The value of just walking away

They might comply, they might say "no" and just ignore me (at which point I'll have to put up with it), or they might get angry and pull a knife on me. In the later case, the overreaction to my request is not on me; it is on them.

Click to expand...

It's on them, but that doesn't mean you won't suffer the consequence of their actions. Whether than means getting knifed, or whether it means successfully defending against the attack and all that entails, I doubt that, in retrospect, any sane/reasonable person would feel that they made a good decision by creating a confrontation where none needed to exist.

Sure, we have the right to speak up. Sometimes it's even a good idea. What I'm saying is that it's extremely worthwhile to think about reasonably likely outcomes and doing a quick and simple cost/benefit analysis before making the decision to speak out.

And I'm saying that in most situations described, escalating to violence is not reasonably likely.

Click to expand...

This has to be taken in context.

Violent confrontations are not likely, but most people here still take precautions to be able to deal with them in the unlikely chance that they do. We've taken the time to think about what could happen and how to deal with it.

In the same manner, a confrontation is not likely to escalate to violence, but it's still worthwhile to take the time to think about what could happen and whether the consequences of creating a confrontation are worth the benefit.

Of course, many people simply dismiss the topic of self-defense because they don't believe it's reasonably likely that they'll need to defend themselves in their lifetime. If we agree that's not a wise course of action, then we also have to agree that it's unwise to create a confrontation without considering possible outcomes.

Posted by Skribs: And I'm saying that in most situations described, escalating to violence is not reasonably likely.

Click to expand...

But that assumes that the other person is rational.

Likely, yes, but the consequences of being wrong could be serious.

I once witnessed a well dressed man very nicely and politely ask a woman to not get in the way of a photograph he was about to take. The timing of the shot was important to him. She had not intended to interfere; she just happened to wander into the way.

Her significant other exploded, ripped off his jacket, and charged. The women grabbed him; the photographer prepared to defend himself; and I intervened verbally but rather forcefully. He slowed for a moment. The woman had to drag the man away.

I suggest that that one could not have been predicted or reasonably avoided.

But if someone simply passes "too close to your personal bubble" in an urban setting, you would be a lot wiser to simply raise your level of situational awareness and let it pass. You have no basis for any expectation at all for other people to stay clear of you in a public place, and you should not try to tell them to do so unless there are indications that they are potentially dangerous.

I have seen people react very poorly when their music is criticized; and there are any number of other situations in which comments are poorly taken and lead to trouble. I happen to dislike loud music immensely. The local ordinances set different limits for day and night. If it's a neighbor causing the problem, you have to assess how irritating the transgression is under the circumstances, whether it is likely to be a rare occurrence (birthday party, perhaps), and how best to interact in a manner that will best engender a long term cooperative relationship.

But if it's a possible meth head playing cop-killer rap, you would be well served to mitigate the risk of his turning violent by using your cell-phone and avoiding confrontation completely.

By the way, there were several witnesses to the incident involving the photographer, the lady, and her easily enraged significant other. They had been in different places. Their accounts were incomplete, and they contradicted each other. Everyone should keep that in mind before assuming that one's having been in the right will ensure a favorable outcome.

I just said it's not likely to.

Click to expand...

If you took this approach to self-defense, you wouldn't be carrying a gun since you aren't likely to need one.

The fact that you do carry a gun means that you understand the basic concept that sometimes it's more about the cost/penalty than it is about the odds.

Same thing applies here. Is it likely? I don't think so. But the penalty/cost could be devatastating if the unlikely happens. That's why I carry a gun and that's why I don't initiate confrontations needlessly.

... if the offense is a Breach of the Peace or put another way, encroaching on other people's peace. After all, isn't that why we have noise ordanances, zoning restrictions, laws against public nudity, public drunkeness, etc.?

Click to expand...

If the person is violating a law/ordnance or other legal restriction, then the obvious solution is to summon the authorities. This thread is about things that don't rise to that level.

And I'll take it a step further and go so far as to say that the more we turn our collective backs on bad behavior the worse the behavior will get.

Click to expand...

If your goal is to fix the bad behavior of all the folks you come in contact with, then go for it. Just be aware that it comes with a level of risk, keep the possible consequences in mind and don't bite off more than you're willing to deal with. And for pity's sake, if you do bite off more than you can chew, don't go shooting unarmed teens once you get out of your depth like this guy did.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...o-shooting-teen-to-death-over-loud-music?lite

We don't have to be rude or aggressive in our requests but we shouldn't be afraid to speak up either.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. The fact that I decide not to initiate a confrontation doesn't automatically mean I'm afraid to speak out. It merely means that my cost/benefit analysis of that particular situation was that initiating the confrontation was potentially far more trouble that it was worth.

