# The Fear Of Defending Yourself.



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

Something to do after work or school, a way to make new friends, exercise, self defense, inner peace, self control, self confidence.....all valid reasons why people train in the martial arts.  Depending on the school you go to and the students there, you may dive into legal aspects of the use of your skills.  We learn a wide assortment of defenses against a wide variety of attacks.  You name it, and its probably covered....weapon defense, punch, kick and grab defense, defense against a grappler...the list is endless.

After reading a recent thread on an armed robbery, the question came up of defending yourself and not always complying with the attacker.  Now of course, its also preached that we should talk our way out of a confrontation, to be cautious of what we do, because we may face a lawsuit.  So, this brings up the question and purpose of this thread....Why are people afraid to defend themselves?

Of course, the common sense thing is to try to talk your way out, because in the end, you are the real winner, because you didn't have to fight.  We assume that we won't get shot or stabbed if we hand over the keys and car, our cash, watch, rings, etc.  Of course, for every 'success' story out there, there are probably ones which result in the complying person getting injured anyways.

Now, I'm certainly not hinting that we should abuse what it taught to us, but if someone was to attack you, why turn the other cheek instead of defending yourself?  So again, the question comes up....why are people afraid to defend themselves?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Jan 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> Something to do after work or school, a way to make new friends, exercise, self defense, inner peace, self control, self confidence.....all valid reasons why people train in the martial arts.  Depending on the school you go to and the students there, you may dive into legal aspects of the use of your skills.  We learn a wide assortment of defenses against a wide variety of attacks.  You name it, and its probably covered....weapon defense, punch, kick and grab defense, defense against a grappler...the list is endless.
> 
> After reading a recent thread on an armed robbery, the question came up of defending yourself and not always complying with the attacker.  Now of course, its also preached that we should talk our way out of a confrontation, to be cautious of what we do, because we may face a lawsuit.  So, this brings up the question and purpose of this thread....Why are people afraid to defend themselves?
> 
> ...



I believe one of the main reasons is the legal aspect. while we know what we know we, however, do not know what will happen should we need to use it. Its sad to say but the world is a pretty messed up place and the legal system is as well. 

However, i believe another reason why people might be afraid is because they are afraid of what they might end up having to do and do not think that they can cope with that. What I mean is, say a woman gets mugged and she hold whatever rank in whatever art. she immobilizes her attacker by striking him to the groin, eyes or throat. she later finds out that the man has permanent damage to that area. She then because depressed and ashamed of what she has done to another person. (does this make sense?)

what do you think of that idea MJS?

B


----------



## stickarts (Jan 19, 2009)

Even when I defended myself and hurt the other person when there seemed no other way out, I never felt good about it. For me, it's more an ethical problem than legal. Also, you may win the fight today, and then they may come back after you with a vengeance tomorrow. Violence, even when it seems justified, just doesn't lead to good things. I think it is a last resort when there is no other way out and even then there are repercussions to your actions.


----------



## searcher (Jan 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> Something to do after work or school, a way to make new friends, exercise, self defense, inner peace, self control, self confidence.....all valid reasons why people train in the martial arts. Depending on the school you go to and the students there, you may dive into legal aspects of the use of your skills. We learn a wide assortment of defenses against a wide variety of attacks. You name it, and its probably covered....weapon defense, punch, kick and grab defense, defense against a grappler...the list is endless.
> 
> After reading a recent thread on an armed robbery, the question came up of defending yourself and not always complying with the attacker. Now of course, its also preached that we should talk our way out of a confrontation, to be cautious of what we do, because we may face a lawsuit. So, this brings up the question and purpose of this thread....Why are people afraid to defend themselves?
> 
> ...


 

There is one huge reason why i try to turn the other cheek.   Here in the State of KS, if you are CCH and you engage in ANY physical altercation, it is considered an armed conflict.    This is regardless of whether or not you draw your firearm.   If it comes to the point where I have to defend myself, 9 out of 10 times, someone is going to get shot.   Not really high on my list of things to do.


----------



## Kacey (Jan 19, 2009)

People are afraid to defend themselves for as many reasons are there are people - but in general, I would think it comes down to one, or a combination, of several things:
- many people, even when threatened, are afraid to hurt other people
- many people freeze in emergencies
- many people are so afraid to be hurt that they do whatever an attacker says
- no matter how much you train, it's different when it's real


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jan 19, 2009)

I have to agree that possible lawsuits and the fear of legal action (being prosecuted for hurting someone) are the main reasons .
Now I have to say this:
   Anyone trying to hurt me, my family, or someone who obviously can not defend themselves will find out I could care less about those reasons named above. If you think I studied all this time and will not defend myself or my loved ones  you have got to be kidding. I'll deal with what happens after I defend myself


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I believe one of the main reasons is the legal aspect. while we know what we know we, however, do not know what will happen should we need to use it. Its sad to say but the world is a pretty messed up place and the legal system is as well.
> 
> However, i believe another reason why people might be afraid is because they are afraid of what they might end up having to do and do not think that they can cope with that. What I mean is, say a woman gets mugged and she hold whatever rank in whatever art. she immobilizes her attacker by striking him to the groin, eyes or throat. she later finds out that the man has permanent damage to that area. She then because depressed and ashamed of what she has done to another person. (does this make sense?)
> 
> ...


