The "better to die on your feet" thread

[ballen0351]

So the message I'm getting from the "experts" is to play the odds and hope you don't get shot. Sorry, not buying it.
Begging and pleading does not have it's place.

No the point is you need to evaluate the situation and decide for yourself sometimes fighting is the right choice but its not the blanket answer

 

[ballen0351]

Begging and pleading does not have it's place.

Sure it does for example say my family and I are victims of a home invasion, multiple armed intruders and they got me. I 100% would beg to spare my kids lives. Im not invincible I may loose a fight but Id do what I could to spare my kids even beg if I needed to

 

[Jenna]

there is a huge difference between someone stealing your cell phone vs trying to Rape you

Of course, I would contest though that knowing which is which is what is not always the simple matter it would appear in the neatness of chats here.. I have spoken with victims more than a few who began with an apparently not too serious word or grab that was brushed off (was acquesced to or overlooked or the person was given the benefit of the doubt) only which escalated into something on an whole other scale completely.

Yes you are specially trained to actively evaluate on a rolling or continuous basis.. and would have apportioned force or restraint (which is different from surrender) as appropriate.. even many of us with a little SD do this to an extent when out our about.. Yet the shock of a suddenly overturned situation completely unexpected to the everyday person can countermand normal ability to reassess properly let alone do an whole lot about it.. this is not uncommon in my purview though I appreciate we all deal with victims at various points on the scale.. I value your input though.. Wishes, Jx

 

[Buka]

Maybe there are other things to consider in this equation. There are wolves, there are those the wolves target and there are sheepdogs.

Sometimes a good bowl of wolf stew warms you up.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Maybe there are other things to consider in this equation. There are wolves, there are those the wolves target and there are sheepdogs.

Sometimes a good bowl of wolf stew warms you up.

Grossman's treatise is romantic twaddle, macho posing as morality.

The extreme end of Grossmans's 'sheepdog' is the comic character "The Punisher," or "Batman."

The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society.

We should notice that MA without "侠(xia) - heroic" is meaningless. The definition of "侠(xia) - heroic" is to use your ability to help others without asking anything in return. IMO, when the spirit of "侠(xia) - heroic" is dead, the MA will die with it.

 

[Tgace]

Grossman's treatise is romantic twaddle, macho posing as morality.

The extreme end of Grossmans's 'sheepdog' is the comic character "The Punisher," or "Batman."

The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.

Well. I think you have to take the intended audience into consideration. Grossmans work is mostly focused on LEO's and his metaphors are probably intended to be more motivational than exemplary.

You have to do some of the "we run towards gunfire" ho-ha at times...it helps a bit when it actually happens. Such motivtional speech has probably been used to get men into position to fight since time immemorial.

And while I agree that high ideals are probably not usually in mind when the bullets start flying, there are plenty of people that raised their hands and put themselves into that position for their ideals/beliefs.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was one of them. Taken as metaphor, ok. Sadly, I think its been taken to extremes.

 

[drop bear]

I was one of them. Taken as metaphor, ok. Sadly, I think its been taken to extremes.

Then we open up a whole heap of new concepts though. So is it OK to engage in risk for personal reward. Getting mugged and fighting for your wallet.

Is it OK to engage in risk to protect the wider community. Fighting a mugger to prevent him striking out at someone else.

Is it OK to engage in risk to protect your self worth. Fighting a mugger because you refuse to become a victim.

(OK that example does not really stretch that well and so has holes in the specifics)

 

[drop bear]

Otherwise why do we allow others to engage in risk for us. When we call the police. We are putting them in danger.

 

[Tgace]

Otherwise why do we allow others to engage in risk for us. When we call the police. We are putting them in danger.

Because...with all the recent media hype over the exceptions aside...with a trained police force you tend to get a more trained and efficient response than you would depending on the training and knowledge of the "average Joe".

And I'm not even referring to all the " macho" stuff like shooting and fighting. I'm talking about driving, communications, equipment, access to services, basic legal knowledge and the ability to "process" what to do on any particular call.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Buka]

Grossman's treatise is romantic twaddle, macho posing as morality.

