Category: Uncategorized

In Part I we looked primarily at the legal battlefield problems of stirring your adversary to anger.  In this post we’ll unpack how this is also a terrible idea on the physical battlefield.  We’ll also look at winning strategies on the physical battlefield and how we want to manipulate the bad guy’s mindset.

The late Col John Boyd, a military strategist who is touted as having changed the Art of War, gave the United States Military, business, and the rest of us winning fundamental principles.  Perhaps the most famous being the OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act). Some have called this a decision making loop.  Boyd purportedly learned from interviews with retired German generals that words like offense or defense don’t really matter as much as a word like initiative.  Initiative is a winning principle!  Boyd taught in essence that a man or an army ought to “preserve our capacity for independent action.”  What does that mean?  It means we want to preserve our ability to act juxtaposed to constantly reacting.  When the timing is correct we begin acting in such a way that our adversary is constantly reacting. We use fast transitions which reset our adversary’s OODA Loop. That’s what getting inside his OODA Loop means to reset it in such a way that he’s confused because what he’s seeing or experiencing was not expected. For instance a robber turns in 90° simultaneously drawing, brandishing, or pointing his firearm (act) to begin dominating. But because he doesn’t immediately begin shooting at that point he’s in the decision making stage. When you initiate an unexpected transition he is instantly moved from deciding back to observe. Whatever that looks like it really needs to be unexpected. Unexpected things often cause temporary hesitation. So he sees and he’s striving to understand what he’s seeing or experiencing. That’s part of orientation. Before he can figure things out you’re transitioning again driving him hard and fast back down to observe. There’s an old saying ~ things speed up near the end. With a proper understanding of OODA things need to speed up which only serves to confuse him more. When done correctly he spends most of his little remaining time cycling through observe-orient, observe-orient, observe-orient. He begins to experience discouragement, despondency (losing hope), and ultimately despair (all hope is lost). Maybe he drops the gun, knife, or club at which time you cease defensive blows; or maybe he doesn’t. Time always tells the tale.

A few excerpts from Robert Coram’s book:

“Germany’s blitzkrieg attack against France in 1940 and the Israelis’ lightning fast raid at Entebbe Airport to free hostages seized by Uganda. In both instances the ability to transition quickly from one maneuver to another was a crucial factor in the victory.”

“Once the process begins, it must not slow. It must continue and it must accelerate.”

Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram

I have to make a distinction here.  Humilitas First teaches another principle that ties in, interconnects, and compenetrates with initiative and that principle is called relative superiority.  Think of this like a violent kind of momentum.  Relative superiority must be both achieved and maintained which means a person has to understand things like subject factors and weapon factors for an honest accurate assessment of what is needed to win the fight. For instance, if a woman small in stature were to try to defend herself with empty hand techniques (punches, kicks, etc) against a man of large stature who is bigger, faster, and stronger she would decisively lose that fight regardless of what myths Hollywood puts forth for our belief.  However, put a firearm in that same woman’s hand and she then has the capacity for independent action.  She can absolutely dominate and win a deadly force encounter against a man regardless of how big, fast, and strong her male adversary is.  Without the firearm she does have the capacity to seize the initiative and land a punch or two though her efforts would stall out and she would fail to achieve relative superiority.  To win the fight achieving relative superiority is required but it also must be maintained.  If the balance of violent momentum should shift back to the unjust criminal aggressor (in this hypothetical the man) then the man wins the fight.  Even with the great equalizer (a firearm) should the woman deliver one defensive shot and then stop no longer possessing the will to continue shooting the threat; she would fail to maintain relative superiority. The man could then close the gap, take the firearm, and do whatever he wants with her.  That is an example of the violent momentum or relative superiority shifting back to the unjust criminal aggressor.  

“Once the process begins, it must not slow. It must continue and it must accelerate.”

Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram

Looking at the physical battlefield, why would it be a terrible idea to provoke to anger a sociopath or psychopath (an unjust violent criminal)?  Criminals don’t care about social norms or laws.  They don’t have the same spiritual, mental, or emotional restraints as law abiding citizens.  Making an unjust criminal aggressor angry means he’s going to seize the initiative sooner.  If he’s also bigger, faster, and stronger or has friends then you are going to get seriously hurt or killed sooner thereby losing your capacity for independent action.  Is it a good idea to make your adversary afraid?  It depends.  For instance if I were to see a deadly force threat spinning up early enough to draw, present, and give loud verbal commands then I would do precisely that.  In many if not most circumstances proximity and time are going to be on his side because he gets to decide if and when he pulls out the weapon to rob you of your goods, freedom, or life.  There is also the question of whether the bad guy believes I have the fortitude to pull the trigger.  If he believes this is merely posturing then he may test that and make you pull that trigger.  Some bad guys will flee and some will make you prove it.  Now I’m talking about a situation where you clearly have the upper hand because you were in that rare circumstance where you were legally justified in brandishing or pointing your weapon at him and giving loud commands.  What happens when you don’t have the upper hand and he perceives you going for a weapon?  Your action is going to push him towards panic and his own action.  At this point we’re probably going to be in a gunfight at point blank range so we both may get shot and we both may die.  

If you plant the seeds for anger or fear in the mind of your unjust criminal adversary it is likely he’ll seize the initiative by acting violently early, first, and often.  With anger it will be due to his rage while with fear it will be due to panic.  The last thing that I want an unjust criminal aggressor with a weapon in his hands to do is to go first.  What emotion or mindset would I want an unjust criminal adversary to have at the time I initiate a vigorous defense?  If I have time & distance then I want to say or do things that cause confusion of mind. 

 “The LORD will smite you with madness and blindness, and confusion of mind.”  

Deuteronomy chapter 28: 28

One of the definitions of madness is a state of frenzied or chaotic activity.  If I can create some chaos which will be very distracting to him, that’s what I’m going to do.  For instance say a stranger follows one of my adult children home and now he’s confronting my child in the driveway.  I might activate the panic button on my parked car in the drive which causes the horn to incessantly sound which covers the noise of me opening whatever door he can’t presently see. If it’s nighttime the headlights and tail lights are also flashing creating this artificial frenzied and chaotic activity. This is not going to be within his set of expectations.  He’s having to observe frenzied or chaotic activity which will buys me time in his confusion (orientation) to move to a position to see his hands. Innocents can create artificial chaos and use that to their advantage in escaping, rescuing, or just winning the fight. Think of this like a poor man’s flash bang when circumstances permit.  Blindness in a self-defense sense works if I’m not the initial target. If I found someone to be highly suspicious guess where I’d like to be? Behind him. Legitimate self-defense or defense of others is not a sport – it is a matter of life or death. So I’m never going to seek a fair fight. Seeking a fair fight with an unjust criminal aggressor, sociopath, or psychopath is for amateurs, outsiders, and mere tourists. That is a gross error. I’d want to acquire a position where I can see him but he cannot see me.  In most dealings with unjust criminals the primary goal is confusion. Why? It’s going to be more common than you having the opportunity to use artificial chaos or superior rear positions when you’re transiting through society. In essence he’s studied the terrain, funnels, and choke points and you’re going to have react to things as he develops them. I want him in that place that he’s never seen or imagined and doesn’t know what to do next.  Why?  Hesitation.  There are opportunities to avoid or to win the fight within hesitations.  Time is a precious commodity in any kind of pending violent confrontation.  I’m looking to stack time my way even if it’s precious milliseconds or just a few seconds.  The farther out we can identify a potential pending problem the more time we have but in an urban area or inside of a building we’re talking about seconds rather than minutes.  

