# The "better to die on your feet" thread



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 23, 2015)

I read the above statement recently, but it's not the first time I've read or heard it.  The full saying is:

*"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."*

Sounds good, doesn't it?  Very macho.  One thinks of Old Glory and the Marlboro Man and John Wayne and stuff.

The problem is, it is the opposite of self-defense in most circumstances.

OK, if you are definitely going to die, then yes, I suppose it is better to go down swinging, given that even in the face of insurmountable odds, if you at least resist, you could possibly live.  A tiny chance is better than none.  And dead is dead, so why not try to hurt the bastard that is killing you?

But for most of us, that will never be the case.  We won't be faced with situations where we will definitely die no matter which action we take.

We may be faced with situations in which we don't know which response will lead to our death and which will not, but that's a different question.

Self-defense means defense of self.  You can not defend yourself when you are dead.  You can't defend anyone else when you're dead, either.  When you are dead, your options end.

Being alive means still having choices and opportunities.

An old story says that a thief was convicted to die, but he told the king that if he gave him a year, he would teach his horse to fly.  The king, realizing he risked little by indulging the condemned man, gave him a year to try.  Another prisoner asked the man why he had bothered; it was impossible to teach a horse to fly, so he was only prolonging the inevitable.

The condemned prisoner explained, _"A lot can happen in a year.  The king could die, in which case there is often a general amnesty to celebrate the new king.  There could be war, and the kingdom would need every able body to fight the enemy.  The walls of the prison might fall down.  And who knows, maybe this damned horse will learn to fly."_

The point?  When given a choice of dying on your feet or living on your knees, choose life.  Life means you might be free again in time; death means death.

Would I grovel, beg, and otherwise humiliate myself to stay alive? You bet I would.  That's self-defense, when it comes down to it.  Every animal knows that; if faced with certain death, they back off, run away, do what they have to do to obey their prime directive; to stay alive.

To puff up one's chest and declare that they would prefer death to giving up their wallet, or car keys, or backing down to a bar fight, etc....well, that's not self-defense.  That's the opposite.


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2015)

I appreciate the post, Bill, and agree completely.  What you're talking about here is the difference between taking a principled stand and self defense. 

The principled stand is not self defense, surely.  What makes it a principled stand is not the fighting back... physically, at least.  It's the choice to risk harm knowingly because you have decided that the risk of harm is less important than the response (whatever that response might be). 

When Mahatma Gandhi or MLK, Jr. put themselves in harm's way, they did so knowing that it would likely result in physical harm, and may end with their deaths.  That is, as you say, the opposite of self defense.  But, in Gandhi's writings, he touches on choice, cowardice and the potential for physical harm.  Choosing non-violence is not the same thing as avoiding violence.  Choosing non-violence is the act of taking a principled stand in the same way that "die on my feet" can be a principled stand. Avoiding violence and harm is self defense, but may be a sign of cowardice. 

Interesting thread.  I look forward to reading the discussion.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 23, 2015)

I agree with your sentiments Bill but I feel you are using the quote out of its correct context.  You or people you have heard, are putting the quote in an every day self defense situation. It doesn't belong there. Rather the context fits much better within a frame work like ISIS in the middle east.  People are prisoners within their own society and culture.  When faced with things like an oppressive government the quote makes perfect sense. When used outside of the correct context the use of the quote is like a hat and a hand bag on a pig.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 23, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I agree with your sentiments Bill but I feel you are using the quote out of its correct context.  You or people you have heard, are putting the quote in an every day self defense situation. It doesn't belong there. Rather the context fits much better within a frame work like ISIS in the middle east.  People are prisoners within their own society and culture.  When faced with things like an oppressive government the quote makes perfect sense. When used outside of the correct context the use of the quote is like a hat and a hand bag on a pig.



I agree, but unfortunately, one hears people making such declaration with regard to actual self-defense situations all the time.  One describes a threat scenario and then asks for advice on how best to defeat one's attacker, on the base assumption that giving up one's wallet or car keys simply isn't an option worthy of consideration; one *must* fight back or risk not being a martial artist.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Nov 24, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


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


Sounds very Klingon.


----------



## Buka (Nov 24, 2015)

The OP covers a lot of circumstances. And I think everyting I do would depend on just those circumstances.
I'm not about to go looking, and I don't want to be part of no posse. In those circumstances I'll take the Philo Sandeen route. He was a character on the Rockford Files. When Rockford was heading out to go after the bad guys, Philo said, "History dictates that someone stay behind to tell the tale. I say let them someone be Philo Sandeen."

I'll gladly back down from a bar fight, no problem there. But for someone of my background if you can't see trouble in a bar coming from a mile away you just ain't paying attention. Or you're young, drunk or blind. Really it is just that easy.

But you ain't getting my car keys no matter what your deal is. Hell, my house keys are on there. Is my car worth my life? No more than you _trying_ to take my car is worth _your_ life.

Would I grovel and beg to stay alive? Hell, yes. I'm married, groveling and begging are second nature to me. But if someone is harming a woman, a child or a dog in front of me, I'm going in. Always have and always will. I'm old anyway, what am I going to miss, my golden years?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 24, 2015)

Buka said:


> The OP covers a lot of circumstances. And I think everyting I do would depend on just those circumstances.
> I'm not about to go looking, and I don't want to be part of no posse. In those circumstances I'll take the Philo Sandeen route. He was a character on the Rockford Files. When Rockford was heading out to go after the bad guys, Philo said, "History dictates that someone stay behind to tell the tale. I say let them someone be Philo Sandeen."
> 
> I'll gladly back down from a bar fight, no problem there. But for someone of my background if you can't see trouble in a bar coming from a mile away you just ain't paying attention. Or you're young, drunk or blind. Really it is just that easy.
> ...



I see nothing inherently wrong with deciding that some action is more important than one's actual life.  I merely point out that brave or noble or morally correct and dead is still dead.  If your survival is what you consider to be of paramount importance, then such behavior is contrary to that.  No one is required to always choose to save their own life regardless of other considerations.  I just suggest that people consider that before they have to make such decisions.  In my case, for example, car keys are not worth my life, their lives, no life at all.  They are things.  Things can be replaced, but only if I'm still alive to do so.  I like my truck.  I won't be driving it much when I manage to retain the keys but die in the process.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 24, 2015)

My first thought when I read the OP was 'fighting on your feet vs being on your knees in an orange jump suit'.
I guess my question is... what would you do if you found yourself on your knees in an orange jump suit? I know what I would do. I'd like to hear others responses.


----------



## Buka (Nov 24, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I see nothing inherently wrong with deciding that some action is more important than one's actual life.  I merely point out that brave or noble or morally correct and dead is still dead.  If your survival is what you consider to be of paramount importance, then such behavior is contrary to that.  No one is required to always choose to save their own life regardless of other considerations.  I just suggest that people consider that before they have to make such decisions.  In my case, for example, car keys are not worth my life, their lives, no life at all.  They are things.  Things can be replaced, but only if I'm still alive to do so.  I like my truck.  I won't be driving it much when I manage to retain the keys but die in the process.



You are correct, and I can't really argue with any of it.

And I certainly wouldn't teach or encourage anyone to defend their car, like you said It's just a thing.

But if I can't defend my principles when they're tested they weren't really principles, they were just nonsense. My car is a 15 year old clunker. Ain't worth squat. But it is to me.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 24, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Would I grovel, beg, and otherwise humiliate myself to stay alive? You bet I would.



Sometimes this is what actually gets you killed. There have been many people who have grovelled and begged for their lives and it still were killed.  I can only speak from my experience on this and is no way a go to plan.  When I was in that position I didn't beg, nor did I try to make the person angry.  From the time the gun was pointed to my head to the time he walked away, I was focused on presenting myself as someone who he didn't want to shoot.  There were a few things that I knew right away.  I wanted to stay on my feet for mobility purposes.  If I'm going to be shot anyway then being on my feet is the better choice.  I also didn't want to show fear because I didn't want to empower him, but I didn't want to over do it because I didn't want to appear defiant. He was already angry and I was in a bad position to try to wrestle the gun away.  I didn't want to beg because I didn't know if begging was something he hated with disgust and I didn't want to present myself as something that was disgusting. In general with don't think well of something that disgusts us.  

The time that I could have spent begging for my life was spent listening to him and trying to respond in a way that would be least likely to cause him to pull the trigger.  I also tried to slightly reposition so that the gun wasn't pointing dead center of my head. I also tried to watch for intent.  I thought if I could pick up intent then I could react seconds before he pulls the trigger.  My thoughts were the longer I can delay him the most likely I'll be able to get out of this situation either by positioning myself to fight for the gun if the opportunity presents itself or by him not shooting me.  Accepting death was not factored in because that was totally out of my control. I felt my only chance was to keep my ears and eyes opened for an opportunity to delay, reposition, and not be the person who he wants to shoot.  Right before he walked away he said that he liked me and acknowledge that I didn't beg and show fear.  I think the only reason he said that was because I agreed with him on some of his rant and didn't present myself as being the thing that he hated.  The experience was like walking a tightrope made of dental floss.  I have never been so focused in my life.

I wasn't being robbed in this case, the man was just crazy and angry.  There was no chance for me to avoid it.  I opened a door of a building, entered, and had a gun placed to my head.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 25, 2015)

Perhaps there is more to the sentiment than just two peiple involved in some altercation over stuff??

For me, I exist under the threat my heart will fail and have done for some years.  Still, I have no intention though of acquiescing to an inevitable death.  The same death that is inevitable for each of us.  To me, knowing in full colour 4K HD how I will die rouses a defiance in me that is well stated by a preference to die standing rather than live kneeling.

We are not designed to be on our knees.  It is only the fear of death and the absurd notion that we somehow "own" our possessions, our loved ones, that they are "ours".. it is these things that can cause a person to fall on their knees and plead for life.  Yet death of the body is certain.  So where is the reason to be on ones knees??

Jx


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Sometimes this is what actually gets you killed. There have been many people who have grovelled and begged for their lives and it still were killed.



There is no way to guarantee that any given response will have a positive outcome.  Armed criminals are, by their nature, somewhat unpredictable.  Many factors go into a decision to fight back, flee, submit to the demand (whatever that might be), etc.  I can't make a hard-and-fast rule and I don't think anyone can.  "If bad guy does X, then you must do Y and you will survive."   Or, as you said above, "sometimes..."

The point I was making is this; if I believe that I have a better chance of survival by giving up my keys, wallet, car, etc, than if I would if I fought back, then I will do the thing that I believe will result in my survival.  That does not mean I will be right; I could submit and be killed anyway.  However, if I fight and the aggressor has the actual means to kill me, then there is a high possibility he will kill me.  I will not take the option most likely to result in my death in order to be more manly, macho, martial artist-y, etc.  But that is merely a choice, one among many.  It is no less valid to decide to fight over any act of aggression.  But that's not self-defense if it is more likely to result the victim's death, is it?

Self-defense, as I keep saying, is about defense of self.  If one chooses to fight an armed aggressor over car keys, no problem.  But let's not call that self-defense, because it's not.

I do have some hard-and-fast rules for myself, though.  For example, although I believe I would hand over my wallet, keys, car, etc, to an armed aggressor and hope for the best outcome, I would not submit to being made to go anywhere.  For example, if a gunman tried to drag me into a back room, make me get into a car, etc, then it's game on.  My belief is that such actions have a very high probability of my being killed as a result, so at that point, I may as well fight back with all I have; I have nothing to lose in my estimation.

I have had previous discussions with others on this topic, and the thought has been raised that if I wait to fight back until someone has ordered me into a car, back room, etc, then it may be too late to fight back effectively.  This is true; it's the chance one takes.  

No one can say what an armed aggressor will do with any certainty; no one knows what is in their mind or what their capabilities really are.  All one can do is attempt to read the situation as best as one is able, to make an intelligent decision that is geared towards survival and not some macho movie bullcrap, and then to act on that; the outcome may or may not result in one's own death, but what can you do?  There are no guarantees in this world.

