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion.
> 
> http://www.courant.com/community/coventry/hc-copdigbrf0930.art5sep30,0,260115.story



I know it may sound odd, but I have a Google search for the term 'victim "fought back"', which emails me daily with updates.  It's all anecdotal and not statistical, but I kind of like to know what's going on in the news with regard to victims who 'fight back' against various types of criminals.

Sometimes it turns out well - the victim gets the upper hand.  Sometimes it turns out so-so - the victim gets injured but does not get killed.  Sometimes it turns out badly and the victim is seriously injured or killed.

I realize that the media isn't that interested in news stories where the victim doesn't fight back - that's "dog bites man" and they're not interested.  Only when "man bites dog" does it become newsworthy.  So the stories reported tend to be a bit slanted towards victims who fight back.

Sometimes it appears that the 'victim' and the 'suspect' are both not your average upstanding citizen - you know, a couple of druggies or drunks involved in a fracas or trying to rob each other.  Sometimes the victim is a more typical citizen just trying to survive.  In some cases, I would have probably done the same thing they did; in others, perhaps not.

And nothing says that in cases where the victim was injured or killed, they wouldn't have been injured or killed anyway even if they had not fought back - usually there is not enough information to draw any kind of conclusion of that sort.  So it's always down to the individual situation, and I don't try to make hard-and-fast rules based on my rather selective news search agent.

Here are some recent news items:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/936307.html



> While he was standing on the sidewalk, police say, two men attacked him, trying to get the gold chain from around his neck. The victim fought back, police say, and was stabbed in the upper right side of his chest. His girlfriend drove him to Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, where he is in stable condition Wednesday afternoon.



http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2009/09/store_owner_apprehends_gun-tot.html



> Both officers entered to find the husband on the floor with the suspect in a headlock. The two men were buried under a pile of clothing racks, Cheatum said.
> 
> The husband was out of breath. Hes saying: Help me! He robbed me! Anderson said.
> 
> ...



http://wvlkam.com/skin/blurb.php?sectionId=208&contentId=4749671



> The suspect was armed with a gun and demanded money.  The two struggled over the gun, a shot was fired, and the victim was able to stab the suspect several times with a knife


.

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/man-pistol-whipped-in-hicksville-home-invasion-1.1432392



> In an armed home invasion  Tuesday night in Hicksville, four men wearing ski masks entered a house through the back door, pistol-whipped a man who lived there and demanded money, police said.
> In the East Marie Street burglary, which took place at about 8 p.m., the victim fought back until one of the suspects hit him in the head with a handgun, causing a cut, Nassau police said.



http://www.keystoneonline.com/2009/09/23/attempted-assault-near-old-main/



> The assailant, who is reported as approximately 58 with a tan complexion and a beard, tackled the victim to the ground, attempted to remove her clothing, then fled the scene when the victim fought back.



http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/04/20090904abrk-phxassault04-ON.html



> A man apparently tried to rob an acquaintance by beating him with a baseball bat and was seriously hurt when the victim fought back with a sword, authorities said.
> 
> The would-be robber remains hospitalized Friday. Police have not released names.



http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/Plymouth_Jewlery_Heist_sept_22_2009



> As a jewelry designer walked out of the store he was trying to sell his jewelry to, another vehicle pulled up, three to four males got out of vehicle, smashed the windows on this vehicle and robbed him of some merchandise. As they tried getting away, the victim fought back.
> 
> The jewelry designer was cut on the hand, arm and chest. Police are not sure if he was injured by the weapon or broken glass.



http://www.masslive.com/metrowest/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1252480525321100.xml&coll=1



> As the victim left her hair appointment around 8 p.m. in April of 2007 and climbed in her car, Stewart knocked on her window, mouthing questions through the glass. When the woman partially opened the window, Compton said, Stewart yanked on it with glove-clad hands, shattering the glass.
> 
> He forced his way into the car and shoved the woman into the passenger seat, demanding that she remove her blouse while grabbing at her body. But, the victim fought back, screaming, kicking and biting Stewart. He then ordered her out of the car and drove away.



http://news14.com/charlotte-news-10...lotte/614299/cab-driver-shoots--kills-robber/



> CHARLOTTE  Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police say a would-be robber is dead after his victim fought back. Sunday night, police say a driver with Professional Cabs was dispatched to an apartment complex off John Price Road.
> 
> There, he was flagged down by 17-year-old Renaldo Smith. The driver told police Smith jumped in the right front passenger seat of the cab, pulled out a gun and demanded money.
> 
> But CMPD says the cab driver pulled out his firearm as well and shot Smith, killing him on the scene.


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2009)

I'm surprised that I wasn't thinking of this earlier, but sometimes it takes another source to make that light bulb go off.   I was catching up on some reading today, so while skimming articles in the Oct 2009 issue of Black Belt, I came across, what I thought, was a very good article, written by Lee Morrison, a RBSD instructor from the UK.  While reading the article, a few things he said caught my eye.  Because I can't seem to find a link to the article online, I'll quote a few things that I noticed.  The author said the following:

"Its common knowledge that the person who hits first and maintains constant offensive pressure until his opponent is no longer a threat, has the best chance of winning...assuming he can generate a significant impact with his strikes."

He goes on to talk about mindset, which, I agree with 100%.  He says:

"The reason  people sometimes freeze up in a confrontation or allow themselves to get derailed by stress, is because they fear the consequences, in particular, the fear of being injured."

"You must develop your ability to counter violence with violence, even though you know that violence is negative and anti-social.  You dont want to have that mentality 24/7, but its the ideal state to be in for the duration of the fight."

Of course this isnt to be mistaken with thinking that you're Superman.  He states:

"Its not an egotistical belief that has you telling yourself, "I"m the greatest", its the notion that your family needs you and relies on you, making you too important to take away, therefore you must prevail."

Of course, I'm sure this part won't be popular, but I like it.  

"The next layer of mindset, should come from focusing on indignation: 'How dare you step into my world and compromise all that I love?  If you try to kill me, I'll smash you.'

He also talks about the effects of being bullied, which he was, as a child.  It wasnt just the physical part, but also the emotional and psycological parts as well.  So, in the case that we're describing, we have 2 situations, one being bullying, such as what has personally happened to each of us, with the scenarios we gave, ie: the guy in my condo complex and the guy blocking the staircase, in addition to talking about a physical confrontation, such as a mugging, home invasion, carjacking, etc.  

I think the above pretty much explains why I would rather act first, instead of giving over my belongings, and then waiting to see what happens.


----------



## MJS (Oct 13, 2009)

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_13547052?source=rss#http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_13547052?source=rss

There were a few different articles on this story, but this one had just what I was looking for. When I read the first article, it wasn't nearly as long and detailed as this. The question that came to mind was, "I wonder if he complied or tried to fight back." However, I found this:



> A security video shows Morales complied with the demand and was on the ground when he was shot in the head by one robber, Rilling said.
> "It is beyond belief that they would feel it was necessary to do that. Everybody was cooperating. For this to happen was totally uncalled for," Rilling added.


 
So, he complied, and STILL gets shot!!! This is why I have the attitude that I do, along with a few others.


----------

