MaartenSFS
Blue Belt
Sounds like China, you Communist bastards.
Except that they don't show adult programmes until after 12:00 and not on television, but in the cinema.
Should We Do What They Tell Us?
- Thread starter Darth F.Takeda
- Start date
Sounds like China, you Communist bastards.
Except that they don't show adult programmes until after 12:00 and not on television, but in the cinema.Darth F.Takeda
Blue Belt
Well, at least I know it's not you who went off to the mods, crying about being offended by my above post's.
Very Communist of someone here, who instead of counter pointing my post, runs off to a Mod, like they were ratting out someone to the KGB?
This is the very kind of weak thinking would discourage bravery like the 17 year old young man showed. The whole "Let someone else fight my battles." mindset of the cowardly, weak and diserving of the oppression such thinking will encourage.
Very Communist of someone here, who instead of counter pointing my post, runs off to a Mod, like they were ratting out someone to the KGB?
This is the very kind of weak thinking would discourage bravery like the 17 year old young man showed. The whole "Let someone else fight my battles." mindset of the cowardly, weak and diserving of the oppression such thinking will encourage.
Alot of posts, so rather than reply to each one, I'll just throw in my .02. 
Do we have a right to protect ourselves, our property, our family? Sure. However, I still believe that some good common sense should be used. The cops are here for a reason, and I don't think that having them tell someone to disregard the law and have a free for all, is the right thing to do. If that was the case, why have police at all?
Mike
Do we have a right to protect ourselves, our property, our family? Sure. However, I still believe that some good common sense should be used. The cops are here for a reason, and I don't think that having them tell someone to disregard the law and have a free for all, is the right thing to do. If that was the case, why have police at all?
Mike
An interesting and lively discusssion! I can't add much as our laws and perception of police officers is perhaps different from yours. I'm thinking that your very senior police officers/officials are political appointees?
The view that the police forces are public servants which you pay for to protect citizens and deal with crime doesn't come across very much either in these posts or articles we see from the States at all.
We are told not to tackle criminals, the few cases where a non police officer has, that person has been killed or badly injured. It makes total sense to leave crime to those we pay to deal with it as they are also the ones trained for the job.
We had a high profile case a while back where tow lads broke into a man's house and he shot them, one died. Much was made of the 'defending an Englishman's castle' stuff and saying the home owner shouldn't have been prosecuted and sent to prison. On closer investigation, which of course the media didn't bother with, it turned out that the home owner had several illegal weapons, had threatend to kill his own brother as well as other neighbours and had shot one of the burglars in the back as he was leaving the house. He was prosecuted for manslaughter because he had not at any time been in danger of his life nor was he threatened, he had exceeded what was deemed reasonable force. Police spokesmen pointed out that every other case where a burglar had been injured or even killed by the householder in this country had not been prosecuted as investigation.
The law in this country allows reasonable force to be used both by the population to defend themselves and by the police to arrest and detain a suspect. The advice not to 'have a go' is wise and is usually adhered to with good reason.
The view that the police forces are public servants which you pay for to protect citizens and deal with crime doesn't come across very much either in these posts or articles we see from the States at all.
We are told not to tackle criminals, the few cases where a non police officer has, that person has been killed or badly injured. It makes total sense to leave crime to those we pay to deal with it as they are also the ones trained for the job.
We had a high profile case a while back where tow lads broke into a man's house and he shot them, one died. Much was made of the 'defending an Englishman's castle' stuff and saying the home owner shouldn't have been prosecuted and sent to prison. On closer investigation, which of course the media didn't bother with, it turned out that the home owner had several illegal weapons, had threatend to kill his own brother as well as other neighbours and had shot one of the burglars in the back as he was leaving the house. He was prosecuted for manslaughter because he had not at any time been in danger of his life nor was he threatened, he had exceeded what was deemed reasonable force. Police spokesmen pointed out that every other case where a burglar had been injured or even killed by the householder in this country had not been prosecuted as investigation.
The law in this country allows reasonable force to be used both by the population to defend themselves and by the police to arrest and detain a suspect. The advice not to 'have a go' is wise and is usually adhered to with good reason.
