December 23, 2004

A Question

Imagine you're in a bar, or a store or some other public place. A man walks up to you purposefully. As he approaches he starts swearing at you & accusing you of sleeping with his wife. You did not sleep with his wife but before you can say anything he then attacks you.

Do you:

A: try to reason with him because you didn't sleep with his wife

B: take the beating & wait to be vindicated later on

C: defend yourself

Leave you answer & any explanation you wish to leave in the comments section.

Posted by Publicola at December 23, 2004 07:44 AM

If at all possible:
1) 1st time: deflect the attack and try to leave,
2) 2nd time: same as 1st,
3) 3rd time's a charm: do my best to disable the numb-nuts.

But then I'm writing as a martial arts practitioner; taught to avoid if at all possible, ( not take the beating ) but unleash hell if there's no other option. Of course that assumes my skill level is sufficient to allow me those choices. :)

Posted by: tkdkerry at December 23, 2004 09:41 AM

Sounds sensible, but if you had to choose from one of the three options I listed which one would you choose?

Given those three & only those three choices which would it be?

Posted by: Publicola at December 23, 2004 10:01 AM

I don't talk to violent nutjobs; believe me, it just pisses them off.

If accompanied by family member(s) and if possible to accomplish, I'd take myself as far away as possible and to an area with plenty of bullet stops, because I may ultimately have to shoot the nutjob.
If I'm alone and the nutjob is outside of 21 feet away(you choose the distance you feel safer at) , I'd try to keep him there but if he closes to Tueller Drill distance his hands had better be empty AND visible. And never forget there might be more attackers.
Never take a beating. The brain is a funny thing, just one mild traumatic brain injury can destroy your life and the lives of your loved ones. Any blow to the head is potentially serious and potentially lethal.

Posted by: David at December 23, 2004 10:27 AM

Yeah. C'mon. Reveal your hidden agenda. :)

Obviously C.

Cinomed, in the situation you describe, the officer is operating outside of what is permissible. So it's just another attack from a thug. Why do think it makes any difference that it's a cop?

Posted by: jed at December 23, 2004 03:28 PM

For Publicola's question, seeing as he has already attacked you, it would be C. If I was perhaps having a Matrix moment, and everything slowed down to a crawl, I might shoot off one of his kneecaps to disable him and not have to kill him, but otherwise it would be high COM until the threat ended.

For Cinomed's question, it would have to be C as well. The cop is acting out of the bounds of legitimate law, and assaulting you. You can't do A, because cops won't listen to reason even when they aren't assaulting you for no reason at all. B will just get you jail time for resisting arrest, because Officer Thuggish T. Criminal will write it up that he had to beat you up because you were resisting his lawful arrest. And that you bit the head off a kitten in front of a Humane Society building, hit an old lady in the head with a sack of Krystal burgers and stomped on a toddler's foot while wearing cowboy boots. You are a bad person and need to be locked up. And given that juries are borderline retarded these days, you would go to jail.

C is the only answer, because the "law" will oppose you and attack you regardless of your choice. Take the beating, the courts will turn on you. Defend yourself, and beat the cop down, you get sent up for "assaulting a LEO (that was engaged in criminal activities)". Defend yourself, and shoot the cop dead, you get sent up for being a "cop killer". The only real answer is C+, which is defend yourself, and then disappear. You will be viewed as a criminal by the corrupt system of law no matter what you do. Best to remain free and able to defend yourself.

Posted by: Garrum at December 23, 2004 06:31 PM

Well, you stipulated that he attacked me. You didn't stipulate, so I'll posit no weapons. I'm better at defensive fighting than offense, so I'd probably put up a defense while trying to convince him that he had the wrong fellow.
Diplomacy is saying "nice doggie" while you look around for a rock.

Posted by: Billll at December 25, 2004 07:27 PM

Any option other then defending yourself is over thinking the scenario. If attacked, defend. If retreat is an option then of course do it, but if retreat simply delays the attack, then defend.

People need to understand that all scenarios cannot be thought out and prepared for and the resulting legal implications. I hope that most will understand that you may have legal troubles, but you may increase the chance of walking away instead of a life altering beating.

Posted by: gunner at December 26, 2004 10:05 PM

Well, I think I already chose C: Defend Yourself, since avoidance is self-defence. But in the spirit of the question, then the answer is C - Kick His Ass.

Posted by: tkdkerry at December 27, 2004 09:52 AM

Kick his ass!!! Then go sleep with his wife.

Posted by: Gunslinger at December 29, 2004 01:01 AM

I would run. I'm not proud. I am, however, poor (can't afford a lawyer), and lazy (never learned karate). If fleeing isn't an option, then it is only reasonable to conclude that an irate man advancing in the face of a cocked .45 is armed and intent on causing bodily harm to me: C.

Posted by: joey at January 3, 2005 07:56 AM

It Would have to be C. First I would show him my FUCK YOU tattoo and then kick him in the balls and then hit him in the face. Then I would run my ass off.

Posted by: LoserMeth at March 19, 2005 01:41 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?