In any case, no response I make or don't make will be in consideration of whether or not others might consider my actions cowardly.  That's not really something that will comfort my widow "Well, ma'am, he's dead, but at least he was brave."  Granted, if I am going to die anyway, might as well be brave.  But if someone sticks a gun in my face and says "Give me your wallet," chances are very high I'm going to carefully and slowly reach into my back pocket, retrieve my wallet, and hope to walk away from the confrontation.  "Honey I got robbed" sounds much better to me than the police telling her I'm dead and oh by the way, here's his wallet that the robber didn't get.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

Jenna said:


> Perhaps there is more to the sentiment than just two peiple involved in some altercation over stuff??
> 
> For me, I exist under the threat my heart will fail and have done for some years.  Still, I have no intention though of acquiescing to an inevitable death.  The same death that is inevitable for each of us.  To me, knowing in full colour 4K HD how I will die rouses a defiance in me that is well stated by a preference to die standing rather than live kneeling.
> 
> ...



The reason is the prime imperative of all life, to continue living.  I'll do that on my knees if I must, because as long as I draw breath, one day I may again rise to my feet.  If I choose death instead, I will never do so, it's over.  Where there is life, as they say, there is hope.

I suffer from diabetes, which is slowly robbing me of a variety of physical capabilities; it is a progressive disease.  But I take my medication, live with the side-effects, and try to lose weight and stay in some kind of physical condition.  Why not say to hell with it, life is short, pass me the beer and cigarettes?  Because I prefer life over death, that's why.

I'm not going to be philosophical over the meaning of life and why one would choose to submit to armed aggression when someone puts a gun in my face and demands my wallet or car keys.  I have responsibilities that I feel are far more important to me than either my possessions or my poetic outlook towards the impermanence of life.  I have a family to provide for, and I'm still fond of drawing breath.

EDIT:  And may I say once again, nothing wrong with choosing to fight on principle; I merely not that it is not technically self-defense.  It is, I suppose, principle-defense.  All good, but let's understand what we are fighting for; our principles or to stay alive.  Each is fine, everybody has to choose for themselves which is appropriate in any given situation.


----------



## Buka (Nov 25, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is no way to guarantee that any given response will have a positive outcome.  Armed criminals are, by their nature, somewhat unpredictable.  Many factors go into a decision to fight back, flee, submit to the demand (whatever that might be), etc.  I can't make a hard-and-fast rule and I don't think anyone can.  "If bad guy does X, then you must do Y and you will survive."   Or, as you said above, "sometimes..."
> 
> The point I was making is this; if I believe that I have a better chance of survival by giving up my keys, wallet, car, etc, than if I would if I fought back, then I will do the thing that I believe will result in my survival.  That does not mean I will be right; I could submit and be killed anyway.  However, if I fight and the aggressor has the actual means to kill me, then there is a high possibility he will kill me.  I will not take the option most likely to result in my death in order to be more manly, macho, martial artist-y, etc.  But that is merely a choice, one among many.  It is no less valid to decide to fight over any act of aggression.  But that's not self-defense if it is more likely to result the victim's death, is it?
> 
> ...



You give such great posts, such great threads.

I have a different take on some things. But it's just my take.

_"Self-defense, as I keep saying, is about defense of self.  If one chooses to fight an armed aggressor over car keys, no problem.  But let's not call that self-defense, because it's not."
_
But to me, it is. There are caveats to be sure - if I'm with someone else that is not prepared for the situation my main goal is their safety and only their safety. Otherwise, like the old saying goes, "_everybody has to be doing something when they die_"....if he wants to be attempting to take my car that's his poor choice.

_But if someone sticks a gun in my face and says "Give me your wallet," chances are very high I'm going to carefully and slowly reach into my back pocket, retrieve my wallet, and hope to walk away from the confrontation._ 

A small difference, but an important one. If he's four feet away I'll give him my wallet, shoes, anything he wants. But if he sticks a gun in my face and _hasn't _pulled the trigger he's a fool. A dead fool. I taught close quarter weapons disarming to Feds and such for twenty years and I'm really good at it. (But I have no idea how to disarm a knife)(well, an idea, but I can't do it myself) Guns are a long range weapon. Up real close if they aren't fired first, they can be a weakness. They are so much easier to take away than edged weapons.

And I understand the argument that making a move against one isn't smart and isn't self defense. But to me it is.

As for going someplace else with the aggressor - I'm with you. "A secondary crime scene" is one of the most frightening terms I know. Fight right then and there. NEVER go someplace else with them, ever.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

Buka said:


> A small difference, but an important one. If he's four feet away I'll give him my wallet, shoes, anything he wants. But if he sticks a gun in my face and _hasn't _pulled the trigger he's a fool. A dead fool. I taught close quarter weapons disarming to Feds and such for twenty years and I'm really good at it. (But I have no idea how to disarm a knife)(well, an idea, but I can't do it myself) Guns are a long range weapon. Up real close if they aren't fired first, they can be a weakness. They are so much easier to take away than edged weapons.



I understand.  Let me just say that I have not had 20 years of such training.  I've had the basics in the military as an MP and also in my dojo, but the caveat has always been "If you're not prepared to practice this thousands of times and over the course of many years, you'd be a fool to try it."  And I agree.  For you, having trained and being confident in your skill, I have no doubt it would be a wise choice for you.  For me, not so much.

Again, however, if I honestly believe that the man with the gun in my face is actually going to pull the trigger anyway, I'll do whatever I think might protect me to survive.  There are no "always do X" rules; each situation is different.  Heck, I can even envision a situation in which and armed and drugged gunman fires without even meaning to do so, just because he's so messed up.  Yeah, if I think we're in that kind of situation, it's game on, full force, win or lose.

The real-life scenario I always use in these discussions is this one:

Subway Shooting

The situation was that a 71-year-old retired Marine was eating in a Subway restaurant when it was entered by armed men, who proceeded to rob the customers.  

He was legally armed with a .45 ACP pistol.  However, when the two men demanded his wallet, he gave it to them.  He did not draw his weapon at that time.

However, when the two armed men tried to herd the employees and customers into a back room at gunpoint, he drew his weapon and shot one in the chest, one in the head.

That, in my opinion, is a textbook example of a '*good shoot*'.  The man kept his wits.  He evaluated his risk.  His goal was clearly to stay alive; he was more than willing to give up his wallet to do so.  Only when he determined that the risk to his life was unacceptable did he engage the gunmen.  When he made that decision, he acted quickly and decisively.  Of course, I'm a bit biased because I am also a Marine.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 25, 2015)

Jenna said:


> For me, I exist under the threat my heart will fail and have done for some years. Still, I have no intention though of acquiescing to an inevitable death. The same death that is inevitable for each of us. To me, knowing in full colour 4K HD how I will die rouses a defiance in me that is well stated by a preference to die standing rather than live kneeling.


Jenna, I understand your defiance.  I had a heart attack at 39, when I was just returning to MA training after a long absence.  After receiving a stent, a few people asked me if I was going to quit "for my health".  Instead, I opted to train harder, doubling the number of classes I attended each week.  I wasn't about to let my heart issue beat me without giving it my full effort.  Some day, it may kill me... but not as long as I can fight it.
I hope you never lose your attitude.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2015)

Jenna said:


> Yet death of the body is certain. So where is the reason to be on ones knees??


 Very good point


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> Very good point



Eh...not for me.

Death is certain.  Why not throw oneself over a cliff now and avoid the rush?

For me, there are a couple of very good reasons.  I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide what those might be, but trust me, you can't do them when you're dead.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is no way to guarantee that any given response will have a positive outcome.  Armed criminals are, by their nature, somewhat unpredictable.  Many factors go into a decision to fight back, flee, submit to the demand (whatever that might be), etc.  I can't make a hard-and-fast rule and I don't think anyone can.  "If bad guy does X, then you must do Y and you will survive."   Or, as you said above, "sometimes..."
> 
> The point I was making is this; if I believe that I have a better chance of survival by giving up my keys, wallet, car, etc, than if I would if I fought back, then I will do the thing that I believe will result in my survival.  That does not mean I will be right; I could submit and be killed anyway.  However, if I fight and the aggressor has the actual means to kill me, then there is a high possibility he will kill me.  I will not take the option most likely to result in my death in order to be more manly, macho, martial artist-y, etc.  But that is merely a choice, one among many.  It is no less valid to decide to fight over any act of aggression.  But that's not self-defense if it is more likely to result the victim's death, is it?
> 
> ...


Thanks

"In any case, no response I make or don't make will be in consideration of whether or not others might consider my actions cowardly" I agree with this statement 1000% If that thought comes in mind then I'm not focused on defending myself.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 25, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Eh...not for me.
> 
> Death is certain.  Why not throw oneself over a cliff now and avoid the rush?
> 
> For me, there are a couple of very good reasons.  I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide what those might be, but trust me, you can't do them when you're dead.


I think you are taking her statement out of context


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think you are taking her statement out of context



Not intentionally, I assure you.  I exaggerated to make a point.  As humans, we all know we are slated to die at some point.  While it may seem a romantic notion to die on one's feet, fighting the noble battle for X, Y, or Z, in fact, it is merely death, no matter how it occurs.  Dead is dead.  Philosophy is nice, but dead is still dead.

I am no samurai, fighting for my lord and his honor.  I served in the military, I played that role and would have fulfilled my obligation if required to do so.  But I can tell you that based on my experience, it is unnatural act, and not one which makes much sense when one has to choose between a set of car keys and one's own guts on the sidewalk.

Bottom line; I prefer not to die at all.  I accept that one day I will die, and it will probably not be a time, place, or method of my own choosing.  It will come unbidden and unwanted, I suspect.  If I can avoid it for as long as possible, that seems the best course of action.  I am not a character in a movie.  I do not intend to die fighting over my wallet so that others can say _"At least he went down swinging."_  What comfort will that be to my widow?  How does it pay the rent or buy her food?  If I have to be blunt, ******** on that noise; take the wallet, I can make more money.


----------



## Steve (Nov 25, 2015)




----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 25, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I understand.  Let me just say that I have not had 20 years of such training.  I've had the basics in the military as an MP and also in my dojo, but the caveat has always been "If you're not prepared to practice this thousands of times and over the course of many years, you'd be a fool to try it."  And I agree.  For you, having trained and being confident in your skill, I have no doubt it would be a wise choice for you.  For me, not so much.
> 
> Again, however, if I honestly believe that the man with the gun in my face is actually going to pull the trigger anyway, I'll do whatever I think might protect me to survive.  There are no "always do X" rules; each situation is different.  Heck, I can even envision a situation in which and armed and drugged gunman fires without even meaning to do so, just because he's so messed up.  Yeah, if I think we're in that kind of situation, it's game on, full force, win or lose.
> 
> ...


 
See Subway Shooting for more on Mr. Lovell.  The only thing I was curious about was the report of his flying Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.  I was on Okinawa when President Kennedy was killed in Nov 63.  I got to Ft Belvoir about Feb 64.  The MP company there had a platoon about the size of most MP companies.  Its sole function was providing security for the presidential helicopters there, in Texas, and other places the helicopters deployed to.  They were still doing that when I left in 1966.  They had been doing it for some time.  My understanding was that only US Army pilots were piloting President Johnson.  I guess I was wrong.  Apparently that was a duty shared  by the US Army and the US Marine Corps until 1976, when the duty became the sole responsibility of the USMC.  The things on learns as one ages.

