Man stands up to thug, gets shot at 3 times

[Thesemindz]

So basically you're saying that we should assume nothing will happen, comply fully and then, only if we feel our life to be in danger, should we act? I say our life is in danger the minute we're approached by the BG. I doubt that while I'm walking to my car at night, the guy coming up behind me wants to engage in friendly banter.

It's also important to remember that all those possessions people advocate relinquishing to the criminal are physical manifestations of your life itself.

You spent time, sweat, labor, breath and blood to aquire the money in your wallet and the money used to buy the car and the tv. When a criminal demands your stuff, he is quite literally demanding that you surrender bits of your life. Small bits perhaps, but bits none the less. Just because those bits of life have been converted through a symbolic intermediate rate of exchange in the form of federal reserve notes into something more tangible such as an Ipod or a Rolex doesn't mean those things don't represent actual life. They do.

Perhaps some people are alright with surrendering small bits of their life when they believe it will save them from jeapordizing everything at once. If so, then they must make that decision at that moment. But each of us needs to decide ahead of time how much of our lives we are willing to negotiate over.


-Rob

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Perhaps some people are alright with surrendering small bits of their life when they believe it will save them from jeapordizing everything at once. If so, then they must make that decision at that moment. But each of us needs to decide ahead of time how much of our lives we are willing to negotiate over.

A very interesting point, thank you! Yes, I see what you mean.

Let me say this. I'm not that attached to wallets and cars and other things. They are trappings of my life, but they can all be taken away, and I'll get more of them. My life, once taken, is over. For me, they are not even close to equivalent. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

It's also important to remember that all those possessions people advocate relinquishing to the criminal are physical manifestations of your life itself.

You spent time, sweat, labor, breath and blood to aquire the money in your wallet and the money used to buy the car and the tv. When a criminal demands your stuff, he is quite literally demanding that you surrender bits of your life. Small bits perhaps, but bits none the less. Just because those bits of life have been converted through a symbolic intermediate rate of exchange in the form of federal reserve notes into something more tangible such as an Ipod or a Rolex doesn't mean those things don't represent actual life. They do.

Perhaps some people are alright with surrendering small bits of their life when they believe it will save them from jeapordizing everything at once. If so, then they must make that decision at that moment. But each of us needs to decide ahead of time how much of our lives we are willing to negotiate over.


-Rob

But that's the whole thing is we each must decide *NOW*, bcause there won't be time to decide once in extremis.

 

[MJS]

Andy mentioned that sometimes we don't get what we want. I'd agree with that. Sometimes, we have to be victims of punks. Sucks, huh?

True.

And again, let's try not to go down that route of equating non-violent response with fear. Being accosted should generate fear, fear is a normal and healthy reaction. Fear should not control us, though, and that's part of what martial arts training can give us - mastery over our fear. It's still there, we just don't let it rule us or make decisions for us. So fear is a given. Deciding not to defend a camera with violence is not necessarily a fear-based reaction. It's the smart thing (my opinion) to do in many situations.

So basically in your opinion, unless you feel that there is more to come from the BG, you'd rather just comply, report it, and hopefully look forward to the day the cops catch the guy and you can face him in court?

I'd much rather not die at all, and if I must, then old age, in my sleep, having just had a ...oh, never mind, juveniles might read this.

Dying fighting seems so...pointless. If I was defending myself, apparently I lost. If I was defending someone else, well, I guess the bad guy got 'em after they got me. If I must fight, I'd much rather win and live.

Likewise, I'd rather live too. But, I personally don't want to put the decision of wheter I live or die, in the hands of some crackhead looking to steal my cash.

With respect, I see your reaction as part of the essential problem.

Life is not grade school. It is important to stand up to bullies in school. That's because fighting is not life-endangering but status-establishing for children. It builds self-esteem, it establishes a place in the pecking order, and it is both healthy and natural.

It is neither healthy nor natural for adults, for whom fighting for real is no longer just fighting, but can easily end in serious injury or death.

I have said nothing about 'bowing down', or about helping someone cart off my property because they said 'boo'. I suggest that self-defense includes a rational evaluation of what is worth placing your life on the line for - and that a camera isn't one of those things.

I used the grade school bully post, simply as an example. Sure it applies to adult life as well. There are grown people who thrive on making innocent people miserable and fearful.

Back to the camera, bowing down and all that other stuff...at what point do you defend yourself? What do YOU base your act/don't act decision upon? Do YOU assume that if we give up the camera, that nothing more will happen?

