Mindset

Status
Not open for further replies.
Microgunner said:
...it's a shame that a person has to navagate a minefield of words in the pursuit of lawful survival...
Click to expand...
Welcome to real life.

But again, this is not new. This has nothing to do with political correctness. People form impressions of us, our character, beliefs and values, based on the words we use (among other things, including our manner of dress and the way we act). This is a fundamental reality, and it has always been this way.

And explanations really don't help.

For example, if you talk (or dress) like a gang banger, people will immediately take you for a gang banger. Now you could explain that you're not a gang banger. But now folks will ask themselves what it is about you that causes you to want people to think you're a gang banger.

Microgunner said:
...I think we've given in enough.
Click to expand...
It's not about giving in. It's about being effective and successful.

Microgunner said:
I know that's just the way it is, ....
Click to expand...
Yes it is the way it is, and people ignore reality at their peril.
 
Second part first. The term "cornered cat" implies defense--nothing more. The concept is inherent in the word "cornered."

I'm not at all sure what you have in mind when you you speak of a defense attorney being able to "explain" the "true intent behind 'going animal'." Are you suggesting that he or she might say, in closing argument, "my client did not mean for that to be interpreted as it may sound to many of you"?

Think about it. Does the "animal" that a juror will have in mind employ only that force that is immediately required for self preservation, and no more? That's the key to justification in self defense.
Click to expand...

Cornered cat may imply defense on the surface however it certainly describes a vicious animal. My use of the word animal was aslo in the context of self defense mindset.

Check the timelines in your history books.

The term "political correctness" speaks to a relatively recent concept. But the need for the triers of fact to weigh every indication of a possibly criminal state of mind after one person has injured or killed another is as old as human jurisprudence itself.
Click to expand...

Along with political correctness came a trend away from personal responsibility. In the past people weren't as likely to blame the obvious victim of the criminal attack.
 
I think you are missing the point.

If you have used deadly force, and if it seems to others that you did have an "animalistic mindset" or an "animalistic disposition", you are in a world of trouble, regardless of how that impression is given.

As a lawful defender, you are expected to avoid danger, and if you cannot, to use only that degree of force that is immediately necessary to defend against that danger.

To most of us, the term "animalistic mindset" implies a predisposition to do harm--serious harm.

It may prove necessary to harm someone in self defense--that is, to employ force that can reasonably be expected to cause death or grievous injury.

But in a defense of justification, any indication that the actor willfully caused any more harm than was necessary could well lead to criminal conviction.

It is important not only to watch what one says, posts, or otherwise communicates, but to train to act lawfully when and if it becomes necessary to employ physical force, whether deadly or not.

That's true whether one is defending with hands, a blade, a bludgeon, or a firearm.
Click to expand...

Believe me I understand your point. I just think that it wouldn't become an issue EXCEPT in the most extreme cases.

Now what I have suggested which has been ignored is that as we discuss how to properly speak to LE and online, so that we don't look predisposed to violence, we are basically premeditatedly thinking about how to avoid looking guilty. This could be mistaken for an intent to decieve. Purposely cloaking your actions in pre approved words so that under the microscope of the arm chair DA, you appear to be something you are not. After all if you aren't hiding your true disposition why the need for defensive minded words?
 
Posted by daddyo: Cornered cat may imply defense on the surface however it certainly describes a vicious animal. My use of the word animal was aslo in the context of self defense mindset.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Really? Would most people see it that way?

The problem is, self defense stops when the threat dissipates. The cornered cat and the cornered rat do likewise. Most vicious animals do not.

Note that the cornered cat and the tomcat fighting for dominance are two different things.

In the past people weren't as likely to blame the obvious victim of the criminal attack.
Click to expand...
A lot of people seem to like to repeat that belief, but in the past--the far past and the not so distant past, as in the present, the issue was two-fold:

  1. identifying just who the victim actually was after a use of force incident had occurred; and
  2. determining whether or not the victim did in fact act lawfully.

The "obvious victim" may lawfully do what is needed for self preservation, but should he attempt to punish or to exact revenge, yes, he will be blamed, and rightfully so.

If you study legal opinions, laws and interpretations of same, trials and appellate court cases over the years, the decades, and the centuries, I do not think that you will detect very many really significant changes.
 
Old Marksman is quite right. I went and read legal texts and there is a long, long history and discussion of such.

I might put on my other hat and opine that the use of cautious language is offensive to the self-image of some who want to portray a sense of dangerousness and violence about themselves. Be restrained is contrary to this posturing.

Now you might think this comes from some soft social science or political correct viewpoint - in fact - I got the idea from a well know trainer who mocked folks in his analysis of them wanting to be 'steely eyed dealers of death'. In class, he tried to dissuade folks of having such an attitude.

The idea that your self-presentation as an animal, warrior, etc. might not be praised in court - generates much psychological tension.
 
daddyo said:
...I just think that it wouldn't become an issue EXCEPT in the most extreme cases...
Click to expand...
And how do you know ahead of time whether or not your case will be one of those "extreme" cases?

Much is beyond our control, so it's best to control what we can.

daddyo said:
...After all if you aren't hiding your true disposition why the need for defensive minded words?
Click to expand...
I, at least, am not hiding my true disposition.
 
