Non-resistance in the Face of Violence is not Always the Answer
I read about the grandmothers in a beauty salon who were bludgeoned by a robber with a hammer this week:
Notice the sentence in the article making mention that the women did not resist but were beaten anyway. It's as if the writer of the article expected the very act of non-resistance to be met with non-injury. That's what we're always being told, isn't it? Comply with a thug's wishes and you won't get hurt.
What would happen if women in a similar beauty salon robbery did fight back and instead of a hammer, the perp had a gun? Well, you can see for yourself--thanks to Tam and her commenter's for pointing this story out. In a video outside a Shreveport, Louisiana beauty school, women described what they did to man coming in to rob the place at gunpoint and they were having none of it. "I tripped him," said one woman. Then the rest of them pounced on him and beat him until he was the one being carried to a hospital.
A 41-year-old man stormed a beauty salon and bludgeoned four grandmothers with a hammer, fracturing one's skull, before making off with less than $90, police said.
Thomas Leyshon III, of Mountain Top, was arrested after a daylong manhunt Friday.
The women, ages 56 to 76, did not resist but were beaten anyway, witnesses said. At least one required surgery.
"It takes a coward to go after some old women," said Andy Chopka, grandson of victim Jeanna Chopka.
Notice the sentence in the article making mention that the women did not resist but were beaten anyway. It's as if the writer of the article expected the very act of non-resistance to be met with non-injury. That's what we're always being told, isn't it? Comply with a thug's wishes and you won't get hurt.
What would happen if women in a similar beauty salon robbery did fight back and instead of a hammer, the perp had a gun? Well, you can see for yourself--thanks to Tam and her commenter's for pointing this story out. In a video outside a Shreveport, Louisiana beauty school, women described what they did to man coming in to rob the place at gunpoint and they were having none of it. "I tripped him," said one woman. Then the rest of them pounced on him and beat him until he was the one being carried to a hospital.
posted by Helen at 1:22 PM
56 Comments:
I'd seen that story before (the one from the school of beauty and self-defense), and I have to admit that it makes me laugh delightedly every time. May the same happen to every burglar, robber, tagger and sundry self-important miscreant.
Non resistance let 3000 people get killed by a few guys with box cutters. If compliance was in my best interest they wouldn't need the threat of violence to get me to cooperate.
Kept pulling him back in and beating him! Man, dem's my kinda women.
Hope the bastard's crippled.
Yes, but the old ladies who let themselves be beaten half to death are morally superior to the women who faught back. That's the important thing. Or so I'm told...
Here's my take on the whole non-violence thing as it applies to self-defence: In a Christian and Buddhist context, non-violence is a spiritual exercise. Both religions emphasize detachment from the physical body - Christians because the spirit is more important, Buddhists because attachment to the physical body is one of the causes of suffering. Not protecting yourself, not resisting when violence is done to the body, is supposed to help you become less attached to the imperfect, physical world. Same as any other austerity like dressing and eating simply, giving away your posessions, etc. In the popular imagination, however, this practical regimen got translated into the more suffering you inflict on yourself, the more spiritual you are. The act (like letting yourself be beaten) became more important than the result (spiritual progress) - just a way of racking up brownie points with God. And not performing the act - as in defending yourself as any normal creature would naturally do - became a reason for guilt.
Gandhi didn't help much. His avocation of non-violence was not designed to cover every situation in everyone's life. It was a deliberately chosen tactic. If Indians remained non-violent in the face of British oppression, it made the seem British more brutal and undermined their sense of themselves as "civilized" in comparison with the darker races. It generated much more sympathy for the Indians than would violent reactions on their part. And it reinforced his identification as a Hindu holy man, increasing his support among Indians.
Somehow all of this got further translated into "violence doesn't solve anything" and people shouldn't defend themselves.
Personally, I'll settle for living a normal human life - leave sainthood (Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Liberal) for the superior to enjoy.
Sorry, that was barely coherent. My point was that insisting that everyone practice non-violence is like insisting that everyone become a saint. Just acting like a saint - letting yourself get beat up - won't turn you into a saint. History shows that only a tiny minority are cut out for sainthood or even striving for sainthood. You shouldn't be punished if you're not in that minority.
That's also barely coherent. Maybe I should writ about something nice - like kittens! I like kittens...
Kinda depends on the Buddhist.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate.
I suppose that these women are Hindus.
My favorite part about the video is the police officer chuckling as he says "they were hitting him with everything they could," at :36 - :38.