The extreme end of Grossmans's 'sheepdog' is the comic character "The Punisher," or "Batman."

The horrible little secret about actual warriors is that they fight to protect each other and themselves, not society. It's deucedly hard to get normal people to intentionally kill humans, and nearly as hard to get them to stop if they start to like it.

I don't see it that way.

As for "romantic twaddle" - I think there's a certain amount of romanticism in all of us, certainly in Martial Art training. Think about your training, it's usually in a certain place used for little if anything other than that training, we are all costumed the same, all with emblems (patches) uniting us, wear certain colored cloths to not only mark progress but to define the rank and file, we use words and phrases in languages we usually do not speak at any other times, and put our faith in certain fighting techniques that most will never field test.

I have a romanticism as part of my psyche since I was a kid. It comes from being raised as a gentleman understanding and embracing chivalry. It's part of who I am and I really like that. When we first read Grossman's sheepdog analogy we embraced it because it really fit the way we conducted business. It was certainly better than the terms we had used prior to that.

As for "twaddle and macho", both are negative terms and I don't believe they belong in the conversation. I do love The Punisher and Batman references though.

Pardon me now, I have sheep to attend.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't see it that way.

... When we first read Grossman's sheepdog analogy we embraced it because it really fit the way we conducted business. It was certainly better than the terms we had used prior to that.

OK, let me break it down without using negative terms.

Grossman draws the analogy between the sheep, the sheepdog, and the wolf. The sheep are the everyday people. People who are both ignorant of danger and prefer it that way. The sheepdogs are those who guard the herd against the wolves, because the wolves obey no rules of social convention and will eat the sheep without restraint.

However, the 'sheepdogs' are also sheep. The wolves are also sheep. We are all the same; human beings. Some people are protectors by nature, some are predators, some are willfully ignorant; all true.

However, there are no hard lines dividing us. We all have some predator within us, some protector, some willful ignorance. It just depends what about.

Putting ourselves into a category apart from humanity and describing ourselves as 'protectors' makes us not 'one of the people'. It makes us superior to them, and makes them dependent upon us for their lives. That's not how it is. You and I may choose to protect others; but we're not apart from the rest of humanity, we're not a more highly-evolved creature that protects the poor dumb sheep who can't help being victims. We're not knights in shining armor, we're not crusaders, we're the same as everybody else; we just make different choices based on our recognition of the danger and our choices to face it.

The Grossman analogy puts wolves and sheepdogs on a different plane from the sheep. The sheep are unworthy, should be grateful to be under our protection, etc. No, Grossman doesn't say that. But the analogy itself presents that model; it's sheepdogs versus wolves, the sheep are incidental, a prize for the victor. And I have seen, too many times, (present company excepted), self-described sheepdogs who hold humanity in the same contempt as a sheepdog might hold a flock of sheep if it had the power of such contemplation.

I am reminded of the soliloquy of the movie character Colonel Jessup, near the end of the movie "A Few Good Men," when he reveals that he believes himself to be a sheepdog in the Grossman sense:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

"You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." Here, Jessup describes his role - sheepdog. The people are sheep, he is the protector of those sheep, the sheepdog.

Rousing words, yes? And many of us can see the truth in them, or at least the truth we would like to imagine.

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

But here, Jessup describes not just his role, but his opinion of the sheep. They, being the protected, are not entitled to either question how he, the sheepdog, provides it. And this is an attitude I have seen in self-described 'sheepdogs' many times (again, present company excepted).

"Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to." And finally, Jessup makes it clear that the sheep don't get a vote. They are of no consequence, other than to be there for the sheepdog to protect.

So no, sir, I am not a sheepdog, not a sheep, not a wolf. I did not ask to be protected, my rights and opinions do matter, and I won't put up with people acting outside the law, either to 'protect' me or to attack me. We're all humans, not sheep. No one is under my feet; no one is over my head. Certainly not a self-described sheepdog.

I realize that the movie I am quoting is not real life. Grossman's analogy is also not real life. None of us are outside the realm of humanity or the frailties of the human experience. We are, none of us, all good, all bad, or all right or wrong. We do the best we can. I don't need a label to describe what I am, I just am whatever that happens to be.