What if I don’t have time & distance?   For instance say I was distracted and didn’t see the potential threat developing or he is just that good at setting an ambush and now he’s three or four yards away turning to face me simultaneously drawing and presenting a gun which all happens in less than one second.  What now?  What do I want the bad guy thinking in that circumstance?  I want him thinking this robbery is going to go exactly like every other robbery, just another easy day.  In other words I’m initially complying.  I might comply the whole time and just be a good witness.  The criteria for that decision is too much for this post.  Suffice to say I want his mind to become complacent or overconfident so that he believes all is well and he lowers the gun from pointing at my chest or face to pointing at the ground.  He’ll want to do this to avoid witnesses seeing this and calling 911.  I just need to help him do what he already wants to do.  My initial compliance helps him do this. Why do I want him to be complacent or overconfident?  Because I’m looking to renew my capacity for independent action.  I’m looking to improve my situation so that I have the option of STOPPING the threat by simultaneously moving offline, drawing, presenting, and shooting thereby initiating a defensive surprise party.  Maybe I move left, right, and/or like a retreating Bill Drill. It depends. It depends on things like which hand he’s holding the gun with and the terrain find myself standing on.

“Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant,” Sun Tzu. 

Confusion buys a temporary kind of hesitation which stacks milliseconds in your favor.  If defense is the decision then the best chance I have of this ending as a shooting (not a gunfight) is to use surprise, speed, and violence of action.  These three make up the last of Humilitas First 12 Principles for Legitimate Defense.  When a violent attack cannot be avoided we want to seize the initiative.  We go first, second, and we go last! 

Reach out today at heaton0342@gmail.com for a free consultation for your corporate, group, family, or individual training needs.  Training can be custom tailored to suit your needs.  

“If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Every tactical or strategic question in the world can be answered with just two words.  It depends.  That is not to dodge questions, it is the truth.  A good coach should then be able to start unpacking the things that it depends upon.  Providing when and why they’d use this, that, or the other tactic or strategy.  We have to look at the context. The rules of war are different from criminal laws.  In the United States of America state statutes vary from one state to the next.  In war, irritating your adversary might be the right strategy as it may cause him to act too soon, recklessly, or to make mistakes.  When it comes to protecting your family and yourself as a civilian, saying or doing things to aggravate your adversary is a quick way to lose on the legal battlefield.  The second part of the quote is what interests me for the vast majority of civilian deadly force encounters: Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.    For those who would immediately question this in the interest of brevity I’ll just say it’s a timing thing. In this post I’ll begin unpacking how this applies to civilian use of defensive force in the United States of America.

With just a wee bit of introspection we’ll recognize that when we get angry we don’t think so well.  Likewise, when we’re afraid we don’t think so well.  Fear often underlies anger.  Nearly all of the arguments between my wife and I began with some underlying fear that one of us was struggling with.  Maybe I don’t think her great idea is affordable.  Maybe I think her idea is actually unsafe.  Those underlying fears lead me to anger and then I don’t think so well.  That compounds the problem because I then lose the ability to articulate why this, that, or the other idea is actually a bad idea.  What does this have to do with legitimate self-defense?  Fear and anger are the two primary emotions that are most likely to result in your untimely death or a prison sentence.  Those who are afraid hesitate or fail to act which often results in injury or death.  Those who are afraid panic acting with violence of action too early resulting in prison.  Sometimes angry folks act to defend when defending would be ill advised resulting in injury or death.  In other words if an innocent person of good will fails to do an accurate assessment of the violent problem and commensurate solutions, they may find out too late that they’ve bitten off more than they can chew.  The likelihood of injury or death increases when you get the timing wrong by immediately acting when a pause is needed or failing to act when action is immediately required. Also, you have to do the time consuming work of building skills to be able to perform those skills under life and death circumstances. Training that focuses more on marketing and novelty than truth can build false confidence and false confidence can be a major problem in a life and death fight.

