When does a gentleman fight back?

[DBLIII]

Not aimed at anyone in particular but I'm slightly surprised at the amount of martial types on this thread. Not that there's anything wrong with that but there haven't been that many replies from the non violent (a few but they're outnumbered).
What I mean is that most have said something like 'try to not get into it but, well, then use violence'.
Some have advocated shooting and/or preemptive attacks.
Is it me or is society/the world just becoming ever more martial?

I kind of think that some in society would want themselves thought of in that manner. Regarding the topic, I don't know when a gentleman should fight back, as I am not a gentleman. I have found, however, that since "fight back" means an altercation has started, I am usually able to win the battle by simply walking away before it starts.
For some reason, perhaps because I look mean and ugly, some people just seem to want to attempt to antagonize me. Solution? Be very polite. Sometimes it leads to good conversations.
As for shooting, that's rather drastic. Guns are loud and make my ears hurt.

Anyway, please excuse my commentary and continue with the topic.
Thanks.

 

[Foofoogal]

Originally Posted by Woland
Myself; I am a real and proper gutter-boy (Chav?).
I choose to reflect this fact in my public conduct as well as in my blend of culture, fashion and style.

Snobbery disgusts me...
Intensly...

Rant over!

--------------------
Snobbery goes both ways and it has always disgusted me. I was dirt poor as a child (no.9 of 11 children) and actually bought into the hintings by some around me (not my parents) the wealthy was out to get me. Somewhere it dawned on me what I was actually seeing was reverse snobbery. I even know people who proudly call themselves white trash.
This is one of my pet peeves. Anyone and I mean anyone should be admired for improving their lot in life not only for themselves but their children and grandchildren and fellow man.
I have seen poor snobs, wealthy snobs and those in between. I have seen white trash and rich trash with my terminology.
It saddens me greatly though and I do totally understand some do not have the tools or opportunities just never come their way but it is not a reason to be mad at those that do. I have seen extremely intelligent young men and women working at menial labor jobs. I have also seen those with money wasting their good fortune off of others before themselves doing hard work.
This poor mentality has been shown to me glaringly many times in my life. Once I was working in a food pantry. A guy literally attacked me half drunk telling me I had no way in hell of understanding his plight. Funny thing is he had no way of knowing my station in life then or before.
I remember my mother drying our socks by the stove in winter with cardboard on the windows I wanted to tell him. How poor did or do I need to be before he quit looking down his nose at me? My mother taught us all people can be clean with a bar of soap and 2 dresses. No shame in being poor.
I have seen people you could give them a thousand a day and they would still blow it all.
My mother was a Queen and I was as weathly as can be. We had love beyond words and so much fun as children we never even knew we were poor till other poor people told us so..This hit a nerve with me big time and does big time. Now, my rant over...

 

["Skeet" McD]

My mother taught us all people can be clean with a bar of soap and 2 dresses. No shame in being poor....My mother was a Queen and I was as weathly as can be.

I doubt I'll read anything as worthwhile today. Thank you.

"Skeet"

 

[Dr Doran]

I like this post.

--------------------
Snobbery goes both ways and it has always disgusted me. I was dirt poor as a child (no.9 of 11 children) and actually bought into the hintings by some around me (not my parents) the wealthy was out to get me.

I have seen this kind of thing, but racialized into a black vs. white thing, where I live.

Somewhere it dawned on me what I was actually seeing was reverse snobbery.

That's an interesting interpretation and it makes a weird sense.

I even know people who proudly call themselves white trash.
This is one of my pet peeves. Anyone and I mean anyone should be admired for improving their lot in life not only for themselves but their children and grandchildren and fellow man.

Yes, to me this is truly bizarre to not want to improve things. Preferably to improve the world or at least one's community, but at the very least, to improve oneself. When I see the people who are still working in the grocery store where I used to work and who never broke out of that to either do academics or to open their own business or SOMETHING, that seems bizarre to me.

I have seen poor snobs, wealthy snobs and those in between. I have seen white trash and rich trash with my terminology.

I get you.

