Should one 'have a go' or even defend yourself?

[Tez3]

Often when someone is acclaimed as a 'have a go' hero in the media, the police spokesperson is seen as either politically corrrect or mean spirited when they say they prefer people not to have a go or even defend themselves as it could have truned out to have tragic consequences.

So when is it right to step in to help people beset by criminals and if it's not what should you do? You can see the police point of view, a brave passerby stepping to rescue someone from a mugger for example. When it works the rescuer is a hero when it doesn't they are hurt or worse but are they wrong?

If you are the victim of a mugging should you defend yourself or shrug and thnk 'it's only money/a watch etc?' Rape victims are often judged by whether they are hurt during the attack, if they decide to co-operate and survive it's often considered that perhaps it wasn't rape and they did consent wheras if they struggle and are hurt or killed it 'proves' it's rape. Very unfair of course and very wrong but what do you tell women to do as far as self defence against rape is concerned?

 

[CoryKS]

I think the police probably have to say things like that, because if somebody fights back and gets badly hurt they'll point to the police and say, "hey, they told me to fight back and look what happened."

 

[frank raud]

Someone who jumps in to help another person out, during a mugging to use your example, is a hero in my books, whether they get hurt or not.

Should you defend yourself is a cost/benefit analysis, imho. If someone confronts me with a weapon and demands my watch, wallet, odds are good I'll give it to him. If I am physically attacked with the intention of robbing me, I will fight back and defend myself. Can I know the intent of the person attacking me? Doubtful, but I won't allow someone to hit me with being struck back.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Let's look at it from the other side for a moment, just for the sake of discussion. Let me preface my argument by saying that I am not advocating turnig a blind eye. I am merely bringing another viewpoint to the discussion, ok?

Life is a game that we all play. And just like in a game, things happen to us that are out of our control. At some point in our life (let's say adulthood) we are supposed to be aware of the realities of life and become self reliant (so let's exclude children and people with a mental handicap for the sake of this argument) and make up our strategies of dealing with life.

Now suppose you and I are walking through town independently, and I see you getting mugged. At that point we can conclude several things:
- you chose to be oblivious of your surroundings.
- you chose not be become an experienced martial artist with self defense skills.
- you chose not to carry a weapon
- you chose to be unprepared for the situation.

Several of those things might apply at once. That seems like an awful lot of carelessness. Now, do I risk my kids becoming fatherless because you chose to be unprepared?

 

[MJS]

Often when someone is acclaimed as a 'have a go' hero in the media, the police spokesperson is seen as either politically corrrect or mean spirited when they say they prefer people not to have a go or even defend themselves as it could have truned out to have tragic consequences.

So when is it right to step in to help people beset by criminals and if it's not what should you do? You can see the police point of view, a brave passerby stepping to rescue someone from a mugger for example. When it works the rescuer is a hero when it doesn't they are hurt or worse but are they wrong?

If you are the victim of a mugging should you defend yourself or shrug and thnk 'it's only money/a watch etc?' Rape victims are often judged by whether they are hurt during the attack, if they decide to co-operate and survive it's often considered that perhaps it wasn't rape and they did consent wheras if they struggle and are hurt or killed it 'proves' it's rape. Very unfair of course and very wrong but what do you tell women to do as far as self defence against rape is concerned?

Sounds like you have 2 different questions here, so I'll comment on both.

On the subject of whether or not you should step in and aid someone who is being attacked: If someone wishes to do that, thats fine, as long as they're going in, knowing the risks. A husband and wife domestic in the parking lot, could turn ugly for you, if you try to defend the female from being hit. As you go to restrain her husband, she could suddenly have a change of heart and start attacking you. Even though he was beating the **** out of her, it happens all the time. I'm sure many LEOs here can attest to that.

The other thing is the fear of retaliation. Will the bad guys track you down and try to kill you? Will they harass you? Will threats be made to your family and loved ones? Again, if someone is willing to help, they need to be aware of this.

For me, if I choose to help, I'd rather help by calling the police. I know, I know, people will say that by the time the cops get there, the victim could be dead. Maybe. But you could be dead too. Many times I've called the police and gave acurate descriptions of whats going on. What happens after that is out of my hands. I did my part.


On the subject of defending yourself in an attack: Absolutely! The police, the SD experts will always tell you to comply. IMO, thats a CYA thing (cover your ***). Imagine the lawsuits if the cops told people to defend themselves, and in the process something happens. The family of the dead guy will say, "Well...if the cops didn't tell him to defend himself, he'd be alive today!"

