Domestic Assault in Public: A Case Study

[Steve]

Quotes are often out of context so I took a look at the context that it may have been said in. Here's some of the context.
When Ghandi made quotes about Cowards, was he speaking in the context of India being independent of British Rule or was he talking about him approaching a guy abusing his girlfriend? It matters greatly in the context that one may define someone as being a coward.

Both. He actually speaks specifically about both. I really think you should do some more research into the context, and then give some more time to thinking about the relevance that his comments and thoughts have on this discussion. I agree that context matters, and given the context of his philosophy on cowardice, non-violence, bravery, and personal safety and accountability vs the common good, his words are very relevant. If you don't see that, I encourage you to do a little more than a quick google search.

This is similarly true with MLK Jr. Choosing a path of non-violence is bravery at great personal risk, not cowardice.

You're literally suggesting that a person should do a personal risk/reward evaluation prior to taking any action.

"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents."

 

[Deleted member 39746]

You still maximize safety. Maximizing safety doesn't always mean 100% safety. The modern firefighter's equipment provides more safety than the guys from 1800. The safer these guys are when doing their job the better they will be able to do their jobs and the more people they will be able to save and the more fires they will be able to put out.

Fireman Safety Maximization from the 1800

View attachment 27160


Modern Fireman Safety Maximization - This allows them to go into places that the 1800 guys couldn't reach

View attachment 27161

Maximum Safety of Bomb squad what it used to be.- Might as well give this guy a bowl and a spatula.
View attachment 27164

Safety maximization for today's bomb squad.

View attachment 27162

View attachment 27163

Future bomb squad robots will probably be a version of the Atlas robot. As they are able to go places that today's robots can't go.

I knew i should have included this in the orignal, but we may have been operating under diffrent defintiion sof "maximising safety", as to me those changes are largely driven by the times and technology avalible and present and standards of them changing.

Not fully related but intresting tid bit, i dont know to what extent, but the rollout for breathing apertus would have been due to lots of things in modern structures burning toxic, from at least when electrics became common, wood doesnt burn toxic. Id imagine old fire fighters would follow the rule of thumb wild fire duties have, in that you cycle people out due to slowly suffociating themselves from the smoke. (they used to wear really thick woolen garb to protect from heat) Cant say the extent for civil duties, but i 100% can say, the royal navy rolled out Breathing apertus for PPE due to the elctronics and plastics on ships burning toxic, and enough people dying from inhilation of it. Unless i butcher how smoke kills, as long as you get a sufficent amount of oxygen back in you before X peroid of exposure, you should be fine. (to an extent) That is as i say, non toxic smoke.

And the issue with EoD isnt normally where the machine and person can go, its that you cant do the safest option all the time. (that being blow it up/shoot out its detantor portion or something) I need to look into that one, machines cant really do complicated disarms and are used for probing pretty much, as well as transporting a charge over and closer controlled detonations. (there is a weird, sort of bomb disarming breeching charge thing that they can be mouted to, i think it serves a similar purpose to a person shooting a device with a rifle, its to try and shoot what ever the bit that detonates the main explosive off, without detonating it)

Wonderful, as usual i remmeber some important details after i finish writing the main piece. As far as i understand explsoives, you need a catalyst to set off the main charge, disarming is usually removing the catalyst that sets off the main charge, or just detonating the thing at a safe lcoation/making the location safe to detonate it. thats as far as my explosives knowledge goes for EoD, or in general. Way better wording than "they shoot the thingy that makes the bigger thingy go kaboom".

Not really arguing just semi intresting tid bits. (well i find them intresting) Heat exuastion is a issue in both the EoD suits and fire suits, especially for fire as you are directly exposed to heat. Which some people may overlook.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You're literally suggesting that a person should do a personal risk/reward evaluation prior to taking any action.

Not only themselves, but of the situation that they face. It happens all the time.

Your personal safety is directly tied into your ability to help someone. The moment you are incapacitated is the exact moment you'll no longer be able to help. It happens all the times with hostage situations and cops arriving on the scene of domestic abuse.