Posted by Skribs: Just because I assume that your general layman isn't going to randomly stab me doesn't mean I can't be prepared for when one tries. But just like we don't like gunstores putting us on trial every time we buy a gun, I'm not going to assume that every person I come across is going to gut me if I look at him funny. Instead, I'll pay attention and defend myself if need be.

Click to expand...

That wasn't tthe point at all.

The point was, it may not be prudent at all to confront "your general layman" if it can be avoided, because he just might cause you great difficulty.

Just because I assume that your general layman isn't going to randomly stab me doesn't mean I can't be prepared for when one tries.

Click to expand...

The point is that you're preparing for a very low probability event in this case but trying to dismiss the risk of another very low probability event in another situation using the low probability of the event as rationalization.

If you really believed that a low probability of occurrence is sufficient justification for ignoring risk, (as you suggest it is when considering the outcome of an avoidable confrontation) then you should also ignore the risk of a violent attack in the first place since it is also a low probability occurrence.

If you're going to prepare for a violent attack in spite of the fact that it's a low probability event then, in the same way, it makes sense to take the potentially negative outcome of creating an avoidable confrontation into account even though you believe that there's a low probability of a significantly negative outcome.

Basically, what I'm saying is that although you are trying to justify ignoring the potential for a significantly negative outcome when creating a confrontation (based on the low probability of the negative outcome), your decision to carry a gun means that you don't really believe your own rationalization. If you really believed that it's unnecessary to prepare for low probability events you would stop carrying a gun.

The bottom line is that you don't like the idea of ignoring things that offend you and so you're rationalizing a reason why it makes sense to create confrontations. If that weren't true, you could provide a reason for your decision that is consistent with your demonstrated general philosophy about self-defense.

In some ways, it's all become about letting everyone do as they like and if they step on you, well, just scurry away so that you can survive to scurry again another day. And oh, by the way, don't interact with anyone because they might be the maniac waiting to go off as well. (I'm curious as to know what that photographer should've done instead.) What if the jerk that blasts his music at the gas station now visits his friend in your neighborhood and now it permeates your home?

Click to expand...

Well, in the simplest analysis, yes, it is about surviving. If your goal is to clean up society, and you're largely unconcerned with the risk that entails, then it makes perfect sense to go about trying to teach the unmannered how to behave politely. If your goal is to survive, then creating confrontations doesn't make much sense.

To answer your question about how far we should let things go before we stop ignoring them: I think we all understand that there are thresholds that can be crossed at which point it's no longer possible to turn our backs and ignore something, but generally speaking, when something truly rises to that level, it's possible to summon the authorities to deal with the situation.

They're being told to walk away now, and again later, and again beyond that. Next thing you know, they'll be told to move out of their own house. Oh, but wait, in some states they already have been told to scurry from their homes as well.

Click to expand...

This is a combination of melodrama and the slippery slope fallacy. It's quite a stretch to imply that ignoring some idiot blasting his music at a gas station is going to result in your being forced to move out of your own house. At some point, blasting music will, as a result of the noise level, the area, or the time of day, become an actual legal offense and the authorities will deal with it.

I think there's a basic disconnect here.

It's one thing for someone to say--I can't stand this situation, I'm going to do something about it. That's a personal decision and the person making it will have to live with the consequences of it.

It's quite another thing for someone to say--I can't stand this situation, and therefore it is SMART/MAKES GOOD SENSE for me to do something about it.

Deciding you can't stand to ignore something and taking action is one thing. Just keep in mind that your personal tolerance for ignoring offenses does not, in any way, make creating a confrontation the best course of action or the smart course of action.

I once witnessed a bully pound a guy who tried to walk away. The last thing said was
"DON'T TURN YOUR BACK ON ME PUNK!" People who really want to fight will rationalize anything you do as some form of disrespect deserving of a beating.

Click to expand...

Nobody's suggesting that we should place ourselves in jeopardy by turning our backs on a person who has actually demonstrated that they're a threat. This is about creating a confrontation where none previously existed. In other words, it's about CREATING a potential threat where there wasn't one to begin with, and using irritation and/or righteous indignation as a rationale for that action.

If I were to try to sum this all up in one sentence, this would be it:

We shouldn't allow ourselves to believe that because an action is consistent with our personal philosophy of life it is also tactically sound as a result.