It saddens me greatly though and I do totally understand some do not have the tools or opportunities just never come their way but it is not a reason to be mad at those that do.

Again, this is what I have seen. An attitude by poor people against those who have made something of their lives, calling them uppity. This is utterly horrifying to me. Wanting to drag down their brethren into ignorance, violence, and poverty which is construed as somehow "authentic."

I have seen extremely intelligent young men and women working at menial labor jobs. I have also seen those with money wasting their good fortune off of others before themselves doing hard work.
This poor mentality has been shown to me glaringly many times in my life. Once I was working in a food pantry. A guy literally attacked me half drunk telling me I had no way in hell of understanding his plight. Funny thing is he had no way of knowing my station in life then or before.

Occasionally I have this problem. Homeless people or punky people see me in a suit and read me as a yuppie because they don't know it's a vintage suit, or a Goodwill suit, and they assume that I was born into privilege. I supported myself through college by working in a grocery store fulltime. It took me many years to finish my BA because of this. I never received any of mommy and daddy's money and I resent people who think that because I'm dressed like a civilized human being, I must be a child of great privilege. I've never even gone skiing, for gosh sakes, and all the times I've been to Europe I stayed in friends' houses and paid my way myself.

I remember my mother drying our socks by the stove in winter with cardboard on the windows I wanted to tell him. How poor did or do I need to be before he quit looking down his nose at me? My mother taught us all people can be clean with a bar of soap and 2 dresses. No shame in being poor.

I do wish more people had that attitude.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Good "rant"...Foofoogal...!
HD

 

[carebear]

A gentleman can only claim to fight back if he didn't play a part in initiating the violence in the first place.

You can be assertive in your own defense without being "violent", but once you cross the line to aggresive and rude, in the view of the other guy, you have initiated the violent encounter with them.

Their reaction to your provocation is now your problem.

And you can't claim to be a pacifist, to abjure violence, if you don't include all the definitions of violence.

Violence: 1) Swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2) Rough or injurious physical force, action, treatment: to die by violence. 3) An unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights, laws, etc.: To take over a government by violence. 4) a violent act or proceeding . 5) Rough or immoderate vehemence as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. 6) Injury, as in distortion of meaning or fact: to do violence to a translation.

Urrgh... is it just me or are #3-6 really inconvenient? Because face it, they have nothing to do with physical violence. So someone can be really, really violent without ever throwing a punch.

...

Unfortunately, it's been my less than pleasant experience that there are a whole lot of people who aren't pacifists at all, they're just afraid of physical violence. They are extremely emotionally, verbally and if you believe in such, spiritually violent. The sad thing is these are usually the folks who tend to make the "violence never solved anything" comment.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think when people say "violence isn't the answer," it depends on the question being asked. I remember covering a news story years ago involving a teenage boy who beat his grandfather to death with a claw hammer because granddad wouldn't give him money. I've heard of idiots getting into vicious, bloody brawls in bars because one of them insulted the other's favorite sports team. I've personally broken up a fistfight in the theatre lobby between two mothers whose kids called each other rude names. It's this kind of violence, pure, bone-dumb *idiot* violence, that isn't ever the answer.

A few weeks ago, my best friend had her home invaded by a burglar, while she was in it. She confronted him and got him out by simply expressing outrage that he was there -- GO ON, GET OUT! WHAT KIND OF MORON ARE YOU? GO ON, GET OUT! NOW! She was so angry that she didn't have any time to think of reacting violently, she just wanted this goon out of her house, and he was so astounded to find someone who didn't just hand over the family silver without an argument that he left.

Me, I would likely have taken the Louisville Slugger I keep under my bed, and split said goon's head like a Halloween pumpkin before calling the police, so I have to say I admire her for dealing with the situation without turning to violence. Violence isn't always necessary, but there are times where it's difficult to avoid.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I think when people say "violence isn't the answer," it depends on the question being asked. I remember covering a news story years ago involving a teenage boy who beat his grandfather to death with a claw hammer because granddad wouldn't give him money. I've heard of idiots getting into vicious, bloody brawls in bars because one of them insulted the other's favorite sports team. I've personally broken up a fistfight in the theatre lobby between two mothers whose kids called each other rude names. It's this kind of violence, pure, bone-dumb *idiot* violence, that isn't ever the answer.

