Poll: Do you think common theive, burglars, etc recognize "tactical" gear?

[evalero2]

I would recognize your VF backpack, most people wouldn't. I don't think petty criminals would recognize tactical gear by brand very often, and deterence by logo would probably be better achieved by wearing a military t-shirt or ball cap.

 

[stubbicatt]

There are certain garments and behaviors that reveal to me that a person I am observing holds a concealed carry permit. The long, loose, vest over the waist SCREAMS "GUN!" Sometimes a jacket or any garment on a hot day that doesn't fit the rest of the outfit gives me pause. The knife clip in the pocket suggests to me that the man has a knife, but doesn't necessarily tell me he is packing. --I look for telltale bulges.

There are other signs that a person might be carrying, a firearms company sticker on his vehicle is one of those.

There is the demeanor of some folks which gives them away. Staring icecicles around a room of diners, keeping one's back to a corner with a good view of the door, often suggest to me someone packing. Sure as someone tries to stare me down, I know he/she is some sort of "make my day" type, who happens to have a CCW.

 

[DammitBoy]

Never underestimate a potential opponent.

Criminals go to gun shows. Criminals play Call of Duty. Criminals can be "into" the gun culture. Criminals can browse gun magazines at wal-mart. Some criminals have been in the armed services.

If a criminal wants to stay on the outside, he will learn to identify police, security, and military types. Your clothing and gear, if it resembles the clothing and gear of the aforementioned folks, marks you as someone to be concerned with. It singles you out as a potential non-civilian.


edited to add: Do not lose the element of surprise...

 

[ChCx2744]

The look on your face, where you keep your hands and the way you walk is going to be more of a deterrent than what you are wearing; unless you are wearing gold and diamond jewelry everywhere, then they probably are paying attention to what you are wearing lol.

 

[guyfromohio]

So..... do we want them to know we're packing or not? Personally, I couldn't care less.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think this goes with the claims that if you wear a fanny pack, vest, untucked shirt, or untucked Hawaiian shirt that criminals will know you are carrying a gun. They don't, of course, but that is a frequently held belief.

 

[bikerdoc]

I do not wear tactical gear.


I am gray man, the cranky, grandpa in jeans, and boots with candy in one pocket, and something else in the other. I didnt get to be this old being unaware, or unprepared. In addition I dont care what the "common" criminal thinks he knows.

Like Ayoob says anyone who selects me has committed a "failure of the victim selection process"


There are enough clues in my look, demeanor, and body language, that say this old man has been to enough rodeo's not to be worth the effort.

Posts 16, 22, and 23, state it more eloquently. Practice situation awareness, ADEE, have a plan, and dont go to stupid places, where stupid people, do stupid things.

 

[bubba in ca]

Body language

If you are fit and appear to be purposeful in your actions, a creep will probably notice and put you in his "probably better to bother somebody else" category.

If you are not fit and purposeful but wearing military/tactical/ninja stuff the same crook will probably put you in his "cream puff" category and bend over backwards to take you. If you are young and wimpy, old and fat, etc., don't add to your problems by advertising your deficiencies with funny clothing. BDUs are for working in the yard, not for going shopping. I feel self-conscious just by wearing my desert boonie hat in the desert, much less the whole rig!

And then, one has to ponder the relative merits of doing anything that will let somebody guess you are armed, including shirt logos, bumper stickers, a fanny pack where nobody else has a fanny pack. It might prevent an attack, but it might also get you sucker punched or stabbed in the back. Of all the things certain thieves could possible steal, a nice new name-brand handgun fits in near the top of the list.

 

[sidheshooter]

Never underestimate a potential opponent.

Dammitboy sums it up in post 28: while there are certainly some alarmingly stupid criminals, not all-or even most-of them are shirtless COPS tv fodder. In my neck of the woods, the Aryan set is quite gun savvy.

In my (very) extended sphere of travel, there exists this fellow who was evidently, in younger years, one of the top drug dealers in my city. Among the first words this guy ever said my way, upon being introduced to me at a social function, were "your knife looks custom... who's the maker?"

I had an Elishewitz in my front pocket at the time. Moreover, I was wearing a sport coat, so the clip/end would *only* be visible in brief flashes as I moved or reached awkwardly for my drink, or some such. In addition to eagle eyes and honed instincts, it turns out that one of the things the guy used to like to collect with his ill-gotten gains was cool edged things, and he was a bit of a connoisseur. Sound like any of us (the cool pointy thing part, I mean)? It was a compelling educational moment for me. Nobody else ever noticed the thing-especially under a joseph abboud blazer (!)