Even when I'm at work, I'm VERY careful of what I tell people on the phone. People ask me all the time, "Well, what would you do?" LOL, well, its not me that has the problem, its them. I'm not in the business of giving advice. Whats that saying...anything you say can and will be used against you. Its not what I want, its what they want.

Anyways...we've seen cases of people who've successfully defended themselves many times, without injury. We've seen cases of people who've been injured or worse. IMO, there is nothing that says that if I comply that I'll be injury free, that after I hand over my wallet and keys, that the badguy will just leave. Run? Ok, and what about my wife? What about my mom? So I should leave and leave them behind?

No, for me, I'd rather take the chance and defend myself. Who the hell are these punk *** pieces of **** that have nothing better to do, than to prowl around like a rat, looking for its next piece of cheese! I work hard for what I have, and personally, I dont feel like I or anyone else for that matter, should have to fork it over. I linked an article here not long ago, about a street robbery that happened in one of the larger cities here. The victim had $3 on him, that was it. Know what happened? Even though he didn't fight back and gave the punk the cash, the punk whacked him with the gun. What if he decided to shoot him instead? All because this guy only had $3.

The above is just my opinion. Its what I would do. I'm sure some will agree and some will disagree, and thats fine.

 

[Carol]

Help doesn't have to be physical. Many times you can provide invaluable help by being the one that actually calls 911, and/or then the one that concentrates on being a good witness.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Every situation is different. I don't think there are any one-size-fits-all answers. I also think that the answer one would arrive at in a strict SD scenario is not necessarily the answer one would arrive at in a communitarian sense.

 

[MJS]

Help doesn't have to be physical. Many times you can provide invaluable help by being the one that actually calls 911, and/or then the one that concentrates on being a good witness.

QFT!!! I've taken many calls from people who've provided me with enough info. on a situation, and in many cases, the police were able to make an arrest. Sometimes, its those folks who're always peeking out their windows that're the best witnesses. LOL. Go figure, right.

 

[girlbug2]

I have always been advised, that you have to assess the situation quickly and make a decision about whether or not to fight back, or to run. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

If the BG is just asking for my watch, wallet or car, then I'm probably going to comply. If however I have any reason to believe that it won't end with my property--that gut feeling that I'm about to be attacked or shot anyway--then I fight back. And NEVER allow yourself to be taken to a secondary location, because you're almost guaranteed to be found dead later if you do.

Are you with your family or another person who can't run well? That rules out running for me. Also I am not such a fast runner myself, so unless the BG appears to be in bad shape, I won't use that option.

Intervening on another's behalf--that's a tough call. I honestly like to think I would, but who knows what they will do until they are in that situation? It may be more sensible to call the police and be a good witness, like someone said. You can bet I'd be uttering a quick prayer for guidance if I witnessed a crime.

 

[MA-Caver]

Sticking my neck on the block here... I will say that it is partially to blame on lawyers and judges who give criminals a win in court when they are "attacked" or hurt while committing a crime.
Example: The knife attack video where a shopkeeper shot and (presumably) killed the guy wielding the knife. Chances are that shopkeeper can go to jail for murder or (if the knife lived) assault with deadly weapon. Or try this bit of insanity; a burglar breaks into a house and hurts themselves on the broken glass while climbing through the window can SUE the homeowner and chances are win.

So when you get crap like that is it any wonder that some people may hesitate to get involved or fight back? A rape victim can sometimes fare no better, she fights back and the rapist hits her once or twice to put her into submission, and then it CAN come into court that it was consensual sex that got "a little out of hand"... particularly if she KNEW the rapist prior to the event. Which is why a woman should report the rape as immediately as possible to bring things into her favor and that physical evidence doesn't get washed away.