I have repeatedly said that the situation is subject to reevaluation at all times. In a sparring match, if you decide to throw a lot of kicks, and your opponent counters them easily, are you forced to keep throwing kicks? No, you throw some other technique at him. So, you let him have the camera, and then he decides to escalate. If you see that happening, you reevaluate and attack with as much speed and ferocity as you can muster.

Choosing not to fight isn't a matter of giving up. It's a matter of choosing when to fight and when not to. If the reason for fighting changes, then the decision changes.

So basically you're saying that only if, after giving the camera, they do something else, we should act? Isn't that like waiting until the punch is halfway to our head before we start to react? Sorry, but I'm going to react when I see the hand draw back, not when its halfway to its target.

Again - choosing not to fight over a camera is not 'cowering'. That's the core of the problem - a culture that sees fighting as manly, and not fighting as cowardly. If it is cowardly to not want to be killed over a camera, then I can live with that. But it is unfortunate that you choose to see it that way.

I get the impression that you think I like to fight. If that is the case, I'm afraid you're incorrect. Trust me when I say that talking has saived my tail more times than not. However, when talking won't solve the problem, we need to not be afraid to fight. I don't want to put my living/dying in the hands of the BG, and hope that if I hand over my wallet, he'll leave.

The time to act is when the opportunity presents itself. Again, it is not a static decision, made once and then all thought of self-defense abandoned.

Man comes at me, clearly enraged, and makes a grab for my camera. I defend myself - I let him take the camera. I back off, keep his hands and legs in view, start looking for escape routes, paying attention to what he looks like, what he's wearing, and so on.

Man smashes the camera and leaves - game over.

Man runs away with the camera - game over.

Man throws the camera down, digs in his pocket and advances towards me - rethink strategy and start fighting.

This may have answered one of my questions above.

Then you may (God forbid it) eventually be killed to satisfy your need to be live up to a false expectation of what being a 'man' in our society is. That, in my opinion, is not worth dying for, and I humbly suggest your wife and children would agree.

Again, as I said, I don't look for fights, nor do I want to die, although we all know that it happens. I'm simply sticking up for what I feel it right. Perhaps there're certain people who want to put their life in the hands of someone else and hope that nothing happens. That isn't me. Those people who crashed in the field on 9/11 died fighting. Nothing says that even if they gained access to the cockpit, anyone would be able to fly the plane, however, the prevented the deaths of others, as the plane never reached its intended target.

Its a 50-50 shot. I may comply and walk away, chalking it up as a loss. I may not walk away. I just don't understand why people want to put their fate in the hands of the bg.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But that's the whole thing is we each must decide *NOW*, bcause there won't be time to decide once in extremis.

Yup. I think we may have both thought it over and come to different conclusions, is all. I know I've certainly given it a lot of thought. I've had the opportunity to see death looming more than once because of something I had the power to avoid - and later, thought to myself "Now why the heck did I do that?" Lucky me, I got my 'do over' without actually reaping the results of my choices.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Yup. I think we may have both thought it over and come to different conclusions, is all. I know I've certainly given it a lot of thought. I've had the opportunity to see death looming more than once because of something I had the power to avoid - and later, thought to myself "Now why the heck did I do that?" Lucky me, I got my 'do over' without actually reaping the results of my choices.

Perhaps the best way I can sum up, is by examining my current signature quote, and what I believe it means.

Freedom in general--I'm not talking in this post about press, religion, arms or what have you--but freedom to live as you wish so long as it harms none is what all those other freedoms are in theory *supposed* to add up to. But we are reminded everytime there's a war that freedom always comes at a price. Freedom to live unmolested by scumbags is of paramount importance, for "homeland security" means nothing if one is not secure at home.

So I confess to admitting that everytime I hear the old refrain of just give them what they want, or it's not worth your life, or whatever the popular version is at the time, I get pissed off, because did not our founding fathers, the very minutemen who are my spiritual forebears( I was in the state only, volunteer MA State Guard until we were dissolved which is basically the last direct link to them) risk everything and die so WE could have it, and now you want to just give it back up?( Not "You" Bill, necessarily but again society in general)

What would they think, could they see us now. giving in. Allowing too much gun control, penalizing people in school or in court for defending themselves.deciding as a societal rule that less and less is worth fighting for until finally human life is not considered worth defending for whatever excuse. Doing a full spin cycle in their graves going "I died for WHAT??!?!?! Are you ****in' me?"

