Combat Psychology and the "Duty to Retreat"

[TheLastBoyScout]

Reading On Killing and On Combat the author makes a great deal of noise about how small a percentage of people will kill someone they are looking in the eye at close range, but how many more will shoot the same person in the back at the same distance.

Has this ever been used in connection with "duty to retreat" as in "I had a duty to retreat if I could do so safely... but I had a reasonable expectation that turning to run would just get me shot quicker"?

 

[easyg]

I read that book and I think the author is wrong on alot of things.
Historically, when in battle, men were less likely to attack his opponent from behind (not counting sentry elimination).

 

[Rob Pincus]

That's a great question.... but I think it would be hard to win a court case with the argument. More importantly, I don't suggest turning your back to retreat... there is a difference between maneuvering to break contact and simply turning and running away.

-RJP

 

[Deanimator]

I read that book and I think the author is wrong on alot of things.

Not only wrong, but arguably racist in some instances, especially his comments regarding minority youths and influences from media, etc. I stopped reading part way through the introduction.

 

[sacp81170a]

Reading On Killing and On Combat the author makes a great deal of noise about how small a percentage of people will kill someone they are looking in the eye at close range, but how many more will shoot the same person in the back at the same distance.

Funny, I just finished On Killing and am reading On Combat and I don't see where he's "making noise". I do see a lot of well documented research and surveys of combat veterans, though. I also don't know where you're getting "many more will shoot the same person in the back at the same distance". Must have missed that part.

What I do remember clearly is that in WWII, a small percentage of riflemen fired their individual weapons while in combat, even when the enemy was clearly visible. A much larger percentage of gunners on crew served weapons fired at enemy troops, probably because they were more accountable due to being part of a crew.

That was changed in Korea and Vietnam by changing training methods from shooting at bullseyes to shooting at human shaped silhouettes and applying the principals of operant conditioning, thereby overcoming the natural hesitancy to shoot at fellow human beings and increasing the rate of firing individual weapons to 90% or better. This was done without regard for the consequences of what happened to those folks after they pulled the trigger, but the Army wasn't terribly concerned with that at the time.

I don't think he made too much of an argument about "shooting in the back". IIRC, his analysis involved the role played by physical distance in killing, everything from artillery range to bad breath distance.

If I understand your question correctly, I believe that turning your back and running would prompt the predatory nature in most BG's into attacking. I agree with Rob, don't turn your back, mainly because it's better not to lose visual contact with the BG.

I learned this a long time ago. Flinching and closing your eyes doesn't make getting hit feel any better. Best to keep your eyes open and focus on the threat.

 

[Twycross]

Historically, when in battle, men were less likely to attack his opponent from behind (not counting sentry elimination).

Source?

 

[easyg]

Quote:
Historically, when in battle, men were less likely to attack his opponent from behind (not counting sentry elimination).

Source?

Read up on human combat throught the ages.

From the beginnings of recorded time it has always been considered unmanly and cowardly to attack an opponent from behind.
This predates the knights of europe, and it predates the samurai of japan.
It even predates the romans and the greeks.
Even the most primitive of peoples see the honor in confronting one's opponent in battle, face-to-face.

No culture that I am aware of looks favorably upon its warriors striking their opponents from behind.

Do you know of any?

 

[GunTech]

Sorry, but historically, most soldiers are killed or wounded during the 'pursuit' phase of battle. From marathon and the battles of ancient time, through the Napoleonic wars and to modern modern wars, most soldiers are killed when running away.

 

[sacp81170a]

Sorry, but historically, most soldiers are killed or wounded during the 'pursuit' phase of battle. From marathon and the battles of ancient time, through the Napoleonic wars and to modern modern wars, most soldiers are killed when running away.

Absolutely correct. That's one reason why good commanders through history have maintained reserves to throw into the battle during the critical pursuit phase. The real slaughter only begins when your enemy turns his unprotected back to you and his defenses fall apart.

Not only wrong, but arguably racist in some instances, especially his comments regarding minority youths and influences from media, etc. I stopped reading part way through the introduction.

????? I just went back an reread the introductions to both books and, while Grossman makes no pretense of being "politically correct", I see no racism in any of his writing. What gives you that impression?

 

[Deaf Smith]

In Texas there is no duty to retreat now....

Since society now days is pretty calm, no real wars, no boarder clashes, no burning of cities, and in fact we havn't had a real war in actually hit the North American Contenent for quite some time, really we are used to peace and not war. And that explains why we are as we are.

If we were back in the 1830s, when Code Duelo was in effect, I can assure you there were many more people willing to kill! We are just so used to peace we really are not equipped for war overall.

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

The most dangerous time in a battle is definitely after having lost. The role of light cavalry, from time immemorial, was scouting... and pursuit.

Easyg brings up the "honor" issue, saying that in many cultures, perhaps most, it's immoral to shoot/stab a man in the back. This is largely true. The difference is that this code of honor was applicable between men facing each other alone: Single combat. The military rules and ethics of pursuing a fleeing enemy are completely different from the ethics of single combat.

 

[Glock Glockler]

No culture that I am aware of looks favorably upon its warriors striking their opponents from behind.

Do you know of any?

The Mongolians didn't have a problem with it, they seemed to do just fine.

From the beginnings of recorded time it has always been considered unmanly and cowardly to attack an opponent from behind

It seems just plain smart to me

 

[Glock Glockler]

The military rules and ethics of pursuing a fleeing enemy are completely different from the ethics of single combat

Based on what, exactly?

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

Based on the fact that men do what they've trained and become accustomed to doing. Men in combat train to pursue a fleeing enemy. Men fighting in single combat (i.e, a duel), do not.