Anyway, your points are well taken Bill, as well as those of Steve and others.  There is no one-fits-all for choosing to fight or be humiliated.  I have been in some really sticky situations where I could have easily been killed.  In fact, in some I was pretty sure I was going to die.  Fortunately I am still around. Mostly because of not giving in but not trying to be aggressive either.  I guess sometimes it is how we act and sometimes just the luck of the draw.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 25, 2015)

oftheherd1 said:


> See Subway Shooting for more on Mr. Lovell.  The only thing I was curious about was the report of his flying Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.  I was on Okinawa when President Kennedy was killed in Nov 63.  I got to Ft Belvoir about Feb 64.  The MP company there had a platoon about the size of most MP companies.  Its sole function was providing security for the presidential helicopters there, in Texas, and other places the helicopters deployed to.  They were still doing that when I left in 1966.  They had been doing it for some time.  My understanding was that only US Army pilots were piloting President Johnson.  I guess I was wrong.  Apparently that was a duty shared  by the US Army and the US Marine Corps until 1976, when the duty became the sole responsibility of the USMC.  The things on learns as one ages.
> 
> Anyway, your points are well taken Bill, as well as those of Steve and others.  There is no one-fits-all for choosing to fight or be humiliated.  I have been in some really sticky situations where I could have easily been killed.  In fact, in some I was pretty sure I was going to die.  Fortunately I am still around. Mostly because of not giving in but not trying to be aggressive either.  I guess sometimes it is how we act and sometimes just the luck of the draw.



Agreed.  Sometimes things go badly no matter what we do.  Other times, one of the most amazing martial arts weapons is politeness.  Show some respect and see how things change.  No promises that they will, but it costs nothing to try.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 25, 2015)

Buka said:


> if someone is harming a woman, a child or a dog in front of me, I'm going in. Always have and always will. I'm old anyway, what am I going to miss, my golden years?


A friend of mine, after his wife died, he tried to commit suicide. I told him he should either

- go to fight a war, or
- save some woman in the dark alley.

I like the following speed.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 26, 2015)

Maybe you all are big and tough and look like you can take all comers.. me I do not look like much and I have been in too many situation where I am like SUPPOSED to have that dumb lovely attitude that demand I lie down - or in this case get on my knees - and take what I am given and shut up.. too many people of ill intent get away with far too much because there are exactly those like here who will plead with them, beg, grovel what ever..  "take what you wish only pleeease leave me alone in my precious existence and do not hurt me!" 

My nanna would turn in her grave if she thought I would ever present that attitude to any one demanding it of me. I will be on my knees for no person. That **** is weak.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 26, 2015)

Jenna said:


> Maybe you all are big and tough and look like you can take all comers.. me I do not look like much and I have been in too many situation where I am like SUPPOSED to have that dumb ******* attitude that demand I lie down - or in this case get on my knees - and take what I am given and shut up.. too many people of ill intent get away with far too much because there are exactly those like here who will plead with them, beg, grovel what ever..  "take what you wish only pleeease leave me alone in my precious existence and do not hurt me!"
> 
> My nanna would turn in her grave if she thought I would ever present that attitude to any one demanding it of me. I will be on my knees for no person. That **** is weak.



There is nothing wrong with your point of view, but it is not a self-defense oriented one. As I have been trying to say.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 26, 2015)

Also you must consider the mentality that we are already on our knees in one form or another, and standing up is only an option if you knew you were on your knees.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 27, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Also you must consider the mentality that we are already on our knees in one form or another, and standing up is only an option if you knew you were on your knees.


That is too profound for here ToD. You may be expelled for it! Jx


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2015)

You can stand back up if you want. Knees are not so limiting.

I mean if we are getting all metaphysical here.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You can stand back up if you want. Knees are not so limiting.


You just can't knee down for the rest of your life. Also you should not get used to it.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You just can't knee down for the rest of your life. Also you should not get used to it. Everybody will die soon or later.



And here we get the metaphysical, metaphorical? Bit.

If we consider movement getting on your knees does not mean you are going to stay there.

Or life in general say we let an insult to our pride pass does not mean we cannot enforce our authority at a later date.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You just can't knee down for the rest of your life. Also you should not get used to it.



Tell me how you feed your family when you are dead.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Tell me how you feed your family when you are dead.


One should not live in fear all his life and think that he is the prey and others are all predictors. Many years ago, someone threaten to kill me next time we met. I managed to corner him one day and wanted to settle thing once for all. He said, "Look at how strong you are and how weak I'm. How can you take advantage on me?"

After that day, he tried to stay away from me all his life. Did I take my risk to corner him that day? Of course I did. Since I could solve my problem once for all. I made my enemy to feel that he was the prey, my risk taking was worthwhile.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Tell me how you feed your family when you are dead.


It's called life insurance. My family will have plenty to eat when I'm dead.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 27, 2015)

I look at it this way... I'm threatened for my money, I may still get murdered anyway. I'm not taking that chance. I'll defend myself. Cause, like Bill, I also want to live. I won't leave it in some A holes hands whether I live or die. I'll fight for my life, not close my eyes and hope he doesn't pull the trigger after I give him my keys and wallet.
This is not about being brave, it's about survival.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Tames D said:


> I look at it this way... I'm threatened for my money, I may still get murdered anyway. I'm not taking that chance. I'll defend myself. Cause, like Bill, I also want to live. I won't leave it in some A holes hands whether I live or die. I'll fight for my life, not close my eyes and hope he doesn't pull the trigger after I give him my keys and wallet.
> This is not about being brave, it's about survival.



The overwhelming preponderance of armed robberies do not end in murder. This would tend to make your assumption incorrect. If you want to live, you should choose the option least likely to end in your death.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The overwhelming preponderance of armed robberies do not end in murder. This would tend to make your assumption incorrect. If you want to live, you should choose the option least likely to end in your death.


Sorry Bill. I still won't take that chance. I don't trust anyone that would put a gun in my face. Can you provide statistics to support  the statement you made?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2015)

All people who have worked in restaurant would know that when armed robberies ask you to go to the walk in, if you don't fight back, you will be shot in the walk in. Everything in our life involve with risk.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2015)

I think this is being over thought.

The saying "better to die on your feet"...on its face...says you are going to die either way. 

If I'm going, I'm going to do my best to make it tough.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2015)

Tames D said:


> Sorry Bill. I still won't take that chance. I don't trust anyone that would put a gun in my face. Can you provide statistics to support  the statement you made?


Just do a quick search.  The statistics are easy to find.   Statistically, your chances of being mugged are exceedingly small.

I'm looking at crime stats for the entire metropolitan area of seattle, found on the FBI.gov website, for 2013. Discounting any consideration of high risk behaviors, and just going off of raw stats, it looks like there is a violent crime rate (murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) of 323.5 per 100,000 people. Even were I to engage in high risk behavior, say I am a homeless, mentally ill, self medicating drug addict, my chances of being murdered are 2.2 out of 100,000 (or 2.2/1000th of a percent). My chances of being robbed are 112 per 100,000 (1/10th of a percent). 

So, of the 323.5 per 100,000 people who are victims of violent crimes of any sort, 1 in 3 are robbed.   For evere 112 people who are robbed per 100,000, 2.2 are murdered.  

Not related to this site, but I have read elsewhere that often, murders are not random, which would suggest that your chances of being murdered in a robbery are even lower.  

The real numbers are even better, as opposed to numbers per 100k population.   There were a total of 78 murder/nonnegligent manslaughters in total for Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett, Kent, Renton, Auburn, Lakewood and Redmond. I live in Kent/Covington, where there were a total of 2. I don't believe it's a stretch to assume that most of these 78 murders were people who were involved in things they shouldn't have been or engaging in high risk behaviors. Gangs, drugs. Some were good guys doing their jobs, cops or other people in a related field.


----------



## Steve (Nov 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All people who have worked in restaurant would know that when armed robberies ask you to go to the walk in, if you don't fight back, you will be shot in the walk in. Everything in our life involve with risk.


What the hell?   I didn't know that was a rule!!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Tames D said:


> Sorry Bill. I still won't take that chance. I don't trust anyone that would put a gun in my face. Can you provide statistics to support  the statement you made?



Certainly.  But I've provided them before, in similar threads.  I have not seen them change anyone's opinion to date.  People are quite irrational when it comes down to it.  People believe what they wish to believe.

Robbery

_"There were an estimated 325,802 robberies nationwide in 2014."_

Of the above-listed robberies, *119,754 involved a firearm*:

Table 15

By contrast, in 2014, the *number of murders was 14,249*:

Murder

Of those murders, *565 were committed in the commission of a robbery*:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

While there are other possible ways to be killed by an assailant than simply by robbery (drunken brawls, etc, check the link above), I believe my statement stands up.

*Out of 325,802 robberies, 565 ended in murder.* One can, of course, pick apart the data and argue that this or that should have been included in the totals, etc. Even so, the number of robberies ending in the death of the victim is a staggeringly low percentage.  

I'd call that _'overwhelming'_.  How about you?

Now, having said that, I will return to what I have previously stated, but which some seem to willfully ignore that I said.  Each situation is different.  I would not make an "I will always do X" statement involving an armed confrontation, simply because of that. * I would never say "always submit."* *I would never say "always fight back."* I thought I made that clear.  I think both extremes are foolish.  One has to evaluation one's circumstances and make the best decision one can at the time, and then live or die with the consequences.  

However, looking at the statistics, it seems clear that most armed robberies do not end in murder.  It is, in fact, extremely unlikely.  You can say _"I won't take that chance,"_ and that is certainly your call.  If one is being rational, it doesn't make much sense to make such an absolute statement, but it's your life.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2015)

Steve said:


> What the hell?   I didn't know that was a rule!!!


Some arm robberies don't want any witness. Also the gun shot in "walk in" can not be heard outside.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Tgace said:


> I think this is being over thought.
> 
> The saying "better to die on your feet"...on its face...says you are going to die either way.
> 
> ...



No, the saying is *"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." * The operative terms there are 'live' and 'die'.  The argument (which I do not agree with, I am simply trying to explain it) is that it is *'better'* to fight back and risk your life, rather than to submit and live.

Personally, I think living is preferable to dying, and if I believe I can submit and live, then I am probably going to do that.  I will fight and even fight to the death, but not when I believe I have a clear choice to avoid it entirely.  Man wants my wallet and has a gun in my face, man gets my wallet.  Man tells me to get in the trunk and has a gun in my face, I am probably going to evaluate that as a 'dead either way' situation and fight it out right then and there.

But as I keep saying, *every situation is different.*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some arm robberies don't want any witness. Also the gun shot in "walk in" can not be heard outside.



Did you read the stats I just posted?  Are these walk-in murders just not being reported, then?  Loads of freezers with dead employees stacking up like cordwood and the cops don't know about them?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2015)

In that context I see your point. Although I think that saying seems intended to mean resistance to tyranny vs a mugger.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Man tells me to get in the trunk and has a gun in my face, I am probably going to evaluate that as a 'dead either way' situation and fight it out right then and there.


Agree!

When you are forced to dig a hole in the middle of nowhere and you are still afraid to fight back, you must be a fool.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Certainly.  But I've provided them before, in similar threads.  I have not seen them change anyone's opinion to date.  People are quite irrational when it comes down to it.  People believe what they wish to believe.
> 
> Robbery
> 
> ...


I don't care how many robberies took place. 365 people were murdered for giving up their wallet. I'm not taking that chance. I will fight back. Are you saying 365 people lost there life because they played the odds?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Tgace said:


> In that context I see your point. Although I think that saying seems intended to mean resistance to tyranny vs a mugger.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



That was the original context, yes.  Unfortunately, one also hears it a lot in the various martial arts forums, as young bucks with an ego and a black belt strut about and proclaim that they won't allow themselves to be made victims of anyone for any reason, they'll throw down if anyone gives them a dirty look, because "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."  They misunderstand and misapply it, I'm speaking of that misapprehension which is regrettably so common.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree!
> 
> When you are forced to dig a hole in the middle of nowhere and you are still afraid to fight back, you must be a fool.



Yes.  Now, my question is, how often does that happen?  I mean, outside of the movies?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Tames D said:


> I don't care how many robberies took place. 365 people were murdered for giving up there wallet. I'm not taking that chance. I will fight back. Are you saying 365 people lost there life because they played the odds?