I think you misspelled the title here, it's spelled N-E-V-E-R. Non-resistance only works when it is not eventually met with violence.
Bugs,
Could you let us in on the source for the alleged Christian teaching that "emphasize[s] detachment from the physical body", contra, say Paul on the body? I believe that you are thinking of Gnosticism.
Not to "blame the victims," but as soon as the thug took the first swing with the hammer at the first granny, it should have been clear that non-resistance was NOT the proper strategy.
At that point, there were three uninjured women and one thug. Don't tell me that there wasn't SOMETHING in a beauty parlor that couldn't have been used as a weapon in response: Something hot, something caustic, something sharp like scissors. They should have jumped him rather than wait to be beaten.
Passivity in the face of imminent, perhaps fatal, physical harm is simply stupid, suicidal or both. And stupidity does not equate to moral superiority or any other kind of moral-ity. Suicide by inaction is just dead. No one gets any special points.
I'm with you Bugs. I have had to rethink Gandhi ever since Rwanda, Bosnia and then 9/11 untied the neat pacifist package I was boxed up in.
At this point, I appreciate his tactics as perfect genius against a power that prized itself on Justice and equality under the law. Hell, the Brits invented it with the Magna Carta, and America is part of the same lineage, so MLKing's and Gandhi's tactics succeeded magnificently. Alas, too well, if we think we can apply it to every circumstance. Could we attempt it as members of a village in Gaza? Venezuela? There are no doubt unmarked graves that hold the answer.
We never know how we will react until it happens to us. When I lived in downtown Baltimore (zipcode is 2.2 square miles and has posted 19 murders year to date) I had rehearsed in my mind that were I mugged, I'd give my purse over and run in the other direction. I didn't. I held on and I screamed and screamed and screamed until my neighbors came pouring out of their houses and scared him away. I didn't react the way I'd prepared And I can remember deciding not to be the one to escalate to violence. All I'm saying is that we can have views on these things and at the crucial moment not respond in accordance with those views. Of course, in my case he didn't pull the knife until about the time the neighbors appeared so it never really got violent.
Buddhism is about non-violence... until it's time to defend yourself. The world's foremost martial arts were developed by Buddhist monks.
I honestly don't know what I'd do if confronted by a threat like that. I like to think I'd fight back, if I saw there was no other way out.
Bugs,
Stick with kittens. I've been a Christian for nearly 20 years and have attended many churches of various denominations and not a single pastor has every preached that we should let people beat the snot out of us to enhance our spirituality and further our journey to sainthood. Especially since achieving sainthood isn't a goal of your average everyday Chrstian.
Now, about those kittens. I'm allergic to them, but to each his own.
"Passivity in the face of...harm is simply stupid, suicidal or both."
And demanding that others be passive is simply criminal and should be regarded as morally equivalent to homocide.
While not the most Christian response, it certainly *is* a response;
Jesus said to turn the other cheek when someone slaps you. What happens if he slaps you again? The Lord didn't say. My guess is, it would be time to kick his nuts.
Plus, this is an individual situation. Render unto Caesar also.
The apostles were nonplussed at the masters teaching. So Peter pipes up and asks, "But Master, how many times are we to turn our cheeks, as many as seven?" The master respondedsharply, "Even so many as seven times seventy!" Peter silently calculated, that' 490, so let's get smack'n.
I used to teach self-defense and had tons of anecdotes about women successfully repelling attackers, most of whom had never taken a self-defense course. (Also these were all unarmed self-defense. Guns are wonderful but not the appropriate response to everything.)
Police will tell you their primary job is not to save you from criminals, because they can't be everywhere at once. They like citizens who can fight back. At least here in the US - I hear things are different in the UK....
Google "turn the other cheek" for various interpretations of the passage's meaning.
Personally, I tend to discount modern interpretations that fail to place passages within their historical and cultural contexts.
In this case, a slap across the face was an insult, not a life threatening event, so the lesson Jesus was imparting was one of Chrstians gladly receiving insults without responding in kind.
Also, check out the following verses if you're hankering for Biblical justification for self-defense: Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16
I believe that the advice, "don't resist an attacker" is still probably the best for someone faced with a situation that hasn't turned violent.
On the other hand, when a situation does turn violent, I hope I have the guts to respond in kind. Oh, I also hope I have had the foresight to be armed...
My final hope is that none of us are suggesting that four elderly women faced with a violent attacker were somehow to blame for their injuries? Because that strikes me as a lot of internet d*** swinging by people who weren't there.