A few weeks ago, my best friend had her home invaded by a burglar, while she was in it. She confronted him and got him out by simply expressing outrage that he was there -- GO ON, GET OUT! WHAT KIND OF MORON ARE YOU? GO ON, GET OUT! NOW! She was so angry that she didn't have any time to think of reacting violently, she just wanted this goon out of her house, and he was so astounded to find someone who didn't just hand over the family silver without an argument that he left.

Me, I would likely have taken the Louisville Slugger I keep under my bed, and split said goon's head like a Halloween pumpkin before calling the police, so I have to say I admire her for dealing with the situation without turning to violence. Violence isn't always necessary, but there are times where it's difficult to avoid.

OH NO That was your friend ...... LizzieMaine, please convey my apologies.

 

[Darhling]

Lizziemaine, I have been in almost the same situation as your friend, this was just an eastern european gang of at least 3 (police assumption since they had to carry out very heavy stuff a long way - and that was a gang that operated in the area at the time) and I was just lucky I didn't wake up when they broke in. I was told if I did ANYTHING I could be the one procecuted, I even asked what I could if they did something to me, I was told 'nothing'. It isn't even allowed to own a baseball bat unless you are a member in a baseball/softball league - that is also the only place to buy a bat in Denmark.

 

[carebear]

I think when people say "violence isn't the answer," it depends on the question being asked. I remember covering a news story years ago involving a teenage boy who beat his grandfather to death with a claw hammer because granddad wouldn't give him money. I've heard of idiots getting into vicious, bloody brawls in bars because one of them insulted the other's favorite sports team. I've personally broken up a fistfight in the theatre lobby between two mothers whose kids called each other rude names. It's this kind of violence, pure, bone-dumb *idiot* violence, that isn't ever the answer.

A few weeks ago, my best friend had her home invaded by a burglar, while she was in it. She confronted him and got him out by simply expressing outrage that he was there -- GO ON, GET OUT! WHAT KIND OF MORON ARE YOU? GO ON, GET OUT! NOW! She was so angry that she didn't have any time to think of reacting violently, she just wanted this goon out of her house, and he was so astounded to find someone who didn't just hand over the family silver without an argument that he left.

Me, I would likely have taken the Louisville Slugger I keep under my bed, and split said goon's head like a Halloween pumpkin before calling the police, so I have to say I admire her for dealing with the situation without turning to violence. Violence isn't always necessary, but there are times where it's difficult to avoid.

You hit on the key point.

That text mentioned people who self-righteously claim "violence is never the answer" or "never solves anything".

Those absolutes fail on several levels. Whether violence is proper, necessary or effective depends on the situation and from whose perspective you approach that situation.

As an aside, I would point you again at the definition of violence. Your friend didn't use physical force in repelling the burgler but she clearly used "violence".

Fortunately in that case her verbal threat display had its desired effect. Some intruders though, depending on their background, might have seen that "verbal assault", by a woman in particular, as a challenge and responded (properly in their mindset) with physical violence in response (though abstractly she was clearly in the right to respond as she did as they initiated the conflict by breaking in).

In that case she might have been well-served to have had a "Lizzie-ville Slugger" as a plan B.

It's always good to have effective options in one's responses because other people, especially people who have demonstrated a willingness to break laws or flout civil society's rules, may be thinking quite differently than we law-abiding, middle class types may expect.

 

[Charlie Noodles]

In that case she might have been well-served to have had a "Lizzie-ville Slugger" as a plan B.

It's also very possible that a burglar would plan to just run for it if confronted, but put yourself between him and his planned exit with a bat in hand and he might feel his life depends on killing/injuring you instead.

 

[carebear]

It's also very possible that a burglar would plan to just run for it if confronted, but put yourself between him and his planned exit with a bat in hand and he might feel his life depends on killing/injuring you instead.