I retired from Law Enforcement after a twenty six year career.  Police officers do not pretend to be weak.  Quite the opposite, we project (and have) confidence regarding the physical battlefield.  Part of that confidence stems from the acceptance and willingness that if someone is bigger, faster, and stronger, losing isn’t an option.  The ultimate option for an officer is deadly force via the firearm.  Police officers have to make arrests which means the very nature of their work involves potentially violent confrontations with unjust criminal aggressors.  Bad guys don’t want to be detained, cited, or arrested.  For that reason the law is designed so that officers don’t have to worry about being perceived as an aggressor or mutual combatant.  On the other hand civilians do have to concern themselves with what they say or do because these may define them in the eyes of the law as an aggressor or as a  mutual combatant.  Why?  Simple, if it’s clear you were the initial aggressor or a mutual combatant you lose the ability to make the legal claim of self-defense or defense of another.  Self-defense isn’t defined by what you think in your head or how you feel about the incident – it’s a legal term defined by the statutes of your state.  In Illinois, statutory language offers a way back from mistakenly entering into conflict as the aggressor or mutual combatant.  I’m no attorney and I don’t have time for a deep dive into Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/7-4 but a small part of it says: 

 “(c) (2) in good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”  

It’s better to avoid saying or doing things that move you into the category of aggressor or mutual combatant.  Witnesses will be more likely to see or hear the insults, gestures, or other acts of aggression as you and your adversary “step outside to settle this like men.” Those witnesses may not be present for your showing a clear desire to withdraw and terminate the fight.  That part might be disputed if your adversary lives or your word only if he dies.    

The legal battlefield as it pertains to violence is fraught with risks.  Those risks are increasing for innocent people of good will in many and various leftist jurisdictions throughout this country.  Why?  Progressive activist district attorney’s are confusing good guys and bad guys.  If you decide to own or carry a firearm for protection you need to bulk up on knowledge relating to the legal battlefield.  I recommend clients purchase the book The Law of Self-Defense by attorney Andrew Branca.  I let my clients know this book is a good starting point.  Another great resource is a book called Violence of Mind by author Varg Freeborn.  Mr. Freeborn has a lot of free content available through interviews on podcasts and other social media.  This content offers folks a glimpse into the criminal world as Mr. Freeborn shares his own experience with violence, the criminal justice system, and ultimately a prison sentence. That leads to another quote by Sun Tzu, The Art of War:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

If you’ve taken a concealed carry course and believe you’ve reached the fullness of knowledge on the legal battlefield that is a serious mistake.  A concealed carry course is a bare bones introduction to some of the concepts that your state legislature has approved as an acceptable curriculum.  I also recommend to my clients to consider following Andrew Branca on free social media platforms like YouTube as a kind of hobby.  Why?  Mr. Branca breaks down criminal cases and other violent incidents in the news which provides an application of the principles he teaches in his book.  I cannot overemphasize how important it is for you to bulk up on the legal battlefield. For instance, I retired as a Lieutenant co-leading our Professional Standards Division, Internal Affairs.  I did the work to become a craftsman in the profession of Law Enforcement.  I understood the laws associated with police officer use of force.  

Upon retirement an acquaintance asked if I intended on purchasing concealed carry insurance.  Not knowing what I didn’t know, in arrogance I said:  No, if I have to use my firearm as a civilian I’ll likely receive a good Samaritan award.  After a few months it dawned on me that I had not actually done the work of identifying the underlying fundamental principles involved in civilian claims of self-defense.  Certainly I understood the basics of deadly force but I didn’t yet understand some of the subtle distinctions between acting as an officer and acting as a civilian. Also, as a police officer where I had served we didn’t have hostile activist prosecutors that might take some liberties with the prosecutor’s discretion in an attack on an innocent defender showing bias and favor towards the bad guys.   In 2017 that was just beginning to ramp up in our Country.  I didn’t know what I didn’t know.  I set about reading, highlighting, and annotating three dozen self-defense cases in my home state of Illinois.  I did this before I read attorney Andrew Branca’s book and found the same fundamental principles.  Suffice to say I came to understand concealed carry insurance was a worthy investment as it relates to using any kind of force in a violent confrontation.  The laws for justifiable use of force have some profound distinctions between police officers acting in the line of duty and civilians.  Understanding what makes you an aggressor or mutual combat is a matter of freedom or incarceration.