 

[MJS]

I was a LEO. And no, one cannot assume a person does NOT have a weapon. We also could not assume they DID have one. That's the purpose of the 'Stop and Frisk' doctrine.

I was a CO and yes, anytime I did a pat down of an inmate, I assumed the worst. Interestingly enough, I was in the process of a patdown one night, felt something in the backpocket of his pants, went to look, and he pulled away from me, fast and hard. Why? Was he hiding something? I would have been well within my right to take him down or do what I had to, to defend myself, as that was a clear threat. Turns out it was a comb.

So, in a nutshell, if you choose to assume that he's not armed, thats you. I don't want to assume anything. To quote a movie..."Assumption is the Mother of all **** ups."

Nor would I assume as a civilian that an assailant was unarmed. However, let's just play that out - if the victim in this case had assumed the assailant was armed, how smart of him was it to kick him in the pills?

He felt threatened and reacted. I'd have done the same thing, only difference is that I'd have kept going.

Both police and crooks are notoriously bad shots when shooting under the influence of adrenalin and fear. However, even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then. Just as you say it is not wise to assume a person is unarmed, I would say that if a man pulls a gun on me, it's a pretty good chance I'm going to get shot.

Sure, we will probably get hit, cut, stabbed, shot, you name it. To think otherwise is stupid. Martial Arts training doesn't make anyone a Superman, but it should give the edge. If you saw someone make a move behind their back, under a shirt, etc. that is when you should react. Why wait until the gun is pulled out?

I challenge that basic assumption. WHY?

I've probably already answered this in another post. In a nutshell, I don't want to put my life in the hands of the bg...plain and simple.

Close. I don't assume anything, but I suggest that physical violence in self-defense is a life-or-death struggle. If I have to engage in it, I want to do so because I believe my life is in imminent danger. If I believe I can end an altercation by giving up a wallet or a camera, I will do so. I would expect that others would use their own best judgment at the time, based on their own beliefs and observations, not mine.

So you're assuming? You're assuming that if we give up the camera, we may live. Sure, we may, and we may get our head blown off.

I would doubt it too. I'm not some trusting soul who believes that others have my best interest at heart.

I will repeat - I continue to believe that self-defense begins before the violence does. That does not mean I eschew violence, and it does not mean I will not give my life to defend my own or the loves of innocent people or my family and loved ones. It means I don't want to throw my life away for a camera or a wallet or a car, when I can give those things up and live. If I feel that giving those things up will get me killed anyway, they I will respond differently.

The gentleman in the article did not say that he kicked the assailant in the slats because he thought he was going to be killed - maybe he did, but he didn't say that. He said he did it because he had read a recent news story about 'standing up' against bad guys in society and thought he should 'do something'. Well, he did, and he got shot. I do not agree with his reasoning based on what I have read, but I was not there. I can only say that I would have not done what he did in that situation if I understand his story correctly.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree sir. It seems that all of this is a 50-50 situation. We hope that if we do A, then 1 won't happen. If we do B, then maybe 2 will happen, but maybe 3 will instead.

Like I've said, I've talked my way out of more bad situations, than I've fought. Lucky? Perhaps. However, when the talking won't work, we need to act, not try to talk more. Someone comes up to you, pulls a knife, they've just upped the ante. If someone who carries, pulls their gun and blows the BGs head off, good for the good guy.

In closing, I'll say this. A while ago, and theres a thread on this forum about it, a home invasion happened in Cheshire, CT. BGs broke into the house, tied everyone up, and one took the wife to the bank to withdraw money. After beating the **** out of the husband, and raping the wife and a young daughter, they went on to light the house on fire. Husband lived, everyone else died.

Another home invasion, resulted in the BG shooting one female and taking the other with him. He brought her to an isolated location and shot her as well. She died, the other one lived. His reason for shooting them....because they had both seen his face and he was afraid that they'd ID him.

So again, if you want to assume nothing bad will happen, thats fine. But, don't think that those who wish to fight are crazy.

