Man Beaten, Dies

[MJS]

Link

WATERBURY — A man who was fatally pistol-whipped early Tuesday was an election worker on his way to a polling place, police said Thursday.

He appears to have been the final victim of a group that jumped out of a minivan, attacked pedestrians and robbed them, police said.

Obviously this story is limited, but on face value, it seems that a group of thugs was driving around, randomly attacking and robbing people on the street. This is why, when I see things like this, and a debate takes place of whether or not to comply, talk your way out, fight, etc., that my theory is to fight and fight like your life depends on it. People like this, IMHO, have zero respect for people, so why have any respect for them?

 

[derobec]

Link



Obviously this story is limited, but on face value, it seems that a group of thugs was driving around, randomly attacking and robbing people on the street. This is why, when I see things like this, and a debate takes place of whether or not to comply, talk your way out, fight, etc., that my theory is to fight and fight like your life depends on it. People like this, IMHO, have zero respect for people, so why have any respect for them?

Hi,

Now, we don't know the circumstances of this specific event but that matters not; there's a larger point to consider here...

Yes, I know, we've been here before and a lot of people will say that it's best to capitulate in the face of an attack or that we should simply run away. Problem as I see it is that it's harder to defend yourself after being run into the ground by an attacker -a possibility which can never be dismissed. So once again I'm with MJS; I'm not advising others to stand and take their chances but I'm certainly not going to turn my back either.

Regards,
William

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, I know, we've been here before and a lot of people will say that it's best to capitulate in the face of an attack or that we should simply run away.

I don't think anyone here has stated that there is a 'one size fits all' response to being accosted. Such situations are not like a chess match - they move, you move, and there is a right and a wrong response to their move. Instead, the situation is generally fluid and evolving, and calls for intelligent (and quick) decision-making and subsequent action.

There is one certainty. No one can predict with 100% accuracy what the outcome of a violent confrontation will be. The news is full of stories of victims who fought back and were injured or killed; the news is also full of stories of victims who fought back and escaped injury or at least saved their own lives by either getting away, driving off their attackers, or injuring/killing them. There are no guarantees.

I advise that people use their own best judgment concerning the situation at the time and as it evolves, change their response to best fit the circumstances as they understand them. I would never suggest that a person either 'always fight' or 'always run away'. Much depends on the situation and how that situation evolves.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

People like this, IMHO, have zero respect for people, so why have any respect for them?

I think that's a non sequitor response. Choosing to engage or not engage in physical self-defense does not necessarily mean that one is choosing to 'respect' the person attacking them. The only respect I have during such an incident is for myself and my own safety. I will choose whatever response I think is most likely to achieve this goal at the time. There are no guarantees that I will choose correctly, just as there are no guarantees that the choice I make will leave me with my life or my property regardless of the choice I make.

But none of my responses are made with concern for the well-being of the attacker; it's not on my agenda, I don't care if they survive or not no matter what response I choose.

 

[derobec]

Hi Bill,

I don't think anyone here has stated that there is a 'one size fits all' response to being accosted.

Well, I used the phrase '...a lot of people...' as a generalization. However, I'm pretty sure that there have been posts in the past where individuals have stated that first response should always be to escape (and, as I see it, leave the attacker to go off and assault/rape/kill someone else). Their view of course is as valid as my own although at the opposite extreme to what I personally believe.

I advise that people use their own best judgment concerning the situation at the time and as it evolves, change their response to best fit the circumstances as they understand them. I would never suggest that a person either 'always fight' or 'always run away'. Much depends on the situation and how that situation evolves.

As I stated, I'm not advising others to stand and take their chances -just stating my personal position.

Best,
William

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, I used the phrase '...a lot of people...' as a generalization. However, I'm pretty sure that there have been posts in the past where individuals have stated that first response should always be to escape (and, as I see it, leave the attacker to go off and assault/rape/kill someone else). Their view of course is as valid as my own although at the opposite extreme to what I personally believe.

Everyone has to make their own choices, I believe we agree on that.

However, you bring up another point, and I think it is a separate point, which I would like to address:

"...leave the attacker to go off and assault/rape/kill someone else..."

​

I think here you are describing a humanitarian or a communitarian response, rather than a strict self-defense response. While there is some overlap between the two, I do not think they are the same thing, and they may demand conflicting responses.

For example, self-defense is, as the name implies, strictly about the defense of self. Here. Now. It says NOTHING about the risk to society if the attacker goes free, unpunished, and undeterred. It deals only with the preservation of one's own life.

The second is the communitarian response, which includes the well-being of the community in the considered response to a criminal attack. Not only is one concerned with one's own survival, but with the risk to the community if the criminals go free. This outlook demands a different response.

One understands that a police officer, or a military person, is required to put other considerations before their own self-defense; even to sacrifice their lives if need be in pursuit of a higher goal. However, most agree that personal self-defense is local, and as the name implies, personal. One is concerned with one's own survival and that of any family/friends in the immediate area. All other considerations are secondary.

So when I respond that generally speaking, I will readily hand over my wallet, or run away, if I think there is a reasonable chance to avoid danger to my own life, that is a response based on the pure concept of self-defense, and nothing else.

