The value of just walking away

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's important not to confuse catchy slogans and/or glib statements of personal philosophy with good tactics.
 
That's my sig line. It has been since I joined THR.

It implies that my decisions are always my own and I will not allow others to make them for me. I not only choose my own actions, but I assume all responsibility for them as well.

It does not mean I will jump blindly, but that when I do jump, it will be decisively and informed.


ETA:
It's important not to confuse catchy slogans and/or glib statements of personal philosophy with good tactics.
Click to expand...

I agree. But that is and always has been my personal philosophy and it has served me well. Good tactics whether military, CHL-related, or day to day interactions, are the tools I use to live by my philosophy. Some see it as glib. I don't.

I do emphasize there is no bravado in my personal statement.
 
Last edited:
Re: Monkey Dance

Fred Fuller posted it in Post 113.

This human dominance game, the Monkey Dance, follows specific steps. You have all seen it:

A hard, aggressive stare.
A verbal challenge, e.g., “What you lookin’ at?”
An approach, often with the signs of increased adrenaline: gross motor activity of arm swinging or chest bobbing, a change in color, usually with the skin flushing.
As the two square-off, there may be more verbal exchanges and then one will make contact. It will usually be a two-handed push on the chest or an index finger to the chest. If it is an index finger to the nose it will go immediately to step No. 5. If there is no face contact, this step can be repeated many times until one of the dancers throws
A big, looping over-hand punch.
This description is simplified and shows only one side. It must be emphasized that there have been thousands of generations conditioned to play this game in this way. It is easy to get sucked in and a very difficult thing to walk away. Backing down from a Monkey Dance, unless you take or are given a face-saving out, is extremely difficult and embarrassing, especially for young men.
Click to expand...
 
It's the dance the idiot in front of you makes when he is telegraphing his intentions to start a fight with you.

Very bad tactics.

Like my dear old dad said, "Son, the first sign a man has that you intend to fight him should be the second time you hit him."
 
But that is and always has been my personal philosophy and it has served me well. Good tactics whether military, CHL-related, or day to day interactions, are the tools I use to live by my philosophy.
Click to expand...
The best tactics when armed and accompanied by an armed friend and faced with a single attacker who is armed but inattentive and appears to be inexperienced, will not be the best tactics when alone, unarmed, and faced with a number of apparently experienced attackers all with drawn guns.

It doesn't matter how catchy the statement is, or how well it has served you, there is simply no short answer "good tactics" recipe that doesn't at least pay lip service to evaluating the circumstances of the situation in question.
 
Posted by DammitBoy: Like my dear old dad said, "Son, the first sign a man has that you intend to fight him should be the second time you hit him."
Click to expand...
That has absolutely no place here.

Fighting, except in regulated competition, is illegal. Period.

There is a very distinct difference between the lawful use of force for self defense, or to prevent forcible felony, and fighting.
 
I agree completely Kleanbore. I'm not advocating fighting at all.

But in regards to defending yourself, using physical force when someone threatens you - it's still a fight. Telling an aggressor what you are going to do or telegraphing your actions is not a good strategy.
 
So you're saying you see no difference between "allowing for common courtesy" and "allowing others to enforce their particular brand of common courtesy on other members of society at will"
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "enforcing" anything. Granted, a lot of things people do could potentially offend SOMEONE, but I was raised to be generally considerate and try to be respectful of others.

Apparently it's now OK for someone to be a raging a-hole trying to intentionally piss people off because thats their "standard of behavior"- no need for politeness because it doesn't exist.
 
JohnKSa

I think you're misreading what I wrote in my post, especially the first part, on account of your back and forth with Guillermo in this thread and the other.

I've been in combat arms for the last 26 years including 4 combat tours. I know what tactics are...they're tools we stick in our ruck to be pulled out according to the tactical/defensive needs of the situation faced.

Like Sun Tzu's Art of War, this is what works for me in my life.

Maybe Guillermo can explain what he sees in my sig. I think it's a bit different from my own interpretation.
 
DammitBoy said:
First, you assumed I'm a "trained bouncer". I'm not, did it for a few years as a favor to a friend who bought a bar. Most situations in a bar are diffused by reasoning with the customers, very few get physical. It's not like you see in the movies.

