The Equalizer - What role do weapons serve?

[Dirty Dog]

Several of them didn't back off. I didn't roll over on my back and show my belly, for Pete's sake. Every one of them played out differently. The point, though, is that in none of those situations did I react with overwhelming force. Instead, I reacted with appropriate force in order to keep myself and others safe, without doing more damage to the other guy than necessary. AND, if I had a gun, I'm not sure that would have been possible.

Sure it is. Having a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. It seems like your idea of overwhelming force equates to lethal force. That's not at all true. All it means is you have more options.

 

[Steve]

Sure it is. Having a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. It seems like your idea of overwhelming force equates to lethal force. That's not at all true. All it means is you have more options.

I think it's an attitude. Not saying it's wrong or right.

My dad grew up in San Francisco in the late 1920s and early 1930s. They lived in the projects, were really poor, and my dad ended up dropping out of high school. He hung out with some tough dudes, and generally got into a lot of trouble. I went to a school where fights were common, and I hung out with misfits. I smoked stuff, drank stuff, and got into fights pretty often. I skipped school regularly, and I also generally got into a lot of trouble. But I never carried a knife or a gun, because of something my dad told me. He said he never carried a knife (guns were pretty much unheard of at the time), because he said if he did, he'd surely end up using it. I believe that to be true, or at least, I believe if I had carried a knife or a gun, I would have used it. I don't know what happened to the guys I beat up, or the guys I ran away from, but I know I didn't permanently hurt or kill any of them. If I had carried a weapon, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be true.

The point isn't that you're wrong or I'm right. It's that this idea of overwhelming force feels wrong to me, and I think there are other ways to look at self defense. Another way to say "overwhelming force" is "disproportionate force", and responding out of proportion to the threat can be just as dangerous as the threat itself. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm pretty sure that if I had responded with "overwhelming force" in any of the situations I was in, things would have turned out worse, not better.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think it's an attitude. Not saying it's wrong or right.

My dad grew up in San Francisco in the late 1920s and early 1930s. They lived in the projects, were really poor, and my dad ended up dropping out of high school. He hung out with some tough dudes, and generally got into a lot of trouble. I went to a school where fights were common, and I hung out with misfits. I smoked stuff, drank stuff, and got into fights pretty often. I skipped school regularly, and I also generally got into a lot of trouble. But I never carried a knife or a gun, because of something my dad told me. He said he never carried a knife (guns were pretty much unheard of at the time), because he said if he did, he'd surely end up using it. I believe that to be true, or at least, I believe if I had carried a knife or a gun, I would have used it. I don't know what happened to the guys I beat up, or the guys I ran away from, but I know I didn't permanently hurt or kill any of them. If I had carried a weapon, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be true.

If you don't think you could make the choice NOT to use a potentially lethal response, then you're right. You should not carry a weapon. Sounds like you and your father made the right decision.
Because I am armed, I feel a responsibility to do my best to avoid situations in which I might be forced to use my weapon.

The point isn't that you're wrong or I'm right. It's that this idea of overwhelming force feels wrong to me, and I think there are other ways to look at self defense. Another way to say "overwhelming force" is "disproportionate force", and responding out of proportion to the threat can be just as dangerous as the threat itself. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm pretty sure that if I had responded with "overwhelming force" in any of the situations I was in, things would have turned out worse, not better.

But overwhelming is not at all synonymous with disproportionate. It means enough to ensure you win.

 

[Steve]

If you don't think you could make the choice NOT to use a potentially lethal response, then you're right. You should not carry a weapon. Sounds like you and your father made the right decision.
Because I am armed, I feel a responsibility to do my best to avoid situations in which I might be forced to use my weapon.



But overwhelming is not at all synonymous with disproportionate. It means enough to ensure you win.

I think you're missing the point. But that's okay. Not worth the effort.

 

[CB Jones]

Another way to say "overwhelming force" is "disproportionate force", and responding out of proportion to the threat can be just as dangerous as the threat itself.

Disagree

Overwhelming and disproportionate are two different things.

Overwhelming force is enough force to overcome and overwhelm someone.

Disproportionate force is force disproportionate to what is needed to overcome and overwhelming someone.

 

[Steve]

Disagree

Overwhelming and disproportionate are two different things.

Overwhelming force is enough force to overcome and overwhelm someone.

Disproportionate force is force disproportionate to what is needed to overcome and overwhelming someone.