 
I was going to reply to each paragraph seperately, however, what I'm about to say, applies to both.   First, I agree with you.  The system is a bit messed up, unfortunately.  Of course, this is why I personally feel, that in addition to eveyrthing thats offered to instructors in most schools, ie: black belt workouts, advanced material, how to teach better classes, etc., someone with a strong legal background should be consulted.  IMHO, it'd be worth bringing in a lawyer to talk about legal issues.  That was the insts. of the school will have a better understanding, and that could be passed onto the students.

As for the rest...I suppose we should ask ourselves, why train then?  I'm of the belief that if someone chooses to attempt an attack on someone, the bad guy gets what he deserves.  

Now, I'm sure the thought of doing something violent (insert technique of choice) may gross people out, however, IMHO, if its a matter of life or death, or a matter or getting seriously injured or walking away with minor injury, I'd choose the last one.   If the bad guy is going to sue me because after repeated attempts on my part to get away, verbally defuse something, etc., then I guess I'll have to take my chances with the court.


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

stickarts said:


> Even when I defended myself and hurt the other person when there seemed no other way out, I never felt good about it. For me, it's more an ethical problem than legal. Also, you may win the fight today, and then they may come back after you with a vengeance tomorrow. Violence, even when it seems justified, just doesn't lead to good things. I think it is a last resort when there is no other way out and even then there are repercussions to your actions.


 
Good points.  I suppose this is where you have to draw the line between leaving and hoping that nobody saw what happened, or staying, calling the police and go from there.  

A while ago, I linked an article about a shooting in Ca.  Guy was attacked by some gang members, a struggle over the gun, and the gangmember got shot with his own gun.  Guy stayed, called the police, etc.  Never heard anything else, so I have no idea if there were any charges, etc.


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

searcher said:


> There is one huge reason why i try to turn the other cheek. Here in the State of KS, if you are CCH and you engage in ANY physical altercation, it is considered an armed conflict. This is regardless of whether or not you draw your firearm. If it comes to the point where I have to defend myself, 9 out of 10 times, someone is going to get shot. Not really high on my list of things to do.


 
This is why I personally don't carry.  I'd rather take my chances without a gun.


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

tshadowchaser said:


> I have to agree that possible lawsuits and the fear of legal action (being prosecuted for hurting someone) are the main reasons .
> Now I have to say this:
> Anyone trying to hurt me, my family, or someone who obviously can not defend themselves will find out I could care less about those reasons named above. If you think I studied all this time and will not defend myself or my loved ones you have got to be kidding. I'll deal with what happens after I defend myself


 
My thoughts exactly!


----------



## Joab (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, as my self defense guru (who perhaps doesn't want his name on the internet and qouted) taught me and many others who will remain anonymous, don't react to the attack itself so much as a way to defend yourself against it, but rather attack the attacker! in others words, take the offense when your attacked, be not not concerned so much with blocks and parrys and the like but attack him with everything you have. Take the offensive, don't be defensive, in other words.

There are a number of reasons to not want to defend yourself, most notably the legal aspect. And one should never defend himself unless he is actually attacked. We should of course try to talk our way out of it and run if at all possible, but when attacked with no other option you need to stop the attacker by any means necessary. Not use excessive use of force, but only the amount necessary to stop the attack, and never deadly use of force unless the attacker is trying to kill you and there is no other option.

Turning the other cheek, as taught by Jesus Christ, was merely responding to a personal insult, not a physical attack. It would be similiar to spitting on someone in American culture, difficult to take, but not an actual physical attack, or so I have always been taught was the meaning in the culture of Jesus day.

Now, to prevent feeling bad about counter attacking, firstly only counter attack if running away is not an option. A way to prevent post traumatic stress disorder as taught to me and the rest of the class is to dehumanize the attacker. There is no post traumatic stress disorder from swatting a mosquito, think of the attacker as a mosquito.

I hope this helps someone mulling this question over.


----------



## searcher (Jan 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> This is why I personally don't carry. I'd rather take my chances without a gun.


 

Until the time comes that the BGs have guns and you are wishing you did.    There is nothing that is a force multiplier like a firearm.


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2009)

searcher said:


> Until the time comes that the BGs have guns and you are wishing you did. There is nothing that is a force multiplier like a firearm.


