Man stands up to thug, gets shot at 3 times

[kidswarrior]

Well this has certainly gotten some discussion flowing. I, for one, have seen the problem from angles I hadn't thought of. Thanks to everyone who has participated.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

I can't keep saying the same thing again, so if we're misunderstanding each other, I have to stop. I said there is a difference between NOT assuming a person is not armed and ASSUMING he is. It is both a legal distinction and a discernment. Either you are not following this statement, or you do not want to. Either way, I've said it three times now, so if we don't agree, then we'll just have to not agree.

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.

Police do not approach a vehicle assuming the occupants are armed. That is why they use caution and training, cover and awareness. They also do not assume that the occupants are armed (unless they get a felony response on the plates when they pulled traffic), so they do not approach with their pistols drawn, or perform a felony hot stop from their vehicle, using the PA and pistols drawn. Again, there is a very clear difference.

You seem to want to make the case that either I assume everyone is armed and react that way, or I'm just a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy who thinks the best of everyone. There are many positions between those two extremes. How can I make that more clear?

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.

The response you described is no different from mine, as far as I can tell.

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.

Not until the situation gets worse - until conditions change.

Threat level assessment is important and it needs to be kept in mind. As well as perceived threat level, one must also be well aware of one's own capabilities, terrain, conditions, avenues of escape, and so on. My response will vary depending on all of those, and any of them - except my own ability to defend myself unarmed - may change in a moment.

If the man charging across the street had suddenly veered off, would you run after him and attack him? Of course not. So we all recognize that we do threat level assessment all the time.

I do not advocate waiting until the situation becomes dire or 'things become worse'. I advocate evaluating options and choosing the one most likely to preserve your life. If the conditions change, your response may change accordingly.

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.

Not at all. If I see that hand going back, my options are now limited to blocking or getting out of the way of that punch, and counterattacking with all my ability. It's on, and giving up the camera is no longer an option.

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 don't think it's a macho thing, and my apologies if that is what is coming across. I think that patriotic statements about standing up to thuggery sound good to say, and can be rather stupid to do. However, that's a personal choice. I don't see the future of a flag-draped coffin with my widow crying and being comforted that 'at least he died for something, standing up to a thug who wanted his camera' is a very worthwhile scenario. It's a stupid way and reason to die, IMHO.

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.

I have never said that. In fact, I keep saying the opposite. I have no reason to believe he will stop the attack once he has the camera. I have no reason to believe he won't. Giving him the camera is an option that gives me more time, might end the attack, and at the very least, does me no harm beyond the loss of the camera, which I do not care about enough to risk my life for.

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've never said that. Not even close.

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.

Every situation has to be evaluated on its merits. But in very general terms, yes. A guy comes up and says "Give me your wallet," chances are that if I believe he is about to do me serious bodily harm, I'm going to comply. I'm going to do it in a way that puts room between me and him, I'm going to be looking for avenues of escape and weapons of opportunity, and I'm going to be judging him and his movements every second, as well as trying to memorize his face, build, and clothing.

If he makes a furtive movement that makes me believe that he is going for a weapon, then yes, I am going to attack him - and it's a very good time to do it, before the weapon clears his pocket or holster, and while he's distracted.

I will say this - if, in my judgment, I felt strongly that he was going to kick my butt even if I gave him my wallet, I'd launch the attack at the moment he made his demand. How do I know the difference? I don't, I'm not a fortune-teller. I judge each situation on its merits, and some of my responses are not even conscious to me at the time.

But the moment I attack, I have engaged in a life-or-death struggle, and put my life on the line. If lose, I may lose my life. If I can avoid that by dumping my wallet on the ground and backing away, I will do that.

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.

There is no edge against a bullet.

Second, I feel that my complying, I'm putting my life in the BGs hands.

Your life is in danger from the moment the confrontation begins. The threat level is raised significantly when violence ensues. A simple line drawn from point A to point B shows that the longer it takes for violence to begin (or not to happen at all), the safer you are, relatively speaking.

And I want to make this very clear, my opinion only, but again, when you engage physically with the assailant, your life is very clearly in his hands, as his is in yours. If he wins, he may kill you. If you engaged in that battle voluntarily, you gave that decision to him - assuming he wins.

There is NOTHING to say that after I comply, he won't blow my friggin head off.

Correct.

I don't want to wait, but start fighting for my property in the beginning.

My position is that might not be the wisest decision.

Why comply? If you want to, thats fine.

