Individual, Personal, Self Defense. by Wulfenstar

"But, but.. that's illegal!"
"Ask me if I give a shit."

Lemme come at this from a more reasonable angle, here.

I believe that any sentient creature has a natural, sovereign and inherent right to act in the immediate defense of itself without regard to constructs of law whatever.

Any creature on this planet, sentient or not, when faced with a perceived threat to itself will act in it's defense in some fashion.
It may flee, it may hide, it may even attack you, often while calling for help or warning off others of it's kind - and mans law means nothing to them regarding this.

I mean, if you really wanted to, you could outlaw the act of a skunk spraying someone - do you think this would matter to the skunk ?
Do you think the skunk would react (and in my opinion properly!) any differently when you went to serve a warrant on him for the "crime" ?

Mankind is the only creature on this planet that even TRIES to deny the inherent, natural right of self defense, not just to each other, but just as much to other creatures as well.

They Poll Herefords, Don't They?
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-herefords.htm
" Here in the west, cattlemen may prefer to leave their free-ranging livestock intact, so they can defend themselves from cougars and other predators. But it has long been the practice of others (I looked this up later) to relieve the animals they raise of their horns. This keeps the critters from hurting one another -- costing their owners money -- it makes them much safer for workers to handle, and they clamp better into certain kinds of machinery so that various things can be done to them.

Whether they want it done or not."

Historically, most of the bloodier and more vicious fighting in the american revolution came right AFTER an attempt to disarm the populace, and in fact one of the many telling factors which made the american revolution successful was that knowing full and well such a measure had no purpose BUT tyranny, the leaders thereof acted to prevent the seizure of arms and powder without which the revolution would have been doomed if not stillborn.

History has proven them out, as compliance with such disarmament campaigns has very obvious historical results.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

The most classic example of this, and one kept FIRMLY in mind by those Anti-Federalists who would not be moved, and the teeth gritting Federalists who knew all too well what risks to their agenda publicly acknowledging this right would cause - would be the Battle of Kings Mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain

The overmountain boys, or Watauga Association, were basically a pack of self-rule Anarchists who mostly listened to John Sevier, when they listened to anyone at all - and they cared no more for the new would be overlords (i.e. the Founding Fathers) than they cared for the old ones (King George, etc.) - so as far as the 'revolution' went they didn't so much give a damn, especially as they'd ALREADY been flipping the the bird to the english crown for a couple years prior to any official or overt act.

And then that dipshit Major Ferguson made one of the all time classic military blunders by marching to the edge of their "turf" and demanding they lay down arms and bend the knee - which was about equivalent to sticking ones hand in the den of a grouchy wolvering and poking it.

The overmountain boys decided they'd had enough of his shit, marched on over there and flat out kicked his ass, engaging in hit and run skirmishing rather than a stand up battle (they didn't have bayonets) and making right damn sure to kill off the officers, particularly Ferguson, who tried to change coats when he realized this and got eight musketballs for his troubles.

That battle was integral to the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists concerning what would become the second amendment because it proved that your average american yahoo if comparably armed could go toe to toe and win out against trained army regulars - something Madison and Hamilton admitted, while trying to argue that a national army posed little threat against the body of the people for that reason.

Patrick Henry rather FIRMLY disabused them of the notion that specific recognition of assumed rights was unneccessary and further blasted them for obvious ulterior motives in a blistering set of speeches related to the topic.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/phenry00.htm
(If you read them now, you'll realize just how right he was.)

In the end, as part of an effort to pacify the AntiFederalists, the bill of rights did include a provision codifying the right to self defense, only after watering it down and ambiguosly connecting it to the militia, something Patrick Henry viewed with dire suspicion as he'd already pointed out that the Constitution as written would allow this new government to ensure the militia recieved neither funding nor armaments, an argument also held by George Mason, who felt that this would not only be done, but would in the end become an excuse to create a standing army in contravention to the intent of the Constitution, something which in fact did happen.

It happened all the faster because during the whiskey rebellion the new powers that be had difficulty finding men willing to kill their own fellow citizens for acts many felt had a high degree of justification, and were leery of participating in a blatant defiance (using one states militia against the people of another) of the very constitution supposed to protect them from tyranny - the whole damned incident was also in clear violation of the unspoken concept that if you COULDN'T round up a willing militia to enforce your laws, they didn't have the necessary support of the people and shouldn't BE laws... something which very few historians feel the need to mention.