KenpoTex
Senior Master
MJS said:
So are you saying if a cop (whether street-level or Brass) were to encourage someone to defend themselves and not comply with the demands of a criminal that it would be telling them to disregard the law? I'm sure I'm misinterpreting your statement (at least I hope so).
This type of situation happened several months ago here in my town. The clerk at a liquor store shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint (the bad-guy shot at the clerk as well). The clerk survived and was not charged with any crime as his actions were ruled a justified use of force. However, the police chief said that "he should not have taken the law into his own hands."
When I heard this statement from the chief, I lost any respect I might have had for him. Such an attitude (unfortunately all to common among high-level LE) is pathetic.
Complying with the instructions of a criminal may be the best choice in some cases. However, each situation is going to be different so I do not feel that it is something that should be encouraged as a standard practice. If all you're going to do is submit, than why waste time training for self-defense? To "go along until/unless he tries to hurt you" is foolhardy because once he has made that decision and starts to implement it, you are way behind the curve and probably will not catch up in time. The only time I will submit is if I have not yet been presented with the opportunity to either flee safely, or to respond with overwhelming force until the threat has been neutralized.
We have armed robberies but NO shopkeeper has a weapon behind the counter, we have very few houshoulders who have weapons, if they do the guns will be locked in a secure cabinet as the law demands. Fighting back unarmed against a gun is foolhardy if not very stupid so the advice to give them the cash or whatever is wise.
"This type of situation happened several months ago here in my town. The clerk at a liquor store shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint (the bad-guy shot at the clerk as well). The clerk survived and was not charged with any crime as his actions were ruled a justified use of force. However, the police chief said that "he should not have taken the law into his own hands."
When I heard this statement from the chief, I lost any respect I might have had for him. Such an attitude (unfortunately all to common among high-level LE) is pathetic"
This couldn't happen here and I don't understand how it could be deemed pathetic, what if it had turned out the other way? Whatever happened a person was dead, okay one was a thief who threated another with a gun but is life that cheap that you kill everyone who threatens? Taking a life should be regarded as an awful thing to do whatever the circumstances. When we get used to taking life without a thought we are as a civilisation in trouble.
Recently a unarmed man tackled an armed raider and was shot and severely wounded for his trouble. The police said it was brave but foolish.
"This type of situation happened several months ago here in my town. The clerk at a liquor store shot a man who tried to rob him at gunpoint (the bad-guy shot at the clerk as well). The clerk survived and was not charged with any crime as his actions were ruled a justified use of force. However, the police chief said that "he should not have taken the law into his own hands."
When I heard this statement from the chief, I lost any respect I might have had for him. Such an attitude (unfortunately all to common among high-level LE) is pathetic"
This couldn't happen here and I don't understand how it could be deemed pathetic, what if it had turned out the other way? Whatever happened a person was dead, okay one was a thief who threated another with a gun but is life that cheap that you kill everyone who threatens? Taking a life should be regarded as an awful thing to do whatever the circumstances. When we get used to taking life without a thought we are as a civilisation in trouble.
Recently a unarmed man tackled an armed raider and was shot and severely wounded for his trouble. The police said it was brave but foolish.
Like so many other issues in self-defense, there are too many variables to have a stock answer to any situation. Should we always blindly follow authority? That is, in my mind, as foolish as always blindly disobeying authority - they are two sides of the same coin. The person(s) in a particular situation need to determine for themselves what the appropriate response should be - and no second-guessing from people who are not present for the situation can change that.
In the situation that started this thread before the split, about the 17 year-old boy who took a gun from an attacker and used it against him, I stated that I didn't know whether to be impressed or horrified - and I stand by that. Do I think he should have sat by and allowed his mother's car and money to be taken? I can't say - because I wasn't there. I will say, however, that his choice of action could have gone horribly astray - would we all be sitting here debating if he should have taken action had the 17 year-old, rather than the criminal, been the one to receive multiple gunshot wounds? It's hard to say... but I doubt it. Hindsight is 20/20, and since his actions were effective, quite a few people are applauding this boy's actions - and to a certain extent I'm one of them, because too many criminals rely on people's willingness to avoid involvement and potential injury - but at the same time, such choices can go horribly wrong.