Do I think I have an obligation to my community as well? Yes, but I must balance that against this - I have responsibilities that I cannot fulfill if I am killed. My wife and family depend upon me as the only breadwinner. I will not voluntarily give up my life and put theirs in jeopardy so that I can protect my community in such circumstances. I no longer carry a badge, nor do I wear the uniform of my armed forces. My primary responsibility is to myself and my family.

 

[MA-Caver]

Criminals sometimes don't need any other reason than to get what you got.
And to get it by any means necessary.

I am a civilized person anyone who attacks me is uncivilized and thus should be treated as uncivilly as possible.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Criminals sometimes don't need any other reason than to get what you got.
And to get it by any means necessary.

I am a civilized person anyone who attacks me is uncivilized and thus should be treated as uncivilly as possible.

Attacking your attacker may well be the best possible response. But reducing one's self-defense theories to a slogan seems a bit dangerous to me. Do you care about being 'uncivil' to your attacker, or do you care about your own survival?

 

[MJS]

I think that's a non sequitor response. Choosing to engage or not engage in physical self-defense does not necessarily mean that one is choosing to 'respect' the person attacking them. The only respect I have during such an incident is for myself and my own safety. I will choose whatever response I think is most likely to achieve this goal at the time. There are no guarantees that I will choose correctly, just as there are no guarantees that the choice I make will leave me with my life or my property regardless of the choice I make.

But none of my responses are made with concern for the well-being of the attacker; it's not on my agenda, I don't care if they survive or not no matter what response I choose.

Points taken Bill. I guess the main point I was trying to make with the respect was...if a person or persons, are going to drive around, with the sole purpose of robbing and/or causing someone serious harm, that tells me that they have no respect for people or life. That being said, if someone has no respect for my well being, I'm certainly not going to have any for theirs.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

MJS I am in total agreement with you that people like this do not deserve our respect or pity or holding back if we need to defend ourselves. However, we also need to remember that there are simply no absolutes! What may work in one situation, may simply get you beaten or killed in another. In personal protection situations there are many variables that an individual must weigh in on before they act. Training hopefully will help us to make the correct decisions!

 

[MA-Caver]

Attacking your attacker may well be the best possible response. But reducing one's self-defense theories to a slogan seems a bit dangerous to me. Do you care about being 'uncivil' to your attacker, or do you care about your own survival?

I don't live my life by slogans. I do care about my survival... it's evident by the fact that I am here, now, typing this reply. From all the (violent) encounters I've had on the streets while being unemployed, homeless, destitute, desperate and yes... for a time, uncivilized, I was as mean as I could get. It kept me alive, it kept me whole.
Now having lifted myself back up OUT of that environment, that way of thinking, that way of being I see from all that how bad it all is. The mentality is not one that you would find here on MT. Civil, respectful, cordial at times and intelligent with an occasional dash of rationality (j/k).
Now when I'm approached by someone who causes my alarms/flags/bells/whistles/warnings/whatever! to go off I know that one of us is going to the hospital for emergency surgery.
And it damn sure ain't going to be me. That means I'm going to be uncivilized to the person attacking me. My mentality will revert back to their level... don't give a damn about them, because they don't give a damn about you.

 

[MJS]

http://www.courant.com/community/windham/hc-willimantic-student-mugged-on-camp20101108,0,3333.story

WILLIMANTIC — —
An Eastern Connecticut State University student was robbed and assaulted on campus Monday, according to a release from the school's director of public safety.
The student, a male, was walking alone around 1 a.m. when he was approached by three men in the area of the Knight House Parking Lot, police said.
The student told police that the men asked him for "a light," and then demanded money, kicking him and taking a small amount of cash.

And yet another incident. No idea whether the victim complied and was then attacked or if the pieces of **** just attacked and robbed him.

 

[MJS]

Oh, one more.

Link

HARTFORD —
A Chinese food delivery man was robbed by four or five men armed with sticks on Hungerford Street Tuesday night, police said.

The victim told police he was bringing an order to 105 Hungerford St. around 7:47 p.m. He noticed a man on crutches on the porch.

When he got to the porch, he was confronted by four or five men who were armed with sticks. They took his money and an mp3 player, police said.

 

[derobec]

For example, self-defense is, as the name implies, strictly about the defense of self. Here. Now. It says NOTHING about the risk to society if the attacker goes free, unpunished, and undeterred. It deals only with the preservation of one's own life.

The second is the communitarian response, which includes the well-being of the community in the considered response to a criminal attack. Not only is one concerned with one's own survival, but with the risk to the community if the criminals go free. This outlook demands a different response.

Hi Bill,

While I note your (as usual, well argued) points I'm not so confident that self defence is simply about defending the self, here and now, I believe the line is a little more blurred than that -as most things are.

Even if we take the view that it's not in our immediate interest to take a stand to protect the community that we live in we still need to consider that by boosting an attacker's confidence (by playing to his rules) we could well be inviting a 'return visit' because we've just labelled ourselves as a 'cert'; problem is, next time, the family we are trying to protect may well be with us.

Anyway, just a few personal thoughts.
Best Wishes,
William

 

[sgtmac_46]

Attacking your attacker may well be the best possible response. But reducing one's self-defense theories to a slogan seems a bit dangerous to me. Do you care about being 'uncivil' to your attacker, or do you care about your own survival?

That's true........one has to remember that fleeing is the best defense in some situations, while others, cooperation, and in others, aggression will save you where caution won't.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.