Several flaws with that.

First, you are "what-if"-ing that she or anyone else would "put herself between him and his escape". There's no evidence in what Lizzie presented that that was the actual case in the actual incident under discussion.

"What-if" games are generally useless as there is always a "what-if" that will make the plan fail, no matter how ludicrous. "What-ifs" are typically used to support a predetermined belief, the "what-if"-ing continues until the desired answer is acceded to. "What-if"-ing must be done within what is probable, not merely theoretically possible. To do that you look at reality, any available science and make rational decisions.

You are making the assumption that a criminal, who chooses to break into homes that they know or should know are occupied (an act inherently showing a disregard for other's safety and well-being), is planning on fleeing when confronted. The actual statistics of home invasion (hot) burglaries do not support that assumption. In fact the opposite is true.

While the odds of being the victim of a hot burglary are low depending on where you live, they are not so uncommon in general that it doesn't pay to take a few minutes to look at your options if the percentages happen to hit 100% on a very bad day for you.

It is perfectly valid, after looking at the situation calmly and rationally, to decide not to have a weapon or weaponless fighting training available for your defense as an option for any number of valid reasons.

However, simply relying on chance that any given crime will not happen to you and, if it does, that the criminal may decide, of their own volition or whim, to not cause you physical harm when thwarted is the opposite of rational.

It is magical thinking, an psychological term that describes a person who expects the world to conform to their choice of reality even in the face of contrary evidence. It is a denial of reality and not a particularly safe way to live.

 

["Skeet" McD]

It's always good to have effective options in one's responses because other people, especially people who have demonstrated a willingness to break laws or flout civil society's rules, may be thinking quite differently than we law-abiding, middle class types may expect.

As I've had occasion to mention elsewhere, my first "real" job--for 3 summers during college and then about 2 years after--was at Sing-Sing prison, the "cottage industry" of my home town. For the bulk of that time, I was inside the walls, seeing the entire population (except men in solitary) go by regularly. I had a crew of 10 inmates, all of them murderers, under me.

Take home message: they were all very nice people...had no trouble with any of them save 2 REAL psychopaths (father and son)...but they all would as soon kill you as look at you if you crossed a line--by their rulebook.

It is, in my opinion, a common delusion (brought about by a generally well-ordered world) that "everybody is just like me, and if they're not...we can talk about it and sort it out; they must just not understand." In other words: THEY must be wrong.

Well, on the global stage or in Sing-Sing--or standing at the door of your bedroom with malice aforethought--the fact is: there are plenty of people out there who are playing by very different rules and have chosen--for whatever reasons--to do so. To ignore this fact is both intensely egocentric and can also be quite dangerous, for countries; cultures; and individuals.

A similar eye-opener for me was (during a decade working in a clinical research laboratory dedicated to a genetic disease that cuts across ALL boundaries of class, race, economic level, nationality and (yes) whether you were inside or outside of a prison!) just how homogenous and insulated most of our lives are, even if we are not actively trying to keep it that way--and may well think we go out of our way to know the world more fully. Observing a pretty much random sample of humanity is both thought-provoking and, frankly, somewhat scary.

These are personal observations; every person has to decide what to do about the facts they report. But, believe me--they are facts.

"Skeet"

 

[HoosierDaddy]

It's also very possible that if he's brazen enough to enter someone's home uninvited and is then suddenly confronted by the owner..any desperation might be enough for him to make a violent decision...especially if the owner seems mostly at his mercy. That's why I would never be defenseless. The choice would always be mine.
HD

 

[KY Gentleman]

It's also very possible that if he's brazen enough to enter someone's home uninvited and is then suddenly confronted by the owner..any desperation might be enough for him to make a violent decision...especially if the owner seems mostly at his mercy. That's why I would never be defenseless. The choice would always be mine.
HD

My feelings exactly. Well said! :eusa_clap

 

[Diamondback]

There's a time and a place for preemption--the standard in most US law, which I believe a good one, is "do you reasonably believe yourself or an innocent third party to be in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm?" Preventing a forcible felony also is acceptable justification in a lot of places--I know if I were confronted with a rape-in-progress, I'd have some quick decisions that'd need to be made...

