[Simeon_Strangelight]

The behavior of the people is no surprise really.

In some areas you need to go out armed with pepper sprays, weaponized canes, weaponized umbrellas or the like. The people are brainwashed to do nothing and that is what they heroically did.

Anyone with a shred of wits about him would have started using belts or women's handbags, but this is not the kind of world we live in anymore.

It is becoming like Ecuador where an American couple (an actual model and her husband) was attacked by a bunch of whores who then proceed to cut up her face. Meanwhile dozens of people are looking by and some men hold down the husband saying that it is not his business.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...watch.html

Maybe they thought that she was a whore and they were holding down a John. Either way - times are getting tougher despite what the media tells us.

The only reason why crime is down is because there is less youth than in times past. But if you do a crime relative to number of young men analysis, then you might find out that they do more crime than 30 years ago.

If you throw human decency and normal protective instincts over the side, then you get a society like that. That guy Kevin died probably defending his Iphone from one of those oppressed black youths he likes to write about.

It is the perfect ironic circle and a symbol of things to come. The liberal SJWs will be one of the first who get taken out when shit hits the fan.

They want to disarm the population, make it even illegal for people to carry any defensive weapons like batons, make it actually illegal to stop crime, then arm only the police. Finally they then complain about police brutality in one giant mindfuck.

Actions have consequences and this is one of them.

[Samseau]

^ I laugh when people think it will be safer for them in other countries once America is in the thralls of its decline.

[Thoroughbred]

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Fat weak men who turn against their own tribe are not fulfilling their ancient mandate, and are not entitled to expect other men to come to their rescue when they have abdicated all personal responsibility.


There IS a difference, and the difference is significant. All this talk of 'white knighting' is ludicrous and just sounds like you've swallowed red pill soundbites without actually stopping to think for yourself. Honourable men defend the weak and infirm - those who cannot help themselves, and men who show courage/resourcefulness/commitment to a shared ideal are also entitled in an honourable man's mind to his help and protection. Men who have made no effort to actually be men, beyond walking around with a dick, have not earned that reciprocal honour, and must reap the consequences of what they've sown.

A great sentiment, but completely hollow. How exactly is one supposed to make this assessment about this man's "commitment to a shared ideal" in the minute and half he was getting stabbed and bashed to death from the other end of a train carriage?

Sounds like a rationalisation of inaction. If you are doing nothing to save your own skin, fair enough. But saying the bloke was not "fulfilling his ancient mandate" and that justifies a room full of able bodied adult males standing still while he gets stabbed to death is one if the biggest cop outs I've seen on this forum, and that's saying some shit.

You either stand against mindless opportunistic violence against others or you don't. He was innocent and he was unarmed, he deserved the aid of those around him. Regardless of his fucking politics. Fuck outta here with your "in certain situations I would have xyz" bullshit.

[bacon]

[Robert JS]

I once trained with Lee Morrison, who is a self protection instructor. Lee is no bullshit artist. He worked on the doors of clubs in East London, Portsmouth and Southhampton for 14 years has faced numerous attacks by unarmed and armed assailants.

He told me that if I was ever to face a knife wielding attacker, I needed to understand I would certainly get cut. He taught me to guard myself with the outsides of my forearms. Better you suffer a knife wound on the outsides of your arms than in your gut. From there he taught various techniques to trap the attacker's arm. If you can trap his arm, you should hit the assailant's head repeatedly with full force until you knock him out. Lee prefers striking with the heel of the palm as you can have full knockout power without risking breaking your hand.

I drilled the techniques I was taught with a partner with a rubber knife who tried to attack me at random. I managed to trap the arm 50% of the time. The other 50% I was "stabbed".

I would not willingly tackle a knife wielding assailant unarmed other than out of necessity to protect myself or a loved one.

If you want to know more about Lee Morrison, check out his site at http://www.urbancombatives.com/. He also has videos on YouTube such as the one below [abut how to deal with knife attacks]. I think you will be able to tell within 30 seconds that he's the real deal.

[H1N1]

(07-12-2015 09:28 AM)Ollave Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Fat weak men who turn against their own tribe are not fulfilling their ancient mandate, and are not entitled to expect other men to come to their rescue when they have abdicated all personal responsibility.


