Click to Subscribe
Taking One for The Man
Rejecting the Monopoly of Force
© 2012 James LaFond
For the first 45 years of my life I was told by my parents, my teachers, Officer Friendly when he visited my 6th grade class, and every newscaster, crime reporter and law enforcement spokesperson I ever saw on TV, that I was not to attempt to defend myself against a dangerous, armed criminal. If I were targeted for abduction I was to go meekly. If I was to be robbed or raped I was to offer no resistance, etc., etc., roll over and die…
In the 1980s when the ‘Shotgun Bandits’ began hitting Baltimore area supermarkets the police and our bosses came around to tell us not to run, not to resist, to do what we were told. I always quietly disagreed and always scouted egress options from any facility I worked in. I have also always placed a weapon in every room of my dwelling, and in every corner of my bedroom, resolving to fight in my lair if it is invaded. My family always told me I was crazy and irresponsible: my knife would be taken from me and used on me, my gun would accidentally shoot my wife, resistance is impossible—they are bigger, stronger. When they come in the night you just say ‘please sir’...
Screw that!
Well, finally, and tragically, in Flushing New York in the year 2000, the police had to choke on their advice, as 7 employees of a Wendy’s restaurant were herded into a walk-in cooler and executed [only 5 died]. All of a sudden, my coworkers, who had thought I was insane for keeping a door bar or shelf-molding strip near my work station, began coming to me for survival advice. I was fielding such questions as, “Do I hide in the engine room or run out the back?” Female employees began asking the males to come check on them at their work stations, since 24-hour supermarkets are largely deserted and open to any scumbag. People, even supermarket people, were waking up, finally shedding the government-perpetuated belief that only police can protect us, that we cannot, and should not, attempt to protect ourselves.
Along with the rash of child abductions and serial killings investigated by the FBI in the 1980s and 90s, such incidents finally convinced some law enforcement people to recommend that one not go along with an abductor. After decades of studying abductions and home invasions and robberies, our law enforcers have finally begun to [occasionally] give the same advice most of us have believed in since childhood. If a gunman wants you to go to a private location, it is so that your execution will cause him the minimal inconvenience. Now you will hear the experts interviewed on real crime shows recommend that you not comply with an abductor.
The monopoly of force is still in effect however. Keep in mind that you are not permitted to use force to protect property, that you must always use less force and less lethal force than the aggressor, that you must prove that you could have run instead of fight, and that the aggressor acted first. Recently a Baltimore City cop responded to punks smashing his door with rocks and then running for kicks. [The Baltimore City Sun referred to this activity as ‘knicker-knocking’, ‘a harmless prank’.] In a resulting attempt to subdue one of the fleeing criminal youths, the youth unfortunately died from a choke applied by the cop. Both of their lives ended in that yard. There is also the example of the part-Latino ‘white supremacist’ neighborhood-watch guy that shot the innocent young man that was beating his face in. His life is also effectively over.
Don’t be the off duty cop with the nuclear choke or the neighborhood-watch guy with the gun who can’t fight. Personal autonomy is important to all of us, unless we are submissives in an S&M club. The key to maintaining our physical [and hence very personal] autonomy from common criminals and our criminal government is to draw your defensive lines [those imaginary borders in your life that will trigger your fight response] as closely as possible to the government guidelines. My rule is not to fight until I have been shot at, slashed at, stoned, struck, chased, or bum-rushed when outside my dwelling. Inside my dwelling I will always use lethal weaponry with minimal warning [since intruders can be assumed to have a firearm, as do most home invaders], and prefer swords and knives to avoid accidentally taking out a roommate. At work I have dangerous equipment, tools, fixtures and merchandise within easy reach.
Your situation will probably be different than mine. Just make sure you use the common sense that God gave you, and which the ‘authorities’ have sought to take from you since childhood. Even some of them are now admitting that we should not always be sheeple.
The Hunt for Whitey
Recognizing and Surviving the Condition of Anarcho-Tyranny
Attack Of The Last Virgin
harm city
A Pack of Camels
eBook
barbarism versus civilization
eBook
the greatest boxer
eBook
the sunset saga complete
eBook
let the world fend for itself
eBook
by the wine dark sea
eBook
fate
eBook
the greatest lie ever sold
eBook
winter of a fighting life
Bob     Jul 12, 2017

Here's an instance where third-party intervention and punishment, both, were delivered summarily.

youtube.com/watch?v=Oeu1GiKYeKI
LaMano     Jul 12, 2017

Bob -

That appears to be a good series of videos. Mostly gun-related so not related to this discussion except as a complement .... I'll keep the series bookmarked ...
PR     Jul 13, 2017

"If a gunman wants you to go to a private location, it is so that your execution will cause him the minimal inconvenience. Now you will hear the experts interviewed on real crime shows recommend that you not comply with an abductor."

Sanford Strong argued this in the 90's in "Strong on Defense." Whenever a criminal is trying to move you, it's always to a place better for them and worse for you. Police call it a "secondary crime scene."

If someone can escape, they should do it. This causes the criminal to want to flee because they know the escapee has called the cops.
  Add a new comment below:
Name
Email
Message