I would comply only if I felt that doing so had a reasonable chance of success - meaning I walk away unharmed. That's why. It's a really good reason. Self-defense means self-defense. Defending myself from injury and death. I don't have to do that with a punch or kick. I can try to do it by removing myself from danger. If that doesn't work, then Plan B.

So, because we don't know who we're facing we should hide and cower in fear and hand our stuff over?

Again, there are options between extremes. If I don't man up and charge into battle, I'm a coward? I am neither a serviceman nor a police officer anymore. I have no duty, no honor, and no country to defend by refusing to hand over a wallet or camera. My duty is to my self-defense. Fighting if I must, avoiding it if I can. Failure to do so seems a tragic mistake to me.

Of course we don't know who we'll face, but that doesn't mean we should live in fear.

Do you think I 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.

I applaud their actions, and hope I would have done the same. Threat level evaluation - some of the passengers already knew that some planes had been taken over and crashed intentionally - they knew what their likely fate was. They rose and charged heroically in a move that failed, but was their only chance, and saved the lives of those who would have been targets of the plane. They made a very smart and selfless decision in a moment when many could be forgiven for failing to act.

I have never advocated giving in with the hope of placating, living in fear, or cowering. I have said that fighting over principle is generally not conducive to the basic concepts of self-defense, because the risk of not being able to defend yourself goes up exponentially the moment violence ensues.

But Bill, you're still assuming that if we comply, that nothing will happen.

Never said it, don't believe it.

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.

I very seriously doubt I would comply with the laying down part. Threat level assessment. What did I lose by complying with the car keys and wallet part? I gained time - time to evaluate the situation, gauge the assailant's capabilities and try to figure out his intent. I gained time to look for avenues of escape and weapons of opportunity, to run through likely self-defense scenarios in my mind. I lost nothing by complying until the threat level changed and I decided that attack had a better chance of success than compliance.

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 don't know, but like many things, I will make a decision of that nature when the time comes, and hope I did it right.

Here's a story about a man who did it exactly right, in my opinion:

http://www.justnews.com/news/13585335/detail.html

Lovell gave up his wallet, even though he was armed. He did a threat level assessment and decided that compliance was a better option than a shoot out. When ordered to go to the back, he decided that the threat level had changed, and compliance was no longer likely to produce the results he wanted. He drew and fired.

That's how it should be done, IMHO.

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 agree that when he draws back, that is the time. I can't imagine I've said anything else.

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.

Yes, that's the difference between us, I agree. My belief is that since fighting is always a life-and-death struggle when it is between adults and involves criminal activity, avoiding it is the wiser course if one has another option.

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?

The threat level is very different. One, I sleep on the second floor of my house, and I have no easy means of escape that does not put me at risk. Two, I have a family to protect, and they're not all in the same room with me. Three, I have weapons stashed around my house, and I can't risk that the bad guy has found one or more. Four, I am on my own terrain, and I'm familiar with it, and have trained on room clearing, fire lanes, and fire control inside my own house, because I'm a very paranoid man.

Chance are very high that my wife and I will do what we have rehearse. She takes the S&W Model 10 into the closet with the cell phone and starts dialing 911, hiding behind the gun safe, which is obviously bulletproof. I take the boomstick and and begin room clearing. I hit the central alarm panic switch outside the master bedroom door, and of course, by this time, my dogs are going nuts and tearing the guts out of anyone who is not supposed to be in the house. I move towards the sound with cover and concealment, and I put a double-tap in the ten ring on every upright body that isn't my 81-year-old mother-in-law or my dogs.

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!!

Absolutely, and with extreme prejudice.

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.

Again, yes, there is nothing that says he will leave me alone. In which case, I have to fight, and I will. I've lost nothing by trying to avoid it, and I may have gained a great deal.

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 he has a knife at my back in the manner you describe, I am going to withdraw whatever my limit is, and give it to him. He can't take the money and keep the knife at my back, especially if I drop it. And his focus is on the money, so he's not going to stab me and then reach for the money. Then I attack. He's got a weapon in his hand, I have very few avenues of escape, and my chances to leave without violence are very very low.

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.

Threat level assessment is fundamental. I'm new to martial arts, but I'm not new to self-defense.

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 case you describe, I'd agree. Very clear what happens next, isn't it?

The man who charged across the street was very clearly interested in taking the camera - according to the story. If that is true, then that's a very different situation than him advancing on me, hands clenched into fists, and (in the barroom scenario) more than likely drunk and willing to fight.