 

[MA-Caver]

A man's life is worth more than any digital camera, but then again a man's dignity is worth more than a digital camera.
Allowing yourself to be intimidated and rubbed does take away not only the materialistic items but the sense of dignity one might have had prior to the event.
Fighting back is good and sometimes worth doing but not knowing there might be a gun involved brings the risk. A groin shot CAN be a fight-ender if done properly and hard enough and added to/with other techniques. Seems that particular kick in the groin was probably a glancing blow rather a full on blast to the genitals which does take people out of the game. Which is why a knee is better than a foot because there's more surface area making contact with more surface area of the groin.
Either way he still got shot for it and is lucky to be alive.
Still he fought back and should be commended for it. It is fortunate that things turned out better than they could have.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

A man's life is worth more than any digital camera, but then again a man's dignity is worth more than a digital camera.
Allowing yourself to be intimidated and rubbed does take away not only the materialistic items but the sense of dignity one might have had prior to the event.
Fighting back is good and sometimes worth doing but not knowing there might be a gun involved brings the risk. A groin shot CAN be a fight-ender if done properly and hard enough and added to/with other techniques. Seems that particular kick in the groin was probably a glancing blow rather a full on blast to the genitals which does take people out of the game. Which is why a knee is better than a foot because there's more surface area making contact with more surface area of the groin.
Either way he still got shot for it and is lucky to be alive.
Still he fought back and should be commended for it. It is fortunate that things turned out better than they could have.

Well that's what you get when a man spontaneously decides to fight who has had no training/exposure to fighting.

But he got the most important half right, now it's time we hope he address the second half. With over 10,000 years of recorded history behind us, we have no excuses when fighting for not doing it right.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was a CO and yes, anytime I did a pat down of an inmate, I assumed the worst. Interestingly enough, I was in the process of a patdown one night, felt something in the backpocket of his pants, went to look, and he pulled away from me, fast and hard. Why? Was he hiding something? I would have been well within my right to take him down or do what I had to, to defend myself, as that was a clear threat. Turns out it was a comb.

Not to split hairs, but actually, you did not 'assume the worst'. If you are legally justified to believe the man has a firearm, you're legally justified to use deadly force to stop him. He wasn't, you weren't, and that isn't the operating assumption. You put safety first by not assuming he wasn't armed - that's not the same as assuming he is.

So, in a nutshell, if you choose to assume that he's not armed, thats you. I don't want to assume anything. To quote a movie..."Assumption is the Mother of all **** ups."

I think we're just missing each other on terms here. I do not assume a person is not armed. I do not preemptively assume he is. There is a difference between the two.

He felt threatened and reacted. I'd have done the same thing, only difference is that I'd have kept going.

You would clearly have been legally justified in doing so, I'm quite sure of that. The question is only whether or not you'd have prevailed and if not, was your life worth that camera?

Sure, we will probably get hit, cut, stabbed, shot, you name it. To think otherwise is stupid. Martial Arts training doesn't make anyone a Superman, but it should give the edge. If you saw someone make a move behind their back, under a shirt, etc. that is when you should react. Why wait until the gun is pulled out?

I never said I'd wait until a gun was drawn. The furtive movement would most likely be quite enough for me.

I've probably already answered this in another post. In a nutshell, I don't want to put my life in the hands of the bg...plain and simple.

But you just said you would. When you engage in self-defense, that's exactly what you do. Your life, in his hands, and in fate.

My sensei doesn't know everything, but he's a pretty sharp dude, and he said something recently I truly agree with. He's 8th-Dan, Isshinryu, recently elected to the Isshinryu Hall of Fame, definitely a very tough customer, who admits he liked to get dusty in his younger days. He enjoyed barroom brawls and sought them out. He said recently that there are some mighty tough street fighters out there, totally untrained and still very very dangerous. And you don't know if the guy you're facing is one of them or not.

You talked about assuming he has a gun. How about assuming he knows enough to kick your ***?

So you're assuming? You're assuming that if we give up the camera, we may live. Sure, we may, and we may get our head blown off.

Simple math.

If I toss a coin, and if it lands heads up, I live, and if it lands tails up, I die, then I have a 50/50 chance of living or dying. If I refuse to toss the coin, then unless someone makes me do it, I have a 100% chance of living. See how that works? I can choose not to enter into the fight - and my chance are 100% that I'm going to live, unless I am not given a choice. But even then, my chances are still 50/50. So I'll take the 100% chance first, and if that fails, then I'll flip the coin.

Yes, I might die anyway. It is a lower-risk proposition.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree sir. It seems that all of this is a 50-50 situation. We hope that if we do A, then 1 won't happen. If we do B, then maybe 2 will happen, but maybe 3 will instead.

That's the math part. I'll make my own choices - which include not fighting - until I believe I no longer have an advantage by doing so. Then I will fight.