There IS a difference, and the difference is significant. All this talk of 'white knighting' is ludicrous and just sounds like you've swallowed red pill soundbites without actually stopping to think for yourself. Honourable men defend the weak and infirm - those who cannot help themselves, and men who show courage/resourcefulness/commitment to a shared ideal are also entitled in an honourable man's mind to his help and protection. Men who have made no effort to actually be men, beyond walking around with a dick, have not earned that reciprocal honour, and must reap the consequences of what they've sown.

A great sentiment, but completely hollow. How exactly is one supposed to make this assessment about this man's "commitment to a shared ideal" in the minute and half he was getting stabbed and bashed to death from the other end of a train carriage?

Sounds like a rationalisation of inaction. If you are doing nothing to save your own skin, fair enough. But saying the bloke was not "fulfilling his ancient mandate" and that justifies a room full of able bodied adult males standing still while he gets stabbed to death is one if the biggest cop outs I've seen on this forum, and that's saying some shit.

You either stand against mindless opportunistic violence against others or you don't. He was innocent and he was unarmed, he deserved the aid of those around him. Regardless of his fucking politics. Fuck outta here with your "in certain situations I would have xyz" bullshit.

Your moral absolutism is your own prerogative. I do not see the world as being so black and white. You introduce a parameter that I did not mention (the other end of a train carriage), and ignore how 'mindless opportunistic violence' actually manifests in such a case.

A fat weak man chose to turn a non-violent robbery into a physical confrontation, and got killed for it. My view is that if someone pulls a weapon on you and demands replaceable items you hand them over. If you fail to do so, you are calling a man's bluff in a situation where you cannot afford to be wrong. If you do not know you know how to fight, then such an action is a demonstration of extraordinarily poor judgement. There were many opportunities in the course of this confrontation for this man to avoid violence, violence he had no idea how to handle. The fact that he didn't choose to take them, got him killed. I do not fight for people who make no effort to make sound personal decisions - that is how you get yourself locked up or in prison. You can moralise all you want, but if you fight for such people then you are showing reckless disregard for your own life.

Again, once you turned ghetto you let your indignation cloud your judgement and you indulged yourself by introducing statements I did not make. I never mentioned his politics, I stated that he had not put in the effort to make himself capable of effectively standing up for himself, for which there is no excuse. I stand by the principle that I will defend the elderly, infirm, women, children, and men who have tried to help themselves. I will not help those who will not help themselves. Their death wish will not sign my own death warrant.

As an aside, this is a forum full of grown ups. I would encourage you to remain civil and engage constructively where you disagree. It is very easy to let the fact that you are typing on a keyboard allow you to act tougher than you might feel should you find yourself face to face with the person you are disagreeing with. It is, ironically, how men like the subject of this thread find themselves coming unstuck in real life, when confronted by those with a real capacity to do violence. A false sense of security can be more dangerous than any knife.

[Mr West]

@H1N1

With all due respect, the rationalization you are making to explain why an attractive woman is apparently entitled to protection from men is preposterous. This is what I mean when I say men have adopted a "only-loyal-to-the-pussy" revised version of traditional masculine principles.

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)germany Wrote:  

If the black guy would have been stabbing a pretty girl, there would be much more people dead in that train: few white knights as well.

It looks like the standard beta male will always white knight for a girl, but never for another man...

Pretty girls have a social and civilizational value, and are not expected to be able to defend themselves against predatory male attackers. By remaining slim and attractive, they are fulfilling their societal role, entitling them to protection from men, who in turn would be fulfilling their civilizational role.

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Pretty girls have a social and civilizational value, and are not expected to be able to defend themselves against predatory male attackers.

Pretty girls do have a societal value (they are pleasant eye candy for the 99% of men that are not currently fucking them), but that is as far as it goes for the average girl (that you aren't fucking). By your own logic the societal value of a pretty girl fails to even compare to the societal value of your average working age man (that likely contributes more to society, works more hours, more stressful and important jobs). Which is why this reasoning is non-sense.

I would probably defend a pretty woman in danger depending on the situation, but us here more than anywhere else should know that the prettiest girl in the world, probably isn't doing the important jobs that make civilization function, that value is shared by men, precisely the average man.

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

By remaining slim and attractive, they are fulfilling their societal role, entitling them to protection from men, who in turn would be fulfilling their civilizational role

This is by the far the biggest piece of blue pill misinformation in your quote because it leaves out inconvenient details. We don't hold women and men to the same standard, but "remaining slim" as a standard for women is a joke compared to standards men of past held their women.

