In the Name of Self Defense

[Kleanbore]

That's the title of a new book by Mark MacYoung. Member tepin provided a link in October and said he was about half-way through it at the time.

I'm nowhere near that far along--it is one big book.

Based on what I've read so far, I do recommend it.

Link

One thing that's common to Mas Ayoob's new book is the comment that while most everyone thinks about the surprise mugger, a real concern is a use of force incident that grows out of an affront or an escalating encounter of some kind.

This graphic movie scene is cited for illustration and is discussed at some length. Neither situational awareness or a concealed weapon would have helped the victim.

The author recommends reading the book a little at a time.

 

[jimbo555]

Staying out of bars would have helped.

 

[jimbo555]

The book looks interesting!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Staying out of bars would have helped.

And not joining the mob.

And not running around with other peoples wives.

Nor stealing/robbing from dope dealers (or even being a dope head.)

Unprovoked attacks are very rare. Yes there is the knockout game and wildings but most, if they had just kept their eyes open, would have seen it coming.

In that show, I have no doubt there were subtle indicators he was going to attack.

And guys, some people do get charged by the cops/DA for self defense shootings. Some do not. Some don't even go past the statement stage and they let them go home.

Just depends on what happened, what can be shown to have happened, and if it's a liberal or conservative place.

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

Unprovoked attacks are very rare.

Rare? Okay, but that attack was really not unprovoked, was it?

In that show, I have no doubt there were subtle indicators he was going to attack.

The point was that the person who was attacked had provoked the attack. So--what were the things that caused it?

The person attacked obviously did not expect to be attacked, but there are things he said and did that brought it about.

 

[Apachedriver]

Rare? Okay, but that attack was really not unprovoked, was it?

The point was that the person who was attacked had provoked the attack. So--what were the things that caused it?

The person attacked obviously did not expect to be attacked, but there are things he said and did that brought it about.

Au contraire. Based on what the excerpt shows, Mouthy was fully prepared for an attack...

...just not from the direction the attack was launched or by the player that launched it. The cues were all there for him. In most of these (provoked)situations, the cues are always there. Mouthy was so busy being cocksure of himself, whether drunk or not, that he lost sight of his periphery. He target fixated on the host and paid for it.

Was the physical attack provoked? In the criminal world, yes. In good guy land, no. In the real world of mixed tempers, emotions, raging testosterone, hormones, et al, it doesn't make a difference once you allow yourself to be swept up in those currents instead of using avoidance early on.

 

[Warp]

One thing that's common to Mas Ayoob's new book is the comment that while most everyone thinks about the surprise mugger, a real concern is a use of force incident that grows out of an affront or an escalating encounter of some kind.

This graphic movie scene is cited for illustration and is discussed at some length. Neither situational awareness or a concealed weapon would have helped the victim.

The author recommends reading the book a little at a time.

Aren't avoidance and deescalation kind of 101 level material? Of course you shouldn't tell somebody to take a pen and shove it, well, THR doesn't allow the terminology or phrasing used in that movie clip.

But I disagree, I think there was a lack of situational awareness present in that clip. After telling somebody to do what he just told that guy to do, he completely turns his back.

Turning your back on a guy you just told to stick a pen up his...that's not exercising situation awareness.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Apachedriver:

Au contraire. Based on what the excerpt shows, Mouthy was fully prepared for an attack...

I don't see that at all.

MacYoung describes his behavior as "self soothing--saying something that makes him feel better himself, without due regard to the potential of violent consequences.

Was the physical attack provoked? In the criminal world, yes. In good guy land, no. In the real world of mixed tempers, emotions, raging testosterone, hormones, et al, it doesn't make a difference once you allow yourself to be swept up in those currents instead of using avoidance early on.

That, I think, is MacYoung's point--in this part of the book.

There is so much more to the book that that's just one point. It is that a perceived affront can lead to violence.

Posted by Warp:

Turning your back on a guy you just told to stick a pen up his...that's not exercising situation awareness.

