When does a gentleman fight back?

[Edward]

I'm not a Christian, though in my experience, it seems more intelligent to 'hate the sin not the sinner'. That's why when trying to think of ways to resist or lessen violent crime it's probably not a good idea to label people 'thugs' or as less then human. Once people are 'less than human' or 'thugs' or 'scum' we're not going to get anywhere better. You can't actually get rid of them(the one's who you think are scum because they aren't as refined as you might be). Unless you are advocating the unthinkable. Sometimes one has to resist violence with violence I suppose but unless the so called 'scum' can be redeemed, what are we left with. Perpetual terror?

There's a lot to be said, I believe, for the notion that if you treat someone like an animal for long enough, eventually they start to behave like one.

 

[carter]

One gentleman's opinion

I was raised with this advice.

"Don't go looking for trouble."
Don't put yourself in harm's way. Don't instigate a conflict. Use your common sense, if you have any.

I was also raised to believe that trouble, if it comes, is something you deal with. In essence, let the response
be appropriate to the provocation. If you must respond, be swift and decisive.

I agree with those who have posted regarding the enablement of criminals, bullies, and thugs. Eventually someone has to deal with them.

Last Friday morning at 2:00 AM someone attempted a break-in at our home. I was there with my two children and some stout deadbolts. That was good for us as well as the criminals. Had they entered the house there was a loaded 45 and someone who knows how to use it on the other side of the door.
As I stood outside after the criminals left, I saw the same vehicle turn the corner (they had driven around the block), turn off their lights, and pull into the driveway of the house across the street. They sat there for 5-10 minutes and then sped off when I opened my phone to call 911.
By the time the police arrived, it had been fifteen minutes since the call was placed.

I do not condone violence.
I do condone self defense.

 

[John in Covina]

I'm not a Christian, though in my experience, it seems more intelligent to 'hate the sin not the sinner'. That's why when trying to think of ways to resist or lessen violent crime it's probably not a good idea to label people 'thugs' or as less then human. Once people are 'less than human' or 'thugs' or 'scum' we're not going to get anywhere better. You can't actually get rid of them(the one's who you think are scum because they aren't as refined as you might be). Unless you are advocating the unthinkable. Sometimes one has to resist violence with violence I suppose but unless the so called 'scum' can be redeemed, what are we left with. Perpetual terror?

***********
If you can't lable you will never recognize danger before hand. Remember that people don't change, for thousands of years there has always been a contingent of people that are not civilized and prey on society. They don't get redeemned, they do time and repeat the offenses. Your first obligation is the protection of yourself, familiy friends and yes even strangers that are being attacked, robbed, beaten and perhaps murdered over protecting the offenders. 99% or more of the bad people make conscious decisions to be bad act bad and profit on the misery they inflict on others, rarely can they sympathize or empathize with their victims otherwise they would not do as they do. In most states in the US (Except maybe Louisiana which is under Napoleonic Law and they take a dim view of trespass. if in fear for your life you can get a pass.) you are not supposed to shoot people thru the door and good gun handling says you don't shoot unless you are sure of your target. However if you find that the visitors are not known to you and you are uneasy about them, no-one says you have to answer or open the door, just call the cops. If they try then to break in well they will be in a world of hurt from many on this side of the Atlantic.

Also, many people have a steel security door, which is a lot like a screen door on steriods. It allows you to open the main door and see those on the other side but be fairly well protected from danger as they can't breakdown the security very quickly. During fine weather it lets you open the main door and have a breeze without a drop in your security.

The idea that for criminals it's "not their fault" is foolish.

 

[Diamondback]

I'm gonna riff off of Al Capone here, albeit my version's a lot more civil than his:

A kind word and a gun--and the knowledge of how and more importantly WHEN to use each--are more effective than either alone.

Remember those words I quoted earlier about "avoidance, deterrence, deescalation"? Much as we try to live by them, there are some out there who just won't allow us an easy or a peaceful option--sometimes the only way out the other guy allows is a Decisive Engagement. I, like others (h/t Carter), won't go looking for trouble, but I'm ready if it insists on coming to me--and if it does it's gonna get more than it bargained for.

