Both of these are from Merriam-Webster
Definition of DEFENSE1
a : the act or action of defending <the defense of our country> <speak out in defense of justice>
b : a defendant's denial, answer, or plea
2
a : capability of resisting attack
b : defensive play or ability <a player known for gooddefense>
3
a : means or method of defending or protecting oneself, one's team, or another; also : a defensive structure
b : an argument in support or justification
c : the collected facts and method adopted by a defendantto protect and defend against a plaintiff's action
d : a sequence of moves available in chess to the second player in the opening
4
a : a defending party or group (as in a court of law) <thedefense rests>
b : a defensive team
5
: the military and industrial aggregate that authorizes and supervises arms production <appropriations for defense><defense contract>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defense
Definition of OFFENSE1
a obsolete : an act of stumbling
b archaic : a cause or occasion of sin : stumbling block
2
: something that outrages the moral or physical senses
3
a : the act of attacking : assault
b : the means or method of attacking or of attempting to score
c : the offensive team or members of a team playing offensive positions
d : scoring ability
4
a : the act of displeasing or affronting
b : the state of being insulted or morally outraged <takesoffense at the slightest criticism>
5
a : a breach of a moral or social code : sin, misdeed
b : an infraction of law; especially : misdemeanor
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offense
Looking at these dictionary definitions, we see what is what is more of a shades of grey than a black/white answer... By their very definition, OFFENSE can be defense. We CAN by definition defend an attack by attacking.
What does this mean?
Think of what justifies the use of force... The ability to cause harm (in keeping with force used in riposte). The opportunity to cause harm. And the aggressor putting the defender in jeopardy. And of course, the expressed intent of both parties can come into play. NOWHERE does it say that one must wait until the attack or offense is physically manifested against the defender. That doesn't mean you can go blast every soul who looks at you wrong... That means if you feel in your heart of hearts (and a reasonable and prudent person would feel the same) that you are genuinely at risk of harm then you are probably OK (your jurisdiction may vary so check with an attorney before formulating any self-defense plan) to go on ahead and initiate your response so long as the force used is in check with the threat you can show is/was posed.
Now that we've got that out of the way...
There are some people out there that I have seen or heard things from (Folks, I prowl YouTube... I read most magazines in the martial arts, blade, and gun realm... I eat, sleep, breathe, and live this stuff 24/7.) that essentially shoot down the use of aggressive tactics because some perceive them as "overboard." My, oh my, wouldn't the Liberals in the world LOVE to see a Soccer Mom finish someone's shoot house course, running and gunning beside SF bro's. There are some that suggest not pursuing an active shooter and at times I'd agree with that (I would NOT put people I care about at risk by leaving them unattended to save people I don't know). There are some that suggest holing up in your safe room and waiting for the cavalry during break-ins and typically I'd agree yet, again, if people I cared about are in the residence, I'm going on the hunt if for no other reason than to secure my people... And if I encounter the threat... Suffice it to say it would not be beneficial to their health if they were armed in that instance. FORTUNATELY enough people see the big picture that most of the stuff that spurred this paragraph has been removed now due to the outcry of people who "get it."
One thing that grinds a lot of gears is the notion of a preemptive strike. During the Cold War, both sides kept nuclear powered submarines armed with nuclear missiles on patrol 24/7/365 as a "First Strike Option" should the other side up the ante a bit too far. Much like now, when many are screaming for the disarmament of the populace, there were folks on both sides to remove those killing machines... Honestly, the knowledge that a preemptive First Strike could come at any time actually did more for peace during those years than many in my generation screaming to get rid of them realize... When you know the other guy has the ability to hurt you back... You don't want to start trouble. And to use a phrase from my past life: "Don't start none, won't be none, playa."
So, do we as good and moral citizens have a first strike option available to us? Some will tell you "No." I will tell you that there is no shortage of case law where force up to and including lethal force was used to stop an IMMINENT attack capable of bearing such force against the defender...