 
Good point.  Of course, being able to access it and use it, without taking a hit from the bg's first is another story.  I don't want to sound like a gun is a poor choice of a weapon to have, but it may not be the saving grace that we intend it to be.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> So, this brings up the question and purpose of this thread....Why are people afraid to defend themselves?
> 
> Of course, the common sense thing is to try to talk your way out, because in the end, you are the real winner, because you didn't have to fight.  We assume that we won't get shot or stabbed if we hand over the keys and car, our cash, watch, rings, etc.  Of course, for every 'success' story out there, there are probably ones which result in the complying person getting injured anyways.
> 
> Now, I'm certainly not hinting that we should abuse what it taught to us, but if someone was to attack you, why turn the other cheek instead of defending yourself?  So again, the question comes up....why are people afraid to defend themselves?



I think there are several reasons, some of which have already been mentioned.



Conditioning: we are constantly bombarded with the idea that "violence is never the answer."  We are told that it is better to just give in and not respond to violence with violence.  We have created a "sheep mentality" where violence for any reason is bad.  Look at schools with their zero-tolerance policies for example...
You even made the statement that: "the common sense thing is to try to talk your way out, because in the end, you are the real winner, because you didn't have to fight."  My question is, is this really true?  _Why_ does that make you "the winner?"  Is there some sort of moral or ethical superiority in _not_ using force against an assailant?
I don't personally believe this to be the case, not using force just for the sake of not using force does not confer some sort of honorable status upon the "victim."  Obviously there will be cases where an analysis of your abilities, the totality of circumstances, and the demeanor and behavior of the BG may dictate a certain level of response, or lack of response.  However, I don't think not acting should be the goal just for its own sake.


Fear of legal reprisals:  Our system is a mess, the burden of proof in a situation where you have had to use force to protect yourself rests squarely on you.  Thankfully some states have started to reverse this by passing castle-doctrine and "stand your ground" laws.  However, there is still a justifiable fear that we may be punished more than the very person we were defending against.


Lack of resolve:  There are many "martial-artists" and people in general who don't have the proper mindset.  They are hesitant to respond with a level of violence that will bring a decisive end to the attack (deadly force).  I think this really ties in to my first point about how we have been conditioned to abhor using force.  If it's hard for us to do _anything_, it's going to be much harder for us to be nasty if that's what's called for.


just my $0.02


----------



## Joab (Jan 19, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> I think there are several reasons, some of which have already been mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Joab: Just my $.02 as well.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 19, 2009)

Joab said:
			
		

> There are a number of reasons to try to avoid the use of force, most importantly legal. Legally you can not resort to force unless you are attacked physically, you can not use physical force in response to any verbal words coming out of the mouth of an uncouth fellow, retaliate with physical force and you will likely get in a heap of trouble with the law.


 I never meant to imply that there are not times when using force is not appropriate.  My comments were directed at the idea that even when force is justified (morally or legally) we should seek to avoid it just for the sake of avoiding it.




			
				Joab said:
			
		

> "Stand your ground" and "defend your castle" always as far as I know refers to defending your home against an intruder. This is nothing new, it goes back to English Common law, centuries ago. Normally you can do whatever you want against an intruder in your home, but consult your local laws with a lawyer.


 I'm familiar with the origins of the law but I believe some states still impose a "duty to retreat" when in the home.  The states that have passes formal "castle doctrine" laws (Florida, Texas, and Missouri just to name a few) have made sure it's guarenteed that you can fight to defend your home without any idiotic requirements to retreat or deescalate.
The "stand your ground" laws that I'm referring to are the ones like in Florida where you don't have a duty to retreat "from any place where you are legally allowed to be"


----------



## Joab (Jan 19, 2009)

In Florida you don't have to retreat from any place you can legally be eh? Interesting, its the first I have heard of such a law. I agree with it, I merely only know that in general you have to retreat outside your home if it is possible, legally speaking. Way to go Florida if that is indeed the case, and thanks for letting me know about that.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Jan 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> As for the rest...I suppose we should ask ourselves, why train then?  I'm of the belief that if someone chooses to attempt an attack on someone, the bad guy gets what he deserves.
> 
> Now, I'm sure the thought of doing something violent (insert technique of choice) may gross people out, however, IMHO, if its a matter of life or death, or a matter or getting seriously injured or walking away with minor injury, I'd choose the last one.   If the bad guy is going to sue me because after repeated attempts on my part to get away, verbally defuse something, etc., then I guess I'll have to take my chances with the court.



what is the saying....I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6

B


----------



## stickarts (Jan 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> Good points. I suppose this is where you have to draw the line between leaving and hoping that nobody saw what happened, or staying, calling the police and go from there.
> 
> A while ago, I linked an article about a shooting in Ca. Guy was attacked by some gang members, a struggle over the gun, and the gangmember got shot with his own gun. Guy stayed, called the police, etc. Never heard anything else, so I have no idea if there were any charges, etc.