 

[stephen1965]

***********
If you can't lable you will never recognize danger before hand. Remember that people don't change, for thousands of years there has always been a contingent of people that are not civilized and prey on society. They don't get redeemned, they do time and repeat the offenses. Your first obligation is the protection of yourself, familiy friends and yes even strangers that are being attacked, robbed, beaten and perhaps murdered over protecting the offenders. 99% or more of the bad people make conscious decisions to be bad act bad and profit on the misery they inflict on others, rarely can they sympathize or empathize with their victims otherwise they would not do as they do. In most states in the US (Except maybe Louisiana which is under Napoleonic Law and they take a dim view of trespass. if in fear for your life you can get a pass.) you are not supposed to shoot people thru the door and good gun handling says you don't shoot unless you are sure of your target. However if you find that the visitors are not known to you and you are uneasy about them, no-one says you have to answer or open the door, just call the cops. If they try then to break in well they will be in a world of hurt from many on this side of the Atlantic.

Also, many people have a steel security door, which is a lot like a screen door on steriods. It allows you to open the main door and see those on the other side but be fairly well protected from danger as they can't breakdown the security very quickly. During fine weather it lets you open the main door and have a breeze without a drop in your security.

The idea that for criminals it's "not their fault" is foolish.

Firstly, I do hold people responsible for their actions. So, yes, if someone commits a criminal act, it is their fault.
As for labeling things.. I see what you mean about recognizing danger in advance. We store memories and categorize previous experience to be able to make mature judgments about situations and yes, this does entail putting labels on things to an extent. Like most things though, it's true to a degree but not absolutely. I suppose I meant that we can all be 'guilty' of judging others too quickly for all sorts of reasons, as if wearing certain clothes or having a certain accent makes one a thug. There has been a lot of English media excitement about the word 'chav' for instance in recent years. Chavs are supposed to be working class/uncultured/yobbish and are generally a scapegoat for society's ills. But not all working class youths are devoid of intelligence or talent. It requires us to take responsibility in guiding them, not labeling them as 'chavs'.
I agree with you that one's first responsibility is to oneself and confronted with violence I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself or those close to me. I also think it's everyone's duty to defend anyone who is being subject to violence.
So, probably, our opinions aren't irreconcilable. I hope your not going to label me foolish now...

 

[John in Covina]

Firstly, I do hold people responsible for their actions. So, yes, if someone commits a criminal act, it is their fault.
As for labeling things.. I see what you mean about recognizing danger in advance. We store memories and categorize previous experience to be able to make mature judgments about situations and yes, this does entail putting labels on things to an extent. Like most things though, it's true to a degree but not absolutely. I suppose I meant that we can all be 'guilty' of judging others too quickly for all sorts of reasons, as if wearing certain clothes or having a certain accent makes one a thug. There has been a lot of English media excitement about the word 'chav' for instance in recent years. Chavs are supposed to be working class/uncultured/yobbish and are generally a scapegoat for society's ills. But not all working class youths are devoid of intelligence or talent. It requires us to take responsibility in guiding them, not labeling them as 'chavs'.
I agree with you that one's first responsibility is to oneself and confronted with violence I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself or those close to me. I also think it's everyone's duty to defend anyone who is being subject to violence.
So, probably, our opinions aren't irreconcilable. I hope your not going to label me foolish now...

**********
Heck no! I am just trying to clarify things and get a better understanding of how we all view things.

 

[Diamondback]

Bear in mind, in many places multiple aggressors is seen as sufficient 'disparity of force' to warrant deadly force by the defender. That said, those of defensive orientation must always watch our tone and word-choice, as if any of us ever have to drop the hammer our lives and associations, especially blog-posts and Net commentary, will be pored over with fine-toothed combs trawling for anything that has even the slightest grain of potential for being twisted into supporting the prosecution's "this triggerhappy maniac was just itching to off somebody, and the deceased gave him the opening" argument.

