Street Survival

[CharlesHarris]

Not politically correct, but still true:

https://indigenousability.blogspot.com/2...-mark.html

Predator: Do what I say and I won’t hurt you.
(Or, some other such promise to the victim).

If the predator is already behaving in a fundamentally dishonest manner backed by the threat of violence what makes you think they will suddenly turn over a new leaf of integrity simply by saying “Do what I say, and I won’t hurt you”?

What the predator is doing with these promises is utilizing a mimicry strategy that we see in other animal predator species... civilized behavior to make victim acquisition easier. Nothing more, nothing less. Never trust any statement from an individual that has so fundamentally violated trust.

The second error that follows the “but what if…” objection, the improper grasp of probabilities, is akin to gamblers with faulty grasps of house-odds for casinos or, inveterate lottery players who greatly over-estimate their odds of winning. The victim who makes this sort of probabilistic error is engaging in a sort of false precognition in which they calculate that “perhaps it won’t get any worse.”

This thinking leads people to hope that perhaps a car-jacking won’t lead to abduction and murder, that an armed robbery is only about money and there will be no violence once the property has been attained. Yes, there are a great many examples of crimes of property stopping once the property has been acquired but there are also many, many examples of crimes of property progressing to violent stages...

To gamble on kindness and choose inaction gets you hurt or killed if the situation escalates, while on the other hand, gambling that all who have stepped outside the dictates of civilized conduct intend to do you bodily harm keeps you primed, prepared, and is most likely the correct guess!

I must offer a brief digression on resistance when it comes to rape. I have actually come across more than a few purported women’s self-defense programs that advocate not fighting back during a rape. The strategy is a form of the above two thinking errors, but it is grossly reprehensible and criminally irresponsible advice.

Telling a woman to submit to a rape is a hateful strategy. I have seen it originate, more often than not, from male-led programs with very little protest from the female audience--this dumbfounds me. I wonder if the vast majority of rape victims were men instead of women; men who were being brutally sodomized and forced to orally pleasure their attackers, I wonder if this same advice would be offered? I wonder if the all-male audience would be so accepting? I seriously doubt it.

This heinous, complacent strategy would be dismissed vociferously, as it should be. Women should dismiss it with even more disdain. It seems to be offered from the “Well, you’re women and you can’t fight off a man” perspective. That is unadulterated, insulting, demeaning bull$h!t...

Are you worried about making your assault worse? Well, how much worse can rape, or murder be? But for those who still aren’t convinced and have a few more “but what ifs…” I call your attention to a (US) 1985 Department of Justice study that examined the crime of rape in tremendous detail. The portion of the study pertinent to the topic at hand concerns injuries for women who did fight back compared with those who did not fight back. The sample breaks nicely for statistical purposes as the study shows that approximately 51% of the women in the study fought back while 49% complied.

Over 96% of the injuries for both groups of rape victims (those who fought back and those who did not) were of the contusions, lacerations, abrasions variety; in other words, non-life-threatening injuries. These injury rates held true even if the rapist was armed. Under 4% of women received injuries serious enough to warrant hospital stays. (Of course, we are not speaking of the psychological trauma here, we are merely comparing physical injury rates).

Here’s the crux of the study, the injury rate for women who fought back was a mere 2% increase in injury level. Notice that’s level not rate.

So, what are we talking about here? 2% increase in injury level when we are talking about a crime that is usually one of contusions, abrasions, and lacerations. I don’t mean to be cold-hearted here, but we are talking about, perhaps, a couple more bruises, another scrape, maybe one more stitch on a cut to fight off an attacker and not be raped. The data seems to back the stance of fight back, no matter what.

Similar DOJ studies for other crimes show us corresponding information--those who fight back see no significant statistical rise in the severity of assault. Those who fight back automatically increase the odds of halting the assault in its tracks; this is a claim that cannot be made by those who choose not to fight back. It is with good information in hand, and not some mere primal rah-rah that I implore you to fight back.

Fight back. Resist. The odds are on the sides of those who do.

http://extremeselfprotection.com/index.p...efence-nsc

[Pete Grey]

In a recent post Midnitemo said “if you fight you might loose, if you don’t fight you WILL loose”.
Therefore if we are attacked we really have no choice.

[MaryN]

Rather stating the obvious (of which I have a fairly firm grasp), the best way is not to put yourself in a position where you are in danger. I can never understand why woman walk around alone at night in places that are definitely iffy. My OH would probably restrain me if I indicated I was going out walkies on my own at night. I've done the self-defence bit, but I wouldn't risk it.

[Mortblanc]

As the crime rate rises one will find their ability to avoid dangerous situations comes to a stop.

When each and every stop light becomes a crime scene and possible site for a "smash and grab" robbery or a car hijacking, every parking lot a possible site for strong armed robbery or stalking ground for rapists, and every gathering or people a possible site for a group robbery, and even your own home the possible target for invasion, brutality and injury, then there is no way to not place oneself in harms way.

Over here in the States our liberal and forward thinking local governments decided to "revitalize" one of the worst areas in our urban zone by building a series of hospital complexes in the center of the urban ghetto. Now there is a University medical school and a half dozen of the best hospitals in our nation located smack in the center of one of the most dangerous square miles of the U.S. and mass.

The street corners are claimed as possession of drug dealers and the underground and high rise parking facilities are the stalking ground of their patrons and clients. In order to receive some of my specialty care I am required to negotiate this area, and it is as dangerous as any place in Iraq, Afghanistan or the beach at Normandy and I prepare for the trips much as I did for a patrol in Viet Namn.

Besides locking my car doors I also refuse to stop at stop lights, unless there is a police car at that intersection, and make myself a target. I park as close to the elevators in the car park as I can and I am armed as I walk to the hospital entrance. I then blatantly lie when answering the question "do you own any firearms" on the medical form. No I do not own any firearms, that bulge in my pants is just because I am happy to see you! My ownership of firearms is not a concern my eye surgeon should be required to contemplate.

As I get older my options for avoidance are also reduced. I can no longer count on outrunning anyone and my brittle bones will no longer endure a bit of physical abuse. I am too old to take a beating and too old to effectively physically defend myself using any martial art known to man.

Fortunately my government has made arrangements for me to survive even in these situations and I can simply shoot the sons of b!&che$.

[LAC]

Fortunately my government has made arrangements for me to survive even in these situations and I can simply shoot the sons of b!&che$.

Good on you old man, good on you, wish we could!

[Mortblanc]

Oh you can too!

You just have not decided you want too, yet.

You have simply not decided that you are more afraid of dying at the hands of criminals than you are of your government.

[LAC]

Very true sir very true. Bet it's Louisville?

When journeying in deepest darkest Africa I have been tooled up. The law is grey in the area of weapons for self defence but there is a kind of blind eyed turned by the authorities because of the potential dangers from criminals. That's not ideal either but at least you don't have the double fear of criminals and being viewed as one yourself for protecting yourself.