In the Illinois statute two important words that jump out to me are “initially provokes.” Imagine another driver cuts you off in traffic so you speed up to pull alongside to express your displeasure.  Guess who initially provoked the incident?  It’s you!  You are the aggressor.  Instead imagine you are at a tavern and become involved in a verbal disagreement with another patron who says to you:  Would you like to step outside and settle this like men?  You might say: Yes, I’d like that very much!  Or you might tacitly agree by standing up and following him out the back door to the alley.  Either way you are now a mutual combatant.  If you end up fighting and you win the fight which results in his injury or death you are NOT going to be able to claim self-defense or Justifiable Use of Force: Exoneration.  

In the second part I’ll continue to unpack why civilians should NOT initially provoke or stir to anger an unjust criminal aggressor.

Fox News had a story today about seven people murdered in a Brazilian pool hall after the losers of two games were mocked.  Bad guys don’t like being mocked. Trash talking or good nature ribbing ought to be reserved for family, friends, or brothers in arms who have a wee bit of virtue.  Pistol bad guy highlighted in the right upper corner in pink drew his firearm and held a group of innocent people at gunpoint waiting for the other bad guy to go get his shotgun from his truck.  Shotgun bad guy returned and promptly went to work unjustly murdering innocents.  Bad guy number one also joined in the shooting and killing. A couple of people fled and actually did escape. 

The theological virtue of Hope is awesome as a theological virtue.  However, as a plan for protecting yourself: hope – is – not – a – plan.   There is no time to call the good guys (police) with guns to come save everyone from these murderous criminals.  Once we arrive at the problem of an imminent deadly threat (ie; bad guy brandishing & pointing a gun at people) the solution is for one of these innocent people to have their own firearm concealed on their person.

Let’s think about some solutions or defensive planning. An innocent man or woman might initially comply just long enough to purchase complacency or over confidence from the unjust criminal aggressor. In the bad guy’s head he believes this is going to go like every other time he’s robbed or pointed guns at innocent folks. That initial compliance sells him on this belief. A good guy or gal might then use surprise, speed, and violence of action simultaneously moving, drawing, presenting and shooting. This is a defensive surprise party for the bad guy. A great time to launch this defensive surprise party is when this bad guy is reaching for his door handle (upper left in the photo).

Why? Most bad guys don’t shoot so well because living a life of crime they don’t have firearms trainers teaching them the fundamentals of shooting. Once a defender begins shooting he should not stop shooting until pistol bad guy A) shows a clear and convincing sign of full surrender like separating himself from his firearm and showing his hands, or B) he falls down paralyzed, unconscious, dying, or dead. The dying and dead part are always God’s business. Vengeance is Gods. Legitimate defense is ours. The moment we begin acting with revenge or vengeance we will most certainly have a major moral problem with God and a significant legal problem with the state. Had a good guy here with a gun started shooting pistol bad guy I doubt shotgun bad guy would still be interested in this fight. Most times when the momentum shifts in favor of the innocent man or woman vigorously defending themselves bad guys remember they left something cooking on the stove at home. In other words they flee. They look to save themselves. A great motto they should take up is ALL men left behind. Why? Simple bad guys live lives immersed in vice and sin regardless of how Hollywood might portray them. They don’t have high levels of self-discipline, virtue, or self-sacrificing agape Christian love. When the chips are down they’re getting out of Dodge City.