In the end, this led to Abe Lincoln forcing men at gunpoint to fight their fellow citizens, all the while railing about the evils of slavery and forcing men to pick cotton at gunpoint - a hypocrisy also rarely mentioned by historians.

And finally devolved into the "standing army" so dreaded by the founders of this nation, the Police.
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
(Section II Part 722)
POLICE AS A STANDING ARMY
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

However, no matter WHAT is penned to paper, officially sanctioned, or legally allowed - the right to defense of ones person and possessions is a UNIVERSAL right, naturally occuring and present to every creature on the planet sentient or not, it's not something externally given to us, but rather inherent TO us, simply by right of existing in the first place, and as such, no act of man or law can render it anything less - and so while laws can ACKNOWLEDGE this right, they cannot strip it from us any more than they can change the color of the sun, for it is something beyond the power of law in the first place.

-Frem

PS: For those with a historical interest, btw, Sevier and his fellows were kind of proto-anarchists, restive at the best of times, and despite having the same unfortunate scorn for the natives as the rest of the colonists at the time, generally didn't much care for anyone elses laws or rules very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watauga_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sevier

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:18 AM

Frem. Good argument. I think the link gives too low a figure for Africa, too high for Europe: Germans killed 11 million unarmed civilians. The combatants they killed shouldn't be counted as "gun control victims" since they were themselves armed.

Africa, 7.7 million unarmed tutsis were killed, but not all in Rwanda, since as soon as things started heading south, Tutsis fled, but not far enough. The Hutu militia hunted them down and killed the local populations as well. I'm not sure about gun control in local countries, but they were largely socialist countries so it's quite likely.

Footnote: Israel agreed to transport jewish weapons out of Germany in exchange for certain jews to be allowed to escape unregistered. I don't have details on this deal, but maybe John does.

Overall, my position, you're right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. This applies to individuals, corporations, nations, everyone.

Here are places that I think go too far:

1. If you swing your gun in my face, that's a violation if my fist is not already in your nose.

2. Your substance use is not my fist. If you drink, you're responsible for your own drunken actions, such as driving through the front wall of the store. IOW: No excuses.

3. In stopping any violation of the arm swing/nose nose bop rule I call "unilaw," no one can create a greater violation of unilaw. This means if a guy steals, you may attempt to stop him, but you can't kill him, unless his assault implies a mortal threat in some way.

It's just like, should you bop a mosquito, that is trying to bite you, and may carry a deadly disease, that's self defense. If you squash an ant which is carrying away a neatly extracted portion of a sandwich, then it is not okay to squash him. He is taking your sandwich, not killing you.

I actually watch at an office building on a weekend, an army of ants, marching single file, neatly disassemble an entire ham and cheese into portable sections, and then they all filed out the office, down the stairs, and under the door, just as they had come.

Worlds of scale.

Oh, and as I've said before: Every society needs one single rule to create stability: The right to leave.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:50 AM

PLAINJAYNE

ABSOLUTELY.

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 2:53 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I believe that any sentient creature has a natural, sovereign and inherent right to act in the immediate defense of itself without regard to constructs of law whatever.

I'd tend to extend this to the right to defend any other person the sovereign individual feels he/she has a responsibility for defense towards. This could be family, friends, a guest, a group with a mutual defense agreement, or pretty much anyone requiring aid aganst mortal threat that the individual feels called to help. Note I'd consider this a right, not a responsibility.

Then again, we might want to look at the complementary question of defense of property. Is "Tresspassers will be shot" a legitimate threat? Do I have a right to cap the guy running (slowly) away with my new flat-screen? Is someone in my house for (presumably) burglary enough of a threat to stop with mortal force?

I figure I got insurance and it's a lot cheaper than the cost of even a "good" shooting, so I'm letting the big-screen go unless I perceive a mortal threat to me or mine. Mind, with someone of unknown intent in my home the threshold of mortal threat might be kinda low.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 3:32 PM

Sunuvubitchh

So I post the image first to get firsties, and then go back to add the text. Clever move on my part, no? Now I want you to just marvel at the quantity of text Frem was able to enter while I found and posted the image which can't have taken me more than a minute.

God Damn, I think I type fast.

Anyway

Quote:
I have little enough to add here, but imma add it.

There *are* corps with a de-facto monopoly you know.

