The value of just walking away

[Shadow 7D]

Damnit boy
THAT IS the monkey dance...
Two monkeys indignant, insisting they are 'right'
dancing

ever watch the nature channel

You can be right,
you can stand on your right
you can spout the ideals of your right

don't change you're dead
wiser to pick your battles, remember John Wayne died too, over and over
except he was make believe, reality, you don't get sequels.

 

[Plan2Live]

Based on the majority of the replies here it is obvious we have already lost the battle and it's just a matter of time before we cower in our homes. And when the "irritations" move closer and closer and finally follow us home, maybe not inside our home or it's cutilage, but close enough that we are inside our homes and still turning the other cheek and practicing walk-away tolerence, then where do we go to hide?

 

[beatledog7]

I'm not creating a confrontation if I ask someone to stop doing something that most would consider rude or inconsiderate. As long as I'm not being rude or confrontational when I ask - no harm, no foul.

The fallacy in this statement is that you simply do not know what this person may consider rude or confrontational. It makes no difference what you or most people would think--it only matters what the guy you're approaching thinks.

Try this today. When you're driving, or standing in a line, or at work, or wherever, and somebody does something that causes you to feel that you must intervene, resist intervention instead. Take a deep breath, bear up, and tolerate the behavior for the brief period that you must co-exist with it.

When it has passed, ask yourself if NOT intervening caused you any harm. I bet it didn't.

 

[Specs]

I think that the missing point here is that the offender has already PROVEN himself to be a boor, rude, and a problem, which indicates either poor judgement or deliberate provocation. I don't know about the rest of you, but I maintain that the High Road leads only one way here, and that is away from meaningless confrontation.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

we have already lost the battle

What exactly are you battling against?

Rude behavior? Who's definition of rude are you using?
People being inconsiderate? Who's consideration is supposed to be taken into account?
Improper, scandalous, or disgraceful behavior? Whose standards should the public as a whole use to determine what is proper?

I think you're forgetting that your standards are only you own. And the minute you enter the public, they immediately become just as valid as everyone else's. No more, no less.

We live in a nation of liberty, rights, and laws. We have the right to enjoy life as we see fit so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. To determine how we judge if rights are being infringed, and how to deal with people who do, we pass laws. Therefore I'll answer the above questions for you.

Who's definition of rude are you using? The Law's.
Who's consideration is supposed to be taken into account? The Law's.
Whose standards should the public as a whole use to determine what is proper? The Law's.

We use law to standardize what behavior is acceptable, and what is not. Without law, we revert to fighting one another to determine which standard of behavior we use. That's not civilization. If think some of you are forgetting that other people have a right to enjoy themselves in public just as much as you do. When their definition of enjoyment conflicts with yours, we look to the law. If our laws say the behavior is OK, than it is. Don't like it? Go home and enforce your own will on your property. That's your right too. But that right to enforce you will ends again the moment you leave your property and enter the public and your opinions become just as valid as anyone else's.

 

[45_auto]

There's a difference between being assertive and being aggressive.

What's the difference? You believe that it somehow makes you better if you're "confidently aggressive" rather than just normally aggressive?

as·ser·tive

confidently aggressive or self-assured; positive: aggressive; dogmatic: He is too assertive as a salesman.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by DammitBoy: If their reaction is boorish, I'm prepared to deal with it. If their reaction becomes violent I'm prepared to deal with that. If a threat escalates and requires me drawing a firearm, I'm prepared for that too.

I'm afraid that that point of view reflects a great deal of naivete. What you obviously haven't considered realistically is the aftermath.

You have described a hypothetical situation in which you have done nothing wrong in speaking to someone, and in which someone reacts in a manner that you consider unreasonable; things escalate, and possibly, you are forced into protecting yourself, perhaps by drawing a firearm; and perhaps worse. That may be what actually unfolds.

The problem is, there is a high likelihood that only your account will describe the events that way. That won't get you very far at all.

The other fellow and his friends will certainly tell a different story. Witnesses whose attention had been drawn to the situation only after it started to unfold will likely remember and describe your drawing pointing your firearm, normally an unlawful act, without any apparent reason. Others who had not been paying close attention before things went south will remember your setting forth to talk to the person whom you think to have wronged your sensibilities, but it is extremely unlikely they will be able to substantiate your account of not having instigated a confrontation yourself.