-------You say you bounced for several years and diffused hundreds of fights, so you got plenty of OJT. Thus, you were a trained bouncer.

Second, I do not see every encounter as a confrontation. My entire point has been asking someone in the correct manner is NOT a confrontation at all if you handle yourself and the person in front of you in a non-confrontational manner. The idea that merely asking someone to modify their behavior is creating a confrontation is false.

-------I said you were seeing them as "potential" confrontations. You continue to insist that asking someone to change what he's doing is not confrontational, but I assure you that to many people, no matter how nicely or deftly you ask, it most definitely is. The fact that you think it isn't confrontational does not matter a whip to the person who's thinking otherwise. That is what I said you can't seem to get your head around, and you keep proving that I'm right.

Third, you assumed I had not considered the other person perspective and I needed to "wrap my head" around that idea. You were incorrect in that assumption and nothing you read that I wrote indicated otherwise.

-------See previous comment. The idea that you consider yourself to be "handling the person in front of you" says a lot.

Fourth, I don't go looking for trouble - but I'd be ignorant not to acess potential threats by people who act confrontational - two different things.

------I agree with that, but you still have the option to decline to be drawn into their desire for a confrontation. What if you're the one who is perceived as acting confrontational?

Fifth, I already stated I do consider what others might be reading into my behavior - which affects how I present myself. I'm a big guy and that in and of itself draws attention and creates reactions without me doing anything.

------I didn't say you hadn't; I phrased it as a question. Sorry I missed the answer.
Click to expand...

OK, DammitBoy, I move we call a truce.

You and I have clearly had very different life experiences. I've never been a bouncer, and I'm not a big guy. As far as I can recall I've never had anybody try to start anything with me. I think that's first because I don't give them any reason to think they'd have something to gain or prove by doing so and second because I don't stand out enough in any way to appear to pose any sort of threat. Neither of those is by accident.

There is almost always a way to avoid confrontation, and as I have said more than once in this thread, a really good way is to remember that everybody's perception of confrontation is his own and that it's his perception, not anyone else's, that matters to him. I wish I could get you to realize that, but alas, I give up.
 
I didn't say anything about "enforcing" anything.
Click to expand...
But that's what this thread is about. It's about people saying: "What you are doing is bothering me so stop it." It's about those who are being irritated enforcing their will on those who are bothering them to make them stop bothering them.
 
I am a Jarhead that is over 6'3'' 285lbs and work out from time to time. I have trigger time in the Corps and have taken every MA course i could. I carry a weapon most of the time as well and my number one defensive move is to walk away. I can assure you i am no pussy but i am not going to waste my time with some idiot. I have been in many fights and am not sure there are ever any winners most of the time as there was no GOOD reason to fight. So i punch a guy and break his jaw. Now what i have to deal with cops and what not?? Screw that i will walk away before that happens. Now i will only fight if i have no possible way to get out of it. Walking away is the best tactic there is.
 
But that's what this thread is about. It's about people saying: "What you are doing is bothering me so stop it." It's about those who are being irritated enforcing their will on those who are bothering them to make them stop bothering them.
Click to expand...

As I indicated back in Post #35, I agree with the OP in that avoiding confrontations when able is the best course of action in a tactical and self-interest sense.

Setting those considerations aside, I don't get the views that letting someone know what they are doing is bothering you, and asking them to stop constitutes "forcing your will on them", or the seeming attitude of some in this thread that as long as it is legal, any behavior should be acceptable and nothing should be said about it, even if it infringes on others.

I thought the rise in the number of self-centered, inconsiderate, and increasingly volatile people was a bad thing. Guess I'm just intolerant and narrow minded.
 
Last edited:
Been involved as the OP on one of the mentioned thread. This has now tired me out. My conclussions as have been stated by many already.

If it is legal on public property, you have the right to do it.

If you are offending me, I have the right to ask you to stop.

You have the right to say no.

I then have the RESPONSIBILITY to walk away.