Like I've said, I've talked my way out of more bad situations, than I've fought. Lucky? Perhaps. However, when the talking won't work, we need to act, not try to talk more. Someone comes up to you, pulls a knife, they've just upped the ante. If someone who carries, pulls their gun and blows the BGs head off, good for the good guy.

I have no disagreement with that. You assume - as I keep saying - that choosing not to fight at this moment means I won't fight ever. That's just not true. The situation is fluid and changes, and I will change my decisions along with it, to fit the facts as I understand them.

In closing, I'll say this. A while ago, and theres a thread on this forum about it, a home invasion happened in Cheshire, CT. BGs broke into the house, tied everyone up, and one took the wife to the bank to withdraw money. After beating the **** out of the husband, and raping the wife and a young daughter, they went on to light the house on fire. Husband lived, everyone else died.

Someone breaks into my house while I am home, they stand a very good chance of being shot. I have no place to retreat to, and in any case, my family is there, which I will give my life to defend.

Why do you insist that because I choose not to fight until I have to, it means I never will? You must think me quite the coward.

Another home invasion, resulted in the BG shooting one female and taking the other with him. He brought her to an isolated location and shot her as well. She died, the other one lived. His reason for shooting them....because they had both seen his face and he was afraid that they'd ID him.

So again, if you want to assume nothing bad will happen, thats fine. But, don't think that those who wish to fight are crazy.

I have never assumed nothing bad will happen. Am I being unclear on this?

Being accosted is 'something bad' and it is happening right now. How I respond to it is up to me. While there are some things I will trade my life for, a wallet or a camera is not one of them. If I can end the confrontation by giving up those things, you betcha, brother. Have 'em. Good health to ya and see ya later. Hope the police put a bullet in your bubblegoose.

If I give those things up and the assailant wants more, or give me any indication to think that he's about to continue the confrontation, then I change my strategy. I train in martial arts so that I can effectively defend myself with violence. I train in firearms so that if I have to shoot someone, I'll blow their freaking brains out the back of their heads (actually, I aim center mass, but I'm being all emotional and stuff). I am more than willing, ready, and more-or-less able to commit great bodily harm, up to and including the taking of a human life.

But not for a camera. And especially not if I think I can lose the camera and avoid the struggle for my life. I'd as soon skip that part, if you don't mind.

I do not assume anyone does not have evil intent if they accost me. Ever. But I use my brain to think about the best way to avoid damage to my body. If and when that fails, then plan b.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A man's life is worth more than any digital camera, but then again a man's dignity is worth more than a digital camera.
Allowing yourself to be intimidated and rubbed does take away not only the materialistic items but the sense of dignity one might have had prior to the event.

Dignity is an intangible. I can't spend it, eat it, or fornicate with it. It is no use to me in a struggle for survival. I am not part of a tribe which will ostracize me for not fighting.

I'll tell the truth - my wife's car got broken into recently, and I felt rage, impotence, and loss of dignity. Not much I could do about it, though. I got over it. Dignity heals. Gunshot wounds take longer.

Fighting back is good and sometimes worth doing but not knowing there might be a gun involved brings the risk.

A common martial arts quote is "All fights between martial arts experts are life-threatening. That is why experts avoid them."

A groin shot CAN be a fight-ender if done properly and hard enough and added to/with other techniques. Seems that particular kick in the groin was probably a glancing blow rather a full on blast to the genitals which does take people out of the game.

I have hit drunks in the gonads with a billy club, and not had the desire effect. I've been kicked in the pills and not fallen down until later. And who knows when someone is under the influence of drugs?

Which is why a knee is better than a foot because there's more surface area making contact with more surface area of the groin.
Either way he still got shot for it and is lucky to be alive.
Still he fought back and should be commended for it. It is fortunate that things turned out better than they could have.

Yes, he is lucky to be alive.

 

[seasoned]

There are just to many posts here for me to read. I will just say that if you decide to defend yourself for whatever reason, let this thread be a lesson to you. Once the decision is made to defend yourself, it requires full commitment on your part. You can’t kick someone in the privates, and wait to see if that did the trick. This guy thought this was the end all, but for some recipients, this is just the beginning. It is in our off times that we make the mental decisions as to what we would do in a situation like this. Now this guy has something to reference in the future, at 50 he may take up running and get away, or practice some follow up to his ball technique. I think for myself and many others, in this day and age, we are just fed up and not going to take it, I say that if someone wants it, asks for it, begs for it, then give it to them. I study martial arts for one reason, and it’s not for exercise.