No.  I am saying 365 people were murdered in the commission of a robbery.  We don't know whether or not they cooperated, or whether or not they were killed while resisting or killed out-of-hand while not resisting.  All we know is that 365 people died during the commission of an armed robbery in 2014 in the US.

You can do as you wish.  I state plainly that assuming you will be killed and therefore must fight back when faced with an armed robbery is *flat-out wrong*.  You asked for stats to back up my claim, there they are.  Believe or don't, it's not my problem.  Everyone is free to have their own opinion.  They are not free to have their own facts.  The facts have been presented, per request.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes.  Now, my question is, how often does that happen?  I mean, outside of the movies?


Since you only have one life, it only needs to happen just once.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since you only have one live, it only needs to happen just once.



It's hard to type with my eyes rolled so far back into my head.  I live in the real world, where people stand a greater chance of being hit by lighting.  Indoors.  While sleeping.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 27, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No.  I am saying 365 people were murdered in the commission of a robbery.  We don't know whether or not they cooperated, or whether or not they were killed while resisting or killed out-of-hand while not resisting.  All we know is that 365 people died during the commission of an armed robbery in 2014 in the US.
> 
> You can do as you wish.  I state plainly that assuming you will be killed and therefore must fight back when faced with an armed robbery is *flat-out wrong*.  You asked for stats to back up my claim, there they are.  Believe or don't, it's not my problem.  Everyone is free to have their own opinion.  They are not free to have their own facts.  The facts have been presented, per request.


Thank you for the stats.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2015)

Im thinking since Hands down Ive taken far more robbery reports from live victims then Ive gone to  murders chances your going to survive a robbery are pretty good.    I'll also say in my experience fighting back increases your chances of being shot.  Fight back if you wish but its prob going to hurt.


----------



## Jenna (Nov 28, 2015)

I think we are blinkered to certain situations here.. and I worry over a defence strategy of begging, pleading being on your knees this is not defence, rather surrender.  

OP implies we act calmly, traverse our decision trees, assess whether a situation merits a fight or a handing over of some thing and then leave intact with minimal collateral loss.  It might be asked then if the situation alter for the worse, what are we supposed to do? calmly reassess I guess then come out in defence at that stage? That is nice it transpire that way. Is that how the real world is?  It is lovely and neat. Predictable and repeatable.

What of attempted rape for example?  I intervene with people that either through shock and inability to respond - having had no defensive training - gave sufficient, acquiesced to the degree some times over a period of time that they believed would end a physical threat situation - like seeing the best in a partner, an uncle, some guy on a night out or giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Only it did not conclude such that the loss was merely collateral.  It is at that stage I would come into contact with them at the point their remaining lives are so intolerable they no longer feel life is worth living.  They cannot confront them selves or live with the shame.  I have worked with men not small shy ones, big tough ones who hate their selves and feel a perceived loss of masculinity because they feel they *should* have fought when they were assaulted and but did not fight when put upon, and now suffer through trauma, defeating humiliation and loss of self value. 

So to that end I could not pass advice here in this thread to any one as a model approach that it is better to live on your knees than die fighting.

Good luck


----------



## Tames D (Nov 28, 2015)

Jenna said:


> I think we are blinkered to certain situations here.. and I worry over a defence strategy of begging, pleading being on your knees this is not defence, rather surrender.
> 
> OP implies we act calmly, traverse our decision trees, assess whether a situation merits a fight or a handing over of some thing and then leave intact with minimal collateral loss.  It might be asked then if the situation alter for the worse, what are we supposed to do? calmly reassess I guess then come out in defence at that stage? That is nice it transpire that way. Is that how the real world is?  It is lovely and neat. Predictable and repeatable.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2015)

Jenna said:


> I think we are blinkered to certain situations here.


You kinda need to since an acceptable response to one situation isn't going to be appropriate for others


> and I worry over a defence strategy of begging, pleading being on your knees this is not defence, rather surrender.


depending on the situation even begging and pleading has its place. 


> OP implies we act calmly, traverse our decision trees, assess whether a situation merits a fight or a handing over of some thing and then leave intact with minimal collateral loss.  It might be asked then if the situation alter for the worse, what are we supposed to do? calmly reassess I guess then come out in defence at that stage? That is nice it transpire that way. Is that how the real world is?  It is lovely and neat. Predictable and repeatable.


you act like the decision-making process takes a lot of time.  I travel up and down the use of force scale all the time, reevaluation, and implementation is a constant process.


> What of attempted rape for example?  I intervene with people that either through shock and inability to respond - having had no defensive training - gave sufficient, acquiesced to the degree some times over a period of time that they believed would end a physical threat situation - like seeing the best in a partner, an uncle, some guy on a night out or giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Only it did not conclude such that the loss was merely collateral.  It is at that stage I would come into contact with them at the point their remaining lives are so intolerable they no longer feel life is worth living.  They cannot confront them selves or live with the shame.  I have worked with men not small shy ones, big tough ones who hate their selves and feel a perceived loss of masculinity because they feel they *should* have fought when they were assaulted and but did not fight when put upon, and now suffer through trauma, defeating humiliation and loss of self value.


BUT they are alive for you to help them as opposed to the alternative.  Now I will never tell someone how to react to a rape thats a personal choice I cant make as Ive never been raped so I cant say but for sake of this conversation again I may suggest not fighting and armed stranger at first vs a date rape as the propensity for violence is different. But again we are always reevaluating and the situation may change to a point where you need too fight or vise versa you may start with resistance and decide its better to become passive


> So to that end I could not pass advice here in this thread to any one as a model approach that it is better to live on your knees than die fighting.


there is a huge difference between someone stealing your cell phone vs trying to Rape you


----------



## Tames D (Nov 28, 2015)

So the message I'm getting from the "experts" is to play the odds and hope you don't get shot. Sorry, not buying it.
Begging and pleading does not have it's place.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2015)

Tames D said:


> So the message I'm getting from the "experts" is to play the odds and hope you don't get shot. Sorry, not buying it.
> Begging and pleading does not have it's place.


No the point is you need to evaluate the situation and decide for yourself sometimes fighting is the right choice but its not the blanket answer


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2015)

Tames D said:


> Begging and pleading does not have it's place.


Sure it does for example say my family and I are victims of a home invasion, multiple armed intruders and they got me. I 100% would beg to spare my kids lives.  Im not invincible I may loose a fight but Id do what I could to spare my kids even beg if I needed to


----------



## Jenna (Nov 28, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> there is a huge difference between someone stealing your cell phone vs trying to Rape you


Of course, I would contest though that knowing which is which is what is not always the simple matter it would appear in the neatness of chats here.. I have spoken with victims more than a few who began with an apparently not too serious word or grab that was brushed off (was acquesced to or overlooked or the person was given the benefit of the doubt) only which escalated into something on an whole other scale completely. 

Yes you are specially trained to actively evaluate on a rolling or continuous basis.. and would have apportioned force or restraint (which is different from surrender) as appropriate.. even many of us with a little SD do this to an extent when out our about.. Yet the shock of a suddenly overturned situation completely unexpected to the everyday person can countermand normal ability to reassess properly let alone do an whole lot about it.. this is not uncommon in my purview though I appreciate we all deal with victims at various points on the scale.. I value your input though.. Wishes, Jx


----------



## Buka (Nov 28, 2015)

Maybe there are other things to consider in this equation. There are wolves, there are those the wolves target and there are sheepdogs.

Sometimes a good bowl of wolf stew warms you up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 28, 2015)

Buka said:


> Maybe there are other things to consider in this equation. There are wolves, there are those the wolves target and there are sheepdogs.
> 
> Sometimes a good bowl of wolf stew warms you up.



Grossman's treatise is romantic twaddle, macho posing as morality.

The extreme end of Grossmans's 'sheepdog' is the comic character "The Punisher," or "Batman." 

The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 28, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society.


We should notice that MA without "*侠*(xia) - heroic" is meaningless. The definition of "*侠*(xia) - heroic" is to use your ability to help others without asking anything in return. IMO, when the spirit of "*侠*(xia) - heroic" is dead, the MA will die with it.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Grossman's treatise is romantic twaddle, macho posing as morality.
> 
> The extreme end of Grossmans's 'sheepdog' is the comic character "The Punisher," or "Batman."
> 
> The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.



Well. I think you have to take the intended audience into consideration. Grossmans work is mostly focused on LEO's and his metaphors are probably intended to be more motivational than exemplary.

You have to do some of the "we run towards gunfire" ho-ha at times...it helps a bit when it actually happens. Such motivtional speech has probably been used to get men into position to fight since time immemorial.

And while I agree that high ideals are probably not usually in mind when the bullets start flying, there are plenty of people that raised their hands and put themselves into that position for their ideals/beliefs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 28, 2015)

I was one of them. Taken as metaphor, ok. Sadly, I think its been taken to extremes.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was one of them. Taken as metaphor, ok. Sadly, I think its been taken to extremes.



Then we open up a whole heap of new concepts though. So is it OK to engage in risk for personal reward. Getting mugged and fighting for your wallet.

Is it OK to engage in risk to protect the wider community. Fighting a mugger to prevent him striking out at someone else.

Is it OK to engage in risk to protect your self worth. Fighting a mugger because you refuse to become a victim.

(OK that example does not really stretch that well and so has holes in the specifics)


----------



## drop bear (Nov 28, 2015)

Otherwise why do we allow others to engage in risk for us. When we call the police. We are putting them in danger.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 28, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Otherwise why do we allow others to engage in risk for us. When we call the police. We are putting them in danger.


Because...with all the recent media hype over the exceptions aside...with a trained police force you tend to get a more trained and efficient response than you would depending on the training and knowledge of the "average Joe".

And I'm not even referring to all the " macho" stuff like shooting and fighting. I'm talking about driving, communications, equipment, access to services, basic legal knowledge and the ability to "process" what to do on any particular call.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Buka (Nov 30, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Grossman's treatise is romantic twaddle, macho posing as morality.
> 
> The extreme end of Grossmans's 'sheepdog' is the comic character "The Punisher," or "Batman."
> 
> The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.



I don't see it that way.

As for "romantic twaddle" - I think there's a certain amount of romanticism in all of us, certainly in Martial Art training. Think about your training, it's usually in a certain place used for little if anything other than that training, we are all costumed the same, all with emblems (patches) uniting us, wear certain colored cloths to not only mark progress but to define the rank and file, we use words and phrases in languages we usually do not speak at any other times, and put our faith in certain fighting techniques that most will never field test.

I have a romanticism as part of my psyche since I was a kid. It comes from being raised as a gentleman understanding and embracing chivalry. It's part of who I am and I really like that. When we first read Grossman's sheepdog analogy we embraced it because it really fit the way we conducted business. It was certainly better than the terms we had used prior to that.

As for "twaddle and macho", both are negative terms and I don't believe they belong in the conversation. I do love The Punisher and Batman references though.

Pardon me now, I have sheep to attend.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 30, 2015)

Buka said:


> I don't see it that way.
> 
> ... When we first read Grossman's sheepdog analogy we embraced it because it really fit the way we conducted business. It was certainly better than the terms we had used prior to that.



OK, let me break it down without using negative terms.

Grossman draws the analogy between the sheep, the sheepdog, and the wolf.  The sheep are the everyday people.  People who are both ignorant of danger and prefer it that way.  The sheepdogs are those who guard the herd against the wolves, because the wolves obey no rules of social convention and will eat the sheep without restraint.

However, the 'sheepdogs' are also sheep.  The wolves are also sheep.  We are all the same; human beings.  Some people are protectors by nature, some are predators, some are willfully ignorant; all true.

However, there are no hard lines dividing us.  We all have some predator within us, some protector, some willful ignorance.  It just depends what about.

