Scott & Sarah Kennedy

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

We need more of this!

I was heartened to read of these teenagers who caught a robber and dragged him to a police station. Awesome stuff. Great community-mindedness and action.

posted by Scotty at 6:52 AM

27 Comments:

  • Thing is the cops don't want us defending ourselves. They want to nana us and tell us to play dead and give them what they want the moment anyone confronts us.

    Personally I'd probably get myself in hot water by breaking their legs or something...
    At least the martial arts stuff is teaching people right. lol
    'If he attacks me with a weapon, I'm taking the weapon and the arm attached to it'

    By Anonymous Allan, at 3:14 PM, August 29, 2007  

  • Heres another two worth comparing:

    Public chase armed robbers
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10460684
    a man armed with a knife entered the BP Connect at about 11pm and demanded money.

    He took a small amount of cash before leaving in a car with two other people.

    But members of the public, who saw what was happening, followed the robber's car and alerted police.

    Senior sergeant Ross Smith said people should take down car registration numbers and descriptions but should not follow offenders.

    "We don't encourage members of the public to get involved in serious crimes like this," Mr Smith said.

    But he said without their help, police may still be looking for the robber.

    Police say in example 1, don't get involved.


    Woman uses martial arts skills to prevent abduction
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10460697

    The man grabbed one of the women by an arm and attempted to drag her into the car.

    However, the woman fought back and managed to escape.

    "We understand she has had some martial arts training," he said.

    Police highlighted the benefits of having martial arts skills.

    Police say in example 2, do be able to get involved.


    Which is it? Learn how to fight back but don't do it?

    By Anonymous Allan, at 4:38 PM, August 30, 2007  

  • Well in the first case there is no immediate risk to a person, so the thought it probably don't create an immediate risk by following them.

    In the second case however, there is immediate risk to a person. If that person does not defend themselves they will be introuble. In those sort of situations the police seem to think it is ok to use self-defence.

    By Anonymous Scotty, at 12:59 PM, August 31, 2007  

  • Allan, hasn't martials arts taught you that you can defend yourself without breaking someone's legs? Are you proud you can do that? Three cheers for you (and let's hope that this is not what you pass on to the people you might be teaching).

    amoebe

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:11 AM, September 03, 2007  

  • That would be the case yes, if I actually trained in it myself. As I have said before, I do not. I live with the instructor, but I don't have the cash to do it myself. Not to mention, my kneee is stuffed and unlikely to allow me train anyway.

    So I only know the bare basics which includes knees and elbows and which works without much brain power.

    By Anonymous Allan, at 5:48 AM, September 04, 2007  

  • hm, so you think martial arts is about hurting your opponent?

    amoebe

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:13 PM, September 04, 2007  

  • No. But considering I don't DO martial arts, that's my point. I only know that part. Of course theres far more to it than 'hurting'.

    By Anonymous Allan, at 11:11 PM, September 04, 2007  

  • What is martial arts about?

    By Anonymous Dan, at 8:41 AM, September 05, 2007  

  • martial arts is about getting to know yourself, getting to know your capacities and your limitations. It is a great way to train your body and your mind.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:06 PM, September 05, 2007  

  • I think that might be part of it, and while many people use it for "...fitness, self-defense, sport, self-cultivation/meditation, mental discipline, character development and building self-confidence, or any combination of the above..." (from Wikipedia), I don't think one can escape the fact that its root purpose is found in hand-to-hand combat and/or self-defense.

    And usually, in combat or self-defense, someone is going to get hurt.

    If you're going into a store, armed with a knife, with the express intent to steal stuff, you've really got to be prepared for the fact that you might get hurt.
    And I can't imagine why anyone else would (or should) have any sympathy for you if you did get hurt.

    By Anonymous Dan, at 10:31 AM, September 06, 2007  

  • being able to prevent that attacker from doing harm WITHOUT being angry at them and WITHOUT doing more damage than is necessary to prevent other people from getting harmed - that's what I am aiming at. It is not my right (nor my duty) to do more. Physical harm shouldn't be inflicted if you can get around it!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:35 PM, September 06, 2007  

  • I am well trained in martial arts. I have never benn confronted by a criminal but if I ever am, I am going to make damn sure the offender will not be in a physical condition to commit another crime for at least a year.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:10 AM, September 09, 2007  

  • Dear Anonymous,
    what martial art are you trained in?

    amoebe

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:48 PM, September 09, 2007  

  • Just a reminder to anonymous. Comments require a name to be left on this blog. Just letting you know for future reference.