 

[elder999]

Yes it was a self defense situation. The victim didn't turn it into anything-he was just on the street, minding his own business.




I'd have shot him.

Experience talking here: I've given up my wallet and watch to a mugger, and wound up ruining a perfectly good pen taking his life with it, because he wanted to cut me anyway.

That was almost 30 years ago, and from that day on, it's been......on. My radar would have been up the moment he started crossing the street, and if I wasn't armed, I'd have hit him with the camera, and anything else that was handy, and not stopped until he ran away or was a smear on the pavement. If he'd "asked" for the camera, I'd have given it to him, right in the orbit of his eye-repeatedly. With a kick in the knee, and a kick in the balls, and a stomp on his fingers when he went to the ground. I'd have screamed for help the whole time, including while I stomped on his neck.

It's not about "dignity," or what the camera is worth, or anything else-it's about robbery, armed or otherwise, being life threatening, and answering with the commensurate amount of force. I don't know if he has a gun or a knife, but I'm perfectly right to assume that he does, and that's a life-threatening attack, and can be answered with lethal force......

 

[Deaf Smith]

I think it was very brave for the man to say no to the thug and not let him take is camera.

No, he was not foolish. Underequipped and undertrained, but not foolish.

He was emboden by the report of the other person standing up to stop thugs. And that is good.

NEXT TIME, I hope he decides he want's to be the leaver instead of the left (as in left on the ground.)

Narasimha Murthy will make a good student of pistol craft and self defense. He will take his lessons very serious. He will train hard and well.

All he has to do is make up his mind he want's to be the leaver instead of the left. And then do something about it.

Deaf

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's not about "dignity," or what the camera is worth, or anything else-it's about robbery, armed or otherwise, being life threatening, and answering with the commensurate amount of force.

Really?

I don't know if he has a gun or a knife, but I'm perfectly right to assume that he does, and that's a life-threatening attack, and can be answered with lethal force......

Legally, I'm sure you're right. Is that your threshold for killing?

In any case, you presume you'll win. If you lose, you are severely injured or dead. For a camera. I'm still having trouble understanding the risk/reward that makes that a smart decision.

 

[elder999]

Legally, I'm sure you're right. Is that your threshold for killing?

Actually, my threshold is lower than that: I've done it before, and I know I have absolutely no qualms about doing it again, if necessary.

n any case, you presume you'll win. If you lose, you are severely injured or dead.

Yes, I presume that if I don't win, I'm dead. It's the safest presumption to make. I presume that if I give up the camera, I'm dead. I presume that if I go with him, I'm dead. I presume that if things go the assailant's way, I'm dead., and I base my actions upon that presumption.

For a camera. I'm still having trouble understanding the risk/reward that makes that a smart decision.

It's never about the camera. Or my wallet. Or my watch. It's about my ***. Most of the time, though, I'm armed-it's like I said: I'd have shot him. Probably more than once, and not in the leg, either.

In fact, based upon the scenario from the story:

The engineer was videoing traffic signals in a bid for a school traffic study.

His camera was focused on cars whizzing through the intersection, but also captured a softer image of a man leaning against a lamppost.Once the man spotted Murthy, he walked toward him.

I'd probably have been on "alert" to this guy right there, and ready to respond. In fact, it's likely, based on past events-both in my experience and others-that he wouldn't have gone through with his attack, because he'd have seen that I was prepared.

And if he didn't veer off, I'd have shot him-or, more likely since it's Kaliforniasthan-stabbed him with my Mont Blanc pen. Repeatedly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Best of luck to you, then. Have a good evening.

 

[Archangel M]

I dont know how well "assuming" that a guy grabbing your camera is a deadly threat would play out in a court of law. You would need some better articulation than that.

 

[Guardian]

You either stand up for something or your don't, it's a pure and simple thought in my book. Now the question is what is that something, a camera, your loved ones or what? It's not the standing up part that we should question, it's the "What" part that needs answering.

 

[MJS]

Not to split hairs, but actually, you did not 'assume the worst'. If you are legally justified to believe the man has a firearm, you're legally justified to use deadly force to stop him. He wasn't, you weren't, and that isn't the operating assumption. You put safety first by not assuming he wasn't armed - that's not the same as assuming he is.

In the case of an LEO, he can draw down on the guy when a weapon is displayed, but to approach someone and not assume that they might take a swing at you, pull a weapon...foolish. Given the fact that 99.99% of the guys in jail/prison are dirtbags, yes, I assume that anytime I spoke with one, anytime someone was talking to me, asking me something, that I could be set up, that it could be a distraction, etc. I never got so relaxed around those guys that I didn't know what was going on around me. And rightfully so, when trying to lock up 17 guys in a narrow hallway...come on, you'd better be aware.