There is a wealth of people on this forum who are far more qualified to talk about characteristics of the criminal population than me. That said, I kind of suspect that career (street) criminals sort of fall into a couple of categories: victim offender and predatory/entrepreneurial offender. The victim ones can indeed act in very short sighted fashion, appearing pretty dumb in the process as their lives continually fall further apart as a consequence of ongoing bad decisions, but to think that there are not criminals that are actually good at their craft strikes me as naive, even in my admittedly limited experience of them.

Btw, I no longer pocket clip my folders after that evening. In fact, I would bet that I could walk right by a fellow THR member without raising a flag, unless you catch me on either the hiking trail, shooting range, or a really bad hair day, in which case my long-billed cap with Correia's MHI patch on it might give it away... otherwise, no indicators if I can help it.

JMO.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

For the most part criminals are not stupid and become good at what they do. My expectation is that they are more likely than the average citizen to notice these things. It helps them select their prey.

 

[wlewisiii]

Some will, some won't. All will tend to recognize things that are _made better_ than the average and that's why they'll check what's inside that maxpedition bag with all the pockets. Some might well think "gun" but more will think "valuables".

 

[BP44]

Yes, I think some folks are kidding themselves in order to feel better.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

edited to add: Do not lose the element of surprise...

The element of dissuasion is often better than the element of surprise.

It all depends on how you look at it. Would you rather somebody opt not to rob you because they think you might be armed or rather them attempt to rob you so that you can spring on them your element of surprise and see who comes out the better for it?

Not saying either is necessarily right or wrong, only that both have their place.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Double Naught Spy: The element of dissuasion is often better than the element of surprise.

For anyone but a sworn officer, I think "always" fits much better than "often."

It all depends on how you look at it. Would you rather somebody opt not to rob you because they think you might be armed or rather them attempt to rob you so that you can spring on them your element of surprise and see who comes out the better for it?

The former--always.

Not saying either is necessarily right or wrong, only that both have their place.

Except in a sting operation, I cannot see how the latter would ever "have its place."

Consider this also in terms of justification; consider the concepts of immediate necessity and preclusion.

 

[Neverwinter]

Except in a sting operation, I cannot see how the latter would ever "have its place."

Consider this also in terms of justification; consider the concepts of immediate necessity and preclusion.

What it seems like people are referring to is the tradeoff between being inconspicuous and standing out by exhibiting physical or behavioral markers that could single you out for victimization.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

For anyone but a sworn officer, I think "always" fits much better than "often."

Yes, but "always" doesn't always work in the real world. The attempt to dissuade can be what draws attention to you, unfortunately. This is why I said it was a matter of perspective (how you look at it). So they both have their place from a real world context. You can project confidence, power, authority, being a gun owner, etc. and be the first person attacked or the first person avoided, but either way, they expect that you might be trouble and if they do attack you, have that in mind. You can look like a normal schmo and if attacked, maybe get the upper hand because they don't expect that in reality you are a fighter, that you are armed, etc. Neither situation is a sure thing.

So you wear something that pegs you as potentially carrying a gun. Does that stop people from bothering you or attract them to you?

 

[DammitBoy]

As William Munny said, "You shoot the man who seems the most dangerous first. I've always been lucky that way..."

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

That's still besides the point. Shooting the man who seems most dangerous is contingent upon whether you actually seem the most dangerous. My question was whether or not certain brand names or gear actually makes you seem more dangerous (or profitable) to a street thug.

The reason behind this was another thread in which it was suggested that a crime victim had his backpack specifically targeted by a thief because it was a Maxpedition backpack and was thus more likely to contain a firearm. Furthermore, that those of us who carry "tactical" brand clothing and gear actually make ourselves more of a crime risk because street thugs are on the lookout for gun-related stuff and will seek you out if they see you with it.

I contend that there is probably more than a 99% chance that the thief (and almost all other thieves) have never heard of Maxpedition in their whole lives and stole the backpack because it was there, not because of the brand. And I don't think wearing Maxpedition, 5.11, Blackhawk, or any other gear really makes you any more or less of a risk. I don't think anyone outside of the gun community is really all that familiar with those brands, just as most outside the drumming community don't know what Vic Firth is, or those outside Honda racing don't know what Skunk2 is.

The likelihood of my car being specifically targeted for having a Vic Firth sticker and thus maybe containing musical instruments is about as infinitesimal as it being targeted because I have a black 5.11 backpack.