The same holds true for workers in any emergency service - no matter how much training a person receives, you cannot know how you will react to a particular stressor until you are exposed to that stressor. For untrained people, the risk is greater - and in general, the understanding of possible outcomes is much less.
As martial artists, we can train people, teach them skills, simulate scenarios as realistically as possible, etc. - but in the end, there is no way to know how a particular person will react until a situation occurs. For myself, I will not automatically discard or choose any potential course of action until I absolutely must, nor will I advocate that my students automatically discard or choose any potential course of action, simply because of who they are (or are not) responding to.
In the situation that started this thread before the split, about the 17 year-old boy who took a gun from an attacker and used it against him, I stated that I didn't know whether to be impressed or horrified - and I stand by that. Do I think he should have sat by and allowed his mother's car and money to be taken? I can't say - because I wasn't there. I will say, however, that his choice of action could have gone horribly astray - would we all be sitting here debating if he should have taken action had the 17 year-old, rather than the criminal, been the one to receive multiple gunshot wounds? It's hard to say... but I doubt it. Hindsight is 20/20, and since his actions were effective, quite a few people are applauding this boy's actions - and to a certain extent I'm one of them, because too many criminals rely on people's willingness to avoid involvement and potential injury - but at the same time, such choices can go horribly wrong.
The same holds true for workers in any emergency service - no matter how much training a person receives, you cannot know how you will react to a particular stressor until you are exposed to that stressor. For untrained people, the risk is greater - and in general, the understanding of possible outcomes is much less.
As martial artists, we can train people, teach them skills, simulate scenarios as realistically as possible, etc. - but in the end, there is no way to know how a particular person will react until a situation occurs. For myself, I will not automatically discard or choose any potential course of action until I absolutely must, nor will I advocate that my students automatically discard or choose any potential course of action, simply because of who they are (or are not) responding to.
Em MacIntosh
3rd Black Belt
Un-American! Un-Canadian, inhuman! I know exactly what it's like. Take high school. You have no right to self defense. You do get expelled for fighting back. They don't care. They want to run a tight ship and ignore the details. I wonder if it's in the authority figure's (principal, student councillor, whoever decides) job description to be ignorant of these things or if it's a personal thing. Don't get me wrong, I've had bad experiences that have soured me on it. I will back my child up in a situation like that and pull him out of the school as a statement of their incompetence. Private school's expensive though...
Violence is unnacceptable. So why do the A-holes get a free ride so often in public school? I'm not much for conspiracies but do they pay bullies to keep student moral low and spirits broken? I have to wonder. I apoligize to those I've lumped in here who mean well but AAAAARGHHHHH!!! One violent act on another human being=10 years, no parole. Second offence=life imprisonment with the option of execution. All we need is a better way of judging wether someone is guilty or not. Is that why we have such light penalties? In case we're wrong? Or is it a benefit of the doubt thing? If ten years for being stupid isn't enough, throw that person away! They just want to make trouble, be a big man at the cost of peaceful people. I understand it's idealistic but I shouldn't have to fight, ever. Period. Until they quit "condoning" and "encouraging" violence, we should have full leeway to make them pay for a very stupid mistake. Just my $.02.
Violence is unnacceptable. So why do the A-holes get a free ride so often in public school? I'm not much for conspiracies but do they pay bullies to keep student moral low and spirits broken? I have to wonder. I apoligize to those I've lumped in here who mean well but AAAAARGHHHHH!!! One violent act on another human being=10 years, no parole. Second offence=life imprisonment with the option of execution. All we need is a better way of judging wether someone is guilty or not. Is that why we have such light penalties? In case we're wrong? Or is it a benefit of the doubt thing? If ten years for being stupid isn't enough, throw that person away! They just want to make trouble, be a big man at the cost of peaceful people. I understand it's idealistic but I shouldn't have to fight, ever. Period. Until they quit "condoning" and "encouraging" violence, we should have full leeway to make them pay for a very stupid mistake. Just my $.02.
tellner
Senior Master
Alot of posts, so rather than reply to each one, I'll just throw in my .02.
Do we have a right to protect ourselves, our property, our family? Sure. However, I still believe that some good common sense should be used. The cops are here for a reason, and I don't think that having them tell someone to disregard the law and have a free for all, is the right thing to do. If that was the case, why have police at all?
