Victory conditions.
One thing that we need to always keep in perspective is what constitutes a “win.” Winning depends upon the context. As private citizens we “win” when we keep ourselves and the people we care about safe. If this is accomplished with avoidance, or deescalation that is every bit as much a win as prevailing through the application of violence.
It is important to recognize that when it comes to fighting we win as soon as the assailant wishes to break off the attack. We don’t have to fight until the assailant is knocked out, or dead but only until he wants to get away from the situation. This is not to say there aren’t situations where the fight isn’t going to end up with the assailant seriously injured or dead, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Most criminal victimizations have a risk/reward balance and by increasing the risk to the criminal the reward just isn’t worth it any more.
1 Comment
What an excellent issue to cover. Much attention is paid to the use of force continuum in tactical training and the discussion is almost always directed towards what maximum level of force may be justifiably used in any given scenario and how that use is articulated legally. This is because the training is often executed in the attempt of apprehending or incapacitating a subject in a scenario where the officer has a duty to see the incident through to the end and does not have the option to break away.
As private citizens, our only concern in these situations is for ourselves and other around us. We are not connected to bringing the assailant to justice or seeing the event through to an end, only ending the threat. I believe anything beyond that suggest a deeper emotional response that exceeds self-preservation.