While admittedly more common now, still, try finding an office to work in that is not dependent on microsoft products for their productivity and recordkeeping ?

Or better, in most cities, try finding an electrical or water service provider other than the established one.

S'why I make so little distinction between Governments and Corporations, cause in the US, in this day and age, they're just different tentacles of the same octopus.

Good point, transplanted from a more useless thread, but I would only say "An octopus is a relatively intelligent animal"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:23 PM

Quote:
God Damn, I think I type fast.

It only NOW occurs to you that my minimum battle rattle at the keyboard is 88wpm and runs into triple digits when hyperfocused on a pet subject?

Hell, I've had that Underwood Five in my closet since I was eleven, and it's machinegun rattle was a prime indicator that I was either doin homework or having at some idiot adult who often enough had NO IDEA that the letter they received was pounded out by someone not old enough to drive - a fact which when revealed caused a little consternation in the local paper since they'd published a couple of em.

I type fast, read faster and since I initially use a comparative processing with a stack of pre-set plans and variations, seem almost pre-emptive in thought - by the time someone has finished explaining the PROBLEM I got a plan picked, fleshed out and open at page one with handy diagrams set up in my head already.

You didn't think I actually spent that kinda time on this idle chatter with friends and associates, did you ? where the heck would I find it ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:19 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Where do you stand?

Do individuals/citizens of America, have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary?

(I'm talking about an imminent threat to your life. Not revenge.)

This might clear up a lot of arguments that people here keep dancing around.

I know it is not allowed in Florence County, WI. Whether from attackers intending to kill you in public view (a bar, caught on tape) or invading your home with their machetes, swords, hatchets, and daggers, if you defend yourself there you go to prison - and the DA gets re-elected to boot. But the attackers, attempted murders get zilch, maybe a slap on their wrist.

DT, that wasn't his typing, that's mostly his signature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 12:11 AM

Wulf-

since you're limiting your question to Americans, are you talking about people's legal interpretations or about their ethical convictions?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 2:43 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
since you're limiting your question to Americans, are you talking about people's legal interpretations or about their ethical convictions?

Only the legal standard that applies.

The law recognizes self defense, but that does not make you innocent. It is an affirmative defense, meaning that by making the claim you are admitting the underlying elements of the criminal case. You must then prove that you meet the elements of the affirmative defense.

So:
"Do individuals/citizens of America, have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary?

(I'm talking about an imminent threat to your life. Not revenge.)"

Yes...maybe...and, no. It depends on your states individual determinations of the meaning of:
"defend"
"any means"
"necessary"
"imminent"
"threat"
"your"
"life"

All of those terms have legal definitions determined either by statute, common law, legal precedent...or most likely a combination of all of those things.

For example. You can't shoot a nuclear missile at someone who is driving drunk, despite the threat they pose to your life. You can shoot someone with a pistol who is in the process of shooting you.

Those are the two extremes...the actual line is somewhere in between.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
since you're limiting your question to Americans, are you talking about people's legal interpretations or about their ethical convictions?

Only the legal standard that applies.

I figured since Wulf starts out with "Where do you stand" and intends to see arguments cleared up regarding things that are "danced around", he might be referring to people's personal ethics rather than the letter of the law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 4:16 AM

PATCHIST

@thread starter: I think you should set the parameters clearly. Your thread can be taken in by a lot of ways. Are you looking for insight on self defense by means of unintentional law breaking?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 5:15 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I recently got into a conversation with my local book-dealer.....

She said, and I'm quoting here, "I could never use violence against another person."

So, I asked her, "Well what if they were hurting you or members of your family...?"

She said "No. Im a pacifist, I could never harm another person."

So, being the uncouth bastard that I am, I told her that if someone was hurting me or my family... the only thing that would stop me is if I ran out of bullets. And probably not even then.

She gave me the nastiest look, and I quickly exited the store....

So, my question is, where do you stand? Is self defense an inerrant right, one that should be unquestioned? Would you, in a self-defense situation, act violently to protect yourself or others? With any tools you have, or the best ones you could get?

(ETA) I'm probably going to start missing issues/books I ordered from there...*sigh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 5:23 AM

What? No Stenotype?

That was 1300 words in the time it took my to find that image, not that long. I concur, one of the most humorous moments, reminiscent of Indy, but you gotta appreciate the set up for that one. It was awesome.

