Criminals will kill if you fight back

[MJS]

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

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

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

 

[Cyriacus]

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

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

I think you know what my opinion on that is.

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

Let's review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Lesson Five: Know how to shoot your damned weapon. If you carry, you'd damned well better be proficient, or you're a damned menace to everyone.

* Lesson Six: Learn to recognize when the situation changes. There is no 'one rule' regarding armed robbery. Different situations require different responses, and as the situation changes, so do the appropriate responses.

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

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

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

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

Let's explore what MIGHT have happened.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Instructor]

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

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

 

[elder999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MJS]

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

LMAO!! QFT!!!!!

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

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

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

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

Can't disagree with anything here!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Instructor]

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

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

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

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