From Memeorandum – the Washington Post covers a story that, well – you just have to read:
A grand feast of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp was winding down, and a group of friends was sitting on the back patio of a Capitol Hill home, sipping red wine. Suddenly, a hooded man slid in through an open gate and put the barrel of a handgun to the head of a 14-year-old guest.
“Give me your money, or I’ll start shooting,” he demanded, according to D.C. police and witness accounts.
What happens next is the story. I’m dying to know who has optioned it for a Hollywood movie.
The five other guests, including the girls’ parents, froze — and then one spoke.
“We were just finishing dinner,” Cristina “Cha Cha” Rowan, 43, blurted out. “Why don’t you have a glass of wine with us?”
The intruder took a sip of their Chateau Malescot St-Exupéry and said, “Damn, that’s good wine.”
The girl’s father, Michael Rabdau, 51, who described the harrowing evening in an interview, told the intruder, described as being in his 20s, to take the whole glass. Rowan offered him the bottle. The would-be robber, his hood now down, took another sip and had a bite of Camembert cheese that was on the table.
Then he tucked the gun into the pocket of his nylon sweatpants.
“I think I may have come to the wrong house,” he said, looking around the patio of the home in the 1300 block of Constitution Avenue NE.
“I’m sorry,” he told the group. “Can I get a hug?”
See! If you keep a good Margaux on you, you’ll never need a gun. So if you see nervous rich folks wandering around with fifty-dollar bottles of wine tucked under their jackets, they aren’t high-class drunks, they’re just sensible people planning on self-defense.
I can see a whole new school of thought on rapid presentation coming to the fore…of course Biggest Guy and I just finished a 3-day shooting school, so I may be slightly more jaded on this subject than usual.
I recall that the Queen did something similar some years back, upon finding an intruder in her quarters. She offered him a shot or two of scotch, which I presume was Highland Park 18 or something even better, and discretely pressed a very unobtrusive alarm button. Had it been two queens earlier he’d’a had no place to wear his hat.
Obviously these folks were DC liberals. Out here in Kansas we do have dinner parties, you know, and apart from certain bastions of liberalism like Lawrence we’d have offered him a drink, for sure, but he would have been taken down, pending arrival of authorities.
Out in the Budweiser parts of the state he might not have been even that fortunate.
I’d like to encourage more liberals to try this maneuver. Hard experience will be a better teacher than any other argument we can make.
Yeah always a good idea to try andtake him down with guns blazing when he has his gun to the head of a 14 year old girl.
I think maybe that you think that the use of a gun is the best way to solve a problem.
of and it was a 20 dollar bottle of wine, hardly in the margaux category
Let me check…no, missed the part where I suggested shooting the guy. Actually the wine in question is a 2nd tier Margaux…and a pretty good one.
A.L.
John Ryan — the use of a gun in defense of your life from an armed intruder is the best solution to the problem.
Otherwise you are at the mercy of thug. Who may just decide to rape all the women and murder everyone. That was the case with Bryan Harvey and family, and also the Christian-Newsome murders which are too gruesome and horrific to detail here.
A thug or thugs hot-prowling in an occupied house must be assumed to have no problem eliminating witnesses or even to be there for the primary purpose of rape and murder. Since it’s easier and less risky to simply burglarize an unoccupied house.
What is likely is that this thug was probably smarter than most, and realized that the publicity surrounding his rape/murder of most/all the victims would engender an intense manhunt, because the victims would all be well-connected. A more stupid thug or one there for the primary purpose of sadism (rape/murder) would have simply killed them all after he was done with whatever.
I would not roll the dice on a thug’s smartness. You might prefer a more passive and submissive response. That is not me.
Well done Cristina “Cha Cha” Rowan. She “unfroze” herself and made the best attempt that seemed to her to be available to save the life of a 14-year old girl with a gun at her head. She made use of the options on hand created by her her abilities – obviously including the ability to be pleasant – and the materials present. And today it seems the girl is still alive.
I can’t see a think about that that’s funny or less than admirable.
Bravo Cha Cha!
Bravo Cha Cha!!
Bravo Cha Cha!!!
Jim, there really is more than one way to play it. I strongly support the RKBA, but fully-developed hostage situations require finesse. That goes even more for child hostage situations. Beslan, anyone?
I hope the guy is in jail now. I’m glad no one got killed.
I agree that the dinner party lady seems to have conducted herself brilliantly.
She also might have been lucky.