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.

I've never been mugged, but my wife has, in Central Park in NYC. The man jumped out of some bushes, and grabbed her purse. She fought back, and he put her in the hospital. If she had let go of her purse, he would have run away with it. He might have killed her. She believes, as I do, that if something like that should happen again, the best thing to do is to let go of the purse and retreat.

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

Yep. Not much he could have done, huh? I don't see how cogent that is - there was no time to either attack or give up the money - he was shot instantly.

No one can predict how a threat will end. All one can do it try to rationally evaluate the threat and take action based upon the highest probability of saving one's own life.

What I think we disagree on is what actions are most likely to do that in a given situation. I can't think of anything else to say.

 

[sparky12]

I think that the disagreement is really where each individual draws the line in the sand, not how to react. I think all are in agreement on how to act depending on the threat level but have a different point at which they feel comfortable in being able to take control of the situation. There are many different points to take control and each one is justified differently. My line is different from some of the others here but that doesn't mean they are wrong, just different. As you can see from this thread what ifs don't win the arguement so you have to do what is right for you.
Regards, Don

 

[MJS]

I can't keep saying the same thing again, so if we're misunderstanding each other, I have to stop. I said there is a difference between NOT assuming a person is not armed and ASSUMING he is. It is both a legal distinction and a discernment. Either you are not following this statement, or you do not want to. Either way, I've said it three times now, so if we don't agree, then we'll just have to not agree.

I need to get ready for work, so this'll have to be short until later on. Yes, misunderstanding happens all the time on the internet. My theory was simply...we, either a civilian or a cop, does not what what type of person we're dealing withm until we begin to deal with them. For me, I am going to assume the worst, until I know otherwise.

Police do not approach a vehicle assuming the occupants are armed. That is why they use caution and training, cover and awareness. They also do not assume that the occupants are armed (unless they get a felony response on the plates when they pulled traffic), so they do not approach with their pistols drawn, or perform a felony hot stop from their vehicle, using the PA and pistols drawn. Again, there is a very clear difference.

Until the cop gets the IDs of everyone in the car, he has no idea who he's dealing with and thats fact. Again, they need to assume the worst and be on high alert until they're sure there is no danger. That is what a good cop does. And I never said that they walk up to the car with their gun drawn. I said that they had their hand ON the gun. They approach from the side for safety. Additionally, I'm well aware of what a felony stop entails.

You seem to want to make the case that either I assume everyone is armed and react that way, or I'm just a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy who thinks the best of everyone. There are many positions between those two extremes. How can I make that more clear?

Actually, I'm getting the impression from your posts that you'd rather always try to talk your way out first and then, only then, if it doesnt work, you act. That is not the way I feel, if I'm faced with someone holding a blade on me. If you can't accept my views, I don't know what to tell you. You seem to think that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. Sorry you feel that way, but I don't think you have the patent on the best way to defuse a situation.

The response you described is no different from mine, as far as I can tell.

If you say so.

Not until the situation gets worse - until conditions change.

Threat level assessment is important and it needs to be kept in mind. As well as perceived threat level, one must also be well aware of one's own capabilities, terrain, conditions, avenues of escape, and so on. My response will vary depending on all of those, and any of them - except my own ability to defend myself unarmed - may change in a moment.

If the man charging across the street had suddenly veered off, would you run after him and attack him? Of course not. So we all recognize that we do threat level assessment all the time.

I do not advocate waiting until the situation becomes dire or 'things become worse'. I advocate evaluating options and choosing the one most likely to preserve your life. If the conditions change, your response may change accordingly.

Regarding your last line...you sure about that? Because I get the impression from your other posts, that if you comply, you'll probably walk away unharmed. Had this been me in this situation, I'd have done what elder suggested....begin to be aware from the minute I saw him coming at me. He is approaching, demanding something from me that isn't his, and I'm suppose to just hand it over? LOL, sure, ok.

Not at all. If I see that hand going back, my options are now limited to blocking or getting out of the way of that punch, and counterattacking with all my ability. It's on, and giving up the camera is no longer an option.

See, that is the difference between you and I. You would rather comply and then if he does something else, then you react. The mere fact that he is demanding property of mine...why the hell should I give it up? Get your own camera.

I don't think it's a macho thing, and my apologies if that is what is coming across. I think that patriotic statements about standing up to thuggery sound good to say, and can be rather stupid to do. However, that's a personal choice. I don't see the future of a flag-draped coffin with my widow crying and being comforted that 'at least he died for something, standing up to a thug who wanted his camera' is a very worthwhile scenario. It's a stupid way and reason to die, IMHO.

