Mindset

Status
Not open for further replies.
We strive for survival. The way I know how to survive is through the best training possible. So if I strive to be perfect in my response to the threat at hand, its saying I'm attempting to be perfect in my execution of that training. So my strive for perfection is one and the same with striving for survival. After all my training is done to give me a better chance at survival.

Not going to further explain myself. I'm sure one day you'll get it though. Did you click on that link I provided? Really good book man, check it out.

My guess is that you aren't a fan of the Glock slogan LOL.

Ha, it's just that. A slogan. I do love my Glock's though.

What would be the judicially acceptable adjective to describe the commonly taught mental conditioning to surviving a violent encounter?

Yes, Frank is right.. You don't want to be saying stuff like that.

The intent is to save yourself and stop the threat. Keyword: Stop.

"Killing" and "Going animal" show's an entirely different motive.
 
Books by Pax, Ayoob, Gila Hayes and others - all describe the appropriate views of self-defense usage. Easy to find on Amazon.

So do courses by such folks. I recommend them rather than making up your own inflammatory rules.

If you truly get into it - use Google scholar to find law review articles on using lethal force in self-defense or the excellent book - Killing in Self-defense by Leverick. It is a touch dense for the average gun world prose but truly enlightening.
 
There is no such thing as perfect practice, because humans are imperfect. There is no such thing as perfect mindset, because humans are imperfect.

Practice does not make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Yes, we should be striving for perfection – but we should also recognize that perfection will always be beyond our reach. When we practice, we should first learn the best ways to do things. This means learning from others, not simply from our own ideas of how things "ought" to be.

I consider perfect practice/mindset/tactics to be those that I believe give me the best chance at surviving a violent encounter. Always subject to change of course which then makes them not perfect. Still at the time they are perfect. Nothing I know of that is better.
 
Constantine said:
...Yes, Frank is right.. You don't want to be saying stuff like that...
Actually, Glenn said it here; but I agree. We can talk about a swift and decisive response or a swift and tumultuous response.
 
What would be the judicially acceptable adjective to describe the commonly taught mental conditioning to surviving a violent encounter?

That is an excellent, and very thoughtful, question.

I am a fan of: "If you have to fight, fight like a cornered cat." That is my catchphrase. Some people think this just means "Fight really hard." That is not it, not at all. What it means is to fight with a goal in mind. When a cat is cornered, she's not interested in fighting with whatever has threatened her – but she will do whatever it takes to get to safety. Reaching down to get your hands on her is like sticking your hand into a blender. Bad idea!

A cornered cat will harm you if she absolutely must. But her goal is not to hurt you, and it isn't to not hurt you. Her goal is simply to get to safety.

Whether any of this is court-defensible, I don't know. Have not tried it yet. But I can articulate how this phrase fits very neatly into the legal realities of self-defense. Any similar phrase that you choose should be able to do the same thing.

Also, I second Constantine's recommendation. Rory Miller's work is excellent.

pax
 
For someone who is trying to train others, what adjective can be used to describe the act of doing what is necessary to survive? So that they may understand how we must drop our civilized nature and adopt a temporary nasty one?

I can still explain that the use of certain adjectives is not recommended.
 
Actually, Glenn said it here; but I agree. We can talk about a swift and decisive response or a swift and tumultuous response.

Yes, I can see it now.

On the stand.

First PO responding to call : "He then stated he 'went animal' and 'killed' the attacker."

VS.

First PO responding to call : "He then stated, he exercised the means necessary to stop the attack and was willing to sign a complaint."
 
That is an excellent, and very thoughtful, question.

I am a fan of: "If you have to fight, fight like a cornered cat." That is my catchphrase. Some people think this just means "Fight really hard." That is not it, not at all. What it means is to fight with a goal in mind. When a cat is cornered, she's not interested in fighting with whatever has threatened her – but she will do whatever it takes to get to safety. Reaching down to get your hands on her is like sticking your hand into a blender. Bad idea!

A cornered cat will harm you if she absolutely must. But her goal is not to hurt you, and it isn't to not hurt you. Her goal is simply to get to safety.

Whether any of this is court-defensible, I don't know. Have not tried it yet. But I can articulate how this phrase fits very neatly into the legal realities of self-defense. Any similar phrase that you choose should be able to do the same thing.