And it might be that “Cha Cha” has really high “Emotional IQ” and rapport skills. If so, good for her. I used to know a Deputy Sheriff like that. He would talk rifle-brandishing barricaded old coots or meth cookers down, get them out of their rural shacks, and ride with them to the station, chatting with them as he put the cuffs on them and making sure they didn’t hit their heads when they got in the back of the cruiser. He was good with young offenders, too.
This in no way relates to the criminal firearms policies of Washington, DC that made the bad guy in this story confident enough to pull his opening moves.
Once the child were sufficiently out of harm’s way, the sheaf of scenarios would open up somewhat. Including, if need be, a controlled pair with careful shot placement.
But I am still glad no one got hurt. That doesn’t make sense — I mean, I am opposed to DC’s victim disarmament laws so I must be a gun nut, right? 🙂
What’s “less than admirable” is that the perp was allowed to leave without robust police escort.
He put his gun away. Disarm him and take him down. He wanted a “hug” after all.
I suppose I should make it clear that holding a gun to an innocent’s head is in the same category as rape as far as I am concerned.
Working the rapist is smart. Letting him get away is not preferable. Reducing the threat may include letting him go.
Life here in America is all about choices. A country that could get cops on scene quickly enough and completely unobtrusively might not be a nice place to live.
“Ain’t nothin’ simple.”
I’ve actually had a friend do this sort of thing in a similar situation, only the gun was pointed at her head and she was alone and the guy was intent on rape and the conversation was religious rather than amicable.
Clearly, going for your guns isn’t the smart play here. The tactic of ‘disarming’ the perp by directing the conversation in an unusual way doesn’t always work, but its definately worth a try as a last resort. Criminals tend to be in a high emotional state at the time they are committing thier crime and its often pretty easy to get them to do a mental ‘blink’. We’ve all seen the videos of the would be robbers acting completely ‘stupid’ when confronted in a manner they didn’t anticipate during thier mental rehersal. Just keep in mind that a confused violent person isn’t necessarily an improvement. Fortunately, this felon doesn’t seem like he was in drug withdrawl at the time of the crime.
Also keep in mind that if you merely manage to save yourself by confusing your armed attacker, you still have a person who is a serious threat to the rest of the community. Your social responsibility doesn’t end the moment the gun is no longer pointing at you.
Note that just becauses the above is true, doesn’t mean I think that a dead felon is the best possible ending of this scenario. The best possible ending is that the family befriends the criminal, leads him to Christ, takes a leading role in his rehabilitation, and assists him in getting his life together. The second best possible ending is the felon goes to jail, but otherwise as in the first case. Everything else is a much less desirable outcome, but generally much more desirable than the child gets killed.
The questions for a non-bad-guy in this situation are, “Am I now in fear for my life?” or “Do I fear for someone’s life here-and-now?”
In a just and compassionate but hardheaded world (maybe not the one we actually live in), if you really aren’t, you don’t get to shoot bad guys, even if you were in fear for your life a few minutes ago.
This leaves the question of whether or not you should remain in fear for your life after the bad guy gets his hug completely open.
I assume “Cha Cha” Rowan is no relation to that other DC hero, the late Carl Rowan, who used to shoot unarmed kids for playing in his swimming pool.
Re: #8 from Nortius Maximus:
I agree. Especially on this:
#9 from Bart Hall (Kansas, USA): “What’s “less than admirable” is that the perp was allowed to leave without robust police escort.”
Can you rephrase that in an active rather than a passive voice?
… “the perp was allowed to leave…” is in a passive voice. It’s not clear who allowed the perp to leave without robust police escort.
A statement in the active voice would be something like this: “Cha Cha Rowan wrongly allowed the perp to leave.” But I am not sure that is what you would want to say, so rather than “interpret” you (and likely get you wrong) I would prefer you to do this.
#9 from Bart Hall (Kansas, USA): “He put his gun away. Disarm him and take him down. He wanted a “hug” after all.”
Again, I don’t quite understand who this instruction to “Disarm him and take him down.” is directed to.
Or what you mean by saying “He wanted a “hug” after all.”
As far as I can tell, Cha Cha did great, luckily getting an acceptable outcome out of a situation likely to yield a horrific outcome. She “unfroze” and played her weak hand the best she could. This is not funny. It’s heroic.
bq. “I’m sorry,” he told the group. “Can I get a hug?”
Liberal response: “Sure!”
Conservative response: “Sure!” Bang – bang.
Redneck response: “Sure!” Bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang! “Nice shot grouping there! Someone call the coroner!”
Yeah, yeah, I know, not ‘serious’debate of the issue. Just as long as everyone understands that this could have gone the other way. Child raped and/or pistol whipped and/or shot. ‘Cha Cha’ – the same, etc.