Well, yeah, but MacYoung describes it as a calculated and deliberate additional insult, and the one that finally provoked the attack.

Would the attack have occurred had the man not turned his back? Maybe, or maybe not--the confrontation was escalating already. If it did, would he have been able to defend himself against the speed and severity of the attack? Maybe, and maybe not, but either way, it is likely that neither man would have been able to successfully claim self defense.

And that's the other point of that chapter.

 

[Apachedriver]

Well, yeah, but MacYoung describes it as a calculated and deliberate additional insult, and the one that finally provoked the attack.

Your point, in bold above, is precisely the reason for my view that he was prepared for an attack; But he wasn't prepared for it to come from anyone other than the host, at whom he directed the affront.

Anyway, I read the first chapter last night on Amazon. So far it appears that any critiques that can be offered on editing and writing style are overshadowed by the depth of the information presented.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book. Who knows, I may see that scene differently as I progress in the reading. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Fred Fuller]

http://www.amazon.com/In-Name-Self-Defense-costs-worth/dp/0692250212/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

I've read a good bit of Macyoung's stuff in the past, and I find him deeply attuned to the nuances of street violence. There are a few other folks I would put in that category - Southnarc/Craig Douglas, Rory Miller, William Aprill for example. They have differing backgrounds and differing approaches to the topic, but the one thing about MacYoung is that he WAS a thug in his past. He didn't just play one on teevee.

I'm buying it...

 

[Kleanbore]

I read Rory Miller, mentioned by MacYoung and introduced to me here by Fred Fuller some time ago.

I pay a lot of attention to William Aprill, mentioned on PDN by Rob Pincus.

Another book I'm reading now is Inside the Criminal Mind by Samenow--also linked here by Fred, about six weeks ago.

A lot to digest from all of them, to be sure.

The one common denominator, if there is one: do not assume that someone with whom you have the misfortune to get crossways will act rationally, or act the way you think you would, and realize that he may not be able to afford to back down; and get the stereotype of the "common thug" with limited intelligence out of your consciousness.

Of course they do exist, and I've always liked "dumb crook" stories. A painter at our house told me this week of the time he worked at a local grocery store which we frequent. As he exited his car before the beginning of his shift, he heard "on the ground, NOW", and he complied. But the command was directed at someone else. Seems a guy well known to the police had pulled a knife on an elderly shopper outside the store and demanded cash. She didn't have any--she was going to pay by check. "Well, go in and cash a check for me". "Okay".

That's the same store where, a couple of summers ago, I noticed a car parked the wrong way in the lot, and, solely because of advice from Massad Ayoob on Personal Defense TV to be aware of such things, I was very wary. Perhaps stupidly, I went in anyway, very alert, and I saw an accomplice making eye contact with the driver and looking intently at the manager's cubicle where the money is kept.

I know all of the people there very well--this not the proverbial Quickshop. I thought "backstop" and moved to a position of advantage, took out a phone and pretended to press the buttons three times. He bolted, and the took off. It scared the daylights out of me.

It was another dumb crook story. A real dumb crook story. Most of the stores in our area are within a block or so from an Interstate. Not this one-- two miles minimum to any of them, all on congested streets.

What were they thinking?

 

[fastbolt]

Guys, that movie scene is a scripted Movie scene. It was created to be exactly what it was, including the represented actions, emotions and reactions of the actors.

The visual cues for impending violence were carefully scripted to tantalize the intended audience, and then surprise them with some over-the-top, fictionalized psychotic violence (which also caught the other characters by surprise, by intent). Could it be art imitating life (instead of the other way around)? Maybe, but it's still just a scripted Movie scene.

Now, while I've heard of Marc MacYoung over the years, I've never met him nor read anything more than articles about & by him.

My interest in being a practitioner of various martial arts began more than 40 years ago, though, and I've had a badge (either active/full-time or reserve) for more than 30 years, so it's not like this aspect of human behavior is a complete mystery to me.

