When does a gentleman fight back?

[John in Covina]

While I don't necesarily think that violence should never be used, there are many people who believe (not self righteously, they just believe it) that is the case. Jesus was one of them. although it can perhaps be argued that his bit in the temple demonstrates that he did not believe that. One of the men I respect the most, Gandhi, was a firm believer in non violence under any circumstances. if I am not mistaken, martin Luther King did as well. You may not agree, but the belief of non violence is a perfectly valid, well thought out point of view.

**********
Don't forget though, what will happen when Jesus comes again, it's not pretty!

Gandhi's non violence worked because the British are at their heart moral and just people. If any one tried to use Gandhi's teachings against the Nazi's, no one would have survived because the Nazi's were totally amoral and unjust. (Also very legalistic.)

MLK was a just and peaceable man and much of the protests clearly showed the injustice of what needed over turning. It's too bad that several cities still wound up burning because of the rage.

Martyrdom is fine if you want that but it's the winners that write the history, most of the time.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

OK, you sent me to the concordance. From the NIV, not the AKJV (yeah, I know; another discussion):

Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

That's the one I was thinking of. The general understanding is that He was not talking about swords and peace, but was using a metaphor meaning He was here to turn the world on its head, not make it all happy and sweet.

There's a great scene in Mark 14-19 where He uses yeast in an analogy, but the numbskull apostles don't get it and start talking about not having brought enough bread with them. He gets frustrated with them and asks them "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you not see or understand?"

Great stuff. If the apostles messed it up and didn't get it, we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves for having to struggle with it.

 

[Tomasso]

Best to avoid physical conflict, unless you're prepared for a difficult life.

 

[HadleyH]

Gandhi's non violence worked because the British are at their heart moral and just people. If any one tried to use Gandhi's teachings against the Nazi's, no one would have survived because the Nazi's were totally amoral and unjust.

You can say that again!
Gandhi was the right man for India at the time.


Nazi Germany needed the full and total force of violence. Nobody can argue with that.

Such is life.

 

[carebear]

While I was raised catholic, I am no bible scholar. Doesn't sound familiar. if so, it may have been metaphorical.

there is definitely something in there about turning the other cheek.

Interesting line in the movie, Gandhi, in which a pries suggests that that was metaphorical, and gandhi responds that he is not so sure about that, and explains his views on the idea.

"Turning the other cheek" per the bible means accept a verbal insult, it does not mean to not defend yourself. The Commandment is properly translated "Thou shall not murder" (kill without justification) not "Thou shall not kill". Nothing Jesus said denied the right to defend oneself with justifiable violence. He rebuked Peter for using a sword against one of the arresting officials not because using a sword to defend the innocent was wrong but because it was necessary for g-d's plan that he be arrested.

Ghandi stated more than once that non-violence was a tool to use against government opppression and that, while it worked against the British, who were fundamentally decent and respected the individual, it would not be appropriate against, say, the Soviets. He also stated that if being shot at it would be appropriate to shoot back with your own gun. He stated that one of the greatest crimes of the British was disarming the Indian people.

I believe MLK had similar beliefs, in that resisting tyranny in the attempt to achieve a moral societal goal demanded innocence and non-violence on the part of the people trying to achieve that societal change. It doesn't apply to a merely criminal assault on your person, that can be resisted with more effective measures.

As stated, whether violence is justified, verbal, emotional, spiritual or physical, depends on the context, there are no hard and fast rules.

The point is that if you train and prepare for violence then you have the choice to use it or not. If you make yourself incapable of it for whatever reason, then you have no choice at all.

 

[carebear]

Secondy, it is just as magical thought to believe that if you do have a baseball bat and verbally or physically confront your invader, they will flee or otherwise leave you unscathed. i think you may be just as likely to be hit, stabbed or shot as to scare them off.

I think the case can be made for either way of dealing with an intruder. I dare say, though, that the smartest thing, if possible, is to flee the house.

