Message from Al Connelly

[gmattson]

Subject: Looking at how to disrupt the association of self-defense with mental illness

Sensei,

I have been seeing a number of articles that associate violence with mental
illness. In the schools there is a "zero tolerance" policy that results in
students being abused and not being allowed to fight back.

What I would like to show is that anti-self-defense rules and laws are the
product of sick minds.

- What sort of person wants to force others to not defending themselves,
their loved ones, and their property?

- What sort of person does not want to defend themselves, their loved ones,
and their property?

- What sort of person fears weapons more than those who would assault, rob,
and rape them?

To answer these questions is a way that will have some sort of academic
respect and governmental requires a psychometric study by a psychologist of
some standing with a Ph.D. and most likely with an academic position.

If the answers are as I suspect they will balance the against the
violence-mental illness position.

So my question to you is, "Do you know of any qualified person who would be
interested in looking into this?"

OSU! & Best regards,

Al Connelly

[Bill Glasheen]

This is a very tricky subject.

About a year ago my oldest son got into a verbal argument with his "friend" at the lunch table. Mind you, it was all friends amongst friends. My son said something that irritated his short-fused Sicilian friend. The fellow said "Say that again" - as if putting a chip on his shoulder and daring someone to knock it off. And my son... said it again.

I just got finished reading the section in Outliers on the "culture of honor". Had my son been a little more emotionally intelligent and aware of how some ethnic groups (e.g. Scotch-Irish who are descendants of highlanders) respond to a threat against their honor, he probably would have chosen to keep his mouth shut. But he didn't. And his Sicilian friend felt compelled by his culture to act.

A lot of stupidity going around, mind you...

What followed was an over-the-top reaction. Before my son knew what happened, he was up against a concrete wall being choked. Only the yelling of his friends stopped him.

IN THAT SITUATION... It was easy for me to deal with the aftermath. The zero tolerance policy put my son in an advantageous position. He got treated in the infirmary (for a cut from his head bouncing off the wall) and released. In spite of threats against me (Go ahead, make MY day!!!), I filed charges. I also made it clear to the police that I had been threatened by his brother against filing charges, and that I didn't take those threats lightly.

Such a tragedy... My wife loved going to the restaurant where the whole family worked. And now she feels like she can't go - just because some kids were being stupid. Meanwhile I was able to do something that hopefully will help a young lad learn how to live in a society with rules. He had already recently beaten up a kid at a local mall for an insult. This was a train heading for destruction. The juvenile intervention may have been the kindest thing I could have done for him.

We had the entire school administration on our side because my son chose not to react. Woulda, coulda, shoulda... IT didn't happen. With one person acting and another not, there was crystal clarity.

Another situation where deadly force was involved? THAT could have been a very bad thing for everyone involved. And I have no good answers.

Meanwhile... The first thing I did when I met my son in the infirmary was ask him if we were going to have to pay damages for the place where his head hit the wall. Then I told him he showed great strength and tremendous restraint for not reacting IN THIS SITUATION.* I did my best to take that monkey off his back. If you've ever been there, you know what I mean.

It's that honor thing again. Sometimes it's a good thing. And sometimes... not so much.

- Bill

* My son had recently gotten in trouble for hanging around with some very bad kids. It was imperative that he live a squeaky clean life. Not having "good will" in reserve gave him little choice. That in itself is food for thought.

[Glenn]

Subject: Looking at how to disrupt the association of self-defense with mental illness

I have been seeing a number of articles that associate violence with mental
illness. In the schools there is a "zero tolerance" policy that results in
students being abused and not being allowed to fight back.

Not a lot of info to go one here, but it appears to be apples and oranges. Associating violence with mental illness is not the same as associating self-defense with mental illness. Instigating anti-social violence, the usual concept of violence in something like this, is not self-defense but does imply some sort of mental issue in the instigator. Likewise not all self-defense is violent, but regardless of level of violence, true self-defense would not automatically imply that the defender is either anti-social or mentally ill. Are there in fact any articles that specifically associate self-defense with mental illness?

What I would like to show is that anti-self-defense rules and laws are the
product of sick minds.

To answer these questions is a way that will have some sort of academic
respect and governmental requires a psychometric study by a psychologist of some standing with a Ph.D. and most likely with an academic position.

If the answers are as I suspect they will balance the against the
violence-mental illness position.

Going into it with this kind of bias would add neither respectability nor validity. What would be needed is an unbiased third party who would approach the issue from the standpoint of 'is there any detectable difference in the mental state of people who support a right to self-defense versus those who do not?'; and a willingness to accept the results of a proper study regardless of what they indicate.

[Jason Rees]

Recently a young teenage girl was raped on a school playground as she cut through on her way home. There was no one there to protect her, and she had no means to defend herself.

My daughter is in a class with a boy who has 'issues,' and has repeatedly bullied her. He has knocked her down, pushed her, followed and harassed her relentlessly, and when she started going to the teacher about it, they told her he didn't understand, and she had to show understanding. Needless to say, I disagreed with their assessment of the situation. What they were showing my daughter was that she had to allow this boy to push her around, and that his emotional needs outweighed her dignity and safety.

It didn't take long before my sons got involved, and we were asked to come in and speak with the principle. Ever since then, they've been much better about keeping this boy away from my little girl. My wife and I made it crystal clear that my daughter has our full support in defending herself, and at this point she hits and kicks harder than her older brothers.

This isn't going to cut it when she gets older, and faces more serious threats. Public school just does not seem to be an option, as they do not seem to take seriously the threats she will face, nor grant her the ability to do something about it herself.

[Bill Glasheen]

Jason

That's just wrong.

My experience in the Henrico County Public School system (fortunately) has been good. Same with the private schools in the region. In my older son's high school, they even have their own police officer. He was the one who encouraged me to press charges. And the kid who attacked my son got a week's suspension to boot.

I definitely would not have taken your situation passively. You are right to push in whatever way seems appropriate, and in as many directions as it takes to achieve a just result.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Glenn

Nice post!

Associating violence with mental illness is not the same as associating self-defense with mental illness.

A point of clarification... There are extremists out there who see any altercation as an example of violence. In my son's school setting above, "self-defense" can put you on equal bad footing with the perpetrator. The only sure way to escape discipline in that situation is not to get into a fight in the first place, or to walk away from a fight in progress - if you can. Otherwise you take your consequences.

It's fuked up for sure. But it's easiER for the administrators.

- Bill