Dr. Helen as usual a thought provoking article. Perhaps you might want to pick up, if you haven't already, the book Strong on Defense. He doesn’t counsel fighting back as much as he consuls not being passive. Do not drive away if kidnapped, do not let them move you from the initial contact because they are moving you to do awful things. If you are a man in a home invasion then you must consider that your getting away while not appearing “brave” will be the smartest thing you can do. Strong counsels fighting back though if you are not able to escape. And no mention of self defense is complete without recommending Nation of Cowards.
Finally it behooves all of us to remember that we are at war and all of us are expected to be sheepdogs. Not all of us can bite the bad guys on the ass but all of us can bark and sometimes barking is good enough.
Finally here is my brush with idiocy in the form of a stalker of my wife. After 6 years I "persuaded" him to move out of state. Stalker-0 Armed Husband-1
This comment has been removed by the author.
I believe that the advice, "don't resist an attacker" is still probably the best for someone faced with a situation that hasn't turned violent.
Having had the "privilege" to be inside of a few incidents of crime I believe you might want to reconsider your advice. By the time it gets violent its getting well past time when you might have done something about it. In reality it is very difficult to realize that yes indeed that is a gun that dumb-ass is pointing at you...or more subtly yup that clown has me in his sights and he is going to say something stupid to me in the next few seconds.
Violent strong opposition to anyone confronting you is the best way to avert tragedy. Remember he has made his choices and he has chosen you because you appear weak. Not many fools try to rob police officers.
Ahoy, Chips! The question asked by Peter was how many time to forgive a brother, not how many times to turn one's cheek. I think that distinction is important.
Sometimes it's wise to meet the threat of violence with nonviolence; I don't think you can make blanket statements about what is "always" the right thing to do.
I do think the emphasis on nonviolence today is harmful, though. In schools, verbal conflict resolution is gospel. But we teach our kids that if someone is physically hurting them, then let 'em have it. The PC claptrap like "I messages" just doesn't work with some people.
I thin "The Art of War" may be a better guide, applied tactically, to these sorts of situations.
Against an opponent who is clearly advantaged materially, you must seek maneuver, opportunity & obfuscation of intent.
It is best if you can beat an enemy without violence. Practically, this is not always an option.
So you must make the best use of the weapons at your disposal. And do not reveal your intent until you have done the worst you can do, and I mean the absolute worst. Don't be fussy. Don't be stupid, but don't be fussy. The stronger you are, given the circumstance, the less damage you have to inflict. This is a relative circumstance & it can apply to emotional, verbal & economic perpetrators as well as brute thugs.
Treat them the same. Always strike from your strength to their weakness. And think broadly. Act locally. I like joint breaks. That's a former wrestler/gymnast with kinesthetic competence & serious tensile strength talking. You might be wired diffrently. Use what you have.
Threat assessment is a crucial skill in potentially violent scenarios. You need to be good at it. Thing is, you don't get good at it unless you've lived it. A definite problem. Some classes & training methods can teach you some of it. I still screw up & I've had lots of hands-on.
Best to avoid it. But if you can't, & if you're in a panic spot, do the worst, the absolute worst & worry later. If you're in a redoubt (home break-in, say), take a breath, think & establish a defense.
That's the best I can offer.
I've never read Strong on Defense or Nation of Cowards, but I've got to agree on making the distinction between 'not being passive' and 'fighting back.' Having been the victim of a violent crime myself, the strongest bit of advice I can give you for that moment is accept that it is real. When you're suddenly confronted with violence or danger, Denial looks like a much nicer, happier place to be. Don't go there.
I'd think that in most cases, not resisting is the best policy. What those people at the beauty school did could have ended with the guy actually shooting them.
But man, they had some guts! Go them!
On an unrelated note, Dr. Helen - I've been reading your blog a while. Then I actually read the top bit just now:
"I am a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, Tennessee who enjoys commenting on popular culture, politics and psychological issues."
KNOXVEGAS! I live out in Farragut, about a mile from Turkey Creek.
sashiro -- And the guy could have shot them if they went along. And?
I agree with some of Bugs' comments above. I think Gandhi was the right person, right time, right tactic vs the British.
As an Indian, he holds a place in my heart (especially since tomorrow is Independence Day), but I think the mistake people make when they support Ahimsa (or Non-Violence) is that it is a moral truth for every situation and that is part of Hinduism.
