active compliance more likely to get you killed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SPUSCG

New member
I have heard resisting is more likely to keep you alive and comliance will get you killed. Is this true?
 
Got my NOMEX suit all zipped up***

I do not know whether or not compliance or resistance is more or less likely to get me killed... What I do know is when facing some one attempting to impart fear thru violence or threat of violence I am going to do zackly what they are not expecting. I am going to use every tool at my disposal to stop their threats. With or without a gun I am always armed, might just be the element of surprise coupled with my physical self.
I just refuse to comply unless the threat has my kids as a pawn.. if they have my wife I am just gonna sit back, laugh and watch!
I have nothing I wish to give to some punk! I would rather resist and be killed having done my best to survive than to comply and be killed as a sheep to slaughter believing I was going to be safe if only I comply.
Even in my mostly honest mind I realize 3 can keep a secret if 2 are dead...
Brent
 
at the karate school i work at we teach kids and women this: FIGHT! never comply just fight. scream punch bite kick scratch do whatever you have to do to get away. i still live with my mom and i teach her the same thing, and she knows where my guns are and how to handle and use them. ill be damned if some POS criminal hurts me and adds fuel to the anti gun idiots fight!
 
I have heard resisting is more likely to keep you alive and comliance will get you killed. Is this true?
Click to expand...
As a general statement about violent crime, no, it is not. However, that is so general that it really doens't do much good. You need to understand things like different types of resistance, different kinds of compliance, and so on. As a rather obvious example, if the BG is trying to murder you, compliance will get you killed while resistance is more likely to keep you alive.
 
I have heard resisting is more likely to keep you alive and comliance will get you killed.
Click to expand...

Try one of each and let me know. :D

Seriously, this question is so non-specific and general that it can't be answered.
 
No resistance to murder gets you killed. BTW, as the flame war starts - there is a very large literature on what happens with various forms of resistance which is more useful than anecdotes or vivid instances.

It has to be broken down by:

1. Type of crime
2. Type of resistance
3. Your perceived value of the outcome of compliance or resistance (meaning - if you comply - not in murder - and are successfully robbed, to you suffer so much from deflated weiner syndrome, that you cannot live with yourself as compared to saying - hey I didn't get shot or stabbed and just lost a few bucks).

It is not a simple answer but folks confound their answer with needs to talk about their self-image and warrior nature.

Then the thread will be locked.
 
Well, given that there are about 400,000 robberies, and that only around 1000 murders occur as the result of robberies, compliance seems to give a pretty good result. Again, there is a lot more to the story. Obviously if the BG is robbing you with a big stick and you pull a gun, odds might go your way quite a bit. If the BG has a gun and you resist by yelling bad words at him, odds might go against you a bit more. If you both have a gun, the chances of surviving a gunfight are certainly less than surving a robbery where no shots are fired. Robbers overwhelming indicate that their primary concern with a robbery is to get the money and get out of there, and they use weapons to gain compliance, an das long as the compliance is there things don't escalate. There certainly are exceptions to that, but general wisdom and most data indicate that compliance is the response least likely to lead to injury or death in a robbery.
 
any sites with good statistics on different levels of crime? the responses im getting seem to say depends on type of crime
 
There are lots of sites with this sort of stuff. Problem is that they don't wrap the data up in a nice package that addresses maybe your specific need. So you have to dig around, gather data from 3 or 4 places, put them together and do some analysis, and so on. You might want to start with the UCR. Or you can assume the police know what they are talking about when they say that barring something unusual, compliance is recommended over resistance.
 
Last edited:
For some specifics - use Google scholar on things like 'crime resistance' or rape resistance, victim selection. Google Gary Kleck or check out his books.
 
Here is a good link on the subject.

The "Death Wish" Question

After examining data from the Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey from 1979 through 1987, Gary Kleck found that the best way to survive a criminal attack was to resist – with a gun.

Women were 2.5 times more likely to suffer serious injury if they offered no resistance than if they resisted with a gun. Having a gun made the crucial difference. Women who resisted without a gun were four times more likely to be seriously hurt than those who resisted with a gun. "In other words," writes John Lott in More Guns, Less Crime, "the best advice is to resist with a gun, but if no gun is available, it is better to offer no resistance than to fight."

