Home Defense (Philosophy)

[yokel]

You forgot the most important factors: fear of dying and the will to live.

The greatest fear held by most is not that of death or a combat wound, nor is it the sobering probability of disease or capture by the enemy. In a sense, the men one fights with on the line are more feared than the ones who have him in the sights of their rifles.

Fear of cowardice propels soldiers to persistently perform deeds they would not have been capable of without the critical pressure of their peers. Soldiers want nothing less than to be branded as a coward; even death holds more appeal than the alternative of "shirking" combat and losing the respect of peers.

 

[JoeSlomo]

I have NO way of knowing the intention of individuals involved in a FELONIOUS act in MY house. Nor do I know if there are other felons blocking my escape.

I DO know that a FELONIOUS intrusion on MY property COULD result in my DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY HARM. Hence, I will always defend myself in the safety of my own home.

 

[tpaw]

U.S.SFC_RET Writes:

I will back up and tighten my shot group and clarify. Large pockets of civilizations outside inner cities.
New York, Baltimore, Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta, Houston, Oakland, Washington DC ect are examples of inner cities. if we had none of these types of inner city problems I guarantee you this country would be one of the safer ones to live in.

Roger that!

 

[tpaw]

yokel Writes:

The greatest fear held by most is not that of death or a combat wound, nor is it the sobering probability of disease or capture by the enemy. In a sense, the men one fights with on the line are more feared than the ones who have him in the sights of their rifles.

Having been in combat, some of it very involved (hand to hand combat) and wounded twice, I disagree with your statement (above) and stand by mine (below).

You forgot the most important factors: fear of dying and the will to live.

I draw my conclusion from my experiences. I guess it all depends on your experiences and how you see it. There is no blanket answer to explain your statement (below).

Unit cohesion and esprit de corps are what primarily motivates soldiers to continue in battle, to face extreme danger, and to risk their lives in accomplishing the mission.

Each of us is different and will draw our own conclusions based on our psychological make up. Especially when it deals with seeing death and facing death on a fairly regular basis. Unless you have, it is something I hope you never have to experience in your life time. It is a baggage of horror that you will take to the grave. If you have had the experience, then you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Officers'Wife]

What do you consider rare? In my 20 years in LE in NYC, most of the homicides I investigated were the results of domestic disputes in the home (house/apartment) either by shootings, stabbings, beatings to death, chokings, hangings, set on fire, drownings in tubs, or thrown out windows. There were other methods but I'll stop there. Just about all of them involved alcohol.

But keep in mind your experiences in NYC are not universal. In my little hometown in Indiana three out of the four homicides in the past eight years have been the result of bar fights gone awry. Of two homicides in the nearby town of Monon one was a stabbing inside a bar and the other a gunshot on the street outside a second bar.

 

[yokel]

There is no blanket answer to explain your statement (below).

Quote:
Unit cohesion and esprit de corps are what primarily motivates soldiers to continue in battle, to face extreme danger, and to risk their lives in accomplishing the mission.

Actually, the issue has been extensively studied and analyzed:


http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA309830&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Abstract : This monograph explores the role of cohesion and morale on unit effectiveness in a culturally and racially heterogeneous environment, whether these elements can be nurtured and maintained within this environment, and what the means are for doing this. The method used for this research is a comparative, historical analysis of three cases of military units that maintained high levels of morale and strong unit cohesion. The units selected for the study were the 442d Regimental Combat Team (Japanese American unit during World War II), the U.S. Marine Corps (in Vietnam), and the Waffen SS (WW II). The monograph first defines morale and cohesion using the writings of military theorists (Sun Tzu, Jomini, and Clausewitz), research conducted by the Army Research Institute, reports compiled by clinical psychologists from the Army Medical Department (AMEDD), Department of Defense studies, work done by researchers from the Navy and Army War Colleges, and lastly writings of common soldiers. Once morale and cohesion were defined, they and their traits or characteristics were applied to the three case studies. The outcome of the comparative analysis lead to the conclusion that all three cases had certain traits in common. These were the warrior spirit (and esprit de corps), unit loyalty and pride, a common shared purpose and goal, trust in each other and their leaders, self-less service, and self-sacrifice. The intangible entity that bonds men together and motivates them to push themselves to the last ounce of their strength or ability was evident throughout the cases. The monograph concludes with lessons learned. In all three cases, the same forces are happening.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24slay.html

The bad guys are probably just after your DVD player.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

If they are in my house, they are a threat. I am not about to ask "are you here for stuff or not?"