And, you know, the whole thing seems a bit too breathless and over the top to me. But, of course, we know that this has to be true. Right? It’s the WaPo after all.
Somehow this whole thing makes me want to call BS. But that is just my cynical self talking.
The Hobo
The opposite can be found: during the Spanish Civil War a citizen saved his life telling drunken militiamen funny jokes until their alcoholic rage cooled down.
Having his own life at stake, I am sure his improvised performance was superior to the ones of many professional comedy actors.
#16 from Robohobo: “Just as long as everyone understands that this could have gone the other way. Child raped and/or pistol whipped and/or shot. ‘Cha Cha’ – the same, etc.”
Yes. Here’s how another line of events might have played out.
Cha Cha does everything right. The insane armed man shoots her in the head regardless, and then everybody shoots down what she did as vapid, risky, calling attention to herself and so on – forgetting that there was no safe option to be had.
And here’s how yet another line of events might have played out.
“Group hug!”
Cha Cha initiates combat, as she supposedly “should” have, and of course nobody backs her up. (Why would she expect that they would? They had all frozen already. Nobody was armed, and everybody socially was trained in an extremely counter-productive way, and there was no chance to talk and coordinate an attack.)
Far from backing her up, they react “fairly” and with a thoroughly socialized aversion to violence. Recognizing “violence” as the threat, those who don’t just do nothing (again) physically implement a policy amounting to “both of you stop it!” – concentrating on hindering Cha Cha, who in the very short term is much less threatening to hinder.
The extremely volatile armed man who had come intent on violence of course is “betrayed!!” and switches (back?) to killer mode. He easily kills Cha Cha, who is so very much worse than alone, and then kills as many other people as he has bullets, and if need be finishes off the child and the injured with his hands. After all, she’s a witness and anyway he’s a violent nutcase.
Casualties: five adults, one child: everyone.
Fatalities: five adults, one child, everyone.
Humor in the situation requiring the immediate, practical consideration of such possibilities, and also requiring action with no way to avoid bad chance results and no “undo” button: none that I can see.
That’s exactly it: terror and disbelief.
What’s the answer?
In a sense, there is no one answer. Sometimes you must fight to the death where you are, even with little or no hope and even if probably nobody else will ever understand why or respect that decision; sometimes you run screaming; and sometimes you give the bad guy anything he wants including mighty fine wine and a group hug.
If you’re making yourself accept the reality of the situation, if you’re making the best and coldest estimate of what has to be attempted, and you’re giving it your shot, all out, that’s all there is, and there’s nothing more that can be asked for.
By the way, I think there is very much less difference of opinion on this between myself and Armed Liberal than might appear to a casual glance.
I see this, from the point of view of the victims (who did not know what the armed man had come to do), as a microcosm of a potential atrocity like Virginia Tech. I’m not laughing, because I see too clearly some alternative outcomes, if a switch in the crazy creep’s head had flipped the other way. Suppose he suddenly decided he didn’t like the taste of the cheese, so it must have been poison? Six dead people later, including a fourteen year old, none of us would be laughing.
Armed Liberal and myself are pointing to different parts of the elephant now. But it emerged in the Virginia Tech discussions that we see the elephant overall in a similar way.
Once you’re in the situation, any action a potential victim may take to try to change the game in favor of themselves and others is completely justified, including blocking a door with your body and charging guns barehanded.
That on one occasion someone may have bravely, skillfully and luckily succeeded in defusing the immediate situation without violence in no way excuses society in mis-educating people to behave in bad ways and to be unprepared for the possibility that their attempted solution may indeed have to be violence.
If, confronted with a terrible scenario, the first thing people think of is “I hide under a desk” (and, in effect, wait passively and in a state of regression for whatever happens to happen), then they are being terribly mis-educated, and anyone who loves them needs to teach them better than that.
I disapprove of creating zones where armed and maybe crazy killers can confidently expect that they will meet only unarmed perfect victims, mis-educated to be ready to react in ways that will facilitate their slaughter. On this I disagree with John Howard, anti-gun “reformer”, and I am on the same page with Armed Liberal.
David: I’m not sure of the exact situation (who indeed could be?), but let’s look at this one ply deeper. Something just occurred to me.
Consider the following hypothetical factoids arranged like an Italian wedding cake or bracketed shots in a Tarantino movie script.
-Washington DC has draconian gun laws
–Bad guy’s targets live in a gated community (for the sake of argument)
—Innocents are in Condition White because that’s all they know how to be in.
====Bad guy either knows all these things or doesn’t care.
—Innocents in Condition White are nowhere near silent alarm button, if present: this is not a bank, for heaven’s sake!