You are assuming flight is an option. It may be, but if it isn't and you have no other options then you are again faced with depending on the good will of a person who has already proven they are willing to violate your home, with you in it, to not harm you.

The burgler may be between you and the door, you may have small children or old folks or other loved ones you cannot abandon, the burgler may be, in fact probably is, armed.

As I noted, yelling at a violent person may provoke physical violence in return, as might challenging them with a weapon that they can tell (and they can tell) you can't/won't use effectively. That's why you plan ahead what you are willing to do and what you could do in a variety of situations and don't try to figure it out in the moment.

How you respond comes down to your situation and your chosen tactics, which should have been thought out prior to the event.

That's really my bigger point. The people who end up saying things like "I never thought it would happen to me" or "he came out of nowhere" or "but, but, things like that don't happen here" are the people who used the magical thinking that "this doesn't happen often thus it can NEVER happen to me".

The rational person says "this doesn't happen often but it MIGHT happen to me, what simple things can I consider and do now to prepare myself for if it ever does?"

I am not saying everyone needs to (be willing to) use violence, nor that violence of any kind should be anything but a last resort (in fact that is my belief), what I have a problem with is when people pontificate on the issue with platitudes that don't stand up to reality. They have opinions but have never looked at the facts.

Much as the people who have the most informed distaste for war and the most valid opinions of it are usually the soldiers who will actually have to fight the thing; when it comes to self-defense and dealing with crime, the people who take the time to study the issue and the hard, harsh, horrible realities (as opposed to baseless conjecture) of interpersonal violence usually have the most distaste for even justified, defensive, violence. That distaste though doesn't keep them from acknowleging that sometimes, unfortunately, it is the only rational option. Fortunately though, their study usually means they, unlike the "magic thinkers" are less likely to need to use their knowledge and skills.

I don't make unfounded claims, as this is a topic I have been studying for several decades now. These aren't just my opinions, these are generally accepted positions within the field of criminology. For some information on resistance to crime start with the following study.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118749278/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

I really recommend you do some reading of the sites and books I recommended in a previous post. You may not like the reality, but that doesn't change its truth. What you do with the knowledge is up to you.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Two very well put together posts,carebear. As a matter of fact..excellent..in my view. I find myself in agreement with all areas you touched on..and that's a rarety for me in many cases. You seem to not only have,perhaps, experience and a well educated view....but also some Biblical understanding as well. Certainly posting some points to ponder.....
HD

 

[reetpleat]

You can say that again!
Gandhi was the right man for India at the time.


Nazi Germany needed the full and total force of violence. Nobody can argue with that.

Such is life.

I dare say, Gandhi did not make that distinction. And ask the people massacred by British soldiers in India how fair and just they were.

 

[reetpleat]

"Turning the other cheek" per the bible means accept a verbal insult, it does not mean to not defend yourself. The Commandment is properly translated "Thou shall not murder" (kill without justification) not "Thou shall not kill". Nothing Jesus said denied the right to defend oneself with justifiable violence. He rebuked Peter for using a sword against one of the arresting officials not because using a sword to defend the innocent was wrong but because it was necessary for g-d's plan that he be arrested.

Ghandi stated more than once that non-violence was a tool to use against government opppression and that, while it worked against the British, who were fundamentally decent and respected the individual, it would not be appropriate against, say, the Soviets. He also stated that if being shot at it would be appropriate to shoot back with your own gun. He stated that one of the greatest crimes of the British was disarming the Indian people.

I believe MLK had similar beliefs, in that resisting tyranny in the attempt to achieve a moral societal goal demanded innocence and non-violence on the part of the people trying to achieve that societal change. It doesn't apply to a merely criminal assault on your person, that can be resisted with more effective measures.

As stated, whether violence is justified, verbal, emotional, spiritual or physical, depends on the context, there are no hard and fast rules.

The point is that if you train and prepare for violence then you have the choice to use it or not. If you make yourself incapable of it for whatever reason, then you have no choice at all.

Let's just agree to disagree on these points.