Putting ourselves into a category apart from humanity and describing ourselves as 'protectors' makes us not 'one of the people'.  It makes us superior to them, and makes them dependent upon us for their lives.  That's not how it is.  You and I may choose to protect others; but we're not apart from the rest of humanity, we're not a more highly-evolved creature that protects the poor dumb sheep who can't help being victims.  We're not knights in shining armor, we're not crusaders, we're the same as everybody else; we just make different choices based on our recognition of the danger and our choices to face it.

The Grossman analogy puts wolves and sheepdogs on a different plane from the sheep.  The sheep are unworthy, should be grateful to be under our protection, etc.  No, Grossman doesn't say that.  But the analogy itself presents that model; it's sheepdogs versus wolves, the sheep are incidental, a prize for the victor.  And I have seen, too many times, (present company excepted), self-described sheepdogs who hold humanity in the same contempt as a sheepdog might hold a flock of sheep if it had the power of such contemplation.

I am reminded of the soliloquy of the movie character Colonel Jessup, near the end of the movie "A Few Good Men," when he reveals that he believes himself to be a sheepdog in the Grossman sense:

_"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. *You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.* We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."_

_"You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall."_  Here, Jessup describes his role - sheepdog.  The people are sheep, he is the protector of those sheep, the sheepdog.

Rousing words, yes?  And many of us can see the truth in them, or at least the truth we would like to imagine.

_"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."_

But here, Jessup describes not just his role, but his opinion of the sheep.  They, being the protected, are not entitled to either question how he, the sheepdog, provides it.  And this is an attitude I have seen in self-described 'sheepdogs' many times (again, present company excepted).

_"Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."_  And finally, Jessup makes it clear that the sheep don't get a vote.  They are of no consequence, other than to be there for the sheepdog to protect.

So no, sir, I am not a sheepdog, not a sheep, not a wolf.  I did not ask to be protected, my rights and opinions do matter, and I won't put up with people acting outside the law, either to 'protect' me or to attack me.  We're all humans, not sheep. No one is under my feet; no one is over my head.  Certainly not a self-described sheepdog.

I realize that the movie I am quoting is not real life.  Grossman's analogy is also not real life.  None of us are outside the realm of humanity or the frailties of the human experience.  We are, none of us, all good, all bad, or all right or wrong.  We do the best we can.  I don't need a label to describe what I am, I just am whatever that happens to be.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 30, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> None of us are outside the realm of humanity or the frailties of the human experience.  We are, none of us, all good, all bad, or all right or wrong.  We do the best we can.  I don't need a label to describe what I am, I just am whatever that happens to be.


We are human. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Steve (Nov 30, 2015)

I think that both Bill and Buka make excellent points.  I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the posts here.  My opinion is that there is a lot of truth in both perspectives.  While it's important to know and understand that we are human beings, there is much to be said for embracing or aspiring to be a "sheepdog" (or hero or whatever label you choose).  And it's these aspirations that lead people to choose to become cops or soldiers, firefighters, doctors, and nurses.  It's one aspect of a call to service that many people feel, and either choose to ignore or choose to embrace.  I've worked with a lot of social workers over the years, and they don't do it for the money.

Analogies and ideals give us a means of understanding a little more about what makes us human, and to better understand why we believe some things to be good and others evil. 

And that movie is excellent.  At the end of that movie, is the country more or less safe with Col. Jessup behind bars?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2015)

I'm not sure analogy was ever really intended to encompass "real life".

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 30, 2015)

Steve said:


> I think that both Bill and Buka make excellent points.  I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the posts here.  My opinion is that there is a lot of truth in both perspectives.  While it's important to know and understand our roles, there is much to be said for embracing or aspiring to be a "sheepdog" (or hero or whatever label you choose).  And it's these aspirations that lead people to choose to become cops or soldiers, firefighters, doctors, and nurses.  It's one aspect of a call to service that many people feel, and either choose to ignore or choose to embrace.  I've worked with a lot of social workers over the years, and they don't do it for the money.



Agreed.  I have also, as you know, served in the military, worked in law enforcement.  While I do believe many 'feel the call' to serve and protect, to rush into danger to protect innocents and victims, I also know that not all motives are as clear and noble as that.  Not to take away from the true heroic nature of many of their deeds, but in my experience, a lot of the people who find themselves attracted to these careers do so because it serves them as well; their need for action, the adrenalin rush, the live-by-your-wits edge, and so on.  They are good people, they do heroic things, but let's not think they are selfless in all ways.  Certainly they are attracted to such positions for reasons more personal in many cases.

I can say that when I joined the Marines, I did so for many reasons.

1) My dad was a Marine.  Seemed like a good tradition to continue.
2) He told me to get out of house and he wasn't paying for college.
3) I wanted to get out of the house and out on my own.
4) I had some dim notion that I owed my nation something in return for the many freedoms and liberties I enjoy as a citizen.

Noble?  Only around the edges.  Of course, that's just me.



> And that movie is excellent.  At the end of that movie, is the country more or less safe with Col. Jessup behind bars?



Yes, that's always the question, isn't it?  But ultimately, while Jessup was probably not a true villain, more of a flawed hero archetype, when power such as his is allowed to operate without restraint, eventually lines are blurred and then crossed and then ignored entirely.  At what point do the 'sheep' stop being citizens and start being subjects of the king?  In such ways, essential liberty is lost in the name of security.  And the reason, I think, that our military is rightfully overseen and controlled by civilian authority and the rule of law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 30, 2015)

Tgace said:


> I'm not sure analogy was ever really intended to encompass "real life".
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



Whether it was or it was not intended that way, it is used that way by many.


----------



## Buka (Nov 30, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, let me break it down without using negative terms.
> 
> Grossman draws the analogy between the sheep, the sheepdog, and the wolf.  The sheep are the everyday people.  People who are both ignorant of danger and prefer it that way.  The sheepdogs are those who guard the herd against the wolves, because the wolves obey no rules of social convention and will eat the sheep without restraint.
> 
> ...



What a great post.


----------



## Steve (Nov 30, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Agreed.  I have also, as you know, served in the military, worked in law enforcement.  While I do believe many 'feel the call' to serve and protect, to rush into danger to protect innocents and victims, I also know that not all motives are as clear and noble as that.  Not to take away from the true heroic nature of many of their deeds, but in my experience, a lot of the people who find themselves attracted to these careers do so because it serves them as well; their need for action, the adrenalin rush, the live-by-your-wits edge, and so on.  They are good people, they do heroic things, but let's not think they are selfless in all ways.  Certainly they are attracted to such positions for reasons more personal in many cases.
> 
> I can say that when I joined the Marines, I did so for many reasons.
> 
> ...


 The analysis might not have been too in depth.  I joined the USAF for similar reasons.  My mom and dad were both in the Air Force, and my three older brothers chose Navy or Army.  I didn't want to live on a boat (it's a ship, I know...) nor did I want to be an Airborne Infantryman like my brother.  And the Marines were never in the running... so there it was.

I think that's about the same for most people.  The real crux of my point is that we are all on a spectrum, neither truly noble nor (hopefully) entirely despicable.  We do good things for bad reasons, and bad things for good reasons, and everything in between.  But ultimately, regardless of what else is in the mix, there are other alternatives to getting out of the house or paying for college, than to join the Marines, or even the USAF (an honorable alternative to military service, as they say ).



> Yes, that's always the question, isn't it?  But ultimately, while Jessup was probably not a true villain, more of a flawed hero archetype, when power such as his is allowed to operate without restraint, eventually lines are blurred and then crossed and then ignored entirely.  At what point do the 'sheep' stop being citizens and start being subjects of the king?  In such ways, essential liberty is lost in the name of security.  And the reason, I think, that our military is rightfully overseen and controlled by civilian authority and the rule of law.


The answer for me is a matter of perspective.  Col. Jessup would consider himself to be a hero, but ultimately, at the end of the movie, he was headed to the clink.


----------



## Steve (Nov 30, 2015)

Related to this discussion, in a crisis, I think it's a good idea to have given how you might react some thought in advance, and to have a clear idea in mind of what your priorities really are.  I work in training, and a lot of the training I do now is for new supervisors.  We have a lot of young people who are great technicians, but lack the experience that we used to take for granted (for a lot of reasons).

One of the things I encourage them to do is to give some thought to how they would make a decision in a crisis.  I have them list out the various influences and then to prioritize those influences.  Some questions I might ask myself are, "is this safe?  Is it legal?  Do we have an existing policy?  Is there a regional expert or point of contact?  Is there a past precedent? What are the priorities for my executives or superiors?"  We go through several, actual crisis that vary from physical threats and actions against employees to plumbing malfunctions to loss of heat in the Winter to power outages, earthquakes and several other things.

There are dozens of possible questions or influences that can be identified, and the point of the exercise isn't to lead them to a single right answer.  The point is to get them to think about how they will make a decision in a crisis, so that they are more likely to make a sound decision when something happens.  If you have to make a choice between doing what is legal or doing what is safe, which would you choose?  No right answer, but it will help you in a crisis to have determined this in advance.  If there is a conflict between doing what is safe or doing what you are being ordered to do by your superior, which would you do ("i.e., go in there are open that strange box!")?

And personally, the value of discussions like this, for me, isn't that there is a right or wrong answer.  It's useful to have given some thought to "what ifs."  What if I'm being mugged and I'm alone, and the guy has a knife?  What if I'm not alone?  What if he has a gun?  What if I think he just wants my wallet?  What if he asks me to climb into his van or the trunk of his car?

The point is that, I think that the answers to these questions are really less important than that we ask them for ourselves.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 30, 2015)

Steve said:


> Related to this discussion, in a crisis, I think it's a good idea to have given how you might react some thought in advance, and to have a clear idea in mind of what your priorities really are.  I work in training, and a lot of the training I do now is for new supervisors.  We have a lot of young people who are great technicians, but lack the experience that we used to take for granted (for a lot of reasons).
> 
> One of the things I encourage them to do is to give some thought to how they would make a decision in a crisis.  I have them list out the various influences and then to prioritize those influences.  Some questions I might ask myself are, "is this safe?  Is it legal?  Do we have an existing policy?  Is there a regional expert or point of contact?  Is there a past precedent? What are the priorities for my executives or superiors?"  We go through several, actual crisis that vary from physical threats and actions against employees to plumbing malfunctions to loss of heat in the Winter to power outages, earthquakes and several other things.
> 
> ...



+1

Something I preach as well, especially to new officers. You should constantly be playing the "what if" game in your head. It's better to execute even a "poor" plan than it is to be frozen in spot trying to come up with ANY plan. 

You should also have some hard and fast "rules of thumb". I think it was mentioned earlier to not allow yourself to be transported from one scene to another by a bad guy. I would suggest risking being killed on the spot in an attempt to run or fight vs being taken. Unless there was some bizarre set of facts that led me to believe that going along would be beneficial, I'd make that a 100% rule.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2015)

Tgace said:


> +1
> 
> Something I preach as well, especially to new officers. You should constantly be playing the "what if" game in your head. It's better to execute even a "poor" plan than it is to be frozen in spot trying to come up with ANY plan.
> 
> You should also have some hard and fast "rules of thumb". I think it was mentioned earlier to not allow yourself to be transported from one scene to another by a bad guy. I would suggest risking being killed on the spot in an attempt to run or fight vs being taken. Unless there was some bizarre set of facts that led me to believe that going along would be beneficial, I'd make that a 100% rule.



That is preemptive as well. Had a friend of mine almost bashed because he had a meeting with a guy in a back car park.

It is an old ploy but it still gets people.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Dec 1, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some arm robberies don't want any witness. Also the gun shot in "walk in" can not be heard outside.


This happened at my favorite Taco Bell 30 yards away from my appartment in college.  After robbing the employees at the end of the night, they herded them in the walk-in, and executed 5 people... who I'd talked with the previous day, and just wanted to go home for the night.  They didn't offer any resistance at all.  One girl survived long enough to drag herself out to a phone and get help.  I actually met one of the murders a couple years later while in the waiting room at a hospital (he was shackled and had two corrections officers with him).  The sad thing was this kid looked so "normal".  So you might not always know if surrender/acquiescence will keep you alive or not.  I, for one, am highly reluctant to second guess how anyone else responds to a mortal threat, unless I'm there.