Anyway... jumping in the middle of something, is a judgment call but a person shouldn't be punished for being a decent human being. Example:
Tonight I was driving home from work and spied a young lady standing alone on the corner of a used car lot... No, she wasn't working because in my neighborhood there are far too many cops patrolling around for a girl to even attempt that sort of thing. I rolled down the window to ask her if she was stranded (which she obviously was) and gave her a ride to the part of town she asked to be taken.
Reading the thread got me thinking if I saw her being pushed into a car or otherwise in "trouble" ... I think that yes without even hesitating I would've jumped in and assisted best as I could... this of course making a fast call to 911 before getting out of my jeep... with my big knife. Nice thing is that police response time to 911 calls in my neighborhood is almost instantaneous. I'm not looking for a pat on the back here but trying to point out that it IS the decent thing to do, help another human being. But I took a risk doing so. Maybe the girl was a psycho or a lure and I could've been jumped by her accomplices or she could've pulled a knife or gun on me and robbed me or whatever. I did think of that (in a matter of seconds assessing the situation) and went ahead to do the right thing but prepared for anything. As she was approaching the car I had my eyes on my mirrors and beyond with my head swiveling around to as much as 180 as I could. I also had my own weapon in the car immediately near at hand should it go sour.

Bruno said this: Life is a game that we all play. And just like in a game, things happen to us that are out of our control. At some point in our life (let's say adulthood) we are supposed to be aware of the realities of life and become self reliant (so let's exclude children and people with a mental handicap for the sake of this argument) and make up our strategies of dealing with life.

Now suppose you and I are walking through town independently, and I see you getting mugged. At that point we can conclude several things:
- you chose to be oblivious of your surroundings.
- you chose not be become an experienced martial artist with self defense skills.
- you chose not to carry a weapon
- you chose to be unprepared for the situation.

Several of those things might apply at once. That seems like an awful lot of carelessness. Now, do I risk my kids becoming fatherless because you chose to be unprepared?

While I advocate MA/SD training for just about everyone on the planet that is a decent human being... I know that one cannot expect them to do so.
We've discussed here before on MT that there are basically three types of people: 1. Sheep-- the pacifists types of people who CHOOSE not to be prepared or armed or trained. It's their life and it's how they want to live... who are (we) to determine that they are wrong to do so?
2. Sheepdogs -- those who have training, weapons, prepared for the unexpected and so forth. It's how we chose to live and we rightly feel nobody should condemn us for it.
3. Wolves -- the ones that we trained, armed and prepared for.

Speaking up for the pacifists for a moment; they are in a way right to live as they do. Ignorant but right. They have elected not to be sheepdogs because they feel they shouldn't HAVE to be. They shouldn't HAVE to be living in fear or in a world that is fearful to live in. On that I agree, we should be a civilized enough species to not even have it cross our minds. But we're not... so those who have their minds in reality and accept that reality became sheepdogs.

Now imagine this... if there were a way to identify by sight the three types and you as a sheepdog see 2-3 wolves attacking another sheepdog you'd probably jump in and help out because you know at least they are of like mind and your presence along with theirs will "even the odds" up a bit.
But if you see that they're sheep and are in imminent danger of being seriously hurt/killed... are you going to pass them by simply because they "brought it upon themselves"? And therefore "deserve" to get mugged/raped/killed?
How civilized is that?
How about this as well... you jump in to help out another sheepdog and you still get killed... who is to blame? Your kids are still fatherless. Is there a difference?

 

[David43515]

Would I use force to defend myself or get involved to help a stranger? Depends, when I was single with nothing to lose the answer would have always been yes. Now, maybe I`d be less likely to physically stop someone else`s attacker. I`d still call 911 and try to stay nearby in case it escalated to the point where my assistance might mean the difference between them living and dying.

But as to Tez`s 2nd question, about a rape victim. I`d never judge a victim on whether they felt ready to fight back or not. Some people are paralyzed by words and the threats behind them. If they really believe thier attacker will hurt them more if they resist, or come back and hurt thier family if they resist.....who am I to 2nd guess thier choice? All I can really do is try to help them pick up the pieces of thier life. But if I could talk to any woman before they were attacked, I`d make sure they knew that women who try to fight back are proven to be more able to escape. And attackers who plan on killing thier victims usually begin by moving them somewhere else. I tell my daughters "Never, never, NEVER let someone force you into a car. Do whatever you have to to stay out.That`s a ride you probably won`t ever come home from."

 

[Bruno@MT]

Speaking up for the pacifists for a moment; they are in a way right to live as they do. Ignorant but right. They have elected not to be sheepdogs because they feel they shouldn't HAVE to be. They shouldn't HAVE to be living in fear or in a world that is fearful to live in. On that I agree, we should be a civilized enough species to not even have it cross our minds. But we're not... so those who have their minds in reality and accept that reality became sheepdogs.

A pacifist is not someone who can't use violence. But someone who can use violence and decides not to. the word for someone who is helpless is 'prey'.

