I would agree in principle, but they are only culpable ethically if the law requires it – right now there is too much qualified immunity written into the law. They could keep qualified immunity and establish a code of ethics or some other such word-salad ‘requirement’ which dictated when they were required to prosecute and when they had leeway to not file.
I feel bad for all the good people in these areas.
My thoughts when creating this thread had more to do with how we are trained by the NRA and USCCA to use the safest path. Get to your safe room, comply with demands, if your arrival to your home revealed someone might be or is intruding that you shouldn’t go in and to get to a safe place and call the police. I think this could be classified as flight. However “smart” that may be in the interest of self preservation, I think it’s the wrong message. If you can, I think you should stand your ground. As a general philosophy I think it would naturally send that same flight message to criminals rather then to the trainee. If a criminal sees someone, they’d instinctively run rather then feel empowered or emboldened by a weak prosecution system with little consequence on top of a passive training approach that teaches to take the safest approach ultimately making these situations more dangerous creating that emboldened criminal. Might we be responsible for emboldened criminals due to our “safe but ultimately not safe” approach to training? As a philosophy, shouldn’t we stand our ground or fight? Wouldn’t that have better more desirable results in the long run?
An interesting philosophical idea to be explored. I agree with the integral position that being passive may result in an a more aggressive response from the criminal. I do believe our original self-defense strategies revolved around a similar tenet. Do unto others as they would do unto you. Not exactly the peaceful intent of the message, but Jesus was known to have overturned tables and whip people - and they did not even physically harm anyone.
No, we are not responsible for “emboldened criminals” due to not taking aggressive risks with our lives and the lives of our family over what amounts to pride and ego
I’m not being prideful or egotistical. I’m taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and using logic to understand long term results. It’s actually less selfish to apply more weight to a long term result that’s better for all law abiding citizens and less weight to personal legal and bodily safety. By all means, if flight is a guys thing then run and hide like we’ve been trained to. I’m just starting the conversation about whether or not legal and personal safety should be top priority when training(flight)or if legal aggressive active defense(fight) should be the top priority when training. We do know where each other stand on this topic.
I don’t believe active aggression and seeking out violent confrontations (by, for example, entering your home that is solely occupied by an unknown number of intruders) is the better long term solution, either. Having more dead good guys and families without fathers isn’t helpful short or long term.
He is not suggesting that. However, studies of violent crimes show that use of firearms by victims results in fewer injuries to the victims, while unarmed victims are more likely to sustain injuries or death. His premise does have validity based on those studies.
I see you conveniently left out the word defensive. Interesting. Reminds me of CNN. I’m sure you understand what I’m saying I’m just not sure why your so resistant to it. Is it because of your training? Are you a trainer? I also understand somebody agreeing with me publicly could be hurting their legal defense in the case that God forbid they had to use a firearm in self defense. To argue my point by making it look like I’m saying something I’m not is just weird. I’m sure there’s an explanation though. I Love you brother!!!
I see it differently. To me, this:
Is seeking out confrontation.
To me, if you arrive home, and there are intruders (but not family members) in the home, and you have the option of tactically redeploying to the rear while calling police…but you instead enter (or stand and wait for them even)…I consider that seeking out confrontation.
To add, I also see this differently
"If a criminal sees someone, they’d instinctively run rather then feel empowered or emboldened by a weak prosecution system with little consequence on top of a passive training approach that teaches to take the safest approach ultimately making these situations more dangerous creating that emboldened criminal. "
I do not think that retreating from that situation is more dangerous. I do not think that criminals expecting us to retreat and call police makes the situation more dangerous than entering the home or standing and waiting for them.
So, the why behind why I am so hesitant to go with anything other than avoid, avoid avoid, is multi part.
I used to work for a police department. I have seen things, heard things, read things, and am aware of how incredibly quickly, and terribly, things go sideways. I hate seeing people who, for whatever reason, do not avoid something they could have avoided, and do so for reasons other than imminent deadly threat to them or their family…and regret it. For property, for ego, for the betterment of society as a whole…kind of goes out the window when unspeakable things result, or when speaking to the family of the deceased who were not the ones to make that decision and wish with all their being that person had not made that decision because they do not think it was worth living the rest of their life without them.
They need the help off a 10mm jacketed hollow point exiting the left side of their head.
