Best Defense in attempted mugging/assault?

[Doc Dan]

This is exactly the way I behave. Don’t be in places that invite assault. Be aware of those around you.

I agree.
How I try to behave as well. Situational awereness can help in extracting yourself from a potentially sticky situation.

Because with our society literally crumbling before our eyes and it's just going to get much worse I'm afraid. In the past year there were even two Kansas City Metro bus drivers killed over stupid arguments from drunks and drug addicts. And truly I hope I'm wrong with my prediction but I can literally feel it in the air in the past 2 years especially.

Hardly just the last two years. The Western world has been trying to dismantle itself for quite some time now.
Gee, I wonder why someone would pinpoint the starting date of soceity 'literally' crumbling as being two years ago :rolleyes:
Its almost as if an event happened approxinmately two years ago to trigger this comment ....

How do you know your assailants were 'illegals' - were they caught?

Perhaps San Francisco in 1851 and 1856 had a good idea to solve the problem of crime out of control.

Fires and earthquakes are not to be sneezed at but maybe if the San Andreas Fault could get with the program, that would help solve some of the problems :D (morbid joke, sry).
CA is in a sad state of affairs.

As far as I know SF did not have fires and earthquakes on those two dates. They has a crime riddance program.

[SpyderScout]

As far as I know SF did not have fires and earthquakes on those two dates. They has a crime riddance program.

I thought you referred to something like this:
"On May 4, 1851, the anniversary of the City’s second great fire, the sixth great fire started. It was estimated that more damage as done at this one than all of the preceding ones. For eight months the citizens had enjoyed comparative immunity. Then at about 11 o’clock of May 3 a fire started in a paint and upholstery store on the south side of the Plaza. This again was considered to have been of incendiary origin. The wind was blowing and at first carried the fire down to Kearny, then along Kearny, for several blocks.
Then the wind shifted and blew from the south and carried the fire into the main business district. The wind increased to the ferocity of a hurricane, the planked streets burned. Street after street went up in smoke and the reflection is said to have been seen one hundred miles at sea.
The fire burned for the period of ten hours. Between 1500 and 2000 houses had been destroyed. Eighteen blocks in the main business district had been destroyed.
Only five of the brick buildings on Montgomery street escaped. The burned district extended about three-fourths of a mile from north to south and a third of a mile from east to west. The damage was estimated at $12,000,000.
On June 22, 1851, hardly six months after the previous one, another fire started. Again incendiaries were believed to be the cause. It began about 11 o’clock in the morning and the wind drove the flames in every direction. It began on Powell street an ten full blocks and six parts of blocks were destroyed. The City Hall, purchased for $150,000 and improved at great cost, was destroyed. And the loss was estimated at $3,000,000."

Source
http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist1/fire.html

They has a crime riddance program.

Interesting. Tell us more, pls?

I just now looked it up - are you referring to the vigilance committees?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Deacon and Chris and others: Another issue that comes up or at least has come up in the past few years, and I do not want this to lead to a political debate, is that certain people in the political world seem to take the terms "crazy" and "mentally ill" and apply them not merely to people who truly and clinically fit those categories, but any individual or group who disagree with their worldview. To be blunt and straight forward: A very vile Marxist once told me that she considers any "Conservative American" to be "crazy" and should have all weapons ownership taken away from them. That is the sort of mentality that has creeped into our world, as well and makes the problems all the more difficult.

JD: I for one am so glad that you survived that horrible incident you mentioned and I feel compassion for those who have gone through that and those other situations you mentioned. I always tell women that they should get some self defense skills in their experience in case of such attacks.

Deacon, thank you for mentioning the kubotan things. A police officer once told me that that is a very effective means of self protection if one knows how to use it and is legal in almost every area.

[ChrisinHove]

And some people certainly *do* fail the test of responsible car ownership. I think we need to recognise the likelihood of human shortcomings, and limits on car use are imposed in many areas until experience and sound judgement are proven.

And yet, despite those limits, there are still folks still drive without a license and folks who have a drivers license but drive irresponsibly and harm other people in the process. Same is true of guns. Hunters in many, if not all, US states have to take a "Hunter Safety Training Course" before being issued a license. Hunting "accidents", many of which are the result of irresponsible and negligent behavior, still happen.

