Cowardice
In light of the Joe Horn incident, Richard Starr pointed me to an amazing essay published almost 15 years ago in The Public Interest. When people talk about “red meat,” I think this is what they have in mind: it is provocative from start to finish.
The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one’s life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: “I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want.” For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim’s person and liberty. If the individual’s dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim’s dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
Despite myself, I find this has a lot of resonance for me. Last night, I heard about the Horn incident in the gym. All of the men in the locker room gathered around the television, some of them mid-shave, and as I heard the details I couldn’t help but think, despite every fact of my upbringing, that Horn did the right and decent thing: he just couldn’t let them get away with it. Now, I can see how a Kantian could tear me to shreds, and I suppose I haven’t thought about this very rigorously. But that was my gut instinct. One of my favorite movie scenes was in Romper Stomper. After a neo-Nazi gang attacks a couple of Vietnamese guys, a massive number of Vietnamese restaurant workers rally and chase after the goons. They chase and chase, armed with cleavers and whooping war cries at the top of their lungs. The first time I saw this I was utterly riveted. The gang figured they could pick off a couple of these guys and face no consequences, and perhaps that would’ve been true had the young men accepted their fate. Instead they took direct retaliatory action.
I’ve been mugged twice. The first time I was in a chokehold. The young man had a knife, and I let him get away with my $11 and Granta 65 (The London Issue). The second time a friend and I faced off against four kids with guns. I made a run for it, my friend tried to fight them, unarmed, and he wound up with a massive welt across his head where he was pistol-whipped. (He was heading to Yale Law School the next day, where I’m pretty sure he was one of the few people who’d offer any kind of resistance in that set of circumstances.) I had a deep cut along my side, as I fell halfway down a hill and tried to kick away my assailants. Not smart. But afterwards my friend said something to the effect of, “You know, I think we handled ourselves okay.” Intellectually I knew this was crazy, but I basically agreed. Yes, we could’ve been shot. But I hope those kids, all of whom could have been perfectly bright, realized that $15 each wasn’t worth that split-second of stress. Suffice to say, we weren’t “the wrong guys” to mug. We were no Joe Horns. Nevertheless, we may have reminded them that
legitimate work, while less glamorous, might be the better way to go.
While I’m assuming (perhaps unfairly) that your reference to Yale Law students and how they would or wouldn’t act is just a casual broadside, perhaps they wouldn’t react the way your friends did because they understand the odds, and would assess the risk/benefit analysis in a different way than your friend. I don’t mean to scold, and I recognize the value in what you say. But the admonishment about $60 works both ways.
I’m a little bummed that you seem to assume that academic elitism/socio-economic privilege are indicative of whether someone would fight back or not. Courage in the face of physical danger seems to me to be one virtue that is almost impossible to accurately ascribe to someone based on their other sociological features.
— Freddie · Dec 14, 01:53 AM · #
Freddie,
As I understand Reihan, he’s saying that one might be less inclined to risk a beat-down if one is on one’s way to Yale Law the very next day. For obvious cost/benefit and discount rate reasons.
But hey, if the shoe fits…
EDIT: that last bit is petty. My apologies, sir.
— Matt Frost · Dec 14, 02:39 AM · #
Actually I turned a corner late one night in Oakland and was hit in the face by two kids with a baseball bat (aluminum, whatever they say, has really wrecked the game). It broke my upper jaw and knocked me over so I thumped the back of my head hard on the pavement. I popped afoot (and immediately regretted it), thereby startling the two kids who had hit me, were fumbling for my wallet, and I guess were expecting me to stay down, and I was shocked to see they were maybe 11 years old.
Anyway: I kind of wanted, like our heroes above, to fight, but I was dizzy as hell, my vision was blurry, and I was stumbling — the next day you could see the path of the blood dripping out of my nose, and I was lurching like a drunken sailor. But the weird thing was, the kids followed me and taunted me for my clumsiness — now, I had just turned 30, and I remember suddenly feeling so, so damn old. It was surreal — they made fun of me, they asked if I had money and I said, no (I was a grad student, fer cryin’ out loud), they asked if I had a bus pass (you’re out killing people for bus passes?) and I said no — and they got all huffy at me for not having anything. We got to the door of my apartment complex and I said, blow, kids, I’m going inside to call the cops — and they got all hurt and aggrieved. Why would I go and do that to them?
Which still really chills me. There was no sense at all that any wrong had been done, and they were just children and already worthless. The upshot of which is that I really, really condemn what Joe Horn did. But I’m not sure now that I wouldn’t get pissed enough to do the same in his shoes.
— Sanjay · Dec 14, 03:15 AM · #
The problem with not resisting is that you are rolling the dice with no info.
Your assailant may only want to rob you as quickly as possible and get away. Or he may want to kill for a variety of reasons but usually boiling down to: he likes killing.
It’s hard to say but I’d bet that for most resisting at the first opportunity is the best call. It gives you the initiative, can back off “casual” aggressors not wishing to engage in costly fighting, and gives you better than no chance at all if your aggressor wishes to kill you (because he likes killing).
This of course requires a costly set of mind, suspicion and alertness, distrust of most individuals particularly Blacks and Hispanics who commit statistically more crimes than their population slice warrants. Which brings another cost of crime — racial distrust based on racial disparity of crimes committed. Which leads to more social isolation, mistrust, lower civic participation, etc.
— Jim Rockford · Dec 14, 08:32 AM · #
The problem with that Public Interest essay is that it completely skips over the concept of gradation, the same one taught by every self-defense course out there. When I took jujitsu, the instructor (a cop, no less) was fond of repeating the mantra that “You win every fight you walk away from.” Yes, we were certainly taught that in the event that you believe someone is going to harm your person, that’s when it’s time to take the initiative and strike. This is admittedly extremely difficult to judge: will that teenager shoot you once you’ve handed over your wallet, or can you throw it down the street and escape with your personal safety? But defaulting towards the “inflict violence” position when a guy tries to take your wallet or shoves you in a bar is hardly an indicator of manliness and self-respect. Like Jim said, you are also rolling the dice with no info in the event that you do fight back: is your opponent a vicious fighter who will be provoked into inflicting far worse violence than you can defend against, or is he nothing but bluster? And if you’re armed, let’s not forget that you’re gambling too: a jury may find you guilty of homicide, and even in justified cases, killing someone weighs heavily on a person’s psyche.
Snyder is painting a very complicated question into two extremes: that anti-gun rape and murder victims all go sheepishly to their fate on the one hand, and that an armed nation will become a nation of always-competent handgun heroes on the other. Nevermind the problems with guns in a non-vigilante context — suicide and gun accidents come to mind — it’s a real fact that petty criminals can be provoked into far more dangerous violence, and opting always for maximum retaliation completely ignores the vital, life-and-dignity-saving role of situational judgment and awareness.
— Pat S. · Dec 14, 11:18 PM · #