Curl Up In A Ball....

[arnisador]

Let's look at the police chief's full quote rather than the out-of-context quote in the article from the original post. Here's the source that was given in the quoted article:
World War II veteran, 88, 'who was randomly beaten to death by two teens only died because he tried to defend himself'

‘Our information is that the individual fought back and that may have made this, you know, a worse situation,’ said Spokane Police Chief Frank Straub in a Monday press conference.

Straub was quick to maintain Belton’s innocence in the matter.

‘I'm not being critical of Mr. Belton,’ he clarified. ‘We certainly encourage individuals to fight back, and he should have. But it shouldn't have happened to begin with.’

The Doug Giles article that started this thread quoted only the first sentence here and omitted the remainder. So, Frank Straub encourages people to fight back but in general and thought it was the right idea in this particular case but acknowledges that that sometimes isn't a successful strategy, and people are throwing a fit about it?!? The article is just typical right-wing hysteria, carefully edited to obtain outrage.

 

[Tgace]

'Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!' - Jeff Cooper, 1993

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[arnisador]

That's just what the police chief said ("We certainly encourage individuals to fight back, and he should have.")--what's the beef, I continue to ask?

 

[arnisador]

A great example where fighting back (combined with luck) was a successful strategy:
Pregnant Woman Wards Off Kidnapper

around 11:30 p.m. Thursday night [while this pregnant woman was taking a walk] “He grabbed me. I fought and I just screamed about my baby, because he was hurting my stomach,” [she] said.

As she was struggling to get away, [she] said a driver passed by and she believes that scared the attacker away.

This is a case where the police chief's advice--"We certainly encourage individuals to fight back"--was solid. It sounds as though she isn't sure she could've escaped on her own, but she bought time and unwanted (by the assailant) attention that let the good luck of a passing car help her out. Given the statistics on what happens to those abducted into cars, in my opinion it always makes sense to resist someone who is attempting to drive you to a remote area. Knowing about those statistics and the outcomes seen in practice is one reason I do look to the police for general advice on what to do in the case of a criminal assault. Of course, some of that advice is meant to be liability-lowering for them and you do have to sort that out.

Of course, even successful self-defense incidents can leave their mark:

“I used to come outside. Now, I’m on a porch, scared. I just want him caught. I don’t want this to happen to anybody else,” [she] added

 

[Argus]

Reading through this thread has made me consider a few points that I hadn't before, actually.

It occurs to me that perhaps I expect aggressors to act more logically than is safe to bet on. The story about senselessly shooting a clerk at a convenience store robbery after being handed the money, for example, makes no sense at all, and isn't something that I'd ever expect to happen really. I suppose if someone is going so far as to rob you at gun-point, you can't expect them to necessarily act sensibly.

Also, several people have illustrated a point that I hadn't thought of much until now; that if you do choose to comply, use that opportunity. Don't just hand over your wallet and expect them to go away; throw the thing and high tail it out of there. It's pretty common sense I suppose, but maybe not something that a lot have people have taken the time to consider.

 

[MJS]

Then there was that horror story of the two men who raped and a mother and two daughters and set their house on fire killing them...the father was bound and beat with a hammer but survived. The criminals said that if the father had faught when they first entered the home they likely would have fled...they are *******s and liars of course....

I also don't know if I support the whole "you have to evaluate the situation" meme either. You have a split second to "evaluate"....a guy with a gun demanding your wallet? Yes...give it up. Two guys pushing you around? Trying to "evaluate" only pushes you into down the OODA loop without taking action.

In the end I think my issue with THIS case is a police chief manking ANY statement about defending oneself.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Yup, the Cheshire, Ct home invasion. Both of those animals are on death row. As for the comment they made about fleeing if the father fought back...I raise the BS flag on that. They ambushed the guy while he was sleeping and hit him with a baseball bat. They're full of ****.

 

[MJS]

I disagree in two ways: First, I should be able to turn to the law enforcement establishment for evidence-based advice on what happens in actual, not theoretical, conflicts. And don't police often give self-defense talks--to kids, women's groups, seniors?

And while they do give 'advice' they also have to be careful of what they say. I don't give advice on the phone. Why? Because it can, it has, and will, bite you in the ***! In case you haven't noticed, in todays world, nobody wants to take responsibility or blame for their own actions. Instead, they look for someone else to pawn it off on. For example: If someone calls to report a fire in their house and I tell them to get everyone out, and in the process, the person dies, you can bet a surviving family member will blame ME for telling them to get everyone out. "Well, if the dispatcher didn't tell my son to go back into the burning house, he'd still be alive today!" Now, in case you're wondering, yes I've taken those types of calls, and choose my words very carefully, as far as telling them what to do. "If its safe to do so" is much better than saying, "YES, get them out!!!"

The bottom line here, is simply...if the cops tell someone to fight back...period...imagine what'll happen when people do and die? The majority of the time, we hear the same thing..."While what the clerk did was very brave, we don't advise people to fight back, but instead, comply and give the bad guy what he wants. It's not worth your life."