I used to have a mind like that, until I was a Pharma Guinea pig for three years. I intend to find my way back there. I'm pretty sure it's a chemical imbalance they created, not actual damage. Undoing it means not only understanding censor receptivity etc. but how to exacerbate it.

I actually asked my shrink last time: Is there a way you can *cause* psychosis? But of course everything is somewhat counter intuitive. Somewhat because you have to take one step in the wrong direction to generation a counter-action from your brain, two steps, and you're hurdling in the wrong direction, and you might not come back. Meanwhile, you don't want to move too far in the direction of psychosis, because though focus is great, you never want to lose perspective. I've been there.

I assume that's two keys at once, did you practice the relative positions of all key pairings?

Edit: Underwood, 1923, with the red and the black ink. I really learned to type with Aztec and Ultima, kb games, not so much type attack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 5:28 AM

Wulf

With the bookdealer. After all, she had books, which are much more powerful weapons than guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:20 AM

I'm a pacifist too, but I'm also a completely vicious bitch. It comes from my school yard days, can't help it, I size everyone up in case I have to fight them, and also think of ways to use my environment and to fight in not-nice ways. Often my own thoughts disturb me with how violent and bloody they are.

If someone did threaten anyone around me with a gun, or if I was to witness an attempt at rape, yes, I would attack, and reflexively so, in one of the patterns that I had already been rehearsing in my head.

This weekend, I was trying on old pants to throw out, and my thought process for one of them was "fits, looks nice for some kind of tight-pants, but could not kick anyone if wearing them."

And then I realized that was bizarre. Then threw the pants out anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:36 AM

How old was that book-dealer?

I think most people very instinctively try to defend themselves and certainly their loved ones, though the extend to which they might take it is very different.

To me, self-defense per se is an obvious right. If you attack me, I have the right to defend myself.

But proportion plays a role. There IS a line where self-defense ends and revenge or aggressive attack begins, even if the other party is clearly doing a wrong thing. For some this line doesn't matter, for some it's closer and for others further away. It's very difficult to make solid rules about that.

Generally, if your attacker is incapacitated and you have the opportunity to escape, that's where self-defense ends. Shooting someone until you're out of bullets.. either they are immortal to begin with, or you're committing definite overkill, no pun intended. In that case, I no longer consider it self-defense but revenge, excusable only if you are clearly traumatized and out of your mind. If someone hit you and then has stepped away, approaching them to get your own hit in is not self-defense. That sort of thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:39 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Byte,

It's not that bizarre. I think lots of people think this way, and don't express it because it's not politically correct.

Someone I respect once expressed a dark sentiment to me, and I couldn't really find a problem with it other than it was an uncomfortable thought.

"Be polite and helpful to everyone you meet," he said, "and always have a plan to kill them."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm a pacifist too, but I'm also a completely vicious bitch. It comes from my school yard days, can't help it, I size everyone up in case I have to fight them, and also think of ways to use my environment and to fight in not-nice ways. Often my own thoughts disturb me with how violent and bloody they are.

Without wanting to sound judgmental, I cannot decide whether I find that admirably prepared or deeply disturbing. Possibly it's the part where you say your own thoughts disturb you. Every single person you meet? Is that stressful or more of a vague background thing that doesn't impact how you actually interact with a person?

You certainly seem well-set to defend yourself, in either case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 6:49 AM

BYTE

That's damn eerie.

In fact, it's almost appalling to see one's own thought processes and decision making structures in another person, especially knowing what a bitter crucible they tend to be forged in.

Admittedly I am quite curious, and yet would not wish to intrude on your privacy - but I will say that your entire cognition, so far as I have seen, is extraordinarily close to mine about 10-12 years ago, minus a hefty chunk of cynicism and bitterness I hope never creeps up on you the way it did me.

Balancing that dark side's a bitch sometimes, innit ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 7:05 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Is it really the dark-side tho?

Being prepared, isnt really a bad thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 7:12 AM

By all means, judge.

I think I'm crazy. I function normally, but I'm positive I'm completely mind-bogglingly nuts, and I don't even know how deep the rabbit hole goes. I think you could throw darts at a psychological/personality disorder board, and you might hit every single one.

All I can say is that I don't want to hurt anyone, but if I'm honest, that wasn't always the case. I'm pretty sure, until about when I was twelve, that I was a high-functioning socially intelligent psychopath.

