enough is enough

[MJS]

I don't really. You offered your input, and I offered mine, and we differed, which led to a discussion. I have no reason to care how you react to a threat, other than to hope that if anything like that should happen, you would not be hurt.

Ok.

I have tried to explain it, but I think I must be doing a poor job. But I've been giving it a lot of thought about how I could more properly explain it.

What if I were facing a dangerous critter rather than a human being?

I am out walking through the park at night, and I come around a thicket, and there in my path is a dangerous critter. I recognize immediately that it has the ability to injure or kill human beings and it appears that the dangerous critter is not going to retreat or get out of my way. Instead, it makes threatening noises and advances on me.

I am already at risk of serious injury or death. The amount of risk I am incurring is unknown, but it more than zero.

Now, I have several choices. I could attack the dangerous critter before it can attack me. Or I can retreat.

Let's say that I have a gun with me, and no easy escape route. Plus, I am pretty sure the dangerous critter can outrun me and will give chase if I run. That's not from statistics on dangerous critters, it is just an assessment I have made in that moment, like anyone would. So I draw my gun and shoot that critter right between the running lights.

Now let's say I have no gun, but I am reasonably sure that the critter cannot run as fast as I can, so I turn tail and take off like an Olympic sprinter, given extra speed by my fear. The dangerous critter is unhappy, but is unable to keep up with me, and so I escape.

Now let's say I have no gun, and I'm not sure if I can outrun the critter, and yes, it can climb trees too. But I happen to be carrying a doggy-bag from a nice restaurant with me, and I know the dangerous critter eats nice restaurant food. So I toss the bag to the critter and wait to see if it will take the food and ignore me, or if what it really wants to do is eat me instead. If it takes the food, I'm out of there. If it does not, and retreat is not an option in my opinion, then I have to steel myself and attack the creature and hope that I can prevail. But I know that the chances are high that win or lose, I'm going to get hurt.

Why am I referring to a dangerous critter and not a human being?

Because I wanted to remove notions that seem to be irrelevant to a logical decision-making process. Those notions are what I have termed 'macho' and what you have termed 'cowardly'.

There is no cowardice in fleeing from a dangerous animal that can't catch you, nor is there machismo in attacking a dangerous animal when you believe you have no choice but to fight. They are just logical results of a rational decision-making process.

Why do I think my way is 'right'? Mainly because by choosing the response that I believe is lower-risk for my health and life, I am not giving up the option of attacking, so at the very least, I've delayed the moment that I will have to attack or defend myself physically. The moment I engage in violent struggle, my risks go up.

What is different between us? I see it as where we draw the line over what we will not do in order to lower the risk to ourselves. I will hand over my wallet. You won't. I will run away, you won't.

You don't simply say you won't do those things because you don't think they'll work, or you don't think they'll be safer responses, but because you see them (in your words) as cowardly, groveling, pleading, praying, and hoping. Those are emotionally-charged words that tell the tale - you hold those sorts of actions in disdain. That's not a logical response, it's an emotional response. Hence, my statement that I believe you hold your machismo in higher regard than your safety. it's not unusual, but I don't, for whatever reason, have that gene.

If your threat was a dangerous critter instead of a human being, you would not consider climbing a nearby tree as 'cowardly', but if it was a bad guy, you would see it as cowardly, and therefore would not do it. I see them as basically the same thing, and ignore my feelings about my self-esteem to do what I think is most likely to save my life.

And that is the difference I see between us.

Points taken. Regarding being a coward...I guess my main difference is this: We're faced with the guy in the bar who wants to knock our head into the middle of next week for looking at his girl. I can a) apologize profusely and really give him the impression, whether we are really sincere or not, that we are extremely sorry for what we did, we 'act' like we couldn't defend ourselves out of a paperbag, even if we really can, in a nutshell, we do whatever it takes to talk our way out. He accepts this, walks away, thinking we're a whimp, but we survived with doing nothing more than talking. Then we have B. Our tone, our confidence, is up there, we're sure of ourselves. I'm telling him that I'm sorry that he thinks that I was looking at his girl, even if I really was, but at the same time, I'm calm, I'm talking to him in a normal tone. I tell him the next round is on me. He can sit down with me and still think I'm a chicken, I dont care. I still didn't fight, I only spoke. Only difference is how I spoke.

When I was working in the prison, I was constantly outnumbered. When it was time to lock up, of course these guys would take their time, so I'd have to walk down the hall, 17/1, get them in the cell and lock their doors. I'd have guys tell me that they weren't going to. I'd be lying if I said the thought of being outnumbered wasn't going thru my head. But I didn't beg and plead with them to lock up. I was calm, sure of myself, and told them that that was what I needed them to do. I'd get the "Yeah, you're lucky I did it this time, cuz next time you wont be so lucky and I'll kick your ***." comments, but that was ok. I got them to do what I wanted.

Can we apply this to real life? I think so, and I dont see why we shouldn't. But thats me. Regarding handing over my cash, keys, etc. We mentioned gambling with our lives in another post. While we are both taking a gamble, I don't want to gamble on whether or not the guy will take my stuff and leave. Maybe he will, but what if he doesn't? Either way I have to fight, but I see what you're saying...why fight if you dont have to? Maybe I'll get my car back in one piece, maybe he just needed a ride and felt he had to steal a car to get it. Maybe the car will be stripped and burned to a crisp. Either way I still have my life, although I'll have more headaches now that I have to replace it. If I'm sparring in class, and I see a huge opening for a sidekick, why not take it? Instead, I wait a few seconds, and now that opening is gone, but there are no other openings. Maybe the sparring example is a bad one to use, but my point was, I'd rather take the chance to defend sooner than later.

Maybe as I'm getting into my car, I could hand the guy my keys and then run for the hills. But maybe I have my wife with me, my mother or grandmother, none of which, other than my wife, would stand a chance to run, and my wife is no track star, so I can't leave her behind. So now, I'm complying, I want to get the hell away, but can't. I look at this situation as what I would do if I were alone. Do I want to comply and stand there, seeing what happens next or comply and get the hell away? No matter how we look at it, the situation stinks.

As to why I respond to you and not everyone else in this thread, it's probably because you are responding to me and we're having a discussion. The other comments I've read are along the lines of 'BS' or 'Fricken A, d00d.' I really can't comment on those sorts of statements. You're intelligent and therefore we can sharpen our swords on each other's logic. I certainly bear you no ill will.