Whether the bad guy stays to fight or flees the good guy or gal is still going to need to transition from his first target to his second target as soon as is possible. What’s possible. Forget the idea of putting two in the first target and two in the second target. You have to STOP one threat at a time. This brings up an interesting question. How often do you practice target transitions? Most public ranges would never allow patrons to practice this kind of training. Either find a land owner who will permit you to train what you need to train or take up a competitive shooting sport like the USPSA. Yes, I know USPSA has shooters place two rounds in each target and then transition to the next target and repeat. A great way of imagining this is that you’re shooting a single person who’s moving rather than multiple targets. Why is that a good thing? Because in an actual gunfight or shooting with you doing all the shooting your bad guy is probably not going to put his hands on his hips like superman and stand square to you unless he actually wants to die. He’s going to be moving to get away from those little chunks of lead your sending towards his chest and face. In competitive shooting you’ll develop the skills for transitioning with accuracy. Initially you’ll probably find you’re shooting to early, too late, or missing the target completely for a variety of reasons. Doing the work to learn how to shoot under a little bit of stress imposed by peer pressure, competition, and / or time and accuracy constraints moves you in the right direction for a worst case scenario. Add moving to shoot and shooting while moving and these are the skills involved in the many and various examples of deadly force encounters. Being able to pull off a respectable retreating Bill Drill at seven yards and greater is a skill worth developing. Building skill sets take a lot more time than acquiring the knowledge base.

The number one takeaway from this tragedy is to treat people that you don’t really know like they are just six seconds from a murderous rage.  Too many folks today are only a few seconds from becoming unhinged.  The next time you’re feeling like handing your ego and mouth your personal checkbook, remember this incident. Just six seconds from madness.

In this post I’ll examine some of the many and various costs associated with family and personal safety.  I’ll begin with the unacceptable cost.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Safety always costs you something.  If you abdicate your safety over to the government in the long run it will cost you your freedom.  In the short run it may cost you and those you love their lives. The qualifying terms are “essential liberty.”  Essential liberty has to do with rights endowed by God.  The Declaration of Independence spoke well of our essential rights; chief among these are the right to life.  The right to defend ourselves from unjust criminal aggressors.  Bad guys don’t have any moral, ethical, or legal rights to cause harm, great bodily harm, or death to innocents!  

Those who willingly give up essential rights are saying in essence that they place all of their trust in their governments ability to keep them safe.  This is a fantasy.  This is a lie.  This is NOT logistically possible! I was blessed with a twenty six year career in Law Enforcement retiring at the rank of Lieutenant.  I can tell you solemnly that police officers cannot be everywhere all of the time.  An unjust criminal aggressor can ambush or attack you anywhere and at – any – time! 

Did you know that depending upon the day of the week and the hour of that day a city with a population of 100,000 may only have 15 to 30 officers working the streets?  Should you actually have the opportunity to call 911 before a violent crime begins, there’s just not enough time for officers to save you from whatever it is that wicked man desires to do to you.  Why?  Upon calling 911 there is an exchange of information which takes several seconds:  What’s your location?  What’s your emergency?  That information then needs to be broadcast to all responding officers.  The officers assigned to the call then must drive from wherever they were when they received the call for service to wherever you and your problem are located.   On average this will take minutes not seconds.  Typically you don’t have minutes. How long does it take a bad guy to repeatedly beat, stab, or shoot an innocent human being?  Blows begin in just milliseconds.  Innocent victims suffer multiple blows and can be paralyzed, unconscious, dying, or dead in just a couple of seconds. Many violent encounters are over in just a few seconds.  The truth of the matter is if you want to protect your family and yourself you need to learn how to defend against unjust criminal aggressors.  That is the reality. The government is merely a supplement to your safety.  You are your family’s primary protector.

Most of the time police merely respond to the aftermath of violence.  Police secure crime scenes and gather evidence.  They document what has already happened.  They investigate, track down, and arrest the suspect(s).  Now here’s the part you’ll want to pay particular attention to:  In most instances there is more than enough time for the unjust criminal aggressors to escape. 

Additionally, no one is going to care more than a husband and father (or mother) about the lives of their family because these are bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh (Genesis 2: 23). There is a Catholic principle at play here as well. The Principle of Subsidiarity essentially says that responsibilities ought to be handled at the lowest level possible. In other words the government ought not usurp a man or woman’s responsibility to protect their family. If things were right in this country people would be told these truths and encouraged to take seriously their grave moral and ethical duties. Things are not right in this country nor in many places throughout the world. Just read any news outlet.