And I think that IRL, it could be pretty easy to trigger me into a psychopathic episode. Especially since the bad thoughts haven't gone away.

To answer your question, yes, every single person I meet face-to-face. It's why I prefer to talk with people over the internet, and why I will never, ever agree to meet any of them IRL. It's one of the reasons I will never form any romantic attachments (plus I'm not interested), and why I try to keep myself pretty much isolated.

It doesn't impact how I interact with people, at least holy hell I hope it doesn't. It's likely stress, likely a lot of paranoia and distrust, but no, I have no excuse or explanation for it other than I'm bonkers. I was raised by a decent family in a decent home. School probably exacerbated it, I was bullied a lot, but that's still no excuse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 7:30 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

A sociopath is someone who cannot feel empathy towards other people. In a very real sense, they can't feel, period. But when it comes to others, they draw a blank.

But what about the person who feels everyones elses pain? The ones who know, through experience, what another person feels?

After a while, Im sure it gets tiring.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 7:31 AM

I invite everyone to go critique my profile of a psychopath at the end of the "Who wants to marry a psychopath" thread. I'm afraid that this is a few steps in that direction.. but only a couple. Myself, I feel confident in my ability to talk myself out of any situation, and have come to the point of realizing this means learning more languages, religions and communications skills.

Still, I've known people who think this way, and beyond, hence the profile I made for this killer. I'm interested to hear the critiques.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 7:54 AM

Quote:
A sociopath is someone who cannot feel empathy towards other people. In a very real sense, they can't feel, period. But when it comes to others, they draw a blank.

Hence why I say I was a psychopath before I was twelve. I was more of a straight on violent anti-social type than I was a systematic manipulator, didn't really steal from people or other rule-breaking like that. Had delusions of grandeur, saw myself as some kind of hero. Pose a threat to me or my friends, and I was going to take you down, hard, didn't matter if you were five grades higher than me or several feet taller. And I knew how to get out of it without even a slap on the wrist while leaving whoever my target was stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare.

Never really had any trouble with my friends, didn't make them do stuff for me or manipulate them and wasn't the jealous type, but remorse and empathy were definitely lacking. Had a rule to never say I was sorry, and the crap I put my parents through was pretty much heartless.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:05 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Manipulation.

Its a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, you can use it for good. To help you lead people into battle against a great evil. (See Adama in BSG... yes Im a total geek)

Or.

You can use it for evil. Manipulate a childs mind, in order to molest them.

Its just one of those things.

Whether you think you can talk your way out of any situation.... which Im sorry, is just a fallacy... or shoot your way out of anything (which is sometimes just as stupid)...

You have to ask, is self defense a given right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:06 AM

Bytemite-

As I said, I don't want to judge and I have no business doing so. I almost feel bad for commenting, but you seem okay writing about it, so thank you for replying.

It's sad to read how concerned you are with your state of mind, but the fact that your violent thoughts make you uncomfortable to a degree is weirdly reassuring.

...that's horribly insensitive of me. Sorry.

I definitely wish you the best!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:10 AM

My brain doesn't even go that far. Rights? I'm not thinking about RIGHTS if I get into a fight.

Thought process:
Threat? Yes. Towards me? Attack. Towards someone else? Who's the aggressor? Attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

You have to ask, is self defense a given right?

You keep repeating this part. Do you want to make a particular point or have you actually met people who didn't consider it their right to defend themselves? I don't think, for example, that the bookdealer you mentioned didn't consider self-defense a right. From what you described, she would choose not to exercise that right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:17 AM

There's just no point in lying about it. If people still want to know me, I want them to know me with open eyes, knowing what I'm capable of. Anything else would be irresponsible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My brain doesn't even go that far. Rights? I'm not thinking about RIGHTS if I get into a fight.

Thought process:
Threat? Yes. Towards me? Attack. Towards someone else? Who's the aggressor? Attack.

Actually, that's GENERALLY my thought process. There is a recent exception I can think of.

A couple months ago, when I was getting lunch at my usual place, I was about to tear a couple of assholes a new one for the insulting remarks they were making about a girl who works there. And preparing to go after them when they ran.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:42 AM

.....

*shock*

Eeeeeee.. holy crap!

