On Offense and Defense
Please note that we are NOT the original writers of this blog post. All credit goes to the original writers. Find the original post as published at this link: http://mdpofsd.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-offense-and-defense.html
Offense is the Idea of actively forcing an action or event on the Target.
Defense is the Idea of actively resisting this action or event by the Goal.
The theories of Offense and Defense have no attached or intrinsic value judgments of good and bad.
When the Offensive is greater than the Defense it succeeds. When it is equal or less than the Defense it fails. Increasing Offensive effectiveness makes it more probable that the intended action will succeed. Increasing Defensive effectiveness through makes it more likely that the planned Offensive actions will fail.
Understanding Defense makes it easier to successfully employ effective Offense. Knowing the Offense makes it much easier to apply Defense. – Maxim
Translation – An effective Crime is an important aspect of an effective Defense. Also known as the concept of”Attack the attacker”
“The best offensive is to remove your opponent’s defense.” – Erik K.
Translation — No matter how feeble or ineffective your crime is, if your opponent has no defense you may prevail.
Many times it is easier to eliminate or remove your opponent’s defense than to increase your own offense. It takes effort to boost your offense capability and effectiveness. As soon as you have reached a particular level of offensive capability, further increases are somewhat more difficult.
If you are a dedicated martial artist, then you might be prepared to spend time and effort for self-improvement. But what if you are a street thug, common offender, or individual predator? The easiest way to insure your success is to assault people with little or no defensive capability. Why is this simple? Since you get to choose who you assault, if you want to assault them, where you assault them, and with what tools.
In a civilized society, a individual’s defensive capabilities are the amount of the inner ability (what they could do) and their external capability (what others can do to them). Taking the candy is only half the battle. I call this defensive external ability, the Institutional Fence.
It’s common for many cynical people to claim that the Institutional Fence will not protect them. That the police are slow to arrive. That help might never come. While this fact may be true in certain situations, it is not true in most situations. In a civilized society, help does arrive sooner or later. It may arrive too late. But the threat of arrival still exists.
What the cynics are forgetting is that the mere threat of the Institutional Fence has an effect on an aggressor, whether or not help really arrives in time. The”bad man” is at-risk. Therefore, predatory individuals systematically reduce risk by accurate victim selection.
The low hanging fruit of the Victim Tree are those that both have minimal defenses and are either unable or reluctant to seek assistance before, during, or after the crime (have certain Factors). Silent Victims — Afraid to resist and reluctant to seek help. In this case, the Predator uses familiarity with the victim to ascertain who to assault. Passive Attorney — Afraid to withstand and ready to seek help after the assault. In this case, the Predator needs to conceal his identity to never get caught. This man or woman is a minimal risk victim (low hanging fruit) for the Predator. Vulnerable Victims — Unable to successfully resist and willing to seek help after the assault. This man or woman is more risky since he or she makes an attempt to resist. This resistance increases the odds that the Predator could be recognized or that help may arrive from the Institutional Fence. Hard Target – Able to resist and willing to seek help. This individual represents the greatest risk to the Predator. The Predator should employ strategies to overwhelm his victim as rapidly as possible for success. He needs to shield his identity to ward off consequences from the Institutional Fence.
It is apparent that the Predator, who has the luxury of picking his victim, has the ability to pick the potential victim that’s perceived to offer the greatest odds of success. His odds are increased by choosing a Silent or Passive Victim using no/low defense rather than a Hard Target with a stronger defense.
If the Predator increases his crime by employing a weapon, he also raises the severity of his punishment if convicted. Hence, the safest strategy involves choosing a minimal risk victim who is afraid to resist and reluctant to engage the security of the Institutional Fence. For the Predator, it’s safer to lower the victim’s defense (by selection) than to increase his offense.
This logical explains why the majority of victims of sexual assault know their attacker and also don’t report the crime. The victims were not chosen at random. They were accurately selected as low hanging fruit offering minimal risk to the attacker. This logic also explains why the majority of these assaults involve risks instead of force. The use of force is not needed and using it raises the threat posed by the Institutional Fence.
Those that want to lessen the risk of selection for easy victimization have to convey their willingness to actively resist and willingness to actively seek the help of the Institutional Fence. They are perceived the least desirable victims of Predators, as Difficult Targets.