Am I the only one that understand this approach?

 

[Steve]

Not only themselves, but of the situation that they face. It happens all the time.

Your personal safety is directly tied into your ability to help someone. The moment you are incapacitated is the exact moment you'll no longer be able to help. It happens all the times with hostage situations and cops arriving on the scene of domestic abuse.

Am I the only one that understand this approach?

Okay. So, you're saying the issue here is that the 20 year old, papa john's delivery guy's mistake was that he didn't use his training in the Edmond Way domestic call protocol?

 

[CB Jones]

When Ghandi made quotes about Cowards, was he speaking in the context of India being independent of British Rule or was he talking about him approaching a guy abusing his girlfriend? It matters greatly in the context that one may define someone as being a coward.

Gandhi Jayanti: Why non-violent Mahatma Gandhi preferred violence to cowardice

 

[drop bear]

Okay. So, you're saying the issue here is that the 20 year old, papa john's delivery guy's mistake was that he didn't use his training in the Edmond Way domestic call protocol?

Hindsight suggests he did the wrong thing.

I mean papa John guy could have if knowing the outcome taken his own gun, stuck up on the guy and killed him.

Or knowing girlfriend wasn't going to get shot or beaten to death. Backed off and called the cops.

The issue is how do you proceed when you don't know the outcome before hand.

 

[Anarax]

For what it's worth, there are some evil dudes in the world, but most of those tweakers are victims. They do bad things and need to be accountable for those things.

It's unfortunate how severe the homeless situation has become in the US. I agree, regardless how tough your life as been no one is exempt from accountability.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Gandhi Jayanti: Why non-violent Mahatma Gandhi preferred violence to cowardice

Thanks. I appreciate the time you took to get that. I'll definitely read up on it.

 

[CB Jones]

In the end, everyone has to make the decision for themselves...and take responsibility for the consequences and repercussions of those decisions.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Gandhi Jayanti: Why non-violent Mahatma Gandhi preferred violence to cowardice

The article was confusing because some of the things that were said were said by a lawyer and not Ghandi. So I added the full quote below.


Full Quote:
"My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes. Non-violence is the summit of bravery. And in my own experience, I have had no difficulty in demonstrating to men trained in the school of violence the superiority of non-violence. As a coward, which I was for years, I harboured violence. I began to prize non-violence only when I began to shed cowardice. Those Hindus who ran away from the post of duty when it was attended with danger did so not because they were non-violent, or because they were afraid to strike, but because they were unwilling to die or even suffer an injury. A rabbit that runs away from the bull terrier is not particularly non-violent. The poor thing trembles at the sight of the terrier and runs for very life. (YI, 28-5-1924, p178) "

So to me it seems like he's talking about people who he considers close friends and family. I only say this because he uses the phrase "Dear ones." Usually when people say that phrase they are referring to family and close friends. People in general do that use the phrase "Dear ones." to reference strangers. But then he contradicts himself and says that Non-Violence is superior to violence. So what I'm thinking is that If Ghandi is your brother then he won't leave you in a fight, but he also won't fight back because nonviolence is superior to violence.

He also mentions that he was a coward because he harboured violence. Which is strange because he said that he rather choose violence than cowardice, But then states that he was a coward for choosing violence.

"hose Hindus who ran away from the post of duty when it was attended with danger did so not because they were non-violent, or because they were afraid to strike, but because they were unwilling to die or even suffer an injury."
I think I understand this part. Being non-violent means someone on your side is going to get their butts kicked. The duty that he's probably referring to was the duty to allow another to physically beat you. You must not run away from the beating, but you must take the beating. We see this same mindset in the civil rights marches in the U.S. The unwilling to die or even suffer an injury comment is interesting because of the video below. When he was asked if he was willing to die for what he believed in, he hesitated and then said that it was a bad question. It's at the end of the video.

