Man stands up to thug, gets shot at 3 times

[kidswarrior]

Was this (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/murthy-police-guy-2308506-fullerton-traffic) a self-defense situation, or did it get turned into one by the victim?

Keep wondering what I would have done. Still not sure.

[Himura Kenshin]

If he were properly trained the result may have been different. It sounds like the guy had some confidence without any ability. I'm sure if he had trained for ten years before this he could have trashed that thug before he could pull out his weapon.


Then again, this serves as a lesson for all of us I think, any idiot with a gun can kill you if your not careful. For me gun defence is mostly a question of how close my attacke is to me, and what is available to aid me as cover and how confident I feel at the time.

[elder999]

Was this (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/murthy-police-guy-2308506-fullerton-traffic) a self-defense situation, or did it get turned into one by the victim?

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




Keep wondering what I would have done. Still not sure.

I'd have shot him.

[Andy Moynihan]

Well he's got the most important thing down( Will to act)

Now before he ever considers this course of action again he must acquire at least *some* form of training.

[SFC JeffJ]

I think he did the right thing. The thing he did wrong was not having a plan outside of standing up to the thugs in the neighborhood. Glad he got the guy on video though. That should make things easier for the Law Enforcement there. Also shows the groin shot isn't always the fight ender people think it is. He should have kept on attacking afterwords. Of course he did miss out on rule one of a gunfight. But what else do you expect in Cali.

[Bill Mattocks]

Was this (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/murthy-police-guy-2308506-fullerton-traffic) a self-defense situation, or did it get turned into one by the victim?

Keep wondering what I would have done. Still not sure.

The article says:


Murthy's confrontation began at 3 in the afternoon at the corner of Arlington Avenue and 27th Street in southwest Los Angeles. The engineer was videoing traffic signals in a bid for a school traffic study. His camera was focused on cars whizzing through the intersection, but also captured a softer image of a man leaning against a lamppost.


Once the man spotted Murthy, he walked toward him. The camera kept rolling as the man tried to snatch it.


A struggle over a camera became a life-or-death fight. It was pure luck that no one was killed. The bullets that hit the pavement could have just as easily ricocheted off that hard surface and hit and injured or killed someone not even involved in the situation.

As the victim describes it, the thug drew a weapon after being kicked in the groin.

Is a camera worth your life? That's the question I'd be asking myself, and the answer would be 'no'. Cameras are replaceable, and lives are not.

If the man had been killed, what comfort would his widow or his children have in knowing that their father had stood up to a street punk?

I can truly appreciate the man's wanting to effect positive change in the world, and yes, citizens need to become more responsive to the crimes they see around them. Not by trying to personally subdue criminals, but by being alert, reporting crime, prosecuting criminals and being willing to be witnesses in court.

[MJS]

This is another situation where we don't know what would have happened. Yes, its easy to say give them what they want, but there is nothing to say that you won't be shot anyways. Here (http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-digbrf0214.art2feb14,0,3557560.story) is a perfect example:

"When he told them he had no money, the gunman shot him in the arm, he told police. The projectile fractured his upper right arm and entered his chest cavity, police said"

So, as you can see, we can't assume that all will be fine and dandy if we comply. I say screw it, if there is a chance I'm going to get shot anyways, may as well make a strong effort to defend myself.

Would this have turned out differently if he was a trained person? Who knows, of course we would hope so. Then again, if someone has the will power, I'd be willing to bet that even an untrained person would still have it in them. Something like this though, I would say keep going until the threat is gone. In other words, unless that kick dropped that guy, which it seems like it pissed him off more than anything, keep hitting, kicking or whatever.

[Andy Moynihan]

I keep trying to tell people, and they keep failing to want to accept it--this is a purer, more virulent strain of scumbag coming down the pike nowadays such that you MUST ALWAYS ASSUME they mean to kill you if a weapon is present.

I cannot understand this fear of " oh, what if it gets me killed?" I could croak here in this chair in 5 seconds if that was what Fate decreed and there'd be ****all I could do to stop it. Why this excessive value of the one thing you are guaranteeed to lose? To the point it stops you from right action, however dangerous? No one WANTS to die, no one WANTS to be hurt, no one WANTS to have pain, well, we don't always get what we WANT, now do we.

No one can say until they're in it how they'll react, that's true. But I refuse to live in fear of death for daring to go about my life refusing to submit to violence.

You gotta die of something, might as well do it right. If there's an afterlife and I meet my family ancestors there, I want to have something interesting to tell them.

You basically have to treat this, if you once decide to go into it, as realizing that what you are doing at this point is avenging your own murder.

[Bill Mattocks]

This is another situation where we don't know what would have happened. Yes, its easy to say give them what they want, but there is nothing to say that you won't be shot anyways.

No, there is nothing to say that the man would not have been shot anyway. However, the assailant did not produce the gun from his pocket until he had been kicked in the 'nads. Would he have? Don't know. Of course the rules change when a gun is involved.

[Bill Mattocks]

I keep trying to tell people, and they keep failing to want to accept it--this is a purer, more virulent strain of scumbag coming down the pike nowadays such that you MUST ALWAYS ASSUME they mean to kill you if a weapon is present.