Bill Mattocks said:


> The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.


Back to the initial CCW holder scenario... I've never known of anyone being forced to defend themselves with deadly force, going on to become murderers because they enjoyed the experience.  Most, if not all, feel remorseful they were put in that situation in the first place.  Even most LEOs seem the same way if they've ever had to use deadly force.  Soldiers who have to do it repeatedly, have to find a way to deal with it... and many have trouble with that aspect, but few truly start to "like it".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> This happened at my favorite Taco Bell 30 yards away from my appartment in college.  After robbing the employees at the end of the night, they herded them in the walk-in, and executed 5 people... who I'd talked with the previous day, and just wanted to go home for the night.  They didn't offer any resistance at all.  One girl survived long enough to drag herself out to a phone and get help.  I actually met one of the murders a couple years later while in the waiting room at a hospital (he was shackled and had two corrections officers with him).  The sad thing was this kid looked so "normal".  So you might not always know if surrender/acquiescence will keep you alive or not.  I, for one, am highly reluctant to second guess how anyone else responds to a mortal threat, unless I'm there.



Agreed.  One of the points I was trying to make, however, is that if you are in such a situation and you evaluate the threat and decide that you need to respond by drawing a weapon and employing deadly force, you have changed the balance of the risk, for good or ill.  Although it is impossible to know in hindsight whether the confrontation would have ended badly or not without the introduction of the weapon by the victim, it is also possible that by doing so, the situation becomes worse.

Again, I am not saying that a person should or should not draw a weapon in a given situation (a point I feel others seem to continue to misunderstand).  I am saying that introducing the weapon brings its own set of risks for good or ill.   Any situation in which a weapon is introduced becomes a life-or-death struggle, whether it was one prior to that or not.



> Back to the initial CCW holder scenario... I've never known of anyone being forced to defend themselves with deadly force, going on to become murderers because they enjoyed the experience.  Most, if not all, feel remorseful they were put in that situation in the first place.  Even most LEOs seem the same way if they've ever had to use deadly force.  Soldiers who have to do it repeatedly, have to find a way to deal with it... and many have trouble with that aspect, but few truly start to "like it".



Agree.  I hope I did not imply otherwise.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am saying that introducing the weapon brings its own set of risks for good or ill. Any situation in which a weapon is introduced becomes a life-or-death struggle, whether it was one prior to that or not.


Even employing your MA skills does pretty much the same thing.  If you initiate a physical confrontation (armed or not), the situation has changed.  Perhaps if you just handed over your wallet, or car keys, or even acquieced to a rape, you might get to walk away alive... but perhaps not.  Waiting until they have attacked you (if that was their choice), may be too late.  Sometimes, preemption may be the best option if you determine you have a realistic chance.  As an unwitting victim of the situation, you're now forced into making a critical decision you never wanted, without benefit of knowing the attacker's true intent. 
All of the CCW holders I know carry for the exact same reason LEO's do.  It's not to go hunting for bad guys.  It's insurance in case someone else puts them in a situation where it becomes a necessary tool (hopefully a rare enough even to never happen to most CC'ers).  Most of the time, a CC who does draw (same for LEOs) doesn't end up firing the weapon.  It's presentation alone changes the dynamic for the attacker and terminates the initial attack.  Although, there is a chance it could make things go the other way too... you never know.
I have friends and family who are LEOs, and most never had to draw in their careers... and are glad for it.  Ironically, about a year ago, an old high school friend who's a sheriff deputy, caught four armed robbers who had fled and ended up in my dojo's parking lot, about 10 minutes before I arrived to open the doors for class.  He had to draw on them (the only time in his career), and was still visibly shaking from it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> Even employing your MA skills does pretty much the same thing.  If you initiate a physical confrontation (armed or not), the situation has changed.  Perhaps if you just handed over your wallet, or car keys, or even acquieced to a rape, you might get to walk away alive... but perhaps not.  Waiting until they have attacked you (if that was their choice), may be too late.  Sometimes, preemption may be the best option if you determine you have a realistic chance.  As an unwitting victim of the situation, you're now forced into making a critical decision you never wanted, without benefit of knowing the attacker's true intent.
> All of the CCW holders I know carry for the exact same reason LEO's do.  It's not to go hunting for bad guys.  It's insurance in case someone else puts them in a situation where it becomes a necessary tool (hopefully a rare enough even to never happen to most CC'ers).  Most of the time, a CC who does draw (same for LEOs) doesn't end up firing the weapon.  It's presentation alone changes the dynamic for the attacker and terminates the initial attack.  Although, there is a chance it could make things go the other way too... you never know.
> I have friends and family who are LEOs, and most never had to draw in their careers... and are glad for it.  Ironically, about a year ago, an old high school friend who's a sheriff deputy, caught four armed robbers who had fled and ended up in my dojo's parking lot, about 10 minutes before I arrived to open the doors for class.  He had to draw on them (the only time in his career), and was still visibly shaking from it.



Yes, fighting back is an escalation, and necessarily increases risk. 

Drawing a weapon is a new dimension entirely.  It is now a deadly force situation for good or ill.  You seem to think I'm implying that this is to be avoided; I am not.  I am stating a fact.  Draw a weapon, the chances that you will have to use it have now gone up quite a bit.  That's a bell that cannot generally be unrung.

I'm not sure how else I can explain this simple fact.  Fighting back with hands and feet is not the same level of risk as drawing a weapon.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, fighting back is an escalation, and necessarily increases risk.



Maybe... I don't necessarily see fighting back as an escalation, since that would imply you're increasing the force being used. Not true, if you're responding in kind. You punch me. I punch you. That's not an escalation.
And I do not agree at all that it increases the risk. There are plenty of examples of cases in which fighting back saved the victims life. None at all in which it can be shown that the victim was hurt MORE because they fought back than they would have been had they been a passive victim.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Drawing a weapon is a new dimension entirely.  It is now a deadly force situation for good or ill.



You seem to be making the false assumption that it's not a deadly force situation without weapons being drawn.



Bill Mattocks said:


> You seem to think I'm implying that this is to be avoided; I am not.  I am stating a fact.  Draw a weapon, the chances that you will have to use it have now gone up quite a bit.  That's a bell that cannot generally be unrung.



Well, since the chances of using the weapon without being drawn are zero, this is technically true. But essentially meaningless, as well.
Draw the weapon, and history shows us that in the vast majority of cases the confrontation will end immediately, without the weapon being used, and with nobody being injured (at least, no more than they had already been injured before the weapon was drawn).
If the goal is to end the confrontation, drawing a weapon, especially a firearm, has an excellent track record to show that the goal will be reached. Immediately.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> You seem to be making the false assumption that it's not a deadly force situation without weapons being drawn.



I don't assume that, but I do believe that once the victim produces a weapon, it is one for sure.  If it was in question, that question has now been answered.

Speaking only for myself, if I am ever in a situation where I believe the appropriate response is to draw a firearm, I am going to employ it the moment I draw it.  There will not be any waving it about or threatening anyone with it.  If someone sees my firearm, that's the last thing they will ever see, if I can help it.  I would never draw a weapon unless I was legally entitled to defend my life by taking the life of another.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't assume that, but I do believe that once the victim produces a weapon, it is one for sure.  If it was in question, that question has now been answered.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, if I am ever in a situation where I believe the appropriate response is to draw a firearm, I am going to employ it the moment I draw it.  There will not be any waving it about or threatening anyone with it.  If someone sees my firearm, that's the last thing they will ever see, if I can help it.  I would never draw a weapon unless I was legally entitled to defend my life by taking the life of another.



Neither would I. But I may or may not fire it immediately. Just as I wouldn't always draw it. It's all circumstantial.
Just because I am legally entitled to kill them doesn't mean I necessarily will.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Neither would I. But I may or may not fire it immediately. Just as I wouldn't always draw it. It's all circumstantial.
> Just because I am legally entitled to kill them doesn't mean I necessarily will.



There is a philosophy that when your life is in danger to the extent that the use of deadly force is authorized, the only correct response is to employ it without delay.

Part of that is legalistic.  Part of it is based on a moral determination.  Part of it is based on training.

Legalistically, it can be asked why, if you had a moment to delay using deadly force, did you think you were in immanent danger to begin with?  I'm not saying I like that question, but it can be asked.  My thought is that if I must draw, it means I am in fact under immediate threat of my own death or serious injury and therefore I must act immediately by using deadly force.  Delay of any kind means the threat was not that great.  Well, theoretically anyway, and according to some kinds of lawyers and politicians.  I don't like that kind of lawyering _ex post facto_, but I'm familiar with it.

Morally, it can be asked why a person under threat of his or her life would permit that situation to continue even a moment more, if life is indeed threatened and if one's own life is indeed more important to oneself than that of an assailant.  If I have determined that the bad guy must die so that I may live, we proceed immediately to the 'the bad guy must die' part without delay.

With regard to training, we tend not to train ourselves to respond to threat by preparing to take a defensive action and then deciding whether or not to take it.  We train (typically) to take immediate action.  Punch comes in, we block.  We are threatened with our life, we draw and fire.  Draw and fire.  They are linked.  Not draw and think about it, or draw and wait to see if that works before we pull the trigger.  That will get you killed.  Draw and fire.

When I was an MP, we were trained to draw and fire, aiming for center-mass.  When asked why we didn't shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or shoot him in the leg, or wait to see if he surrendered first, we were instructed to describe the fact that we were trained to draw and fire at center mass.  Our minds tell us when we are in mortal danger and authorized to use deadly force in self-defense.  Our training does the rest; no thought required.

"Did you shoot to kill or to wound?"  
"Neither.  I shot for center-mass."  
"Why did you do that?"  
"Because that is how I was trained."

Once I have cleared leather, the discussion about whether or not I am going to use it has ended.  I rely upon my training at that point.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Dec 1, 2015)

Just because you CC, doesn't mean you will pull it out if an unarmed agressor starts trouble... in fact, you'd be best to use deescalation skills or try to get away. 
If you CC and draw on someone, you'd already have to be in a life-or-death situation of the other person's making. Otherwise, you've just become a criminal.  So if you're already in a deadly situation... essentially just your own death if the aggressor so chooses... opting for a weapon MAY give you a way out, although an ugly one.
If CC isn't your thing, I can truly respect that.  But I've never known anyone who CC's, who isn't profoundly aware of the added burden on them if a situation arises.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> Just because you CC, doesn't mean you will pull it out if an unarmed agressor starts trouble... in fact, you'd be best to use deescalation skills or try to get away.
> If you CC and draw on someone, you'd already have to be in a life-or-death situation of the other person's making. Otherwise, you've just become a criminal.  So if you're already in a deadly situation... essentially just your own death if the aggressor so chooses... opting for a weapon MAY give you a way out, although an ugly one.
> If CC isn't your thing, I can truly respect that.  But I've never known anyone who CC's, who isn't profoundly aware of the added burden on them if a situation arises.



I agree.  But...

‘Worst nightmare': Woman with concealed gun permit shoots at fleeing shoplifter outside Home Depot

This happened less than three miles from my house.  The woman was a licensed concealed weapon permit holder, had been through the training, etc.  Just because you don't know any non-idiots with guns doesn't mean they're not out there.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2015)

GiYu - Todd said:


> Just because you CC, doesn't mean you will pull it out if an unarmed agressor starts trouble... in fact, you'd be best to use deescalation skills or try to get away.
> If you CC and draw on someone, you'd already have to be in a life-or-death situation of the other person's making. Otherwise, you've just become a criminal.  So if you're already in a deadly situation... essentially just your own death if the aggressor so chooses... opting for a weapon MAY give you a way out, although an ugly one.
> If CC isn't your thing, I can truly respect that.  But I've never known anyone who CC's, who isn't profoundly aware of the added burden on them if a situation arises.