Thank you, and likewise it is an interesting debate with you.

 

[MJS]

It's not about a pair of shoes or a bike or anything else for that matter, it's about the fighting back.

If you get mugged, what are the chances this guy will be caught? 1 out of 10 or maybe 1 out of 20? When do we fight back? Oh let's just wait for the next guy, I'll comply, but maybe the next guy is willing to sacrifice a little to try and stop this. That to me makes about as much sense as not voting, yet crying about political issues you don't like.

And this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.

Well, that was my thinking as well.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Points taken. Regarding being a coward...I guess my main difference is this: We're faced with the guy in the bar who wants to knock our head into the middle of next week for looking at his girl. I can a) apologize profusely and really give him the impression, whether we are really sincere or not, that we are extremely sorry for what we did, we 'act' like we couldn't defend ourselves out of a paperbag, even if we really can, in a nutshell, we do whatever it takes to talk our way out. He accepts this, walks away, thinking we're a whimp, but we survived with doing nothing more than talking. Then we have B. Our tone, our confidence, is up there, we're sure of ourselves. I'm telling him that I'm sorry that he thinks that I was looking at his girl, even if I really was, but at the same time, I'm calm, I'm talking to him in a normal tone. I tell him the next round is on me. He can sit down with me and still think I'm a chicken, I dont care. I still didn't fight, I only spoke. Only difference is how I spoke.

My experience is not that different from yours here, but when I wore a badge and had to deal with bar fights or disturbances, there wasn't a great need for me to know much about the psychology of the guys I was dealing with. We went in to stop the disturbance, and if we had to break heads to do it, oh well.

As a civilian, I don't spend much time in bars, but I have spent a lot of time around drunks whilst being sober myself. I have what I believe is some understanding of the basic psychology of the belligerent drunk, and I find I can generally defuse a situation by giving the drunk what he wants - overt respect of his 'authority' or 'power'.

I understand your way, but I feel it depends upon the drunk recognizing that his own safety is in danger because you do not behave as 'prey'. I am not that certain that seriously drunk people are capable of recognizing the danger you pose to them, or that they can withstand the peer pressure of their drunk compadres egging them on (and when isn't that true?).

By appearing to kowtow, by being overly and overtly humble and submissive, I give the belligerent drunk what he is demanding - respect due to a superior being. I do not think he is superior, nor do I necessarily think he can whup my butt in a fight (even novice sober fighters can often destroy drunken brawlers). But I can (I believe) avoid having him even cock his fist back at me by appearing to knuckle under to his authority. This pleases the drunk, and makes him look like a big man to his drunken buddies. And I leave with them all seeing me as a coward and a wimp, but without having had to fight, in which I might be injured or killed.

If I lived in a closed society, where I could not escape the stigma of being seen as a victim, coward, or wimp, my response would be different. In such a society, my place in the pecking order is very important to my long-term well-being. In a bar (and I'm not really a 'bar' person anymore), not so much. My standing is only social and only for the time I'm there. So everyone at the bar thinks I'm a wimp and a coward. OK with me!

When I was working in the prison, I was constantly outnumbered. When it was time to lock up, of course these guys would take their time, so I'd have to walk down the hall, 17/1, get them in the cell and lock their doors. I'd have guys tell me that they weren't going to. I'd be lying if I said the thought of being outnumbered wasn't going thru my head. But I didn't beg and plead with them to lock up. I was calm, sure of myself, and told them that that was what I needed them to do. I'd get the "Yeah, you're lucky I did it this time, cuz next time you wont be so lucky and I'll kick your ***." comments, but that was ok. I got them to do what I wanted.

Can we apply this to real life? I think so, and I dont see why we shouldn't. But thats me. Regarding handing over my cash, keys, etc. We mentioned gambling with our lives in another post. While we are both taking a gamble, I don't want to gamble on whether or not the guy will take my stuff and leave. Maybe he will, but what if he doesn't? Either way I have to fight, but I see what you're saying...why fight if you dont have to? Maybe I'll get my car back in one piece, maybe he just needed a ride and felt he had to steal a car to get it. Maybe the car will be stripped and burned to a crisp. Either way I still have my life, although I'll have more headaches now that I have to replace it. If I'm sparring in class, and I see a huge opening for a sidekick, why not take it? Instead, I wait a few seconds, and now that opening is gone, but there are no other openings. Maybe the sparring example is a bad one to use, but my point was, I'd rather take the chance to defend sooner than later.

Maybe as I'm getting into my car, I could hand the guy my keys and then run for the hills. But maybe I have my wife with me, my mother or grandmother, none of which, other than my wife, would stand a chance to run, and my wife is no track star, so I can't leave her behind. So now, I'm complying, I want to get the hell away, but can't. I look at this situation as what I would do if I were alone. Do I want to comply and stand there, seeing what happens next or comply and get the hell away? No matter how we look at it, the situation stinks.

I totally see where you are coming from. I have not worked detention, but I get it.

I think I am taking my understanding of 'best response' based on what I have experienced, and you are taking yours from what you have experienced.

In my experience, bad guys are not surrounded by and locked into a forced society where they are constantly being evaluated by their peers, and where perceived weakness will get them killed (prisoners). In that environment, it would make perfect sense to respond as you do - because weakness or perceived weakness will get exploited, and you'll lose control. Also, as we've discussed before, as a CO, you have a responsibility that overrides your own personal priorities (remaining uninjured and unkilled).

In my experience, with bad guys on the street, they are not brave people unless in a crowd of their own kind. They are worried, nervous, and freaked out. They are keenly aware of their environment and they generally have an instinctive understanding that every moment spent doing the crime increases the chances they'll be caught. They want to get what they want and leave.

They might be stoned, drunk, or stupid (or all three), but they are generally not in a peer-pressure situation where they have to perform in a specified way to gain or maintain stature. A gang situation might be different, and I would react differently if confronted in that manner. I would see a fight as inevietable and attack with everything I had immediately, most likely.

In the situation I described yesterday - I was coming home from dojo and a young tough blocked my way on the stairwell of my apartment building - I had to make some decisions.