That said, this thread was interesting enough to make me order the Kindle edition of the book mentioned, to see what the hubbub is about. For $7.99 I can see what he wrote, seeing if it contains some similar BTDT experiences and observations ... but I'm not interested enough to pay $18-$24 for the paperback.

In the meantime, ordinary folks can probably benefit to a surprising degree by keeping in mind the old fashioned Rule of the 3 S's (Don't be in stupid places, where stupid people are doing stupid things).

Situational awareness often seems to work best when you avoid known (or retrospectively should-have-known) high risk circumstances and places in the first place. Learning to recognize and avoid potentially troublesome situations isn't impossible.

How many people driving their motor vehicles, and who recognized what they suspected were objective signs of another driver possibly being impaired ... under the influence of alcohol, drugs (legal or otherwise), sleepy, medical emergency, etc) ... would think it's prudent to drive up alongside and remain next to (or directly behind) the other driver exhibiting signs of impairment and wait to see if an accident occurred? Common sense, you'd think, right?

It's probably hard for many ordinary folks of rational inclination and mindset to really understand irrational thinking and sudden acts of violence by folks who don't see unlawful violence, sudden or otherwise, as being unacceptable behavior.

Everybody stay safe and enjoy this season!

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by fastbolt:

Guys, that movie scene is a scripted Movie scene. It was created to be exactly what it was, including the represented actions, emotions and reactions of the actors.

The visual cues for impending violence were carefully scripted to tantalize the intended audience, and then surprise them with some over-the-top, fictionalized psychotic violence (which also caught the other characters by surprise). Could it be art imitating life (instead of the other way around)? Maybe, but it's still just a scripted Movie scene.

Yes indeed. MacYoung uses it to illustrate a point (several points, actually) Without reading what he says about it, we will not grasp those points just by watching the scene.

Situational awareness often seems to work best when you avoid known (or retrospectively should-have-known) high risk circumstances and places in the first place. Learning to recognize and avoid potentially troublesome situations isn't impossible.

Yes, and with luck, for seeing a threat early enough to deal with it or get away. Where it does not work well in its usual form is in a situation of escalating affronts and discussion that leads to violence.

It's probably hard for many ordinary folks of rational inclination and mindset to really understand irrational thinking and sudden acts of violence by folks who don't see unlawful violence, sudden or otherwise, as being unacceptable behavior.

That bears repeating.

I am reading the Kindle version. That makes it difficult to look back and review something, but it saves bookshelf space; it enables me to switch to another book when mental fatigue sets in when I am not at home; it is easier to carry it with me; and it keeps eyebrows down in a waiting room.

Back to the subject of movie scenes for a moment: they are indeed crafted for the audience. In a portrayal of a use of force incident, the audience sees everything take place at a deliberate pace; the protagonist, who is known by all to be "the good guy", is assumed to see it all, too; and there is no question about what happened.

In the real world, the defender has no idea where danger lurks and will be lucky to avoid ambush; there is no sound stage with recordings; witness accounts will be fragmented and contradictory; and "the good guy" will not be so labeled. Nor will he shoot like Mr. Miculek.

 

[Snejdarek]

Thank you for the recommendation. How much is the book focused on the actual legal aspects (i.e. US-centered) and to what point may it be interesting also to international audience?

 

[JN01]

I read it, it provides a lot of food for thought.

Much of the book focuses not only on awareness of what is going on outside yourself, but recognizing how your own responses can have a big influence on the outcome of a situation- how you have to sometimes curb your own natural reactions.

One example he cited that stands out for me was the final words of an actress who, after she and her boyfriend were mugged, asked her attacker "What are you going to do now, shoot us?" Probably the most blatant example, and one that most people would recognize as a really stupid thing to say, but there are other behaviors that people engage in that are more subtle, but potentially just as dangerous.

The discussion of legal pitfalls that one might encountered are probably geared more toward the US, but the coverage of the psychology of violence would be useful to people anywhere.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JN01:

Much of the book focuses not only on awareness of what is going on outside yourself, but recognizing how your own responses can have a big influence on the outcome of a situation- how you have to sometimes curb your own natural reactions.