Projected threadlock in 10...

9...

8...

----------------
Now playing: Eric Serra - The Scale To Hell
via FoxyTunes

 

[rumblefish]

When his instincts tell him to.
Some gentlemen never have that happen. Those who do, I would say, don't look forward to it happening. I would much rather be the guy watching an altercation (actually not, I'm not entertained by violence at all), but as many times as I've said I'll never put myself in the middle again, I've found myself there. I can clearly remember all my "physical encounters" as an adult, and what I remember mostly was the feeling afterward. I'm nauseated, shaking, filled with remorse, and often brought to tears even if it was nothing more than a shove. Every one, from protecting my girlfriend from some nut stomping over to her car while she was in it, to some one out-and-out looking to pick a fight with a friend. I think over and over again; not "boy he really deserved that", but "How dare I hurt another human being".
Regardless of the situation, and what others might be telling me, I'm overcome by self disgust. I'm certainly not saying this to justifying the violence, nor am I putting down those who don't react this way. I'd really rather not react this way. I think like many others I find bullying inexcusable.
There will always be something inside of some gentlemen that won't allow them to stand aside or take it. And sometimes it just winds up that they are in a bad situation. I think a few of them spoke up here...

 

[rumblefish]

Also I should add- a gentleman fights back when reacting to the fear of what may happen if they don't, as apposed to anger.

 

[carter]

Rumblefish, well stated.

I don't personally know anyone who would "look forward" to a stressful situation. That is what a break-in, robbery, assault, almost any confrontation is...a stressful situation.
This sort of situation elicits a chemical response, a response that is often characterized as the "Fight or Flight Syndrome". It is thought that, generally, males are more conditioned toward the "fight" response and females toward the "flight" reponse. However, a mother defending her young has often been known to have a "fight" response. Certainly there are representatives of either sex who are more conditioned toward "flight" than toward "fight". These are natural responses to real or perceived threats.
Given the time and opportunity, most people will consider their options and a fight of any nature may be avoided or averted.
Given little time, no perceived route of escape, and imminent danger, a "fight" response is natural as self-preservation and the preservation of others is paramont.
When does a gentleman fight?
When it would be ungentlemanly to do otherwise.

A Gentleman's Code

The honor of a gentleman demands the adherence to a Code of Honor. The gentleman is the 21st century knight. He upholds the values and principles that society has admired and held dear since the days of chivalry in the legendary court of King Arthur. He is the defender of the defenseless and the champion of justice, or he is not a gentleman.

A Gentleman......

Manages his temper. He does not exhibit anger, fear, hate, embarrassment, ardor, or hilarity in public, and yet, is capable of expressing his emotions appropriately in any venue.

Takes ownership of his emotions, reactions, and decisions.

Accepts responsibility for the consequences, intended and unintended, of his decisions.

Does not discuss his family affairs with those outside of his family.

Does not speak more than casually about his girl friend.

Is temperate in the use of alcohol. He does not call upon a lady, nor conduct business, if he is affected by alcohol.

Does not call out to a lady from afar.

Never discusses the merits or demerits of a lady.

Does not mention names exactly.

Does not discuss the cost of things.

Does not borrow money from a friend, except in dire need. He recognizes that money borrowed is a debt of honor, and must be repaid as promptly as possible.

Recognizes that debts incurred by a deceased parent, sibling, or grown child are assumed by honorable men as a debt of honor.

Does not display his wealth, money, or possessions.

Does not turn his manners on and off.

Treats every man and woman with respect, courtesy, and honor, no matter what their social position might be.

Does not slap strangers on the back, nor so much as lay a finger on a lady.

Does not "lick the boots of those above" nor "kick the face of those below" him on the social ladder.

Does not take advantage of another's helplessness, or ignorance.

Assumes that no gentleman will take advantage of him.

Respects the reserves and boundaries of others, but likewise demands that others respect those which are his.

Keeps himself physically strong and healthy within the limitations of his own abilities and disabilities.