Aggression is inappropriate. Assertive behavior that will escalate the situation is inappropriate. Education is inappropriate as was discussed in another thread. Education in that case was meant to help an oblivious person see that something he did not even realize he did could cause another person to suspect an immenant attack. However, no good would have come from saying anything, and consensus seems to be reached on that issue.

If my ASKING you to change your behavior angers you to the point of attacking me or harming me, I have the right to defend myself.

REQUESTS should always be made calmly and politely to avoid escalation.

If you do something that makes me percieve an immediate threat from you, I can and will become quietly defensive, and ready myself for an attack. This does not mean shoot. This does not mean threaten to shoot. This does not mean draw. It means get out of the situation, and be ready to draw and shoot if you need to as an absolute last resort to save yourself or another from death or serious injury as the result of an attack. I think that everyone will agree with this paragraph.

Many coments in the OP were quoted out of context, and thoughts have been presented as speech here. That is inappropriate, but does not invalidate this discussion. This one seems to be taking on more of a moral discussion, rather than a legal one.

I know what my moral standards are, so I'm out now. I'll just avoid the problem by avoiding society. I'm blessed with that option. Others aren't.

All, please recognize the importance of context in all of these examples and scenarios. It makes a huge difference on how to handle or not handle a situation, and it also is huge in a persons perception of an immenant threat.
 
Setting those considerations aside, I don't get the views that letting someone know what they are doing is bothering you, and asking them to stop constitutes "forcing your will on them", or the seeming attitude of some in this thread that as long as it is legal, any behavior should be acceptable and nothing should be said about it, whether it affects others or not.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a lot of stuff wrapped into one sentence.

1. If you ask someone to stop what they're doing then you're trying to get them to do what you want and stop doing what they want. In other words, you're trying to enforce your will on them by trying to get them to stop doing what they have chosen to do.

2. Of course it's not true that legal behavior is always acceptable. Growing up, I did lots of things that my parents found unacceptable even though I was doing things that were perfectly legal. It's certainly possible for a reasonable person to find the legal behavior of another person to be unacceptable. The point is that if it's legal behavior, then there's no legal justification for trying to get someone to stop doing it unless they're under your control as I was under the control of my parents. It is for precisely this reason that many people find it offensive to be asked to stop what they're doing. Because many people see it as implying, to one extent or another, that the person doing the asking feels that they have or should have control over the person being asked.

3. The discussion is about weighing the value of walking away/ignoring the unacceptable behavior against the possible consequences of taking the alternative approach of trying to enforce your concept of acceptability on those around you.

If saying something about unacceptable behavior is less important to you than the risk and potential outcomes of a confrontation turning bad, then it would be wise to let it pass, or at least to carefully weigh the circumstances of the situation and possible outcomes before deciding to speak out.

If you think that possibly having someone shoot you or having to possibly shoot someone over a confrontation you could have avoided by practicing some patience and tolerance isn't an issue; (because you didn't want to ignore loud music for a few minutes--to use an example from current events) then speaking out, regardless of the situation, will probably seem like a very good option to you.
I thought the rise in the number of self-centered, inconsiderate, and increasingly volatile people was a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's a bad thing. But if you really believe that the number of self-centered, inconsiderate and increasingly volative people is rising, isn't that really the best argument you could make against creating a confrontation when you can avoid it? Essentially your statement acknowledges that your chances of encountering a self-centered, inconsiderate and volatile persion is higher now than it used to be and that the chances are still going up.

If we accept that as true then we are admitting that it's becoming less and less of a good idea to confront persons.
 
beatledog7 said:
There is almost always a way to avoid confrontation, and as I have said more than once in this thread, a really good way is to remember that everybody's perception of confrontation is his own and that it's his perception, not anyone else's, that matters to him. I wish I could get you to realize that, but alas, I give up.
Click to expand...

That's very well put and it perfectly reflects my own position, it's a shame I can't get you to realize that.
 
JN01 said:
I didn't say anything about "enforcing" anything. Granted, a lot of things people do could potentially offend SOMEONE, but I was raised to be generally considerate and try to be respectful of others.
Click to expand...

So was I.

And so I imagine were most of the people on this forum, but not everyone was. Some people are raised to kill other people at the tiniest offense, for a pair of basketball shoes, for twenty-three dollars and a Timex watch, for another days worth of drugs. And some people are psychopaths, just looking for an excuse to let blood.