    Thanks

    By Anonymous Scotty, at 7:36 AM, September 10, 2007  

  • Allan- wow- breaking someones legs?! I am curious as to the bibical justification for such extreme measures? I can think of a few bibical principles that would suggest the best thing to do is walk/run away. 'Turn the other cheek' 'love your enemy' 'make every effort to live in peace' 'do not repay evil for evil' etc etc

    Anon would would 'make damn sure the offender will not be in a physical condition to commit another crime for at least a year.
    '- is this is the type of society you want to live in? Ok using your skills to restrain the person until they could be dealt with according to the law is one thing. Can't you imagine the burden on the taxpayer who would have to pick up the tab for this persons long term hospitalisation?

    By Anonymous anita, at 12:32 PM, September 11, 2007  

  • Well I've got a story you might be all interested about some taggers I caught - and made clean up their mess - all without resorting to violence...!

    By Anonymous Scotty, at 6:53 AM, September 12, 2007  

  • I assumed it would be obvious that if running away was an option I'd go for that first :-)

    No I wouldn't go breaking someone's legs for robbing a store. That would be reserved for them attacking me. Which may or may not result from my (if I did) tailing the offenders after they left the store. I don't have a cell phone so that'd be kinda pointless tho unless there was a number plate or home address yada yada yada.

    By Anonymous Allan, at 10:57 AM, September 12, 2007  

  • * attacking me, OR somebody else near me.

    By Anonymous Allan, at 10:57 AM, September 12, 2007  

  • Allan- You haven't answered the question or perhaps I didn't ask it clearly. Please explain the bibical justification for breaking someones legs should they attack you.

    How could running away not aways be an option? I mean unless they have you pinned then you can't run away, then how are you going to manage to break their legs?

    By Anonymous Anita, at 12:33 PM, September 13, 2007  

  • The justification being that apart from sitting an dtaking a beating, that's about all I know (read the top of these comments and that's exactly my point). If a guys stabbing at my face with a knife, you'll have to forgive me for not turning the other cheek.

    Examples. Dude comes up behind you, puts his arms around your neck, and proceeds to try and drag you into a back room. Or guy walking down the street decides to stab at you with a screwdriver so he can get your money (I recall somebody like that floating around the manurewa area a few years back). Or you witness a robbery and the robber decides to take a swing at you, the witness, with the baseball bat he just stole.

    Those are just ideas off the top of my head, and unless you saw them coming you'd not have a chance to run away.

    By Anonymous Allan, at 1:32 PM, September 13, 2007  

  • Christ sat and took a beating- why shouldn't we? Are you saying there is no bibical justification for self defense?

    Maybe it is because I am a chick and don't understand these kinda things. But I just don't get how you can manage to break someones legs therefore having the power over them and 'winning' the fight but not have the power to subdue or escape from them?

    With the baseball and screwdriver situation you just gave- did they wound you? If so you have to strength to break their legs but not run away? They didn't wound you? You can still run away....??

    Man dragging you into room- you would try and fight him off, get free and then stick around to break his legs...? Or if you get free why not just hightail it outta there to safety?

    By Anonymous Anita, at 9:47 PM, September 13, 2007  

  • Anita, the reason I said break arms or legs is because of how quick and simple it is to do. My point was that that is all I know, and as such it IS the fastest thing to do before running away. It's not about having power over them, it's about the shortest point between point A and B before tucking tail and running.

    It's nothing but a sharp boot/whack on the correct angle.

    Christ took a beating for a reason. Ponder the 'what if' if a street gang had come after him at age 20. Knowing his purpose, would he have let them kill him? (it's a what if in as much as it simply could not have happened unless God was not God)

    Are you saying that by Christ taking a beating there is no bibical justification for self defense?

    I'm not saying there is no bibical justification for self defense. I'm just saying I don't have chapter verse and complete logical argument structure to state it properly.