OK so incompetent cc people exist. Shown by the article above. Do you support their right to carry?

For me this is the gun debate in a nutshell. Gun rights vs responsible gun ownership.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't assume that, but I do believe that once the victim produces a weapon, it is one for sure.  If it was in question, that question has now been answered.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, if I am ever in a situation where I believe the appropriate response is to draw a firearm, I am going to employ it the moment I draw it.  There will not be any waving it about or threatening anyone with it.  If someone sees my firearm, that's the last thing they will ever see, if I can help it.  I would never draw a weapon unless I was legally entitled to defend my life by taking the life of another.




Woah back the truck up right there.

Beep....beep....beep...

Your basic personal safety starts before you engage the guy if you possibly can wrangle it. So you should be looking to put yourself in a tactical advantage before you have to act.

So best case scenario in a lethal threat is to be in a position to create time and space to end a situation.  So gun out could be wave and threaten. Well let's say warn cos it sounds more professional.

So they have a knife. Which is gun out threat. And you can move behind cover. You have time and space to end that situation without a death.

At least you have the opportunity to give that a go.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> OK so incompetent cc people exist. Shown by the article above. Do you support their right to carry?


yes. We have people that use all our rights irresponsibly.  Not being about to take,it away is what makes it a right not a privilege


> For me this is the gun debate in a nutshell. Gun rights vs responsible gun ownership.


Then it's no longer a right.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> So they have a knife. Which is gun out threat. And you can move behind cover. You have time and space to end that situation without a death.
> 
> At least you have the opportunity to give that a go.


very similar situation happened to me last week. Call at 3am for loud music.  I can hear the music 3 blocks before I get to the house.  I pull up the guy put 6 large speakers in his driveway blasting music into the neighborhood.  I walk up he's standing in his garage.  I approach tell him to turn off the music.  He cusses at me tells me to leave.  I walked into the garage and again tell him to turn off the music.  He picks up an axe.  I draw my weapon and he walks towards me.  Now he's about 8 feet away.  So could i have shot him?  Sure I think I'd be justified.  But I backed away put a car between him and I and ordered him to drop the axe.  He did after about 30 seconds then ran into his house.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 1, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> very similar situation happened to me last week. Call,at 3am for loud music.  I can hear the music 3 blocks before I get to the house.  I pull up the guy put 6 large speakers in his driveway blasting music into the neighborhood.  I pull up he's standing in his garage.  I approach tell him,to turn off the music.  He cusses at me tells,me,to leave.  I walked into the garage and again tell him to turn off the music.  He picks up an axe.  I draw my weapon he walks towards me.  Now he's about 8 feet away.  So could i,have shot him sure I think I'd be justified.  But I backed away out a car between him and I and ordered him to drop the axe.  He did after about 30 seconds then ran into his house.


Then what? 



Sounds like the start of a barricade operation to me. 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

Tgace said:


> Then what?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah started off as barricade then like 3 min later he came running out the front door naked.  I hate tackling naked dudes.  He was taken to hospital on mental health eval


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> very similar situation happened to me last week. Call at 3am for loud music.  I can hear the music 3 blocks before I get to the house.  I pull up the guy put 6 large speakers in his driveway blasting music into the neighborhood.  I walk up he's standing in his garage.  I approach tell him to turn off the music.  He cusses at me tells me to leave.  I walked into the garage and again tell him to turn off the music.  He picks up an axe.  I draw my weapon and he walks towards me.  Now he's about 8 feet away.  So could i have shot him?  Sure I think I'd be justified.  But I backed away put a car between him and I and ordered him to drop the axe.  He did after about 30 seconds then ran into his house.



Your responsibility as a LEO ia different than mine as a civilian. If said naked guy had advanced on me as a citizen with an axe in his hand, I'd have run away if I could have. I don't have the fun job of putting the habeas grabbus on him. On the other hand, if I found I could not retreat, I also don't have to try to effect a least reasonable use of force arrest that might expose me to life-threatening danger. You had a job to do. I only have to survive. So yeah, dude gets two in the ten ring.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your responsibility as a LEO ia different than mine as a civilian. If said naked guy had advanced on me as a citizen with an axe in his hand, I'd have run away if I could have. I don't have the fun job of putting the habeas grabbus on him. On the other hand, if I found I could not retreat, I also don't have to try to effect a least reasonable use of force arrest that might expose me to life-threatening danger. You had a job to do. I only have to survive. So yeah, dude gets two in the ten ring.


He wasn't naked when he had the axe.  That would be strange.

  As for the rest I agree I was just trying to show it doesn't always have to be  draw gun = fire gun. There are times draw gun get distance run away or gain compliance is more effective and less hassle afterwards then shooting someone. I have shot and killed someone and never want to do it again if I can avoid it. Its cost me more then I want to discus.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

I will add however I made the decision already if he exited the garage with the ave he was getting put down.  There were too many civilians out on the sidewalk watching that if he went after them I no longer had a safe backdrop to shoot so he wasn't getting out of the garage armed


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> He wasn't naked when he had the axe.  That would be strange.
> 
> As for the rest I agree I was just trying to show it doesn't always have to be  draw gun = fire gun. There are times draw gun get distance run away or gain compliance is more effective and less hassle afterwards then shooting someone. I have shot and killed someone and never want to do it again if I can avoid it. Its cost me more then I want to discus.


 
Again, I think you are using your perspective as a cop. My needs are different. I don't need to create space to gain compliance. If I can create distance, I'm gonna beat feet outta there. I am not there to engage, I am seeking to disengage. If I can do that by running away, I'm gone. If I cannot retreat and I belive my life is in immediate danger, I draw. If I draw, I fire, because that's how I was trained. If I have to to draw, make space, think about firing, then I should not have drawn, because unlike your job, I don't have to arrest the dude and I'm not going to try.

Soldiers and LEOs have to take on life-threatening risk to do their jobs. Their response is and should be different than mine. I won't incur additional risk to try to avoid having to use a firearm as you must do. If I draw, it's because my life is about to end, I am in mortal danger. In such a circumstance, I will fire; that is predetermined and an imperative.

I respect and thank you for what you do. But it is not my job. Self-defense has only one imperative, to survive. There are no caveats on that.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> yes. We have people that use all our rights irresponsibly.  Not being about to take,it away is what makes it a right not a privilege
> Then it's no longer a right.



Correct. So for me I am a gun responsibility guy. Not a gun rights guy.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, I think you are using your perspective as a cop. My needs are different. I don't need to create space to gain compliance. If I can create distance, I'm gonna beat feet outta there. I am not there to engage, I am seeking to disengage. If I can do that by running away, I'm gone. If I cannot retreat and I belive my life is in immediate danger, I draw. If I draw, I fire, because that's how I was trained. If I have to to draw, make space, think about firing, then I should not have drawn, because unlike your job, I don't have to arrest the dude and I'm not going to try.
> 
> Soldiers and LEOs have to take on life-threatening risk to do their jobs. Their response is and should be different than mine. I won't incur additional risk to try to avoid having to use a firearm as you must do. If I draw, it's because my life is about to end, I am in mortal danger. In such a circumstance, I will fire; that is predetermined and an imperative.
> 
> I respect and thank you for what you do. But it is not my job. Self-defense has only one imperative, to survive. There are no caveats on that.



Why is it being someone's job that makes the difference?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Correct. So for me I am a gun responsibility guy. Not a gun rights guy.


fair enough.  There are many here that don't see a difference


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, I think you are using your perspective as a cop. My needs are different. I don't need to create space to gain compliance. If I can create distance, I'm gonna beat feet outta there. I am not there to engage, I am seeking to disengage. If I can do that by running away, I'm gone. If I cannot retreat and I belive my life is in immediate danger, I draw. If I draw, I fire, because that's how I was trained. If I have to to draw, make space, think about firing, then I should not have drawn, because unlike your job, I don't have to arrest the dude and I'm not going to try.
> 
> Soldiers and LEOs have to take on life-threatening risk to do their jobs. Their response is and should be different than mine. I won't incur additional risk to try to avoid having to use a firearm as you must do. If I draw, it's because my life is about to end, I am in mortal danger. In such a circumstance, I will fire; that is predetermined and an imperative.
> 
> I respect and thank you for what you do. But it is not my job. Self-defense has only one imperative, to survive. There are no caveats on that.


I think that scenario is just a poor example to make my point. My point being you can draw a weapon and not need to shoot and that's a viable option for self defense.  For example your driving to the store and accident cut someone off.   They get pissed and start following you but you don't realize it.  You get to the store and park.  They pull up and the guy starts yelling.  He walks to his trunk and grabs a baseball bat.  Says I'm going to crush your skull.  He's still 20 feet away.  You draw your weapon he stops drops the bat and get back,in his car.  You defended yourself and never fired as shot.  Where as if he continues towards you with the bat then yes drop him.  So every situation is different.  To say if I have to draw my gun I will shoot it paints yourself into a box and you might get yourself in some trouble with that mindset.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

If he's not in range to kill me, I'm not justified in using lethal force, so I don't draw. On the other hand, if he's rushing at me, 20 feet can be covered in a second or so, in which case I am in danger and I'm foolish to draw and wait. If I'm in immediate danger, I draw and fire. If not, I don't draw or fire.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If he's not in range to kill me, I'm not justified in using lethal force, so I don't draw. On the other hand, if he's rushing at me, 20 feet can be covered in a second or so, in which case I am in danger and I'm foolish to draw and wait. If I'm in immediate danger, I draw and fire. If not, I don't draw or fire.


I think not only are you justified to draw in that scenario before he's in range you would be a fool not to.  If drawing will prevent me  from taking a life I'll draw in a heart beat.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I think not only are you justified to draw in that scenario before he's in range you would be a fool not to.  If drawing will prevent me  from taking a life I'll draw in a heart beat.



Brandishing is a crime, depending on the circumstances. I won't do it in any case. If my weapon clears leather, I'm in deadly peril and it gets fired.

But you touch on what I mentioned before. Assume I draw and instead of causing him to back down, he becomes enraged and draws his gat. Now I have a real problem.

My weapon is not a nonlethal self defense tool. That's what my common sense, my art of persuasion, my fleetness of foot, and my fists are for, in that order. My gun is for use in gravest extreme only, to defend my life by taking someone else's. It is not a yield sign, it is a stop sign. There's no 'or else' if I have to draw it, we are past that point.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Brandishing is a crime, depending on the circumstances. I won't do it in any case. If my weapon clears leather, I'm in deadly peril and it gets fired.


Yes but in my scenario he made a threat and took steps to carry out the threat thats an assault here.  You are well within your rights to defend yourself you dont need to wait until the last second to start defending yourself.


> But you touch on what I mentioned before. Assume I draw and instead of causing him to back down, he becomes enraged and draws his gat. Now I have a real problem.


well your weapon isalready out I hope your a better shot since you already have the advantage.  2ndly he was already going to try and kill you does it matter how?


> My weapon is not a nonlethal self defense tool.


nor should you treat it like one.  If I draw I have every intent to use it but that doesnt mean I alway will.  


> That's what my common sense, my art of persuasion, my fleetness of foot, and my fists are for, in that order. My gun is for use in gravest extreme only, to defend my life by taking someone else's. It is not a yield sign, it is a stop sign. There's no 'or else' if I have to draw it, we are past that point.


I disagree I think your putting yourself at a great disadvantage by not drawing sooner and allowing the other person a chance to rethink what they are doing.  Sometimes you can't or you dont have time other times Id give it a try the worst thing that can happen is I still need to shoot but I was going to anyway so...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 1, 2015)

No, I am imperiling myself by giving him time to try to even the odds. My goal is not s fair fight, it's me surviving. Drawing a weapon is not a deescalation tool if you are not a cop.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 1, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Drawing a weapon is not a deescalation tool if you are not a cop.


No its not but it tends to be very effective no matter who draws it.