Also, I second Constantine's recommendation. Rory Miller's work is excellent.

pax

Funny I currently use a mother lion LOL.
 
Just for example, variants of:

Always cheat and Have plan to kill everyone from training classes have been brought up in cases.

Your defense attorney has to present a coherent story of why you acted the way you did according to the jury research literature. The DA will present his or her coherent version. If theirs started with 'he was going animal' - that will stick in the jury's mind.

Pax's animal - fighting like a cornered cat gives a metaphor of defense as compared to being off the rails.

My favorite Glock example - went to a new range to try it out. The SOs there check your gun before you shoot to see if it is ok. High class outfit. The guy ahead of me had the back plate of his Glock replaced with one with the Punisher skull logo. Now in an ambiguous shoot, when that gun is shown to the jury - oh, dear - and you shot the teenager (there are several cases I know other than the one you are thinking about) because you felt you had to be an animal, wanted to cheat and had a plan to kill?
 
It absolutely horrible that we live in a Country that using an adjective to describe the mental preparation needed to properly defend yourself from a violent attacker, could get you in trouble.

I still have to believe that in the vast majority of self defense cases, the justification would be overwhelming. After all we are pulling our firearm to stop the imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Seems that this is overkill.
 
Well, it never hurts to post your current thoughts – as opposed to your previous ones. :)

pax

"A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than he was yesterday." ~ Alexander Pope
 
...What would be the judicially acceptable adjective ...

How about this... "Once you have decided that you have no alternative but to defend yourself, and the time for action has arrived, you must act in a forceful and decisive manner. Be vigorous, and without hesitation."

That is how an animal would act. When I stumble upon a deer while hiking, it stands completely still, until it has decided it must move... and then IT MOVES. Small mammals like rabbits and chipmunks are even more impressive in their ability to go from frozen to explosive speed in the blink of an eye.

But what I said sounds so much more civilized than "go animal". Appearances count, even when they shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Posted by daddyo: It absolutely horrible that we live in a Country that using an adjective to describe the mental preparation needed to properly defend yourself from a violent attacker, could get you in trouble.
On the other hand, saying something that can be interpreted as having the mindset to harm someone for the sake of doing so can get you in trouble anywhere. Why shouldn't one expect it to?

I still have to believe that in the vast majority of self defense cases, the justification would be overwhelming. After all we are pulling our firearm to stop the imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Seems that this is overkill.
That's what the person who pulled the gun says happened. But there was no sound stage, no video taken from multiple angles, showing every possibly relevant aspect from start to finish.

There is evidence that deadly force has been used, and the user claims to have been acting in self defense. There is some forensic evidence proving who shot whom.. There may or may not be eyewitness or earwitness testimony from persons other than the shooter, all of it suspect to at least some extent and some or all of it possibly unfavorable to the self-proclaimed defender. Using only what can be pieced together after the fact, which will necessarily be incomplete and which will likely be unclear and which may be contradictory, it will be necessary for others to decide whether or not the person who claims to have been defending himself...
  • Was in any way at fault in starting the confrontation, and if not,
  • was in fact faced with imminent danger of death or serious, crippling bodily harm, and if so,
  • had any means to avoid such harm other than deadly force, and if not,
  • used no more force than had been absolutely necessary.

That virtual white hat that the "defender" sees himself wearing is not apparent to anyone else in the real world.

What he has said, put in e-mail, posted, put up in his yard, stuck to his bumper, and/or worn on his t-shirt can go a long way to hurt his credibility when he needs it most.
 
Last edited:
daddypro said:
I still have to believe that in the vast majority of self defense cases, the justification would be overwhelming. After all we are pulling our firearm to stop the imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Seems that this is overkill.

Not overkill at all. Even a solid self-defense shooting can go south in the aftermath, whether from political pressure, or from mistakes the shooter makes immediately after the most frightening incident in his life, or from lost evidence, or from some other cause. And once it has gone south, literally everything is on the table -- including your previous words.

Here's one example that came from an ACLDN article about the Larry Hickey case in AZ a few years back:

Alarmingly, out of context advice from instructors to “always cheat; always win,” and the axiom that one should treat every one else in a polite manner while simultaneously having a plan to kill them painted an inaccurate picture about Hickey’s outlook on life. Nicolini harvested these quotes from the training notes and handouts, and made much hay with them, especially during his closing arguments in which he described Hickey in highly inflammatory terms.