And my apologies if I'm giving the impression that I like to whoop *** any chance I get. Its the total opposite Bill, trust me. I do everything in my power to avoid bad places, to be aware, etc. But, if I'm faced with a situation that I cant talk down or where talking is not an option, I will defend myself. Why do we train? I don't know about you, but I'm in it for SD. Sure, I reap the other benefits as well, but I don't go to class to make new friends or lose weight. I think my views are pretty much in line with what a few others have been saying as well.

I have never said that. In fact, I keep saying the opposite. I have no reason to believe he will stop the attack once he has the camera. I have no reason to believe he won't. Giving him the camera is an option that gives me more time, might end the attack, and at the very least, does me no harm beyond the loss of the camera, which I do not care about enough to risk my life for.

To each his own.

I've never said that. Not even close.

Ok, if you say so.

Every situation has to be evaluated on its merits. But in very general terms, yes. A guy comes up and says "Give me your wallet," chances are that if I believe he is about to do me serious bodily harm, I'm going to comply. I'm going to do it in a way that puts room between me and him, I'm going to be looking for avenues of escape and weapons of opportunity, and I'm going to be judging him and his movements every second, as well as trying to memorize his face, build, and clothing.

If he makes a furtive movement that makes me believe that he is going for a weapon, then yes, I am going to attack him - and it's a very good time to do it, before the weapon clears his pocket or holster, and while he's distracted.

I will say this - if, in my judgment, I felt strongly that he was going to kick my butt even if I gave him my wallet, I'd launch the attack at the moment he made his demand. How do I know the difference? I don't, I'm not a fortune-teller. I judge each situation on its merits, and some of my responses are not even conscious to me at the time.

But the moment I attack, I have engaged in a life-or-death struggle, and put my life on the line. If lose, I may lose my life. If I can avoid that by dumping my wallet on the ground and backing away, I will do that.

Whether you give the wallet or you don't you could still end up dead. My views are, I may as well fight for my money.

There is no edge against a bullet.

Theres no edge against anything, but with our training, we would hopefully stand a better chance.

Your life is in danger from the moment the confrontation begins. The threat level is raised significantly when violence ensues. A simple line drawn from point A to point B shows that the longer it takes for violence to begin (or not to happen at all), the safer you are, relatively speaking.

And I want to make this very clear, my opinion only, but again, when you engage physically with the assailant, your life is very clearly in his hands, as his is in yours. If he wins, he may kill you. If you engaged in that battle voluntarily, you gave that decision to him - assuming he wins.

My life is in his hands especially if he has a weapon. I'm running the chance of being screwed either way...comply, get stabbed. Don't comply, get stabbed. Maybe I'll walk away, but I'm not going to bank on him taking my stuff and letting me leave, esp. if I can ID him. Remember that story I mentioned about the 2 older ladies? Why did they get shot again? Oh thats right...because the BG was afraid they'd ID him. Hmmm..go figure.

Correct.

We finally agree on something.

My position is that might not be the wisest decision.

And thats your opinion. I have mine, Elder, Andy, etc. have theirs.

I would comply only if I felt that doing so had a reasonable chance of success - meaning I walk away unharmed. That's why. It's a really good reason. Self-defense means self-defense. Defending myself from injury and death. I don't have to do that with a punch or kick. I can try to do it by removing myself from danger. If that doesn't work, then Plan B.

But we still don't know whether or not it'll work.

Again, there are options between extremes. If I don't man up and charge into battle, I'm a coward? I am neither a serviceman nor a police officer anymore. I have no duty, no honor, and no country to defend by refusing to hand over a wallet or camera. My duty is to my self-defense. Fighting if I must, avoiding it if I can. Failure to do so seems a tragic mistake to me.

And my duty is to protect my well being and that of my wife. Again, to each his own. You have your views, but you still seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy. Why?

Do you think I live in fear?

I don't know what to think.

I applaud their actions, and hope I would have done the same. Threat level evaluation - some of the passengers already knew that some planes had been taken over and crashed intentionally - they knew what their likely fate was. They rose and charged heroically in a move that failed, but was their only chance, and saved the lives of those who would have been targets of the plane. They made a very smart and selfless decision in a moment when many could be forgiven for failing to act.

