Years ago we had a fine student who at the time was a detective and SWAT officer with the Washington State Patrol. He has since left that Service and works for the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Protection Service. A fine athlete and swimmer, he made Brown Belt before relocating to his new job.
One incident he described to us—completely unrelated to his daily work with the State Patrol—occurred when he and his wife were in attendance at a Bible study. For whatever reason the topic of violence arose and one of the individuals present actually had the temerity and audacity to say to our student that his work was immoral.
Why? Because it involved the use of deadly force on his part—if not always the application of deadly force, then the threat of bringing it into play. We were appalled when we heard this. We offered the opinion that he and his wife should have gotten up, said nothing, and left. And, we added, never returned. This was a classic example of a holier-than-thou a-hole mouthing off with self-righteous indignation, and proving thereby that he was a miserable little, rather creepish, fool!
Our student put his life on the line on a nearly daily basis, leading SWAT raids on crack houses, and arresting dangerous, armed felons. Doing the kind of work that little bastards like the one at the Bible study would never dream of doing. In fact, it is precisely that kind of little bastard who howls the loudest for help when he is in trouble, and who would expect armed police to rescue him if ever the need arose.
Yet, this little bastard reserves for himself the prerogative of condemning the very type and quality of individual who is willing to risk his own life and save little helpless bastards with big, tactless mouths—like himself. The world is full of jackasses like that little bastard. It is very, very important that no student of self-defense ever allows himself to be criticized by such little bastards without walking away and shunning them, thereafter. How insulting! How outrageous! How wrong!
Certainly the need to use deadly force, or even less-than-deadly force against humans is regrettable. But the need arises from time to time. And rising to the occasion, whether as a uniformed protector of the community, or as a private citizen with cajones, is not an “evil”—nor is it even a “necessary evil”; it is a necessity for those who comprehend reality and who think clearly.
To oppose unjustifiable force with defensive force in order to protect and to save the innocent is a virtue. It is commendable. It is, in fact, the only thing that can be relied upon to save innocent people from violent attack, once a predator has decided to ply his trade.
When serious trouble and life-threatening emergencies arise we call the police… we do not call Pacifists, Unlimited.
When a threat is immediate and there is no time to call the police, self-defense is called for. And, to put it bluntly: There is nothing whatsoever wrong or questionable about the intended victim of physical violation using whatever force he is able to employ, in order to defend himself or his loved ones.
Stopping some impulse-dominated violent type is as MORAL and GOOD as any action can be. And as a student of self defense, no matter what malarky the idiots around you—at work, at school, etc.—have to say to the contrary, the individual who acts with violence to stop a violent offender is on the side of the angels!
A while back there was a news story that just about any rational person would say was a tribute to one of the young men reported to have taken action in the story. At a high school, some piece of sh-t student actually struck a blind student. Immediately, another young man—one of the school’s football players—charged in and knocked the attacker to the ground, rescuing the blind lad. Understandably, this incident made the news. We are not alone when we say that that young footballer is a genuine hero.
It came to our attention that the two boys—the blind boy and his rescuer—were to appear on the Dr. Phil Show. Not having a TV, we missed it. But some time later we were advised that the episode would appear on YouTube. We watched it. What was wonderful was the opportunity to see the fellow who came to the blind boy’s rescue, and then to hear the boy who had been rescued say that his rescuer “is his hero”; his own words.
What was sickening was the politically-motivated, socially palatable bullshit reaction of Dr. Phil. After giving what we felt was but lukewarm praise to the football player, and acknowledging that he did the right thing by coming to the aid of the blind boy, Dr. Phil was quick to point out—most emphatically—that using violence is always a bad solution, but one should stand up against bullies.
Yeah, right. The truth is, of course, that anyone of teenage years who punches a blind boy and knocks him down deserves to be beaten to a f—ing pulp! How cowardly and evil can you get?
Like the sewage in NYC who was reported in the NY Daily News to have punched and broken the jaw of a 72 year old woman. Why did he punch her? Well, according to the surveillance camera that caught the act, THERE WAS NO REAL “REASON”, SAVE THE RATIONALIZATION THAT ANY FILTHY GUTTER ANIMAL-WHO-DOESN’T DESERVE-TO-LIVE comes up with. He was passing this poor lady and suddenly turned toward her and—slam!
Our feeling is that anyone who would punch an elderly person for no valid reason, such as self-defense, deserves to be strapped down in Old Sparky (the name given to the electric chair at Sing Sing Prison). For monsters who gleefully attack the blind, the infirm, the elderly, the very young, the peaceful, overwhelming violence is the ONLY answer.
Now, we probably will surprise some when we say that we are, and we ardently believe everyone should be, a pacifist. That is, we believe that every rational person should be a pacifist until and unless he is attacked, or needs to protect someone else who is under attack. Anyone failing to use, or failing to try to use, force to defend against unjustified violence is at the very least a deluded fool.
It is not “moral superiority” that forbids a person to act in self-defense, or forbids him to extol the virtues of those who—as society’s protectors in law enforcement and the military—act with professionally-directed force in order to protect the innocent. It is confusion, botched thinking, incorrect and self-destroying values, and…well…flagrant stupidity. By all means value and live by the code of reason and non-violence.
As a martial arts student you should consider yourself sworn to that idea. But do not ever forget that violence is not at all infrequently required in this insane world, because those who are not non-violent have no hesitation about using force whenever they please.
These creatures, from the schoolyard bully to the international terrorist, need to be stopped, and should be stopped, by the immediate, all-out, unhesitant employment of however much force is required to stop them.
And doing that is virtuous and right. Not doing it constitutes evil.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content