I don't generally attribute Ahimsa to Hinduism as the concept is Jain in origin. Hinduism teaches non-violence to a point, but when it comes to mortal danger or fighting evil, then it's no-holds-barred. A quick read of the Bhagavad-gita should be enough to show that.
The entire premise of the Gita is that Arjun is having second thoughts about going to war (sometimes against his own family). Krishna (God's incarnation), explains to him the concept of the soul and how fighting evil violently is never a wrong choice.
Just some thoughts! Dr. Helen, this is my first time on your blog!
Prabnath,
Welcome, thanks for commenting.
Sashiro,
Nice to have another Knoxvillian here.
Robert,
I doubt anyone here is "blaming" the women for what happened to them--they were innocent victims. My post is in response to the writer of the article implying that the women did not resist but were hurt anyway, as if not resisting should insure that one is not injured. This is not always the case and it is a topic that should be explored, for violence is a potential for all of us. It is important to know when to resist violence and when not to resist--it often depends on the context. That is what this discussion is about. What I disagree with is the implication by some that it is always best not to resist violence, that somehow this gives one the moral highground. Moral superiority is not the important point here, survival is.
The single biggest problem with passivity in the face of a potentially violent criminal is that it places your safety in the hands of a person whose actions have demonstrated that they are not entirely rational.
> The single biggest problem with passivity in the face of a potentially violent criminal is that it places your safety in the hands of a person whose actions have demonstrated that they are not entirely rational.
Actually, the attacker may be quite rational. (Threatening or initiating violence is not necessarily irrational.)
The attacker has demonstrated that your well-being is worth less to him than his goals.
all - Thanks for the comments about my comment! Interesting info to think about. I certainly didn't have all my facts straight about Christianity and Buddhism, but I hope my main points are still valid. Namely, that some people misinterpret the meaning and intent of religious non-violence, and that this leads them to make unrealistic demands on themselves and others.
"Violence is not the answer" - depends on the question.
andy --
The context is violent criminals. Their actions are against the law, which will bring that wrath down upon them. They are therefore irrational. And they don't give a crap about your wellbeing.
My great-aunt--now 86--owned a beauty shop in the 60s and 70s in a rough neighborhood. She was always packing underneath her smock.
Fight-Fight-Fight!!
With whatever you have!!
DO NOT go quietly into the Night!
Namely, that some people misinterpret the meaning and intent of religious non-violence, and that this leads them to make unrealistic demands on themselves and others.
Yep.
But I still don't like cats.
OK, puppies, then! Anything to make you happy, dw! ;-)
Thanks! ;)
I'm reminded of Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers--he points out, where are the Carthaginians? Violence seems to have settled their destinies pretty thoroughly.
When I said that I think it most cases it's best not to resist, I don't mean that in a "it's morally right" way. I meant it because 4/5 times, the criminal doesn't actually want to harm someone, because a violent crime is more likely to get more attention, which is not what they want.
But if you were to fight back, they may shoot you to keep themselves from being caught.
However, sometimes they would do it anyway.
The entire morass comes from confusing violence (use of force) with aggression (first use of force). Violence is often beneficial and justifiable. Aggression is never called for.
sashiro --
And how do you determine that the criminal you're dealing your life with at the moment is not the one who will shoot anyway?
First use of force is never called for? You're kidding, now, right?
There was an anecdote, or scene from a movie or book. I don't recall, and it isn't important.
A small fiesty female is confronted in a threatening way by a much larger male. She looks directly at him and says, "If you decide to hurt me you probably will. But I want you to know I'm going for your eyes."
Maybe those long sharp nails do have a use after all.
I meant it because 4/5 times, the criminal doesn't actually want to harm someone, because a violent crime is more likely to get more attention, which is not what they want.
If he doesn't want to harm someone then tell him to get a job. He is having his way with you because the threat of violence is right beneath his smile. Unless you are the sort of person who simply gives money to anyone who asks.
But if you were to fight back, they may shoot you to keep themselves from being caught.
However, sometimes they would do it anyway.
So while this clown has a gun on you, you are making value judgements on whether he is going to shoot you or not? You're kidding right? Have you ever looked down the barrel of a gun being held on you in a robbery? Do you think that you can properly evaluate whether or not this fool is serious about shooting you or simply stealing your money? Are you willing to risk your family on that evaluation?
Regarding the defense someone might use. When I was teaching the Jefferson Parish Police self defense we taught them how sensitive folks are to attacks on their eyes. Balls are actually not quite as effective a target as eyes. I have been kicked square between the legs and the only effect it has was to piss me off. Same thing with pepper spray, even the so called Police Version. For a wonderful exhibition of how ineffective pepper spray is...