–Gated community has maybe one security guard with a weapon, but his primary duty is to observe and report (rentacop doctrine).
-Washington DC has cops but their primary duty is to keep order, investigate and make arrests (cop doctrine).
In effect, if the victims in this hypothetical variant on the case are law-abiding folks who buy the Brady theory, they are actually _doubly_ misserved. There are _two_ layers of people who are only there after the stuff hits the fan.
But if they think in the fuzzy way that only-uniformed-Government-agents-should-legally-have-guns victimology prescribes–
Before this thing happened they probably thought (/felt)they were doubly protected.
That just occurred to me, and it really bugs me.
Contrariwise:
Since the thread has been so cordial and evenhanded so far, allow me to point out that from the Brady/victimology side, the dictum reads something like “Normal people don’t need guns” — but with a subtext _for some_ (I cannot know the percentage) of “/So if you want guns there must be something wrong with you…/”.
Any Brady supporters out there want to tell me if I’ve got those two pieces out more or less correctly?
I really don’t mean to flood this thread, but here’s another thing that just showed up in my mullings. Anyone here ever see that Michael Douglas movie, Falling Down?
I don’t want to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn’t.
SPOILER WARNING!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. scroll down to see the rest of the post
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Remember the crestfallen, stunned puzzlement of his last few words?
And Duval’s note-perfect sympathetic rueful headshake–a wordless “Beats me…”
That movie, for all its cartoonieness, had a serviceable dramatic denouement even if describing the ending sounds hackneyed. And it’s another way things could have played out. Maybe, just maybe, the perp in the story had a similar bring-to-a-boil, followed by a similar flash of insight–
“When did I become the bad guy?”
…but had an alternative open to him rather than suicide-by-cop.
Not apologizing, just remembering that real people are not cardboard even when they’re stiffs.
Which leads me to another even more unlikely but possible scenario.
In a universe down the block, maybe the perp was using an unloaded gun or an Airsoft with the orange part painted black.
That’s how they’d write the movie. Paging Woody Allen…
Nort,
I am a Brady supporter and I don’t have a clue what you are referring to (Brady Dictum in comment #21).
FYI….I own several fire arms – both long and short – and I have a conceal carry permit. In civilian life I have actually been in a gun fight – though it was kind of lame and, thank god, no one was hurt (Total strangers shot at me. I couldn’t evade/escape. I shot back. They ran. I let them go. I didn’t even call the undertakers er… uh….excuse me.. cops as there was no need to; no bodies to put yellow tape around).
At any rate…..I support Brady because I do think that it’s best to have a little waiting period between the purchasing of a hnadgun and receiving it. This just might eliminate some impulse type homocides. I also like the idea of background checks. Those with criminal histories are not allowed to own guns. What is wrong with verifying the history reported on a paper form? If the buyer’s intentions are above board waiting a couple of days isn’t going to make any difference in any meaningful way.
“Normal people don’t need guns” — but with a subtext for some (I cannot know the percentage) of “/So if you want guns there must be something wrong with you…/”
Where does that come from? As far as I can tell it has less to do with Brady supporter per se than it does with the squishy white bread buurgoise housing development soccer mom/cubicle Joe mentality that constitutes a sizeable portion of both parties’ voting block.
avedis –
bq. “Those with criminal histories are not allowed to own guns.”
Uh, dude, only if, like, they care what the law says. Chances are if they have a criminal history they can find a place to buy a piece AND go around the law. And, dude, most criminals, like, DON’T care what some meats law’s say!
That you do not see the inherent fallacy of your own argument simply amazes me. Really!
Oh, yeah, you need more time at the range so that next time you don’t miss. If you got a problem with that, don’t carry.
Robo,
Of course I recognize that criminals can – and often do – purchase guns on the street (or even at some gun shows) and thus avoid background checks.
Is your point that since this happens that the we should not try to enforce the law somehow? Perhaps we should just take the law off the books because there are ways around it?
Interesting line of thought…..let’s apply it universally; since people disobey speed limits despite laws and enforcement attempts, let’s eliminate all traffic laws pertaining to vehicle speed. Illegal immigration? As we know there will always be those that violate, so let’s shut down the Border Patrol and Immigration Departments and let them come anb go as they please.
It’s the same reasoning as yours for not using Brady to enforce existing laws.
You didn’t address my point about preventing impulse shootings.
Nor have you explained why waiting a few days is such a major hassle. I am genuinely curious.
As for marksmanhip, I qualified expert with both the M14, M16A1 and A2 and and the M1911A1 (and that crappy Berreta). I know how to shoot and shoot accurately.