Posted by daddyo: Now what I have suggested which has been ignored is that as we discuss how to properly speak to LE and online, so that we don't look predisposed to violence, we are basically premeditatedly thinking about how to avoid looking guilty. This could be mistaken for an intent to decieve. Purposely cloaking your actions in pre approved words so that under the microscope of the arm chair DA, you appear to be something you are not. After all if you aren't hiding your true disposition why the need for defensive minded words?
Click to expand...
There was a recent case in which a shooter in Texas tried just that, and the jury saw though him and convicted him of first degree murder.

His words didn't work, but his actions were what cooked his goose.

After all if you aren't hiding your true disposition why the need for defensive minded words?
Click to expand...
It isn't at all a matter of using "defensive minded words". It is a simple matter three things:

  1. Acting intelligently--avoiding trouble in the first place; and
  2. should that fail, acting lawfully, and using force only when and to the extent that is necssary; and
  3. avoiding saying, writing, posting, wearing, or carrying anything that is likely to give the impression of a predisposition to use deadly force.
 
If someone runs at you with a contact weapon, you may have to shoot --and you stop shooting as soon as you can, once your safety is ensured. Someone comes at you with a broken bottle, and you defend with a blade; it's one thing to have to slice key tendons to disable the attacker, but quite another to start stabbing the vitals, which would likely not prove effective. Does either describe an "animalistic mindset"?
Click to expand...

In a civilized society all of the above are barbaric and animalistic acts. Acts reserved for the lawless and thrust upon the defender during a life and death encounter.

When I said "go animal" it was in a self defense context which will also be part of any trial.

With this mindset it won't be long before going to firearm training and tactics will be used against us by those triers.
 
Posted by daddyo: When I said "go animal" it was in a self defense context which will also be part of any trial.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but that may not mean much.

Larry Hickey claimed self defense, but the as pax has pointed out, the prosecution used his training slogans with great effect.

With this mindset it won't be long before going to firearm training and tactics will be used against us by those triers.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to believe that should a case be brought to trial, the fact that a defendant has attended training sessions will not be used against him as a possible indication of state of mind.

The question is whether the risk of that is greater or less than the risk of not having taken the training.

There are two aspects of the latter. The first is the risk of not successfully defending oneself due to not having developed the skills.

The second has to do with problems that might arise due to not having an adequate knowledge of the basics of use of force law.

Which risk do you prefer? I opt for having the training.

I can think of no good reason in the world for using the phrase "go animal", unless one is striving for cuteness. If one is trying to emphasize the importance of acting decisively and effectively, those words should do quite nicely.

Of course, the instructor should hasted to add warnings about continuing to shoot when the threat has been stopped and shooting someone who had decided to depart.

I suggest attending MAG-20.
 
...After all if you aren't hiding your true disposition why the need for defensive minded words?
Click to expand...

Like Frank, I am not hiding my true disposition. Perhaps unlike him, I'm somewhat offended at the implication that I am hiding something or being less than honest. This is who I am, at core: a good person who wants nothing more (and nothing less!) than to live my life in peace and die in my sleep at a ridiculously old age, surrounded by people who love me and who have also lived long and peaceful lives.

The reason your words matter, and the reason that the way you frame your acts matters, is because your mindset prior to the act really matters! It is not some semantic game. It is a measure of who you are and what you believe.

The mindset you carry into the act has a strong effect on what you do during the most frightening and chaotic moments of your life. In the center of whirlwind chaos, you may not have time to reason anything through. You will act, or not act, based on who you are and how you think. The things you do in those circumstances flow out of the type of person you are. They flow out of the beliefs you carry with you all the time and out of the things you've considered before the activity. In a very real sense, those beliefs can make you or break you.

Physically, your beliefs can help you survive and prevail during the actual encounter. They determine whether you'll fight and for what reasons. They determine how much force you're willing to use and how soon. They determine what "winning" looks like for you: what your goal is, what you'll be satisfied with, where (or if) you'll stop.

The physical actions you take during your encounter lead directly into the legal justifiability of what you've done. If your goal, your definition of 'winning,' includes the death of the bad guy, you may not stop when the threat stops. You may survive the encounter only to fail the legal aftermath.

Even if erroneous beliefs do not trip you up during the physical encounter, they can easily ruin you in the aftermath. If you acted with any intent other than to save innocent life, you may not pass the mens rea test, because the intent behind your actions really does matter in court. Do you know the difference between murder and a lesser degree of homicide? -- It's the presence of malice, which is nothing more than the mindset someone carries into the situation with them. Mindset matters.

It's not just a words game. It flows clear down to what you believe and why you do the things you do.

pax
 
In the past people weren't as likely to blame the obvious victim of the criminal attack.
Click to expand...

I was just doing some reading on Jelly Bryce. Interesting factoid:

His first incident on the job as a new Oklahoma City policeman, he was arrested for murder.

He had come upon a guy who was hot wiring a car (this was in 1926) and challenged him; guy asked who he was, and Bryce said he was a cop. The thief then drew a gun on Bryce, who used his to-become-legendary quick draw to kill the thief.