You're... ME?!

brain.. broken.

just, just.. nothing i can say to it, nothin you don't already know.

pardon, imma go have a mild breakdown now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 8:45 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Frem,

Stop fucking with the normals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 9:28 AM

HKCAVALIER

I don't think it's any accident that a discussion of violent self-defense has shaded into a conversation about mental health. The fundamental question the healing mind asks of itself is, "What do I do with my violent thoughts?"

An interesting inversion of Wulf's question would be, "Am I obligated to meet violence with violence?" Sure we all have a right to self-defense, but is it our duty?

I think the most important word in Wulf's original post is "necessary." "By any means necessary" does not mean "by any effed up means I can think of." It's about necessity, about need. Often enough, what we think we "need," when we look back at it, we find that we only "wanted," or that we were ruled by the fear of what the consequences might be if we didn't have the thing we only thought we needed. When is violence necessary, when is it needed?

Me, I see violence as aberrant, a fundamental failure, a disease. From a spiritual point of view, disease, like any painful circumstance, is a lesson. From a spiritual point of view, painful lessons become necessary when less violent lessons go unheeded.

The greatest lesson I learned from my years in Kung Fu school was that the more I learned, the less likely I was to need violence to solve my problems. People are intuitive beings and the predators among us tend to have a li'l spidey sense concerning who's an easy mark and who's to be avoided. And by predator, I don't just mean the desperate man with the knife in the alley, I also mean the power-tripping boss and the abusive friend or spouse. If you have a strong immune system, all sorts of diseases just pass you by. My Kung Fu training was like a major boost to my immune system against violence.

When I was in therapy and working the 12 steps there were so many times when I came to the decision, "I'm not going to take the abuse from (So-and-so) anymore," and coincidentally (or not!

), So-and-so never tried to bother me again. It was uncanny. I've never had to use any Kung Fu moves in earnest, but I've felt vastly more at home in the world and in my own skin ever since. I've learned something about what real power is. I've learned that I needn't be ruled by another's intentions, that I don't necessarily need to meet violence with violence. I've learned that in an important sense, the violence of another person is an invitation and sometimes all I need do is decline.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 9:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Good for you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 9:52 AM

That sounds like an epiphany I had in sixth grade.

I'd just moved from one school of pecking-order dumb-fuckery to another. And my first day, there was a kid, probably the school bully, who tried to pick a fight with me. I don't even know how it started, though I remember it was right outside the school doors, I'd just come out for recess. Well, he starts yelling at me, and pretty soon there's a ring around us of about ten or so, and he's trying to egg me on to fight him.

And I just look at him, at how his feet are too far apart, how he's got his hands up wrong on guard, and I just think of how many ways I can neatly take him apart in three moves. And then I realized that it wasn't even WORTH it. Just laughed, shook my head and walked away. They didn't bother me after that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 10:24 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

When I was in middle-school, these 2 girls I knew were fighting over some guy.

Before they fought, they tied back their hair, tied their bras tight, and kicked off their shoes. They also put vaseline on their faces.

While fighting, one pulled out a boxcutter. She cut the other from her temple down to her chin. Her flesh peeled from her face, and hung there swinging.

The "teachers" and "security" stood and watched.

Then, when I got jumped, one pulled a fucking steak knife, and slipped it into me. Ever felt that? Its not fun. I was lucky in that it bounced off my hip bone, and didnt hit my liver, or my kidney.

Not to mention when I got my knee bent the wrong way, when someone came after me with a bat.

After a while, I ended up in a private school. And, boy, was that fun. Especially when the school bully decided to push me.

Lol A spoiled little rich boy, 50 pounds overweight, used to getting his own way, and he picked the wrong kid. I mean, do I blame him? No. He was used to hammering on the spoiled, rich, snot kids.

The ones who grew up hearing that words can solve ALL problems.

I put his head through a porcelin toilet, chipped 2 of his teeth, and sprained his neck. I would have done worse, but the Social Studies teacher pulled me off him.

Fighting is human nature. You are either strong enough to survive, or you arnt. You are either a victim, or you find your goddamned teeth.

ETA: But thats just me. I could be wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 10:45 AM

The schools I went to were more about how much hamburger you could make someone. Fighting was more about exchanging punches until someone dropped unconscious. I recall one time someone tried to break my leg by trying to stomp down on it, but they missed. Some might have had shivs with them, never really ran across it in my fights. I'll readily say that these schools were nowhere near the sort of stuff that could go down at innercity schools.

Glad to hear the steak knife didn't hit anything vital. What happened to the girl with the face? Stitches?