If I read the article correctly, the weapon was not produced until the victim had kicked the assailant in the crotch. He clearly stated that the man was attempting to seize the camera.



I cannot understand this fear of " oh, what if it gets me killed?"


I don't fear dying (well, technically, yes, I do) but more that I don't want to die. It's not fear, it's a choice. I also do not want to leave my wife a widow - I have responsibilities here. I don't want to get speeding tickets, so I don't speed. I don't want to go to jail, so I pay my taxes. I don't want to die, so I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be killed.



I could croak here in this chair in 5 seconds if that was what Fate decreed and there'd be ****all I could do to stop it. Why this excessive value of the one thing you are guaranteeed to lose?


Because there are not any resets. Whether death is a doorway or the final ending, there isn't any coming back - at least, not to this life, which I like quite a bit.



To the point it stops you from right action, however dangerous?


What is right action? The prime directive of life is to live, to survive. Giving one's life or placing one's life in danger for the sake of another is quite understandable and what puts us apart from the animals. Defending one's own life when the stakes are clear is just as understandable. Fighting over a camera, to me, is not 'right action'.



No one WANTS to die, no one WANTS to be hurt, no one WANTS to have pain, well, we don't always get what we WANT, now do we.


No, of course not. But we do get to control some of our actions and reactions, which is something I try to do.



No one can say until they're in it how they'll react, that's true. But I refuse to live in fear of death for daring to go about my life refusing to submit to violence.


Why do you liken avoiding fighting to quivering in fear?



You gotta die of something, might as well do it right.


I agree. I just don't agree that dying over a camera in a purely voluntary struggle is 'doing it right'. I'll bet my wife would agree as well. She'd be darned ticked at me if I came home all dead and stuff.



If there's an afterlife and I meet my family ancestors there, I want to have something interesting to tell them.

If it means I don't get to have a feast waiting for me in Valhalla, I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm OK being considered a wimp, a weakling, a coward, or what-have-you. I was given this one life, and I like it, and I have no intentions of putting it at unnecessary risk by dying of lead poisoning that I could have avoided.

Again, 20/20 hindsight, but if we have to put ourselves in this man's situation, I have to say that I strongly believe I would have backed up and let him take the camera. I would have done my best to get a description to give to the police. If I saw him going into his pockets for what I would have to presume would be a weapon, then I would reevaluate the situation and perhaps take preemptive action.

I still believe self-defense starts before the violence does.

[MJS]

No, there is nothing to say that the man would not have been shot anyway. However, the assailant did not produce the gun from his pocket until he had been kicked in the 'nads. Would he have? Don't know. Of course the rules change when a gun is involved.

Personally, I'd rather lean on the side of caution and assume that there is a weapon. Its really no different than a LEO patting someone down. Sure the guy could claim that he had nothing, but the cop doesn't want to assume that.

[Bill Mattocks]

Personally, I'd rather lean on the side of caution and assume that there is a weapon. Its really no different than a LEO patting someone down. Sure the guy could claim that he had nothing, but the cop doesn't want to assume that.

A police officer has a responsibility which an ordinary citizen does not have. It involves placing his or her life at risk which would otherwise be considered excessive, in order to keep the peace. This man is not a law enforcement officer.

As well, the 'Stop and Frisk' doctrine does not assume that every person an officer meets is armed. If it did, police would be authorized to draw his sidearm and execute a felony arrest on each and every citizen he meets. The SCOTUS also defines 'Stop and Frisk' as a 'brief pat-down', which is not a search, and may not in fact catch all weapons. 'Stop and Frisk' is intended for the officer's safety only - it does not assume that everyone is armed, it ensures that they are not.

Further - if the assailant had been a better shot, the man would be dead. He *did* assume the man was armed in the sense that he attacked him by kicking him in the pills.

Let's say the assailant killed the man. Now what? His wife is a widow, his kids are fatherless, then assailant still has the camera, the gun, and got away (at least for now).

[MJS]

If I read the article correctly, the weapon was not produced until the victim had kicked the assailant in the crotch. He clearly stated that the man was attempting to seize the camera.

I"m not Andy, but I'll toss my 2 pennies in. :) I addressed this in my other post. :)




I don't fear dying (well, technically, yes, I do) but more that I don't want to die. It's not fear, it's a choice. I also do not want to leave my wife a widow - I have responsibilities here. I don't want to get speeding tickets, so I don't speed. I don't want to go to jail, so I pay my taxes. I don't want to die, so I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be killed.

Likewise, I do my best to avoid certain things as well. However, sometimes trouble seems to find us anyways. Likewise, while I don't want to do certain things either, I also don't feel that I or anyone else, should have to be a victim to some punk. That is what these guys thrive on...fear and intimidation of others. While one person won't change the world, perhaps if everyone started to standup for whats right, eventually things may change.




Because there are not any resets. Whether death is a doorway or the final ending, there isn't any coming back - at least, not to this life, which I like quite a bit.

Like I said, if there is a chance that I may die anyways, may as well do it fighting.




What is right action? The prime directive of life is to live, to survive. Giving one's life or placing one's life in danger for the sake of another is quite understandable and what puts us apart from the animals. Defending one's own life when the stakes are clear is just as understandable. Fighting over a camera, to me, is not 'right action'.