I have never advocated giving in with the hope of placating, living in fear, or cowering. I have said that fighting over principle is generally not conducive to the basic concepts of self-defense, because the risk of not being able to defend yourself goes up exponentially the moment violence ensues.

Ok.

Never said it, don't believe it.

Ok.

I very seriously doubt I would comply with the laying down part. Threat level assessment. What did I lose by complying with the car keys and wallet part? I gained time - time to evaluate the situation, gauge the assailant's capabilities and try to figure out his intent. I gained time to look for avenues of escape and weapons of opportunity, to run through likely self-defense scenarios in my mind. I lost nothing by complying until the threat level changed and I decided that attack had a better chance of success than compliance.

You still seem confident that if you comply, you won't get harmed. Maybe its your wording, I dont know. You comply, and you can still get stabbed. Either way, IMO, you're better off, again, IMO, fighting back. How many times have we heard of cases where the victim fought back and survived?

I don't know, but like many things, I will make a decision of that nature when the time comes, and hope I did it right.

Here's a story about a man who did it exactly right, in my opinion:

http://www.justnews.com/news/13585335/detail.html

Lovell gave up his wallet, even though he was armed. He did a threat level assessment and decided that compliance was a better option than a shoot out. When ordered to go to the back, he decided that the threat level had changed, and compliance was no longer likely to produce the results he wanted. He drew and fired.

That's how it should be done, IMHO.

And thats your opinion. See, the BG had what he wanted, and now he had other intentions. My thought...dont even let it get that far. What if the guy was unable to fire? He'd still have been shafted. This is why I advocate fighting back from the get go.

I agree that when he draws back, that is the time. I can't imagine I've said anything else.

Ok.

Yes, that's the difference between us, I agree. My belief is that since fighting is always a life-and-death struggle when it is between adults and involves criminal activity, avoiding it is the wiser course if one has another option.

And likewise, I've said many times now that I try to avoid the bad stuff, talk my way out as well. From across the room, the guy in the bar thats yelling at me for looking at his girl, can't really do anything to me. Sure, if he had a gun he could pull it and start shooting, but anything physical, he's too far. Now he moves in on me. Would you still try to talk him down?

The threat level is very different. One, I sleep on the second floor of my house, and I have no easy means of escape that does not put me at risk. Two, I have a family to protect, and they're not all in the same room with me. Three, I have weapons stashed around my house, and I can't risk that the bad guy has found one or more. Four, I am on my own terrain, and I'm familiar with it, and have trained on room clearing, fire lanes, and fire control inside my own house, because I'm a very paranoid man.

I sleep on the 2fl. as well. Going by your past posts of talking your way out, complying, etc, I figured you'd try to talk here as well. Hey, couldnt hurt right. "I'll leave you to clean out the house, as long as you dont hurt me or the family." And just because I as at the ATM doesnt mean that I'm free to run as well. What happens if I can't run?

This is why I say fight.

Chance are very high that my wife and I will do what we have rehearse. She takes the S&W Model 10 into the closet with the cell phone and starts dialing 911, hiding behind the gun safe, which is obviously bulletproof. I take the boomstick and and begin room clearing. I hit the central alarm panic switch outside the master bedroom door, and of course, by this time, my dogs are going nuts and tearing the guts out of anyone who is not supposed to be in the house. I move towards the sound with cover and concealment, and I put a double-tap in the ten ring on every upright body that isn't my 81-year-old mother-in-law or my dogs.

Sounds like a plan.

Absolutely, and with extreme prejudice.

And I like my money, my car, my watch. I'm not giving them up to some piece of **** punk, who is looking for his next fix.

Again, yes, there is nothing that says he will leave me alone. In which case, I have to fight, and I will. I've lost nothing by trying to avoid it, and I may have gained a great deal.

IMO, theres a difference between someone at a distance, and you try to talk it down, vs. them advancing on you, vs. them making threats with a weapon. At that point, he's taken it to extreme odds, and IMO, the time for talking is no more.

If he has a knife at my back in the manner you describe, I am going to withdraw whatever my limit is, and give it to him. He can't take the money and keep the knife at my back, especially if I drop it. And his focus is on the money, so he's not going to stab me and then reach for the money. Then I attack. He's got a weapon in his hand, I have very few avenues of escape, and my chances to leave without violence are very very low.

And he could just as easily stab you in the back and then leave.

Threat level assessment is fundamental. I'm new to martial arts, but I'm not new to self-defense.

In the case you describe, I'd agree. Very clear what happens next, isn't it?