The highest degree of womenhood (that unlike today was not earn by "remaining slim") was as follow:

1. Save yourself for marriage
2. Find a hard working man that will be good to your offspring
3. Support him.
4. Have children.
5. Raise a strong family that will contribute to the future of your land.

To think the standards have fallen so low that remaining slim (the most basic shit in the world) is now considered fulfilling "societal roles" for women and worth risking your life as a man shows just how deep the brainwashing goes.

Your average woman today, that is doing the bare minimum by remaining slim:

1. Is fucking guys (lots of them) that are NOT you.
2. Competing in the job market with YOU (bringing down wages and messing with your money).
3. out of college with lots debt that YOU will help pay (one way or the other).
4. and last either having damaged kids by single motherhood, no kids at all and riding the carousel, or wrecking their future families through divorce rape.

I don't deny that the responsibility of a man to be strong falls squarely on him. But i hold women to an equivalent standard and just "remaining slim", is not (nor will ever be) the equivalent of women fulfilling their societal role.

[H1N1]

(07-12-2015 04:30 PM)Mr West Wrote:  

@H1N1

With all due respect, the rationalization you are making to explain why an attractive woman is apparently entitled to protection from men and why you justify throwing your fellow men under a bus is preposterous. This is what I mean when I say men have adopted a "only-loyal-to-the-pussy" revised version of traditional masculine principles.

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)germany Wrote:  

If the black guy would have been stabbing a pretty girl, there would be much more people dead in that train: few white knights as well.

It looks like the standard beta male will always white knight for a girl, but never for another man...

Pretty girls have a social and civilizational value, and are not expected to be able to defend themselves against predatory male attackers. By remaining slim and attractive, they are fulfilling their societal role, entitling them to protection from men, who in turn would be fulfilling their civilizational role.

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Pretty girls have a social and civilizational value, and are not expected to be able to defend themselves against predatory male attackers.

Pretty girls do have a societal value (they are pleasant eye candy for the 99% of men that are not currently fucking them), but that is as far as it goes for the average girl (that you aren't fucking). By your own logic the societal value of a pretty girl fails to even compare to the societal value of your average working age man (that likely contributes more to society, works more hours, more stressful and important jobs). Which is why this reasoning is non-sense.

I would probably defend a pretty woman in danger depending on the situation, but us here more than anywhere else should know that the prettiest girl in the world, probably isn't doing the important jobs that make civilization function, that value is shared by men, precisely the average man.

(07-10-2015 11:04 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

By remaining slim and attractive, they are fulfilling their societal role, entitling them to protection from men, who in turn would be fulfilling their civilizational role

This is by the far the biggest piece of blue pill misinformation in your quote because it leaves out inconvenient details. We don't hold women and men to the same standard, but "remaining slim" as a standard for women is a joke compared to standards men of past held their women.

The highest degree of womenhood (that unlike today was not earn by "remaining slim") was as follow:

1. Save yourself for marriage
2. Find a hard working man that will be good to your offspring
3. Support him.
4. Have children.
5. Raise a strong family that will contribute to the future of your land.

To think the standards have fallen so low that remaining slim (the most basic shit in the world) is now considered fulfilling "societal roles" for women and worth risking your life as a man shows just how deep the brainwashing goes.

Your average woman today, that is doing the bare minimum by remaining slim:

1. Is fucking guys (lots of them) that are NOT you.
2. Competing in the job market with YOU (bringing down wages and messing with your money).
3. out of college with lots debt that YOU will help pay (one way or the other).
4. and last either having damaged kids by single motherhood, no kids at all and riding the carousel, or wrecking their future families through divorce rape.

I don't deny that the responsibility of a man to be strong falls squarely on him. But i hold women to an equivalent standard and just "remaining slim", is not (nor will ever be) the equivalent of women fulfilling their societal role.

No real disagreement from me - it being a forum devoted to 'redpill' principles, I assume we are all on the same page regarding what a woman needs to do to fulfill her social role. We all have interests and projects outside of the internet, there is a finite amount of time available for spelling out the minutiae. Mothers, chaste women, the ones who are (moderately, as far as is realistic in this day and age) chaste by choice not due to lack of options because they've let themselves go etc, should be valued by a civilization, and their protection is in all of our interests, regardless of whether they are fucking us or not. I'd agree that I left rather too much open to interpretation there perhaps, given the sensitivity towards 'the bitches and the way they screw us over'.