 
I absolutely believe everyone has the right to defend themselves and I wouldn't hesitate if there were no other choice. The attacker may certainly deserve it. I would rather just try to be the better person. It's true though that sometimes you don't have much of an option. Once I was standing waiting for a friend and someone attacked me. To this day I don't know why. It seemed he just felt like hurting someone. He didn't want anything from me or ask for anything. He just came up and started swinging. Fortunately I evaded the attack and subdued him. Some people just seem crazy and you have to defend yourself. Its all about survival.


----------



## searcher (Jan 19, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> what is the saying....I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6
> 
> B


 

Absolutely!!!    That is why I am glad we have the Castle Doctrine here in KS.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 19, 2009)

I feel alot of people do not defend themselves cause society is so nice and easy these days that many people are not all the exposed to really violent times. As a result, they breed children that are taught not to fight back. After a while, it becomes a social norm for the community where they live.

Kind of like in Japan now where they are so, I guess brainwashed, to accept authority that when a earth quake happens, they sit around waiting for the authorities to tell them what to do (and this HAS happened in Japan!)

Deaf


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> I think there are several reasons, some of which have already been mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My apologies if I gave the impression that I was suggesting to not fight at all. Seeing that the 'system' is so messed up, I'd imagine that our actions will come under the microscope. I would imagine that if there was the slightest chance that we could have done something other than being physical, it would be asked why we didn't do that. As I've said a few other times, the opportunity to talk may not happen. There may be no time to try to talk the guy down, because he isn't hearing it, and he's more interested in knocking our head off, than listening to me, so yes, in that case, you need to jump right to the physical. I notice the suggestion of words to defuse with this. Some may not agree with this guy, but IMO, he makes some good points.

And speaking of conditioning, the part you quoted from me, falls into that conditioning. People hear that all the time, and think that is the only thing they should do, that fighting is bad. However, I'm split on that. If I walk away, solving the problem with words, who cares if the guy thinks I'm a chicken ****. An example of something that happened to me a while ago. I was out walking my dog thru my condo complex. A car passes by slowly, with 2 guys inside. The passenger makes eye contact with me, and I did the same, continuing to look as the car drove past, thinking that it was someone that I knew, someone that knew me, but didn't immediately recognize each other. So I continue on my walk, only to hear, "You got a ****ing problem?" coming from behind me. I turn around, to see the passenger out of the car. I replied, "No." to which he did not answer. 

Now, the guy could have decided that it wasn't worth it because of the dog or because he didn't get the reaction out of me that he thought he would. So, problem solved. Nothing happened, and I went on my way. However, had he started walking towards me, I would not have continued to talk. At that point, it would have been beyond talking, as he would now be making an aggressive move towards me. 
As TShadowchaser pointed out...after investing many years into training, I refuse to be a punching bag for someone. I can't let all of the 'preaching' that goes on in the classroom, prevent me from protecting my well being.  






> Fear of legal reprisals: Our system is a mess, the burden of proof in a situation where you have had to use force to protect yourself rests squarely on you. Thankfully some states have started to reverse this by passing castle-doctrine and "stand your ground" laws. However, there is still a justifiable fear that we may be punished more than the very person we were defending against.



Agreed. 




> Lack of resolve: There are many "martial-artists" and people in general who don't have the proper mindset. They are hesitant to respond with a level of violence that will bring a decisive end to the attack (deadly force). I think this really ties in to my first point about how we have been conditioned to abhor using force. If it's hard for us to do _anything_, it's going to be much harder for us to be nasty if that's what's called for.



And this is what may be the fatal mistake amongst some. 




> just my $0.02


 
As always, your .02 is more than welcome.


----------



## MJS (Jan 20, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> what is the saying....I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6
> 
> B


 
Amen brother! I like that saying!


----------



## smith.ross (Jan 20, 2009)

Self defense is indeed a major area of concern today. I believe its  never too late to familiarize  yourself with the latest  techniques and equipments. There are numerous resources out there I found defendingusa.com particularly useful.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2009)

MJS said:


> Something to do after work or school, a way to make new friends, exercise, self defense, inner peace, self control, self confidence.....all valid reasons why people train in the martial arts.  Depending on the school you go to and the students there, you may dive into legal aspects of the use of your skills.  We learn a wide assortment of defenses against a wide variety of attacks.  You name it, and its probably covered....weapon defense, punch, kick and grab defense, defense against a grappler...the list is endless.
> 
> After reading a recent thread on an armed robbery, the question came up of defending yourself and not always complying with the attacker.  Now of course, its also preached that we should talk our way out of a confrontation, to be cautious of what we do, because we may face a lawsuit.  So, this brings up the question and purpose of this thread....Why are people afraid to defend themselves?
> 
> ...


You're taught that, in many instances, because of fear of liability on the part of your instructor.....teaching someone to walk away, even if you get shot, doesn't bring as much civil liability as advising a course of action that could, imaginably, get you actively hurt.