Does not succumb to the current whims of modern culture to live alternative life styles which cannot be justified within the mores of the ancient religious teachings and scriptures.

Acknowledges his duty to his Creator to maintain a respectable demeanor, and to treat all creation with honor and respect.

Becomes what he wills to be.

Abridged from Etiquette, Chapter 29, The Fundamentals of Good Behavior, 1922 by Emily Post.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

When his instincts tell him to.
Some gentlemen never have that happen. Those who do, I would say, don't look forward to it happening. I would much rather be the guy watching an altercation (actually not, I'm not entertained by violence at all), but as many times as I've said I'll never put myself in the middle again, I've found myself there. I can clearly remember all my "physical encounters" as an adult, and what I remember mostly was the feeling afterward. I'm nauseated, shaking, filled with remorse, and often brought to tears even if it was nothing more than a shove. Every one, from protecting my girlfriend from some nut stomping over to her car while she was in it, to some one out-and-out looking to pick a fight with a friend. I think over and over again; not "boy he really deserved that", but "How dare I hurt another human being".
Regardless of the situation, and what others might be telling me, I'm overcome by self disgust. I'm certainly not saying this to justifying the violence, nor am I putting down those who don't react this way. I'd really rather not react this way. I think like many others I find bullying inexcusable.
There will always be something inside of some gentlemen that won't allow them to stand aside or take it. And sometimes it just winds up that they are in a bad situation. I think a few of them spoke up here...

Well said,rumblefish. I have felt the same way under similar circumstances.
Unfortunately..sometimes..there seems to be no other way out at the time.
However..one can even feel perhaps more miserable by backing away at times...and then having it eat at you that you didn't intervene...or attempt a more immediate solution. Either way..that's why I've never had the desire to go looking for trouble.
HD

 

[Carlisle Blues]

A society without a penal code and a criminal justice system is a society filled with anarchy. As such the natural progression in human behavior will bring about something akin to the current gang phenomena.

Moreover, in the society in which I live I can say, with impunity, whatever I like, have opinions on such topics as gun control, equal rights, animal rights etc without fear of reprisal.

A good example is one set forth by Hegel where. "the individual person only begins to become a subject as they become morally free and rational, and are capable of knowing what they do and take responsibility for their own (collective) deeds. Such a moral development can begin only in connection with property rights and the development of ethical life in which rights and duties are communicated as objective universals."

There is no emasculation in the presence of law, conversely there is no freedom in it's absence. :eusa_doh:

 

[miss_elise]

It takes 3 months to train a soldier


and 3 years to train a peace keeper.


There is something admirable in containing your anger and frustration and not lashing out at the first provocation

 

[stephen1965]

There's always been crime/violence/recession etc but 'fear' in my opinion is often being used to manipulate voters/the population in order to control us/curb dissent/make us consume or whatever. Recently in London there were the so called G20 protests after which the police force have been under scrutiny for crowd 'kettling' & undue use of force. One person died after being pushed to the ground from behind. This person was a bystander not a protester. (Not that being a protester gives the excuse). Another case involved a woman being slapped across the face and then hit with a truncheon. These cases are on video at the BBC website. What would you have done? Fought the police officers involved? They certainly seemed to be in the wrong and violent to boot.
I wasn't a protester by the way and I don't have a problem with guns being carried as is the custom in some societies. As has been noted, it depends on the individual and their ability to control themselves that seems most important. (But of course I could be wrong...)

 

[Charlie Noodles]

Very interesting stuff, I've actually been considering some of these questions as of late… I have either been fortunate or solitary enough in my life to have avoided a single real fight. If I was to forced to fight, then I think I would lose; I have never been what you would call very fit and healthy.

But if someone insults me (indirectly) or takes advantage of me then I generally don’t perceive the problem. For instance, someone might tell me that someone else has been speaking ill of me; I’d be amused and want to hear what was said. I don’t feel “pushed” and so don’t feel a need to “push” back.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m just being submissive to avoid conflict. If I had the martial ability would I be so “high-minded” when an incident occurs?