I'd question whether the average man now performs the role you suggest in our civilization as it stands, and if he does, what is the intrinsic value of that role in its modern iteration, but I'm not sure there is a right answer to that.

[Cobra]

It's beta to write an article that basically says it's beta that no one else took down a guy with a knife without having been in that situation.

Even worse to imply that he deserved it in any way. There's a reason why gorillas are alpha but ain't human: integrity. The man was weak. Don't pretend he deserved it but also don't pretend that someone there should have done something. The author appears to be another manosphere keyboard jockey.

Reminds me of that gorkha incident where the soldier fucked up a bunch of knife wielding assailants by himself. Sadly not the case here.

[Medic42]

(07-09-2015 02:58 PM)Mr West Wrote:  

Pretty interesting article that exemplifies the state of men in the US today:

Beta males let a man get stabbed to death

1. By dismantling the old code (real non-white knight masculine principles, honor, and morals) the powers that be have created coward men that when shit hits the fan, will act like women and run to safety while a man gets stabbed to death.

2. By dismantling the old code, men today have become docile and effeminate and with no sense of (gender) identity.

3. The men of this generation are men with no loyalty to their fellow men, no sense of brotherhood and only loyal to the pussy. These men will let another man get stabbed to death but I guarantee you they would have jumped on the attacker had the victim being a woman.

Here is a part of the article:

Quote:

On the afternoon of July 4 in Washington DC, a teenager with a knife boarded a crowded metro train and attacked a 24-year-old man, Kevin Joseph Sutherland, stabbing him 30 or 40 times and kicking his head repeatedly until he was dead. No one tried to stop him.

The Washington Post reports that “passengers trapped in the moving train huddled at both ends of the car and watched in horror” as the attack took place. There were about ten people on the car, but no one intervened. They just watched Sutherland get beaten and stabbed to death right in front of them.

The story goes on to describe the 18-year-old attacker, Jasper Spires, robbing other passengers, who handed over their cash and tried to avoid even looking at him, hoping to be spared.

“You’re not really sure what you need to do,” said one witness, a 52-year-old woman. “This man is holding a bloody knife. I don’t think anyone was going to try and stop him.” Perhaps that’s not surprising coming from a 52-year-old woman. In general, it’s hard to fault people in this situation for failing to intervene—even though they obviously should have.

I’m Not Sorry I Put Myself First
What is more surprising is a failure to express regret for not having intervened to save a man’s life. One eyewitness posted his account on Reddit, showing no remorse about failing to intervene, and expressing no sacrificial impulse:

…What I don’t wish is that I had somehow tried to attack the assailant. I am a little bit larger than he was, but I would not have won. It’s scary, because if we had been sitting closer and had seen the attack start I probably would have tried to help, and would have been stabbed.

We asked the police if we could/should have done something differently, and they said that we did the right thing—get to safety and get help (well, I guess my wife did the right thing, I’m kind of a dumbass). On top of that, they said to focus on remembering everything you can about the assailant.

I am lucky to be alive. But Kevin is not, and my heart breaks every time I think about it.

This is beta male rationalizing at its finest—and it is terrifying. Here is a full-grown man, larger than the attacker, who instead of thinking afterwards, “Maybe if I had stepped in and done something, that guy would be alive,” can only thank his lucky stars it wasn’t him.

Knives are lethal weapons and I wouldn't risk my life for a stranger's either. That's not beta it's rational self interest. Not part of my tribe, not my problem. Now if someone attacked my family, friends, or my partner at work yeah I'd intervene.

[Medic42]

Also, his father wants people to remember him as "sensitive and caring" (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...story.html) and he interned under a Dem. member of the house. What are the odds our political views are in alignment? Definitely not my tribe, certainly not my problem.

"That Spires had a knife—what the police said was a “small, black folding knife” they later recovered from a trash can—is no excuse. Any two adult men in that subway car could have stopped him, no matter how crazy or strong he was, and saved Sutherland’s life." http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/09/beho...a-man-die/

I am overweight with many nagging injuries, typically carry a small black knife, and am many years removed from actively training to fight. I would love for the hipster looking author of this piece and one of his similarly built colleagues to disarm me. The only caveat is I get to use a live blade.