By way of excuse this was in the dark and at a distance of 50 to 70 feet; me drawing and firing rapidly at moving targets. However, with your cool attitude toward danger and death I would appreciate it greatly if you would share some of your similar experiences where you counted coup when the smoke cleared so that I – and perhaps others here – might learn how to better defend myself. Thanks.
Yes, this story had a nice ending, but beware of gun control addicts who will use this as a way of advancing their cause. I can just see the placards now, Protect yourself with a 1994 Chateau Malescot St-Exupéry–not a gun!
This is a fascinating story about the human mind. It brings to mind the scene in “The Deer Hunter” when De Niro was playing Russian Roulet and talked the captors into putting more bullets in the gun. He then started laughing and pretending to be crazy, and when they had put their gaurd down, he killed them. He unfroze them, as another commenter put it. I think the thing to do would have been to hug this guy, and then beat him until unconscious. I won’t get into the gun debate. The statistics show clearly that places with high gun ownership are less likely to be victimized by violent crimes (for fear of a shootout).
I maybe wrong, but I believe that tricking an assailant is a good idea. Trying to make him a a whole person again is Bullsh*t.
Actually, I agree with David Blue; ‘cha-cha’ did _something_, and while I think it was funny, it worked, and so points to her.
My own experience isn’t dissimilar; walking back from a concert as a long-haired kid, two guys stepped in front of our group with a pretty aggressive mien; I panhandled them.
Didn’t get anything, but didn’t get robbed either.
The key is to break the OODA loop of the other person and make them do something outside their plan.
A.L.
Re: #20 from Nortius Maximus: I hear you loud and clear, but I can’t think of anything useful to add.
I remember from a cartoon many years ago the “oh no!” squad: when something awful happened, like a murder or somebody fell from a tall building, the government would send around a bunch of people to go “oh my!” “oh no!” and “how awful!” They would hold up their hands to their mouths and do the whole “appalled bystander” routine, like the professional mourner troupes of Ancient Egypt.
I think the point was supposed to be: if you are the bystander, are you doing something useful, that is performing a function that the government would need to duplicate or replace? Of course not: what you’re doing is useless, so skip it and walk on.
But the way it seemed and seems to me is: very often, the professionals the government may eventually send and who may eventually arrive may be about as useful to you as an “oh no!” squad. “More burglaries? (shrug) Well what do you expect us to do? Policy is not to investigate.” (… later …) “A kid killed? Oh no, what a shame. Photograph the scene and call the meat wagon.”
People think they’re protected. They’re not protected.
Re: #29 from Armed Liberal: two thumbs way up, both for the action and the logic behind it. 🙂
Obviously if you can talk a guy down like this, its the ideal solution. But equally obviously this was a very atypical type of crime perpetrated by someone genuinely mentally disturbed.
Lets change the scenario a bit- what if the guy tried to make off with the girl? In that case, and in any case where the aggresor tries to move you or a loved one, you have to fight. Its always better to give an armed attacker what he wants if its just money or something material, but the majority of rapes and murders take place when the victim is taken away to another location where they either have the time or security to live out their sick fantasies, or they panic and realize they have a living witness they have to deal with.
Everything i’ve learned about self-defense survival situations is that you go along with the criminal when the loss is purely material, but you lash out with every fiber when they attempt to harm someone or make off with them. This also gives you the element of surprise since you may have lulled him into a sense of control.
Avedis, #24: You’re right, I was speaking sloppily. I will try to rewrite the sloppy part and see if I have any point left that you haven’t already covered. good shootin’, Tex–so to speak.
The most sensible advice I’ve ever heard (in I think a few places): “avoid crime scene B”.
Crime scene A is where witnesses saw the abduction take place, or where evidence indicates it took place. Crime scene B is the lonely cabin in the bush or the soundproof cellar where someone later finds wired, lacerated, skewered chunks of something the person who found it was looking at for a minute before he realized omigod, was that once a man? Your odds at crime scene B are “not good“. Therefore avoid crime scene B.
Everyone in the world and God Almighty may decree that you were an idiot to charge a man pointing an automatic pistol at you from the ideal distance and with everything in his favor in a bare parking lot, but if the alternative is to believe his perfectly plausible story about how he just needs your keys and for you to get into the boot of the car so he can get away safely, charging the gun is what you are going to do. Do not let yourself be driven to crime scene B.
Re: #32 from Mark Buehner. I would add: don’t get tied up. At all. This is like letting yourself be taken to crime scene B, especially in rape situations, and it may lead to a one way trip to crime scene B. When the agenda shifts to reducing your capacity to resist further deteriorations of your situation, no matter who says what, this is the signal to fight to the death there and then.
