"It's safest to just give the robber what he wants..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
BullfrogKen have you ever had a gun shoved in your face and then be held to the ground with it at the back of your head?

What I mean by do not lie down and take it is turn and run, throw your wallet away, do whatever it takes to not have to lie down and be a victim.

It does not have to be an "or else" scenario. Not complying does not mean a fight will occur. There are always options.

Like I said until you have had this happen you do not know.
 
on the few occasions where someone attempted to rob me, I've become immediately very angry. this is bad because anger can cause poor decisions. If convinced your wallet is all the attacker wants, give it to him. your life is worth more than a credit card. on the other hand, a thief knows you will cancel the card after he leaves so credit cards should be hidden outside your wallet. hand over the wallet with some cash only in it. personally I would probably reach for my ccweapon and get shot pulling it from my pocket because (as stated)anger clouds my judgement:fire:
 
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Arm all US non-criminal citizens! This will fix the majority of our mugging/robbery problems.
 
"It's safest to just give the robber what he wants..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...yeah, RIGHT! Here's just one example to throw in the face of those who say that you only INCREASE your chances of getting hurt by resisting the "bad guys."

You are comparing two different things here. One is compliance and the other is resisting. Statistically, compliance works about 87% of the time with no physical harm (according to FBI stats from a few years ago). That means 13% of the time, those who complied or witnesses around said event were injured or killed even though the robber/mugger/BG got the loot/items/etc. So statistically, complying is a very viable way to get through the event, but personally, I think the odds of 13% getting hurt/killed anyway still totally suck.

Resisting is another issue. I have not been able to find the stats that give the percentage of those who are hurt or killed resisting. In resisting, there are at least 2 forms. You have actual fighting back and you have evasion. Evasion seems to be very successful in keeping the evading parties safe and evasion is a form of resistance of the attack. Fighting back means some form of engaging of the opposition and I don't doubt that there are folks that get hurt more commonly when they fight back. That is the nature of the beast.

I recommend that you do not comply with a criminal if at all possible. Do not lie down and take it.

Actually, the suggestion to not comply if at all possible is not necessarily a good thing. You should comply so long as it is to your advantage to do so. The timing of when you choose to not comply, that is to somehow resist, very well may determine whether or not you survive. One of my favorite convenience store robberies was of a store being robbed by a guy with a long gun. The robber came in and shoved the gun in the clerk's face. The clerk complied with the robber's demands, opened the till, and started getting money out. As the clerk wasn't moving fast enough, the robber ordered his hands up and to step back, which the clerk did, at gun point. The robber put the long gun on the counter and used both hands to reach into the till. The clerk THEN acted when it was most opportune, grabbed the long gun and chased the robber from the store. He complied until which time he had an opportunity to rectify the situation and he remained alert throughout the situation such that he could act when opportunity presented itself.
 
The mainstream media would like people to think the safest rout is always the best.

Sometimes you have to do what's right instead of what's safe.
 
Too many malicious woundings in my area lately (robber gets what he wants and then knifes or shoots someone anyway just 'cause he feels like it) for me to really think any course of action would be "safest".

One of the Malicious Woundings may turn into a murder rap if the victim doesn't survive. Another the victim only survived by running like hell when the bad-guy swung his gun up to shoot (after everything was handed over, no resistance, to the bad guy).

People can armchair quarterback all they want but it's like a bear attack, you simply have to read the situation as best you can and take what you think is the correct course of action.
 
Okay, I need to say something. A lot of you won't like it, but then again you'll all be hypocrits if you judge me for exercising a constitutional right.

You're walking down a sidewalk at night, and a man stops you, demanding money and waving a gun.

You have two options. You can either (A) give him your money, or (A) not give him your money, and defend yourself using force.

In either situation, you have the ability to (a) succeed or (b) fail.

In situation "Aa," you give him your money, and you go home in one piece. In situation "Ab," you give him your money, and you go home in a box.

In situation "Ba," you defend yourself, you go home in one piece, but the robber goes home in a box. In situation "Bb," you still go home in a box.

In three out of the four possible outcomes, someone dies. In two out of the four outcomes, you die.

The idea behind defending yourself is to defend your life, not the contents of your wallet. You can replacement a wallet, credit cards, and cash. You can't replace your life, or the life of the person robbing you.

If you carry a concealed weapon with the intent of "showing them who's boss," "being a hero," or "cleaning up the streets," do everyone a favor and sell the gun off to a responsible owner.

I'll take my chances and go with the option that leaves me going home in one piece. I can afford therapy for the psychological trauma I receive as a direct result of being held up.

I cannot, however, both afford legal fees and therapy bills after killing someone because he wanted $20 for drugs.

My first thought was, "how on earth does a group of people just STAND there while another person is getting beaten, possibly to death? Er, sometimes I forget that there are smaller drugstores than where I work.
As a psychology major who has looked at this particular social phenomena, I find it humorous how common sense and logic, and the truth conflict.

It is perfectly normal for this to occur. It's known as the "bystander effect." In a time of great stress, such as witnessing a violent crime, one tends to look to others for cues on how to behave and react. Seeing as almost nobody in any given set of people has ever experienced a comparable stressful experience, there are no cues on how to act or behave. Most likely, everyone in standing there going, "Something needs to be done, but what?"

