Skip to main content

Resistance is Never Futile by Mark Hatmaker

Should you always fight back? Yes. “But what if…”

          Over the course of many years teaching survival-based strategies and tactics the above-exchange has taken place more than a few times. The “but what if…” question is usually posed by well-meaning individuals who haven’t quite grasped the seriousness of physical violence. These are people whose own humanity, whose sense of civility is so strong that they are caught vacillating between fight or flight decisions. It is a shame that these good qualities can sometimes stand in the way of grasping the essential facts of just how dire the threat can be.

          The “but what if…” is usually followed by any number of justifications or pie-in-the-sky hopeful mitigations. These “but what if…” objections are based on unfounded trust and an incorrect grasp of probability. The first objection, unfounded trust, is usually based on the following scenario.

Predator: Do what I say and I won’t hurt you.

Or, some other such promise to the victim.

          Now, these sorts of promises are probably nice to hear in the midst of your assault but let me ask you, what makes you think that you can trust this person? They have already stepped outside the confines of civilized society and have decided to commit a crime of violence or deprive you of your property which are dishonest acts in and of themselves. If the predator is already behaving in a fundamentally dishonest manner backed by the threat of violence what makes you think they will suddenly turn over a new leaf of integrity simply by saying “Do what I say, and I won’t hurt you”?

          What the predator is doing with these promises is utilizing a mimicry strategy that we see in other predator species. Many venomous reptiles blend in with their surroundings, a tiger’s stripes are meant to mimic its jungle environment making stalking easier, a human predator promising safety is mimicking civilized behavior to make victim acquisition easier. Nothing more, nothing less. Never trust any statement from an individual that has so fundamentally violated trust.

          The second error that usually follows the “but what if…” objection, the improper grasp of probabilities, is akin to gamblers with faulty grasps of house-odds for casinos or, inveterate lottery players who greatly over-estimate their odds of winning. The victim who makes this sort of probabilistic error is engaging in a sort of false precognition in which they calculate that “perhaps it won’t get any worse.”

          This thinking leads people to hope that perhaps a car-jacking won’t lead to abduction and murder, that an armed robbery is only about money and there will be no violence once the property has been attained. Yes, there are a great many examples of crimes of property stopping once the property has been acquired but there are also many, many, many examples of crimes of property progressing to violent stages. I fail to see why you should gamble that you have been confronted with a “kind” criminal as opposed to a bona fide violent predator. To gamble on kindness and choose inaction gets you hurt or killed if the situation escalates, while on the other hand, gambling that all who have stepped outside the dictates of civilized conduct intend to do you bodily harm keeps you primed, prepared, and is most likely the correct guess.


          I must offer a brief digression on resistance when it comes to rape. I have actually come across more than a few purported women’s self-defense programs that advocate not fighting back during a rape. The strategy is a form of the above two thinking errors, but it is also, in my mind, grossly reprehensible and criminally irresponsible advice.

          Telling a woman to submit to a rape is a hateful strategy. I have seen it originate, more often than not, from male-led programs with very little protest from the female audience--this dumbfounds me. I wonder if the vast majority of rape victims were men instead of women; men who were being brutally sodomized and forced to orally pleasure their attackers, I wonder if this same advice would be offered? I wonder if the all-male audience would be so accepting? I seriously doubt it.

          This heinous, complacent strategy would be dismissed vociferously, as it should be. Women should dismiss it with even more disdain. It seems to be offered from the “Well, you’re women and you can’t fight off a man” perspective. That is unadulterated, insulting, demeaning bullshit.

          Fight back. Always.

          Are you worried about making your assault worse? Well, how much worse can rape, or murder be? But for those who still aren’t convinced and have a few more “but what ifs…” loaded and ready to go, I call your attention to a 1985 Department of Justice study that examined the crime of rape in tremendous detail. The portion of the study pertinent to the topic at hand concerns injuries for women who did fight back compared with those who did not fight back. The sample breaks nicely for statistical purposes as the study shows that approximately 51% of the women in the study fought back while 49% complied.