If a cop was so confident that there were no weapons in the car, why do they approach the car in the fashion they do? They do this to give them the best view into the car, to put themselves in a more advantageous position, should someone attempt to shoot at them. I'll also note that many of the officers that I have went on ride alongs with, approach the car, with their hand on their gun. It is usually kept there while they are speaking with the driver as well.

I think we're just missing each other on terms here. I do not assume a person is not armed. I do not preemptively assume he is. There is a difference between the two.

Perhaps I'm just going more on the side of caution than you, and thats fine. To each his own. I'd rather be more aware initially, and then, depending on how things are playing out, decrease that. Of course, not going to the point of total relaxation, as that is the time when things could change.

You would clearly have been legally justified in doing so, I'm quite sure of that. The question is only whether or not you'd have prevailed and if not, was your life worth that camera?

As I've said, there is nothing written in stone that any training will make you prevail, although that is what we like to hope. I cant help but think you're missing my point. Jeff attempted to clarify my point of view in one of his posts. Additionally, I'll add that it seems that you're willing to wait until the situation gets worse, before you act. Remember my punch analogy? Seems that you will wait until the punch is halfway to your head before you act, while I will respond when I see the guy drawing his hand back. I will also go so far to say that it seems to me that you think I enjoy fighting, that I have this macho ego about me. Not the case at all. As Jeff said, as well as Andy, I don't feel that we, as citizens of a free country, should have our rights violated by some piece of ****, who'd rather mug someone, than make an honest living. I may as well open my doors to all the scumbags of the world then. And I am still curious...you seem confident that if you hand over what they ask for, things will turn out ok. So, basically, you're assuming that things will be ok, and that you're confident enough that if things go south after you comply, that it won't be too late. Sorry, I don't want to wait, I want to act.

I never said I'd wait until a gun was drawn. The furtive movement would most likely be quite enough for me.

So comply and give the guy your wallet and then, if he attempts to pull a weapon, then you're going to act? Just want to make sure I'm understanding your views correctly.

But you just said you would. When you engage in self-defense, that's exactly what you do. Your life, in his hands, and in fate.

My sensei doesn't know everything, but he's a pretty sharp dude, and he said something recently I truly agree with. He's 8th-Dan, Isshinryu, recently elected to the Isshinryu Hall of Fame, definitely a very tough customer, who admits he liked to get dusty in his younger days. He enjoyed barroom brawls and sought them out. He said recently that there are some mighty tough street fighters out there, totally untrained and still very very dangerous. And you don't know if the guy you're facing is one of them or not.

You talked about assuming he has a gun. How about assuming he knows enough to kick your ***?

No, you're missing my point, and attempting to change my words. First, I have already said that MA training does not make you superman, but it should give you the edge. Second, I feel that my complying, I'm putting my life in the BGs hands. There is NOTHING to say that after I comply, he won't blow my friggin head off. I don't want to wait, but start fighting for my property in the beginning. Why comply? If you want to, thats fine. So, because we don't know who we're facing we should hide and cower in fear and hand our stuff over? Of course we don't know who we'll face, but that doesn't mean we should live in fear. Never said I won't get my *** kicked, and I just might. But at least I won't go down without a fight...kinda like those people on 9-11 who overtook the plane and avoided the deaths of people in the intended targets.

Simple math.

If I toss a coin, and if it lands heads up, I live, and if it lands tails up, I die, then I have a 50/50 chance of living or dying. If I refuse to toss the coin, then unless someone makes me do it, I have a 100% chance of living. See how that works? I can choose not to enter into the fight - and my chance are 100% that I'm going to live, unless I am not given a choice. But even then, my chances are still 50/50. So I'll take the 100% chance first, and if that fails, then I'll flip the coin.

Yes, I might die anyway. It is a lower-risk proposition.



That's the math part. I'll make my own choices - which include not fighting - until I believe I no longer have an advantage by doing so. Then I will fight.

But Bill, you're still assuming that if we comply, that nothing will happen. How can you be so sure of that? Can you see the future? Because if you can, I will pack my stuff, and move to your location to train with you and your teachers. So let me ask you this...lets say I comply. BG asks for my car keys, I hand them over. BG asks for cash, I hand it over. Tells me to lay on the ground, close my eyes and count to 100, I comply. He leaves, I live. In the perfect situation, that is what would happen.