Fair points. What I am trying to say is that with increased power must come increased responsibility. Do you not think that there must be a level of responsibility beyond which it is unreasonable to burden a private citizen? Not necessarily guns, but backyard pesticides and herbicides, race vehicles etc.

[ChrisinHove]

Deacon and Chris and others: Another issue that comes up or at least has come up in the past few years, and I do not want this to lead to a political debate, is that certain people in the political world seem to take the terms "crazy" and "mentally ill" and apply them not merely to people who truly and clinically fit those categories, but any individual or group who disagree with their worldview. To be blunt and straight forward: A very vile Marxist once told me that she considers any "Conservative American" to be "crazy" and should have all weapons ownership taken away from them. That is the sort of mentality that has creeped into our world, as well and makes the problems all the more difficult.

JD: I for one am so glad that you survived that horrible incident you mentioned and I feel compassion for those who have gone through that and those other situations you mentioned. I always tell women that they should get some self defense skills in their experience in case of such attacks.

Deacon, thank you for mentioning the kubotan things. A police officer once told me that that is a very effective means of self protection if one knows how to use it and is legal in almost every area.

It strikes me that anyone must be crazy to suggest a single, fixed set of rules to apply over somewhere as large and diverse as the USA!

[SpyderScout]

A very vile Marxist

Are there any other kind? :D

Ooops, politics.

[The Deacon]

Fair points. What I am trying to say is that with increased power must come increased responsibility. Do you not think that there must be a level of responsibility beyond which it is unreasonable to burden a private citizen? Not necessarily guns, but backyard pesticides and herbicides, race vehicles etc.

Sure, but the "level of responsibility" should be for actions, not for ownership of possessions. My having a handgun on my hip or knife in pocket harms no one. If I use either to defend myself or a loved one the criminal justice system here will determine whether that was justifed or not and put me in jail if it wasn't. My attacker or their family may also attempt to sue me. If I were to use either to harm an innocent person, I could pretty much count on being both jailed and sued. If I do something stupid while hunting, or at the range, and harm someone else they can sue me and, depending on my level of negligence, I could also be charged with a crime.

As for race cars, don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US you don't need a drivers license to buy a motor vehicle, only to take one out for a road test before purchasing it. You also don't need to register or insure a motor vehicle that's never going to be driven on public roads. Tracks may have their own rules for "qualifying" drivers but, at least in the past, not all of them asked to see your drivers license.

[ChrisinHove]

Fair points. What I am trying to say is that with increased power must come increased responsibility. Do you not think that there must be a level of responsibility beyond which it is unreasonable to burden a private citizen? Not necessarily guns, but backyard pesticides and herbicides, race vehicles etc.

Sure, but the "level of responsibility" should be for actions, not for ownership of possessions. My having a handgun on my hip or knife in pocket harms no one. If I use either to defend myself or a loved one the criminal justice system here will determine whether that was justifed or not and put me in jail if it wasn't. My attacker or their family may also attempt to sue me. If I were to use either to harm an innocent person, I could pretty much count on being both jailed and sued. If I do something stupid while hunting, or at the range, and harm someone else they can sue me and, depending on my level of negligence, I could also be charged with a crime.

As for race cars, don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US you don't need a drivers license to buy a motor vehicle, only to take one out for a road test before purchasing it. You also don't need to register or insure a motor vehicle that's never going to be driven on public roads. Tracks may have their own rules for "qualifying" drivers but, at least in the past, not all of them asked to see your drivers license.

I see your point. I suppose the next question must be whether you think everybody is as responsible as yourself and to what level do you expect your community to protect you from those who aren’t, I guess. “Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted” is no doubt effective over the longer term, but a little rough on the victims in the first instance.

By race cars I meant the looney-tunes street racers, not regulated circuit stuff. My bad.

[The Deacon]

I see your point. I suppose the next question must be whether you think everybody is as responsible as yourself and to what level do you expect your community to protect you from those who aren’t, I guess. “Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted” is no doubt effective over the longer term, but a little rough on the victims in the first instance.

By race cars I meant the looney-tunes street racers, not regulated circuit stuff. My bad.

