Having a Warrior Mindset in Modern Society

[MTechnik]

Oaths & Uniforms.

obligation, legal presumption of innocence, backup

I think there is a confusion between being armed and proficient with your weapon of choice and being a warrior. Two different things, not all warriors had any training at all, and not all highly skilled marksmen are warriors. Look at Audie Murphy, he hardly looked like a warrior and I doubt he received any more training than the typical service man but he seemed to do ok. I would assume he got his warrior mindset in the middle of the combat, he realized it was "him or them" and voila a warrior was born instantly on the battlefield.

If I am walking down the street and someone looks like they are going to ask for cash, do I need to become a warrior? nope.

If someone wants to kill me, and I have to react now to save my son's life. I need to become a warrior now. It becomes a mindset of ultimate survival, and "anything goes" without losing ones' cool.

[ljgrohn]

not all warriors had any training at all, and not all highly skilled marksmen are warriors.

I totally agree with you. It is the mindset. Once again is it a negative thing for an accountant to develop a warrior mindset?

And as far as oaths and uniforms I disagree. The amount and types of training are different and that the point. The question was, what type of training should different types of people focus on. Eg., should a civilian focus more on self-defense with a weapon (lethal or non-lethal?), or on unarmed self-defense? What about a police officer?

Thanks so much for the response and you conversing on this topic.
LJ

[ljgrohn]

If someone wants to kill me, and I have to react now to save my son's life. I need to become a warrior now. It becomes a mindset of ultimate survival, and "anything goes" without losing ones' cool.

That's the thing though. If one doesn't determine how they will act before they have to, if they do not train for certain scenarios, if they do not prepare for what could happen, what will happen? If one trains to shoot paper but never role plays, how will they react to a violent attacker?

What if that person asks you for money and when you say no they come within your comfort zone and threaten your safety? Is it okay then, if you do not train to respond without your firearm, to respond with your firearm? No. These are the questions. How should we train and to what extent is training necessary in our society?

Thanks for your thoughts. I would love to hear some more,
LJ

[David]

obligation, legal presumption of innocence, backup

with the exception of backup the same obligation and legal presumption of innocence applies to a civilian.

[jslaker]

What if that person asks you for money and when you say no they come within your comfort zone and threaten your safety? Is it okay then, if you do not train to respond without your firearm, to respond with your firearm? No. These are the questions. How should we train and to what extent is training necessary in our society?

I'd posit that there is a difference between preparation and playing make believe. I don't need to play warrior to be prepared to defend myself in the same way that I don't need to imagine myself a doctor to be prepared to deal with basic first aid. I'm no samurai, but I stayed at Motel 8 last night.

[MTechnik]

with the exception of backup the same obligation and legal presumption of innocence applies to a civilian.

When the police arrive, and there is a bloody body on the ground, and a gun in my hand, I don't think I get the same presumption of innocence as a police officer in the same position. That said, I have not been in this position to say exactly how it plays out, just what I have been told.

And the obligation is not the same. if I am in a store and it gets robbed, as a citizen it is my job to keep looking at expiration dates on milk bottles, keeping my ears and eyes open. If I am walking past an alley and I hear a woman scream, my obligation is not the same. If I am at a mall and I hear shots, my obligation is not the same.

[David]

I totally agree with you. It is the mindset. Once again is it a negative thing for an accountant to develop a warrior mindset?

I can't say since I'm not sure what the warrior mindset is going to entail until I have to become the warrior.

And as far as oaths and uniforms I disagree. The amount and types of training are different and that the point. The question was, what type of training should different types of people focus on. Eg., should a civilian focus more on self-defense with a weapon (lethal or non-lethal?), or on unarmed self-defense? What about a police officer?

Their training may differ but it is the oath and uniform which obligates and distinguishes a difference. There are LEO who supplement their required training with additional training which is also open to any accountant willing to pay and work at it. There are a lot of LEO out there who took just the basic required training and re-chamber the same cartridge for 15 years. I would assume the civilian should focus on whatever training they would like to obtain and perfect. But being highly trained still does not make you a warrior, it just makes you highly trained. There is a world of difference between the two.

[YVK]

The question is I guess better phrased this way: how much training should the average person go through to become able to protect themselves and those around them?

If you're talking in a narrow context of protecting self and family from a criminal element (I am a civilian), then there is no specific amount of time. There are proficiency goals that are set by a given individual, in context of his/her baseline skills, perceived needs, and realistic ability and opportunity to pursue such goals.

I'd imagine it goes without saying that LEs and mil personnel should be better versed in various combat disciplines - I thought it was, explicit or implicit, part of their job description.

However, if you take a wide context of social stability and security, then this self-defense skill part, armed or unarmed, takes a distant place, whether you like this fact or not.
Using your accountant as an example, he first and foremost needs to have a steady job so his family, at the least, has food, hopefully, healthy food on the table. He needs to have health insurance coverage - you can be a biggest badass, and a relatively garden-variety illness will emasculate you in a day without medical attention. He needs to have some reserve funds so he and his wouldn't go under if he lost a job. Hopefully, he can afford dwelling in a good part of town - because it significantly reduces his probability of ever facing a criminal element. Hopefully, he and his have aptitude and means to live a full social life, preventing helplessness and depression - because depression kills more people than criminals do. Hopefully, he has time to exercise to be fit and healthy, etc etc. All of these things to me are more important to security and survival in modern society than even owning a firearm in a first place, let alone being "a complete self-defense" package. If, after all above is achieved, the dude has time and desire to get well-rounded - all power is to him. If, on the other hand, he decides he wants to work out before he goes to work, loses his productivity because he is tired from workouts and less sleep time, and loses the job - then he's moron who has just jeopardized his family more than he ever could.

[David]

When the police arrive, and there is a bloody body on the ground, and a gun in my hand, I don't think I get the same presumption of innocence as a police officer in the same position. That said, I have not been in this position to say exactly how it plays out, just what I have been told.

What you've been told and what law requires are at odds. ALL are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The police have their backup and dash-cams so they can instantly see what happened usually. If you had backup and a dash-cam or video showing your innocence I'd assume you'd be set free as well.

And the obligation is not the same. if I am in a store and it gets robbed, as a citizen it is my job to keep looking at expiration dates on milk bottles, keeping my ears and eyes open. If I am walking past an alley and I hear a woman scream, my obligation is not the same. If I am at a mall and I hear shots, my obligation is not the same.

The obligation of following the law is the same. You're confusing the obligation to the oath. Which was why I said "Oath & Uniform".

[MTechnik]

What you've been told and what law requires are at odds. ALL are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The police have their backup and dash-cams so they can instantly see what happened usually. If you had backup and a dash-cam or video showing your innocence I'd assume you'd be set free as well.

for a while I wanted to put a video recorder that would hold the last 15 minutes of crappy video in to a TLR-1 form factor with a light. Something that would use the gunfire to say "this video here is important, hold on to the last 10 minutes and the next 5" but...