          Over 96% of the injuries for both groups of rape victims (those who fought back and those who did not) were of the contusions, lacerations, abrasions variety; in other words, non-life-threatening injuries. These injury rates held true even if the rapist was armed. Under 4% of women received injuries serious enough to warrant hospital stays. (Of course, we are not speaking of the psychological trauma here, we are merely comparing physical injury rates). Here’s the crux of the study, the injury rate for women who fought back was a mere 2% increase in injury level. Notice that’s level not rate.

          So, what are we talking about here? 2% increase in injury level when we are talking about a crime that is usually one of contusions, abrasions, and lacerations. I don’t mean to be cold-hearted here, but we are talking about, perhaps, a couple more bruises, another scrape, maybe one more stitch on a cut to fight off an attacker and not be raped.  The data seems to back the stance of fight back, no matter what.

          Similar DOJ studies for other crimes show us corresponding information--those who fight back see no significant statistical rise in the severity of assault. Those who fight back automatically increase the odds of halting the assault in its tracks; this is a claim that cannot be made by those who choose not to fight back. It is with good information in hand, and not some mere primal rah-rah that I implore you to fight back.

Fight back.


The odds are on the sides of those who do.

The above is an extract from our book No Second Chance. For more information on our Street Survival Program see here.]


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrior Awareness Drills by Mark Hatmaker

THE Primary Factor in self-protection/self-defense is situational awareness. Keeping in mind that crime is, more often than not, a product of opportunity, if we take steps to reduce opportunity to as close to nil as we can manage we have gone a long way to rendering our physical tactical training needless [that’s a good thing.]
Yes, having defensive tactical skills in the back-pocket is a great ace to carry day-to-day but all the more useful to saving your life or the lives of loved ones is a honed awareness, a ready alertness to what is occurring around you every single day.
Here’s the problem, maintaining such awareness is a Tough job with a capital T as most of our daily lives are safe and mundane [also a good thing] and this very safety allows us to backslide in good awareness practices. Without daily danger-stressors we easily fall into default comfort mode.
A useful practice to return awareness/alertness to the fore is to gamify your awareness, that is, to use a series of specific…

The Utility of Gang Pride by Mark Hatmaker

California courts have been wrangling with a case regarding the legality of police ripping the “patches” off of the jackets of a particular motorcycle “gang.”
The “gang” in question prefers to be called The Mongols Motorcycle Club and to keep matters simple I will refer to this group as The Mongols from here on out.
We will not delve into the murky legal waters that led to the “powers that be” thinking this strategy a good idea, instead we will address the issue on broader terms that may have actual impact on ourselves—gang affiliated or not.
First, let’s get the free speech and property rights arguments out of the way. For a thought experiment, let’s say that you are a Mongol member in good standing.
A law-abiding Mongol at that. Anyone denying your right to wear the emblem of your club would be seen as a villain, let alone armed officials who were allowed/instructed to remove your property [the patch] from your person.
I daresay you would see such a governmentally sanctioned stance as b…

Warrior Awareness: The Killing Hand by Mark Hatmaker

There is a 90% chance that you, Dear Reader, are right-handed.
Left-handedness has an approximate 10% distribution in human populations.
Some research shows there is an approximate 30% of us who delegate tasks between hands, so called ambidexterity. But if we dig deeper on this mixed-handedness, it is not true even-handedness. This 30% still shows a hand preference on fine motor skill work.
Disclosure: I am a righty who boxes southpaw, signs my name with my right hand, works the Bowie knife and tomahawk with the right hand, but finds that my left hand is more facile in gunwork. I’m in that 30% twilight zone but…when confronted with a new task or as skills deteriorate under stress-drills [extreme cold et cetera] the right-hand dominance manifests more starkly. So, keep in mind ambidexterity is not a true 50/50 proposition.
For my boxing Brethren out there, even the “ambidextrous” Marvelous Marvin Hagler was not truly so. When it hit the fan we see the shift to the preferred side.
For our co…