It's been a while!
Alain
What do you do when you get on an airplane? After you have stowed your carry on, sat down, and buckled up? Honestly, do you listen to the flight attendant's safety instructions? Or do you go about your own business, reading, chatting, or what not and completely tune out the person telling you where the exits are, how to use your seatbelt, and where the nearest bathroom is located? Do you read the safety information card? Have you ever read the safety information card?
Let me share with you what I do. I always listen to the flight attendant's instructions. Always! The primary reason I've always done this, and will continue to do so, is because I believe it is impolite not to. As a teacher and speaker, I know what it feels like to be presenting to a group of people and have some not listen. I've always felt it is respectful to listen to flight attendants as they do their job, especially since they are doing it for us. It is the same reason you will never catch me going through a supermarket check out talking on a cell phone and ignoring the person helping me. It's just common courtesy.
I also always pull out the safety information card and read through it. I then look around and visually note where each exit on the plane is located in relation to my seat. I also try to pay attention to who is where on the plane. What kind of people are around; men, women, elderly, kids, people who need help, or those that look in good shape. I never like being anywhere that I don't know how to get out of, and who is around me. Just a habit I guess.
Okay, so some of you are saying, "Good for you Mr. Polite Awareness guy. Here's an extra cookie to go with your coffee for being such a great airplane passenger." I never really thought of this much before, it's just what I do, and I do a lot of things other don't. However, I'm currently reading a very good book called "The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes And Why" by Amanda Ripley. In this book, Ripley shares a little about people who read the safety information card.
Ripley reports on Mr. Paul Heck, a survivor of the 1977 Pan Am accident in the Canary Islands. When the plane was hit by another plane on the airstrip while waiting to take off, 326 of the 396 people on board were killed. (583 people died total when you include the passengers on the KLM aircraft that hit the Pan Am flight) Many of those who died on the Pan Am aircraft would have lived if they had gotten off the plane before smoke and fire killed them. Paul Heck, sixty-five, reacted immediately and told his wife Floy, seventy, to follow him, which snapped her out of her daze, and led her off the plane. Others sat like zombies in a state of paralysis and perished.
This passage from Ripley's excellent book provides some very important information:
"At the time of the Tenerife crash, psychologist Daniel Johnson was working on safety research for McDonnell Douglas. He became fascinated by this paralysis behavior, which had been observed in other plane crashes as well. Floy and Paul Heck are both deceased now. But a few months after the accident, Johnson interviewed them both. He made an important discovery. Before the crash, Paul had done something highly unusual. During the long delay before takeoff, heck had studied the 747's safety diagram. He even walked around the aircraft with his wife, pointing out the nearest exits. He had been in a theater fire as an eight-year-old-boy, and ever since, he had always checked for the exits in an unfamiliar environment. Maybe this is a coincidence. But it is also possible that when the planes collided, Heck's brain had the data it needed to take action."
I'm not suggesting that I will survive an aircraft disaster before anyone else, just because I read the safety information card and pay attention to the flight attendants, but evidence shows that it just might help. Personally, I'm all for stacking the deck as much in my favor as I possibly can when it comes to survival. If Heck's story doesn't convince you to pay more attention, here is another example from Ripley's "The Unthinkable."
"The National Transportation Safety Board has found that passengers who read the safety information card are less likely to get hurt in an emergency. In a plane crash at Pago Pago three years before the Tenerife accident, all but 5 of the 101 passengers died. All the survivors reported that they had read the safety information cards and listened to the briefing. They exited over the wing, while other passengers went toward other, more dangerous but traditional exits and died."
Bottom line. I want to be as prepared and safe as I can be. Not paranoid mind you, but I will stack the deck in my favor whenever I can. Keeping oneself safe is not just going to the gym to practice martial arts and self-defense skills. It's not just going to the range to practice shooting skills. It is a combination of everything one does, with situational awareness being one of the most important ingredients. I will always listen to the flight attendant's briefing, out of courtesy and to be prepared. I will always read the safety information card, even on small planes I am very familiar with. I will always look around and make note of all the exits and the other passengers on board with me. You don't have to do the same, but I seriously suggest you do. It might just be the difference between life and death.
The recent shooting of a criminal attempting to rob his store by fifty-seven year old pharmacist Jerome Ersland in Oklahoma City raises the question of what is justified in defending oneself, and what crosses the line. It also provides a good introduction to this article and an excellent example in the legal chapter of a book I'm working on. Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder for killing 16-year-old Antwun Parker, one of two criminals that entered Ersland's store. Parker's partner brandished a handgun before Ersland fired upon the two in self-defense with his own firearm. However, after hitting Parker in the head, rendering him unconscious on the floor, and chasing the armed criminal out to the street, Ersland returned, obtained another firearm, and returned to Parker, still laying on the floor, and fired five shots into Parkers abdomen, shots that the medical examiner states killed Parker.
Without getting into too much legalese for this short article, I want to address the very basics in that to legally defend yourself using physical force against another person, there must be three factors present:
1. means
2. opportunity
3. intent
At the beginning, it appears all three were present. The criminals interred the store brandishing a weapon. The one had a firearm so he had the means (tools or skills readily accessible to commit the crime). They had opportunity (the conditions immediately favorable to commit the crime) because they were right there in the store ready to rob it. From a reasonable standpoint, it sure looked on video tape they had intent (mental state at the time of the crime). Why else would you bust into a store waving a firearm (and I don't know what they demanded) if not for the intent of committing a crime?
From everything I saw on the surveillance video, it sure appeared that Ersland was justified in defending himself when the criminals burst into his store waving a firearm and demanding whatever they were demanding. Even District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting Parker once in the head.
However, Prater stated that the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.
In general, a person is only justified to use deadly force to stop the threat, and the threat must be one that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. The force you use must be reasonable, which means the level of force that a reasonable person would use in a similar situation. That's the big question. What would a reasonable person do in the same situation?
I think it is reasonable to use deadly force, Ersland's firearm, when criminals burst into his store with firearms of their own. However, going back and shooting Parker when he was no longer a threat goes beyond the general rule of being allowed to use deadly force to stop the threat. This is why Ersland is being charged with murder, and this is where the legal system will have to determine, based on all of the evidence and circumstances, if what Ersland did was reasonable. If no plea bargain is entered into, a jury of Ersland's peers will determine the outcome of this tragic event.
I say tragic because I believe it is always tragic when people are robbed and people are killed. This incident affects many more than Parker and Ersland. I stand 100% behind people's right to defend themselves, that's why I teach hapkido and self-defense classes including firearm use. But we must also know the law and ensure what we do stays within those parameters set by our society. I want people to avoid criminal charges should they ever need to use empty hand or weapon skills to defend themselves or others.
If you practice self-defense or own a weapon to defend yourself or loved ones, and I believe everyone should do so because defending yourself is your responsibility because you are the only one that is going to be there in the dire time of need, then you must also familiarize yourself with the laws regarding justifiable use of force. You must know when you are justified and what use of force is allowable for different situations. By learning these beforehand, and incorporating them into your self-defense scenario based training, you will be better prepared to defend yourself from the bad guys and not have to defend yourself against criminal prosecution for crossing the line in self-defense.