An article on violence

[mrvmax]

Good discussion of a difficult topic.

My suggestion is that you think through where your trigger lines are in the cold light of day long before an incident happens, and be as sure as you can be that your decisions reflect at least as much legal precedent as emotion.

Trying to work all that out while you've got a lot more going on and only seconds to decide has gotten a lot of folks into places they didn't want to be.

Good advice, I think every CHL needs to do this ahead of time.

[OldCannon]

The purpose of the article was to make you think about the criminal mindset and what you should do. Sam's advice provides good maxims, but not absolutes, and if he were confronted on the topic, I'm sure he would agree. We (this forum community) spend a lot of time talking about these things and thinking about them. Most people don't. If a truly "Condition White" person (i.e. - most folks that voted for our current president ) were to read just ONE article on this topic, I would definitely recommend this one.

[Ameer]

The purpose of the article was to make you think about the criminal mindset and what you should do. Sam's advice provides good maxims, but not absolutes, and if he were confronted on the topic, I'm sure he would agree. We (this forum community) spend a lot of time talking about these things and thinking about them. Most people don't. If a truly "Condition White" person (i.e. - most folks that voted for our current president ) were to read just ONE article on this topic, I would definitely recommend this one.

What makes you think his core supporters don't know this? They're just on the other side. Looking at it objectively, it's not a very big step from supporting redistribution of our hard earned money through entitlements to cutting out the middle man and taking it for themselves.

[OldCannon]

The purpose of the article was to make you think about the criminal mindset and what you should do. Sam's advice provides good maxims, but not absolutes, and if he were confronted on the topic, I'm sure he would agree. We (this forum community) spend a lot of time talking about these things and thinking about them. Most people don't. If a truly "Condition White" person (i.e. - most folks that voted for our current president ) were to read just ONE article on this topic, I would definitely recommend this one.

What makes you think his core supporters don't know this? They're just on the other side. Looking at it objectively, it's not a very big step from supporting redistribution of our hard earned money through entitlements to cutting out the middle man and taking it for themselves.

I totally did not get your point, sorry.

[VoiceofReason]

Good discussion of a difficult topic.

My suggestion is that you think through where your trigger lines are in the cold light of day long before an incident happens, and be as sure as you can be that your decisions reflect at least as much legal precedent as emotion.

Trying to work all that out while you've got a lot more going on and only seconds to decide has gotten a lot of folks into places they didn't want to be.

I have been thinking about that and can’t seem to come up with anything reasonable.

I can’t run (disability), one punch to the abdomen could kill me (Medtronic implant), so that doesn’t leave me much leeway. Any opinions?

I agree with thinking things through ahead of time. If you have certain things established in your mind, you are less likely to panic and/or do something wrong in a crisis. That goes for self defense, auto accidents, and all other emergency situations. You may surprise yourself how calm you were and how well you handled the crisis.

[johnson0317]

VoiceofReason,

Disparity of force plays a large role in your case. Because of your disability, you can easily claim a disparity of force if attacked. I think any doctor could testify that you could not outrun the situation, and could not safely fisticuff your way out of it.

RJ

[VoiceofReason]

VoiceofReason,

Disparity of force plays a large role in your case. Because of your disability, you can easily claim a disparity of force if attacked. I think any doctor could testify that you could not outrun the situation, and could not safely fisticuff your way out of it.

RJ

I try to avoid situations and areas that might force me to make that decision, but in today’s world that is almost impossible. Reference viewtopic.php?f=83&t=51010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "knockout king"

[longtooth]

You are very correct VOR.
I dont spend my time at the intersetion of Crips & Blood Bulavard hollerin My Turf Not Yours
But I do refuse to be a prisoner in my house jsut because the sun went down.

[Heartland Patriot]

You are very correct VOR.
I dont spend my time at the intersetion of Crips & Blood Bulavard hollerin My Turf Not Yours
But I do refuse to be a prisoner in my house jsut because the sun went down.

[Skiprr]

Good discussion of a difficult topic.

My suggestion is that you think through where your trigger lines are in the cold light of day long before an incident happens, and be as sure as you can be that your decisions reflect at least as much legal precedent as emotion.

Trying to work all that out while you've got a lot more going on and only seconds to decide has gotten a lot of folks into places they didn't want to be.

This.

There is much in Harris's essay that I disagree with, but one item I will agree with--though it's somewhat buried in the text--is what Excaliber said above in a different way: "You must install a trigger in your mind--to act explosively once a certain line has been crossed--and you must understand that your inclination will most likely be to freeze..."

In his seminar on deadly force and its aftermath, Charles Cotton strongly recommends we take the time, as soon as possible, to think about and create a personal threat checklist, to make it concrete, keep it simple, and to write it down. What constitutes your own lines in the sand? At what points do you feel that you--morally and legally--will employ deadly force?