The wealthy and powerful often employ hirelings while simultaneously attacking second amendment rights.  Hypocritical?  Yes, of course I guess that’s the point of communism.  Having the logistical, strategic, and tactical knowledge of how executive protection works would be of great value to a husband, father, or a mother.  Why? Again, because you’re bound to care more about bone of your bones and flesh of your flesh.

Individually we need to make an investment of our time, sweat equity, and some of our money to acquire the tools (firearms are equalizers), knowledge (logistics, strategy, & tactics), and skills (abilities) to protect our families and ourselves.  

What are the primary costs of familial and personal safety? Time, hard work, and money are the costs of familial and personal safety.   Mostly we’re talking about time and putting in the work as having a great work ethic can make this whole process far more affordable. Why? Most of the knowledge and skill building are available for free but you have to be willing to do the work to secure that knowledge and those skills. Skills take longer than knowledge to acquire.

Criminals are typically willing to kill for gain but rarely are they willing to die for anything or anyone.  When things begin going badly their motto becomes: Every man for himself! Or; Leave EVERYONE behind!   They will abandon all of their brothers or sisters in crime and they will look to save themselves. 

Indeed, and those who did not understand looked on to the Cross and said to Jesus:  Come down from the Cross and save yourself! Innocent people of good will are more likely to risk death for their wife and their children but there are no guarantees.  Talk is cheap for a human being.  We all find out just how much you love when a big test like this presents itself.  Authentic love is tested love. My advice is to pray for the grace rather than merely relying upon your own strength. Simultaneously striving daily to build your up your own strength (will).

Then we come to the mercenaries.  Jesus spoke of such men in John chapter 10: 

12 He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, 15* as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Strive to become a good shepherd. Remember man is the apex predator in relation to any animal analogy. Sheepdogs and even lions don’t stand a chance against a thinking human being who can set traps. Young warriors often begin as sheepdogs by building in a trained response. That is good and that is necessary but we don’t want to get stuck at that level. That is a bare bones beginning. A caring thinking shepherd is far more capable and dangerous (to the unjust criminal threats) than is a sheepdog.

At last we come to the quiet professionals. Warriors who fight for the man on their left and the man on their right.  In most instances these types of warriors would rather die than fail their brothers or sisters in arms.  The word most being the qualifying term.

In these dark days where sin runs rampant we increasingly observe progressive prosecutors who have begun calling good guys-bad guys and calling bad guys-good guys.  Doing that next hard right thing of protecting and defending might cost you prison at the hands of a crazy, blind, or confused prosecutor (Deuteronomy 28:28).  It might cost you your financial stability by means of civil lawsuits and bankruptcy.  It might cost you your employment or where you choose to live.  The spirit of the world and spirit of the mob might not like what you did, said, or thought and you might get canceled.   These are all additional costs.

For civilians one of the fundamental principles is learning how to avoid violent confrontations to begin with. This involves expenditures in time, work, and money. For instance as a retired police officer when possible I use a rural interstate that boxes around the big city near me to patronize the stores out on the periphery of that big city.  This requires a willingness to do the work of identifying where all of the illegal shooting and killings are happening in addition to allowing more travel time and the cost of more gasoline to avoid driving my family through those high crime dangerous areas.   Once an untrained, unskilled, and unjust criminal aggressor begins shooting; any and all folks in the immediate area are in danger of becoming collateral damage. It doesn’t matter how great your knowledge and skills are because action beats reaction and if you’re placing your family in those areas of vulnerability you cannot control where any of those poorly aimed bullets go.  Where you must go into those areas there are mitigating strategies that time doesn’t permit me to unpack in this post.

If you’re willing to work hard you can acquire the knowledge base and skill sets to be able to protect your family and yourself.  The costs are primarily measured in time, hard work, and money.  Don’t think that your cell phone is going to save your life. In most instances that phone only serves as a distraction from you doing what you need to do to win the fight and that phone call merely lets the police know where to find your body. You cannot farm out family or personal safety.