The "first strike" may sometimes be the necessary choice, but to a gentleman it is never the preferred choice even if it is used.

Where's Gecko45 when you need him for some comic-relief?lol

 

[Story]

[QUOTE="Skeet" McD] Well, on the global stage or in Sing-Sing--or standing at the door of your bedroom with malice aforethought--the fact is: there are plenty of people out there who are playing by very different rules and have chosen--for whatever reasons--to do so. To ignore this fact is both intensely egocentric and can also be quite dangerous, for countries; cultures; and individuals. "Skeet"[/QUOTE]

Winning post of this thread.

Please, may we have some more?

 

[reetpleat]

You hit on the key point.

That text mentioned people who self-righteously claim "violence is never the answer" or "never solves anything".

Those absolutes fail on several levels. Whether violence is proper, necessary or effective depends on the situation and from whose perspective you approach that situation.

As an aside, I would point you again at the definition of violence. Your friend didn't use physical force in repelling the burgler but she clearly used "violence".

Fortunately in that case her verbal threat display had its desired effect. Some intruders though, depending on their background, might have seen that "verbal assault", by a woman in particular, as a challenge and responded (properly in their mindset) with physical violence in response (though abstractly she was clearly in the right to respond as she did as they initiated the conflict by breaking in).

In that case she might have been well-served to have had a "Lizzie-ville Slugger" as a plan B.

It's always good to have effective options in one's responses because other people, especially people who have demonstrated a willingness to break laws or flout civil society's rules, may be thinking quite differently than we law-abiding, middle class types may expect.

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.

 

[reetpleat]

Several flaws with that.

First, you are "what-if"-ing that she or anyone else would "put herself between him and his escape". There's no evidence in what Lizzie presented that that was the actual case in the actual incident under discussion.

"What-if" games are generally useless as there is always a "what-if" that will make the plan fail, no matter how ludicrous. "What-ifs" are typically used to support a predetermined belief, the "what-if"-ing continues until the desired answer is acceded to. "What-if"-ing must be done within what is probable, not merely theoretically possible. To do that you look at reality, any available science and make rational decisions.

You are making the assumption that a criminal, who chooses to break into homes that they know or should know are occupied (an act inherently showing a disregard for other's safety and well-being), is planning on fleeing when confronted. The actual statistics of home invasion (hot) burglaries do not support that assumption. In fact the opposite is true.

While the odds of being the victim of a hot burglary are low depending on where you live, they are not so uncommon in general that it doesn't pay to take a few minutes to look at your options if the percentages happen to hit 100% on a very bad day for you.

It is perfectly valid, after looking at the situation calmly and rationally, to decide not to have a weapon or weaponless fighting training available for your defense as an option for any number of valid reasons.

However, simply relying on chance that any given crime will not happen to you and, if it does, that the criminal may decide, of their own volition or whim, to not cause you physical harm when thwarted is the opposite of rational.

It is magical thinking, an psychological term that describes a person who expects the world to conform to their choice of reality even in the face of contrary evidence. It is a denial of reality and not a particularly safe way to live.

Kind of convoluted reasoning. Firstly, do you happen to have any statistics handy that show that a person is less likely to be the victim of violence if they confront an intruder than if they avoid it? I am not convinced your proposed stas are accurate.

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.

 

["Skeet" McD]

While I don't necesarily think that violence should never be used, there are many people who believ...that is the case. Jesus was one of them...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.

Couldn't agree more, RP: absolutely. We must all follow what our conscience dictates. However--whatever you make of their motivations, convictions, and legacies--you must admit that another thing which connects the three individuals you have singled out is the manner of their death: they all suffered the ultimate price for their convictions, if you will. I can only hope that those who choose this path are also willing, if called upon, to pay that price...because there always have been, are now, and ever shall be those who are inclined to insist on that payment. More shame and sadness on us.

"Skeet"