The prosecutor told the jury not to consider the case from Hickey’s viewpoint, from “what was going on in his paranoid mind,”

... "But I think Larry Hickey has an additional motivation in this case, he wants to be vindicated, he wants somebody to say, yes, Larry, you exercised your Second Amendment rights to defend yourself and your family like a good American. And you know something else? The same reason why four of his gun instructors have come in here to testify, the people who taught him to use guns, and when to use guns and taught him that aggressive mindset... they want to be vindicated, too."

That's some scary stuff for those of us who teach. We know that the things we teach can be held against our students if we get it wrong. For any ethical instructor, that should provide a very strong urge to keep your own training and understanding very current. It should discourage you from getting sloppy or lazy with your use of the language. It should drive you to study harder, learn more, dig deeper. And it should inspire you to be brutally honest with your adult students, trusting them to complete the mindset-building process appropriately after you have taught them what you can.

pax
 
Appearances count, even when they shouldn't.
I'd argue that far more than "appearance" is at stake here. The language we use affects our own thinking as well as the perceptions of others. If you use language like "go animal," "put the predator down," "have a plan to kill everyone," etc., your own mindset will be very different from one that starts from "use whatever force is necessary to stop the threat." If your mindset leads you to use force in excess of what's needed to stop a threat -- you may have survived the encounter, but your chances of surviving the legal process that follows will be much lower.
 
daddyo said:
...I still have to believe that in the vast majority of self defense cases, the justification would be overwhelming. After all we are pulling our firearm to stop the imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Seems that this is overkill.
Perhaps, but you have no way of knowing what your situation will be. Consider, just by way of example, theses cases:

  • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

  • Larry Hickey (already mentioned by pax), in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

  • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

  • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

  • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

  • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

  • And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

daddyo said:
It absolutely horrible that we live in a Country that using an adjective to describe the mental preparation needed to properly defend yourself from a violent attacker, could get you in trouble....
It has absolutely nothing to do with the country we live in. It is universal. Words have both objective and subjective meanings in every language spoken by humans in every country inhabited by humans.

The words you use, as well as the way you dress, act and otherwise present yourself to the world have social consequences everywhere. There is no place on earth in which your words, your manner of speech, your actions, etc., will not cause people to form opinions about your credibility, your motives, your character, your values, etc.
 
Last edited:
That's some scary stuff for those of us who teach. We know that the things we teach can be held against our students if we get it wrong. For any ethical instructor, that should provide a very strong urge to keep your own training and understanding very current. It should discourage you from getting sloppy or lazy with your use of the language. It should drive you to study harder, learn more, dig deeper. And it should inspire you to be brutally honest with your adult students, trusting them to complete the mindset-building process appropriately after you have taught them what you can.

pax

I'm going to avoid inappropriate adjectives in the future but I still think that this issue is blown way out of proportion. It's being taken to the extreme IMO.

Just as a good defense attorney can explain the true intent behind "going animal", a good prosecutor can explain in the true meaning behind "cornered cat". After all a cornered cat is among the most vicious and violent animals alive.

I just don't understand how I can teach and explain the issue of going animal or its more appropriate form "cornered cat" without exposing myself, being an instructor. Then it will be said that I've been trained on how to avoid saying the wrong things.

Just like what happened to GZ. He was trained on what to say and what not to say. etc.

I believe that if you guys defend yourselves against the wrong person or under the list of possibilities provided earlier, that these posts here, where you guys are saying to avoid buzz words that make you look violent, make you look like liars. Perhaps the rest of your testimony shouldn't be believed because we know you say what makes you look less guilty.

Tough situation all the way around.
 
daddyo I've read all of your posts on this thread and the responses. You insist that "going animal" or something similar is a proper way of describing the mindset that is required to stop a violent attack. You then suggest that not using this sort of language puts someone at risk of looking dishonest to a jury of peers. The problem, in my opinion with this premise is that as thinking humans we have the ability to reason, and respond accordingly. Yes, that response may require swift and decisive violence, but that is measured response to the threat. Using language that suggests a predisposition towards violence is provocative and unnecessary in my view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top