So, at the end of the day, many folks temper their recommendations to you with a fear of their own civil liability.....advice to do nothing doesn't open them up to liability regardless of the outcome.

The TRUTH is that when confronted by violence, it's a crap shoot......and 'cooperation' is as likely to get you hurt or killed as not in some situations.  The best that you can do is education yourself on the subject, pick a course of action, and pursue it with commitment.......there are no perfect answers.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I believe one of the main reasons is the legal aspect. while we know what we know we, however, do not know what will happen should we need to use it. Its sad to say but the world is a pretty messed up place and the legal system is as well.
> 
> However, i believe another reason why people might be afraid is because they are afraid of what they might end up having to do and do not think that they can cope with that. What I mean is, say a woman gets mugged and she hold whatever rank in whatever art. she immobilizes her attacker by striking him to the groin, eyes or throat. she later finds out that the man has permanent damage to that area. She then because depressed and ashamed of what she has done to another person. (does this make sense?)
> 
> ...


My thoughts exactly......and one more thing comes to mind as to why MANY folks are afraid to defend themselves.......most human aggression is of the school yard young male hierarchical sort, of the kind if one simply walks away or refuses to fight, violence is avoided.

I think some humans are hardwired to apply that mindset to situations they don't apply to even remotely, such as PREDATORY violence.......simply rolling over and exposing your belly as a sign of submission to a predator usually just means he doesn't have to work as hard to GUT YOU!


----------



## myusername (Jan 20, 2009)

Excellent thread and one which I can reply to quite openly as I have up until very recently been the personality that would instinctively behave in a passive way when being attacked, mistakenly thinking it the best, safest and most moral response to a situation.

Why was I afraid to defend myself?

1) From an early age I was frightened by stories like "if you hit somebody in the wrong place, such as the temple, you could kill them with one punch!" "If somebody bangs their head on the pavement after you hit them you would be done for murder!" As such, even when I was a kid and getting into schoolboy scraps I would always pull my punches!

2) I became socialised in school to not respond to an attack with aggression. From my experience school teachers never had an interest in who started the fight. Both kids would get into trouble and be punished.

3) As an adult I chose a career in mental health nursing which required me to develop a high level of skill in verbal de-esculation. Early in my career I worked in a secure mental health ward and my verbal skills helped diffuse many a situation. When talking did not work control and restraint techniques were used. All the time causing the least harm to the patient is encouraged. This obviously warped my instincts of how to respond to aggression outside of the ward and in "real life". I was more likely to hesitate to attack and instead rely on verbal de-esculation when it was not appropriate. I feel I would also have been more likely to attempt a restraint instead of striking which isn't always wise in a street confrontation.

4) Working in a drug and alcohol detox centre I remember conversations with ex-addicts about muggings. One chap told me all that he was interested in was the wallet/phone etc. He told me he would go in hard to put the person into shock and then once he had the wallet he would hit hard again to discourage them from giving chase whilst he ran off. From that conversation I came up with the logic that  "all the mugger wants is the wallet, if I give them what they want the pain will be over quickly and they will run off with their prize." In hindsight, this logic is absurd as it ignores the fact that the mugger attacking at the beginning and the end of the assault could result in a lot of physical damage. It also assumes that every mugger has the same motivation as the people I knew and completely ignores the fact that some people just like hurting people.

5) Because I had little confidence in my ability to defend myself. I felt that if I put up a fight and was bettered by my attacker they would end up hurting me more as punishment.

Why don't I think this way any more?

Because I have brilliant martial arts instructors who encourage getting in there first, hard and fast to neutralise the attack. Through martial arts I am developing controlled aggression. I am cultivating the mind set that it is actually very unhealthy to allow somebody to hurt me for fear of hurting them. If someone is attacking me they don't care if I bang my head on the pavement and die, it doesn't even enter their head! Therefore every time I allow them to strike me I am at risk of serious harm. 

I am also fitter, stronger and more skilled and with this I feel more confident that I could put up a decent fight if attacked. I am not over-confident but I am more confident and that makes a huge difference.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 20, 2009)

myusername said:


> Excellent thread and one which I can reply to quite openly as I have up until very recently been the personality that would instinctively behave in a passive way when being attacked, mistakenly thinking it the best, safest and most moral response to a situation.
> 
> Why was I afraid to defend myself?
> 
> ...


 Excellent post!

In my police academy class our defensive tactics instructor (who's _Daito_-_ryu Aikijujutsu I also took)_ asked us why most folks didn't defend themselves when attacked.......and the conclusion was that it wasn't as much fear of getting hurt, but FEAR OF GETTING IN TROUBLE, that is reinforced from the time we are small children, that prevents us from defending ourselves.