I don’t believe anyone can legitimately be criticized for fighting to the death on the spot regardless of the odds or the certainties in these situations.
Does this mean it’s good for a middle aged and frail mum on a shopping trip in her car to try to go Gladiator on a huge guy with a gun who jumps in the car beside her and tries to push her to the passenger seat so he can hijack the car? Yes, that’s what it means. I would never criticize that decision.
But that wasn’t Cristina “Cha Cha” Rowan’s situation. In her situation, there was another option, and lucky for everyone present, it worked.
Like panhandling the mugger, the trick took the creep out of his script, it worked, so it was justified.
Avedis, you do not understand what the Brady Act does. It does not have a waiting period associated with it any longer, as the initiation of instant background checks triggered provisions removing the waiting period from Federal law.
Robin,
You’re right. I didn’t know that.
The loss of the waiting period dilutes the effectiveness, in my opinion.
Still, some form of enforcement pertaining to criminal background check seems wise to me, albeit porous.
Avedis, since there is no evidence of the “effectiveness” of any waiting periods, I doubt any “dilution”.
…. decree that you were an idiot to charge a man pointing an automatic pistol at you from the ideal distance and with everything in his favor in a bare parking lot, but if the alternative is to believe his perfectly plausible story about how he just needs your keys and for you to get into the boot of the car so he can get away safely, charging the gun is what you are going to do.
One possible alternative — throw the keys as far as you can one direction and run a different direction. If he wants the car, and it’s hard to get it, he might go away and look for some other car. If he shoots at you where you are he might attract attention. Etc. You have a better chance than you do charging him; if you’re attacking him he’s likely to feel he has no choice but to try to disable or kill you.
On the other hand, it takes more thinking to do that. If you think out ahead of time to attack, you can do that under intense stress easier than think out what else to do.
Particularly for a woman, fainting can be a good choice. You can’t threaten somebody who’s fainted. Unless you intended to shoot them anyway, there’s no point shooting them while they’re unconscious. You can search them and get their keys, and then if you want them in the trunk you have to carry them, and at any point they *might* wake up and fight.
Screaming is not bad either, particular a scream that ends fairly quick, that looks kind of involuntary. If you’re trying to keep things quiet, which is worse? A scream, or a scream and a gunshot?
Of course, you might get shot whatever you do. When somebody points a gun at you, they might shoot you. They might not even think out what’s best for them. But as David Blue points out, you’re likely to be better off taking a chance they shoot you than taking your chances when they can anything they want to you in private for as long as they want.
This is a good reason for police and armies to show a lot of discipline around civilians. A whole lot better when civilians believe it’s safe to surrender. When iraqi civilians believe that the police at their door might be a death squad in stolen police uniforms, or even real police performing death-squad duties, it makes it that much harder for the police to do their job. Similarly with americans. If iraqi civilians believe that american soldiers detain people on inadequate evidence and likely torture and kill them, then there’s a temptation to fight and die rather than let them carry you away with a bag over your head. Maybe you can take one of them with you.
“… if the alternative …” Obviously if there are other alternatives in play, them too. I’m not going to criticize anyone for what they tried in a situation like that.
Just try something, as opposed to going along quietly to crime scene B as though this wasn’t really happening.
And in this case, Cristina “Cha Cha” Rowan was justified in trying practically anything rather than just passively let the psycho play out the rest of a mental script that started with I put the barrel of my handgun to the kid’s head…
Nortius,
Your #20 puts it quite well; thanks!
avedis,
What are you talking about in #24? Do you have any idea how far down on the list “newly purchased firearms used to commit impulsive crimes” are in the actual stats? Yep, I thought not.
And if you live in any normal jurisdiction in the US, you were wrong, wrong, WRONG not to call the police after your incident. Wrong, and damn lucky, as what was to prevent the bad guys from calling the cops and reporting YOU as the assailant?
Kirk,
I don’t like cops.
First off, they act more frequently as undertakers than protectors. LOng after you’re making your case to St. Peter, the cops are doing their job by placing yellow tape around your dead body.
Furthermore – and more germane to this discussion – one often hears cops express the opinion that only cops should have guns and that non-cops should not try to defend themselves against robbers, muggers, assailants, etc.; especially not with a firearm. So I find it ironic that you would wish to involve them in an incident where you defended yourself with a firearm when it is not necessary to involve them. You are only asking for trouble from the law that you don’t need or deserve. The burden will be on you to prove that you were justified in using deadly force. If your target survives he can sue you for damages. He can seek other forms of revenge. If he dies, his family can take up the cause. But they can only do this if they know who you are…….