 

[coloradokevin]

Regular or tactical clothing alone will not likely encourage or discourage an attack on the street, at least in my opinion. I believe an individual's mannerisms, personality, and assertiveness all play a far more important role in determining whether or not you're chosen as a victim. Criminals certainly profile their prey, just as a lion would try to pick out the weakest gazelle during a hunt. If you carry yourself in a confident manner and exude a calm and commanding presence, it is far less likely that you'll be chosen as a victim.

Perhaps clothing plays a small role in all of this, but I doubt it is nearly as significant as the way you behave. I've seen this scenario play out dozens of times in my law enforcement career: your average thug knows where to draw the line with an experienced street officer, and knows that he isn't going to be allowed to push the envelope with that officer. But, that same criminal will easily hone in on a nervous rookie, and agitate the situation with that officer for as long (and to whatever degree) he believes he can.

The two officers can wear the same clothing, and carry the same "tactical" gear, yet one of them will immediately be treated with respect, and the other will be seen as potential prey.

 

[DammitBoy]

My question was whether or not certain brand names or gear actually makes you seem more dangerous (or profitable) to a street thug.

In my opinion, yes, it does.

I don't think wearing Maxpedition, 5.11, Blackhawk, or any other gear really makes you any more or less of a risk. I don't think anyone outside of the gun community is really all that familiar with those brands...

That's a pretty big assumption on your part. Why do you think there are no criminals within the gun community?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Umm...DammitBoy: you do know the "quote" you cited of me doesn't contain the words you wrote in it? I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be responding to since your literally made up something and inserted it into a chopped up version of my post.

 

[DammitBoy]

Rag, I inserted my answer inside your quote. That's why it is in red.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

The reason behind this was another thread in which it was suggested that a crime victim had his backpack specifically targeted by a thief because it was a Maxpedition backpack and was thus more likely to contain a firearm. Furthermore, that those of us who carry "tactical" brand clothing and gear actually make ourselves more of a crime risk because street thugs are on the lookout for gun-related stuff and will seek you out if they see you with it.

I contend that there is probably more than a 99% chance that the thief (and almost all other thieves) have never heard of Maxpedition in their whole lives and stole the backpack because it was there, not because of the brand. And I don't think wearing Maxpedition, 5.11, Blackhawk, or any other gear really makes you any more or less of a risk.

First off, you are misrepresenting the original statement, which was:

Another tip, lose the Maxpedition. They are great packs, but they scream gun. I assure you, no one would have broken into your car to steal a crumpled McDonalds bag.

There is no claim that the bag was targeted because it was a brand name, or specifically because it was a Maxpedition pack. The statement is all about discretion and urban camouflage.

And no... there's absolutely nothing at all in the statement about criminals targeting individuals since the thread starter and the response were both about a back pack left in an unattended car, so any discussion about the likelihood of influencing an attack against a person is completely off topic.


Second, there's a reason why I asked up-thread if we were becoming wikipedia, and personal opinion was to triumph over fact... because this is a perfect example of it. You may wish to believe that the criminal element doesn't recognize tactical style packs, or that they won't target them, but you are dead wrong. As a former law enforcement officer, and now the owner of a multi-state private security and executive protection operation, I have plenty of first hand experience with the criminal element. And I am telling you, without a doubt, they do. Yes, there are the element that are opportunists who will break into a car just because they see any old backpack, but there is a much more professional element that knows what they are looking for and what to target. They know how to recognize a laptop bag from a portfolio. They know what camera bags look like.. and in the last couple of years, they've learned that tactical style packs are good targets. They will case their targets and bypass lesser gains until they find what they are looking for.

If you have any personal experience showing that a criminal wouldn't target a tactical style pack over the aforementioned crumpled McDonalds bag, please share it with us, but so far you've been ignoring advice from the actual professionals in this field in favor of unsupported personal opinion... never a good thing.

I'm telling you, unequivocally and back by years of experience dealing with criminals, that yes they will target tactical style packs if given the chance. Yes, criminals will bypass lesser items left in plain sight in favor of tactical style packs left in plain sight. Yes, leaving a firearm in a tactical style pack instead of other styles of concealment does increase the risk of theft.

 

[Losov]

I'm with bikerdoc. Nothing about me identifies me as someone who might be armed. No "Glock" hat, no 5 11 anything or any bumper stickers about how this car is protected. Definitely no camo. I even stopped wearing my Wilderness belt, it's too identifiable. Not only do I not want the BGs to know I'm armed, I don't want anyone to know, not even other good guys.

 

[mljdeckard]

I also think that I have become a bit contemptuous of the idea of changing a single gram of anything I do normally because of what criminals perceive. I certainly don't change anything to coddle the perceptions of anti-gunners.

Again, I think a lot of it has to do with where I live. We are so red we are almost recreational about showing our gun culture off.