- Jul 31, 2024
- 4 min read
Updated: Aug 7, 2024
Over the course of many years of teaching survival-based strategies and tactics for self defense, I’ve heard such exchanges more than a few times. The but-what-if question is usually posed by a well-meaning person who hasn’t quite grasped the seriousness of physical violence.
These are people whose own humanity, whose sense of civility, is so strong that they’re caught vacillating between fight-or-flight decisions. It’s a shame these good qualities can stand in the way of grasping just how dire a threat can be.
THE BUT-WHAT-IF questions are usually followed by objections based on unfounded trust and an incorrect grasp of probability. The first objection is often predicated on a promise from the predator to the effect of, “Do what I say, and I won’t hurt you.”
These sorts of reassurances are no doubt nice to hear in the middle of an assault, but I’m forced to ask, “What makes you think you can trust this person?”
The attacker has already stepped outside the confines of civilized society and decided to commit a violent crime 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 that involves the threat of violence, what makes you think he’ll 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 his promise is using a mimicry strategy we see in other predator species. Many venomous reptiles blend in with their surroundings, as do some mammals. Consider the tiger: Its stripes are meant to mimic its jungle environment to make stalk- ing easier. Similarly, the human predator who promises safety is mimicking civilized behavior to make victim acquisition easier. Nothing more, nothing less.
...those who fought back saw no significant statistical rise in the severity of injury. Those who fought back automatically increased the odds of halting the assault in its tracks.... - DOJ Report
THE SECOND OBJECTION that follows the but-what-if often stems from an improper grasp of probability. It’s akin to a gambler who exhibits a faulty understanding of house odds in a casino or an inveterate lottery player who greatly overestimates the odds of winning. Victims who make this sort of probabilistic error are 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 the carjacking won’t lead to abduction and murder, that perhaps the armed robbery is only about money and there will be no violence once the property has been obtained. Yes, there are many examples of crimes of property stop- ping once said property has been acquired, but there are also many examples of crimes of property pro- gressing to violence.
I fail to see why people should gamble that they’ve been con- fronted by a “kind” criminal as opposed to a bona fide violent predator. To gamble on kindness and choose inaction can get you hurt or killed if the situation escalates. On the other hand, gambling that all who have stepped outside the dictates of civilized conduct intend to do you bodily harm will keep you primed and prepared, and most likely it’s the correct action.
I MUST OFFER a brief digression here on the subject of rape. I’ve come across more than a few women’s self-defense programs that advocate not fighting back during a sexual assault. The strategy is a form of the two thinking errors mentioned above, but it is also reprehensible and irresponsible advice.
Telling a woman to submit to a rapist is a hateful strategy. I’ve seen it originate, more often than not, from male-led programs — with very little protest from the female attendees. This dumbfounds me. If the vast majority of rape victims were men instead of women, would this same advice be offered? Would such an all-male audience be so accepting? I doubt it.
This heinous advocacy of complacency should be dismissed by everyone. Women should dismiss it with even more disdain. It seems to come from the “Well, you’re a woman, and you can’t fight off a man” perspective. That’s insulting and demeaning, not to mention wrong.
Fight back. Always.
ARE YOU WORRIED about making an 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 direct your attention to a 1985 Department of Justice study that examined the crime of rape in tremendous detail. One portion of the study concerned injuries suffered by women who fought back compared to those who didn’t. The sample breaks nicely for statistical purposes because 51 percent of the women in the study fought back while 49 percent complied.
More than 96 percent of the injuries to both groups were contusions, lacerations and abrasions, which are not life-threatening. This held true even if the rapist was armed. Less than 4 percent of women received injuries serious enough to warrant hospitalization. (Of course, I’m not speaking of the psychological trauma; I’m merely comparing physical injury rates.)
Here’s the crux of the study: The injury level for women who fought back was only 2 percent above the level for those who didn’t. What does this mean? A 2-percent increase in injury severity when those injuries are contusions, abrasions and lacerations. I don’t mean to sound coldhearted, but this might amount to a few more bruises, an extra scrape and one more stitch on a cut in exchange for fighting off an attacker and not being raped. The data seem to support the notion that one should resist no matter what.
Similar DOJ studies for other crimes show similar results — those who fought back saw no significant statistical rise in the severity of injury. Those who fought back automatically increased 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.
So it’s with good information in hand, and not some primal rah-rah, that I implore you all to fight back. The odds are on the side of those who do.
Mark Hatmaker’s website is extremeselfprotection.com.
This article originally appeared in a 2019 edition of Black Belt Magazine.
