4 ms·

I disagree with you assessment, the individual could have intelligently reasoned that disarming the man would make him think twice before confronting another in

by kls 17y ago

I disagree with you assessment, the individual could have intelligently reasoned that disarming the man would make him think twice before confronting another individual. If more individuals took that tack robbers would give more though to what used to be an easy crime. No to mention in certain parts of South America the punishment for robbery can be as sever as murder so if you are going to do it you might as well not leave witnesses. There are a lot of variables that go into the decision to fight and making the decision to do so does not necessarily mean that you have made a foolish or less intelligent choice.

euroclydon 17y ago
Solzhenitsyn discusses this attitude extensively in The Gulag Archipelago, both from the perspective of standing up to government thugs that come in the middle of the night to arrest dissidents and when he notes the irony of how military officers recently pulled from the front lines were cowed by common criminals in jail.
- dgordon 17y ago
  I'm reading The Gulag Archipelago now -- I'm around 530 pages in, so I just read the part about the common criminals beating up and robbing the political prisoners. It undoubtedly helped the thieves a lot that the political prisoners wouldn't stand up for each other, but if for some reason one did stand up to a criminal, his friends would take revenge later. The criminals were effectively united; the political prisoners could not have been more divided. It's a heavy book, both in weight (1800 pages) and ideas, but everyone should read it.
coryl 17y ago
Its nice to think that people factor benevolent principles into situations like this. However, when people fight back under high stress situations like a robbery, it is probable that the moment is not about defending society; its about survival. Statistics say if you cooperate, you're less likely to be harmed. If you decide to push a physical confrontation, then you're more likely to be harmed. If you measure the cost/benefit ratio to each action, its a no brainer.
- kls 17y ago
  --Its nice to think that people factor benevolent principles into situations like this. However, when people fight back under high stress situations like a robbery, it is probable that the moment is not about defending society; its about survival. To some it is, to some it is not. I personally have been in a similar situation (assailant had a gun). As well, I have trained since a young age in defensive combat. I can honestly say that when that moment was upon me, the rage that ran through my mind was not for saving myself but the idea that a little old lady had most likely stood in my same position and that the people around me are being victimized. I think most that do decide to stand, stand for a sense of honor that is beyond them or their personal well being, because even to them, logically the money is not worth it, it is the principal of the matter. Given the original post's description of the gentleman as an individual who dislikes violence he sounds to me like he is a man that does not compromise his principles even if it costs him his life, which it looks like it eventually did. Being a man of principals in not unintelligent and that was the summation of my previous post.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Yeah, but the dude had a gun. Maybe you held it together enough to not pee in your pants and still have some perspective about the situation, but I'm guessing there wasn't much question about what you were going to do.
    - kls 17y ago
      Contrary to popular belief in close quarter combat a knife is far more dangerous than a gun. A gun requires action on the part of the assailant while a knife can be dangerous with only reactionary movement. For example one of the key tenants of close quarter combat is explosive violence, basically when you go you go off. When you do the assailant has a small window of time to chose an action e.g. aim and pull the trigger. With a gun the slightest movement moves you out of trajectory which require a new action on the part of the assailant these calculations are not as fast as reaction time. Conversely with a knife it can be wielded in a reactionary fashion e.g I go to grab it the assailant flinches back and I get slashed. The weapon can be used without the assailant consciously choosing to do so. Unfortunately the best (read safest) method for dealing with a knife telegraphs your intention and throws explosive violence out the window because the most assured way is to either pick up a longer instrument (bat, tire iron) or to take off an item of clothing to act as the item to trap the arm either of which let the assailant know what the score is. Knowing this and reading that the gentleman still opted to use the element of surprise, gives some insight as to how confident this individual was with his abilities. The fact that he first used his feet to disarm the knife says that he analyzed the situation and decided that the element of surprise was more valuable than opting for a telegraphed safer method.

by kls 17y ago

euroclydon 17y ago

Solzhenitsyn discusses this attitude extensively in The Gulag Archipelago, both from the perspective of standing up to government thugs that come in the middle of the night to arrest dissidents and when he notes the irony of how military officers recently pulled from the front lines were cowed by common criminals in jail.

dgordon 17y ago
I'm reading The Gulag Archipelago now -- I'm around 530 pages in, so I just read the part about the common criminals beating up and robbing the political prisoners. It undoubtedly helped the thieves a lot that the political prisoners wouldn't stand up for each other, but if for some reason one did stand up to a criminal, his friends would take revenge later. The criminals were effectively united; the political prisoners could not have been more divided. It's a heavy book, both in weight (1800 pages) and ideas, but everyone should read it.

coryl 17y ago

Its nice to think that people factor benevolent principles into situations like this. However, when people fight back under high stress situations like a robbery, it is probable that the moment is not about defending society; its about survival. Statistics say if you cooperate, you're less likely to be harmed. If you decide to push a physical confrontation, then you're more likely to be harmed. If you measure the cost/benefit ratio to each action, its a no brainer.

kls 17y ago
--Its nice to think that people factor benevolent principles into situations like this. However, when people fight back under high stress situations like a robbery, it is probable that the moment is not about defending society; its about survival. To some it is, to some it is not. I personally have been in a similar situation (assailant had a gun). As well, I have trained since a young age in defensive combat. I can honestly say that when that moment was upon me, the rage that ran through my mind was not for saving myself but the idea that a little old lady had most likely stood in my same position and that the people around me are being victimized. I think most that do decide to stand, stand for a sense of honor that is beyond them or their personal well being, because even to them, logically the money is not worth it, it is the principal of the matter. Given the original post's description of the gentleman as an individual who dislikes violence he sounds to me like he is a man that does not compromise his principles even if it costs him his life, which it looks like it eventually did. Being a man of principals in not unintelligent and that was the summation of my previous post.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Yeah, but the dude had a gun. Maybe you held it together enough to not pee in your pants and still have some perspective about the situation, but I'm guessing there wasn't much question about what you were going to do.
  - kls 17y ago
    Contrary to popular belief in close quarter combat a knife is far more dangerous than a gun. A gun requires action on the part of the assailant while a knife can be dangerous with only reactionary movement. For example one of the key tenants of close quarter combat is explosive violence, basically when you go you go off. When you do the assailant has a small window of time to chose an action e.g. aim and pull the trigger. With a gun the slightest movement moves you out of trajectory which require a new action on the part of the assailant these calculations are not as fast as reaction time. Conversely with a knife it can be wielded in a reactionary fashion e.g I go to grab it the assailant flinches back and I get slashed. The weapon can be used without the assailant consciously choosing to do so. Unfortunately the best (read safest) method for dealing with a knife telegraphs your intention and throws explosive violence out the window because the most assured way is to either pick up a longer instrument (bat, tire iron) or to take off an item of clothing to act as the item to trap the arm either of which let the assailant know what the score is. Knowing this and reading that the gentleman still opted to use the element of surprise, gives some insight as to how confident this individual was with his abilities. The fact that he first used his feet to disarm the knife says that he analyzed the situation and decided that the element of surprise was more valuable than opting for a telegraphed safer method.