All it takes is one person to defy normative social influence (read: what everyone else is doing) and it makes it much easier for others to follow.

People are sheep.
 
Rob,
You have every right to state your opinion. I happen to disagree with you though because I've NEVER seen a situation that is that clear cut, especially since you have no possible way of knowing if the bad-guy is a shooter (stabber, whatever) or not. Too many bad guys are getting off on the power and wounding/killing after they "get the goods" these days.

The idea behind defending yourself is to defend your life, not the contents of your wallet. You can replacement a wallet, credit cards, and cash. You can't replace your life, or the life of the person robbing you.

Here's the other part I think you just don't understand. When someone points a weapon (of any sort) at you and demands something the "deal" they are offering is along the lines of "Give me what I want or else..."

The completed sentence (spoken or not) is "Give me what I want or else I'm going to harm or kill you" or to put it even more simply "Your money or your life".

That, my friend, is not just an attempt to deprive me of some cash like some internet scam. That is a threat on my life (robbery by force).

God forbid I ever find myself in such a situation but if I do I will take whatever I see to be the most effective couse of action available to me at the time in order to end the threat.
 
Saw this posted over on Glocktalk. Sad. I believe you have to comply until your moment comes, but with "non-professional" criminals whose behavior is erratic, and frankly have not ever reached the stage of humanity in their short lives, making a snap judgement would be difficult.

Two charged in murder of Overland Park man
By KEVIN HOFFMANN
The Kansas City Star

Authorities have charged two Kansas City teens with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 37-year-old Derek A. Orchard of Overland Park.

Lamar D. Quarles, 18, and Antonio E. Smith, 17, also face first-degree robbery and two counts of armed-criminal action.

Both were arrested by police several hours before the homicide was discovered.

Orchard’s body was found about 6:45 a.m. Wednesday in a parking lot of an athletic field at 107th Street and Skiles in south Kansas City.

According to court documents, police stopped Quarles and Smith and two others who were speeding in a gold Honda. Two people fled from the car and police questioned Smith, who police said was driving, and Quarles, who was a passenger.

A computer check showed that the car belonged Orchard and his wife. Police contacted Orchard’s wife, who said the men did not have permission to have the car.

Police searched the car and found two semi-automatic handguns. Smith was arrested on a traffic charge, and Quarles was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm. Police also found Orchard’s credit cards on Quarles, according to the court documents.

Police interviewed a witness who allegedly was with Quarles and Smith late Tuesday and was told to “go along” with a plan to steal Orchard’s Honda. During the robbery, the witness alleged, Quarles pointed a gun at Orchard and told him to put his hands up. When he did, Quarles shot him, the witness told police.

Police were trying to identify one of the other passengers in the car.

Prosecutors have requested a $250,000 cash bond for each defendant.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/111076.html
 
The life of the person robbing me is insignificant. I'm only concerned with whether I live or die. The instant the perp decided to make me a victim, his life became trivial. Now, when I run your scenarios that way, I see a much better outcome. Yeah, if I figure he's some two bit hood and will take the wallet and run, I'd give it to him to avoid the court hassles. But too many of them want no witnesses, and I'm not sure how much of a chance I'd take.
 
As to "what if he wants your life?" - unfortunately, I've never heard of a case of a robbery where the BG has actually come out and SAID "give me your money/drugs and then I'm gonna kill you too!"

There was an armed robbery not very far from where I work a while back, I might have posted about it on Glock Talk under the heading of how "security cameras" make you safer. *Knock on wood* We DON'T have them and have NOT been robbed, this other place that was robbed DID have them.

Perp had a gun, girl complied, perp left without hurting anyone. Perp was even nice enough to save the State a LOT of money by shooting himself when cornered by police days later.

The BG having a gun does NOT always mean there will be violence if you cooperate. The BG not having a gun (or at least not whipping it out right away) does not mean there WON'T be violence even if you cooperate.

Being made to lie down on the floor is NOT an automatic death sentence, though many times it is...

I guess short of being "lucky"(?) enough to live through many armed robberies, you'll just have to trust your instincts as best you can manage at the time.

For me, if all the perp wants is money or drugs that are the property of a company that sure does not seem to give a crap about the safety of it's employees, then he's getting it on a silver platter. IE, he says "empty the register," I do it. He says, "get *insert Narc here*" I get it or get someone that can.

He says "lie down on the floor," "you're coming with me," "go to the stock room," or "do _____ before I blow your !@$! head off," then comes the time for 'creative thought' on do I need to resist, and how and when do I do so???

And I agree with Double Naught totally that complying 'to a point' is a very good idea. Resisting a better-armed (in my case) and adrenaline-juiced thug is dangerous enough - the LEAST one can do is try to wait for an OPENING to do something rather than just start swinging right away. (Which isn't to say that swinging right away is *never* a good idea - everything is unique to the particular situation.)
 
My bet is that the "resisting will result in you being more likely to get hurt argument is a study which tracks two things: whether the person resisted, and whether or not there was an injury - regardless of who was injured. They then compare it to a study which controls for the second criteria. :-/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top