I don't think he would apply this to coming to the defense of a woman being beaten by an abusive man. I think his quote is more in line with someone fighting for a greater cause such as India's independence from British rule.







Source: The Gospel of Non-violence | Mind of Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Steve]

I think what you're struggling with is the idea that in order to choose non-violence, one must have courage. You're missing the forest for the trees.

There is additional information online. Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution

And there are other things around, if you look. It's a pretty deep well, and my recommendation is to read it to understand it in general. If you read it only looking for things relevant to this thread, you risk missing the entire point. One thing to consider, though, is that he speaks mostly about individual actions and individual choices, and how those add up to collective behavior.

 

[CB Jones]

Logic is the last refuge of a coward - Clive Barker

I think this is a great qoute.

I believe often times we look for logic to justify and excuse cowardly actions.

Instead of just being honest with ourselves that we lacked the self confidence to act or were too afraid to act. We come up with excuses or assumptions of why it was smarter not to. It's a cowardly logic.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think these are great quotes

It is a good thing to learn caution from the misfortunes of others. ~ Publilius Syrus
Caution comes too late when we are in the midst of evils. ~ Sir Walter Scott

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exactly. If my wife or daughter was getting smacked around in the parking lot, they're still coming home tonight.

You hope. That's the problem with your assertions here. You've decided the beating isn't lethal, but the intevention is likely not going to end well.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes! If she's in a relationship with a dude who's a straight up thug, she's likely a Jezebel herself. I was thinking that the whole time but didn't want to say it earlier, because I don't want to be accused of victim-blaming. But many of these women out here are more than willing to throw hands with a man. I don't know why, because they're not going to win, yet they do it anyway.

And now we get to the victim blaming. Well done.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm fairly certain that if my wife knew her attacker to carry a gun and be more than willing to use it, she'd likely feel a deep sense of guilt over that person's death if she didn't warn them.

Treating yourself as expendable as not a noble thing. I don't understand why people think it is.

Please don't ever call the cops because you think there's something dangerous going on.

 

[dvcochran]

I think what you're struggling with is the idea that in order to choose non-violence, one must have courage. You're missing the forest for the trees.

There is additional information online. Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution

And there are other things around, if you look. It's a pretty deep well, and my recommendation is to read it to understand it in general. If you read it only looking for things relevant to this thread, you risk missing the entire point. One thing to consider, though, is that he speaks mostly about individual actions and individual choices, and how those add up to collective behavior.

I think we have a little pot and kettle going on here.

 

[dvcochran]

You hope. That's the problem with your assertions here. You've decided the beating isn't lethal, but the intevention is likely not going to end well.

Agree. It is easy to say on a forum "I would handle an encounter in X manner". It is a whole different thing when you are in the moment and have to assess things in a matter of seconds.

 

[Steve]

I think we have a little pot and kettle going on here.

Do tell.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I think what you're struggling with is the idea that in order to choose non-violence, one must have courage. You're missing the forest for the trees.

There is additional information online. Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution

And there are other things around, if you look. It's a pretty deep well, and my recommendation is to read it to understand it in general. If you read it only looking for things relevant to this thread, you risk missing the entire point. One thing to consider, though, is that he speaks mostly about individual actions and individual choices, and how those add up to collective behavior.

Pacifisms weird. Now i dont really know **** about Ghandi, but as far as i recall the release of india as a colony/terrtiory was the threat of rebbelion, international community threats and the promise of releasing it after WW2. its also sort of odd, if you realise if the Indians didint fight in WW2, their land would have just been occupied by japan. Say what you want but if you have no sticks, and a group of people has all the sticks, the group of people with the ticks tends to have final say. Pacifists are always protected by non pacifists or are nihilists if they take it to the no violence under any cirucmstances level.

(and this is going off the sterytype ghandi/cultrual myth ghandi, not the real ghandi)

As for the link, i have no idea what that website is, is it acredited and trust worthy as the source being "from the mind of ghandi" implies he wrote it, right there and then. Its not really a soruce unless you can prove he wrote it somehwere.