And in our society it's increasingly pushed on us that GOOD KIDS don't fight, even in self-defense.......and of course the idea is to stop violence, but this teaching does NOTHING to stop violence.......as those who are inclined to predatory violence are impressed by societies proclamations that 'Good kids don't fight'.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2009)

Just wanted to bump this up for further discussion.  I think that this thread goes hand in hand with this one that I started.  In the thread that I linked, it seems to me that people advocate not taking the chance that nothing will happen, and to fight back.  Here, we have mention of lawsuits.  So, people get so conditioned, to not fight back, to not to do this or that, and the end result....people get seriously hurt or killed.  I don't know, maybe its just me, but I think that I'd rather take my chances in court.  I mean, sure, there're people, unfortunately, that sit on juries, that probably don't know a front kick from a side kick.  But who in their right mind, would not defend themselves if someone broke into their house or did a home invasion?  And for someone to sit on a jury, and take the side of the 'poor guy who had a rough life, whos parents were losers, but the guy wasn't a bad kid and was an all star basketball player' after this 'wonderful' person trying to cause serious harm to the victim...why would anyone with half a brain not condone the victim defending themselves?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

MJS said:


> Just wanted to bump this up for further discussion.  I think that this thread goes hand in hand with this one that I started.  In the thread that I linked, it seems to me that people advocate not taking the chance that nothing will happen, and to fight back.  Here, we have mention of lawsuits.  So, people get so conditioned, to not fight back, to not to do this or that, and the end result....people get seriously hurt or killed.  I don't know, maybe its just me, but I think that I'd rather take my chances in court.  I mean, sure, there're people, unfortunately, that sit on juries, that probably don't know a front kick from a side kick.  But who in their right mind, would not defend themselves if someone broke into their house or did a home invasion?  And for someone to sit on a jury, and take the side of the 'poor guy who had a rough life, whos parents were losers, but the guy wasn't a bad kid and was an all star basketball player' after this 'wonderful' person trying to cause serious harm to the victim...why would anyone with half a brain not condone the victim defending themselves?


Sure, 'I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6', has become a cliche, but it's still true, none-the-less.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 23, 2009)

searcher said:


> There is one huge reason why i try to turn the other cheek. Here in the State of KS, if you are CCH and you engage in ANY physical altercation, it is considered an armed conflict. This is regardless of whether or not you draw your firearm. If it comes to the point where I have to defend myself, 9 out of 10 times, someone is going to get shot. Not really high on my list of things to do.


 
Jon, can you clarify this?  Is it an armed conflict if you only have the permit, or do you have to have the weapon on your person?

Seems like a dumb law in that removes the incentive to keep the firearm concealed.  If it's an armed conflict anyway, why not just go ahead and draw the gun?


----------



## just2kicku (Jan 23, 2009)

I think if it comes down to defending oneself, the fear of any blow back should be secondary. I for one will take my chances with the legal system but I will be healthy.
I was attacked once and rushed by a guy who meant to do me harm, ramifications were the last thing in my mind. I popped him in the throat twice and down he went. They had to cut a hole in his neck and ram a tube in there so he could breathe. I'm not sorry'nor do I feel bad. I was not looking for trouble and given a chance would maybe have tried something different. But when it comes down to it we are taught to react, not think about it. Lucky for me the attempted murder charge was never filed cause witnesses said he started it. 
It's a sad world when a criminal/thug has more rights than you do.


----------



## searcher (Jan 23, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Jon, can you clarify this? Is it an armed conflict if you only have the permit, or do you have to have the weapon on your person?
> 
> Seems like a dumb law in that removes the incentive to keep the firearm concealed. If it's an armed conflict anyway, why not just go ahead and draw the gun?


 

If you have it on you and you engage in any physical portion, you are guilty of engaging in an armed conflict.   The reason why you do not draw is the potential escalation.   It can get out of control very quickly.   I think the reason why they have this law in place is to make you use your brain BEFORE you draw your gun.   JMO.   I can tell you from firsthand knowledge, it makes me be more aware of what is going on and I have come to act not react.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 24, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> I never meant to imply that there are not times when using force is not appropriate. My comments were directed at the idea that even when force is justified (morally or legally) we should seek to avoid it just for the sake of avoiding it.
> 
> I'm familiar with the origins of the law but I believe some states still impose a "duty to retreat" when in the home. The states that have passes formal "castle doctrine" laws (Florida, Texas, and Missouri just to name a few) have made sure it's guarenteed that you can fight to defend your home without any idiotic requirements to retreat or deescalate.
> The "stand your ground" laws that I'm referring to are the ones like in Florida where you don't have a duty to retreat "from any place where you are legally allowed to be"


 
Texas is the same way, if you have a legal right to be there, you don't have to retreat, car, business, post office, street corner, doesn't matter as long as you are not engaging in any criminal activity.  Stand your ground law.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 24, 2009)

Guardian said:


> Texas is the same way, if you have a legal right to be there, you don't have to retreat, car, business, post office, street corner, doesn't matter as long as you are not engaging in any criminal activity. Stand your ground law.