 

[Danny T]

None of us are outside the realm of humanity or the frailties of the human experience. We are, none of us, all good, all bad, or all right or wrong. We do the best we can. I don't need a label to describe what I am, I just am whatever that happens to be.

We are human. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Steve]

I think that both Bill and Buka make excellent points. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the posts here. My opinion is that there is a lot of truth in both perspectives. While it's important to know and understand that we are human beings, there is much to be said for embracing or aspiring to be a "sheepdog" (or hero or whatever label you choose). And it's these aspirations that lead people to choose to become cops or soldiers, firefighters, doctors, and nurses. It's one aspect of a call to service that many people feel, and either choose to ignore or choose to embrace. I've worked with a lot of social workers over the years, and they don't do it for the money.

Analogies and ideals give us a means of understanding a little more about what makes us human, and to better understand why we believe some things to be good and others evil.

And that movie is excellent. At the end of that movie, is the country more or less safe with Col. Jessup behind bars?

 

[Tgace]

I'm not sure analogy was ever really intended to encompass "real life".

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that both Bill and Buka make excellent points. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the posts here. My opinion is that there is a lot of truth in both perspectives. While it's important to know and understand our roles, there is much to be said for embracing or aspiring to be a "sheepdog" (or hero or whatever label you choose). And it's these aspirations that lead people to choose to become cops or soldiers, firefighters, doctors, and nurses. It's one aspect of a call to service that many people feel, and either choose to ignore or choose to embrace. I've worked with a lot of social workers over the years, and they don't do it for the money.

Agreed. I have also, as you know, served in the military, worked in law enforcement. While I do believe many 'feel the call' to serve and protect, to rush into danger to protect innocents and victims, I also know that not all motives are as clear and noble as that. Not to take away from the true heroic nature of many of their deeds, but in my experience, a lot of the people who find themselves attracted to these careers do so because it serves them as well; their need for action, the adrenalin rush, the live-by-your-wits edge, and so on. They are good people, they do heroic things, but let's not think they are selfless in all ways. Certainly they are attracted to such positions for reasons more personal in many cases.

I can say that when I joined the Marines, I did so for many reasons.

1) My dad was a Marine. Seemed like a good tradition to continue.
2) He told me to get out of house and he wasn't paying for college.
3) I wanted to get out of the house and out on my own.
4) I had some dim notion that I owed my nation something in return for the many freedoms and liberties I enjoy as a citizen.

Noble? Only around the edges. Of course, that's just me.

And that movie is excellent. At the end of that movie, is the country more or less safe with Col. Jessup behind bars?

Yes, that's always the question, isn't it? But ultimately, while Jessup was probably not a true villain, more of a flawed hero archetype, when power such as his is allowed to operate without restraint, eventually lines are blurred and then crossed and then ignored entirely. At what point do the 'sheep' stop being citizens and start being subjects of the king? In such ways, essential liberty is lost in the name of security. And the reason, I think, that our military is rightfully overseen and controlled by civilian authority and the rule of law.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not sure analogy was ever really intended to encompass "real life".

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Whether it was or it was not intended that way, it is used that way by many.

 

[Buka]

OK, let me break it down without using negative terms.

Grossman draws the analogy between the sheep, the sheepdog, and the wolf. The sheep are the everyday people. People who are both ignorant of danger and prefer it that way. The sheepdogs are those who guard the herd against the wolves, because the wolves obey no rules of social convention and will eat the sheep without restraint.

However, the 'sheepdogs' are also sheep. The wolves are also sheep. We are all the same; human beings. Some people are protectors by nature, some are predators, some are willfully ignorant; all true.

However, there are no hard lines dividing us. We all have some predator within us, some protector, some willful ignorance. It just depends what about.

Putting ourselves into a category apart from humanity and describing ourselves as 'protectors' makes us not 'one of the people'. It makes us superior to them, and makes them dependent upon us for their lives. That's not how it is. You and I may choose to protect others; but we're not apart from the rest of humanity, we're not a more highly-evolved creature that protects the poor dumb sheep who can't help being victims. We're not knights in shining armor, we're not crusaders, we're the same as everybody else; we just make different choices based on our recognition of the danger and our choices to face it.