These witnesses will earnestly and truly believe that you were the instigator, and it is extremely likely that they will convince investigators, a grand jury, and a trial jury likewise.

And you could have avoided it all very simply at the outset.by walking away

For a really excellent lecture on witness psychology, replete with actual examples, I strongly suggest attending Mas Ayoob's MAG-20.

 

[Hangingrock]

Getting past your inexperienced youth I know of three individuals that may have wished they’d just walked away. One a boxer of some repute good enough to have been to the Pan American games trashed in a street fight. An individual in Oceanside California killed in a fight when the opponent opted to use a knife. Panama Canal Zone an individual has a dispute with a hooker’s pimp. The pimp places two shots to the individual’s stomach. The individual survives barely thanks to prompt first aid and a surgical team experienced in treating such wounds.

 

[JustinJ]

Carrying a gun should only be additional incentive for a person to act they way they should without one. With or without a gun one should not be belligerent or aggressive but i don't believe it unreasonable to request others respect social standards of courtesy. If they react unfavorably then disengage. I had some neighbors playing music at excessive levels from their vehicles which i could hear from my inside my home. Like most places my town has noise ordinances. I could have just called the police but realized that would be unneighborly and could have likely resulted resentment and future hostility. So i simply walked across the street and politely asked them to reduce the volume as it was disturbing me in my home. They apologized, turned down the music and that was that. How things are said is just as important sometimes as what is said. Had they refused i would have simply returned to my home and called the police. I also have asked people on more than one occasion to not talk during a movie. Other times i've simply complained to management as the offenders were so obnoxious that it was obvious they had no regard for others. Remember there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[beatledog7]

Dammitboy, I agree with Kleanbore. You're only looking at the immediate situation, and you're taking a macho attitude that will rarely serve you well.

Confront someone in public, and you will likely lose. Remember, in sports it's almost never the player who throws the first punch or utters the first taunt who get's flagged or whistled; it's the one who retaliates.

 

[Knockdownpower]

I try to mind my own business. Loud music, dirty looks, some one gives you the finger, who cares. The person is probably a dumb *** so it really doesn't matter. A real threat of physical violance or harm is why I think most of us carry. My 2 cents.

 

[Skribs]

The point is that you're preparing for a very low probability event in this case but trying to dismiss the risk of another very low probability event in another situation using the low probability of the event as rationalization.

If you really believed that a low probability of occurrence is sufficient justification for ignoring risk, (as you suggest it is when considering the outcome of an avoidable confrontation) then you should also ignore the risk of a violent attack in the first place since it is also a low probability occurrence.

If you're going to prepare for a violent attack in spite of the fact that it's a low probability event then, in the same way, it makes sense to take the potentially negative outcome of creating an avoidable confrontation into account even though you believe that there's a low probability of a significantly negative outcome.

Basically, what I'm saying is that although you are trying to justify ignoring the potential for a significantly negative outcome when creating a confrontation (based on the low probability of the negative outcome), your decision to carry a gun means that you don't really believe your own rationalization. If you really believed that it's unnecessary to prepare for low probability events you would stop carrying a gun.

The bottom line is that you don't like the idea of ignoring things that offend you and so you're rationalizing a reason why it makes sense to create confrontations. If that weren't true, you could provide a reason for your decision that is consistent with your demonstrated general philosophy about self-defense.

I've said it in a slightly different context before, but the chances of being attacked have nothing to do with the amount of firepower I need if attacked. There are risks in everything you do in life. Most sports carry with them an inherent risk. Should I avoid the ocean because I might drown? Should I avoid snowboarding because I might break my leg or neck?

The difference is that me carrying a gun has otherwise very little impact on me. However, people pushing me around or just generally being ignorant/inconsiderate of others feelings does impact me.

I think that the missing point here is that the offender has already PROVEN himself to be a boor, rude, and a problem, which indicates either poor judgement or deliberate provocation. I don't know about the rest of you, but I maintain that the High Road leads only one way here, and that is away from meaningless confrontation.

Really? Because I've met a lot of people who like loud music who will turn it down if someone else asks.

A lot of the posts in this thread make it sound like I should just shuffle through life without ever making eye contact with anyone, for fear that I might provoke them to attack me and then have to defend myself in court. Almost like the Butterfly Effect in regards to social interraction. I am prepared to defend myself if need be, but I don't treat every person I come accross as someone who is likely to try and kill me if I blink once too many times or happen to be wearing the wrong shoes in his/her presence.