Lets say I do all of the above, but when he opens my wallet and sees $2, now he is pissed. He tells me to get in the car with him, and start driving...driving somewhere to an ATM to get more money. Should I get in the car with him? What if I comply and he says to me that he is going to have to kill me because I saw his face and can ID him? Remember that story I told you about the 2 women? So when should I act Bill? When? When its clear that he's going to kill me?

I have no disagreement with that. You assume - as I keep saying - that choosing not to fight at this moment means I won't fight ever. That's just not true. The situation is fluid and changes, and I will change my decisions along with it, to fit the facts as I understand them.

No, basically its telling me that you'd rather wait until the punch is halfway to your face before you'll act. I say why wait that long? When he draws back or makes that aggressive move, THAT is the time.

I think you and I will probably do the same thing. Difference being, that you'd rather wait until fighting is the last option. I dont wait, and start fighting as soon as I'm presented with the threat.

Someone breaks into my house while I am home, they stand a very good chance of being shot. I have no place to retreat to, and in any case, my family is there, which I will give my life to defend.

Why do you insist that because I choose not to fight until I have to, it means I never will? You must think me quite the coward.

Playing devils advocate Bill...why couldnt you just tell the BG that broke into your house that you dont want any issues, and that you'll leave, and let him have what he wants, as long as he doesnt hurt you or the family? See, thats no different than what you're preaching about the camera. Give the camera, you wont get hurt. Tell the BG you'll leave the house and you wont get hurt. Now you're saying that you'd shoot the guy!!

I have never assumed nothing bad will happen. Am I being unclear on this?

Being accosted is 'something bad' and it is happening right now. How I respond to it is up to me. While there are some things I will trade my life for, a wallet or a camera is not one of them. If I can end the confrontation by giving up those things, you betcha, brother. Have 'em. Good health to ya and see ya later. Hope the police put a bullet in your bubblegoose.

And like talking your way out of a fight, which I've done with success.....nothing says that it'll work. The guy still may be pissed enough to swing at me. Sometimes there is no time for talking and the guy moves so aggressively that you are forced to fight. There is nothing that says in the case you mention above, that if you hand over your stuff, that he'll leave you.

I'm standing at the ATM and someone rushed up behind me, has a knife to my back and wants money. He just upped the odds. I'm unarmed, hes not. I could empty my acct. and still get stabbed in the back. Or, I could look for the right moment, and fight back, and be justified in using deadly force.

If I give those things up and the assailant wants more, or give me any indication to think that he's about to continue the confrontation, then I change my strategy. I train in martial arts so that I can effectively defend myself with violence. I train in firearms so that if I have to shoot someone, I'll blow their freaking brains out the back of their heads (actually, I aim center mass, but I'm being all emotional and stuff). I am more than willing, ready, and more-or-less able to commit great bodily harm, up to and including the taking of a human life.

But not for a camera. And especially not if I think I can lose the camera and avoid the struggle for my life. I'd as soon skip that part, if you don't mind.

I do not assume anyone does not have evil intent if they accost me. Ever. But I use my brain to think about the best way to avoid damage to my body. If and when that fails, then plan b.

So you just admitted it here. You'd rather wait until that punch is halfway to your head before you'd act. You'd rather wait until the guy gets pissed that there is only a few bucks in the wallet and then act. Screw that. I'm sorry you don't like my views, but obviosuly I'm not the only one in the thread who shares them.

It should be clear that I will try to verablly defuse the confrontation, depending on what it is. Someone accusses me of looking at their girl in the bar..."Hey man, I was looking just past her. My apologies. Here, I'll tell ya what, the next round is on me." If it works great. I just avoided a fight. But if he tells me to **** off and starts walking towards me, hands clinched, and a pissed off look on his face, then at that point, its on. No more talking, as its clear he isn't interested in that. He wants me on the floor, bloody, in a heap because I upset him. At that point, he gets whatever comes his way. As soon as he invades my personal space, I'm reacting.

In the situation of a mugging, you're usually attacked, threatened, and possibly roughed up a bit initially, as the demands are being made. At that point, the BG has already taken it to the next level. He's already assaulted me and I have every right to defend myself. Could I try to comply? Sure, but at that point, why wait? Seems that the point of talking is over, esp. if while doing this, he has a knife in his hand.

Take a look at this. Poor guy got shot and wasn't even expecting it.