The value of just walking away

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
3,704
Location
Arlington, Republic of Texas
We seemed to have a number of recent threads and stories with a somewhat common theme. Someone gets slighted or bothered in public by another person and they feel the need to do or say something about it. From something overt like cutting in line at a Black Friday sale to just walking behind someone. Even playing music at a gas station. In each instance the person who got bothered or uncomfortable either felt like doing and saying something, or actually went ahead in did it. In one case, telling some kids to turn their music down ended in a shooting.

I think some of us are losing sight of the value of just walking away. There are two aspects to this. The tactical advisability of confrontation, and whether it's "right".

The tactical standpoint should be pretty straightforward. When you confront someone, you are introducing a possible flash point to an already unstable situation. You never know if those kids in the car, that obnoxious guy at the bar, those guys on the trail are violent felons, off duty cops, drug addicts, or just normal people who might act out when scared. Confrontation breeds confrontations. The "alpha male" aspect of someone's mind might act up and that guy you're just telling to back off cause he almost spilled your drink might just feel the need to punch you in the face because he's drunk and needs to feel like he's in charge. In the case of the line cutting last week, the line cutter actually did turn around and punch a guy. And then a weapon was produced and what could have been 2 minutes of a man just feeling pissed off turned into an entire self-defense legal ordeal. Over feeling offended.

The bottom line is, unless someone is directly threatening you, another person, or your property, just swallowing your anger and indignation and walking away is the best option in probably 99%+ cases.


The second aspect is whether or not it's "right". As in, do you actually have the right to ask something, or worse, try to "tell them". In some cases yes, in other cases no. Don't forget, you DO NOT have the right not to be offended. When you leave your property and enter the public, you become equal to every other citizen out there. Your desires, feelings, likes and dislikes, sense of honor, etc all are exactly equal to someone else's. If they make you uncomfortable...so what. They have the right to do so. If some stranger is doing something completely legal, non-threatening, and non-destructive; I'm sorry but you just don't really have the right to approach them and try to push your standard of behavior on them. You feel music should be listened to at one volume, they feel it should be at another. Who's right? In public, you both are. As long as it's legal. If I walk somewhere and you feel I'm "too close" or being behind you makes your comfortable...sorry but I have the right to walk where I want in public. Just like you do.

What can you do when someone does something in public you just don't like? Maybe he's standing too close, or listening to loud music, or he just looks funny. How about go somewhere else? That's usually the best bet. If you can't or don't want to do that, your only other option is to ask. And that means explicitly putting it in the form of a yes/no question. Meaning they do indeed have the right to tell you "no".

"Hey buddy, could you be so kind as to stand a little bit farther away?"
"Sure man" OR "No, I don't feel like it"

He has the the right to do what he wants in public. You may not like it, but he still does. Part of being an adult in public means learning to accept that there are times when other people enjoying their rights might make you feel uncomfortable. Just as your rights might make them uncomfortable. Your standard of behavior, your idea of "this is how people should act" can NOT be enforced on others.


If you try to "tell" them, it can end far far worse.

"Hey buddy, back off. You're standing too close"
"Make me"

Now what? How exactly do you enforce that? Push him? Punch him? Put your hand on your gun and say "you know, doing something like that is a good way to get a gun pulled on you"
Congratulations, you've now just lost all moral high ground and committed a crime. Now in addition to earning some very appropriate legal consequences for assaulting another citizen because "you felt uncomfortable", you now have the very real possibility he might respond to your force with force of his own. Now what?


How about instead of all of that, you pick up your drink, or get in your car, or sling your backpack...and just walk away. Your feelings are not worth getting hurt or hurting someone else over. Ever.
 
Last edited:
Well said.

It can all be summed up by minding our own individual businesses.

Don't believe that you are BETTER than anyone else.
 
The bottom line is, unless someone is directly threatening you, another person, or your property, just swallowing your anger and indignation and walking away is the best option is probably 99%+ cases.

Bingo!!! There are folks in jail who wish they had walked away.
 
Posted by Ragnar Danneskjold: I think some of us are losing sight of the value of just walking away. There are two aspects to this. The tactical advisability of confrontation, and whether it's "right".
I believe that there is a third aspect. Should things break down and violence ensue, evidence that one attempted to leave would go a long way toward supporting a defense of lawful justification.