First, I noted that he was with his girlfriend. This to me made the situation more dangerous for me. He would be required not to back down, or his girlfriend would lose respect for him. So whatever happened, if we started doing verbal posturing and posing, it would escalate to violence, since he would not be allowed by the situation to back down.

Second, I noticed that he was skinny, had a serious smoker's cough, and was pock-marked with acne scars. He was also covered in bling, and I live on the outskirts of a bad area of Detroit. I figured I could take him if it came to that - hell, I'd knock him through a wall with my size alone. So I knew I could win if I had to fight.

Third, I am not a member of the social community of the people who live in the apartment complex. I come and go, and people see me and I see them, but I don't associate with them or party with them, etc. My family lives in NC for now, so I'm here alone. I have little to worry about with regard to follow-on harrassment or loss of face or status in the community.

Given all that, I decided that the best way for me to deal with this situation was to hand the guy a win. I lowered my eyes. That's a cue that the brain picks up on subconciously - it indicates submission. I edged to one side and made a show of it - I was 'bowing and scraping' from that point of view. I apologized and asked if I could get by - that's 'begging' from that point of view.

This made him a big man in the eyes of his girlfriend, and it was a huge win for him. He could afford to step aside and let me pass, because he had already won and he knew it. I was a big old guy in a karate uniform and I had given him respect in the form of submission. He probably had a chubby from it.

This cost me nothing. And it kept me from having to explain to the police why I knocked him down three flights of stairs and then back up again. It also kept me from being hurt when his girlfriend pulled out a shiv and stuck me in the back whilst I pummelled her zit-faced creep boyfriend. And this guy will not be gathering up his pals and seeking revenge against that 'old dude' who thinks he's Rambo. It's over, he won.

If he had NOT let me pass, then I may have chosen to blast him. But I did not lose that option by trying the 'submission' route. And in so doing, I gave myself a better chance (my opinion) of not being injured.

This is what I mean when I say that I will cower, back down, and otherwise run away from a fight if I feel I can. This costs me nothing - unless I decide that my ego or my self-image cannot tolerate the concept of doing it. And I realize that some people just cannot do this. And I do not mean 'ego' like it is a bad thing. I mean it like I understand that it is part of who we are, and some people cannot bring themselves to subvert it for the sake of remaining out of a fight.

I still have the option of fighting if the guy decides to do something else. If he blocks my way again, I may respond differently. But it depends on what I think the safest approach for me is at that time.

Law enforcement types are generally 'Type A' personalities. They seek thrills and adventure, and they live on adrenalin. I was a borderline Type A for a long time, but I've come to realize that's not really me. I'm much more a Type B sort of person. I have no desire to live on the edge, and I tend to be analytical and pre-think situations. Knowing that an attacker has a goal, and that if he gets that goal he is likely (but not guaranteed) to go away, provides me with the information I need to make a (I hope) rational decision about how to respond.

 

[shaolinmonkmark]

Quote:

" When I was working in the prison, I was constantly outnumbered. When it was time to lock up, of course these guys would take their time, so I'd have to walk down the hall, 17/1, get them in the cell and lock their doors. I'd have guys tell me that they weren't going to. I'd be lying if I said the thought of being outnumbered wasn't going thru my head. But I didn't beg and plead with them to lock up. I was calm, sure of myself, and told them that that was what I needed them to do. I'd get the "Yeah, you're lucky I did it this time, cuz next time you wont be so lucky and I'll kick your ***." comments, but that was ok. I got them to do what I wanted. "



i have a friend who works in Vegas prison, and once every 6 weeks, they practice the "Fetal-cover up-defense position"
While 4 of his buddies pound the crap out of him for 5 minutes, as he is on the ground, and cannot get up !!!
LOL( yeah, they like to "take it" and "Give it" type"!)

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not about a pair of shoes or a bike or anything else for that matter, it's about the fighting back.

If you get mugged, what are the chances this guy will be caught? 1 out of 10 or maybe 1 out of 20? When do we fight back? Oh let's just wait for the next guy, I'll comply, but maybe the next guy is willing to sacrifice a little to try and stop this. That to me makes about as much sense as not voting, yet crying about political issues you don't like.

And this is my point, if more people decided to get involved and not be sheep, then maybe we might make a difference.

I don't fault you for your logic, but I note that this is 'social responsibility' and not strictly self-defense.

As an example, people who are concerned about the environment might make choices that do not benefit themselves directly, or which even impose hardships on themselves - because they feel a responsibility to the planet which overrides their personal needs.

When it comes to 'standing up' to bad guys, I do understand that all of society incurs greater risk when bad guys think that they have free reign to do as they please, and that no one will stand up to them. I also understand that if everyone did refuse to knuckle under or give up their valuables, etc, crime would most likely drop in the long term, as criminals would realize that people just refused to be victims anymore.

However, I take a more pragmatic and selfish view when it comes to self-defense. I have done my bit for God and Country, in the military and as a civilian in law enforcement. Whilst I still feel a responsibility to my country and my society, I also feel a strong responsibility to my wife and family. I owe them a debt to - to remain alive and continue to provide for them. And of course, I selfishly want to keep breathing too.

So my response when faced with an attacker is based not on what good it will do society, but on what good it will do me and my family. My scurrying away from a confrontation or my giving up my wallet to an armed thug might do society no good, but it does me a great deal of good.

I realize that's not an easy thing to admit, but I'm honest with myself. I place my needs over those of society at this point in my life.

 

[elder999]

The problem is that the above is not a true statement. It's only rhetoric. In all the muggings and carjackings and etcetera that take place in the USA, only a tiny fraction result in the murder of the victim. It is therefore not 'likely' at all to happen.

That does not mean that a person can assume they will NOT be injured during such an encounter, but it does mean that they cannot assume they WILL be injured or killed.

While your use of statistics is admirable, it's not quite strategic.

An application of game theory pretty clearly shows that in almost all situations, the best way to guarantee some control of the situation is to respond with force. Granted, it can be somewhere along the response continuum, dependent upon the situation, but one can't base a conjecture on another person's behavior on statistical averages and norms-one has to assume the worst, and be prepared to counter the worst.

If someone breaks into my house, and I'm home-they get one warning:Get out of my house, or I will shoot you.And I will. In fact, in that situation the warning was more in case I knew the person in question-like my then teenage son.

