"You should run!"

[Aray]

I have heard hundreds of comments/recommendations/answers that were variations on "You should run!" or "I'll just run!" over the years when people are discussing an appropriate response to a threat.

About a month ago, I was sent a video of a seriously bad situation in Charlotte and I was posed with this question: "My first inclination is run, [eff] the ego." And followed with a what would you do? kind question.

I had to answer "I run some, but I seriously doubt I can outrun an 18 year old." Let alone about a dozen 16-25 year olds. My 45 year old 6' 230 pound ass isn't really all that impressive from a speed or distance running perspective.

My point is this, I have come to the conclusion that telling people to "just run" isn't realistic, or even reasonable for the majority of folks out there. Only a small portion of people in the defensive minded community are young enough and/or in sufficient physical condition to make running a viable option. By that I mean just run away, not move to cover, move to 3 and 9 o'clock etc.

I'm not lying to myself or anyone else anymore. Running needs to be looked at with a much more pragmatic eye IMHO. To what are you running? How far away is it? Can you outrun your threat? For how long?

[Luke]

If there are a dozen people trying to kill you I'm not really sure what I'd do. I guess run the el prez till it or I was over.

[voodoo_man]

I like this type of conversation, specifically because there is a time and place to run....to cover, to safety, because your gun isn't doing what you want or because you just out of weapons/ammo/time.



The above video depicts, more or less, the worst case scenario if you are by your self. You are walking to your vehicle and realize you are waist deep in a BLM/anti-white person protest. He tried to run, there is no running. But standing and (fist fighting) isn't going to work either, so what should he do? Well he did exactly what would have happened regardless of him running or fighting, he was not prepared for that situation and he paid for it in his own blood (though I think he lived...?). In this type of mass attack situation, running is very much a good tactic, but only because you want to thin out the aggressors. On top of that you want to be able to prove you did everything in your power to escape instead of using force on a large group of people. Though, it may have been justified immediately after the first several volleys of attacks - no one can reasonably be expected to (fist) fight against numerous (possibly armed) attackers. Running will get you out of the big groups attack/sights and will let you face off with several persons. At that point you are with your back to a wall and any reasonable amount of force required to meet and overcome the force you are presented with can (and should) be used.

Say this guy was armed, Glock 19, extra mag, a little blade. He manages to fend off one or two by parrying and striking, he's skilled at unarmed combat. Then four or five of these urban youth decide its time to go big and half a dozen start to attack him at once. Would deadly force be reasonable? At what point? The moment you are grabbed from every side? The moment you hit the ground? The moment you get kicked in the face? At what point is standing your ground completely reasonable and, not only necessary, but required for your survival? Do you have the tools to overcome this type of fast moving/developing situation? Would running away be an option here even if you were Usain Bolt?

[ubervic]

A few quick thoughts:

-One who is properly motivated (i.e., in great fear of injury or death) can and will run faster than he may otherwise be able to. Flight or Fight, adrenaline, etc.
-One who is stalked as the individual in the posted video was would very likely be deemed in the right to draw on and even to fire on one or more of the attackers. Disparity of force in numbers, etc.
-It's difficult to predict the preferred action for every violent encounter, but philosophically, as a civilian, I will always prefer to flee rather than stand and fight if fleeing is feasible. Much better to exit the scenario than to endure the multiple possibilities of injury, death, legal action, etc.

ETA: I'm not .mil or LEO, just a regular guy who prefers to go home to his wife & kids every night.

[William B.]

I have heard hundreds of comments/recommendations/answers that were variations on "You should run!" or "I'll just run!" over the years when people are discussing an appropriate response to a threat.

About a month ago, I was sent a video of a seriously bad situation in Charlotte and I was posed with this question: "My first inclination is run, [eff] the ego." And followed with a what would you do? kind question.