The bottom line is, unless someone is directly threatening you, another person, or your property, just swallowing your anger and indignation and walking away is the best option is probably 99%+ cases.
It is a good idea even if someone is threatening you.
 
There's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. I believe you have every right to be assertive if someone does something to offend or wrong you. It's all in how you say it, though. If someone gets violent from me asserting myself, I do not believe it is my fault. However, if I am aggressive, that is going to get an aggressive response, and I can see where that would be an issue.

For example, if someone is playing loud music, I can ask them to turn it down, because I do not like loud noises. They might comply, they might say "no" and just ignore me (at which point I'll have to put up with it), or they might get angry and pull a knife on me. In the later case, the overreaction to my request is not on me; it is on them.

However, if I go up to the guy and say "you need to turn that <explicative> down right now!" Well, I can understand him getting angry with me. Him exercising violence is still not okay, but I can see how I put myself in the situation at that point.

I will agree that it is never okay to say "that's a good way to get yourself shot."
 
I saw each of the stories you alluded to and am still shaking my head...

Being cordial and accommodating others (even obnoxious others) is THR way of living.

If you know you have a short fuse, perhaps you should avoid scenarios likely to tick you off... or avoid availing yourself to the means of doing something really, really stupid.

The expectation that you should/can coerce others to not be obnoxious or rude is a risky business to get involved with.

If you're going to go there.... wisdom, tact, subtlety, humor and if absolutely needed being able to deploy defensive measures by degree (with non-lethal options) are the best tools.
 
If you're going to go there.... wisdom, tact, subtlety, humor and if absolutely needed being able to deploy defensive measures by degree (with non-lethal options) are the best tools.

Yep!
 
There's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. I believe you have every right to be assertive if someone does something to offend or wrong you. It's all in how you say it, though. If someone gets violent from me asserting myself, I do not believe it is my fault.
You could be dead right.
 
I think we can all agree that being aggressive is very unwise in almost all instances.

So, the remaining question is, is being "assertive" the way that is most likely to get you what you want?
 
I feel that Ragnar's original post covers it... that being said, some other posters have made good points. While I am in complete agreement about the difference between being assertive and being aggressive, it behooves one to remember that what is "assertive" to one person, IS "aggressive" to another. Imperfect communication skills can lead to serious misunderstandings; I might believe I am just "standing up for myself"... to the other person, I am acting like an aggressive *******, and THEIR pride demands they answer in kind, especially if in the presence of their "girl", or their "boys". Smart move.... WALK AWAY!!!
 
<Post 15 hit while I was typing--we seem to be of a like mind of this.>

But we'll always be left with the simple fact that one man's "assertive" is another man's "aggressive."

If I stand up for my simplest little right, something like not having to hear someone's music, and I ask him to please turn it down, he may see my behavior as aggressive. He may be so connected to his music and his right to play it the way he wants that my respectful request strikes him as not only completely unreasonable but downright belligerent. "How dare this guy oppose me!" he might think. So, even though I was being respectful and only mildly assertive, he sees me as a flaming _____ and lashes back disproportionately. If he happens to be carrying, it could get deadly real fast.

Escalation is inevitable with some people. No matter how kind we are to them, their shoulder chip requires them to fight back even when they're not being attacked. (It's worth noting also that today's legal philosophy regarding "offense" is that it is defined by the hearer of the message rather than by the deliverer of the message. How it was meant is beside the point--how it was taken is everything.) Since in a public setting you can't accurately predict which people are like this, it's almost always better to swallow your pride, suck it up for the moment, and remember that discretion is the better part...

A fight avoided is always better than a fight won.
 
Last edited:
I don't like the notion that just because someone MAY get offended and if they are offended they MAY respond with violence, that we should never speak up for what we want or what we feel is right.
 
Part of being an adult in public means learning to accept that there are times when other people enjoying their rights might make you feel uncomfortable. Just as your rights might make them uncomfortable. Your standard of behavior, your idea of "this is how people should act" can NOT be enforced on others.

Suppose the other guy decides to violate your right to mind your own business?

