Victim or Loser

You have the right to do a lot of things, doesn't mean you have the ability.

Time and time again I see people argue that they have been the "victim" or violence when in actual fact they are simply the loser of an altercation that they were fully willing to engage in up to the point they were on the receiving end of superior violence.

So much could be done from a self protection perspective if many people stopped confusing what they perceive as their right "I can say or do what I want." with the ability to do or say what they want. Just because you feel that shouting at the guy who cut you up while driving is your God given right to assert yourself does not mean that you are immune from repercussion for those actions.

Even worse are the people who participate in activity which they perceive to be their "right" i.e. "I can walk through this wasteland at 2.00am alone because I have a RIGHT to go where I want and do what I want whenever I want and be safe." It makes no difference at all what you feel you are entitled to when it comes to violence. There is merely what you have the ABILITY to do.

thoughts anyone?

Yep, totally agree.

Couldn't agree more. I think the 'having the right' to do something is often a thinly disguised excuse to let your ego lose. Life isn't fair. You may have the right,legally or perceived in your own mind to do something but that doesn't mean it's the wisest course of action.

You have every right to walk up to a group of rowdy coked up thugs and admonish them for disturbing the peace.
After you wake up in hospital you'll have plenty of time to think about the fact that you exercised your right and they broke the law, making you right and them wrong

Regardless of that and the fact that they may (or may not) end up in jail it didn't save you from a beating and a hospital visit.

Your example re the shouting at the guy cutting you up in the car is probably more realistic.
Anybody with half a brain who actually puts themselves in that position merely because they think they have a right to do whatever, must also realise that they are also putting themselves forwards as someone who may resort to violence to enforce their right and, as you say, shouldn't be surprised if they are met with more or a higher skilled level of violence

I can see where everyone is coming from. I had what could have been an altercation the other day whilst busking when I was very short with a chav who decided to piss abut with my guitar strings. He made macho and stalked off.

So yes I have every right to tell someone to piss off when they're blatantly out for trouble and he wasn't a small bloke so it could of gone either way and frankly if it had gotten physical my guitar would almost certainly been damaged.

So yes I had the right to act as I did but it could well have gone south. On the other hand what would he have done if I hadn't practiced the old 'Target Hardening' ? He could of deliberatly provoked me more simply because I was being submissive.

A different senario to what others mentioned above of course.

I recall a lad who came out to find several alds in their teens (about 17 or so) kicking his fence. He had the right to do something but was intelligent enough to wait for backup... which never arrived so he stewed about it the whole day untill that night in the club he saw one of the lads alone and without furthuer ado approached and layed him out... much the lads mothers concernation.

So yes he had the right to fly out the house that morning and tackle four lads but thought better...

I myself try not to act on pure
anger, that that's getting harder and harder these days. I reacted to
the busker buster not on some strategic scale thinking agression was the
best way to get shot of him but because I'd been there for an hour and
hadn't made a penny.

I am constantly irritated with life in that the people who have the most tolerence are the most abused because they are a safe target. I myself have developed a bit of a temper over this in the past few years after more than my share of arseholes think they can piss me about.

The car example is a good one of course. I pulled out at a roundabout to slowly the other day forcing someone to slow down a bit to sharply. Fortunately he was an excellent driver because he managed this difficult feat whilst steering with one hand and employing the carhorn with the other for no less than half the curcumference of the roundabout.

So yes I was in the wrong and he had the right to add to the danger of the manouver and probably startle every car near that roundabout

Hi Jagununco,
re the busking incident, yeah well, at least you were aware of the possible repercussions and consequences and were willing to accept them.

I may be wrong but I think what Chris is getting at is people who have absolutely no idea how to defend themselves or who maybe are not prepared for the consequences of excersising their 'right' or putting themselves in a position where a physical confrontation is very probably on the cards shouldn't be shocked when they end up being battered. Or in some instances expect sympathy.

Circumstances are different depending whether the threat is directed at you personally or against your property or, as some people are apt to do, assume the role of 'Guardian of Public Morals and Property', have a bout of morally righteous indignation and then be surprised when they are on the recieving end of more than they bargained for.

A bit like that old saying, 'Don't let your aspirations get mixed up with your ability'

By the way, I think it's good that some people are prepared to take a stand against things like vandalism of public property etc but at least be sensible about it and don't get hospitalised because of it.

I think your example of the guy and the teenagers kicking his fence is an instance where he had the 'right' to go out and have a go at them but was smart enough to wait a bit longer until the odds were a bit more in his favour to excersise his right.

People don't have to react to every slight or slur against them or every instance of rude behaviour. They may have the 'right' to but if you do, you're putting yourself out there and saying that you're ready to back it up. Whether you mean to convey that message or not that's how it's going to be taken by most people. If you do decide to carry on an argument or push things until they get 'hot', well, you've put yourself there and the other guy will probably think that you're willing to back it up physically and that's a challenge to him.

Just 'cos you had the right doesn't somehow make the outcome a foregone conclusion like in the movies where the good guys always win. If you lose, the fact that you had the right doesn't mean that you really had to push things to the limit. Maybe you could have backed off before things got out of hand.

Argh, I'm rambling now

I agree with Cartmel Pete.

I may be wrong but I think what Chris is getting at is people who have absolutely no idea how to defend themselves or who maybe are not prepared for the consequences of excersising their 'right' or putting themselves in a position where a physical confrontation is very probably on the cards shouldn't be shocked when they end up being battered. Or in some instances expect sympathy.

Absolutely spot on.

The "it's my right" argument is fine and dandy when you have the weight of support on your side to make your opinion heard safely and without consequence. It is foolish in the extreme to mix what you feel you are "entitled" to do and what you have the ability to do. A twenty year old woman certainly has the "right" to wear revealing clothes and walk across wasteland at two in the morning after calling twenty blokes "limp-dicks" without being accosted. BUT... she doesn't have the ABILITY and so needs to wake up to the reality of her situation.

When it comes to self protection and self defence I am completely unconcerned with what your rights are at any given moment in time, I am only concerned with what your ability is and trying to ensure that wherever you can you mitigate the risk in every possible way. Accept reality, not your view of how the world should be.

Lots of people making lots of noise fail to understand that very important point.

A twenty year old woman certainly has the "right" to wear revealing clothes and walk across wasteland at two in the morning after calling twenty blokes "limp-dicks" without being accosted. BUT... she doesn't have the ABILITY and so needs to wake up to the reality of her situation.

The 'slut' comment by (I believe) a Canadian police officer and the "Slut-walks" that were a result of said comment did cross my mind when reading the initial post but thought that maybe mention of it would get into maybe too political or P.C an area