If I'm mugged, I'll resist-I may feign compliance as an initial tactic, depending on the situation, but I'm going to resist.

THis isn't bravado, or for the good of society-it's what's good for me, strategically. It's my best way of ensuring that I'm in control of the outcome in most situations. Doesn't necessarily mean it'll turn out the way I want it to, but it does mean I won't be herded into the freezer with everyone else in the restaurant and executed, like these people were,either.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

While your use of statistics is admirable, it's not quite strategic.

An application of game theory pretty clearly shows that in almost all situations, the best way to guarantee some control of the situation is to respond with force. Granted, it can be somewhere along the response continuum, dependent upon the situation, but one can't base a conjecture on another person's behavior on statistical averages and norms-one has to assume the worst, and be prepared to counter the worst.

If one is being strategic, then one must also be able to make an assessment of the capabilities of their opponent and also be brutally honest with themselves.

If one feels that they might not be able to dominate the situation physically, then other tactics are called for. If one feels they might not be able to outrun the adversary, then other tactics are called for.

In addition, one must be able to strategically look at the overall situation. Does the terrain favor you or the adversary? Are there avenues of escape available? Weapons of opportunity? Nearby people liable to be friends or additional foes?

If someone breaks into my house, and I'm home-they get one warning:Get out of my house, or I will shoot you.And I will. In fact, in that situation the warning was more in case I knew the person in question-like my then teenage son.

I agree. But the situation is radically different, too. In my home, I have the advantage in terrain - I know the layout. I know where to take cover and where I can fire from. I will be armed. I know if my way is blocked to known escape routes. I know how far I am from the central alarm keypad and where my dogs are. Etc. I don't see a home invasion as a situation where retreat is generally advisable, although in the case of multiple invaders, a safe room to fight from is not a bad thing to have.

If I'm mugged, I'll resist-I may feign compliance as an initial tactic, depending on the situation, but I'm going to resist.

I just don't have any hard-and-fast answers regarding what I will do. Depending upon the circumstances, I may fight, I may flee, I may comply with the mugger's demands. I am, as I've said before, not a master of the martial arts, and my abilities at subduing drunks and quelling fights and arresting a-holes is nearly twenty years and 30 pounds ago. I'll fight if I feel that the situation calls for it, but I will base that on my assessment of the situation at that time, and change my response if conditions change.

THis isn't bravado, or for the good of society-it's what's good for me, strategically. It's my best way of ensuring that I'm in control of the outcome in most situations. Doesn't necessarily mean it'll turn out the way I want it to, but it does mean I won't be herded into the freezer with everyone else in the restaurant and executed, like these people were,either.

And you should know that I've never recommended either allowing oneself to be herded into a back room or always surrendering. Nor have I said that once one has chosen a course of action, one must adhere to it. Situations change, responses change with them.

A while ago, in another thread, I posted the link to the story about the retired Marine who was eating at a local Subway at night and the store was robbed. The two robbers demanded his wallet and he gave it to them, although he was armed. He was prepared to take no further action, but they tried to herd the employees and customers into the back room, and at that point, he drew his weapon and fired, killing one and severely wounding the other. I cited that as a classic 'good shoot' in which he understood the statistics, continuously analyzed the situation, and adapted his response to the changing threat level he felt existed. It was a thing of beauty.

When choosing the path of responding with violence, two things happen. First, the odds that someone is going to be seriously hurt or killed go up exponentially; and two, chances are the previous options (compliance, running away, etc) are now removed from the table. That's why I view it as a last resort. I may use violent resistance first, but I will have already decided that other methods won't work.

 

[MJS]

My experience is not that different from yours here, but when I wore a badge and had to deal with bar fights or disturbances, there wasn't a great need for me to know much about the psychology of the guys I was dealing with. We went in to stop the disturbance, and if we had to break heads to do it, oh well.

I was applying this to the outside world not in a LEO capacity. But I do see your point.

As a civilian, I don't spend much time in bars, but I have spent a lot of time around drunks whilst being sober myself. I have what I believe is some understanding of the basic psychology of the belligerent drunk, and I find I can generally defuse a situation by giving the drunk what he wants - overt respect of his 'authority' or 'power'.

I understand your way, but I feel it depends upon the drunk recognizing that his own safety is in danger because you do not behave as 'prey'. I am not that certain that seriously drunk people are capable of recognizing the danger you pose to them, or that they can withstand the peer pressure of their drunk compadres egging them on (and when isn't that true?).

By appearing to kowtow, by being overly and overtly humble and submissive, I give the belligerent drunk what he is demanding - respect due to a superior being. I do not think he is superior, nor do I necessarily think he can whup my butt in a fight (even novice sober fighters can often destroy drunken brawlers). But I can (I believe) avoid having him even cock his fist back at me by appearing to knuckle under to his authority. This pleases the drunk, and makes him look like a big man to his drunken buddies. And I leave with them all seeing me as a coward and a wimp, but without having had to fight, in which I might be injured or killed.

If I lived in a closed society, where I could not escape the stigma of being seen as a victim, coward, or wimp, my response would be different. In such a society, my place in the pecking order is very important to my long-term well-being. In a bar (and I'm not really a 'bar' person anymore), not so much. My standing is only social and only for the time I'm there. So everyone at the bar thinks I'm a wimp and a coward. OK with me!

Likewise, I don't frequent bars or clubs. If I do, I try to make sure at least one of the people I'm with is capable of taking my back, should the need arise. Of course, I think that depending on the person in question, appearing weak or kowtowing, etc., may continue to give them more fuel to keep up their beligerant tone. Now, if I take my route, that may piss him off too, but from past experience, its seemed to have worked so far, so...

I totally see where you are coming from. I have not worked detention, but I get it.

Its certainly not for everyone, and there were more than a few days when I was thinking, "WTF am I doing?!?!?!" LOL! I'm happy with what I do now, and I only have to deal with the jerks on the phone, not in person. LOL!

I think I am taking my understanding of 'best response' based on what I have experienced, and you are taking yours from what you have experienced.

In my experience, bad guys are not surrounded by and locked into a forced society where they are constantly being evaluated by their peers, and where perceived weakness will get them killed (prisoners). In that environment, it would make perfect sense to respond as you do - because weakness or perceived weakness will get exploited, and you'll lose control. Also, as we've discussed before, as a CO, you have a responsibility that overrides your own personal priorities (remaining uninjured and unkilled).