The man who charged across the street was very clearly interested in taking the camera - according to the story. If that is true, then that's a very different situation than him advancing on me, hands clenched into fists, and (in the barroom scenario) more than likely drunk and willing to fight.

But why is some guy, who I dont know, walking to me from across the street? That is the time to be even more aware. Once they invade my space, I doubt they're asking me to lunch.

I've never been mugged, but my wife has, in Central Park in NYC. The man jumped out of some bushes, and grabbed her purse. She fought back, and he put her in the hospital. If she had let go of her purse, he would have run away with it. He might have killed her. She believes, as I do, that if something like that should happen again, the best thing to do is to let go of the purse and retreat.

I'm glad to hear she was ok. Does your wife train?

Yep. Not much he could have done, huh? I don't see how cogent that is - there was no time to either attack or give up the money - he was shot instantly.

No one can predict how a threat will end. All one can do it try to rationally evaluate the threat and take action based upon the highest probability of saving one's own life.

What I think we disagree on is what actions are most likely to do that in a given situation. I can't think of anything else to say.

I will say Bill, that I have enjoyed debating with you. I'm sincere in saying that too. And yes, I think while we may have the same end goal, our methods of getting there are different.

BTW, if you haven't already, check your PM box. I sent you a link to another thread on this forum, that I think you'd enjoy.

Mike

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And I like my money, my car, my watch. I'm not giving them up to some piece of **** punk, who is looking for his next fix.

My opinion is that the punk's punkiness is irrelevant. His fix is irrelevant. My watch, car, and money are irrelevant. All that is relevant is the threat, my response, and what response to this threat has the best chance of defending my life. I try to keep that uppermost in my decision tree.

I will say Bill, that I have enjoyed debating with you. I'm sincere in saying that too. And yes, I think while we may have the same end goal, our methods of getting there are different.

Ditto. I also heard what you said about me stating my opinion like it's the only 'right' way. Sorry, I know I do that, my bad. My opinion is not the only opinion, nor is it the only right way. It's just my way. It's right because it is mine - right for me, that is.

BTW, if you haven't already, check your PM box. I sent you a link to another thread on this forum, that I think you'd enjoy.

Did and have, thanks!

Oh, and one last thing - I have been thinking about it, and I think I may have isolated the key to the differences we have between our philosophies. It is our goals. My goal is simple - defense of my life, everything else is secondary. Yours appears to have added elements, such as defense against thuggery, standing up to injustice, and being generally more proactive in determining that the threat you face is best dealt with by force. It's like a tipping point - we have different reasons that engage the 'fight' part of 'fight or flight'. What do you think?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I'm afraid I've got to rate this thread 5 stars.

 

[elder999]

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

Lest it seem that I've been completely dismissive of your way of thinking, I'm not. Let's look at it this way:

When i was on JEOPARDY!, I played pretty well. Going into the final JEOPARDY round, it was really close between me and the other two contestants-so close, that I determined that I had to bet it all.

I got the question wrong, and lost-if I'd gotten it right, based on the way the other two bet, I'd have won.

I still believe that I made the right decision in betting-in the end, the best I might have gotten from betting otherwise was an equally undesirable second place.

I believe that your playing of the odds-"give up the wallet, because you may remain uninjured"-is not a good play for maximizing a desirable outcome. At best, it is a 50-50 bet on a desired outcome, at worst it is the first step towards maximizing a most undesirable outcome: second place, where you get injured or die.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When i was on JEOPARDY!, I played pretty well. Going into the final JEOPARDY round, it was really close between me and the other two contestants-so close, that I determined that I had to bet it all.

I got the question wrong, and lost-if I'd gotten it right, based on the way the other two bet, I'd have won.

I still believe that I made the right decision in betting-in the end, the best I might have gotten from betting otherwise was an equally undesirable second place.

I absolutely agree with your assessment. The major difference is that you had to make your assessment, place your bet, and live with the consequences of that decision. No reevaluations.

Giving up the wallet is a decision, but it may not be the only one I'd make. I don't have to say "Oh, well, I decided to give in, I was wrong and he still wants to kill me, guess I die now." I can alter my response based on events as they unfold. If the threat changes, the response changes. I'm not locked in. To steal a line from another game show - it's not my 'Final Answer'.

 

[elder999]

I Giving up the wallet is a decision, but it may not be the only one I'd make. I don't have to say "Oh, well, I decided to give in, I was wrong and he still wants to kill me, guess I die now." I can alter my response based on events as they unfold. If the threat changes, the response changes. I'm not locked in. To steal a line from another game show - it's not my 'Final Answer'.

