|
Brilliantly put, Lohmann, muzzleblast, and very important. Compliance and appeasement are even involved in global warfare. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, sometimes we misread all of the cues, sometimes the other guy misread them.
Either way, neither party knows the outcome in advance, but only the instigator knows the plan and possible outcome in advance, and often, the instigator is stupid, unstable, amoral, treacherous. Compliance that means surrendering options that could keep you safe should be a low priority on the option list. Really simple there. Weigh it. Can you overcome the person or persons who pose a threat? If not, compliance may be better than initiating a fight that you can't win. Compliance may prevent escalation and give the events a possible outcome that doesn't involve dying.
In some ways it's pointless to even think about these things except to try and gather personal wisdom and insight into what actions may lead to safety.
The onion field involved two men who put faith in their ability to survive without weapons and were mistaken. They might have failed to recognize any cues that were present. They didn't know that there was already a plan. Maybe they could have made a choice that didn't kill one of them.
I know that people get tired of hearing me repeatedly talking about chaos, fate, and the will of God but those factors are more important to the eventual outcome than most people think.
Maybe if both cops had broken into a run the shooter would have missed?
__________________
None.
|