+1 If someone breaks in to my home, they have shown they do not care about my well-being, and I will defend myself, as I do not intend to die of a home invasion.

Assuming that the criminal is there for your VCR is a good way to get yourself killed when you could have defended yourself.

+1
If he's in my house, after defeating all of my security measures, I have good reason to believe he will kill me. What I meant was if he was running away down the street, I wouldn't pull a Joe Horn.

 

[SSN Vet]

it's called the castle doctrine and every state should codify it!

 

[tpaw]

(QUOTE) Actually, the issue has been extensively studied and analyzed: The units selected for the study were the 442d Regimental Combat Team (Japanese American unit during World War II), the U.S. Marine Corps (in Vietnam), and the Waffen SS (WW II).(QUOTE)

Considering the millions of service men and women who served in the military, the above is hardly an extensive study, or a good sampling for that matter. It's too limited and excludes a vast majority of other military units who would fall into the study that you refer to and were excluded. For statistical purposes the sampling is too limited. Since I fought in Vietnam, I will address the above; "the U.S.Marine Corps (in Vietnam)". The Marines fought bravely and proudly in Vietnam, I witnessed it first hand in I Corp., which was the northern part of South Vietnam. The issue with only using the Marines in the sampling, is that they represented a much smaller percentage of fighting men in Vietnam. The largest fighting force was the US Army, who fought a considerably more amount of battles and lost a considerably more amount of men. The numbers show that. For a more accurate conclusion to be drawn with the study you site, ALL the uniformed services who fought in Vietnam should be considered to draw a more accurate finding to the study.

 

[yokel]

So, your contention is that for the majority of combatants, i.e., the Army, the base instinct of self preservation trumped all other concerns?

I suppose that it does square with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous.

 

[tpaw]

So, your contention is that for the majority of combatants, i.e., the Army, the base instinct of self preservation trumped all other concerns?

I cannot deny that there was a "brotherhood" among combatants, "you watch my back and I'll watch yours". Although you could sometimes not help it, you would develop a close relationship with a few others and learned very soon that it was not a healthy thing to do. When they were killed, it was like loosing a family member. Subsequently, those of us who saw heavy combat, avoided close relationships. We looked at combat as a job. You did it, and if you survived, you moved on and tried not to look back. I know it may seem callous to say, but when one of your own was killed, a voice in your head would say "I'm glad it's him and not me". You became detached. The less you knew about someone, the better off you were. Most of the men that I chewed dirt with, felt the same way. Yes, we would support one another in times of peril, but as I stated in a previous post, we did not fight for God and country, we fought to stay alive so that hopefully we would make it home. Whether you hated the guy next to you or not, you collectively fought to stay alive. None that I knew wanted to be there. We were snatched up from our normal lives by way of the draft, and thrown into a cess pool. From the start, our attitudes were not in keeping with military doctrine. There were also those that joined voluntarily and made the best of it, perhaps with a career in mind. I respect that, but it was not the norm. Most of us were draftees who saw the military as Dante's Inferno. We hated it and just wanted to get out alive at all costs. Unless one has been there to experience what war was like, one will never understand it, regardless of how much someone trys to explain it to you. To know it and understand it, you had to be there. This may not be a good analogy to use, but I would say that for a non combatant to know the horrors of war, would be like a man trying to know what it would be like to be pregnant.

I suppose that it does square with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous.

Indeed, that is another issue.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

There is a book titled "On Killing" Written by a West Point and former commander. This book is well written and explains how the military just can't turn you into a killer. They can teach you to kill. Read the book because the gist of this book entails just how difficult it has been to kill even in wartime and even when facing imminent danger at times.
Most say I can and will defend this and do that. When you read the book you will understand "posturing" and the basic human instinct behind it.
You will understand that a much, much lower percentage of war veterans could actually kill the enemy in any circumstance.
This mindset may apply to you because believing "that I can vs I will do" are two completely different animals alltogether.

 

[Jaybird78]

My doors are locked. Home invasion and burglary are against the law and so will not happen.

If you enter.....prepare to leave being carried.

I feared for my life and I had to defend myself from this violent attacker.