I put a video on YouTube that I'll link to that covered this... One instance I covered was you have the local felon... Let's call him Mongo. He's a big ol' sucker... Fresh out the joint and let's say he's known be a meth addict all over town or perhaps you saw signs he was tweaking, coming down off a binge of methamphetamine. Now I use meth for two reasons... One is I have more than a few contacts in the LE community and they confirm that Meth is a very big, growing problem in this country. Two is that meth addicts are highly volatile and due to the stimulant and pain-relieving psychoactive effects of the drug they are both quickly provoked and very difficult to stop. Such things are common knowledge. Now... Let's say Mongo wants my wallet... OK, I give him my wallet. If he's lucky I got five bucks in there for him... Otherwise he gets my driver's license, a credit/debit card I'm gonna cancel ASAP, and a few other things, none of which are really important. No big. Worst thing is my Papa Robert gave me my wallet years ago and I'm not going to be happy about that part but you know what, it's not worth the paperwork or the hassle of fighting over it. I give him the wallet and he says "Get in the car."
Sorry, bro. Negative. Allowing yourself to be moved to a secondary location is like playing Russian Roulette with 5 chambers loaded with Elmer Keith Memorial Magnum loads and one empty... And just like that game with that setup... it's probably not gonna end too well. Mongo's mad because I'm not going with him... "Get in the car or I'll kill you." Uhh... "I'm gonna kill you!" His hand flashes to his waistband....
Hit pause for a minute on this one....
What do we have here? He's made me a victim to a crime so now I know he's a criminal... He appeared to be under the influence (meth use is EXTREMELY visible and noticeable)... He attempted to remove me to a secondary location... He threatened my life... Upon threatening my life a second time, he moved in a manner consistent with obtaining a weapon... Force justified? ABSOLUTELY!
But he never actually attacked me... Funny how that works isn't it?
Did he have the ability? Sure... and that reaching for the waistband made it look to me like he was trying to get to some reinforcements too!
Did he have the opportunity? Absolutely he did! He took my wallet right? If he was close enough for that, then he was certainly in range to harm me with any concealed weapon. Oh, and when he reached to his waistband, that could be taken as him CREATING that opportunity.
Was I in jeopardy? If you honestly think otherwise, you've insulted your own intelligence.
Did he express intent to do me harm? "I'm gonna kill you!" while reaching to his waistline where weapons are near universally concealed... Is there any greater expression of intent there?
And to think there are some folks out there who would suggest that you need to wait to determine what he reached for to be cleared...
I'll go you one further... Some out there say that hunting down an active shooter is a recipe for disaster... The ONLY time I would agree with that would be if you left those who entrust you with their safety (such as family, significant other, children in said party, close friends, etc.) to hunt down the shooter. I believe in protecting my own first, then everyone else. If I'm by my lonesome, I'm going to run to the sounds of chaos. At that point, that perp isn't getting a verbal command until my Big Dots are on their chest and my finger is easing the slack out of the trigger on my Glock 17.
How about inside your house? Some who say that the use of offensive tactics opens you up for all this that and the other by suggesting you sought the fight as opposed to it coming to you must not have kids or people they care about in their house... either that or they're total cowards with a yellow streak a mile wide and nothing short of it. I say that because I don't know of one single parent that wouldn't go on the total offensive (and by that I mean START the fight, not just be pro-active and aggressive with their defense) over their kids. Hell, I don't have kids and the closest thing to it I have is the son of a very good friend... To think for one second if I'm over at the house that little boy and his mom and grandparents live in and hear a B&E going on that I will refrain from going on the hunt and start remembering lessons from Camp Geiger about taking down rooms is nothing less than ludicrous. Let's take that a step further with a couple more hypotheticals, one a situation to show where these aggressive tactics used overseas and here by SWAT teams (the aggressive CQB tactics that are done with the intent of the old Vietnam Search & Destroy missions) fit in a good defense and what would be a "Clean" use of force in many jurisdictions (Again... yours may vary!)... Another is to show why training on these aggressive tactics in their unadulterated form is a good thing from a psychological control perspective.
Here's your situation...
You're alone outside waiting on a friend to get her baby ready for whatever is planned for the day... You hear glass break from the back door. You know she went up to the bedroom which is upstairs and well on the other side and corner of the house. When you enter the front door, which doesn't have a clean line of sight to the back door, but is directly even with the stairwell... Two choices (and we'll cover both) present themselves...
Option 1:
Begin searching the ground floor using common CQB room-clearing tactics.
Issue to me with this one, would be lack of intel. You don't know how many and what their mission and capability is. Maybe they just want the TV. Maybe they know the parents this young single mother resides with are gone and didn't see your car but want to "have some fun" with her without her consent. Maybe it's a human trafficking ring wanting the baby. Of course, you would be more than justified in many jurisidictions for seeking them out if in fact their intents involved harm and you had to use force. I wouldn't use this in the given scenario... Considering I'm basing this on a situation I could find myself in ("my friend" and "her son" could easily be replaced with "your husband/wife" and "your child"), I WOULD use this tactic if in this friend's instance her LEO older brother or retired LEO father was upstairs, albeit with a text of "B&E. Stay Upstairs. Clearing the ground floor. Call Sheriff." sent to one of the parties in question.