Should he have the power to ORDER you stop doing something or to leave some place where you have a perfectly legal right to be?

That is why some states have stand your ground laws. Without them the agressor has more rights than person minding his own business. That being said, OF COURSE you should try to avoid trouble and walk away if you can but the danger is that once the 'duty to retreat' is codified into law it can get to the point that you can be expected to flee your own home rather than confront an intruder. This gives the intruder more power over you and your property than you have.
 
"The monkey dance" is a good way to get in trouble.

Genuine crime is a different deal from the monkey dance.

Knowing the difference between them, and learning to recognize and avoid either one before they develop fully, is a critical skill.
 
How about instead of all of that, you pick up your drink, or get in your car, or sling your backpack...and just walk away. Your feelings are not worth getting hurt or hurting someone else over. Ever.

Ill go so far as to say this has been lost on my generation and those younger.
 
Skribs, it's not as simple as never or always. It's about making a conscious decision based on one's personal level of tolerance of the inconvenience imposed by this other person balanced against his tolerance of risk exposure.

If to you it's worth the chance that this complete stranger "music lover" might knife you to potentially obtain the benefit of having that boom boom music go away, feel free to ask him to turn it down. I might do that, depending on the rest of the context. Without exact context, I can't know whether I would or not. What I like to think I would do is smile at the guy and say, "Hey, how's it going?" and that he'll respond by turning down the music to hear what I'm saying.
 
Posted by Owen Sparks, in response to "your standard of behavior, your idea of 'this is how people should act' can NOT be enforced on others": Suppose the other guy decides to violate your right to mind your own business?
Quite obviously, the principle applies equally to all parties.

Think of it this way: to the other guy, you are the other guy.

That is why some states have stand your ground laws. Without them the agressor has more rights than person minding his own business.
I'm afraid that shows a misunderstanding of the raison d'etre for "stand your ground" laws.

The duty to retreat if safely possible was long embodied in the common law. It went back to the days of contact weapons. The problems were two-fold but intertwined: (1) the law often imposed what sometimes became an undue burden on the defender, in requiring him to produce evidence of why he had reasonable believed that safe retreat was not possible, which could be unduly difficult and involved; and (2) (and this first came up in a SCOTUS case more than a century ago), the advent if firearms has made retreat a less than safe alternative in many circumstances.

One should never assume, however, that the elimination of the duty to retreat obviates the need for a reasonable belief that force or deadly force was in fact immediately necessary as a last resort.

Without them the agressor has more rights than person minding his own business.
That again demonstrates a misunderstanding.

That being said, OF COURSE you should try to avoid trouble and walk away if you can...
Of course.

...but the danger is that once the 'duty to retreat' is codified into law it can get to the point that you can be expected to flee your own home rather than confront an intruder.
The second part of that has sometimes been true, but you need to get your timeline right.

The duty to retreat, while not codified, was part of the law many centuries ago. It was part of the law of the thirteen original colonies and of that of every sate and US territory. An English-born surveyor maned George Washington had a duty to retreat, and so did Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, William Henry Lee, and Aaron Burr, not to mention Daniel Boone, David Crockett, and Jim Bridger.

Where the duty to retreat has been eliminated, either by case law or by legislatures, that is a more recent development.

This gives the intruder more power over you and your property than you have.
No.
 
There's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. I believe you have every right to be assertive if someone does something to offend or wrong you. It's all in how you say it, though. If someone gets violent from me asserting myself, I do not believe it is my fault.

I agree completely Skribs. It's not confrontational if you ask someone to do something, it's all in how you ask.

Rags nonsense about me at a bar and spilled drinks is a perfect example. I turned to the guy bumping into me and asked him to give me some space. Yes, that could end up in a confrontation, but to say you shouldn't ever ask someone to give you some room because it might turn out badly? lol

Now, if I had turned and said, "Get the hell away from me jerk, before I bust your head open!" The onus is on me for being confrontational.

If I ask a guy to stop bumping into me without being confrontational and he still elects to become violent, the fault lies with him being the aggressor.
 
In my state there is no duty to retreat. Here is the section of the law that applies:

A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

Again, you should walk away if you can but an aggressor does not have the power to MAKE you walk away in my state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top