I could have just called the police but realized that would be unneighborly and could have likely resulted resentment and future hostility. So i simply walked across the street and politely asked them to reduce the volume as it was disturbing me in my home. They apologized, turned down the music and that was that.

This is a big reason why I like to deal with things directly. There are two ways to get people to do what you want: force and reason. I'd rather attempt reason (asking politely) before force (calling the cops), especially if the person offending me isn't being violent.

Dammitboy, I agree with Kleanbore. You're only looking at the immediate situation, and you're taking a macho attitude that will rarely serve you well.

How is being polite and requesting someone respect my rights being "macho"?

 

[DammitBoy]

Dammitboy, I agree with Kleanbore. You're only looking at the immediate situation, and you're taking a macho attitude that will rarely serve you well.

Confront someone in public, and you will likely lose. Remember, in sports it's almost never the player who throws the first punch or utters the first taunt who get's flagged or whistled; it's the one who retaliates.

I don't take any kind of macho attitude and I always evaluate the situation before I act. Asking someone to do you a favor and move back or step away or whatever is not confrontational or "macho" unless your attitude and presentation make it so.

"Hey, can you give me a little space?" or "Would you mind giving me some room?" is not confrontational.

As to kleanbore's comments, I'm not pulling a firearm unless someone comes at me with deadly intent and a weapon. That is what any witness will see. I act the same whether I am carrying or not and since I don't carry in a bar - that would not be an issue in the scenario I described that has happened to me on numerous occasions.

I've worked as a bouncer in a very rowdy club, I've been involved in bar fights that I did not instigate. I've been stabbed, hit with a baseball bat, hit with a crowbar and been bum rushed 13-2 when I was one of the two. In none of those situations did I draw a firearm - I'm quite aware of the potential aftermath and make my judgments accordingly on a case by case basis.

 

[Apachedriver]

Kleanbore

I've got to ask 2 questions.

What would the better course of action have been for the photographer?

Why did you get involved in the situation?

If you're a LEO, I get it. If not, then why go contrary to what's being shared here about the value of walking away, or in other threads, about just being a good witness.

I'm not picking a fight, I'm just asking for context.

 

[beatledog7]

Dammitboy, it doesn't matter what you think is confrontational. The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the guy you're addressing. Until you get your head around that concept, you'll always act as if you're the one standing on the unassailable moral high ground. You aren't.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Apachedriver: I've got to ask 2 questions.

What would the better course of action have been for the photographer?

Why did you get involved in the situation?

If you're a LEO, I get it. If not, then why go contrary to what's being shared here about the value of walking away, or in other threads, about just being a good witness.

I'm not picking a fight, I'm just asking for context.

Excellent questions.

First one first. There is an unwritten rule among photographers that they should not get in the way of others who are taking pictures. It is customary for them to establish a "photo line" and to request that others stay behind it. Sometime that works, and sometimes their requests are ignored.

In the incident I described, a woman inadvertently stepped between the photographer and a moving subject for which he had ben waiting for some time. He had two choices: to forego taking the picture, or to ask her politely to stay aside for a moment. He chose the latter. I do not think it was inappropriate for him to do so to do so.

Now to the second question. I was the closest witness. I knew the photographer personally. I saw two choices: watch a violent attack that had already started, or make the attacker aware of the fact that there were witnesses and that his course of action was inappropriate. I chose the latter. It worked, and I believe it highly likely that one or both of the others would have been seriously injured had I not spoken up.

The takeaway points are twofold:

1. The man's sudden and violent attack in response to a reasonable and polite request tells us something about the risks we face when interacting with strangers these days. It tells us that avoiding confrontations, when it is reasonably possible to do so, is often the most prudent course of action.
2. The fact that several of the winesses, who had been in different places, gave different accounts warns us to not rely on the old saw, "a good shoot is a good shoot." Some of them actually thought that the photographer had started the attack. Since I was much closer, I knew better, but had things gone south, and had I not been there....

By the way, the incident occurred about three hundred feet from, and within sight of, a police station.

 

[Skribs]

Dammitboy, it doesn't matter what you think is confrontational. The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the guy you're addressing. Until you get your head around that concept, you'll always act as if you're the one standing on the unassailable moral high ground. You aren't.