FEAR has two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run or
Face Everything And Rise
Use your gut and follow your instincts! Remember you do have rights and shouldn’t fear the law if your not breaking it!
I think the average police officer sees more crap in his/her career than most of us want to believe is possible. And what’s worse, they have to deal with it on a routine basis, because LEOs aren’t normally called unless something has already gone wrong.
I read what you’re saying,but if you break into my house you just f…d up .This Vet ain’t taking prisoners.
That’s all good and every person should trust their instincts and limits and that should be taught. Different classes have different purposes. Beginners usually start with the basics. In no way am I trying to guilt anyone Into anything. People on this platform are usually independent enough and strong enough for me to not have to worry about them thinking I am. It just seems to me like the NRA and USCCA training programs instill crippling philosophies emphasizing confrontation as an absolute last resort highlighting legal consequences in criminal and civil courts instead of highlighting legal allowances instilled into our laws and constitution. This, in my opinion, encourages the legal system to prosecute and even judge harshly against self defense because it’s now been accepted as the norm. due to training that tells them it is the norm. I’ve already said all of this throughout this thread but realize it’s a lot to go through so I just repeat it. Apologies for repetition to anyone who’s been following along the whole time. Sometimes forgetting everything and running is the best choice but, in my opinion, most of the time it’s best to face everything and rise. I understand others perspectives but do not think the training given is the best blanket training for everyone. Train harder, expect more, get the most from the student.
FEAR has two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run
Face Everything And Rise
More fear mongering. Those weren’t always the rules and ridiculous rules like those work for the intruder and against the home owner. They encourage lawlessness and their purpose is to slowly inch closer to disarming a society under the guise of safety. Not sure where your at but it sounds like one of THOSE states and the reason THOSE states like New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts have been able to pass such ridiculousness is most likely corruption. Nothing pleases a criminal more then to be sure that their victims are unarmed or has their hands tied behind their backs by slimy connected politicians and their self defense laws. Sure, some people are dumb and you can’t fix dumb no matter what laws you implement or how much you try and train it. Accidents do happen and are tragic but occur no where near as frequent as other tragedies but get 10 times the attention. Training now is vastly different then when firearms training occurred in grade schools before we allowed all of these ridiculous corrupt fear mongering politicians to implement their self defense laws. I do believe that firearms training has been changed and shaped by politicians and their self defense laws rather then the other way around as you suggested. They won’t be influenced by anything including the people they represent. That’s the problem. When your being attacked you can’t be worried about your guns being taken or who’s going to pay for that storage. Some states mandate that you must make an effort to run. That’s crazy. And it’s not an ego thing it’s just common sense. That kind of thinking is exactly why criminals are more inclined to choose that profession and how victims are made.
Fear has two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run
Face Everything And Rise
Probably the smallest one. I don’t know about the case your talking about but to me it’s clear. The more you restrict someone the less capable they become. So if your restricting self defense then naturally defending yourself becomes harder. It sounds like this guy your talking about had a headache of a time with his legal defense but got acquitted anyway. Sounds like a big expensive waist of time if you ask me. Should probably have been and could have been a lot more simple. If that’s the case it speaks to my point. Not everything is cut and dry obviously but it’s really not as complicated as the legal system likes it to be. And always remember,
FEAR has two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run
Face Everything And Rise
Which is one good reason to avoid. So, for example, if you pull up in the driveway and your home seems to be occupied exclusively by intruders, retreating and avoiding that attack while waiting for police to clear the house is a good idea.
You also don’t have to worry as much about being literally dead this way
And I’ve been meaning to ask, why so much focus on fear? Is that what drives your decisions?
I probably wouldn’t go in that house. It would be too dangerous and a poor decision. I think what drives all of us is adrenaline secreted by the brain as a response to emotion controlled by repetitive training. Instinct and natural reaction is usually all we have in those short, tense, and stress filled situations. This is why when training somebody we should emphasize as a general philosophy what they’re allowed to do instead of emphasizing unjust legal ramifications and aggressive DEFENSIVE action as a last resort. I understand your position. It does make sense to do the “safest” thing but my position is that as a whole this philosophy naturally creates more unsafe situations and ultimately puts the criminal in a better position and victims plus the 2nd amendment in a weaker position. Remember, fear has two meanings:
Forget Everything And Run or
Face Everything And Rise