So, I may as well just help the guy who is breaking into my condo, load his car with my tvs, computers, camera, cash, jewelery, etc. I'm sorry, but for me, I work hard for what I have and I don't feel that I should bow down to some dirtbag who wants my stuff. Its kinda like the bully in school. Keep giving them your lunch money and the problem will never end. Stand up to him, and if need be, smack him down a few pegs, literally if need be, then that problem may end.




No, of course not. But we do get to control some of our actions and reactions, which is something I try to do.

But to me, this is assuming that if we comply, we won't get hurt. I can try to control the outcome by giving the badguy my money, but when he opens it up and only sees $10, he may get pissed, and shoot me anyways, God forbid its not loaded with $50s.




Why do you liken avoiding fighting to quivering in fear?

Because in some cases, people are afraid to fight back. Sure, depending on the case, we could try to talk the guy down, etc., but we need to understand that it may not always work. We shouldn't look for fights, but on the other hand, we should not cower in the face of one either.




I agree. I just don't agree that dying over a camera in a purely voluntary struggle is 'doing it right'. I'll bet my wife would agree as well. She'd be darned ticked at me if I came home all dead and stuff.

So we hand the guy the cash, the keys to the car and now he wants to take my wife with him. Is that the time to decide that we better start acting? I say the time to act is when he's asking for our cash, keys and car.




If it means I don't get to have a feast waiting for me in Valhalla, I'm perfectly OK with that. I'm OK being considered a wimp, a weakling, a coward, or what-have-you. I was given this one life, and I like it, and I have no intentions of putting it at unnecessary risk by dying of lead poisoning that I could have avoided.

Again, 20/20 hindsight, but if we have to put ourselves in this man's situation, I have to say that I strongly believe I would have backed up and let him take the camera. I would have done my best to get a description to give to the police. If I saw him going into his pockets for what I would have to presume would be a weapon, then I would reevaluate the situation and perhaps take preemptive action.

I still believe self-defense starts before the violence does.

As I said above, I don't look for fights and do my best to avoid areas and things that may put me in a bad position. I just don't like stepping aside while the BG has his way with my car, cash or my house.

[MJS]

A police officer has a responsibility which an ordinary citizen does not have. It involves placing his or her life at risk which would otherwise be considered excessive, in order to keep the peace. This man is not a law enforcement officer.

As well, the 'Stop and Frisk' doctrine does not assume that every person an officer meets is armed. If it did, police would be authorized to draw his sidearm and execute a felony arrest on each and every citizen he meets. The SCOTUS also defines 'Stop and Frisk' as a 'brief pat-down', which is not a search, and may not in fact catch all weapons. 'Stop and Frisk' is intended for the officer's safety only - it does not assume that everyone is armed, it ensures that they are not.

I would be willing to bet that if we asked the LEOs on here or I asked the ones that I know personally, they'd all say to not assume anything. While I fully understand that a civilian is not a cop, my point was that like them, we should not assume that the BG is unarmed. Its the careless actions that will land people in harms way.


Further - if the assailant had been a better shot, the man would be dead. He *did* assume the man was armed in the sense that he attacked him by kicking him in the pills.

Possibly. However, I doubt that every dirtbag criminal has enrolled in the local NRA handgun course.


Let's say the assailant killed the man. Now what? His wife is a widow, his kids are fatherless, then assailant still has the camera, the gun, and got away (at least for now).

And like I said, if there is a chance that I'm going to die, may as well go out fighting. So basically you're saying that we should assume nothing will happen, comply fully and then, only if we feel our life to be in danger, should we act? I say our life is in danger the minute we're approached by the BG. I doubt that while I'm walking to my car at night, the guy coming up behind me wants to engage in friendly banter.

[Bill Mattocks]

I"m not Andy, but I'll toss my 2 pennies in. :) I addressed this in my other post. :)


No problem!



Likewise, I do my best to avoid certain things as well. However, sometimes trouble seems to find us anyways. Likewise, while I don't want to do certain things either, I also don't feel that I or anyone else, should have to be a victim to some punk. That is what these guys thrive on...fear and intimidation of others. While one person won't change the world, perhaps if everyone started to standup for whats right, eventually things may change.


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

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



Like I said, if there is a chance that I may die anyways, may as well do it fighting.


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

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



So, I may as well just help the guy who is breaking into my condo, load his car with my tvs, computers, camera, cash, jewelery, etc. I'm sorry, but for me, I work hard for what I have and I don't feel that I should bow down to some dirtbag who wants my stuff. Its kinda like the bully in school. Keep giving them your lunch money and the problem will never end. Stand up to him, and if need be, smack him down a few pegs, literally if need be, then that problem may end.


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

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

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

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



But to me, this is assuming that if we comply, we won't get hurt. I can try to control the outcome by giving the badguy my money, but when he opens it up and only sees $10, he may get pissed, and shoot me anyways, God forbid its not loaded with $50s.


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

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



Because in some cases, people are afraid to fight back. Sure, depending on the case, we could try to talk the guy down, etc., but we need to understand that it may not always work. We shouldn't look for fights, but on the other hand, we should not cower in the face of one either.


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



So we hand the guy the cash, the keys to the car and now he wants to take my wife with him. Is that the time to decide that we better start acting? I say the time to act is when he's asking for our cash, keys and car.