Think Pepper Spray Works? Think Again!
I guess the sentence in question might have merely expressed the writer's shock that a grown man would be brutal enough to beat some old ladies when they weren't doing anything to him.
We had a case here - last year, I believe - where a thug beat up an old woman in her 80s as she was waiting for a subway elevator. She was a sidewalk vendor, and robbery was the motive. Fortunately, she lived and they caught the perpetrator.
Sadly, that seems to be the way some thieves operate regardless of who the victim is..
The Christian tradition bugs refers to is an anti-sacramental, anti-physical, neo-Gnostic, neo-Manichean, post-Cartesian dualistic atypical strand, quite outside the apostolic Christian tradition.
Looking at the longer Christian tradition, you can look at the first centuries of the Church and see lots of persecutions and martyrdom as witness; however, no Early Church Fathers ever wrote that you could not morally defend yourself or your loved ones from an attacker. If you claim otherwise, I would like to see a preponderance of quotes from many ECF's about it. I've never seen any such thing in my reading.
No one was (is) obligated to become a martyr, either; in fact, the Church was opposed to the rigorists (Donatists) who wanted to exclude those who had acquiesced under pressure and took the weasel way out for their own self preservation. The Church welcomed them back with open arms with forgiveness and understanding.
The current Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2264, discusses the self defense question, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica--a giant in the tradition.
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: [here begins the St. Thomas Aquinas quotes:] If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful; whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful....Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
Quotes are from Summa Theologica, II-II, 64, 7.
(This isn't the only word on the matter in the CCC about legitimate self-defense--see paras. 2263-2267. I just wanted to point out the reference to St. Thomas Aquinas.)
William Penn's Quaker colony was praised as being religiously diverse and tolerant; however, it was not out of noble motives, but sheer self-preservation. The nonviolent, pacifist Quakers had to welcome others who WEREN'T nonviolent and pacifist among them to provide defense! Nonviolent pacifists always ride on the coattails of others who are willing to fight.
Re the ladies who didn't fight back: I suspect they were just unprepared and had the deer in the headlights reaction. Perhaps the freezing response is the hope that he'll go after one of the other ladies and not me.
I suppose if you live in a more dangerous area, you are more practiced and prepared for situations; I have always lived in relatively safe areas, so I admit I'm unprepared. However, my life is more important than my money, so I'll hand over a few bucks if faced with a gun; perhaps toss them on the ground in one direction and run the other way. I will fight to the death not to be taken away in a vehicle because that means nothing but torture and death. Kill me quick, now, if you can, while I resist forcefully, with witnesses around, perhaps on camera; I won't be taken to a shed somewhere in the country and raped and tortured for God knows how long before I'm murdered and chopped into little bits and dissolved in lime.
I don't get messed with because I'm tall and strong; but if I ever start feeling vulnerable then I'll take the training and start packing heat. I'm not there yet.
a a/r h - I think you're taking the right approach to concealed carry: If you don't need it, don't do it.
Good info about actual Catholic history and doctrine! I think what confuses me is that on one hand there's the principle you quoted from Aquinas, but on the other hand there's the veneration of martyrs. I thought a martyr, by definition, was someone who passively accepted whatever was done to them by their persecutors - basically in imitation of Christ's sacrifice? Did any martyrs die fighting back?
Or for another example, did monks ever fight back against Vikings? Nobody would have blamed them for killing some hostile pagans. Or did they consider fighting back un-Christlike?
I think there's a disconnect somewhere between Church teaching and its popular interpretation. At least among certain believers. There are Catholics who will tell you that violence is always wrong because Jesus said "turn the other cheek." There are also Buddhists who will tell you that Right Action means never doing harm to anything at any time for any reason.
bugs -- I'm sure some did. It's just that it's a rough thing to do, swinging a cross at an armored guy with a shield and battle ax or scramsax.
Well, they could have thrown some holy water on the chapel floor and when the Vikings slipped on it, they could have jumped 'em!
I'm just saying...
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
成人情色免費情色影片情色dvd天堂情色情色光碟chinese 免費a片xxx383美女寫真麗的情色sogo情色論壇情色短片bt成人情色卡通免費情色小說環球av情色大網咖臺灣情色網倉井空aaa片俱樂部一劍浣春秋kyo成人動漫avav片av女優travianavastavdvdav美女go2av38ga免費aa片
Post a Comment
<< Home