 

[reetpleat]

You are assuming flight is an option. It may be, but if it isn't and you have no other options then you are again faced with depending on the good will of a person who has already proven they are willing to violate your home, with you in it, to not harm you.

The burgler may be between you and the door, you may have small children or old folks or other loved ones you cannot abandon, the burgler may be, in fact probably is, armed.

As I noted, yelling at a violent person may provoke physical violence in return, as might challenging them with a weapon that they can tell (and they can tell) you can't/won't use effectively. That's why you plan ahead what you are willing to do and what you could do in a variety of situations and don't try to figure it out in the moment.

How you respond comes down to your situation and your chosen tactics, which should have been thought out prior to the event.

That's really my bigger point. The people who end up saying things like "I never thought it would happen to me" or "he came out of nowhere" or "but, but, things like that don't happen here" are the people who used the magical thinking that "this doesn't happen often thus it can NEVER happen to me".

The rational person says "this doesn't happen often but it MIGHT happen to me, what simple things can I consider and do now to prepare myself for if it ever does?"

I am not saying everyone needs to (be willing to) use violence, nor that violence of any kind should be anything but a last resort (in fact that is my belief), what I have a problem with is when people pontificate on the issue with platitudes that don't stand up to reality. They have opinions but have never looked at the facts.

Much as the people who have the most informed distaste for war and the most valid opinions of it are usually the soldiers who will actually have to fight the thing; when it comes to self-defense and dealing with crime, the people who take the time to study the issue and the hard, harsh, horrible realities (as opposed to baseless conjecture) of interpersonal violence usually have the most distaste for even justified, defensive, violence. That distaste though doesn't keep them from acknowleging that sometimes, unfortunately, it is the only rational option. Fortunately though, their study usually means they, unlike the "magic thinkers" are less likely to need to use their knowledge and skills.

I don't make unfounded claims, as this is a topic I have been studying for several decades now. These aren't just my opinions, these are generally accepted positions within the field of criminology. For some information on resistance to crime start with the following study.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118749278/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

I really recommend you do some reading of the sites and books I recommended in a previous post. You may not like the reality, but that doesn't change its truth. What you do with the knowledge is up to you.

Sorry, but the assertion that "I know what I am talking aboout because I have studied it for years I suggest you read this or that because you will then realize how right I am and how wrong you are" does not go far in my book. For every idea of one person there is generally an equally valid opinion from someone who thinks the oposite. And I think we would all do well to simply take the attitude that we have our own opinions and others have equally valid opinions and let it go at that.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

You can say that again!
Gandhi was the right man for India at the time.


Nazi Germany needed the full and total force of violence. Nobody can argue with that.

Such is life.

"Although there is no doubt that physical violence (including torture) were important elements of British domination in India, equally important were the successes of political strategies that took full advantage of rivalries amongst native rulers and cynically exploited divisions arising from caste, religion, class and other sectarian loyalties. Not only were the British able to garner the loyalty or acquiescence of the Indian Maharajas and other elements of the decadent feudal aristocracy, they were also able to command the support of influential sections of the British-educated new urban intelligentsia whose loyalty to the colonial empire remained unquestioned even as nationalist feelings and nationalist currents emerged with greater or lesser intensity after the defeat of 1858. Money-lenders and the landed gentry were particularly reliable allies of the British, and the new industrial class, though critical of British policies, was invariably constrained by it's conservatism in opposing British rule." Pages from the history of the Indian sub-continent: British Rule in India

I couldn't agree more. There were equally powerful political forces present which would have thwarted any attempts by Gandhi types.

However, it took that particular man to accomplish his goals. In spite of it all.

 

[Feraud]

Best to avoid physical conflict, unless you're prepared for a difficult life.

You've written volumes in one sentence.
Well said Tomasso.

 

[scotrace]

Best to avoid physical conflict, unless you're prepared for a difficult life.

Agreed. The avoidance of conflict is the right path, in speaking to the original post (and having read all the others). There are many good points here.