Second, looking at the actual text of what this police said about this case: ‘Our information is that the individual fought back and that may have made this, you know, a worse situation,’ said Spokane Police Chief Frank Straub. He seems to me to be making a factual statement about a single case that is being read by others as general advice, and I think that's unfair. He gave no advice; he stated that they believed in this one case, fighting back aggravated the situation. Unless you believe that resistance can never make a bad situation worse, then I don't see what the basis is for jumping on him--especially since he knows more about what happened than we do at this point.

You didn't expect him to actually say "Yes, fighting back was the cause", do you? And out of curiosity, I wonder how the Chief knows the old man fought back. The old man either fought back or he didn't...what's the deal with the 'might have' comments? I mean, if they're going to put out info, why not put this out? Fighting or not fighting back, isn't detrimental to the case, as far as sensitive info goes.

This is important advice for all martial artists, and I certainly do it and discuss it in class.

And this I agree with. IMHO, it's something that's often neglected in many schools.

 

[MJS]

Let's look at the police chief's full quote rather than the out-of-context quote in the article from the original post. Here's the source that was given in the quoted article:
World War II veteran, 88, 'who was randomly beaten to death by two teens only died because he tried to defend himself'



The Doug Giles article that started this thread quoted only the first sentence here and omitted the remainder. So, Frank Straub encourages people to fight back but in general and thought it was the right idea in this particular case but acknowledges that that sometimes isn't a successful strategy, and people are throwing a fit about it?!? The article is just typical right-wing hysteria, carefully edited to obtain outrage.

Right wing? LOL! Don't lump me into the right, the left or anything in between please. Fact is, there're numerous articles about this, so I wouldn't put all my eggs into one article.

 

[arnisador]

The majority of the time, we hear the same thing..."While what the clerk did was very brave, we don't advise people to fight back, but instead, comply and give the bad guy what he wants. It's not worth your life."

Yes, as I said, I know that liability concerns play a role here. But the point that was made was that police should not give advice at all on these matters, and as a citizen that is not what I want.

 

[arnisador]

Fact is, there're numerous articles about this, so I wouldn't put all my eggs into one article.

I'm not following you here. I was referring to the Doug Giles article that you quoted to start the thread, which selectively quoted what Doug Giles gave as his source in order to create a false impression. The police chief said "fight back" not "don't fight back". This is information straight from the article you were using--shouldn't we be discussing it? My point is that that article was misleading and that the whole point of the thread--that the chief gave don't fight back/blame the victim advice--is completely wrong.

 

[MJS]

Yes, as I said, I know that liability concerns play a role here. But the point that was made was that police should not give advice at all on these matters, and as a citizen that is not what I want.

Will they give advice? Sure. Should they? Sure. When dealing with things of this subject, will be typically hear the same thing? Yes. Anyone is free to do as they choose, as long as they understand the potential consequences. With all the heat that the cops usually take, mainly from the armchair QBs in the world, do you really think they wouldn't be careful?

 

[MJS]

I'm not following you here. I was referring to the Doug Giles article that you quoted to start the thread, which selectively quoted what Doug Giles gave as his source in order to create a false impression. The police chief said "fight back" not "don't fight back". This is information straight from the article you were using--shouldn't we be discussing it? My point is that that article was misleading and that the whole point of the thread--that the chief gave don't fight back/blame the victim advice--is completely wrong.

Yup, and then you posted another link, stating that it was in the full context of what the chief said, rather than the out of context article, which I assume you're talking about the one I posted. My point was simply: We can watch 3 different news stations, and read articles in 3 different papers, but it's fairly safe to say that we'll get different versions in each.

In the article I posted, he hinted that perhaps the old man was killed was because he fought back. In the link you posted, he stated that he encourages people to fight. How is this info from what I posted?

To recap...why point of this article was to discuss whether or not we should fight back. I went on to say that more often than not, we'll hear the police discourage fighting back.

 

[arnisador]

In the article I posted, he hinted that perhaps the old man was killed was because he fought back. In the link you posted, he stated that he encourages people to fight. How is this info from what I posted?

It's from what you posted.

You posted this link to an opinion piece:
http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/screw...ath-on-fighting-back-says-no-racism-involved/

The 88-year-old World War II veteran who was randomly beaten to death Wednesday likely died because he tried to fend off his attackers.

Two teenage boys are charged in the bloody beating of Delbert Belton outside a Spokane, Washington ice skating rink and investigators are now suggesting the soldier—who took a bullet in the Battle of Okinawa—tried to stop the apparent robbery.

Police say that enraged the teens and turned their petty theft into full-blown murder as they continued to beat him into submission with ‘big, heavy flashlights.’

‘Our information is that the individual fought back and that may have made this, you know, a worse situation,’ said Spokane Police Chief Frank Straub in a Monday press conference.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk
​

Note the Daily Mail link, where your writer gives the source from which he is quoting. It's the only line from his article that you did not quote here on MT. I followed that link from the article you posted to read more about the story on which the opinion piece was commenting. At that link it says:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-died-tried-defend-himself.html#ixzz2dB4nHEfW

The 88-year-old World War II veteran who was randomly beaten to death Wednesday likely died because he tried to fend off his attackers.