It is absolutely not alpha to risk your life defending a weak, feckless male. He chose to develop the feminine virtues of sensitivity and caring rather than masculine virtues like courage and strength. This is absolutely callous to say on my part but, I bet he died sobbing like a girl. All the paper alphas in this conversation that have no experience with inflicting or suffering violence should probably shut their collective mouths regarding what they would do in this circumstance. For anyone interested in my Little Dark style credentials I have had my nose broken more times than I can count, been knocked out, knocked out others, choked out others, lost the meaningful use of an arm for about a month due to an injury training to fight, torn another persons ACL, had teeth knocked out, pulled a gun on an intruder in my house, stabbed a pitbull attacking my dog, and been shoved against a wall with a knife to my throat. If you haven't so much as laced up a pair of gloves I doubt you know what you would do.

[Medic42]

delete

[Medic42]

(07-10-2015 02:53 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Guns wouldn't have been necessary to stop this guy. All that it would've taken was this:



A small canister of pepper spray you could carry on a key chain. Blast it in his eyes and he'd have been blinded long enough for everyone in the train to jump on him. I actually bought one of these for a 2 month trip to South America. I never had to use it but if I was walking through the streets of Rio late at night, I always had it in my hand with the safety button unlocked. If some favela kids ran up on me with a knife, I'd have left his face dripping with the shit and got the hell out of there. I tested it before I left and it shoots like 20 feet. Amazing for such a small can. If more people carried these, something like this stabbing wouldn't have happened.

Speakeasy, you are obviously an intelligent guy with a lot of great posts but some of the stuff you put up about self defense is straight out of left field. I'm sorry that I can't find a better video to illustrate this point without the attacker wearing glasses atm but, it is common for police to make similar videos with attackers wielding bats/knives to demonstrate exactly why this is completely incorrect. Keep in mind that this guy is not jacked up on adrenaline, crazy, or taking drugs/alcohol.

[Medic42]

This is what attacking a nutter with a knife looks like in real life. Warning this is NSFW and is basically a snuff film. If you have a problem with watching people get shot or stabbed this is not for you. It is also a good time to point out how long a person can survive after being shot in the chest. This is why cops are not trained to shoot people in the arms/legs. Also they are harder targets to hit. Google the rule of nines at some point and look at the relative body surface area of the chest vs the legs of an adult some time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbi...rZFQVTD14E

[Repo]

Yeah, to put things another way, if I gave you a knife and stood 5 feet away in a closed area such as a subway, do you seriously think pepper spray would stop you from stabbing me? At most they were probably one step apart. I don't care if I'm blind or not, you are getting stabbed. It takes half a second for someone to close a 5 foot gap and stab you multiple times. You simply do not fuck with someone with a knife in close quarters.

[Sombro]

This article probably needs its own thread:

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE BETA MALE

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/...beta-male/

Quote:

Last year a Salon article titled, “In praise of the ‘beta males,’” made the rounds and we all rolled our eyes. The author wrote:

Quote:

My husband will occasionally tell me a story — about apologizing to someone who was in the wrong or a tense email exchange that he ended with a smiley face — and wryly conclude, “That’s how beta I am.” Personally, I would prefer to call this “sensitivity, emotional intelligence, and peacemaking.” But, sure, if we’re to crudely categorize men as either alpha or beta, leaving zero room for nuance, and if we define kind, nurturing behaviors that cannot be categorized as stereotypically, defensively masculine as “beta,” I suppose my husband is a beta. And thank goodness for that.

Of course, it would take a self-proclaimed feminist on Salon to stand up for the beta males since they won’t do it themselves. Sure, it seems great to have the sensitive, peacemaking beta male who will watch rom-coms with you on a Saturday night. For the women who seek beta males, it seems they’d rather replace female friends than gain a boyfriend or husband.

The rise of the beta males isn’t the same as the metrosexual phenomenon, which was more about looks than substance. Several recent stories in the news are proof that despite the comfort of sharing a house with a beta male, it’s a much different thing to share a public space with one.

I live in the Washington D.C. area and make it a point to avoid public transportation. Every day there seems to be a new incident to reinforce my prejudices. Recently, a man stabbed another man on a metro car filled with people on July 4th, one of the metro’s busiest days. From the Washington Post:

Quote:

As the train rumbled toward its next stop, at NoMa-Gallaudet, a three-minute ride, D.C. police said, the 18-year-old Spires — who may have been high on synthetic drugs — tried to grab a cellphone tucked into the waistband of a recent American University graduate headed to a gathering with friends.

The two struggled, police said, and the terror began.