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

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

Man smashes the camera and leaves - game over.

Man runs away with the camera - game over.

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



As I said above, I don't look for fights and do my best to avoid areas and things that may put me in a bad position. I just don't like stepping aside while the BG has his way with my car, cash or my house.

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

[Andy Moynihan]

If I read the article correctly, the weapon was not produced until the victim had kicked the assailant in the crotch. He clearly stated that the man was attempting to seize the camera.

This occasionally happens to me where I address generalities and it gets mistaken for talking about the original post. My apologies for not clarifying.*smack of forehead*




I don't fear dying (well, technically, yes, I do) but more that I don't want to die. It's not fear, it's a choice. I also do not want to leave my wife a widow - I have responsibilities here. I don't want to get speeding tickets, so I don't speed. I don't want to go to jail, so I pay my taxes. I don't want to die, so I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be killed.

On this point we agree andI think the wires got crossed over the misunderstanding of generalities versus original post.*smack*




Because there are not any resets. Whether death is a doorway or the final ending, there isn't any coming back - at least, not to this life, which I like quite a bit.

Got me at a disadvantage on that point, I'm afraid. Maybe that's something to do with it.


What is right action? The prime directive of life is to live, to survive. Giving one's life or placing one's life in danger for the sake of another is quite understandable and what puts us apart from the animals. Defending one's own life when the stakes are clear is just as understandable. Fighting over a camera, to me, is not 'right action'.

I've REALLY got to learn to do better at differentiating when I am addressing generalities and not the original post.*smack*




No, of course not. But we do get to control some of our actions and reactions, which is something I try to do.

yep.



Why do you liken avoiding fighting to quivering in fear?

I've REALLY got to.....*smack*







Again, 20/20 hindsight, but if we have to put ourselves in this man's situation, I have to say that I strongly believe I would have backed up and let him take the camera. I would have done my best to get a description to give to the police. If I saw him going into his pockets for what I would have to presume would be a weapon, then I would reevaluate the situation and perhaps take preemptive action.[

Well Addressing the original post (*SMACK*) , it says

"Once the man spotted Murthy, he walked toward him.
The camera kept rolling as the man tried to snatch it."

That says to me the scumbag just walked right up close enough to grab the camera, and therefore close enough to touch Murthy, *unchallenged*.

I don't know if your line of "what are you prepared to do" involves letting a known hostile walk that close unchallenged, But I for damnsure won't do it. If they do something like is described here, obviously "after" me, and they don't stop walking after I point and tell them, "that's close enough", and they keep walking up into my space,THEY GET STOPPED.


I still believe self-defense starts before the violence does.

As do I when I make clear what I'm talking about *smack*.

[SFC JeffJ]

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

I think you are missing the point that Andy and MJS are making. I don't think it is an overinflated sense of manhood that makes them want to defend themselves against someone trying to take a video camera. I'm thinking that they are thinking as I am. You say constantly evaluate but you must also evaluate beforehand. If you wait for the BG to decide he doesn't want a witness after he's taken your property, you are even further behind the curve than if you acted immediately.

Not to put words in your guys's mouth, but this is my interpretation of what you are saying.

[Bill Mattocks]

I would be willing to bet that if we asked the LEOs on here or I asked the ones that I know personally, they'd all say to not assume anything. While I fully understand that a civilian is not a cop, my point was that like them, we should not assume that the BG is unarmed. Its the careless actions that will land people in harms way.


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

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



Possibly. However, I doubt that every dirtbag criminal has enrolled in the local NRA handgun course.


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



And like I said, if there is a chance that I'm going to die, may as well go out fighting.


I challenge that basic assumption. WHY?



So basically you're saying that we should assume nothing will happen, comply fully and then, only if we feel our life to be in danger, should we act?


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



I say our life is in danger the minute we're approached by the BG. I doubt that while I'm walking to my car at night, the guy coming up behind me wants to engage in friendly banter.

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

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

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

[Bill Mattocks]

If you wait for the BG to decide he doesn't want a witness after he's taken your property, you are even further behind the curve than if you acted immediately.

In this case, I do not agree. The man did not have the gun in his hand, it was in his pocket. Whether one fought with him (as the victim did) or surrendered the camera and then the man drew the gun, the gun has to be withdrawn from the pocket. That takes time whether the man had taken the camera first or not.

As well, the victim states that the man's attention was on the camera, not on him. That focus did not change until the victim kicked the assailant in the yarbles.

Is there time to successfully launch an attack and stop the gun from being pulled from the pocket and used? I don't know. But I do not believe in this case that any essential time would have been lost by surrendering the camera. In fact, him having the camera in his hands occupies one of them, making it harder for him to draw and fire a weapon unless he dumps the camera first, which would be a very good clue to what's coming. He might also decide to use the camera as a weapon instead, which would be easier to defend against than a gun.

[Andy Moynihan]

I think you are missing the point that Andy and MJS are making. I don't think it is an overinflated sense of manhood that makes them want to defend themselves against someone trying to take a video camera. I'm thinking that they are thinking as I am. You say constantly evaluate but you must also evaluate beforehand. If you wait for the BG to decide he doesn't want a witness after he's taken your property, you are even further behind the curve than if you acted immediately.