JN01 said:
Apparently it's now OK for someone to be a raging a-hole trying to intentionally piss people off because thats their "standard of behavior"- no need for politeness because it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Again, their rules are not our rules. What we perceive as a polite request may amount to intolerable disrespect for others. My father was a police officer for more than thirty years, the largest portion of which he served as a homicide detective. He raised me to believe that even the best people are capable of great harm given the right set of circumstances; and the worst mistake anyone can make is to assume that another is harmless. I can tell you that there are are monsters out there, and they're far more common than you might think.
 
Monkey dance. Nice.

My view on this is "discretion is the better part of valor."

I'm not against asking someone (politely) to stop annoying me. If a polite request results in them making physical contact with me, they've crossed the line and I will defend myself, period.

(Finger shoved in to chest / shoving is assault).

Now, getting in to a shoot-out over music.. that's a bit extreme. I can put up with a few minutes of annoyance and move on, life is short, no reason to get hung up on the little stuff.
 
Posted by xXxplosive: Thought that was the solution to ending the "Monkey Dance".....the second punch.
Click to expand...
I assume that that was intended as a joke, but in case it was not, let's go back to the link posted earlier by Fred Fuller:

A big, looping over-hand punch. At this point the fight, such as it is, will be on.
Get this—no matter who issued the verbal challenge, who pushed first or who threw the first punch there is no self-defense here. With all of the opportunities for preclusion, for not joining in the Monkey Dance, for simply leaving, this will be classified as a mutual combat fight. Both parties may go to jail. One certainly will if a serious injury results—even if it was from stumbling and falling.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

It is important also to keep in mind that we have seen numerous examples of persons who went forth to speak to someone about such issues as that person's presence on their property, or to warn someone about something, or to question them, where the confrontation degenerated and deadly force was used by the aforementioned party. In many of those cases, the actor has been shocked to find his claim of having acted in self defense rejected because he could have prevented the need for deadly force in the first place by avoiding the confrontation.

The actor's firm conviction that he had been the "good guy" going in and would be seen as such after the fact had no value in the aftermath.

That really underscores the importance of walking away, or as it were, the importance of not going forth, unless you are dealing with someone or something you understand well and you have reason to believe the likelihood of an unpleasant exchange to be minimal.
 
Interesting thread. I find a lot of trouble with the social ambiguity areas. Phrases like "being in my photo line" or loud music are interesting social problems that are harder to deal with. Those are not technically the same issues as say, someone pushing me. I have often found for example, smokers have this same issue. If your smoke is in my air are you interfering with me? Yes, you are, but, do you accept that you are?

I prefer to keep all social actions separate from defensive ones. If you offend me you might hear about it, you might not. If you attack me, you might get attacked. You might not. But, I can't make any clear decision today about my intentions to fight based on someone's rudeness. I can't even make a blanket statement that I would always walk away from someone. I have spent too many times offending people and being completely oblivious to the fact. And I've been deeply offended by the slightest provocation.

Just recently some guy parked in the only open space in front of my house. Everyone"knows" these spots are reserved. I walked up to the car, a nice Mustang, and banged on the trunk. The neighbor said" oh, sorry, that's mine." I said "it's got five minutes, and then it's mine", knowing the wife would be home soon. Now, why did I need to be so rude? No, reason at all. I've probably lost a good opportunity to be friends with neighbor. Sure, he knows I'm not to be triffled with, but I can't change what was a bad reaction on my part either. But, I can assure you I can't make some imaginary rule that forces me to never speak abruptly forever, even if I wanted to.

There are too many situations; what's important to remember is that we don't realize what an ass we've been until its long over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
you draw your weapon, they run away...
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
Jeff White
J
S
  • Locked
So you stumble across a thief...
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
180
Views
4K
TexasRifleman
T
T
  • Locked
Should you let an intruder escape?
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
4K
jahwarrior
jahwarrior
T
  • Locked
Almost had to go "Chow Young Fat" on someone today.
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
twoblink
T
L
  • Locked
What would it take?
Replies
11
Views
766
Joey2
J
Back
Top