Mike
I think you're under a few misapprehensions here on the basic facts
- The police are not here to protect us. The many court rulings have been unanimous. They are required to investigate crimes after the fact. They are required to arrest people for whom a warrant has been issued. They are not required to protect any individual citizen under any circumstances.
- The standard police advice really is based more on the dictates of the legal profession or ignorance than anything else. The last thirty years of criminological research are unanimous on the risks of flight, resistance and compliance. The law enforcement community is aware of those findings.
- Nobody in this case did anything that was against or "ignored" the law other than the robber. The defender took immediate action based on a reasonable fear that he or his mother was about to be murdered.
- Justice Frankfurter said that self defense is "the most fundamental" human right. That is what happened here. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of that right on this thread don't seem to go beyond its strict parameters.
- Another great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said "Calm reflection is not possible in the face of the upraised knife." That's what we had here. The kid had to make a split-second life-or-death decision. He was not engaging in a "free for all".
- In the other related thread exactly the same things apply, and the pizza parlor employees showed much more restraint than many reasonable people would have.
Em MacIntosh
3rd Black Belt
Right and wrong are not in a policeman's job description. Upholding the law is. Police were invented as the watch. The watch protect the rich. I've met policemen who try to do right and I've met policemen on a power trip. Policemen, I think, are supposed to be unpleasant because if they end up coming for a visit, it's supposed to be bad news (glad to see them when the violence breaks out thoug...). A lot of policemen, I think, are understandably (not necessarily justifiably) in bad moods. They deal with A-holes and punk teenagers all day. I'm impressed some are as good as they are at keeping an approachable attitude. Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely rather have them than not!
Job description of the British bobby:-
[SIZE=-1]JANE'S POLICE REVIEW CAREERS - APRIL 27, 2007 [/SIZE]
Join the police
The police service offers a wide range of worthwhile and rewarding career paths for PCs, Special constables, community support officers and police staff. These roles offer many opportunities for a first rate career and the chance to give something back to your community.
Becoming a police officer
As a police officer you will be expected to undertake a range of duties to reduce crime and the fear of crime. You will play a vital role in supporting victims and witnesses, providing reassurance and confidence to victims of crime, protecting the public from criminals and anti-social behaviour.
Other rolesFor more information on becoming a community support officer, Special constable or other roles within the police service see www.policecouldyou.co.uk
Of course there's my lot! http://www.modpoliceofficers.co.uk/default.asp
[SIZE=-1]JANE'S POLICE REVIEW CAREERS - APRIL 27, 2007 [/SIZE]
Join the police
The police service offers a wide range of worthwhile and rewarding career paths for PCs, Special constables, community support officers and police staff. These roles offer many opportunities for a first rate career and the chance to give something back to your community.
Becoming a police officer
As a police officer you will be expected to undertake a range of duties to reduce crime and the fear of crime. You will play a vital role in supporting victims and witnesses, providing reassurance and confidence to victims of crime, protecting the public from criminals and anti-social behaviour.
Other rolesFor more information on becoming a community support officer, Special constable or other roles within the police service see www.policecouldyou.co.uk
Of course there's my lot! http://www.modpoliceofficers.co.uk/default.asp
IMO, 99% of the time, when you and I are involved in a thread, it seems to me that we're on the same page. Perhaps a slight misunderstanding here. Please let me explain. I read the first post here in this thread, and took it as the cops encouraging the public to do things which are against the law. In the first post, the OP states that the officer stood there while he beat up another person, only breaking it up when it seemed to really escalate. Isn't it the job of a LEO to prevent things like this?
There have been many times on here, in which I've read stories of people fighting back and have tipped my hat to them. Someone shooting a suspect for robbing their store is no different than if I defended myself against someone trying to mug me. Then again, every time you hear of a situation like the one you mention, the cops always say what you stated. You never hear them say fight back.
1) So the phrase "To Protect and To Serve" means nothing anymore? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that if a cop drives by a man on the street getting mugged at knife point, he could keep on driving by?
3) I was basing my reply on the first post in this thread, not what the 17 yo did regarding the gun. Again, it was a judgement call. In a case like that, the person needs to decide if acting is a wise or poor choice.
4-6) All regarding the other post.