Not to put words in your guys's mouth, but this is my interpretation of what you are saying.

Pretty close.

We resist not for our wallet, though it be empty, not our car, though it be insured, we resist be cause free men and women resist. I don't care what they "claim" to be after once my "radar is tripped" the instant I percieve a threat I'm done talking anyway, and they will not have a chance to finish a sentence before I've drawn/acted/run/attacked/whatever needs doing.

[Thesemindz]

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

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

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

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


-Rob

[Bill Mattocks]

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


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

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

[Andy Moynihan]

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

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

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


-Rob

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

[MJS]

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

True.


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

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




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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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




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

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




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

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

Man smashes the camera and leaves - game over.

Man runs away with the camera - game over.

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

This may have answered one of my questions above.




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

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

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

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

[Andy Moynihan]

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

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

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

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

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

[MJS]

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

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

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



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

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




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

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




I challenge that basic assumption. WHY?

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




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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MA-Caver]

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

[Andy Moynihan]

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


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

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

[Bill Mattocks]

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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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

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

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



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


Simple math.

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

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



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


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



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


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



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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill Mattocks]

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


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

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



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


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



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


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



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

Yes, he is lucky to be alive.

[seasoned]

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

[elder999]

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




I'd have shot him.

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

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

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

[Deaf Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deaf

[Bill Mattocks]

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


Really?



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

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

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

[elder999]

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

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



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

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



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

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

In fact, based upon the scenario from the story:


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

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


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

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

[Bill Mattocks]

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

[Archangel M]

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

[Guardian]

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

[MJS]

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

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

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




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

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




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

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




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

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




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

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

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

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




Simple math.

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

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



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

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

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




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

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

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




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

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

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




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at this (http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-copdigbrf0212.art3feb12,0,5809899.story). Poor guy got shot and wasn't even expecting it.

[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. :D

[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 ass 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 (http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-copdigbrf0212.art3feb12,0,5809899.story). 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 ass 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 (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict.htm).

[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. [i]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 (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict.htm).

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.:rolleyes:

Pleas take note here (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0504.pdf), 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." :rolleyes: :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."

[Bill Mattocks]

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."

The survey only includes, as it says, those who claimed that they took self-protective action. The rest, including presumably those who gave up the wallet, etc, but did not consider that 'taking self-protective action' were not counted in this survey.

I'm stopping now. This is not productive.

[Gordon Nore]

I agree. I just don't agree that dying over a camera in a purely voluntary struggle is 'doing it right'. I'll bet my wife would agree as well. She'd be darned ticked at me if I came home all dead and stuff.

I quite agree. I don't want to armchair this event, but I think what you say makes a lot of sense, Bill. It's a question of, "Is this the hill you want to die on?"

I believe that I would go the distance to protect my family, the children I teach at school, or myself. Risking my life to protect a camcorder is a poor trade. Believing that doing so will deter this person or other criminals from trying to take my stuff tells me that AMC has been airing the Death Wish movies too much lately. It's delusional.

[Andy Moynihan]

The survey only includes, as it says, those who claimed that they took self-protective action. The rest, including presumably those who gave up the wallet, etc, but did not consider that 'taking self-protective action' were not counted in this survey.

I'm stopping now. This is not productive.

I can see why you'd be frustrated by this point, but I wouldn't at all call the thread as a whole "Not productive". I've been given a great deal to think about and assess here, and thank EVERYONE involved from all sides.

Good every now and then to reassess one's views. They may not change, or only change a little, but of what use are a person's convictions if they're never tested?

[elder999]

Furthermore, you called it a 'study'. It is not. It is a 'survey'. .

Actually, I called it a survey. Let's see what else I said:


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 (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cvict.htm).

And I think I can stand by what I said. "Resisting a crime" helps 63% of the time, and only makes it "worse" 9.2% of the time-that's what the survey, compiled from over 300,000 samples, tells us-your equivocations about my "making that up," and later attempts at qualifying the "study" and its statistical data notwithstanding. Of course, it doesn't tell us what "helps" means, it doesn't tell us what "makes it worse" means, and it doesn't tell us what "appeasement or persuasion" mean, though we can all certainly hazard a guess.


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.


Well, it is that simple-you've said as much yourself:


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.

I'd posit, that if he's pulled a gun on you, the only assumption to make is to think he's going to shoot you anyway. Of course, you might be wrong, and get shot for it, but odds are, statistically speaking, that you'd be right in making such an assumption.

Additionally, the original scenario isn't one in which the victim was confronted with an armed robber-he was violently attacked without a weapon, and responded accordingly, except, of course, that he didn't assess the initial threat, wasn't trained and wasn't armed-he also probably didn't assume that his assailant was armed, and act accordingly.

[kidswarrior]

I can see why you'd be frustrated by this point, but I wouldn't at all call the thread as a whole "Not productive". I've been given a great deal to think about and assess here, and thank EVERYONE involved from all sides.

Good every now and then to reassess one's views. They may not change, or only change a little, but of what use are a person's convictions if they're never tested?Yes, I agree. :asian:

BTW, this guy was just on the local news. Held up the trousers to show multiple bullet holes in the legs, though as we know only one struck flesh, and that was a through and through - no bone or arteries.