    At the end of the day, this conversation comes down to 'Would I do something simple yet harsh to an offender so I could run away, or would I spend 5 minutes getting my head smashed in by trying to fight without seriously damaging the offender?' (which I don't know how to do, which is the whole point. If I could, then that's totally different).

    By Anonymous Allan, at 1:52 PM, September 14, 2007  

  • Thanks Allan I get it now, I was working under the assumption that breaking legs was a difficult thing. I am not sure I agree with it but hey your choice.

    I just think in Christ's time he was a non violent person. John 8:59 as well. Also the early christians didn't fight back when persecuted, they hide yes but they didn't fight back. Do putting those things together along with the other bibical princples I pointed out I am finding it hard to come up with an arguement for self defence.

    This topic is of interest to me because lately I have heard a few christians talking about beating people up in self defence. Thinking about it I can't think of any biblical basis for that yet it seems like such a obvious thing, of course you would fight back if confronted. Does it make it make it the right thing to do...?

    This comment from you:
    'I'm not saying there is no bibical justification for self defense. I'm just saying I don't have chapter verse and complete logical argument structure to state it properly.'
    Well it surprises me, I have never not know you to have a verse or logical argument to back up your point. This leads me to conclude that there isn't one, sorry not meaning to be rude it just seems strange.

    By Anonymous Anita, at 4:30 AM, September 16, 2007  

  • heh. I find it amusing that people think it strange when I can't answer everything ;-)

    I simply have not as far as I can recall researched the topic. Nor do I have the whole Bible memorised (that'd be cool tho).

    There is the obvious Israelite war stuff, and Samson etc, but I can't say I know if that applies here or not. The times that physical violence was rebuked that I can think of are items where it would counteract God's plan otherwise. The soldiers ear being cut off in the garden for example. Jesus wouldn't be willingly led if there'd been a fight.

    Just as a random aside, I just thought how this might apply to verbal fighting. I was recalling the uneducated people (as their argument proves if properly studied) who have accused me of judging and calling people fools. As I've shown in the past, the word fool in the English language does not always equate to the one in scripture. And as you're aware one verse says not to call people that, while another shows Jesus using the term. The English term at least.

    To what extent do we take the non-violent at all costs thing? Again I think of the OT wars and come back to the conclusion, I don't know enough about the topic yet to determine a proper answer.

    So there is a bit of scriptural and logical argument in there, just not enough in my head to form a proper conclusion.

    By Anonymous Allan, at 11:52 AM, September 16, 2007  

  • Allan- I don't expect you to have an answer for everything. I do assume that if Christains are going to choose to take a course of action particulary one that involves leg breaking then they should have sound bibical evidence to back up that action.

    Unreasonable? And at what point where I have provided bibical reasoning and you have not does one have to admit that perhaps I could have a point?

    Again I don't mean to be rude, I guess I am just being direct.

    Interesting this had turned into a one on one discussion with me and Allan- but is there anyone else out there who can give a bibical arguement for self defence?

    By Anonymous Anita, at 1:55 PM, September 19, 2007  

  • Unreasonable?
    Not sure where that came from.

    If I'd actually got in and studied it then yea I'd have a Bible based position on it :)

    Point being I haven't really studied it.

    By Anonymous Allan, at 10:39 PM, September 19, 2007  

  • Good old Augustine had an argument for a 'just war'. Whether it was biblical or not I don't know....

    I think it would be easy enough from biblical principles of love etc to defend another by the means of force. One would not be loving one's wife if one sat by and saw her get beaten and raped without attempting to do anything.

    The Bible also seems to allow for the state to carry the sword. So it seems our police should be able to use force.

    Self-defence? I'm having a think. We have those passages of turning the other cheek. When Paul faced opposition - most of the time he seemed to move to another city.

    I certainly don't think we have a biblical mandate that we can deal to anyone who comes at us. But at the same time I don't seem to think that Jesus words intend (for example) a women who is attacked in a park to stand there and take whatever happens. I would fully expect that Jesus wasn't imagining that sort of situation when he said "turn the other cheek".

    Personally...I'd try to run first. If that didn't work do something so that I could get away...causing as little damage as possible along the way.

    By Anonymous Scotty, at 7:05 AM, September 20, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home