So now I am a man living alone in a "safe" neighborhood. I think often about the possibilities should my own non-violent life take a turn the other direction without my consent. I don't know the answer. I choose not to have a pistol in the house, for many good reasons, my own safety being uppermost. So that leaves few options. A bat? Knife? The very kind gentleman across the hall has a very alert dog and watches the building himself. The dog doesn't bark at my sounds anymore. But any other footfall on the stairs and it's pandalerium.
The door knob is broken at my house: It comes off in your hand from the outside and the door will not open without a key. I think I'll just wait to tell the landlord until I am moving out.
I tend to be fatalistic. When my moment arrives, it will be inescapable.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

And I think we would all do well to simply take the attitude that we have our own opinions and others have equally valid opinions and let it go at that.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Not every opinion is equally valid. Some are pure nonsense. Some of mine have been. Of course, all of my current opinions are completely correct, and will continue to be until I change them.

 

[Feraud]

Actually all opinions are equally valid to the person who states them.

The problem in many discussions is the unfortunate mix of opinion and learned facts... and never the twain shall meet.

 

[scottyrocks]

That's what the police told my friend -- but unfortunately her unwanted guest was blocking the only functional door to her house. And as she explained to me later, she was just so bloody *mad* that this schmuck had broken into her house, in broad daylight, with her car in the driveway, that she couldn't think of anything more rational than just blind furious rage. Sometimes that alone can be a very valuable weapon: NO, I AM NOT GOING ALONG WITH THIS LIKE A SHEEP. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS.

I fear that's how I also would react. I think highly of Gahndi, but he wasn't a a single woman living alone in a questionable neighborhood.

Not only would I, in the appropriate situation, not verbally engage an intruder, but I would also wait for the as close to perfect opportunity as possible, to surprise said intruder and put his lights out before he even knew I was there. No threats from me, either verbally or with a show of force. Stealth and (edit: possible) death if you choose to endanger my family. I am not even going to attempt to guess your intentions or the limits of what youll do. All I know is that you broke into my house, and that means that you are capable of anything.

 

[stephen1965]

As stated, whether violence is justified, verbal, emotional, spiritual or physical, depends on the context, there are no hard and fast rules.

The point is that if you train and prepare for violence then you have the choice to use it or not. If you make yourself incapable of it for whatever reason, then you have no choice at all.

I think you're right about context and about preparation carebear but can we also train and prepare ourselves for non violence/peace? If we don't do we make ourselves incapable of it? I'm sure you don't think the two are mutually exclusive and I don't mean to be flippant and I'm making a general/theoretical point which may sound naive. As Feraud says 'And never the twain shall meet'. My experience tells me that understanding grows when I divide my attention between two forces. The third force is then my own understanding. Ok just a thought...

 

[John in Covina]

Not only would I, in the appropriate situation, not verbally engage an intruder, but I would also wait for the as close to perfect opportunity as possible, to surprise said intruder and put his lights out before he even knew I was there. No threats from me, either verbally or with a show of force. Stealth and death if you choose to endanger my family. I am not even going to attempt to guess your intentions or the limits of what youll do. All I know is that you broke into my house, and that means that you are capable of anything.

*********
Caution: For some DA's that would consistute "Lying in Wait" and they might charge you with murder in some states. The key is if you were in fear of your life for home defense in most places.

Just remember it's best to tell them to put the electronics down first because most stuff won't survive being dropped by the perp.

 

[scottyrocks]

*********
Caution: For some DA's that would consistute "Lying in Wait" and they might charge you with murder in some states. The key is if you were in fear of your life for home defense in most places.

Just remember it's best to tell them to put the electronics down first because most stuff won't survive being dropped by the perp.

Yes, I do see your point. I probably shouldve written possible death, because the intent isnt really to kill, but to insure, as much as possible, that no harm comes to my loved ones from someone with enough disregard to put others in mortal danger. Preventing that is worth anything and everything.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

Lear, please phone in

So, what happened to Lear? Curious to hear who threatened him today. Perhaps he interacts with the world differently now, depriving us of further anecdotes?