Self Defense - Your Social & Moral Responsibilities... People often wonder what their social responsibilities are when it comes to self defense and we often hear about nasty cases where people have lost their lives trying to intervene in violent situations involving total strangers. Recently in Britain a high profile case in point was that of the senior Barclays Bank Executive Frank McGarahan - who was murdered by a group of cowardly thugs because he tried to dissuade them from continuing with a vicious assault on two strangers. Mr McGarahan did not try to get violent and he was not aggressive in his intervention, either. He simply tried to persuade the thugs to stop the assault because of its excessive violence and dangerous nature. Another well-known and recent case was that of Terry Malone. Mr Malone tried to calm a drunken thug who was being rowdy at a pub and was severely assaulted - despite his best efforts at diplomacy. There is certainly a moral aspect to life and this morality is as pertinent in the topic of self defense - as it is in other areas of life. What should you do if you see someone in danger - or under attack? It is a very difficult question to answer briefly. The general advice is to steer clear of 'incidents' which do not involve you - but to still ensure you do your best to bring the incidents to the attention of the authorities/police as quickly and discretely as you possibly can, so that they can intervene (and hopefully make a difference). I cannot say this enough. Similar advice, incidentally, is even given in the age-old Biblical Proverbs. Never under-estimate the wisdom of ancient proverbs - such wisdom is often based on long term observations. A lot of the violence which springs up in public places is difficult to judge and assess. Some of it is inter-group violence (with a past history of assault between the parties), some of it is self defense, some of it is common mugging and some of it is unprovoked bullying. You may not always know which of these types of violence you are witnessing - although it doesn't always matter what the background is to violence, if you feel the compulsion to intervene. There are likely to be situations which come to your attention and make you feel compelled to intervene, simply due to their apparent severity. When life is needlessly threatened it places most decent people under stress and makes them want to intervene in some way. The same sense of community comes into play when people support charitable causes in far away countries - or rally to support causes relating to total strangers - and this is a good thing. I often hope, for example, that if a male passer-by spotted my wife and children caught up in a potentially violent 'Road Rage' situation (and about to be attacked by an overly aggressive driver) he would intervene and stop the situation - even though he'd have no knowledge of the parties involved and no history of how the situation developed in the first place. However, from a moral perspective, this view would compell me to do the same for someone else. So I am under a self-imposed moral duty to act in such situations. Perhaps it's too easy for someone in my position to make such judgements/choices - having a strong martial arts background and having been successful in numerous physical confrontations in the past. Would such a position be more difficult to take if circumstances were different? Personally, I don't think so. The New Age Self Defense approach is always one of pragmatism and safety-first. You can intervene in a road rage situation - while still in your car - by simply stopping, hooting and calmy suggesting that the aggressor moves on. Even confirmation that the aggressor's anger is justified may help - just try to get the aggressor to leave without harming anyone. Calming such people down is often possible - by simply refusing to engage in the heated methods of communication often prevalent in such situations. Also, bringing the situation to the attention of other road users by stopping in a position which obstructs other road users puts added pressure on the aggressor to desist from taking the situation any further. If the aggressor were to make a move at you, you could easily drive off and be well clear before he even had a chance to get into his own car and give pursuit. However, it's mandatory that you always phone the police first - if you witness violence and are planning to intervene. Take some key details (like car registration and description of the offender) before you intervene. In the meantime, the presence of your vehicle, stopped near the scene while you are doing those things, will put pressure on an aggressor to calm down - or try to make an escape. If you are going to intervene in a risky or violent situation, please ensure that you have a plan for your own safety, security and/or escape - before you do so. Aim for a non-violent resolution whenever possible, but make a fast advance judgement. There are much more frightening scenarios which could arise in relation to public violence than road rage - and they are even harder to make a call on. I ask people to view it in a certain way. If you see someone in big trouble, it's normally disturbing. Aim to call the police as the first action in all such cases. Usually, that's your social obligation met. However, sometimes you may decide that the police response is not going to come in time to save the person in trouble. If that's the case I urge you to then think as follows: What are your chances of successfully intervening? If you did try to intervene, what chance is there of the aggressors paying attention and withdrawing from the attack? Are there more aggressors in the situation than persons in your party - or are you alone? If you are in a group, is that group likely - or even able to - provide assistance, should the violence be directed at you? Do the agressors know you? Does the victim know you? Do you live nearby? (It's riskier to get directly involved if the incident is clsoe to hime - as it places your home under increased threat in the future). Will your intervention place other people at risk - without their consent?
If you judge that your chances of success are slim you may need to rule out direct personal intervention. However, there are exceptions to this. Sometimes you may not be able to live with yourself if you witnessed a situation occurring and did nothing about it - even though you know you will probably not succeed with (or survive) intervention. In those cases you must make a meaningful mathematical calculation. There is no point in intervention if both you and the victim you are trying to rescue are likely to succumb to the threat. Don't sacrifice your life for no reason. Make the same evaluations outlined above, before you decide what to do next. If you are going to sacrifice yourself the trade-off should be that the person(s) you are trying to save are likely to get away as a result. If it's a hopeless cause then you need to think of your own responsibilities - your own family, your own future, etc - and do the right thing. Intervene only where you'll make a genuine difference. I accept there are some potential situations so appalling that the majority of people will feel compelled to act if they happen to witness such scenes - even though they are fully aware of the possibilities of losing their own lives. The New Age Self Defense approach is to plan ahead of any potential situation - during 'peace time.' If you realise that you potentially fall into the category of people who may be tempted to rise above the fear of personal safety and intervene in a potentially life-threatening situation involving total strangers, then it is important that you have planned your response in advance of such a situation unexpectedly arising. You may even be able to make your decision without ever having faced such a choice in real life. This requires going through a structured prioritisation process. If you were to lose your life would this compromise the future security - or life - of someone for whom you already are responsible? Do you have children (or close family) who depend on you? Are there certain initiatives that you are a part of, which couldn't progress further without you (and are of huge significance to the lives of others)? What are your chances of successfully defending the victim - or yourself - in a violent situation? Do you have any experience of dealing with dangerous physical threats previously? Do you have a weapon you can use for your intervention?
If you make this sort of evaluation in advance it may become easier to suppress impulsive urges when confronted with appaling situations that tug at your heartstrings. You will already have a stance on dealing with such possibilities and your desicion will already have been made about how to behave. I won't prescribe the answers for you - but I suspect that if you made a scientific prioritisation in advance (when you are not under any pressure to actually make such a big decision), you will instinctively know what the right decision is. This way, if you have the misfortune of coming across a situation involving strangers - where you feel pressured to act in some way - you will already have a policy for dealing with this. If your choice is to act (under moral duress) then you should have made all the necessary provisions for this - including competency in combat training, insurance policies to cover financial dependents should you die - and agreement with those closest to you that this is an acceptable way to act in such situations. Often we are answerable to others in the moral decisions we make - and not just to ourselves... It is my hope and prayer that you are never in a situation where you are forced to grapple with such decisions. But if such misfortune does arise, I am hopeful you will be prepared. |