 

[stephen1965]

I suspect that most of us are 'cool with it' if it's Mike Tyson with his feet on the seat. Standing somehow seems a better option at those times when Mike wants to take up the bench and rest those weary legs.. When it's someone who I I think isn't going to give me any trouble because I sense they're physically or psychologically not up to it, I'll be insisting they move they're feet 'cause I'm sitting. Now that might be cowardly but is there any point getting into a fight with someone over something trivial when the odds are not so in my favor. Does that make me an enabler? I've never come across this term. Is it one of those pop psychology things?

 

[stephen1965]

Revolution always appears to be warranted in the eyes of the revolutionary

War always appears to be warranted in the eyes of the warlike.
Peace always appears to be...

The 'masses' (whoever they are) will never agree, won't be led and are best hidden from. You can hide amongst them, trying to transform negative emotions into creative solutions lol

 

[carter]

It takes 3 months to train a soldier
and 3 years to train a peace keeper.

There is something admirable in containing your anger and frustration and not lashing out at the first provocation

miss-elise, I certainly agree with your last statement. However, I do not agree with your initial statement. The fact is that in three months a soldier only begins their training. It takes much longer, sometimes many years, to train a soldier and ongoing training never ends as long as one is in the military.
Let's not disparage those who defend others and maintain what peace we enjoy. Nor is it appropriate to imply that those defenders of peace are not gentlemen.

For those inclined toward rancorous debate, here is a reposting of the Gentlemen's Code. I encourage all participants to let it apply to this discussion.

The honor of a gentleman demands the adherence to a Code of Honor. The gentleman is the 21st century knight. He upholds the values and principles that society has admired and held dear since the days of chivalry in the legendary court of King Arthur. He is the defender of the defenseless and the champion of justice, or he is not a gentleman.

A Gentleman......

Manages his temper. He does not exhibit anger, fear, hate, embarrassment, ardor, or hilarity in public, and yet, is capable of expressing his emotions appropriately in any venue.

Takes ownership of his emotions, reactions, and decisions.

Accepts responsibility for the consequences, intended and unintended, of his decisions.

Does not discuss his family affairs with those outside of his family.

Does not speak more than casually about his girl friend.

Is temperate in the use of alcohol. He does not call upon a lady, nor conduct business, if he is affected by alcohol.

Does not call out to a lady from afar.

Never discusses the merits or demerits of a lady.

Does not mention names exactly.

Does not discuss the cost of things.

Does not borrow money from a friend, except in dire need. He recognizes that money borrowed is a debt of honor, and must be repaid as promptly as possible.

Recognizes that debts incurred by a deceased parent, sibling, or grown child are assumed by honorable men as a debt of honor.

Does not display his wealth, money, or possessions.

Does not turn his manners on and off.

Treats every man and woman with respect, courtesy, and honor, no matter what their social position might be.

Does not slap strangers on the back, nor so much as lay a finger on a lady.

Does not "lick the boots of those above" nor "kick the face of those below" him on the social ladder.

Does not take advantage of another's helplessness, or ignorance.

Assumes that no gentleman will take advantage of him.

Respects the reserves and boundaries of others, but likewise demands that others respect those which are his.

Keeps himself physically strong and healthy within the limitations of his own abilities and disabilities.

Does not succumb to the current whims of modern culture to live alternative life styles which cannot be justified within the mores of the ancient religious teachings and scriptures.

Acknowledges his duty to his Creator to maintain a respectable demeanor, and to treat all creation with honor and respect.

Becomes what he wills to be.

Abridged from Etiquette, Chapter 29, The Fundamentals of Good Behavior, 1922 by Emily Post.

Yesterday 08:58 PM

 

[scotrace]

This thread has been extensively scrubbed, an exercise which no one has the time to do again. I'd rather leave this open but any more borderline political squabbling and we'll have to close it down.

Thanks.

 

[rumblefish]

Them's fightin' words