Game theory, gambling odds and case history all say that giving up the wallet is not the best answer. They all say that-if capable-the best, most decisive response is always prompt, decisive, violent and, if possible, armed resistance. While you may feel that you are not locked in, and you may not be, that decision is predicated on a faulty assumption. The best assumption is that your assailant is "locked in", and he's going to kill you, not stop at taking your wallet.


That is, of course, a reality that a number of people are incapable of accepting, or refuse to accept. Once that reality-and it is a reality-is accepted, though, the course of action is clear, and there is very little room for flexibility.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I think a large part of the problem is the internet itself.

If the group of us were seated together knocking back a few cold ones and could actually witness each other's tone, expression and energy, I think we'd find we didn't disagree as starkly as we appear, because our meaning would be better understood.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Game theory, gambling odds and case history all say that giving up the wallet is not the best answer. They all say that-if capable-the best, most decisive response is always prompt, decisive, violent and, if possible, armed resistance. While you may feel that you are not locked in, and you may not be, that decision is predicated on a faulty assumption. The best assumption is that your assailant is "locked in", and he's going to kill you, not stop at taking your wallet.

I disagree, and I offer as evidence this - if you list the possible outcomes, there is only one that has zero chance of my being injured or killed - and that one is if a) I give up my wallet, and b) the mugger stops at that.

There is no other outcome that has a zero chance of injury, so that option weighs heavily in a outcome-based decision that values life and non-injury over anything else. If your end result values something else more highly than life/safety, then your weighting may vary.

That is, of course, a reality that a number of people are incapable of accepting, or refuse to accept. Once that reality-and it is a reality-is accepted, though, the course of action is clear, and there is very little room for flexibility.

It's far from settled fact. I have no study information available for people who resist muggers versus people who give up their property without resistance, but I am quite aware of the continuing back-and-forth results of studies done on rape. Studies have shown that rape victims tend to suffer fewer injuries and are killed less often when they give in to their attackers - others have show the opposite (the standard until very recently). Now that is being called into question again.

So I don't know what the hard odds are. I can only list outcomes and look at them. Only one outcome avoid even the possibility of serious injury/death. And - bonus - I may be able to try that and then replace my bet if it appears not to be the correct choice based on changing circumstances.

 

[elder999]

I disagree, and I offer as evidence this - if you list the possible outcomes, there is only one that has zero chance of my being injured or killed - and that one is if a) I give up my wallet, and b) the mugger stops at that.

There is no other outcome that has a zero chance of injury, so that option weighs heavily in a outcome-based decision that values life and non-injury over anything else. If your end result values something else more highly than life/safety, then your weighting may vary.

Your projected outcome is based upon an erroneous assumption.

It's far from settled fact. I have no study information available for people who resist muggers versus people who give up their property without resistance.

Actually, it's a settled fact. The study information is available.

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs compiles a National Crime Victimization Survey annually. From this survey it is possible to determine staitistically what the opportunity for success is in resisting various crimes such as rape, robbery, and assault. The survey clearly demonstrates that resisting a crime helps the suituation for the victim on an average of 63% of the time, and it only makes situations "worse 9.2% of the time.

You can find the survey here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Your projected outcome is based upon an erroneous assumption.

I'm not making any assumption at all. If you list all possible outcomes, only one has zero chance of injury.

Actually, it's a settled fact. The study information is available.

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs compiles a National Crime Victimization Survey annually. From this survey it is possible to determine staitistically what the opportunity for success is in resisting various crimes such as rape, robbery, and assault. The survey clearly demonstrates that resisting a crime helps the suituation for the victim on an average of 63% of the time, and it only makes situations "worse 9.2% of the time.

You can find the survey here.

No, it does not say that at all. Sorry, you're making that up. I've been reading the UCR from the FBI and the NCVS for years. I know what they say and what they do not say.

Richard Block, on the other hand, did a study on robbery in Chicago in 1986, and found that the injury rate was 15% where no resistance was given, and 50% where there was an 'indication of victim resistance'.

There are a lot of studies out there, and no conclusive proof of which is statistically better - offering resistance or not offering resistance.

In any case, even if your make-um-up statistics were right, I am still quite capable of giving up my wallet and then choosing to resist if the confrontation continues, as I have said. That would put me on the good side of your imaginary study.