Option 2:
Move in hard and secure the staircase from the top down.
Lay in wait and set up your ambush. The shot or shots may be pro-active and/or offensive in nature (You see a weapon and they turn to ascend the stairs) by not giving them a chance to climb or you may challenge... If I saw a weapon, shoot first challenge later because remember, we heard glass break and cops don't break windows without you knowing who it is... at least not around here.
Now, why should we all train aggressively, in some instances as though we started the fight? The brutal reality is that even though the scenario or situation may be defensive in nature, we have to take the offense when it comes to using force... Folks, an armed intruder in your home probably doesn't want to sit down to breakfast with you... An active shooter most likely isn't going to buy you lunch even if they're not shooting at you at the moment. There are times when we NEED that aggression and we NEED to be aggressive enough quickly enough and some people don't cultivate that side of themselves. Some of us, like me, have that side as the dominant side and I'll be honest, it's a struggle every minute of every day not to be "that guy" again because when I get crossed even in the slightest my first instinct is still "Hit 'em." It's a real chore to keep it in check but when I've needed it, either for sparring matches or fights when I was bouncing, I'm certainly glad I knew how to dial it up and down as needed from having to let it loose at times (Me and My Dad both train martial arts and have done so together since day 1... As I got older we play rougher now... And when the gloves go on, there's no love for or from either one... But when they go off it's over and we're both A-Types so the aggression hangs around for a few minutes... but we can control it to where despite the usual blood we laugh it off and you wouldn't believe how we were behaving 30 seconds earlier) and then dial it down.
Which brings us to a scenario...
You're at home watching TV and you hear the window upstairs break. Your teenage daughter is upstairs. You grab your home defense weapon of choice and clear the stairwell in a manner that would make a Delta Operator nod smugly and say "Not bad." Carefully you approach her door, you fling it open and penetrate the room to see... her boyfriend threw a small pebble trying to be sweet and get her attention and broke the glass on accident and your daughter is now scared shitless...
Now... I'd react most likely the same way... but if you have never had to control the level of aggression that such an act as going into CQB mode then you are quite likely to respond to the boyfriend with aggression. Think like this... You're more amped up than you've ever been in your life and I know before I learned to control that Mean Gene in my DNA, which we all as humans carry since we are the apex predators of the Earth, I may very well have hauled off and hit the boy... Can't say he wouldn't deserve it for bustin' my glass, but I think the law might argue with that logic.
While I'm ranting... A point that drives this further and further home is when we see the Mean Gene being neglected... And a great many do so with knowing it by trying to be all Politically Correct and using whatever buzzword is popular to indicate an intent other than what we really mean. I'll be honest, the current buzz phrase on our side of the fray seems to be "sporting" when it comes to gun stuff... I have no sporting purpose and my guns are meant solely to put holes in those who would harm me... they're not for games and I don't consider hunting a sport as if I kill it, I eat it as opposed to taking a trophy. I don't term any of my weapons as "defensive" because although I have no intention of using mine for truly offensive purposes, under certain circumstances that I hope never come, I may very well do so. Also, the weapons I prefer are also preferred by a great many who DO use them for offensive purposes and mine are no different than theirs... I am the one that's different. Now before some friggin' ban-fan tries to use this as a reason to ban those choices of weapon systems, they should know that it's not the choice of weapon system that makes the person or their deeds nefarious... It's the PERSON CHOOSING TO COMMIT THOSE DEEDS which makes them both nefarious! Such acts as ignoring our true purpose does nothing more than suppress the mean gene inside you and condition you to think of your tools as other than what they are... That dark side inside all of us that could use those tools on another human being, even when done for a legitimate reason as defense of one's life there are those who can get to the point where they can do the deed and there are those that can't, is just as frail as the side of us that can love our family and spoil our pets... Both sides must be nurtured equally.
Hopefully this gets some good discussion going...
And here's that link to the video mentioned... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnB6mb6yhWk&feature=youtu.be&a
Check us out on Facebook, Google Plus, Youtube, and Twitter by using the attached links.
Y'all Stay Frosty!
V/R
-K.