Police and a witness interviewed said passengers trapped in the moving train huddled at both ends of the car and watched in horror as Spires punched 24-year-old Kevin Joseph Sutherland until he fell to the floor, then stabbed him until he was dead. Court documents say the victim was cut or stabbed 30 or 40 times, in the chest, abdomen, back, side and arms. Police said the assailant then threw the victim’s cellphone and returned to stomp on Sutherland’s body.

No one (or group) made an attempt to stop the assailant who was the first to exist the train and into the crowd of families in D.C. for 4th of July celebrations. Oblivious to what harm he may continue to do, the others on the car were just relieved to see him leave.

John Daniel Davidson at The Federalist wrote, “That Spires had a knife—what the police said was a ‘small, black folding knife’ they later recovered from a trash can—is no excuse. Any two adult men in that subway car could have stopped him, no matter how crazy or strong he was, and saved Sutherland’s life.”

Davidson contrasted this incident with United flight 93 on September 11. He wrote, “Morally, the choice facing the passengers on that subway car on July 4 was no different than the one facing the United 93 passengers on 9/11. It doesn’t matter if it’s one life or one thousand, the principle is what counts.”

In less than 15 years, we’ve gone from “let’s roll” to “let’s not get involved.”

[samsamsam]

(07-13-2015 07:50 PM)Sombro Wrote:  

This article probably needs its own thread:

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE BETA MALE
Davidson contrasted this incident with United flight 93 on September 11. He wrote, “Morally, the choice facing the passengers on that subway car on July 4 was no different than the one facing the United 93 passengers on 9/11. It doesn’t matter if it’s one life or one thousand, the principle is what counts.”

In less than 15 years, we’ve gone from “let’s roll” to “let’s not get involved.”

Fucking moron of a writer. In the United situation everyone's life was at risk, the outcome was determined. They decided to do something with the last few minutes they had.

In the subway, the moron wouldn't give up his phone. And others were to die for him? Over a phone?

[Atlanta Man]

(07-13-2015 07:54 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 07:50 PM)Sombro Wrote:  

This article probably needs its own thread:

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE BETA MALE
Davidson contrasted this incident with United flight 93 on September 11. He wrote, “Morally, the choice facing the passengers on that subway car on July 4 was no different than the one facing the United 93 passengers on 9/11. It doesn’t matter if it’s one life or one thousand, the principle is what counts.”

In less than 15 years, we’ve gone from “let’s roll” to “let’s not get involved.”

Fucking moron of a writer. In the United situation everyone's life was at risk, the outcome was determined. They decided to do something with the last few minutes they had.

In the subway, the moron wouldn't give up his phone. And others were to die for him? Over a phone?

I am a 6'4 plus 250 pound man in damn good shape, I can bench press 315 ten times, and squat 500+, I have been in my fair share of fights and have knocked someone out before. If I was not armed with a handgun I doubt that I would have helped this man.

When you have an aggressive man in a violent state stabbing a man you don't know in front of you, especially another adult male-it is hard to summon the aggression necessary to effectively fight an armed man. I have seen fights before where one man was enraged and ready to kill and the other was unwilling to fight (it was a fight over a slutty girl, guess which guy was in love with her vs the guy who just fucked her.) and it was not pretty. Now if a man was stabbing a child, someone elderly or a woman, I would help even if I was unarmed because my aggression level would shoot through the roof instantly.

I stand firmly behind my earlier statement about shooting the guy if I had a gun, but unarmed watching a grown man stabbing another grown man is a different situation.

[Natural Born Gyalist]

For the record your belt is the best improvised weapon you have against a knife. The belt while being mostly non lethal (unledd used as a garrote) is a long range weapon in comparison to a knife.

[Helium1]

"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

This social warrior spent his life defending thugs, attacking the police and the second amendment. Now that reality sets in he payed the consequences for his twisted vision of the world.

[Gorgiass]

(07-13-2015 08:52 PM)Natural Born Gyalist Wrote:  

For the record your belt is the best improvised weapon you have against a knife. The belt while being mostly non lethal (unledd used as a garrote) is a long range weapon in comparison to a knife.

Nah, a boot to the assailant's balls is the best weapon you have, although I always carry a quality 3.5" knife, and occasionally carry a .45 where it's legal. It really and truly blows my mind on these threads how many guys say they would stand back and watch someone being stabbed/beaten to death. Brings to mind the old "first they came for the socialists" quote and makes an interesting juxtaposition to the cheers videos like the Russian boxer knocking out the several drunk dudes receive. Everyone wants to see justice done, but few want to be inconvenienced to see it happen.