 
Now if only we could make it federal, we'd be all set.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2009)

I think 'fear' is not an appropriate label to put on threat level assessment.

A man comes up to you on the street in an obviously angry and agitated state, for no reason you can see.  He's angry, sweating, fists clenched, disheveled.  You attack him instantly, of course.

No?  Probably a good idea, because he just got mugged and he's enraged and scared and looking for help.  Good job you didn't clock him.

You must be a coward, huh?

No?

Probably you just correctly decided that you did not yet have enough information to decide his malicious intent and to decide to engage him.

The situation is no different when you are the victim of crime.  A man tries to take your wallet, he's big and mean and angry looking, and he's clear said "Give me your wallet or I'm going to kill you."

If you give him your wallet, you're a coward, right?

Let's examine the possible outcomes.

1) You give him the wallet and he goes away.  You are not injured.
2) You give him the wallet and he attacks you anyway.  You may be injured.
3) You refuse to give him the wallet and he goes away.  You are not injured.
4) You refuse to give him the wallet and he attacks you.  You may be injured.
5) You refuse to give him the wallet and attack him. You may be injured.

It might seem on the surface that there is as much risk in giving up the wallet as in refusing to do so, but that's not true, because the situation is fluid and not static.  You can always reevaluate the threat and decide to attack based on your interpretation of events as they unfold.  The one thing you cannot do is disengage and 'unfight'.  Fighting remains an option even after giving up your wallet.

In terms of the word 'fear', I certainly have it.  I don't like danger, I don't like threats of injury or death, and I try to avoid them.  I don't want to die, and I'll go to great lengths to avoid putting myself into situations where I might be killed.  Cowardice?  It seems like the prime directive of life to me - to continue to live.

To me, self-defense means just that - defending my life, by whatever means represents the least threat to me at the time, subject to constant reevaluation.

I train in martial arts so that if I decide that the threat is such that violence is the least dangerous option, I'll be better equipped to survive that encounter.

I have no fear of defending myself.  I have a fear of death, and that's a very reasonable fear to have.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think 'fear' is not an appropriate label to put on threat level assessment.


 
"Fear," and how much one feels it are altogether appropriate _parts_ of a threat level assesment.

I'd suggest taking a look at Gavin De Beckers _The Gift of Fear_ 



In addition to predicting a violent incident by observing the perpetrator before it happens, de Becker gives the all-important cues to listen for when you are actually in the situation, including: 

A nagging or suspicious feeling-- most of the time, women in particular will have an intuitive sense that something is wrong. *Listen to this instinct!!!* It will save your life.
Anxiety, particularly unexplained anxiety. The woman who sits on a bus next to a killer who strikes up a conversation, and who is suddenly anxious that the bus is going to crash is being alerted by her body to get away from the killer.
Humor, particularly dark humor, is an interesting one, because we often use humor to defuse a volatile situation, but people also often laugh at inappropriate moments because our laugh reflex kicks in when we don't know what else to do.
De Becker has an entire list of these, but they boil down to the same message. *When your mind and body genuinely tell you to fear, you should listen to them.* 




Bill Mattocks said:


> A man comes up to you on the street in an obviously angry and agitated state, for no reason you can see. He's angry, sweating, fists clenched, disheveled. You attack him instantly, of course.


 
Maybe I just cross the street, or make as much distance as I can-prepared to put up a "fence" between us, and placing myself in a strategically advantageous position.

I'm certainly not going to let him get close enough to do anything to me.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Probably you just correctly decided that you did not yet have enough information to decide his malicious intent and to decide to engage him.


 
If *he's* approaching me, *he's* engaged me. How I _respond_ to that engagement is all I have control over as far as outcome goes. I have enough information to determine that I don't trust his intent, rightly or wrongly, and I should take appropriate steps to protect myself.




Bill Mattocks said:


> The situation is no different when you are the victim of crime. A man tries to take your wallet, he's big and mean and angry looking, and he's clear said "Give me your wallet or I'm going to kill you."
> 
> If you give him your wallet, you're a coward, right?


 
If I give my wallet, I'm not controlling the outcome-I'm ceding control of the outcome to the perpetrator.



Bill Mattocks said:


> It might seem on the surface that there is as much risk in giving up the wallet as in refusing to do so, but that's not true, because the situation is fluid and not static. You can always reevaluate the threat and decide to attack based on your interpretation of events as they unfold. The one thing you cannot do is disengage and 'unfight'. Fighting remains an option even after giving up your wallet.


 
Again, the only control you have over the situation is your control over the situation. I have to make an assumption here: if he's robbing me, and threatening to kill me, he intends to kill me, and I must stop him. After that assumption is made, no course of action other than prompt and maximum resistance optimizes my chances of survival. All of those scenarios that you posted are not really relevant in the midst of that situation-he's threatened lethal force, and must be answered with lethal force. He's said he's going to kill me-I have no reason to believe he won't if I comply, and thus, no reason to comply.