First cops on scene did not know Bryce; neither did the precinct captain, as Bryce was brand new. Bryce was arrested and charged with murder. Note that the thief had tools, a cracked open car ignition, and a gun in vicinity of his corpse...

Next evening, the night chief (who had hired Bryce) came in, and ordered his officer released. Charges were dropped.

But what if Bryce had been a car owner, or the owner's neighbor, and not a cop?

Again, this was 1926...
 
Who I am is a person who wishes to survive and will do whateven I can within my power to do so.

A person who does not like being encumbered with endless layers of socio-babble used to camoflage the true nature of self defense.

The truth is that violence befalls many and those prepared to repond with violence in kind are most likely to survive.
It's extreme violence people, pure and simple.

I belive most of what I've read here, well thought out and measured.
People talking about how they want to live a peaceful life and all. Who doesn'? But I'm afraid I'm a person who'll say I'll do whatever it takes to survive, including extreme violence if that's what's required.

Y'all put money in my canteen for me, won't you?
 
Extreme violence is not necessarily the same as "animalistic" violence.

Generally, self-defense requires that the defender reasonably, consciously acted due to circumstances under which a reasonable person, given the same circumstances and knowledge, would have acted in similar manner.

This means that talk of "going animal" is counter productive, since that implies the actions taken were not reasoned nor reasonable.

Deadly force (I would not use "extreme violence," personally), deliberately applied to the extent necessary to stop the threat, is not a problem for any of us.

Language that implies a lack of deliberate action, but rather a giving in to animal nature, is the problem.

Edit: The issue with "extreme violence" vs "deadly force" is that of the internationally accepted doctrine of "necessity and proportionality."
 
One cannot easily answer the training issue. Sometimes folks want dichotomous answers and no such beast exists.

Factors that interact are the critical incident itself, the content of the training, what the defendant took away from it (why Mas tells you to keep your notes), what the jury thinks about firearms (so does training imply responsibility or a blood lust mindset), gender expectations, race, etc.

If one decries the current 'mindset' and 'true disposition' as not allowing folks to express a propensity to use lethal force as compared to using it as a last resort, then you won't understand what Pax, Frank and Old Marksman are saying.

It's part of the debate about the SYG laws - which we have discussed before - do they give folks a push for not avoiding the use of lethal force when they can as compared to mandating a retreat.

Using lethal force, even if it is a 'good shoot' is not a good thing. It is to be regretted.
 
I think that possibly a sticking point is exactly when the defender goes animal.

The way I read it is that the defender should exercise caution, awareness and reason but if a conflict is imminent then the time to be timid has passed and the rightous defender sould "go animal". A swift and decisive reaction without hesitation and fear. Your best chance for survival.

At least that's the way I interpreted it.
 
Posted by MLeake: Generally, self-defense requires that the defender reasonably, consciously acted due to circumstances under which a reasonable person, given the same circumstances and knowledge, would have acted in similar manner.

This means that talk of "going animal" is counter productive, since that implies the actions taken were not reasoned nor reasonable.

Deadly force (I would not use "extreme violence," personally), deliberately applied to the extent necessary to stop the threat, is not a problem for any of us.

Language that implies a lack of deliberate action, but rather a giving in to animal nature, is the problem.

The issue with "extreme violence" vs "deadly force" is that of the internationally accepted doctrine of "necessity and proportionality."
Click to expand...

All very well put, and to the point.
 
Posted by Microgunner: I think that possibly a sticking point is exactly when the defender goes animal.

The way I read it is that the defender should exercise caution, awareness and reason but if a conflict is imminent then the time to be timid has passed and the rightous defender sould "go animal". A swift and decisive reaction without hesitation and fear.
Click to expand...
I think it is a little more complicated than that.The key points are twofold:
  1. when and why the defender decides to emply, and employs, whatever level of force is necessary for self-preservation; and
  2. when and why the defender stops using deadly force.

It is the latter that makes the phrase "go animal" so inappropriate for the discussion of what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances, knowing what the defender knew at the time.
 
As usual Pax has more eloquently made my point:

The reason your words matter, and the reason that the way you frame your acts matters, is because your mindset prior to the act really matters! It is not some semantic game. It is a measure of who you are and what you believe.

The mindset you carry into the act has a strong effect on what you do during the most frightening and chaotic moments of your life. In the center of whirlwind chaos, you may not have time to reason anything through. You will act, or not act, based on who you are and how you think. The things you do in those circumstances flow out of the type of person you are. They flow out of the beliefs you carry with you all the time and out of the things you've considered before the activity. In a very real sense, those beliefs can make you or break you.
Click to expand...

Many of us have come to the decision that we will use deadly force to protect ourselves, our loved ones, or others from violent criminal acts. I believe that I have the right and responsibility to do this. Criminals, or animals (sometimes one and the same) will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals without regard to consequences or collateral damage. As rational, thinking, responsible citizens we are bound by constraints that animals do not have. It is not just semantics. Denial of that reality does not change it.
 
Not original from me, but I like the philosophy" Be polite to everyone you meet, but also have a plan to kill them.":eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top