[Archangel M]

I'd posit, that if he's pulled a gun on you, the only assumption to make is to think he's going to shoot you anyway. Of course, you might be wrong, and get shot for it, but odds are, statistically speaking, that you'd be right in making such an assumption.

So if you had no gun you would recommend going for the disarm during an armed robbery??

I would not. In the vast number of instances the armed robber leaves after getting the property.

[elder999]

So if you had no gun you would reccommend going for the disarm during an armed robbery??

I would not. In the vast number of instances the armed robber leaves after getting the property.

Only if you're convinced he's going to shoot you anyway.

[Archangel M]

Only if you're convinced he's going to shoot you anyway.

Isnt that already a forgone conclusion with the "always assume he is going to kill you" mindset???

[MJS]

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.

In a nutshell, all of the material things, can be replaced, although replacing some may be a PITA. For me, I guess its just the fact that half the group is willing to fight back while the other half is willing to just hand over their belongings. Hey, I may walk away from the situation with just a bad memory of the event, I may get my rear kicked, and I may end up dead. Hopefully my response will pull me thru. :)



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.

My way may not be the best for someone else either. Hopefully, given the fact that I really don't frequent potential problem places, such as bars, bad sections of town, and do my best to be aware of whats going on around me, hopefully I can minimize the odds of something bad happening.


Did and have, thanks!

Glad you liked it. :)


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?

I think you're pretty much on the mark. :)

Just to clarify....like you, I do my best to assess the situation as well. A minor verbal exchange could probably be taken care of with the right words. It could escalate, but the times that its happened to me, nothing physical came of it. :) I just feel that if someone were to come at me with a weapon, they've now taken it to a life/death situation. Talking may work, but if the guy went so far as to pull a weapon, I just feel that the situation is best dealt with force instead. As I said above, that is just what works for me, so to speak. It may not be the answer for everyone.

[MJS]

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.

But I'd imagine that you're still using caution and thinking that the worst may happen. After all, until you get to the car, you don't know if there're any weapons, who the people are, if there are warrants or if they just did an armed robbery in the next town over and are passing thru your town and you just happened to stop them. If they blew the clerk away at the store, you can probably bet they wouldn't think twice about blowing you away either.

When I would deal with the inmates, I assumed that they were always trying to pull one over on me. Almost like a game of cat and mouse...what can they get away with, without me seeing them. I would assume the worst, because at any time, I may do/say something to set them off, and now they take a swing at me. Unless I patted them down, I had no idea if they had drugs on them, or a shank.

[Archangel M]

But I'd imagine that you're still using caution and thinking that the worst may happen. After all, until you get to the car, you don't know if there're any weapons, who the people are, if there are warrants or if they just did an armed robbery in the next town over and are passing thru your town and you just happened to stop them. If they blew the clerk away at the store, you can probably bet they wouldn't think twice about blowing you away either.

Well..yes and no..all those possiblities are why we incorporate certain tactics and officer safety technques. I wouldnt say that I approach every car stop really thinking that the person "could have just killed someone". Id be a fidgity wreck with ulcers by now if I did that. I stick to my officer safety habits in the event that it does turn out to be true, but one has to balance caution with being able to function and try to hold off complancency all at the same time. When a cop first gets on the job he tends to think hes going to be shot at at any moment, as the years go by he becomes comfortable with ther "realities" of the street and knows the difference between using propper tactics and true danger...if hes not careful he may become complacent and think that nothing is ever going to happen to him. I try to keep a balance and pay attention to my "radar" and my gut feelings without becoming hypervigilant, which will burn you out. You cant be running around in Condition Orange all day on this job. I try for a solid yellow...bordering yellow/orange when on a call or stop.

[elder999]

Isnt that already a forgone conclusion with the "always assume he is going to kill you" mindset???

Remember, it was you who said:



Originally Posted by Archangel M http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1124910#post1124910)
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

.


It has to go hand in hand with what response you believe you're capable of under the circumstances. This is no different than what you've said, however different it may seem. If I were placed in a position where it seemed the only option was compliance-more than one armed robber, say, possibly coupled with potential harm to someone else, like family members, or simply unable to resist due to distance or some other circumstance, I would have to comply- while assuming all along that my compliance would probably lead to my death.The only time I wouldn't resist, though, would be when that obviously could not help or simply could not be accomplished -"going for it" or not.

The compliance mentality is what gets staff at restaurants marched into coolers and executed. The compliance mentatlity is what often leads to the most gruesome of home invasions, and the compliance mentality is one of the factors that permitted 9/11 to happen. Obviously, the last was a paradigm shift for that particular crime (hijacking), but particular circumstances have to dictate what you do-not a set strategy based upon "if I give them what they want, they'll be satisfied with that, and leave me unharmed," when, in fact, you have little or no reason to believe it to be true. To allow this mentality to be the basis for your heiho, your strategy under the circumstances-to perform any sort of mental calculus based upon the value of your life being greater than that of what you're being robbed for, when, in fact, your life is already being threatened by virtue of the crime itself taking place-is not the martial way.