The Grossman analogy puts wolves and sheepdogs on a different plane from the sheep. The sheep are unworthy, should be grateful to be under our protection, etc. No, Grossman doesn't say that. But the analogy itself presents that model; it's sheepdogs versus wolves, the sheep are incidental, a prize for the victor. And I have seen, too many times, (present company excepted), self-described sheepdogs who hold humanity in the same contempt as a sheepdog might hold a flock of sheep if it had the power of such contemplation.

I am reminded of the soliloquy of the movie character Colonel Jessup, near the end of the movie "A Few Good Men," when he reveals that he believes himself to be a sheepdog in the Grossman sense:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

"You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." Here, Jessup describes his role - sheepdog. The people are sheep, he is the protector of those sheep, the sheepdog.

Rousing words, yes? And many of us can see the truth in them, or at least the truth we would like to imagine.

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it."

But here, Jessup describes not just his role, but his opinion of the sheep. They, being the protected, are not entitled to either question how he, the sheepdog, provides it. And this is an attitude I have seen in self-described 'sheepdogs' many times (again, present company excepted).

"Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to." And finally, Jessup makes it clear that the sheep don't get a vote. They are of no consequence, other than to be there for the sheepdog to protect.

So no, sir, I am not a sheepdog, not a sheep, not a wolf. I did not ask to be protected, my rights and opinions do matter, and I won't put up with people acting outside the law, either to 'protect' me or to attack me. We're all humans, not sheep. No one is under my feet; no one is over my head. Certainly not a self-described sheepdog.

I realize that the movie I am quoting is not real life. Grossman's analogy is also not real life. None of us are outside the realm of humanity or the frailties of the human experience. We are, none of us, all good, all bad, or all right or wrong. We do the best we can. I don't need a label to describe what I am, I just am whatever that happens to be.

What a great post.

 

[Steve]

Agreed. I have also, as you know, served in the military, worked in law enforcement. While I do believe many 'feel the call' to serve and protect, to rush into danger to protect innocents and victims, I also know that not all motives are as clear and noble as that. Not to take away from the true heroic nature of many of their deeds, but in my experience, a lot of the people who find themselves attracted to these careers do so because it serves them as well; their need for action, the adrenalin rush, the live-by-your-wits edge, and so on. They are good people, they do heroic things, but let's not think they are selfless in all ways. Certainly they are attracted to such positions for reasons more personal in many cases.

I can say that when I joined the Marines, I did so for many reasons.

1) My dad was a Marine. Seemed like a good tradition to continue.
2) He told me to get out of house and he wasn't paying for college.
3) I wanted to get out of the house and out on my own.
4) I had some dim notion that I owed my nation something in return for the many freedoms and liberties I enjoy as a citizen.

Noble? Only around the edges. Of course, that's just me.

The analysis might not have been too in depth. I joined the USAF for similar reasons. My mom and dad were both in the Air Force, and my three older brothers chose Navy or Army. I didn't want to live on a boat (it's a ship, I know...) nor did I want to be an Airborne Infantryman like my brother. And the Marines were never in the running... so there it was.

I think that's about the same for most people. The real crux of my point is that we are all on a spectrum, neither truly noble nor (hopefully) entirely despicable. We do good things for bad reasons, and bad things for good reasons, and everything in between. But ultimately, regardless of what else is in the mix, there are other alternatives to getting out of the house or paying for college, than to join the Marines, or even the USAF (an honorable alternative to military service, as they say ).

Yes, that's always the question, isn't it? But ultimately, while Jessup was probably not a true villain, more of a flawed hero archetype, when power such as his is allowed to operate without restraint, eventually lines are blurred and then crossed and then ignored entirely. At what point do the 'sheep' stop being citizens and start being subjects of the king? In such ways, essential liberty is lost in the name of security. And the reason, I think, that our military is rightfully overseen and controlled by civilian authority and the rule of law.

The answer for me is a matter of perspective. Col. Jessup would consider himself to be a hero, but ultimately, at the end of the movie, he was headed to the clink.