Second, I’ve met many cops that are as crooked as the criminals. In some cases they are inseparable partners in shake-down rackets, narcotics distribution and gambling and other vice. I don’t need some alcoholic steroid popping over caffinated authoritarian complex to take care of me…….and isn’t that sort of what this thread is all about? Isn’t that what your otherwise irrational objection to background checks or waiting periods is all about?
In the situation I described (that I did not report) the people I defended myself against were gang banger types. It is very unlikely they would have officially reported the incident even if they had experienced a casualty. Usually a casualty is merely dropped off on the doorstep of the hospital ER.
Even if I had killled one or more of them – actually, especially if I had killled one of them – I would not have reported the incident because they would have obtained my name and address and I’d be looking over my shoulder for a long time afterwards. Worse, my family would have been at risk. It’s not like the frigging cops would be around to prevent the gang from avenging its dead members, right?
You nwant to be a fool? Then play into the system. I’m more interested in keeping myself and loved ones safe.
“Those with criminal histories are not allowed to own guns.”
Uh, dude, only if, like, they care what the law says. Chances are if they have a criminal history they can find a place to buy a piece AND go around the law. And, dude, most criminals, like, DON’T care what some meats law’s say!
I’ve maybe led a sort of sheltered life concerning civilian violence in US cities, so i have only one incident to relate about this.
I’d lived for years in an area where there were various drug crimes, where some of my neighbors moved out because of the violence. I thought they were overreacting. Like, a brick building, some drug dealers shoot at each other from cars and *one* bullet hits their wall and doesn’t go through, and they want to move out! The only time anybody shot through my apartment I stuck a mirror up window-high to look at them, and later I told their mothers what they were doing and got their guns taken away.
But then I needed a place, and I moved in with a radiology major in a worse part of town. The first night our downstairs neighbor told the the score. He showed me his handgun. He was a convicted felon and he could get in real trouble for it. But random people kept bothering him. He’d be in even worse trouble without it. I nodded and thanked him.
That friday night somebody came to his door yelling for Jodie to come out. They banged on the door and said if Jodie didn’t come out they were coming in to shoot him. There was some more yelling. The next day he told us what happened. “They was yelling they was going to break my door down and get Jody. I flung open the door and they was staring into my gun and I told them ‘Jody don’t live here! Go away!’ and he just stopped and looked and he went away.”
The next friday night somebody banged on his door and yelled some, and there was a gunshot. And another gunshot. He explained that they shot right through his door, and he shot where he thought they wasn’t, and then when he flung the door open they run away. They didn’t want to mess with him when they saw he had a gun.
Over the 6 months I lived there, I never had any trouble except for one guy who lay down on the landing outside my door and moaned. He wasn’t bleeding but he wouldn’t get up even when I threatened to call the EMTs so I called the EMTs. He got up and tried to stagger away when they got there, and they gave him a good talking-to about moaning on other people’s property. But practically all the random problems stopped at the first floor. Then my roommate flunked out and moved away, and I moved closer to the job.
My downstairs neighbor was a nice guy. He worked as a carpenter. Competent at various things. But he had that felony, and he needed that gun, and it was obvious sooner or later something would happen and he’d go back to jail. And the possession charge would make it worse. His wife and kids would have even more problems. I didn’t see anything that could be done about it.
Whether you’re a fan of guns or not, don’t you think it’s a good idea to learn skill at using other effective methods for countering threats of violence? Even (or perhaps especially) if they are non-violent?
Maybe Cha Cha just lucked out with a sudden inspiration, but there is actually a body of knowledge about how to confront threats non-violently. (I wish I knew of a nice web page to point you to.) Some of these methods have been discussed previously in this thread — such as, do something to throw the guy out of his frame of mind. . . . [I remembered one good book: Frederic Storaska, How to Say No to a Rapist and Survive. Out of print, but available on Amazon, with four five-star reviews. (Some people hate this book, but they are probably the same one-trick folks who think only a gun can defend you.)]
And yes, I have had years of experience living in what most people call “bad parts of town”, and I have used these techniques successfully in actual confrontations with seriously threatening people. I have never been sorry not to have been carrying a gun. (I’m not saying it couldn’t happen. I’m saying it hasn’t.) I’m happy to enjoy shooting nice tight little clusters in paper targets on a range. But I feel safer on the streets with just my ability to speak directly with each person I deal with.