The simple fact is, though, that untrained and unarmed people can and do "go for it" against firearms successfully, almost every year. Such instances exist on video tape in the case of several convenience store robberies. The fact is, based upon what you yourself have said, since "in the vast number of instances the robber leaves after getting the property," "going for it" becomes a more viable option because, statistically-whatever else one assumes under the circumstances aside-the robber himself may well be less than likely, or less than prepared to fire.

[Archangel M]

Yes I said it, but I also stated that I would only do it if I seriously thought that the wallet wasnt going to be enough..not that I would always "go for it" because I was operating on an "assumption".

It still leaves the question...do you always "assume" that the stick-up man is going to kill you and attempt the disarm or do you hand the wallet over and assess if that was enough? You seem to be hedging the issue...Is it "wait and see" or is it go for the disarm everytime because you should assume you are going to be killed? I dont mean to harp on the issue, I know where you are coming from but the point of this whole post is the debate over if you should resist an armed robber or just hand over the property. Taking a blanket "always assume they are going to kill you" mindset is far to simplistic and results in foolish decisions. Keep in mind that this whole debate is separate from legal issues regarding the use of force. Of course a man pointing a gun at you is plenty "legal" reason to use deadly force, but that doesnt make it the best tactical choice. There are so many variables like number of assailants, range between parties, weapon in play, number of victims etc. that telling people that "going for it" vs. compliance and survival should be a primary strategy is not necessarialy wise.

If any martial arts instructor is teaching that disarm attempts in response to armed robbery is a "primary strategy" I would run..not walk to a different school.

What would YOU do if someone pointed a revolver at you and demanded YOUR wallet?

[elder999]

If any martial arts instructor is teaching that disarm attempts in response to armed robbery is a "primary strategy" I would run..not walk to a different school.

What would YOU do if someone pointed a revolver at you and demanded YOUR wallet?

30 years ago, as I have posted, someone brandished a knife, and I gave over my wallet, for all of the good that it did either of us. I'd dare to say, though, that under the circumstances, if he'd had a revolver instead of a knife, I'd have complied, and been shot for my trouble.

On the other hand, if someone pointed a revolver at me, it would depend upon all the variables you and I have made mention of, and more-I certainly can think of a variety of ones where I'd comply, but I also would be looking for an opportunity to resist, because I'd be assuming that I'd be killed. In fact, I once posted on another thread where a victim (on video) immediately complied and did not resist that there may have been a variety of strategic factors for not resisting, not the least of which was his not being injured as part of the outcome.

While I certainly don't teach that disarming is a "primary strategy," I'm afraid that compliance can't be either-one must always be looking for the opportunity to resist if one has the capability, and have the will to take it-especially if armed (And, getting back to the original post: I'd have shot him.). At any rate, one can easily figure what my primary stragtegy might be, though it might be different from what I teach about strategy.Without any other available information: knowledge of the perpetrator or situational circumstances such as a bank robbery or other commercial robbery being two good examples,I believe that one simply must assume that the armed robber is not only prepared to use violent, lethal force, but intends to-though that often is not the case. This isn't some sort of macho attitude; it is, quite simply, the logical assumption based upon the sensory information typically available in a violent encounter.

And, just for giggles: videos of resisiting armed robbery. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdwDnl6dSPs)

In most of those cases, resistance wasn't the primary strategy or initial response-in fact, in the first video, the victim is simply lucky that he didn't get shot "anyway," out of apparent frustration on the part of the robber. In any case, we have here at least two examples of untrained, unarmed people successfully resisting armed robbery. All of those people were almost certainly trained to comply with a robber as part of their job, but they didn't. Foolish? Perhaps-in fact, I would probably advocate not resisting under most of those circumstances,as a commercial robbery is generally different, in that the perp needs to flee- but they, and others like them have been successful. While one can find a few videos where people resist and get killed for their efforts,though, the vast majority of them (in a rather informal survey of sorts :lol:) show that those who resist do so successfully.

[Archangel M]

Thats a much clearer explination and much there I can agree with. Thanks.

As a secondary discussion; you will find that most LE websites reccommend complying with the robber;

http://coloradorobbery.org/CrimeInfo/RobberyTips/during.htm
https://www.jeffcitymo.org/police/ArmedRobberyPrevention.html
http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/PreventingCrime/Robbery/WhatToDo.htm
http://www.cbpolice.org/documents/Robbery-Prevention-Tips.pdf

Which sometimes is the basis of debate and criticism of the Police (they dont want us to defend ourselves etc. etc.). However people have to consider the libality a PD would place themselves in if they were to suggest that people should resist. The odds have proven that "giving up the money" is by far the safer option than attempting to disarm. Yes a few robbers shoot anyway (and they get all the press) but most run off (which are boring and get no press).

Again..home invasions are one thing, street robberies, bank robberies and commercial robberies are entirely another. But we are talking "generalities" and mindsets here. And it is an interesting (and in the end productive) discussion IMO.