While there may be a difference semantically, there is no real difference practically. When people carry weapons like guns and knives, they adopt a mindset that we've seen in this very thread, "It's going to be me or the other guy." The two situations with officer involved shootings illustrates the point that the difference is moot, if the evaluative, decision making process leads directly to someone's death.

I'm suggesting that there is actually a different mindset than "me or the other guy."

 

[Dirty Dog]

While there may be a difference semantically, there is no real difference practically. When people carry weapons like guns and knives, they adopt a mindset that we've seen in this very thread, "It's going to be me or the other guy." The two situations with officer involved shootings illustrates the point that the difference is moot, if the evaluative, decision making process leads directly to someone's death.

I'm suggesting that there is actually a different mindset than "me or the other guy."

Where did you see this "me or the other guy" attitude displayed? I don't recall seeing anything like that.
As a matter of fact, I recall saying explicitly that doing your best to avoid a situation that might involve killing someone is an even greater obligation for the person who chooses to be armed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've had knives pulled on me several times. I survived all of those times without being stabbed, and both I and the other guy lived to tell the tale. I think both I and the other guy lived, to be honest, because I didn't have a gun and respond with overwhelming force. Said the other way, I think if I had a gun, either I would have been killed by him or someone else, or I would have killed the guy. I really do believe that. Whether it was in West Berlin at the tail end of the cold war, when I worked daily with people who were abusing drugs or alcohol, often homeless and disabled, when I was asked to break up fights outside of the McD's I worked at in high school, or while going to school in the CD in Seattle in the 80s, when gang activity was high and weapons were common. In each of these contexts, I've been threatened with weapons. That's kind of what I'm getting at, as a bit of a thought exercise.

If I had responded to the threat with overwhelming force, would that have changed the outcome? And if so, would it have changed the outcome for the better or otherwise? I mean, I was pretty young. If I had been carrying a gun, which would have been easy to do at the time, I think I probably would have shot the dudes. I know I would have in one case. Might have killed him... or someone else on accident. What would that have done to me? It's this idea of "overwhelming force" that just... I don't know guys. I don't like it. Doesn't feel right to me. Feels like an attitude that is more harmful than helpful.

And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about warzones or cops or stuff like that. I'm talking about regular people doing regular things.

You seem stuck on the ten “overwhelmingly force” being equivalent to deadly force.

 

[Steve]

You seem stuck on the ten “overwhelmingly force” being equivalent to deadly force.

I think it's that overwhelming force means something different depending upon the context of what weapons are brought to bear.

Several cops with tasers and clubs is overwhelming force against a single person with a kitchen knife. I think.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think it's that overwhelming force means something different depending upon the context of what weapons are brought to bear.

Several cops with tasers and clubs is overwhelming force against a single person with a kitchen knife. I think.

I'd agree, if they actually use that force. Of course, to use that club, the cop has to get within knife range. And I don't think they're well trained in using the clubs in concert, so it really becomes a 1v1 situation with others trying to help and probably not being able to do so well.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

I'd agree, if they actually use that force. Of course, to use that club, the cop has to get within knife range. And I don't think they're well trained in using the clubs in concert, so it really becomes a 1v1 situation with others trying to help and probably not being able to do so well.

Can't speak for most agencies, but I was trained that, if they have a lethal weapon, at least one cop has a gun out. Now, if you have backup, and they want to transition to a TASER, that's another matter, but offhand I don't know any cop that thinks it's a good idea to close with a perp when either a gun or a TASER is a viable option.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think it's that overwhelming force means something different depending upon the context of what weapons are brought to bear.

Having the weapon available does not mean it will be brought to bear.

 

[Anarax]

The primary goal of a self-defense situation, armed or unarmed, is survival/protection. However, the aftermath is something else to consider, especially when weapons are involved. Depending when and where you are, the law may be involved after an armed(knives, batons, firearms) altercation has taken place. The one who inflicted the most visible trauma might be judged more harshly, even if the trauma was inflicted defensively. That isn't to say weapons should never be used. However, situational justification of using a weapon doesn't automatically equate it being interpreted/ruled as legally justified.

I always carry my knife, I know how sharp it is, how deep it cuts and what it can do to another person. If and when I draw that knife, I'm aware of how much more violent the situation can become, as well as increasing my chances of surviving that same situation. It's a double edge sword, the weapon helps me protect myself, but can make me look like the bad guy. Being aware of your weapon of choice, the laws in your area and some basic legal knowledge are invaluable.