In my experience, with bad guys on the street, they are not brave people unless in a crowd of their own kind. They are worried, nervous, and freaked out. They are keenly aware of their environment and they generally have an instinctive understanding that every moment spent doing the crime increases the chances they'll be caught. They want to get what they want and leave.

They might be stoned, drunk, or stupid (or all three), but they are generally not in a peer-pressure situation where they have to perform in a specified way to gain or maintain stature. A gang situation might be different, and I would react differently if confronted in that manner. I would see a fight as inevietable and attack with everything I had immediately, most likely.

I dont know, I'd say there are some pretty ballsy punks on the street, that even when alone, still put up a fight.

In the situation I described yesterday - I was coming home from dojo and a young tough blocked my way on the stairwell of my apartment building - I had to make some decisions.

First, I noted that he was with his girlfriend. This to me made the situation more dangerous for me. He would be required not to back down, or his girlfriend would lose respect for him. So whatever happened, if we started doing verbal posturing and posing, it would escalate to violence, since he would not be allowed by the situation to back down.

Second, I noticed that he was skinny, had a serious smoker's cough, and was pock-marked with acne scars. He was also covered in bling, and I live on the outskirts of a bad area of Detroit. I figured I could take him if it came to that - hell, I'd knock him through a wall with my size alone. So I knew I could win if I had to fight.

Third, I am not a member of the social community of the people who live in the apartment complex. I come and go, and people see me and I see them, but I don't associate with them or party with them, etc. My family lives in NC for now, so I'm here alone. I have little to worry about with regard to follow-on harrassment or loss of face or status in the community.

Given all that, I decided that the best way for me to deal with this situation was to hand the guy a win. I lowered my eyes. That's a cue that the brain picks up on subconciously - it indicates submission. I edged to one side and made a show of it - I was 'bowing and scraping' from that point of view. I apologized and asked if I could get by - that's 'begging' from that point of view.

This made him a big man in the eyes of his girlfriend, and it was a huge win for him. He could afford to step aside and let me pass, because he had already won and he knew it. I was a big old guy in a karate uniform and I had given him respect in the form of submission. He probably had a chubby from it.

This cost me nothing. And it kept me from having to explain to the police why I knocked him down three flights of stairs and then back up again. It also kept me from being hurt when his girlfriend pulled out a shiv and stuck me in the back whilst I pummelled her zit-faced creep boyfriend. And this guy will not be gathering up his pals and seeking revenge against that 'old dude' who thinks he's Rambo. It's over, he won.

If he had NOT let me pass, then I may have chosen to blast him. But I did not lose that option by trying the 'submission' route. And in so doing, I gave myself a better chance (my opinion) of not being injured.

This is what I mean when I say that I will cower, back down, and otherwise run away from a fight if I feel I can. This costs me nothing - unless I decide that my ego or my self-image cannot tolerate the concept of doing it. And I realize that some people just cannot do this. And I do not mean 'ego' like it is a bad thing. I mean it like I understand that it is part of who we are, and some people cannot bring themselves to subvert it for the sake of remaining out of a fight.

I still have the option of fighting if the guy decides to do something else. If he blocks my way again, I may respond differently. But it depends on what I think the safest approach for me is at that time.

Law enforcement types are generally 'Type A' personalities. They seek thrills and adventure, and they live on adrenalin. I was a borderline Type A for a long time, but I've come to realize that's not really me. I'm much more a Type B sort of person. I have no desire to live on the edge, and I tend to be analytical and pre-think situations. Knowing that an attacker has a goal, and that if he gets that goal he is likely (but not guaranteed) to go away, provides me with the information I need to make a (I hope) rational decision about how to respond.

To expand on your situation in comparison to what happened to me....this guy was also skinny in build, he was with another male, and appeared to be younger. I probably didn't have to look at him as he continued to pass, but I did, as I thought I knew him, so I didn't take anything I did, as bad. He apparently didn't like me looking at him. Maybe I should've winked and blew him a kiss...that would've feaked him out. LOL! Seriously though....maybe instead of me continuing to stand there, looked like a challenge. I could have simply replied, "Nope, no problem man" and kept walking.

If I had to wager a bet, this kid is your typical punk. He gets off on bullying people. I crossed paths with him, he took offense and felt that he had to bully me. What this kid fails to see, and probably never will see, if the fact that there may come a day when he faces someone that is not intimidated. He had that day when I just stood there. I didn't posture up, swear or do anything that would be offensive IMO.

Lets look at this in another situation...what if there were a group of punks hanging near the exit/entrance doors to the local mall. I could find another door to walk out or I could walk out that door, as its closer to where my car is parked. Should I get half way out the door, see them and turn around? Should I keep walking out that door? IMO, that is what they want...to have someone feel intimidated and find another means of exit. I say, **** them. Why should I let some 14yo piece of ****, dictate how I leave the mall?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Lets look at this in another situation...what if there were a group of punks hanging near the exit/entrance doors to the local mall. I could find another door to walk out or I could walk out that door, as its closer to where my car is parked. Should I get half way out the door, see them and turn around? Should I keep walking out that door? IMO, that is what they want...to have someone feel intimidated and find another means of exit. I say, **** them. Why should I let some 14yo piece of ****, dictate how I leave the mall?

Since you asked 'why should I', I'll reply!

You should not have to - that goes without saying. It is most galling to have punks like that have any control over your life. And of course, they are craving confrontation, or they would not be blocking the exits.

I have been in similar situations in malls, and if as you say, I've already committed myself by walking out the first set of doors, I'll generally keep to my path and shoulder my way through the punks, albeit without making comments except "Excuse me, guys, coming through."

If I knew they were there before they saw me coming out the doors, I might well take another exit, depending on how much it inconvenienced me.

The reason I would do that addresses your question of "Why should I have to ..." You should not have to, but you know what? Not everything is under our control. I should not have to give up my wallet to a punk with a gun, but I can't control when a punk with a gun is going to demand it, and if given the choice, I'd prefer to give it up than to die fighting for it. You're talking about principles. I'm talking about self-defense. I don't like giving in to punks, but I'm a pragmatist. Some things are more important to me than my principles sometimes.