Now imagine this... if there were a way to identify by sight the three types and you as a sheepdog see 2-3 wolves attacking another sheepdog you'd probably jump in and help out because you know at least they are of like mind and your presence along with theirs will "even the odds" up a bit.
But if you see that they're sheep and are in imminent danger of being seriously hurt/killed... are you going to pass them by simply because they "brought it upon themselves"? And therefore "deserve" to get mugged/raped/killed?
How civilized is that?

First of all, I have no clue what I would do. I've never been in that situation.
If I were to think about it, here and now, I'd say it depends on how I see my chances of survival and whether I have any relationship towards the sheep.

And at some point, there are no 'nice' solutions anymore. If a sheep is being assaulted and my chances of survival are not that good, I am not going to die for their decision to be sheep. Don't assume I am being casual or blase about turning a blind eye, or that I would not care. But sometimes there is something to be said for being rational, and not adding your body to the body count.

And I don't say that the only choices are fighting or leaving. Call 911, take their pics with your cell phone. Distract them and make them aware that there are witnesses (assuming they are not close enough to kill you too), etc...

How about this as well... you jump in to help out another sheepdog and you still get killed... who is to blame? Your kids are still fatherless. Is there a difference?

Well ultimatey the one who killed me, but secondly, me for jumping in. Whether the other person is a sheep or sheepdog does not really matter to my decision to involve myself or not.

 

[MJS]

Sticking my neck on the block here... I will say that it is partially to blame on lawyers and judges who give criminals a win in court when they are "attacked" or hurt while committing a crime.
Example: The knife attack video where a shopkeeper shot and (presumably) killed the guy wielding the knife. Chances are that shopkeeper can go to jail for murder or (if the knife lived) assault with deadly weapon. Or try this bit of insanity; a burglar breaks into a house and hurts themselves on the broken glass while climbing through the window can SUE the homeowner and chances are win.

So when you get crap like that is it any wonder that some people may hesitate to get involved or fight back? A rape victim can sometimes fare no better, she fights back and the rapist hits her once or twice to put her into submission, and then it CAN come into court that it was consensual sex that got "a little out of hand"... particularly if she KNEW the rapist prior to the event. Which is why a woman should report the rape as immediately as possible to bring things into her favor and that physical evidence doesn't get washed away.

Sad but true. Its amazing how someone with half a brain could honestly award the badguy anything. So lemme get this straight....BG has no life, so decides to leave his home at 2am, to prowl like a rat, to see what house he can break into. BG breaks in and attempts to steal whatever he can. Homeowner possibly wakes up, grabs his gun, which he is legally allowed to carry, confronts BG. BG has weapon, makes threats, attempts to attack homeowner. Homeowner shoots and injures/kills BG. Homeowner get sent up the river. Go figure.

Sorry, after the deadly home invasion 3yrs ago in Cheshire, CT, which is actively in trial at this time, for one of the badguys (the other will start his process next year) in which the wife and 2 daughters were killed, 2 of the females sexually assaulted, the husband beaten with a baseball bat, the wife strangled, the house lit on fire....nope, in a situation like that, I have no remorse or concern for the well being of ANYONE who breaks into a house.

Once again, I can't stand by and assume that by cooperating that everything will be ok. Supposedly, in that home invasion, 'things got out of control' which supposedly means that the house wasn't supposed to be burned down, nobody was supposed to be raped, and the guy was just supposed to be tied up...not beat unconscious with a bat! **** that...you break into my house, uninvited, with ill intent, you get whatever happens to you. I'll deal with the BS later. At that moment, my life and the life of my wife is #1 on the list.

 

[frank raud]

A pacifist is not someone who can't use violence. But someone who can use violence and decides not to. the word for someone who is helpless is 'prey'.

"A warrior may choose pacifism. Others are condemned to it."

 

[WC_lun]

I'm not sure that some of these things that are being discussed are very accurate, more like urban myth stuff, such as the burglar getting cut on the window he broke. I'd have to see something backing up that he won a court case.

As far as defending one's home and family with deadly force, it is done with deadly success with no legal ramifications, even in states where there is no castle law. For instance, I worked with a guy that had a burglar breaking into his house through the front door. As soon as the buglar opened thed door and put his first foot inside his house, Buford shot him dead. He missed one day of work. that happened here in Missourri. The advice the cops gave him, "Let them get three steps in if it happens again."