Cha Cha’s response is actually not only intelligent, but backed by experience: by refusing to acknowledge the would be robber’s control of the situation, she put doubt and confusion into his mind. People often have trouble dealing with departures from the expected script, and for some people, blow the script too far, and it doesn’t even process:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02/you_see_only_wh.html
The problem is, if this tactic becomes expected, it becomes useless. The effect is contingent on the novelty. Had the robber approached the house with “then they might offer me some wine” in mind as one of the possible outcomes of his actions, there would likely have been a dead little girl.
Ben
Ben: I think your mechanism is mostly right, but I disagree with your prediction.
The doubt and confusion is to undercut the prevailing “predator-prey” frame of reference for the criminal. The other thing that Cha Cha did was to provide a substitute frame of reference, which is “friends welcoming friends, offering food and drink”. This guy, gun or not, was very likely much hungrier for the “friends welcoming friends” frame of reference than he was for the few hundred bucks he could harvest from them.
Having been invited in, he does what friends do. He puts the gun away. He drinks the wine, he apologizes for any offense he might have committed. And he leaves. He was really hungry (and not for food), so asked for the hug, too, before leaving. (He even set the wine glass carefullly aside in the alley after he left!)
From a purely tactical perspective, if you want to impose a “friends welcoming friends” frame of reference on someone who walks in the door with a gun, in a “predator-prey” frame, you had better project total faith and clarity in that frame. You can’t be thinking, “As soon as he lets his guard down, I’ll jump him”, or he’ll pick up the vibes and stay the predator.
With suitable skills and practice, this kind of method will work with ordinary criminals. If you’re up against a professional assassin whose job is to kill you, you’re toast. (But you’d be toast even if you had a gun.) If you’re up against a nutcase like Cho at VaTech whose grasp on reality is tenuous at best, your chance of figuring out an alternate frame that would reach him is very small. Maybe a gun would help there; maybe not. A dedicated religious fanatic may also not be reachable, but you have a better chance if you have intimate knowledge of his/her religious background, since you might be able to find an alternate frame there that could get through.
Just to anticipate criticism: this stuff is no more mystical than the frame-of-mind stuff people talk about to keep your head during a fire-fight. It’s a different method, with a different target, but in some circumstances, it can be more effective. We can debate about the “some”.
The “friend among friends” approach also isn’t particularly effective for avoiding rape after the victim is on the rapist’s home turf.
The natural frame then is “How about that! She really *is* asking for it!”
But before that point it can work. For that matter any firm initiative *can* work. I knew a woman who had once been backpacking with another woman, and they accepted a ride in a van. The second guy pulled out a knife and put it at her friend’s throat and started ordering them around. She told them men to stop and let them out. The driver started slowing down and the guy with the knife told him to keep going so he speeded up. She told him to stop and he slowed down again. She said they’d just get out and not call the police or anything, and he stopped. The driver wasn’t committed to the plan. I got the impression it was a lot easier for her to take initiative than for the one who was looking down at the knife.
No approach works all the time. But a whole lot of the time when people make threats they’re hoping to get what they want without actually having to carry out the threat — which likely as not would get in their own way. Lots of places setting off firearms will attract unwanted attention, and particularly, people who hope for some sort of cooperation can exepect far less enthusiastic assistance from people who’ve been shot than from people who’re still afraid of getting shot.
So any approach response other than fearful cooperation is a complication. And any complication other than an attack they have to respond to, gives them a chance to reconsider and maybe back away.
Right. “Friend among friends” is probably not the right frame to avoid rape. But “I’m your sister” might, or “What would your mama think?” (Be careful with that last one, since it could push the wrong button on someone who’s really nutty. But from a tactical point of view, that advice is essentially the same as, “Understand your target, and aim carefully.”)
I heard about a woman who was walking from her car to her front door with two large bags of groceries when she heard footsteps coming up behind her. As they got close, she turned around and handed the bags of groceries to the guy, saying, “Thank you so much for carrying these! I couldn’t have made it without someone strong like you to help me out. You’re so helpful. Thank you for helping me.” And on and on until they reached the door. When they got to the door, she opened the door, took the bags, and thanked him again. He told her that he had planned to attack her and rape her, but now he couldn’t. He thanked her, and left.
See how effectively she got him into the “strong protector” frame?
Does this always work? No. Does it make you bullet-proof? No. Does it depend on you having a cool head under pressure? Of course. Does it work better if you have skills and practice, even if they are running through scenarios in your head? Obviously! Are there innate talents that make some people better at this than others? Undoubtedly, but skill and practice also make a big difference. Does luck play an important role? Sure.
But the above questions have the same answers if you ask them about using a gun when faced with a threat.