Don't worry about umpteen tacticool what-if scenarios; that isn't the purpose. In fact, the more complex your personal threat checklist, the less value it will be. We all understand that a potentially violent encounter is fluid and likely chaotic, that one situation can morph into a different one in a fraction of a second. But there are identifiable points in time, "trigger lines," that you should be able to isolate and explain, and then be prepared to act instantly upon.

I think everyone who gets a CHL thinks about this a bit, but in many cases--if not most--I believe it is a brief and unformed thought process that happens in and around the time of the CHL class, and little conscious analysis or planning follows it. Remember, the folks who participate on this Forum and actively talk about these things represent fewer than 3% of Texas CHL holders: you folks are the exception, not the rule. The choice to carry a firearm comes with an inherent responsibility that the average person doesn't burden himself or herself with. This is a way of sayin' I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I'm still gonna take up space and finish my thought, anyway.

The benefits of thinking about and writing down a personal threat checklist are threefold:

1. It helps set your personal framework for awareness and avoidance. And this can change through our lives, as can your checklist. In the linked essay, Harris mentioned that finding himself with a new family dramatically changed his view toward possible violence: a huge life-change that can alter your personal lines in the sand. Aging is another: LT, VOR, and I are less much less likely now to be able to accomplish a successful escape on foot than we might have been 30 years ago...or rather, we'd need about 10 minutes rather than 10 seconds.

Understanding your personal threat boundaries helps you better recognize potential risk in order to avoid risks that are unacceptable.

2. The two big drivers for your checklist are: a) Is the use of deadly force at this point legal and defensible? and, b) Is your use of deadly force at this point something that you, ethically and morally, are willing to accept?

The better you know and understand the legal ramifications of your checklist, the better and more accurately you can explain why the use of force was immediately necessary, should you ever find yourself in that situation. The Forum sees a lot of topics from time to time about what to tell responding officers in the event of a shooting. Most of those discussions revolve around the quantity of information and some sort of canned script to defer to your lawyer. That helps. But the truth is, the affect of the adrenaline dump isn't all that short-lived, and you may babble to an attorney, once you get one on the phone, and not realize you're failing to do a good job of describing the situation even then. If that's the case, you can be pretty certain the picture you painted for the responding peace officer may not have been one of the in-control, responsible, and reasonable citizen you know yourself to be.

If you have thought about and ingrained your short, personal threat checklist, should the time ever come where you face the situation, you will understand exactly why you acted as you did, and how to express that decision in terms of the law. The value of that can't be underestimated.

3. Excaliber's and Harriss's use of the word "trigger" to express that point at which you have decided deadly force is immediately necessary is appropriate; it might look like a pun on a gun board like this, but I really can't think of a better term.

If you are at that moment of last resort and the use of deadly force becomes necessary, the switch has to be a binary thing: it's either off, or it's on. Just like bullseye shooting from benchrest: you can't sort of fire the gun; the shot either breaks, or it doesn't.

In a violent encounter, hesitation probably follows only lack of awareness as the most dangerous condition. What John Farnam calls the Violent Criminal Actor, or VCA, is always the one on the offensive. His OODA Loop is already in motion, and the honest citizen will be in a reactive mode. Action is always faster than reaction. Indecision will cause hesitation; hesitation can absolutely get you killed.

Thinking carefully about and understanding the triggers in your personal threat checklist can help you make correct decisions in advance, allowing you the ability to immediately and fully commit if the time ever comes.


All of the above is intentionally somewhat abstract; no examples. We each have to make our own checklist.

Maybe a New Year's resolution?

[longtooth]

[dihappy]

Thanks for posting!

[Westfield]

I am not going to shoot some dumb kid for breaking into my car, but I won't submit to an attacker because you will never know what his deranged mind has in store for you next. Of course we want to practice de-escalation, avoidance, and situational awareness. But.....

An attack is a threat and you must stop the threat. You are threatened by the mere fact that you do not know how the perp is going to harm you but you know he probably will. The author sounds like a pacifist ' "Can't we just all get along?"

[Heartland Patriot]

Good discussion of a difficult topic.

My suggestion is that you think through where your trigger lines are in the cold light of day long before an incident happens, and be as sure as you can be that your decisions reflect at least as much legal precedent as emotion.

Trying to work all that out while you've got a lot more going on and only seconds to decide has gotten a lot of folks into places they didn't want to be.

This.

There is much in Harris's essay that I disagree with, but one item I will agree with--though it's somewhat buried in the text--is what Excaliber said above in a different way: "You must install a trigger in your mind--to act explosively once a certain line has been crossed--and you must understand that your inclination will most likely be to freeze..."