MJS said:


> .
> So again, the question comes up....why are people afraid to defend themselves?


 
Because they overthink and over-analyze. Because of fear of litigation, or "being in the right" enters into their thinking. Because they are not trained properly, and thus they _think_ instead of *act*. _Because they are sheep._


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 17, 2009)

elder999 said:


> "Fear," and how much one feels it are altogether appropriate _parts_ of a threat level assesment.
> 
> I'd suggest taking a look at Gavin De Beckers _The Gift of Fear_
> 
> ...


 
Excelent post, elder999. I agree wholeheartedly with your closing statement and have become a victim myself of that very conciousness. Years of martial arts, fighing in full contact kickboxing, San Shou and professional MMA along with working as a door supervisor of 4 nightclubs over an eight year period, one would never think it possible that fear could grip me like it did. An assortment of incidents over a short period of time took me to a very dark place and i just became afraid of everything. So much so that I curled up at home under a duvet. I couldn't even go to the shops. 
I had seen colleagues beaten to unconciousness, customers in the clubs drenched in blood after being glassed in the face. At the time, I was just doing my job. I knew what to expect. I wasn't naive at all. The city is full of voilence and most of it goes unnoticed by the average Joe, but on the frontline, it's more prominent than you ever imagine. Each incident that passed was just another experience that led to a whole new way for my brain to operate and function under differing conditions. I started losing control way before I realised and it was too late to address the traumas. I sought counselling after suffering from 'Acute Anxiety episodes' and was placed on a course of meds for 8 months. The Panic Attacks still occur to this day, but they are few and far between now, as I have learned to deal with them using a variety of rethinking strategies. I will never be fully cured and will have this for life, rather like CSD. One thing I do know, I live with fear every single waking moment. I have learned that while it can certainly be ones best friend, it can also be your very worst enemy.


----------



## MJS (Feb 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think 'fear' is not an appropriate label to put on threat level assessment.
> 
> A man comes up to you on the street in an obviously angry and agitated state, for no reason you can see. He's angry, sweating, fists clenched, disheveled. You attack him instantly, of course.
> 
> ...


 
This, IMHO, is where awareness comes into play.  Who is this person walking towards me?  Do I know him?  Start assessing him.  Does he have a visable weapon?  I don't know whats going on, and its possible this could be a setup.  In other words, this guy could be pretending he's a victim, when in reality, he's a bait, used to get me to relax and drop my guard, while another guy moves in.  So yes, if I didn't know what was going on, I'd do my best to create some distance and try to figure out whats going on.  Based on his actions, my reaction will vary.



> The situation is no different when you are the victim of crime. A man tries to take your wallet, he's big and mean and angry looking, and he's clear said "Give me your wallet or I'm going to kill you."
> 
> If you give him your wallet, you're a coward, right?
> 
> ...


 
Its still a crap shoot.  Its a gamble.  I'm gambling on odds that the BG is giving me.  I could choose to comply, beg for my life, tell him I have a wife and kids, that I have a bad heart....anything, and I could still get killed.  As we saw from the video clip that was posted in that other thread with the KFC robbery, the BG was going to shoot the clerk.  If it wasn't for the fact the gun jammed, he'd be a dead man...all because he couldn't get the safe open fast enough.  Sorry, I still stand by my views.



> It might seem on the surface that there is as much risk in giving up the wallet as in refusing to do so, but that's not true, because the situation is fluid and not static. You can always reevaluate the threat and decide to attack based on your interpretation of events as they unfold. The one thing you cannot do is disengage and 'unfight'. Fighting remains an option even after giving up your wallet.


 
I'd say theres just as much success in fighting first as there could be in giving up your items.



> In terms of the word 'fear', I certainly have it. I don't like danger, I don't like threats of injury or death, and I try to avoid them. I don't want to die, and I'll go to great lengths to avoid putting myself into situations where I might be killed. Cowardice? It seems like the prime directive of life to me - to continue to live.
> 
> To me, self-defense means just that - defending my life, by whatever means represents the least threat to me at the time, subject to constant reevaluation.
> 
> ...


 
Points taken.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 19, 2009)

To comment on the original post (my apologies for not doing so in my post).

I'm glad I learned what I did in the service, we trained to fight and defend ourselves, to take the enemy out of commission, so that fear factor or lawsuits didn't play a part in that, now that's not to say I will go out and fight just to fight, but to defend myself is not merit a thought to anything but defending myself and my family from attack, the consequences will be dealt with afterwards if there are any.


----------



## LawDog (Feb 20, 2009)

The first few "real" confrontations are usually the hardest ones, after that it comes easy.


----------



## Drac (Feb 20, 2009)

LawDog said:


> The first few "real" confrontations are usually the hardest ones, after that it comes easy.


 
Yup.....


----------