I had to answer "I run some, but I seriously doubt I can outrun an 18 year old." Let alone about a dozen 16-25 year olds. My 45 year old 6' 230 pound ass isn't really all that impressive from a speed or distance running perspective.

My point is this, I have come to the conclusion that telling people to "just run" isn't realistic, or even reasonable for the majority of folks out there. Only a small portion of people in the defensive minded community are young enough and/or in sufficient physical condition to make running a viable option. By that I mean just run away, not move to cover, move to 3 and 9 o'clock etc.

I'm not lying to myself or anyone else anymore. Running needs to be looked at with a much more pragmatic eye IMHO. To what are you running? How far away is it? Can you outrun your threat? For how long?

Parents who have this "I'll run" attitude seem especially delusional to me. I have 3 kids, the oldest being 4. While I am in shape and may be able to outrun aggressors, my kids would not be able to, so there are times when there is no alternative but to fight back.

[Luke]

What could you have done in a scenario like VDM posted?

[BJXDS]

I like this type of conversation, specifically because there is a time and place to run....to cover, to safety, because your gun isn't doing what you want or because you just out of weapons/ammo/time.



The above video depicts, more or less, the worst case scenario if you are by your self. You are walking to your vehicle and realize you are waist deep in a BLM/anti-white person protest. He tried to run, there is no running. But standing and (fist fighting) isn't going to work either, so what should he do? Well he did exactly what would have happened regardless of him running or fighting, he was not prepared for that situation and he paid for it in his own blood (though I think he lived...?). In this type of mass attack situation, running is very much a good tactic, but only because you want to thin out the aggressors. On top of that you want to be able to prove you did everything in your power to escape instead of using force on a large group of people. Though, it may have been justified immediately after the first several volleys of attacks - no one can reasonably be expected to (fist) fight against numerous (possibly armed) attackers. Running will get you out of the big groups attack/sights and will let you face off with several persons. At that point you are with your back to a wall and any reasonable amount of force required to meet and overcome the force you are presented with can (and should) be used.

Say this guy was armed, Glock 19, extra mag, a little blade. He manages to fend off one or two by parrying and striking, he's skilled at unarmed combat. Then four or five of these urban youth decide its time to go big and half a dozen start to attack him at once. Would deadly force be reasonable? At what point? The moment you are grabbed from every side? The moment you hit the ground? The moment you get kicked in the face? At what point is standing your ground completely reasonable and, not only necessary, but required for your survival? Do you have the tools to overcome this type of fast moving/developing situation? Would running away be an option here even if you were Usain Bolt?

I think this is something we all need to think about very seriously, but many do not run the scenarios/ questions asked. Was that a video of a Hate Crime in progress?

[Corey]

When I taught concealed weapon classes I had many students who were elderly, physically impaired or otherwise. For these people running was not an option available to them. I told them that while they had to stay within the law, as long as they can articulate why, they could get aggressive sooner than someone like me could in the same situation. This was back when I was actually in good shape, now I am like a cheetah, I can move pretty good for a short distance then I need to lay down and take a nap for awhile.

What constitutes a deadly threat that can be met with deadly force is greatly affected by what the victim is physically capable of doing to avoid the problem.

[William B.]

What could you have done in a scenario like VDM posted?

If my wife was with me she would be armed as well. So she and the kids may try to get to a safe area while I deter the attackers. If she wasn't with me I would hope that once I started shooting, that would be enough to deter the members of that mob who I'd not yet injured. Regardless, I would have drawn my gun at some point while they were chasing me and would have definitely begun shooting once I realized I was being cornered. I would have attempted some sort of "tactical retreat" that combined me increasing distance from the aggressors and deterring pursuers with gun fire when necessary.

And it goes without saying, if I know there's a BLM "protest" in town I'm going to a) try not be out and about, b) not have my wife and kids with me if I have to go out, and c) carry more self-defense hardware than usual.

What do you think, Luke?

[Peally]

Change it to "run if possible" and you have a more proper answer.