Seems that the issue of personal survival is tightly connected with the issue of group survival. There are many forms which this can take. <br><br>The ambulance medic is taught to avoid all unsafe scene and yet expected to deal with highly infectious individuals that they are trained to deal with. The SAR team is expected to go after individuals who have gotten into trouble because they took too great a risk in the wilderness this sometimes puts the SAR team at risk. The police officer or mounty is often at risk in the effort to ensure the group survival. <br><br>In any situation where a group must survive; from a downed plane with 5 passengers to the ongoing survival of a nation and everything in-between there is always the need to make the choice between taking a risk for the good of the group and withdrawing from the group and going on your own. ( I am stating that polarized to make a point I know that there are shades of gray and that we usually live in the gray zone) The point I am making is that there are times when accepting risk in order to protect members of the group is very much part of survival. <br><br>I would argue that if you are in a wilderness situation due to a downed GA plane with 5 people then losing even one of these people to whatever will greatly reduce your chances of survival and further, if you lost that person because you were unwilling to accept a risk in order to save them then the damage done to the morale of the team might be greater than the logistical damage done by the loss of the team member themselves. This wilderness scenario will not likely call for martial arts training but it doesn't require much creativity to translate the same principles into an urban survival scenario that would.<br><br>OTH: Vigilantism is a more a matter of enforcement than survival and so is indeed outside the scope of survival topics discussed on this site.<br><br>Just my opinion and I will accept the desist request on this thread.