Defending another person is a dicey thing. No situation is the same and you have to judge accordingly. I know for myself, if a person is getting robbed at gunpoint, odds are I'm going to do my best to get a description and call 911. I don't want either myself or the victim getting shot because I play the hero. If a woman is getting attacked, I'm going to try to do something. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't. I suppose it comes down to a war between my common sense, fear, and dislike of predators that determines what I'd do.

 

[Master Dan]

You bring up two very serious topics both seperate and can be split down the middle 50/50 if you talk with enough people. I find it interesting regardless of facts that people will base their possision on thier personal bias. Many times when asking a question they do not want a real answer but only seek to have thier own opinion confirmed?

First: Law enforcement mentallity.
As a rule they do not want people to interfere with what they regard as thier job and teritory when it comes to actual hands on intervention. However the higher issue is that as a society there are not enough of them to be everywhere all the time. Hurt or not people need to get involved in what ever fassion they have the ability to do at that time. You are at risk and many people do not realize but from harm by the police when they show up and cannot understand you are the good guy? you may get clubbed or shot before that is sorted out.

However when it comes to defenseless women children or ederly I could not help myself I could certainly die a worse death.

Rape and Self Defense Instruciton?

First what are you teaching? Self Defense should be about survival as first priority not winning a contest. To many instructors and Femenists especially have personal bias issues related to thier own personal preference instead of teaching people who to assess thier specific situation and realize it is up to them to make thier own personal choice how best to survive.

life and death or personal injury?

for all people if you are going to be taken and transported to another location the statistics reality of you comming back alive is very low, fight now everything you got to get away because once restrianed and remove you are going to die you have nothing to loose.

When being attacked in your own home its more complex there can be a better % of survival by not fighting than fighting and now the person has determined to kill you? I just reivewed a case last night about a serial rapists killed the woman becasue she resisted and the police at the door failed to enter the unit he strangled her to keep quiet when he did not kill most his victims, very sad. In any case it is up to you to make that personal judgement free of a trainers bias or societies opinion. What you need is information that may help you make that decision and better how to prevent it in the first place.

 

[MJS]

You bring up two very serious topics both seperate and can be split down the middle 50/50 if you talk with enough people. I find it interesting regardless of facts that people will base their possision on thier personal bias. Many times when asking a question they do not want a real answer but only seek to have thier own opinion confirmed?

1) First: Law enforcement mentallity.
As a rule they do not want people to interfere with what they regard as thier job and teritory when it comes to actual hands on intervention. However the higher issue is that as a society there are not enough of them to be everywhere all the time. Hurt or not people need to get involved in what ever fassion they have the ability to do at that time. You are at risk and many people do not realize but from harm by the police when they show up and cannot understand you are the good guy? you may get clubbed or shot before that is sorted out.

However when it comes to defenseless women children or ederly I could not help myself I could certainly die a worse death.

2) Rape and Self Defense Instruciton?

First what are you teaching? Self Defense should be about survival as first priority not winning a contest. To many instructors and Femenists especially have personal bias issues related to thier own personal preference instead of teaching people who to assess thier specific situation and realize it is up to them to make thier own personal choice how best to survive.

3) life and death or personal injury?

for all people if you are going to be taken and transported to another location the statistics reality of you comming back alive is very low, fight now everything you got to get away because once restrianed and remove you are going to die you have nothing to loose.

When being attacked in your own home its more complex there can be a better % of survival by not fighting than fighting and now the person has determined to kill you? I just reivewed a case last night about a serial rapists killed the woman becasue she resisted and the police at the door failed to enter the unit he strangled her to keep quiet when he did not kill most his victims, very sad. In any case it is up to you to make that personal judgement free of a trainers bias or societies opinion. What you need is information that may help you make that decision and better how to prevent it in the first place.

1) IMHO, I'd say its more liability than anything else. As I said, people need to be VERY careful of what they say to others. Anytime I'm talking to someone on the phone, sending cops or the FD to a call, I have to choose my words carefully. Everything is taped, and it can and has come back to bite people in the ***. Imagine if every PD in the world told people, "Yes, resist! Yes, do whatever you have to do! No, dont comply!" The lawyers couldnt get into line fast enough. LOL.

2) I agree with this. IMO, the most simple, and effective things need to be taught.

3) There was a case in CT a while ago, about a guy who broke into a home. 2 older females in the house. One of them he shot. Fortunately, she survived. The other one was taken to another location, where sadly, she was killed. The reason he gave to the police? Because they both saw his face and he was afraid they'd be able to ID him.