Now, I distinguish between "Single Combat", and "Attacking somebody". Single combat is no longer allowed in this country, despite the fact that both parties, by definition, engage willingly. "Attacking somebody" isn't allowed either, but it can't really be stopped. The ethics are different here, too. An attacker does not want to fight you, he wants to rob you (or whatever). An attacker does not adhere to the ethics of single combat. He attacks from ambush, often in numbers, typically against the unarmed, unwary, or those incapable of effective defense. A "combatant", one practicing single combat (in a way it is no longer performed), will not generally pursue a fleeing opponent, nor shoot him in the back. An "attacker" will.

 

[GunTech]

The Federal government doesn't seem to think there's a duty to retreat - at least that was the ruling in Brown vs US, 1921. The ruling was written by no less a luminary than Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

"Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him"

 

[Geronimo45]

The difference is that this code of honor was applicable between men facing each other alone: Single combat. The military rules and ethics of pursuing a fleeing enemy are completely different from the ethics of single combat.

Single combat: Sounds like duels (Burr and Hamilton). 'Honor' was interjected for the sake of appearances, I guess. Or for the benefit of lousy fighters. Two people fighting - possibly over a stupid issue, not so much for life-or-death purposes. When you're fighting for your life, the only rule should be that you survive.
Another single combat example - boxing. Lots of rules - no biting chunks out of your opponent, no stuffing gloves with lead weights, no attempts at castrating your foe. Began as an alternative to duelling, IIRC. Ended up as a sport.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Personal combat isn't about honor.

It's about getting home alive.

Sometimes, that means denying the other guy that opportunity, through whatever means are available and expedient.

For good or ill, our society condones lethal personal combat under circumstances so few, narrow and extreme that all bets, and rules, are off.

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

I wasn't talking about practicality, I was referring to conventions... dueling etiquette. I'm not trying to say it was always followed, either. I imagine it often was not. Nevertheless, there WAS an etiquette to dueling, a very refined one. Moreover, through much of history (and even today), many people believe that there is an etiquette to any kind of mutual combat. Sadly, such an etiquette is mostly in the imagination, but that's exactly my point: There is a perception in people's minds, at some level, that a "fight" should be "fair". Doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you want to be sure of winning, but there it is.

 

[easyg]

I don't think that you can equate how a soldier will act in combat to how a thug will act during an attempted robbery.

And there is a huge difference between an army pursuing and attacking a retreated army, and an individual chasing after a fleeing opponent.

I still maintain that when you're talking about two individuals in a confrontation, you are no more or no less likely to be shot if you turn your back.
Those who are truely willing to kill you for your money will have no problem shooting you right in the face.
And those who truely don't want to kill anyone, they just want your money, are not likely to shoot you face-to-face or in the back.

 

[K-Romulus]

On Killing was a good book that sought to explain Western civilization's[i/] attitudes toward violence.

It in no way can explain the motivations of the Brazilian street gangs, Congolese rebels, or Islamicist radicals, etc., that have not been brought up in a middle class western society.

But your question is intriguing. Since true self-defense cases rarely wind up in court (when viewed in the context of the xxx million gun owners), I don't know if this has been argued.

 

[strambo]

I agree it's hard to draw a parallel between organized warfare and a street thug. A big difference is motivations. If said thug is motivated to kill you, then the parallel is closer. If thug is motivated to rob you without getting caught, his actions upon your turned, fleeing back might be totally different.

How do you know his true motivations? You don't absolutely, so develop worse-case scenario responses (he wants to kill you) and if he quits and exits before/as you are implementing that response so be it.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

Read up on human combat throught the ages.

From the beginnings of recorded time it has always been considered unmanly and cowardly to attack an opponent from behind.
This predates the knights of europe, and it predates the samurai of japan.
It even predates the romans and the greeks.
Even the most primitive of peoples see the honor in confronting one's opponent in battle, face-to-face.

No culture that I am aware of looks favorably upon its warriors striking their opponents from behind.

Do you know of any?

How bout the United States military, circa 2005-present day?

At least that's how I interpret quotes like:

"You have a duty to your Marines to bring them home... that means fighting as unfairly as you possibly can, in accordance with the laws of war"

"A fair fight means you have a 50% chance of defeat. It means you will lose about as many Marines as you kill of the enemy. IT MEANS YOU, the future platoon commander, (Edited for Arts Grammaw) BADLY!"

"What we're about to discuss is the ambush. Ambushes are basically premeditated murder...which means they're (Grammaw) fun to train for."

As long as he's got a weapon in his hand and he's the enemy, I don't think my instructors would care much whether he gets shot in the back or the front.

In fact, I'd think they'd be furious if I didn't take advantage of an opportunity to hit an enemy from behind and by surprise.

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Wasn't George Washington spared from a sharpshooter's bullet because he turned his back?

The whole world would have been radically different is the shot was fired.

 

[easyg]

TheLastBoyScout,
You cannot equate battlefield tactics to civilian criminal encounters.

For example....

"What we're about to discuss is the ambush. Ambushes are basically premeditated murder...which means they're (Grammaw) fun to train for."

Whoever told you this was wrong.
An ambush is not "premeditated murder".

I ask you, do Marines commit murder against unarmed civilians?
No.
Criminals do!

Do Marines murder unarmed children?
No.
Criminals do!

Do Marines kill those who drop their weapons and surrender?
No.
Criminals do!

Is there a specified method that Marines must legally abide by when processing enemy forces who have surrendered?
Yes.
Criminals honor no legal agreement on the treatment of surrending forces.

Only a fool would try to equate battlefield tactics used by Marines and Soldiers to the tactics used by street thugs.

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

I know... I was just having a little fun with the idea that "Warriors don't shoot the enemy in the back"