*Block, Richard, "Victim Offender Dynamics in Stranger to Stranger Violence, Robbery and Rape", March 1983.

 

[Archangel M]

There is a large difference between being cautious and "assuming someone is armed". I agree with Mr. Mattocks, we dont approach cars cars like we do because we are "assuming you are armed"...if I assumed that there would be a large caliber weapon pointing at you...we approach as we do as a precaution. Much like I dont put on a seatbelt assuming I am going to get into an auto accident.

 

[elder999]

No, it does not say that at all. Sorry, you're making that up. I've been reading the UCR from the FBI and the NCVS for years.

Not very thoroughly, apparently.

Pleas take note here, at the report for 2006. please note tables 68-74, beginning on pg. 23. Please also note that their titles are as follows:

Percent of victimizations in which victims took self-protective measures, by type of crime and victim-offender relationship​

Percent of victimizations in which victims took self-protective measures, by characteristics of victims and type of crime​

Percent distribution of self-protective measures employed by victims, by type of measure and type of crime​

Percent distribution of self-protective measures employed by victims, by selected characteristics of victims​

Percent of victimizations in which self-protective measures were employed,by person taking the measure, outcome of action and type of crime​

Percent distribution of victimizations in which self-protective measures taken by the victim were helpful​

Percent distribution of victimizations in which self-protective measures taken by the victim were harmful​

Please take note of the titles of the last three, and refer to the percentages involved.

Sorry, you're making that up. I've been reading the UCR from the FBI and the NCVS for years. I know what they say and what they do not say.

If you were more familiar with my posts, you'd know that I don't do that.
"making that up." :lfao:

In any case, even if your make-um-up statistics were right, I am still quite capable of giving up my wallet and then choosing to resist if the confrontation continues, as I have said. That would put me on the good side of your imaginary study.

Not imaginary, and you're not on the "good side,"statistically speaking.

 

[Archangel M]

Hmmm. If I wasnt armed and someone was trying to take my camera, going by the "always assume they are armed" theory would kind of imply that it would be a better strategy to give him the camera.Or at least drop the camera and run.

I guess Im in the middle of the road on this issue. While Im not prone to just giving up my property because some person is grabbing at it, Im also not a proponent of giving up your life over the "prnciple" of not being a victim. Some things are worth dying for and some are not. I think its best that we each figure out what those are for ourselves ahead of time.

 

[elder999]

Hmmm. If I wasnt armed and someone was trying to take my camera, going by the "always assume they are armed" theory would kind of imply that it would be a better strategy to give him the camera.Or at least drop the camera and run. .

Not if you "always assume they're going to kill you."

 

[Archangel M]

Not if you "always assume they're going to kill you."

Eh..I dont think its that easy. As a martial arts instructor what would you tell your students to do whan confronted by a man with a gun demanding their wallet? Give up the wallet or always go for the disarm..one of the riskiest "last ditch" techniques there is..because you "should always assume they are going to kill you"? Even if I had my pistol on me, the odds of beating a man to the shot when he is aiming at me and I still have to draw are not good. If I thought he was going to shoot me anyway I may have to just "go for it" but I would be looking for distraction options or runing options first.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Please take note of the titles of the last three, and refer to the percentages involved.

I did. You didn't.

What is "self-protective measures" according to the statistics?

Well, the list includes appeasement, persuasion, running away, and hiding. As well as fighting with the assailant. So there goes your statistics.

Furthermore, you called it a 'study'. It is not. It is a 'survey'. What's the difference? Well, tell me the criteria used for 'helped the situation' or 'made the situation worse'? Oh, that's right, it doesn't say. We know what studies are, because they have the word 'study' in them and they contain conclusions with references to source data and explain how the data was gathered and what it means.

These are statistics. They are useful data, they are not information, nor can percentages pulled out of them be meaningfully used without further interpretation.

 

[elder999]

I did. You didn't.

What is "self-protective measures" according to the statistics?

Well, the list includes appeasement, persuasion, running away, and hiding. As well as fighting with the assailant. So there goes your statistics..

Actually, a closer examination of the survey reveals that the greater majority of successful self-protective measures were resistance, both armed and unarmed, followed by running away. In fact, the category of "appeasement" is based on fewer than 10 samples within the particuar demographic. Again, the reliable message from the data-when one applies game theory to it-is that the best chance one has of survival is to resist-that does, in fact, include fleeing in instances where it is practicable-it may well not be. It apparently does not include, to any great degree, "giving up the wallet."