Yes.

Good put. Thanks.

 

[short barrel]

Don't get into arguments with strangers. Just don't do it. Walk or run away. Whatever the jerk has done or said to you, it's not worth a gunfight. A gunfight will change your life forever. Circumstances do not escalate if you don't participate. I was 32 years a cop and I'm no coward. But now retired, I'll do whatever is available to me to avoid confrontation. Let the other fellow have the last say even if he curses your family. Talking back and standing your ground when you can shut up and leave is a mark of stupidity. No matter how many jerks you put in their place, there will always be many, many more. Carry a weapon powerful enough to save you, but keep it out of sight. Calm the situation even if you must apologize for something you didn't do. Don't give a prosecutor an indicator that the shooting might have been avoided. Don't give the plaintiff anything to help him win. Pride is not only sinful, it's just plain stupid.

 

[zorro45]

Always stay a minimum of 21 feet away from Joe Pesci!

 

[Deaf Smith]

Don't be in stupid places, where stupid people are doing stupid things.

And how FB!

Strange I've been on this world 60 years and no bad guy has just up and attacked me without warning.

I suspect I have more chance of the ISIS ninjas coming to town than the local bar guy sucker punching me (but then I don't go to bars.)

Deaf

 

[Fred Fuller]

And how FB!

Actually ... how John Farnam

Learning to avoid the ‘S trilogy’ of Stupid People, Stupid Places, and Stupid Things, and how to do that, is not something many people have thought about before taking training. - http://www.examiner.com/article/firearms-trainer-interview-john-farnam

- from Firearms trainer interview – John Farnam
February 11, 2014
9:06 AM MST
by Claude Werner, Atlanta Firearms Examiner

And the full Farnam essay (very much worth reading) can be found at http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-tactical-training/120841-layers-response.html

Or as originally posted on 19 Mar 2003 -

http://defense-training.com/dti/march-2003-quips/

 

[Deaf Smith]

Good read!

Deaf

 

[TomJ]

Marc MacYoung also has an excellent and very comprehensive website called No Nonsense Self Defense. There are too many areas of self defense he addresses for me to comment on here, but the most important thing I took away from it was how our behavior causes us to create or escalate situations, most commonly by us needing to respond to and therefore provoking someone we should simply get away from. This is especially important when you're carrying, as a prosecutor can easily portray you as the aggressor, rightly or wrongly, if you do not do everything possible to de-escalate or remove yourself from the situation. If his book is as good as his web site, it's worth reading.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com

 

[rogerjames]

Another good read is "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin De Becker.

The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence https://www.amazon.com/dp/0440508835/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_LcnMub1DCRFB0

Not so much about self-defense, but more about situational awareness and reacting to your initial instincts. One of the memorable points in the book for me was how he explained that almost all animals react immediately to their initial instincts, but as humans we often try to rationalize away our initial instincts, and often this is the difference between becoming or avoiding victimization. He shares lots of actual stories and cases that he has worked and it makes for an enjoyable, fast, and informative read.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm a little farther into it. It is a big book.

MacYoung spends a lot of time on how a person's moments and actions can weaken or negate a defense of justification. Words and actions that raise the likelihood of violence; excessive force; acting when the danger is not imminent or has passed;....

He also ponts out the dangers of having an attorney who is not experienced in defending self defense cases. It is one thing to be able to read the law, and quite another to understand what the evidence pertaining to a violent encounter actually means and to be able to handle it in a trial.

There is one statement I have read so far that I take issue with---MacYoung writes that a person claiming self defense must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his or her actions were justified. That may be true in some jurisdictions, but in many, it is not.

Will report more as I can.

 

[Snejdarek]

Strange I've been on this world 60 years and no bad guy has just up and attacked me without warning.

I wish I could have said the same. Growing up in a coal mining region and having to commute to town to a high school in a rough neighborhood got me few unpleasant life lessons before I turned 20. I may live in a comparatively safe area now but I am far from saying that bad s#@t doesn't happen for no reason to unsuspecting people.