Chris, I have no expectation that everyone will behave responsibly, just as I have no expectation that everyone will be honest or polite. I think it would be foolishly naive to believe otherwise. Besides, I'm no angel. I don't drink and drive, ever, and I don't text while driving because I don't own a cell phone, but I've occasionally driven while distracted by other things and routinely violate speed limits.

As for protection, I'm a firm believer in the saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". I much prefer having the right to protect myself over the need to rely on the police to protect me. All the laws in the world can't stop stupidity and irresponsible behavior and criminals are, by definition, people who choose not to obey the law.

Not sure about other parts of the US, but from what I've seen and read about, street racing is not much of a problem in my part of South Carolina. I've seen a few groups of motorcyclists doing things that made it seem like they were competing for the chance to become organ donors, but I think of them more as potential Darwin award winners that potential killers. I worry more about getting t-boned by the guy driving at moderate speeds in 20 year old car with bald tires and bad brakes. No annual safety inspections here in SC, so lots of older cars and some of them are not particularly well maintained.

[ChrisinHove]

As for protection, I'm a firm believer in the saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

I haven’t heard that one before! Hah! I do like it!

Fascinating discussion, thank you.

[The Deacon]

I haven’t heard that one before! Hah! I do like it!

Fascinating discussion, thank you.

Yes it is, Chris. I'm sure part of the difference in our attitudes toward such things comes down to what's considered reasonable self defense in our respective countries. Specifically, the differences in when it is legally acceptable to use deadly force to defend yourself and others. That, in turn drives the limitations placed on our respective ability to do so.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Deacon and Chris: One thing that I find to be sad is that in some places and in some countries, the self-defender is told that they can be potentially legally liable if they are protecting themselves and their property, if they use what is called "disproportionate force". I find that to be utter nonsense. I was told an example: If you are attacked and the attacker is armed with fists, and you happen to use a knife or other weapon to defend yourself, and you kill them, you can possibly be liable, or something similiar. I find that to be unfair. I am sure there are regions where that is not the case, where you are allowed to use whatever means necessary in order to protect your life.

[ChrisinHove]

Deacon and Chris: One thing that I find to be sad is that in some places and in some countries, the self-defender is told that they can be potentially legally liable if they are protecting themselves and their property, if they use what is called "disproportionate force". I find that to be utter nonsense. I was told an example: If you are attacked and the attacker is armed with fists, and you happen to use a knife or other weapon to defend yourself, and you kill them, you can possibly be liable, or something similiar. I find that to be unfair. I am sure there are regions where that is not the case, where you are allowed to use whatever means necessary in order to protect your life.

Here, in your own home, probably not, on the basis of a fairly recent pensioner vs burglar (deceased) case. On the streets, if you used a knife that the law considers that you shouldn’t have been carrying, most definitely. I think many legal systems want to reduce the space for private summary executions!

[SpyderScout]

Here, in your own home, probably not, on the basis of a fairly recent pensioner vs burglar (deceased) case.

Are you referring to the Osborn-Brooks case?

I remember following the case. What happened was horrible for the pensioner and what happened afterwards was not pretty either. Not only did he get detained but family and frinds of the dead criminal stalked Osborn-Brooks and he had to vacate his home.

For those who dont know; burglar breaks into pensioners home, a scuffle ensues and 78-year old retired person/homeowner stabs burglar in self defense.

I think many legal systems want to reduce the space for private summary executions!

You almost sound, as if you dont care much for a 'castle doctrine?'

[ChrisinHove]

Here, in your own home, probably not, on the basis of a fairly recent pensioner vs burglar (deceased) case.

Are you referring to the Osborn-Brooks case?

I remember following the case. What happened was horrible for the pensioner and what happened afterwards was not pretty either. Not only did he get detained but family and frinds of the dead criminal stalked Osborn-Brooks and he had to vacate his home.

For those who dont know; burglar breaks into pensioners home, a scuffle ensues and 78-year old retired person/homeowner stabs burglar in self defense.

I think many legal systems want to reduce the space for private summary executions!

You almost sound, as if you dont care much for a 'castle doctrine?'

That’s the one. He wasn’t charged or prosecuted, quite rightly. The intimidation in the aftermath was a disgrace, however.