Two teenage boys are charged in the bloody beating of Delbert Belton outside a Spokane, Washington ice skating rink and investigators are now suggesting the soldier—who took a bullet in the Battle of Okinawa—tried to stop the apparent robbery.

Police say that enraged the teens and turned their petty theft into full-blown murder as they continued to beat him into submission with ‘big, heavy flashlights.’

‘Our information is that the individual fought back and that may have made this, you know, a worse situation,’ said Spokane Police Chief Frank Straub in a Monday press conference.

Straub was quick to maintain Belton’s innocence in the matter.

‘I'm not being critical of Mr. Belton,’ he clarified. ‘We certainly encourage individuals to fight back, and he should have. But it shouldn't have happened to begin with.’

This was the source used by the article you posted. But the article you posted omitted the last two paragraphs above in order to create the false impression that the police chief was saying don't fight back/it's your fault when, if you read his whole statement, he actually said do fight back/it's not your fault.

This isn't a different source--it's the source your article claims to have used. It's just that the author you quoted selectively quoted from it so as to misrepresent the chief's views. We're watching the same station, but I watched the whole show.

Given this, do you still disagree with the police chief?

 

[MJS]

It's from what you posted.

You posted this link to an opinion piece:
http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/screw...ath-on-fighting-back-says-no-racism-involved/



Note the Daily Mail link, where your writer gives the source from which he is quoting. It's the only line from his article that you did not quote here on MT. I followed that link from the article you posted to read more about the story on which the opinion piece was commenting. At that link it says:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-died-tried-defend-himself.html#ixzz2dB4nHEfW



This was the source used by the article you posted. But the article you posted omitted the last two paragraphs above in order to create the false impression that the police chief was saying don't fight back/it's your fault when, if you read his whole statement, he actually said do fight back/it's not your fault.

This isn't a different source--it's the source your article claims to have used. It's just that the author you quoted selectively quoted from it so as to misrepresent the chief's views. We're watching the same station, but I watched the whole show.

Given this, do you still disagree with the police chief?

To be honest, I didn't even click on the 2nd link. As you know, there are often many links on 1 story. For example, I was just reading on msnbc, an article about Ariel Castro. At the bottom of the page, there were a few other links under the heading "Related". The Chief hinted that fighting back was the cause of the beating, which is no doubt what led to the other article. Of course, it almost sounds like he's contradicting himself, when he goes on to say that the very thing that may've been the cause of the old mans death, is the very thing that we should do.

 

[arnisador]

To be honest, I didn't even click on the 2nd link.

It was the only link in the article--and it's a good idea to do a little fact-checking if you're going to quote Doug Giles, whose brag page includes these references:
http://clashdaily.com/about-doug-giles/

“Doug Giles must be some kind of a great guy if CNN wants to impugn him.”
- Rush Limbaugh


“Doug Giles is a substantive and funny force for traditional values.”
- Ann Coulter, best-selling author


“Doug Giles speaks the truth … he’s a societal watchdog … a funny bastard.”
- Ted Nugent, rock icon


“Doug is funny and insightful. Giles is always spot-on with his analysis and so incredibly hilarious, as well. Whether you’re 15 or 50, if you love God and America, Doug Giles is for you!”
- Jason Mattera, NYT best-selling author of Obama Zombies and Editor-in-Chief, Human Events


“Doug is a raucous and rowdy mix of old-school, traditional conservative values with the kind of eff-you attitude folks like Ted Nugent have made millions on. He’s one part rebellious rock star, one part crusading missionary, and another part rough rider.”
- S. E. Cupp, NYT best-selling author of Why You’re Wrong About The Right and Host of The S. E. Cupp Show on GBTV.com

Of course, it almost sounds like he's contradicting himself, when he goes on to say that the very thing that may've been the cause of the old mans death, is the very thing that we should do.

This has been the point from the beginning and I still don't get it--unless you think fighting back is 100% successful, it could be good advice to fight back but still fail at times. When they say "Never draw to an inside straight" they don't mean you cannot make the straight--just that it's not a good bet. In principle you could invade Russia in the winter and win. The chief said you should fight back--which everyone here seems to largely agree with--but that in this one case it may have made matters worse rather than better. What is contradictory about that?

The chief said people should fight back and people castigated him for not saying people should fight back, and now are apparently blaming him for thinking it's not a foolproof strategy.

 

[MJS]

This has been the point from the beginning and I still don't get it--unless you think fighting back is 100% successful, it could be good advice to fight back but still fail at times. When they say "Never draw to an inside straight" they don't mean you cannot make the straight--just that it's not a good bet. In principle you could invade Russia in the winter and win. The chief said you should fight back--which everyone here seems to largely agree with--but that in this one case it may have made matters worse rather than better. What is contradictory about that?

The chief said people should fight back and people castigated him for not saying people should fight back, and now are apparently blaming him for thinking it's not a foolproof strategy.

Nevermind....it's no longer worth replying to.