[seasoned]

[quote] Murthy's confrontation began at 3 in the afternoon at the corner of Arlington Avenue and 27th Street in southwest Los Angeles. The engineer was videoing traffic signals in a bid for a school traffic study. His camera was focused on cars whizzing through the intersection, but also captured a softer image of a man leaning against a lamppost.
Once the man spotted Murthy, he walked toward him.
The camera kept rolling as the man tried to snatch it.
The two struggled. [quote]

75 posts later and I don’t think the BG wants the camera, but, his image that is on the camera. For some reason, he did not want to be filmed. Either a desperate move by the BG based on paranoia, or the possibility that he is wanted for something, or, standing against the lamppost with other intentions in mind. I can’t imagine an armed individual hanging out, armed, spotting a camera toting victim and making his move. After the fact we know, “I think“, that he wanted the camera, but at the time, from the victims point of view, here comes someone right in your face grabbing at you. Any guy, with any set of ***** would react. It was so fast, that he could not have had time to consider, anything like, is the guy armed, am I going to die. Camera catches image, guy comes, starts to grab, kick to the ***** gun pulled and fired. Were talking seconds here. There is no assessment of threat here, just the right place at the wrong time. IMHO

[elder999]

Thats a much clearer explination and much there I can agree with. Thanks..

I think you'll find that from the onset I qualified that one should resist "if capable", which covers, well, a lot of things from individual training and ability to external circumstances. :wink:
Thanks.




75 posts later and I don’t think the BG wants the camera, but, his image that is on the camera. For some reason, he did not want to be filmed.

I was sure that I posted somewhere that he probably had warrants out on him or something to that effect, but I agree- time will probably prove that the object wasn't the camera as much as it was his image on the camera.

[kidswarrior]

Well, if a picture's (http://www.ocregister.com/video/index.php?bcpid=1127694947&bclid=1389981774&bctid=13148538001) worth a thousand words...

[MJS]

Well..yes and no..all those possiblities are why we incorporate certain tactics and officer safety technques. I wouldnt say that I approach every car stop really thinking that the person "could have just killed someone". Id be a fidgity wreck with ulcers by now if I did that. I stick to my officer safety habits in the event that it does turn out to be true, but one has to balance caution with being able to function and try to hold off complancency all at the same time. When a cop first gets on the job he tends to think hes going to be shot at at any moment, as the years go by he becomes comfortable with ther "realities" of the street and knows the difference between using propper tactics and true danger...if hes not careful he may become complacent and think that nothing is ever going to happen to him. I try to keep a balance and pay attention to my "radar" and my gut feelings without becoming hypervigilant, which will burn you out. You cant be running around in Condition Orange all day on this job. I try for a solid yellow...bordering yellow/orange when on a call or stop.

I suppose we can equate this to someone being aware of their surroundings when they go out. Its one thing to keep your head up, be sure of yourself, be confident and have the attitude that you know whats going on, vs. constantly looking over your shoulder, needing to duck behind every other car while you're making your way to the mall entrance, etc.

That is what I'm talking about when I mentioned the LEOs. Don't be some paranoid freak, but be sure of yourself. The bad guys will pick up on this. I saw it when I worked in Corrections. Be aware of whats going on in the car, any sudden movements, etc.

[MJS]

Yes I said it, but I also stated that I would only do it if I seriously thought that the wallet wasnt going to be enough..not that I would always "go for it" because I was operating on an "assumption".

And this is the difference between the 2 groups on here. One would rather hand over whats asked, and then, and only then, if the BG escalates, then we escalate. The second group would rather not hand anything over, but instead treat this as a threat, especially if any force is used or implied.


It still leaves the question...do you always "assume" that the stick-up man is going to kill you and attempt the disarm or do you hand the wallet over and assess if that was enough? You seem to be hedging the issue...Is it "wait and see" or is it go for the disarm everytime because you should assume you are going to be killed? I dont mean to harp on the issue, I know where you are coming from but the point of this whole post is the debate over if you should resist an armed robber or just hand over the property. Taking a blanket "always assume they are going to kill you" mindset is far to simplistic and results in foolish decisions. Keep in mind that this whole debate is separate from legal issues regarding the use of force. Of course a man pointing a gun at you is plenty "legal" reason to use deadly force, but that doesnt make it the best tactical choice. There are so many variables like number of assailants, range between parties, weapon in play, number of victims etc. that telling people that "going for it" vs. compliance and survival should be a primary strategy is not necessarialy wise.

IMO, if someone is desperate enough to kill you out of fear that you can ID them, then yes, I feel that we should assume the worst and act instead of waiting. I'll go back to my verbal threat example. BG is standing across the bar, yelling at you for looking at his girl. From that distance, he can't physically do anything to you, so yes, employ some verbal defusing techniques. If it means apologizing, offering to buy him, his friends and girl a few rounds, then so be it. If it looks like by doing this, you'll be thought of as a whimp, then so be it.

Now, same situation, only this guy doesn't want to hear your excuses or your offer for drinks. He wants to kick your ass. He starts moving towards you. IMO, it should be a no brainer that physical violence is rapidly approaching you, and the time for talking has come to a close. Sure, you could make one last try, but once he is within my personal space, I'm going to react.

If I'm standing at the ATM or opening my car door, and someone comes up behind me, grabs me around my neck and demands my keys, I say screw him, its on at that point. He physically assaulted me, I'm fearing for my life, and I'm going to do something.


If any martial arts instructor is teaching that disarm attempts in response to armed robbery is a "primary strategy" I would run..not walk to a different school.

See my above comments.


What would YOU do if someone pointed a revolver at you and demanded YOUR wallet?

I think my reaction is pretty clear by now. :)