Im not saying your wrong but I will never wait to the last moment to draw.  At that point there is too much margin for error.  If I miss he got me, If my clothes get tanggled in my holster and it slows down my draw hes got me,  Too many bad things can happen waiting too long.  I will always error on the side of draw first.  I can alway put ot away if I dont need it any longer.  

Now dont get me wrong Im not sayin I gun face everyone that calls me a bad name or looks at me funny.  But if I preceve a real threat is coming Im not waiting.  Some dude says Im going to bash my skull and opens his trunk Im drawing down before he even gets the bat out of the trunk.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> fair enough.  There are many here that don't see a difference



Generally i am against both dides on that debate. Lucky i am not confrontational.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> No its not but it tends to be very effective no matter who draws it.
> 
> Im not saying your wrong but I will never wait to the last moment to draw.



No, but you'll wait until the last moment to fire; apparently even to the point of allowing the bad guy to arm himself with a firearm before you pull the trigger.



> At that point there is too much margin for error.  If I miss he got me, If my clothes get tanggled in my holster and it slows down my draw hes got me,  Too many bad things can happen waiting too long.  I will always error on the side of draw first.  I can alway put ot away if I dont need it any longer.



I never said I'd wait until the last moment.  I said I would not draw my weapon unless I was in immediate danger of losing my life and I had no other recourse, such as running away.  I said that *if* those conditions were met, I would draw and then fire without hesitation.

The difference between our philosophies appears to boil down to the fact that you would draw first, but hold fire until you felt it was absolutely necessary.  I would not draw unless I felt it was absolutely necessary, but then would fire without waiting.



> Now dont get me wrong Im not sayin I gun face everyone that calls me a bad name or looks at me funny.  But if I preceve a real threat is coming Im not waiting.  Some dude says Im going to bash my skull and opens his trunk Im drawing down before he even gets the bat out of the trunk.



You changed the parameters.  If a guy says he is going to bash my skull and opens his trunk, I don't know what he's going to pull out of there; a bat or a gun.  At that point, a 'reasonable man' would agree, I believe, that I'm in mortal danger and authorized to defend myself with lethal force.  Nevertheless, if I could remove myself from danger by fleeing, I'd do that instead.

I will give you this - if in your scenario above, the dude threatens to kill me, then opens his trunk and I draw my weapon, if he comes up with a club before I can squeeze off a shot, I'm probably not going to fire at that point; he has now made it clear that at least for the moment he is not an immediate threat to my life.  Given those specific circumstances, I'd be obligated to hold fire.  If he ducked back under the trunk lid, then it's game on again, because I don't know what he's doing under there.  If he charges me, again, game on; now he's an immediate threat to my life.

The last element is one I keep mentioning; we have different jobs.  In your scenario above, you are obligated not to run away, but to confront the guy digging in his trunk for something to kill you with.  I am not going to confront or attempt to subdue this guy.  I am going to try to disengage entirely, run away, depart, vamoose, amscray.  I don't wear a badge anymore.  Since you have to stay and deal with el whackadoo, you have to use a different set of skills, which I recognize.  I do not.  If I can leave, I'm gone.  If I cannot leave and he advances on my with the stick or whatever, he gets what happens next.  I'm under no obligation to use the least amount of force necessary to effect an arrest and I can't afford to play that game with my life.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 2, 2015)

What happens if you draw and the other guy runs or surrenders? Certainly, if you can safely retreat you should do so, but I don't think that precludes drawing your weapon as well. Many things can happen between clearing leather and depressing the trigger.  

I understand the philosophy of CCW's only drawing when they will need to shoot, but IMO that's somewhat different from "I will wait to draw till I HAVE to shoot".  

Most CCW classes I have seen teach that you draw only when you are "preparing" to protect yourself from a reasonably perceived deadly threat. Which is subtly different from only drawing when you are going to fire.


----------



## Buka (Dec 2, 2015)

I think one of the biggest tactical problems the average citizen has is their limited range time usually consists of target shooting and very little drawing of their weapon from wherever they carry it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2015)

Tgace said:


> What happens if you draw and the other guy runs or surrenders? Certainly, if you can safely retreat you should do so, but I don't think that precludes drawing your weapon as well. Many things can happen between clearing leather and depressing the trigger.



Yes, and if he does any of those things, if I can stop myself from firing in that split second, of course I would.

The difference is subtle, but let me try to explain.

For some, the approach to engaging a weapon is:
1) Draw
2) Think about it, or give the attacker a moment to comply with instructions, back down, disengage, etc.
3) Fire if #2 fails.

My approach is:
1) Draw and fire.

As I mentioned previously, my approach to this is legalistic, moral, and operational.

Legalistic because if you yourself define a 'wait' moment in your own response to a deadly threat, then any attorney worth their salt is going to pounce on that.  If you can wait one second, why not two?  If you had time to wait, then were you really in life-threatening danger?  Etc.  I'm not going to open myself to those kinds of questions, ex post facto.  Once I determine my life is in danger such that a reasonable man would agree I was entitled to use deadly force, I draw and fire.  That is my stated standard.   That is how I train.  I will avoid engaging as long as possible, but if I do engage, there is no hesitation; there cannot be.

Moral because as mentioned above, if I truly do have time to think about things, then I am not in life-threatening danger, or alternatively, I'm foolish because I am delaying defending myself and putting myself in additional, unneeded danger.  There is a moral notion about 'fair play' ingrained in the American psyche, based I suppose on Western quick-draw movies, but it's a false one.  Unlike a movie western, the goal is merely to survive.  By running away if possible.  By avoiding getting into those kinds of confrontations if possible.   Anything up to the point where death is immanent.  But then it is survival.  No fair play, no moment of reflection for good guy and bad guy.  Bad guy made his choices; and if it was a poor one, he's potentially going to pay for that with his life.



> I understand the philosophy of CCW's only drawing when they will need to shoot, but IMO that's somewhat different from "I will wait to draw till I HAVE to shoot".



Again, this goes to my philosophy that when you draw a weapon, you change the dynamics of the situation immediately and irrevocably.  It may,  as stated, cause the bad guy to back down.  It may not.  But no matter what happens after that, now that a firearm has been introduced - by either party - the situation has become hugely more serious.  If it was not actually life-and-death, now it definitely is.

To draw a firearm is to announce intent to kill.  I do not have any intent to kill unless I am reasonably in fear that I am about to be killed.  In that case, and that case only, I will draw my weapon.  Presuming things have gotten to that point, my training is that the very next thing that happens is that I aim and fire.



> Most CCW classes I have seen teach that you draw only when you are "preparing" to protect yourself from a reasonably perceived deadly threat. Which is subtly different from only drawing when you are going to fire.



Subtle, yes.  But I perceive that response as incorrect.

This also gets to the heart of something I have said before, which I firmly believe.  Unlike any other self-defense weapon a person might choose to carry, a firearm is essentially different.  It is not a close-range melee weapon that can only injure up close and personal.  When I introduce a firearm to a self-defense situation, or the bad guy does, the dynamic of the confrontation immediately changes, and permanently so.  First, it's now a deadly-force situation no matter how you look at it.  With empty hands or a weapon other than a firearm it COULD be a deadly force situation, but it's not a given.  With a firearm, there is no longer any doubt as to what kind of situation it is.  Second, if the bad guy produces a firearm, he is now a deadly threat to me, from nearly any distance away.  If he produces a baseball bat from 50 feet away, he's not a deadly threat to me - yet.  He would have to get close enough to have the means to use it, or to take an action indicating that he was going to do that, like coming towards me in a threatening manner with it.  With a firearm, his mere display of it puts me in reasonable fear of my life.  And the same goes when I brandish a firearm at him.  Although he is presumably breaking the law and not entitled to defend himself legally, the appearance of my firearm is going to inform him the same thing it informs me - that this is now a deadly confrontation.  How he reacts, I cannot predict.  But I did give him a heads up - and I'm not planning to do that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 2, 2015)

Actually to draw and giving the attacker a second or two to change his mind in my opinion will help you legally.  If I can honestly say I presented my firearm to the suspect and told him to stop and even with a gun pointed at him he still charged at me I had no choice he was going to kill me he didn't even care I had a gun.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2015)

Buka said:


> I think one of the biggest tactical problems the average citizen has is their limited range time usually consists of target shooting and very little drawing of their weapon from wherever they carry it.



Practical shoot-don't-shoot training, drawing the weapon, engaging in low-light conditions, etc, etc.  Too many news stories about people shooting family members in the dark, through a door, etc.  While some may be thinly-disguised actual murder attempts instead of 'self-defense', it is clear to me that many people don't understand that you have to see and identify your target to shoot at it, or that you can't chase a guy who broke into your garden shed down the street, shooting at him as you run after him in your underwear.

Alleged burglar shot while trying to steal hubcaps in NW Houston


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Actually to draw and giving the attacker a second or two to change his mind in my opinion will help you legally.  If I can honestly say I presented my firearm to the suspect and told him to stop and even with a gun pointed at him he still charged at me I had no choice he was going to kill me he didn't even care I had a gun.



"The threat was so immediate, I didn't have time to offer the attacker a moment to surrender, nor was I trained to do that."


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 2, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> "The threat was so immediate, I didn't have time to offer the attacker a moment to surrender, nor was I trained to do that."


which will be twisted to the victim was going to get into a simple fist fight and without warning out of nowhere Mr Mattocks pulled out a,hidden high capacity clipped assult ghost pistol  and fired in cold blood.  No warning no chance for the victim to give up


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> which will be twisted to the victim was going to get into a simple fist fight and without warning out of nowhere Mr Mattocks pulled out a,hidden high capacity clipped assult ghost pistol  and fired in cold blood.  No warning no chance for the victim to give up



Was the 'reasonable man' standard met?  Case dismissed.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 2, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Was the 'reasonable man' standard met?  Case dismissed.


in a perfect world perhaps.  A Jury is a funny thing


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> in a perfect world perhaps.  A Jury is a funny thing



I do not believe it would get to that point for a criminal trial.  It should not even be prosecuted as a crime, although nothing can stop a civil trial attorney from bringing up all those questions.

But I believe those questions get raised regardless.  If you gave him a second to reflect before firing, you'll be asked why not two seconds?  If you gave a warning, why did you not give two warnings, or three?  If you had time to pause, why didn't you have time to aim for his legs or shoot the gun out of his hand?  And so on and so forth.

My response is 'no time'.  As demonstrated by the fact that I drew and fired without pause.  I had no time to do anything else, the need to defend my life was immediate.  Relatives of the deceased will always claim I could have done some other thing rather than shoot their loved one directly in the chest.  Lawyers will always try to suppose ridiculous scenarios to a jury.  It's up to my defense attorney to beat those nonsensical arguments down.  Was the standard met?  Was Mr. Mattocks in deadly peril?  So why are we here?


----------



## Tgace (Dec 2, 2015)

I think that presenting self defense situations as EITHER draw and fire OR withdraw is a false dichotomy. I can envision several scenarios where I would (as a CCW) be legally justified in drawing while retreating. 

If someone confronts me with a knife outside of "Tueller Range" I am certainly gonna leave the area. But that doesn't mean that I have to be behind the curve with a holstered weapon while I do so.....


----------



## Tgace (Dec 2, 2015)

Any defensive situation is about articulation vs pedantic IF/THEN rules....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 2, 2015)

Tgace said:


> Any defensive situation is about articulation vs pedantic IF/THEN rules....



Which is why my decision tree is ingrained in my training.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 2, 2015)

Just to keep the conversation going...not that I recommend doing it or even considering it as a training issue.....

Citizens Arrest.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Which is why my decision tree is ingrained in my training.



What I don't understand is why you are forcing a situation where you have to make a snap judgement. My experience with violence is if at all possible you want to create time and space to make reasoned decisions.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 3, 2015)

OK. So this one.

Pair rescues 80-year-old woman from burning car

Risk could be justified more easily here.


----------