The school bully I faced down was a joke though, a lot like yours, really honestly no real CLUE how to fight, probably just picking on the nice Mormon kids.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Fighting is human nature. You are either strong enough to survive, or you arnt. You are either a victim, or you find your goddamned teeth.

ETA: But thats just me. I could be wrong.

Having grown up not at all surrounded by that sort of violence, I think it's not a hard and fast rule about human nature.

Honestly, what I read there are two parallel worlds.

1) Horrible violence among kids and no adult intervened - something that you rightfully mention and that rightdully pisses you off.

2) You bringing that same horrible violence to a place where it didn't exist before, and being proud of it. Adults did intervene, but it serves only to underscore what all you could have done if they hadn't. It's like you're validating all the horrible stuff that happened before. Victim turning into attacker. Enjoying that power instead of rejecting it.

Seems to me that the lesson there is not that fighting is human nature, but that violence and neglect breed violence as a form of self-perpetuating damage.

ETA: From reading both your experiences and Byte's, I just want to congratulate you on surviving. What you went through is horrible and, if you'll excuse my speculating, explains quite a lot. It's unbelievably sobering.
I had the luxury of growing up in a cushy world, violence-wise. Doesn't make it a fake world, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 10:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

She got stiches that ended up pulling down her left eye.

Lucky for her TLC was popular at the time.

The other chick got pregnant (from a highschooler).

Dropped out.

At 13.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 10:59 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"2) You bringing that same horrible violence to a place where it didn't exist before, and being proud of it. Adults did intervene, but it serves only to underscore what all you could have done if they hadn't. It's like you're validating all the horrible stuff that happened before. Victim turning into attacker. Enjoying that power instead of rejecting it."

LOL I went to a psychologist and started talking...you know what he said? "Would you mind writing this down? Im publishing a book...ect ect"

I asked him if I would get any money from the sales of his books. He laughed and said no, of course not...

I laughed too.

Then I told him to go fuck himself and never went back.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"2) You bringing that same horrible violence to a place where it didn't exist before, and being proud of it. Adults did intervene, but it serves only to underscore what all you could have done if they hadn't. It's like you're validating all the horrible stuff that happened before. Victim turning into attacker. Enjoying that power instead of rejecting it."

LOL I went to a psychologist and started talking...you know what he said? "Would you mind writing this down? Im publishing a book...ect ect"

I asked him if I would get any money from the sales of his books. He laughed and said no, of course not...

I laughed too.

Then I told him to go fuck himself and never went back.

Was that a very elaborate way of telling me not to comment on what you post?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:06 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Hey Byte,

What is up with the Pearle of Great Price?

lol

I knew Mormon kids. Crazy brave... or stupid. Could never figure that one out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:06 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No Agent,

Just what you said sounded like what I heard.

Comment away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No Agent,

Just what you said sounded like what I heard.

Comment away.

I guess I still fail to see the connection between your story and my comment. Are you saying the psychologist said something similar? And that you didn't care for that?

I don't detect sarcasm well, just to warn you. If you want to tell me something, better say it plainly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:16 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok.

Its easy, Agent, to sit back from a distance, and make proclamations about what you see. But until you've lived it, until you've been there, you shouldn't.

And for some, its a good idea to profit off of horror.

I meant no disrespect. You might be right. Its just that I can't fully accept it, until someone who has been there, says it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok.

Its easy, Agent, to sit back from a distance, and make proclamations about what you see. But until you've lived it, until you've been there, you shouldn't.

And for some, its a good idea to profit off of horror.

I meant no disrespect. You might be right. Its just that I can't fully accept it, until someone who has been there, says it.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that there was something you should have done differently. You were only a kid yourself.

I don't think it's without value, though, when someone who hasn't been through it points out that this is, in fact, an extreme experience and that the lessons you say you took away from it might be equally extreme and could bear some more reflection.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Maybe. Like I said, I could be wrong.

But it seems to me, that the folks who proclaim that "violence only begets violence".... have never been punched in the face. And, maybe, they should be.

The appropriate use of violence, in defense of ones self or others, is NEVER wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:40 AM

I'm not Mormon myself, so I really can't tell what it's about. All I know is that in Utah, I've seen Mormons having a lot of compassion, but they're not picked on by the baptists or evangelicals, so they're pretty sheltered here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 24, 2009 11:48 AM