Criminals will kill if you fight back

[David43515]

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

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

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

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

 

[WC_lun]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mook jong man]

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

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

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

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

 

[shesulsa]

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

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

 

[Instructor]

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

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

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

It was an inner-city assault in which the victim gave it back as good as he got it.

The man and a thug suspected of assaulting him in an attempted street robbery are in hospital after the attack early Friday in Winnipeg's West Broadway area.

The 29-year-old male victim remained in critical condition with a stab wound early Saturday, while the 18-year-old male alleged assailant had also been critical before his condition was upgraded to stable.

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

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

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

Two males demanded a third man's wallet overnight, but were foiled when the victim fought back.

Colorado Springs Police say the 53-year-old victim was approached on the 4000 block of Ruskin Way around 12:53 a.m. The victim told officers he was walking out to his car when the two suspects demanded his wallet.

The man refused, and was hit in the face. Still, the victim continued to fight back and eventually the two would-be robbers left empty-handed. The two ran away westbound on Ruskin Way.

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

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

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

RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) - -

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

The teen was walking home from the bus stop, just a block long walk and a cut through an alley. But a man was there, and attacked her.

"He grabs her by the back of the neck and then he has her at gunpoint. She said she tried to scream. He covered her mouth," said Chimere Smith, the victim's mother.

Smith tells us the suspect walked her daughter down the alley, even loaded a gun in front of the teen to scare her. She says the man threatened her daughter, telling her if she told anyone he would kill her.

"He has her at gunpoint, he tells her to lay down on the ground. He's sucking all over her neck, and fiddling with her private area," Smith said, describing what happened.

But the teen was a survivor. She fought back against her attackers and escaped. Her home is on the other side of the alley.

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

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

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

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

Until it's too late.

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

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

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



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




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


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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

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

 

[Buka]

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

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MA-Caver]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David43515]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

 

[WC_lun]

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

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

 

[Jason Striker II]

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


Comments?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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


Comments?

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

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

I think you know what my opinion on that is.