If we're talking about home invasions...lets see, invest in an alarm system. Have ample lighting around your house, ie: motion activated lights. Have quality locks on all doors and windows. Invest in a dog. Start a neighborhood watch program. Report any susp. activity in the area. Cars, people you've never seen before. Someone coming to the door pretending to be a cable guy, gas co., etc.

Theres no sure shot thing, but anything we can do to make it a bit more difficult is worth it, IMO.

 

[Master Dan]

1) IMHO, I'd say its more liability than anything else. As I said, people need to be VERY careful of what they say to others. Anytime I'm talking to someone on the phone, sending cops or the FD to a call, I have to choose my words carefully. Everything is taped, and it can and has come back to bite people in the ***. Imagine if every PD in the world told people, "Yes, resist! Yes, do whatever you have to do! No, dont comply!" The lawyers couldnt get into line fast enough. LOL.

2) I agree with this. IMO, the most simple, and effective things need to be taught.

3) There was a case in CT a while ago, about a guy who broke into a home. 2 older females in the house. One of them he shot. Fortunately, she survived. The other one was taken to another location, where sadly, she was killed. The reason he gave to the police? Because they both saw his face and he was afraid they'd be able to ID him.

If we're talking about home invasions...lets see, invest in an alarm system. Have ample lighting around your house, ie: motion activated lights. Have quality locks on all doors and windows. Invest in a dog. Start a neighborhood watch program. Report any susp. activity in the area. Cars, people you've never seen before. Someone coming to the door pretending to be a cable guy, gas co., etc.

Theres no sure shot thing, but anything we can do to make it a bit more difficult is worth it, IMO.

Your absolutley right law enforcement, dispatch ect have liability issues and many times thier hands are tied. But in the case of the persons a risk prevention would be far better Bruce Lee the art of fighting with out fighting. But each person is going to have to make a personal choice and better education could help them do that.

and your specifics is exactly what i am talking about no one with out any experience is going to pick up in one class skills to fight but possibly can be made aware?

OMG my wife is nurse for one of the most viloent hospitals in the US nurses being attack and injured even permanent injury from patients and being disabled to work. They finally are trying do something they just had training given by the ex head janitor presenting a book and dvd on self defense suggesting they can disarm a person with knife or gun????????? worse yet verbal commands for a person under the influence of what ever they all laughed they don't hear or understand. I am going to rewrite the book and produce my own dvd for free.

 

[altc]

Every situation is different. Much like the first step in first-aid from DR ABC is Danger. We need to first and foremost look at the situation and consider if there are any chances of yourself getting hurt or killed or those people I am currently with. Kids were mentioned previously and this is a classic example.

Like has been mentioned, one or both parties involved in encounters are at fault for letting things get to the physical conflict stage. Are they worth the risk of injury to yourself when they may have brought the situation onto themselves.

Consider that they might be fighting over something personal and may both turn on you for interferring. This has happened.

I like the advice given in previous posts that 'having a go' can mean calling the police, filming them on phone cameras and otherwise distracting them.

One other thing you could do is provide a statement to police backing up the victim if you saw the whole thing. People complain about the legal process but how many get involved and back up the real victim by providing statements to police? This is what is needed sometimes to get people defending themsleves off legal charges. Ths is where having a go can be most valuable.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Often when someone is acclaimed as a 'have a go' hero in the media, the police spokesperson is seen as either politically corrrect or mean spirited when they say they prefer people not to have a go or even defend themselves as it could have truned out to have tragic consequences.

So when is it right to step in to help people beset by criminals and if it's not what should you do? You can see the police point of view, a brave passerby stepping to rescue someone from a mugger for example. When it works the rescuer is a hero when it doesn't they are hurt or worse but are they wrong?

If you are the victim of a mugging should you defend yourself or shrug and thnk 'it's only money/a watch etc?' Rape victims are often judged by whether they are hurt during the attack, if they decide to co-operate and survive it's often considered that perhaps it wasn't rape and they did consent wheras if they struggle and are hurt or killed it 'proves' it's rape. Very unfair of course and very wrong but what do you tell women to do as far as self defence against rape is concerned?

Much like the pre-9/11 advice to cooperate with a hijacking...........sometimes advice is wrong.

“We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene.” -Col. Jeff Cooper

If you give a robber your wallet, you feed a robber for a day.......shoot a robber, and you stop his robbery for a lifetime.