 

[MJS]

Since you asked 'why should I', I'll reply!

You should not have to - that goes without saying. It is most galling to have punks like that have any control over your life. And of course, they are craving confrontation, or they would not be blocking the exits.

I have been in similar situations in malls, and if as you say, I've already committed myself by walking out the first set of doors, I'll generally keep to my path and shoulder my way through the punks, albeit without making comments except "Excuse me, guys, coming through."

If I knew they were there before they saw me coming out the doors, I might well take another exit, depending on how much it inconvenienced me.

I think this goes back to what just2kicku was saying about if more people just went out the door, rather than finding another way, maybe the intimidation that these people thrive on, would diminish. Likewise, I would not say anything or if I did, it'd be just what you said...a simple, "Excuse me" and keep walking.

The reason I would do that addresses your question of "Why should I have to ..." You should not have to, but you know what? Not everything is under our control. I should not have to give up my wallet to a punk with a gun, but I can't control when a punk with a gun is going to demand it, and if given the choice, I'd prefer to give it up than to die fighting for it. You're talking about principles. I'm talking about self-defense. I don't like giving in to punks, but I'm a pragmatist. Some things are more important to me than my principles sometimes.

I know what I'm going to say is something we've already talked about, but I gotta say it again....even if I give up my possessions I may very well die anyways. I have a 50-50 chance...I may walk away if I hand it over, I may not. Likewise, I may survive or not if I choose to fight back right away. I would rather do what Elder said...feign compliance and then fight back, during that brief moment that he's distracted.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I know what I'm going to say is something we've already talked about, but I gotta say it again....even if I give up my possessions I may very well die anyways. I have a 50-50 chance...I may walk away if I hand it over, I may not. Likewise, I may survive or not if I choose to fight back right away. I would rather do what Elder said...feign compliance and then fight back, during that brief moment that he's distracted.

I disagree on the '50-50' chance, but otherwise, I think we've pretty much beat this thing to death, don't you?

I would ask that as a mental exercise, consider how often you use the term 'why should I have to' as a reason to do or not do something.

I have three sisters, and growing up, two of them constantly fought. One of them asked me to help them settle it, and when we got to talking, it was clear that neither of them *wanted* to stop fighting. One would say something snotty, and instead of ignoring it, the other would say something snotty back. The reason was always the same, "Why should I have to put up with that?" Well, you shouldn't have to, sis. But if you want to stop fighting with each other, you have to anyway.

Then I heard it again for years and years dealing with domestic disturbances. Hubbie and Wife could not stop fighting - and always the same. Neither one could let go, neither one could just NOT RESPOND when the other provoked, saying "Why should I have to?" And oh my God it was not just one domestic, it was over and over and over again until you want to puke.

If you are ever in the mood, just think about that term sometime. To me, the use of it implies a person willing to cut off their nose to spite their face - willing to do the thing least likely to result in their own safety, because they don't feel they 'should have to' back down.

Well nobody should 'have to' put up with crap. But I personally don't want to have to explain to St Peter that the reason I'm dead is because I refused to put up with some drunken idiot with a gun demanding my wallet, and decided to take a poke at him instead - because I 'shouldn't have to put up with it.'

 

[elder999]

If one is being strategic, then one must also be able to make an assessment of the capabilities of their opponent and also be brutally honest with themselves.

If one feels that they might not be able to dominate the situation physically, then other tactics are called for. If one feels they might not be able to outrun the adversary, then other tactics are called for.

In addition, one must be able to strategically look at the overall situation. Does the terrain favor you or the adversary? Are there avenues of escape available? Weapons of opportunity? Nearby people liable to be friends or additional foes?.

I'll agree. As someone who has "been there and done that" somewhat, my assessment of the same situation might be entirely different from yours-it's part of why my answers in were so much in defense of the person complying in the videotaped Subway robbery thread: we don't know what was going through his mind, or why. For myself, most of the time I'm armed, and that's a factor in and of itself. On the other hand, I'm only occasionally in areas where I have to worry about muggings or carjackings-in fact, my primary concern is a home invasion or burglary, but a friend laughingly pointed out that between the dogs, Rita (that's the wife), and me, he kind of pitied anyone who tried it......

In the end, while I think we disagree on some points here, I can see some of the logic in your decision tree......:asian:

 

[MJS]

I disagree on the '50-50' chance, but otherwise, I think we've pretty much beat this thing to death, don't you?

Yes and no. Yes, because this is like one of those my art vs your art threads....they never die and pop up all the time. No, because its interesting to hear other view points, and talk about why people do what they do.

I would ask that as a mental exercise, consider how often you use the term 'why should I have to' as a reason to do or not do something.

I have three sisters, and growing up, two of them constantly fought. One of them asked me to help them settle it, and when we got to talking, it was clear that neither of them *wanted* to stop fighting. One would say something snotty, and instead of ignoring it, the other would say something snotty back. The reason was always the same, "Why should I have to put up with that?" Well, you shouldn't have to, sis. But if you want to stop fighting with each other, you have to anyway.

Then I heard it again for years and years dealing with domestic disturbances. Hubbie and Wife could not stop fighting - and always the same. Neither one could let go, neither one could just NOT RESPOND when the other provoked, saying "Why should I have to?" And oh my God it was not just one domestic, it was over and over and over again until you want to puke.

If you are ever in the mood, just think about that term sometime. To me, the use of it implies a person willing to cut off their nose to spite their face - willing to do the thing least likely to result in their own safety, because they don't feel they 'should have to' back down.

Well nobody should 'have to' put up with crap. But I personally don't want to have to explain to St Peter that the reason I'm dead is because I refused to put up with some drunken idiot with a gun demanding my wallet, and decided to take a poke at him instead - because I 'shouldn't have to put up with it.'

IMO, I think there is a difference. There are things that would fall into the category of "Why should I have to" that we have no choice on. Going to work, taking a shower, eating, driving the speed limit. I mean, we'd get fired, smell, starve and get a ticket. Thats why we have to.