The problem with this concept is that the takeaway is to never interract with strangers, because anything you do or don't do can be perceived as disrespect by someone who wants an excuse to fight. It's just like that GPS commercial where the guy goes up to a girl and starts to ask "Can you tell me how to get to-" but then gets interrupted as she empties a bottle of pepper spray into his face.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Skribs: The problem with this concept is that the takeaway is to never interract with strangers, because anything you do or don't do can be perceived as disrespect by someone who wants an excuse to fight.

Can't we use some perspective here?

 

[beatledog7]

The problem with this concept is that the takeaway is to never interract with strangers, because anything you do or don't do can be perceived as disrespect by someone who wants an excuse to fight.

I wouldn't go that far. Interaction with a stranger can start with a smile and a "Hi, how ya doin?" Even a stranger who's annoying you can be greeted in this manner, and doing so opens the door to civility. If the first words you say to the annoyer are about the annoyance, you have failed to induce civility and have instead opened the encounter with what could easily be seen as a confrontation.

Stranger's music too loud? Try this: "Hey, how yo doin' today?" <He answers in a like manner.> "Could you help me? I was hearing your music and I can't for the life of me identify the artist. Who is that?" <He tells you, and may even be pleased that you took an interest.> The conversation is now civil. You may not even have to ask him to turn it down--he may do so on his own so that he can better share with you about this artist he likes.

Any problem with that?

 

[Skribs]

KB, that's what I've been saying. The issue is that the attitude of the thread has been such that because any time you interract with someone, you run the risk of them getting offended even if you didn't mean to offend them, and therefore run the risk of being violent in response to that perceived offense. This is compounded with the fact that you want to avoid violent confrontation, so you should essentially avoid offending people. The problem is, not knowing what may or may not set someone off, your best option is to not interract with them at all.

This sounds to me a lot like what led to the plot of things such as the movie Equillibrium, except it tackles the issue from a different standpoint. It forced everyone to live the same basic life, free of emotion, so there is never any reason for someone to be considered less or more, or someone to get offended.

ETA: Posted while I was typing:

I wouldn't go that far. Interaction with a stranger can start with a smile and a "Hi, how ya doin?" Even a stranger who's annoying you can be greeted in this manner, and doing so opens the door to civility. If the first words you say to the annoyer are about the annoyance, you have failed to induce civility and have instead opened the encounter with what could easily be seen as a confrontation.

When I worked at Albertson's, we were not allowed to interfere with potential shoplifters, but rather were told to (while not being physically in their way) provide good customer service to let them know they're being watched. Depending on the person's state of mind, "Hi, how ya doin?" can be an infringement on their desire for everyone else around them to mind their own business, especially if they assume you to be sarcastic or trying to con them. So yes, by the standard that someone might get offended and therefore react violently, "hi, how ya doin?" is risky behavior.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

We're not talking about greetings or just talking at all.

We're talking about attempting to impose your desires on another person. You want to modify their behavior in some way, and so you approach them to do so. That's the topic.

 

[hso]

The OP put it very well!

My version is "behave like a mature adult and avoid confrontations instead of acting like an uncivilized misanthrope with a chip on the shoulder".

 

[beatledog7]

We're talking about attempting to impose your desires on another person. You want to modify their behavior in some way, and so you approach them to do so. That's the topic.

Therein lies the trouble. The idea that we have some right to do this in a public context is misguided and flawed in the first place.

 

[Skribs]

Therein lies the trouble. The idea that we have some right to do this in a public context is misguided and flawed in the first place.

I have every right to so. I have the right to be offended and speak up, and the other guy has the right to appease me, be offended, and/or ignore my request.

We're talking about attempting to impose your desires on another person. You want to modify their behavior in some way, and so you approach them to do so. That's the topic.

It's really sad that nowadays a polite request for someone to consider the feelings of others is being brought up as a bad idea because the other person might get offended. The attitude I get, and its an attitude I detest, is that my feelings and rights are less important than those of a person who is doing something to offend me, because it is tactically viable to elevate his rights above mine. I do not agree with the philosophy behind that position.

 

[Creature]

We're not talking about greetings or just talking at all.

We're talking about attempting to impose your desires on another person. You want to modify their behavior in some way, and so you approach them to do so. That's the topic.

Wrong. The topic is about NOT allowing someone else to impose their desires/will over mine. Loud music damaging my ears...someone cutting in line ahead of me, etc.