In his seminar on deadly force and its aftermath, Charles Cotton strongly recommends we take the time, as soon as possible, to think about and create a personal threat checklist, to make it concrete, keep it simple, and to write it down. What constitutes your own lines in the sand? At what points do you feel that you--morally and legally--will employ deadly force?

Don't worry about umpteen tacticool what-if scenarios; that isn't the purpose. In fact, the more complex your personal threat checklist, the less value it will be. We all understand that a potentially violent encounter is fluid and likely chaotic, that one situation can morph into a different one in a fraction of a second. But there are identifiable points in time, "trigger lines," that you should be able to isolate and explain, and then be prepared to act instantly upon.

I think everyone who gets a CHL thinks about this a bit, but in many cases--if not most--I believe it is a brief and unformed thought process that happens in and around the time of the CHL class, and little conscious analysis or planning follows it. Remember, the folks who participate on this Forum and actively talk about these things represent fewer than 3% of Texas CHL holders: you folks are the exception, not the rule. The choice to carry a firearm comes with an inherent responsibility that the average person doesn't burden himself or herself with. This is a way of sayin' I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I'm still gonna take up space and finish my thought, anyway.

The benefits of thinking about and writing down a personal threat checklist are threefold:

1. It helps set your personal framework for awareness and avoidance. And this can change through our lives, as can your checklist. In the linked essay, Harris mentioned that finding himself with a new family dramatically changed his view toward possible violence: a huge life-change that can alter your personal lines in the sand. Aging is another: LT, VOR, and I are less much less likely now to be able to accomplish a successful escape on foot than we might have been 30 years ago...or rather, we'd need about 10 minutes rather than 10 seconds.

Understanding your personal threat boundaries helps you better recognize potential risk in order to avoid risks that are unacceptable.

2. The two big drivers for your checklist are: a) Is the use of deadly force at this point legal and defensible? and, b) Is your use of deadly force at this point something that you, ethically and morally, are willing to accept?

The better you know and understand the legal ramifications of your checklist, the better and more accurately you can explain why the use of force was immediately necessary, should you ever find yourself in that situation. The Forum sees a lot of topics from time to time about what to tell responding officers in the event of a shooting. Most of those discussions revolve around the quantity of information and some sort of canned script to defer to your lawyer. That helps. But the truth is, the affect of the adrenaline dump isn't all that short-lived, and you may babble to an attorney, once you get one on the phone, and not realize you're failing to do a good job of describing the situation even then. If that's the case, you can be pretty certain the picture you painted for the responding peace officer may not have been one of the in-control, responsible, and reasonable citizen you know yourself to be.

If you have thought about and ingrained your short, personal threat checklist, should the time ever come where you face the situation, you will understand exactly why you acted as you did, and how to express that decision in terms of the law. The value of that can't be underestimated.

3. Excaliber's and Harriss's use of the word "trigger" to express that point at which you have decided deadly force is immediately necessary is appropriate; it might look like a pun on a gun board like this, but I really can't think of a better term.

If you are at that moment of last resort and the use of deadly force becomes necessary, the switch has to be a binary thing: it's either off, or it's on. Just like bullseye shooting from benchrest: you can't sort of fire the gun; the shot either breaks, or it doesn't.

In a violent encounter, hesitation probably follows only lack of awareness as the most dangerous condition. What John Farnam calls the Violent Criminal Actor, or VCA, is always the one on the offensive. His OODA Loop is already in motion, and the honest citizen will be in a reactive mode. Action is always faster than reaction. Indecision will cause hesitation; hesitation can absolutely get you killed.

Thinking carefully about and understanding the triggers in your personal threat checklist can help you make correct decisions in advance, allowing you the ability to immediately and fully commit if the time ever comes.


All of the above is intentionally somewhat abstract; no examples. We each have to make our own checklist.

Maybe a New Year's resolution?

YOUR posting was MUCH better than that article...thanks.

[johnson0317]

I generally have very mixed feelings about Tim Schmidt and the USCCA. Having said that, they have released a 5 DVD set, featuring LT. Col. Dave Grossman, called "The Bulletproof Mind". I am on the third DVD and it is everything you would expect. Grossman does a fantastic job of taking the listeners through the long process of prepping ones mind to become an effective sheepdog. You can tell the man is a psychologist by his approach. Nothing directly in your face, but everything directly in your face. He works on your mind to make sure you understand the threat is real, and it is waiting for an opportunity. Although I would no longer recommend the USCCA to anyone (secondary to its high-pressure sales tactics which are known as Tribal Marketing), I would certainly recommend this DVD set.

Just a thought about the USCCA. If he were not so high-pressure, I would think the work he does, and his website, were both top-notch. Don't want to down the guy, just his way of doing business.

RJ