On the other hand, why should anyone have to be a victim? Why should someone have to put up with being bullied in school, being raped, mugged, beaten in a domestic? A fight amongst siblings...sure, I've argued with my sister. 9 times out of 10, it was a childish thing. There was no method behind it. Depending on the circumstances, a domestic could be the same thing. I mean, I think theres a difference between arguing because the wife thought the husband had enough in the checkbook to cover the mortgage, light and phone bill, but hubby forgot to write a few things in and now a check may bounce, vs. the wife not being able to breath right, without the husband getting pissed off and beating her. A controlling, demanding spouse, one who beats his wife because she didn't place the staek and corn just so, on the plate, doesnt wash the dishes to HIS specifications...those are the things that do not and should not be put up with.

By your logic, I'm taking this as if we no longer want to be a victim, then we have to comply. Why should I have to be a victim? You shouldn't have to but if you want to survive, then you need to comply.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but thats how I'm reading that. I have a right to keep things that belong to me. This is akin to a kid in school having to hand over his lunch money and going hungry because the school bully demands it. Sorry, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. People rob and steal because they're too damn lazy and irresponsible to get off their lazy *** and make something of themselves, so they find it necessary to take from others. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let someone take something, such as my cash, keys, watch, ring, etc. from me without a fight.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

By your logic, I'm taking this as if we no longer want to be a victim, then we have to comply. Why should I have to be a victim? You shouldn't have to but if you want to survive, then you need to comply.

Close. I'm saying that if putting up a fight escalates the danger to that of life-or-death or serious injury, then we have to decide if not being a victim is more important than potentially escaping injury by complying (I put in the 'potentially' for you ;-) since I know we're not of the same mind on this issue).

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but thats how I'm reading that. I have a right to keep things that belong to me. This is akin to a kid in school having to hand over his lunch money and going hungry because the school bully demands it. Sorry, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. People rob and steal because they're too damn lazy and irresponsible to get off their lazy *** and make something of themselves, so they find it necessary to take from others. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let someone take something, such as my cash, keys, watch, ring, etc. from me without a fight.

I certainly agree with the underlying philosophy. I just see a difference between a kid in school risking being given a black eye or losing a tooth, and being shot to death by a drug-crazed psychopath because I fought to avoid giving up my wallet. My principles take second place to my keeping the same number of holes in me that I woke up with this morning.

I know we still disagree on whether fighting the drug-crazed psychopath demanding my wallet is more or less likely to get us shot. But if we set that aside, my reasoning is just that principle is not something I'll fight for if the stakes are my life (mostly; I reserve the right to waffle on that if the Russkies invade or something).

 

[MJS]

Close. I'm saying that if putting up a fight escalates the danger to that of life-or-death or serious injury, then we have to decide if not being a victim is more important than potentially escaping injury by complying (I put in the 'potentially' for you ;-) since I know we're not of the same mind on this issue).

I normally don't carry alot of cash in my wallet. I primarily use my debit card, so sure, there're times when I may only have a few bucks in cash on me. So, its possible for the badguy, once I hand over my wallet, for him to get upset that theres only a few bucks in there. Now what? He tries to assault me? He wants me to get into a car with him to drive to the ATM, if I'm not there already, to get more out? I guess my point is, and has been, nothing will ensure that my handing stuff over will suffice. Yes, I know that we can fight back after, but as we've discussed, I'd rather not wait to find out.

On a side note....its very rare that I go to an ATM at night, and if I do, I use the drive up one. That doesnt meant that someone couldnt come up to me, but a) if its that late, I lock the doors. That prevents someone from getting into the passenger doors, b) due to how close you need to pull your car up to the machine, it would be difficult for someone to approach on the drivers side.

I certainly agree with the underlying philosophy. I just see a difference between a kid in school risking being given a black eye or losing a tooth, and being shot to death by a drug-crazed psychopath because I fought to avoid giving up my wallet. My principles take second place to my keeping the same number of holes in me that I woke up with this morning.

I know we still disagree on whether fighting the drug-crazed psychopath demanding my wallet is more or less likely to get us shot. But if we set that aside, my reasoning is just that principle is not something I'll fight for if the stakes are my life (mostly; I reserve the right to waffle on that if the Russkies invade or something).

Of course, in todays world, school violence can escalate more than just a black eye or knocked out tooth. Todays kids seem to be carrying weapons. I know we'll probably never agree 100% on everything, and thats fine. Hopefully, if we just use common sense, and some basic awareness principles, we will hopefully avoid violence.

 

[MJS]

Not sure how long this'll be up, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

http://www.courant.com/community/coventry/hc-copdigbrf0930.art5sep30,0,260115.story

COVENTRY - A car owner caught someone in the act of breaking into his vehicle early Tuesday, police said, and now officers are trying to determine if the suspect has been involved in other area break-ins.

Shortly before 2 a.m. Tuesday, police responded to a complaint that someone had been trying to break into a car parked at a Lake Street home. The car's owner had the person detained, police said in a press release.

Police arrested Steven Banfield, 24, of Stafford Road in Mansfield, and charged him with criminal attempt to commit third-degree burglary, possession of burglary tools and simple trespass, they said.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not sure how long this'll be up, but I thought it was relevant to the discussion.

http://www.courant.com/community/coventry/hc-copdigbrf0930.art5sep30,0,260115.story

I know it may sound odd, but I have a Google search for the term 'victim "fought back"', which emails me daily with updates. It's all anecdotal and not statistical, but I kind of like to know what's going on in the news with regard to victims who 'fight back' against various types of criminals.

Sometimes it turns out well - the victim gets the upper hand. Sometimes it turns out so-so - the victim gets injured but does not get killed. Sometimes it turns out badly and the victim is seriously injured or killed.

I realize that the media isn't that interested in news stories where the victim doesn't fight back - that's "dog bites man" and they're not interested. Only when "man bites dog" does it become newsworthy. So the stories reported tend to be a bit slanted towards victims who fight back.

Sometimes it appears that the 'victim' and the 'suspect' are both not your average upstanding citizen - you know, a couple of druggies or drunks involved in a fracas or trying to rob each other. Sometimes the victim is a more typical citizen just trying to survive. In some cases, I would have probably done the same thing they did; in others, perhaps not.

And nothing says that in cases where the victim was injured or killed, they wouldn't have been injured or killed anyway even if they had not fought back - usually there is not enough information to draw any kind of conclusion of that sort. So it's always down to the individual situation, and I don't try to make hard-and-fast rules based on my rather selective news search agent.