I've talked my way out of far more fights than I've been in, which honestly is just a few (not counting hundreds of rounds of throwing on some boxing gloves and full force sparring with buddies) but I am not being an internet tough guy when I say that I'd jump in without even thinking, armed or not, as would any of the guys I grew up sparring with. I've heard of crazier shit they jumped into. It's not that it's alpha, or even logical, but it helps create the kind of world I want to live in. When I step in to answer a guy's question on a forum dealing with some ofmy other interests, or yield rather than accelerating into a roundabout it's the same idea at a much lesser scale - giving up some time to further that pay it forward reciprocity and make that world a little bit more likely. The same reason I'm replying here, judging by the trend I'll catch nothing but heat, but I want to live in a world where the guy next to me would have my back if some psycho jumped, just like I'd have his. Because we are part of the same tribe at some level of human non-psychos if nothing else. It's a thankless task in this case since we now know the guy was a SJW pudwacker, but it could just as easily have been the cop in Vegas who had the same thing happen, or the guy who's researching the anti-cancer protein which might save my dad's life in 4 years.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, maybe it's just a forum thing. I think it's unfortunate either way.

[speakeasy]

(07-13-2015 03:54 PM)Medic42 Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 02:53 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Guns wouldn't have been necessary to stop this guy. All that it would've taken was this:



A small canister of pepper spray you could carry on a key chain. Blast it in his eyes and he'd have been blinded long enough for everyone in the train to jump on him. I actually bought one of these for a 2 month trip to South America. I never had to use it but if I was walking through the streets of Rio late at night, I always had it in my hand with the safety button unlocked. If some favela kids ran up on me with a knife, I'd have left his face dripping with the shit and got the hell out of there. I tested it before I left and it shoots like 20 feet. Amazing for such a small can. If more people carried these, something like this stabbing wouldn't have happened.

Speakeasy, you are obviously an intelligent guy with a lot of great posts but some of the stuff you put up about self defense is straight out of left field. I'm sorry that I can't find a better video to illustrate this point without the attacker wearing glasses atm but, it is common for police to make similar videos with attackers wielding bats/knives to demonstrate exactly why this is completely incorrect. Keep in mind that this guy is not jacked up on adrenaline, crazy, or taking drugs/alcohol.

If you spray someone in the face with pepper spray, their eyes will shut involuntarily. There is NO way anyone can keep their eyes open when they've been pepper sprayed. They are effectively blinded. I mean the shit works against grizzly bears. Watching this video above, well obviously you don't stand there with your feet planted on the ground like a damn tree. You spray and then get the hell out of there.

[speakeasy]

(07-13-2015 09:22 PM)Helium1 Wrote:  

"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

This social warrior spent his life defending thugs, attacking the police and the second amendment. Now that reality sets in he payed the consequences for his twisted vision of the world.

When you say he defended thugs(which I guess these days means basically any black person) what are you specifically referring to? What "thugs" was he defending?

How is criticizing heavy-handed and illegal police tactics attacking police? Or are you one of these people who think cops should should be judge, jury and executioner like it is in the 3rd world?

I'm honestly sickened by all this talk of how he got what he deserved for being a liberal.

[samsamsam]

I'll admit I am sometimes a little harsh about certain things. Maybe no one deserves to die. But there are cases, where I'll be honest, I am cool with certain people departing this planet. I am not saying in this case, he deserved to die because he was a liberal.

But I think he might have earned it when he didn't value his life more than his phone.

From what I understand that kid was robbing other people who coughed up what he asked for. But this guy didn't want to give up his phone. His phone. His phone. His phone.

[Medic42]

(07-13-2015 10:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

If you spray someone in the face with pepper spray, their eyes will shut involuntarily. There is NO way anyone can keep their eyes open when they've been pepper sprayed. They are effectively blinded. I mean the shit works against grizzly bears. Watching this video above, well obviously you don't stand there with your feet planted on the ground like a damn tree. You spray and then get the hell out of there.

Think what you like, I'm speaking from experience not conjecture. I have literally lost count of the number of people I have treated who have been sprayed by the popo and every single one of them had their eyes open. Fun fact, the youngest one was a girl who wasn't even 10 years old. I have also been in a confined space with the popo when they sprayed my patient. It burns like fire but my eyes were open. Make no mistake in a confined space you will feel it every bit as much as they will. I would prefer a tazer if they are legal in your jurisdiction.