I know alot of Law Enforcement people and have been in the field myself way in the past. In general these are hard working people who are performing an incredibly difficult and dangerous job. Like all people who serve they generally and unfortunately do not get to deal with the best people all the time. They also on top of this have people constantly monday morning quarterbacking their ever move. Most of the LEO's that I know will tell you exactly what they feel you can do in a violent encounter and still be within the legal limits of the law. In general they give very good advice and want people to be safe and sound and to live good productive live's.
As to doing exactly what they tell you in regards to self defense and personal protection? Well in the end and in the moment you have to make your own decisions based on the unique circumstance that you are presented with. No one but you can make this decision and hopefully your training, morals and the advice you were given along the way will kick in and you will survive and still be within the legal limits of the law. Personally I think that every person studying martial arts/science should talk to many different people and police, lawyers, judges, etc. to gain an idea of how to protect themselves best. Do not limit yourself to one point of view or one individual persons perspective.
As to doing exactly what they tell you in regards to self defense and personal protection? Well in the end and in the moment you have to make your own decisions based on the unique circumstance that you are presented with. No one but you can make this decision and hopefully your training, morals and the advice you were given along the way will kick in and you will survive and still be within the legal limits of the law. Personally I think that every person studying martial arts/science should talk to many different people and police, lawyers, judges, etc. to gain an idea of how to protect themselves best. Do not limit yourself to one point of view or one individual persons perspective.
tellner
Senior Master
"To Protect and To Serve" is just the motto of the LAPD. Adam-12 and Dragnet got it national recognition. It has absolutely no legal content whatsoever. It means as much as most corporate mottoes.
The simple answer is that yes, the cop could drive on by. There is a long series of court cases. They are unanimous in their conclusions. Combine the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity with the bedrock principle that the police are there to investigate crimes and act on warrants, not protect any individual citizen absent some sort of personal services contract. The law is very clear. They have no legal obligation to protect you. They may choose to or they may not. And when they do not no law is broken and a lawsuit against them will fail. It really is as simple as that.
There was a case here not too many years ago. Three police officers watched someone get knifed to death. They did not get involved. They took notes and arrested the suspect later. The lawsuit was quickly thrown out on precisely the grounds outlined above. By taking notes and investigating the crime after the fact they had discharged their legal obligation.
I've been to a number of police training events over the years. At every one of them at least one older presenter says, usually in almost exactly these words "First you go home. Then your partner goes home. Then the citizen goes home. Then the bad guy goes home." When it comes to keeping people alive you are #3. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The job is dangerous enough without taking extra risks when you think there's a good chance you'll get hurt. Pull back and call for backup is S.O.P. for many situations in departmental policy manuals. If someone dies (cf. Columbine) that's regrettable. It's not necessarily contrary to what the officers were told to do. And it's neither against the law nor grounds for a suit.
In the end you are the one who is responsible for your own safety. The police are not. Even if they wanted to be they couldn't do the job. US Presidents have the best personal security in the world. They still get shot at. Sometimes they get hit.
Criminals do bad things to people. When that happens to you most of your options are bad. They don't include things like "honor", "fairness" or time for calm, clear in depth reflection. That's why the legal tradition of self defense is the way it is with terms like "choice of evils" and "affirmative defense". Killing people is bad. It is less bad than letting innocent people be killed or maimed by violent criminals. It would normally be wrong to kill anyone, but in this case it's a perfect legal defense if the jury believes you.
None of the people in either of the cases we're talking about went wild, took the law into their own hands or did anything else wrong. They all acted well within the tradition of self defense against "the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury." They did not do the police department's job. It's not the police department's job to prevent crimes from happening although it's a happy thing when it does. They did their own job according to the traditions of US and English Common Law. The kid with the samurai sword may have technically exceeded his authority once the burglar had left the house and was running away. But a case could be made in his defense.
In the pizza parlor case the employees would certainly have walked if the manager had cut the robber's throat like he was a kosher chicken. He had a gun and was wrestling for control of it. He had already pointed it at innocent people. A reasonable person in the manager's situation knowing what the manager knew could reasonably have concluded that innocent people were in immediate danger and that severe measures were the only safe way to stop the danger.