Here are some recent news items:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/936307.html

While he was standing on the sidewalk, police say, two men attacked him, trying to get the gold chain from around his neck. The victim fought back, police say, and was stabbed in the upper right side of his chest. His girlfriend drove him to Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, where he is in stable condition Wednesday afternoon.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2009/09/store_owner_apprehends_gun-tot.html

Both officers entered to find the husband on the floor with the suspect in a headlock. The two men were buried under a pile of clothing racks, Cheatum said.

The husband “was out of breath. He’s saying: ‘Help me! He robbed me!” Anderson said.

“The offender was unconscious,” Cheatum said, but later regained consciousness. He was taken to Mercy Health Partners Hackley Campus.

Cheatum said police were told the suspect had walked into the store, pulled a gun on the wife and demanded money. The husband was in the back on a ladder.

“The suspect made the wife go in the back of the store at gunpoint,” Cheatum said. “He got the husband off the ladder and he tried to put both of them in the bathroom.”

At that point, the gun for unknown reasons went off, Cheatum said, and the bullet went into the ceiling.

Then, “the store owner attacked,” Cheatum said. “He grabbed the offender’s arm and snatched the gun.”

He gave his wife the gun and she threw it in the toilet. The fight between the two men continued out into the showroom, with the husband holding the suspect for police.

http://wvlkam.com/skin/blurb.php?sectionId=208&contentId=4749671

The suspect was armed with a gun and demanded money. The two struggled over the gun, a shot was fired, and the victim was able to stab the suspect several times with a knife

.

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/man-pistol-whipped-in-hicksville-home-invasion-1.1432392

In an armed home invasion Tuesday night in Hicksville, four men wearing ski masks entered a house through the back door, pistol-whipped a man who lived there and demanded money, police said.
In the East Marie Street burglary, which took place at about 8 p.m., the victim fought back until one of the suspects hit him in the head with a handgun, causing a cut, Nassau police said.

http://www.keystoneonline.com/2009/09/23/attempted-assault-near-old-main/

The assailant, who is reported as approximately 5’8” with a tan complexion and a beard, tackled the victim to the ground, attempted to remove her clothing, then fled the scene when the victim fought back.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/09/04/20090904abrk-phxassault04-ON.html

A man apparently tried to rob an acquaintance by beating him with a baseball bat and was seriously hurt when the victim fought back with a sword, authorities said.

The would-be robber remains hospitalized Friday. Police have not released names.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/Plymouth_Jewlery_Heist_sept_22_2009

As a jewelry designer walked out of the store he was trying to sell his jewelry to, another vehicle pulled up, three to four males got out of vehicle, smashed the windows on this vehicle and robbed him of some merchandise. As they tried getting away, the victim fought back.

The jewelry designer was cut on the hand, arm and chest. Police are not sure if he was injured by the weapon or broken glass.

http://www.masslive.com/metrowest/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1252480525321100.xml&coll=1

As the victim left her hair appointment around 8 p.m. in April of 2007 and climbed in her car, Stewart knocked on her window, mouthing questions through the glass. When the woman partially opened the window, Compton said, Stewart yanked on it with glove-clad hands, shattering the glass.

He forced his way into the car and shoved the woman into the passenger seat, demanding that she remove her blouse while grabbing at her body. But, the victim fought back, screaming, kicking and biting Stewart. He then ordered her out of the car and drove away.

http://news14.com/charlotte-news-10...lotte/614299/cab-driver-shoots--kills-robber/

CHARLOTTE – Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police say a would-be robber is dead after his victim fought back. Sunday night, police say a driver with Professional Cabs was dispatched to an apartment complex off John Price Road.

There, he was flagged down by 17-year-old Renaldo Smith. The driver told police Smith jumped in the right front passenger seat of the cab, pulled out a gun and demanded money.

But CMPD says the cab driver pulled out his firearm as well and shot Smith, killing him on the scene.

 

[MJS]

I'm surprised that I wasn't thinking of this earlier, but sometimes it takes another source to make that light bulb go off. I was catching up on some reading today, so while skimming articles in the Oct 2009 issue of Black Belt, I came across, what I thought, was a very good article, written by Lee Morrison, a RBSD instructor from the UK. While reading the article, a few things he said caught my eye. Because I can't seem to find a link to the article online, I'll quote a few things that I noticed. The author said the following:

"Its common knowledge that the person who hits first and maintains constant offensive pressure until his opponent is no longer a threat, has the best chance of winning...assuming he can generate a significant impact with his strikes."

He goes on to talk about mindset, which, I agree with 100%. He says:

"The reason people sometimes freeze up in a confrontation or allow themselves to get derailed by stress, is because they fear the consequences, in particular, the fear of being injured."

"You must develop your ability to counter violence with violence, even though you know that violence is negative and anti-social. You dont want to have that mentality 24/7, but its the ideal state to be in for the duration of the fight."

Of course this isnt to be mistaken with thinking that you're Superman. He states:

"Its not an egotistical belief that has you telling yourself, "I"m the greatest", its the notion that your family needs you and relies on you, making you too important to take away, therefore you must prevail."

Of course, I'm sure this part won't be popular, but I like it.

"The next layer of mindset, should come from focusing on indignation: 'How dare you step into my world and compromise all that I love? If you try to kill me, I'll smash you.'

He also talks about the effects of being bullied, which he was, as a child. It wasnt just the physical part, but also the emotional and psycological parts as well. So, in the case that we're describing, we have 2 situations, one being bullying, such as what has personally happened to each of us, with the scenarios we gave, ie: the guy in my condo complex and the guy blocking the staircase, in addition to talking about a physical confrontation, such as a mugging, home invasion, carjacking, etc.

I think the above pretty much explains why I would rather act first, instead of giving over my belongings, and then waiting to see what happens.

 

[MJS]

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_13547052?source=rss#http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_13547052?source=rss

There were a few different articles on this story, but this one had just what I was looking for. When I read the first article, it wasn't nearly as long and detailed as this. The question that came to mind was, "I wonder if he complied or tried to fight back." However, I found this:

A security video shows Morales complied with the demand and was on the ground when he was shot in the head by one robber, Rilling said.
"It is beyond belief that they would feel it was necessary to do that. Everybody was cooperating. For this to happen was totally uncalled for," Rilling added.

So, he complied, and STILL gets shot!!! This is why I have the attitude that I do, along with a few others.