I had to google “castle doctrine”: there is nothing really comparable here. I think it’s validity must depend entirely upon where you are and the circumstances, but there are cases where it has been misused, are there not? No doubt it has saved the bacon of a few householders as well.

I’ll admit to finding it a little uncomfortable, though, not least because it’s so hard for me to imagine those sorts of circumstances occurring here. YMMV, as they say.

[The Deacon]

Here, in your own home, probably not, on the basis of a fairly recent pensioner vs burglar (deceased) case. On the streets, if you used a knife that the law considers that you shouldn’t have been carrying, most definitely. I think many legal systems want to reduce the space for private summary executions!

You say "private summary execution", I say "doing one's bit to reduce prison overcrowding and saving the taxpayers a ton of money".

I had to google “castle doctrine”: there is nothing really comparable here. I think it’s validity must depend entirely upon where you are and the circumstances, but there are cases where it has been misused, are there not? No doubt it has saved the bacon of a few householders as well.

I’ll admit to finding it a little uncomfortable, though, not least because it’s so hard for me to imagine those sorts of circumstances occurring here. YMMV, as they say.

Just as in the UK, every homicide here gets investigated, Chris. In a castle doctrine state, If they find you invited the person into your home in order to kill them, or are gaming the system in some other way, then you'll get charged. There will also be cases where the perp's family will make them out to be a good boy despite them having a record. And yes, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws have saved the lives of more than a few law abiding citizens.

[ChrisinHove]

You say "private summary execution", I say "doing one's bit to reduce prison overcrowding and saving the taxpayers a ton of money".

That doesn’t surprise me! :)

I guess those areas where Castle Doctrine applies don’t keep it a secret... Is there any difference in crime rates or type in those places, do you know?

[SpyderScout]

I’ll admit to finding it a little uncomfortable, though, not least because it’s so hard for me to imagine those sorts of circumstances occurring here. YMMV, as they say.

Hard to imagine?
You yourself referred to Osborn-Brooks.
Plenty of burglaries in the UK.

Plenty of outright home robberies* in some countries in Europe as well. How one can be against 'castle doctrine' in that case is beyond me.

Must be nice to be able to live in a blue sky world imagining such could not befall one self.

Burglaries rise, charges fall.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44859899

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -uk-solved

Violent crime in England up 19%. Government in denial.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559

* Break in, clobber the wife or husband, force wife or husband to cough up cash, valuables etc, leave both bleeding on the floor.

[SpyderScout]

In a castle doctrine state, If they find you invited the person into your home in order to kill them, or are gaming the system in some other way, then you'll get charged. There will also be cases where the perp's family will make them out to be a good boy despite them having a record. And yes, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws have saved the lives of more than a few law abiding citizens.

Indeed.
I remember a case in the US, where some young men broke into a house, where a couple of them got shot 'graveyard dead.'
The female getaway driver and instigator/'brains' behind the scheme sped off, when she heard/saw her compatriots get lit up.
She was found in short order and was charged with murder.

[ChrisinHove]

I’ll admit to finding it a little uncomfortable, though, not least because it’s so hard for me to imagine those sorts of circumstances occurring here. YMMV, as they say.

Hard to imagine?
You yourself referred to Osborn-Brooks.
Plenty of burglaries in the UK.

Plenty of outright home robberies* in some countries in Europe as well. How one can be against 'castle doctrine' in that case is beyond me.

Must be nice to be able to live in a blue sky world imagining such could not befall one self.

Burglaries rise, charges fall.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44859899

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -uk-solved

Violent crime in England up 19%. Government in denial.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559

* Break in, clobber the wife or husband, force wife or husband to cough up cash, valuables etc, leave both bleeding on the floor.

I meant it’s hard to imagine shooting someone for just walking into your property, and doing it within the law, here.

That sort of aggravated burglary happens, of course, but very rarely and big news when it does. And when it does, fatalities are almost unheard of.

The violent crime we have is largely inner city youth-on-youth knife crime.

And yes, it is nice to live without fear, somewhere where you can open your door to strangers when it’s dark, or knock on someone else’s door if you need to! There is a price to pay in what you would perceive as lack of freedoms, however, and so I wouldn’t try and tell you it’s better.

We clearly live in very different worlds, and I am fascinated by those differences and try to understand them. I am sorry if they offend you.