If the robber had been knocked unconscious and been tied up and they had gutted, cleaned, skinned and jointed him it would have been another matter. At that point he was not a danger. Further action was not reasonable self defense. Up until that point? They acted with extreme restraint by just cutting and whacking him a little and dragging him outside. Personally I would have at least restrained and possibly searched him and called the police. I wouldn't trust him not to have another gun and not to come back. Best to have him where the authorities can pick him up and take him away.
Darth F.Takeda
Blue Belt
And the above is why good cops, who do put their lives on the line to protect others, should be recognized.
The above might be correct but it is still wrong, a good cop will protect others.
My Sensei has collected a good set of scars from doing things like pulling people out of burning buildings,rescueing kids in precarious situations, stopping assults and other crimes in progress.
Then their is the more friendly stuff, like delivering a couple of babies, finding lost kids and being a positive influence on some of the kids on his beat.
As an aside, he says he never ate a donut the whole time he was in uniform, he always hated that stereotype and was not going to fall into it.
God bless those of you cops who truly protect and serve, and I'll refrain from saying what those who don't can do.
The above might be correct but it is still wrong, a good cop will protect others.
My Sensei has collected a good set of scars from doing things like pulling people out of burning buildings,rescueing kids in precarious situations, stopping assults and other crimes in progress.
Then their is the more friendly stuff, like delivering a couple of babies, finding lost kids and being a positive influence on some of the kids on his beat.
As an aside, he says he never ate a donut the whole time he was in uniform, he always hated that stereotype and was not going to fall into it.
God bless those of you cops who truly protect and serve, and I'll refrain from saying what those who don't can do.
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
The police party line about civilians arming themselves and defending themselves can seem annoying, but it makes solid sense from a purely tactical perspective.
I was never in special forces or SWAT, but I've had the privilege and pleasure of training with and befriending several people with experience in one, the other, or both. One rule all of them seem to agree on is never arm an untrained person. That scene in the movies where the soldier gives the journalist a gun so they can get out? Won't happen. Utrained, armed people are going to confuse the situation and get you shot. Now, if that journalist had a CCW or military training, he gets your spare piece in a new york second, but the rule stands: never arm an untrained person.
For the police department to go public saying 'sure, guys, if some skell steps up to you, blaze away. thanks for saving us the trouble'....that's arming the untrained at a society-wide level.
No wonder they don't want to do that in print. Not for the general public. However, just like the journalist with the CCW, you rarely see a reasonable, trained individual getting in real trouble for legitimate self-defense. I've used my skills in an embarassingly wide number of situations, and never once got cited or charged by the officer on scene. Most people I know have the same experience for legitimate self-defense.
In short, there's a legitimate reason for the party line. And if you defend yourself for legitimate reasons, most often you'll find the personal line is rather different for people with training, intelligence and good sense. Especially if you're polite to the officer when he shows up and asks you about it.
I was never in special forces or SWAT, but I've had the privilege and pleasure of training with and befriending several people with experience in one, the other, or both. One rule all of them seem to agree on is never arm an untrained person. That scene in the movies where the soldier gives the journalist a gun so they can get out? Won't happen. Utrained, armed people are going to confuse the situation and get you shot. Now, if that journalist had a CCW or military training, he gets your spare piece in a new york second, but the rule stands: never arm an untrained person.
For the police department to go public saying 'sure, guys, if some skell steps up to you, blaze away. thanks for saving us the trouble'....that's arming the untrained at a society-wide level.
No wonder they don't want to do that in print. Not for the general public. However, just like the journalist with the CCW, you rarely see a reasonable, trained individual getting in real trouble for legitimate self-defense. I've used my skills in an embarassingly wide number of situations, and never once got cited or charged by the officer on scene. Most people I know have the same experience for legitimate self-defense.
In short, there's a legitimate reason for the party line. And if you defend yourself for legitimate reasons, most often you'll find the personal line is rather different for people with training, intelligence and good sense. Especially if you're polite to the officer when he shows up and asks you about it.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest Discussions
-
Newbie folks asking what art is best for self-defense…- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
-
The "Look! Look at my cool workout!" thread
- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
20 tips for getting your 8 glasses a day...
- Latest: Prince_Alarming
-
Anyone ever met someone who only trains forms and basics?
- Latest: isshinryuronin
-