Pacifism and response to real situations

[Sojourner]

Greetings all,

In the Pacifism thread I gave a description of a situation that I asked people to comment on. I did recieve some comments that stated that this situation was "unrealistic" and unlikely to happen.

I would like to put up this short you tube video and I would like to ask you for your responses as to what you would have done and if you think the home owner did the right thing?

The chap concerned is an ex service man and has training in martial arts. What you do not see in this video is his wife and eight month old child hiding in the bedroom after having called the police and hoping they will be there soon.

The point that I would like to bring out is that if you have any understanding of how martial arts work you will realise that once the aggressor is on the ground as he was, that martial artist could have very easilly done a lot more damage and even killed him if he wished to with a kick to the head. The point is that he did not, he showed restraint and allowed him to leave the property.

Anyway I hope this is a more realistic situation, to this day the man in the video does not know who the chap was or what grievance he had and believes it may simply have been a case of the chap mistaking him for someone else having got the wrong address.

http://youtu.be/7yta-hwcJHo

[Ted Oplinger]

That is a very realistic situation. Very commendable.

I do think a reply in the comments section probably said it best - if you're in someone's face, yelling at him, pushing off of him, and grabbing the back of the head - and he's NOT responding - you're not a threat to him. Best get out while you can. However, thugs like this never think rationally. Brute force is the only thing many of these respect - a pacifistic response simply invites more abuse.

Look at how many times this thug used abusive control mechanisms - push-offs, yelling, getting close into one's personal space, grabbing the back of the head. This thug was not leaving until he got the fight he was looking for. He is craving the satisfaction of beating up another human being...commonly called "bloodlust".

I also notice the police never did arrive in time to relieve the situation - the situation escalated to a physical attack well before the police showed up. That tells me 911 is a not valid self-defense option for anyone, but it is a certain way to become a number on the crime statistics sheet.

How would I respond? Not sure. I am no martial arts expert. Yet I do know the Bible does make allowance for self-defense in these cases. Outside, in the daytime, the Bible states people are allowed to use sufficient physical force to incapacitate the offender. It even stipulates certain limits - the ol' kick/grab to the male's privates - commonly advised and invoked today - lands one in court facing a death sentence, regardless of how extreme the defenders thought the situation was. At night, the Bible states unequivocally lethal force could be used without fear of condemnation. This very, very similar to the Castle Law of Texas.

Here in Texas, the thug portrayed in the video would be considered a legal threat at the door step - Castle Law conditions are already met. The film does not show how the situation escalated to this point - whether the man was outside or in when the thug arrived. I do know that a stranger yelling, beating on my 1/2 glass front door, looking to pick a fight - while my wife and children are inside - means I am answering the door armed. As I am a CHL holder, it would be a real gamble for such a person that day whether I would be actively carrying or not when outside the house.

I DO know that had a similar situation been at my house, and the thug did not have sense enough to retreat with the warning, Castle Law would have allowed me to send the thug to the hospital, then to prison. I would step up and use sufficient superior force to protect my wife and children to end the threat, at the expense of the thug - and I would not feel a single twinge of guilt about it. It would not have lasted near as long as the video linked, and would have ended the first time the thug pushed off me.

Sufficient superior force is defined as means I have available to cause the perp to be incapacitated or retreat, ending the conflict. We aren't too picky about the means of delivery, and we do take age, physical size, gender, previous reports, and other mitigating factors into account when it comes to use of lethal force - a small sized, old age person who has been subject to numerous crimes in the past is not going to get prosecuted in Texas for shooting the thug breaking in with evil intent.

If it was someone breaking into my house at night - the intruder would be shot upon refusal to freeze and identify.

There are many who think we have "outgrown" the Old Testament verses defining self-defense of person and home. I think this world's descent back to such sinful states, coupled with such coddling and nurturing of the criminal, means we are far less morally advanced than we claim.

Blessings,

[phkrause]

Again as someone else has posted in another thread, we never know how we will react to any situation. Looked like the guy went along with the idiot until he had enough. I remember a story they had on FoxNews, not sure of the reporters name, but after this she either quit or was let go by them. Anyway she reported about a guy who took a girl hostage by gun point, she talk to the guy for hours, if I'm not mistaken. She told him how Jesus loved him, etc., etc., and he finally let her go. I thought that was pretty cool. Its been a few years now, so not sure exactly of all other details.

[phkrause]

Here's an interesting article I came across today. Not sure if its appropriate in this thread or not, but thought I'd post it anyway. Might post it in others if I think it'll fit there as well.

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2013-1507&page=24