In the case of men – no doubt, because of their greater physical strength – having a gun made considerably less difference in the success rate of their resistance and in the likelihood of their being injured. But it still proved advantageous. Men who offered no resistance turned out to be 1.4 times more likely to be seriously hurt than those who resisted with a gun. Men who resisted without a gun were 1.5 times more likely to be injured than those resisting with a gun.
Click to expand...

I've seen other studies that said, on average, that ANY resistance tended to result in less overall rate of injury. Though I can't find those, have to organize my bookmarks better, and will have to go with this one.
 
if you are unarmed and unwelcome enter at your own risk. but, if you are armed and an interloper, come on in and let us administer, in an efficient and expeditious manner, the remedy to purge, from soceity, another plague.
 
I'll admit I haven't done much research on this and am not an authority on such matters, but I personally like the odds afforded by resisting. With or without a gun, I figure if I resist to the degree that I am able, I at least am not leaving my fate in the hands of a person obviously willing to work beyond the law to achieve his means. And I know I'd much rather my family bury me knowing that I died on my feet than whimpering on the ground. The submissive element of our society is the part that disturbs me the greatest. This nation did not achieve the status and power it current holds because it was ran by sheep. It won't stay powerful by long if it continues to be ran by sheep. If the prevailing belief is that an attitude of 'give them what they want and they'll go away,' is preferable to conflict, we can only expect violent criminal behavior to be increase as it is rewarded with compliance.
 
And I know I'd much rather my family bury me knowing that I died on my feet than whimpering on the ground.
Click to expand...

Did I nail it in my evaluation of the discussion! Is it about a survivable outcome or self-image?

I should have edited my post to add -

4. Do you have a reciprocal altruism or civic culture goal such that you are willing to sacrifice your self and the impact on your family such that you get hurt when you don't have to so that you may deter future criminals from attacking persons unknown to you? That sets a climate that might feed back to deter folks from attacking your loved ones (since you are dead).

All these motivations have been well worked out.

The question is what is your goal state -

1. Save your ass and lower the impact of your death on your family - situationally - this could be fight or comply.
2. Save your ego - as your family wants you dead but brave, so fight independent of the consequences - not the OP question about getting hurt.
3. Fight and Deter for the greater good of all the other schmucks in society.

Some like #1 - some regard #3 as meaninful self-sacrifice. Some say #2 but that one is hard to separate from posturing. We have had folks say they would rather risk a shotgun blast to the chest rather than fork over the wallet.

As far as studies - fighting without guns gets you hurt more. Guns seem to work the best when you fight - that was hard to figure out.

Pick your goal and then think about how you implement it.
 
Woody Hays, a former great football coach of Ohio State always said that he did not like to use a pass play in football as three things could happen and two of them were bad.

Action vs compliance, I view in the same way, . . . with action I may survive and as a bonus, survive with my family and all my belongings, . . . compliance will at least cost me some if not many of my blongings and perhaps a beating for me and/or family member(s), . . . compliance may also cost me and my family our belongings AND our lives.

Leave the word "belongings" out of the equasion, . . . suffering and/or death may result in a scenario where "no witnesses left behind" is the order of the day.

Yeah, . . . resist if there is any REASONABLE opportunity and chance of success. Comply only if there seems absolutely no other way.

An example is the old Marine who complied (in Florida, ????) until the bg's herded them into the rest room for what he took as an execution rite. When the bg wasn't looking, he whipped out his 1911 and cleaned up some of the gene pool.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
I hear you - this is a better way to think about it than this typical question.

Do what works to maximize your survival - given you care about that.

There are way too many factors in a given situation to gurantee that choice A or B or C ... Z will give the best outcome.

Training as close as possible to the real situation gives you experience in the many ways things could go down and let's you appreciate the eventualities.

If you shut off one option because of an incomplete understanding of prediction (always thinking the mean or average will occur) or because the option doesn't fit your ego or proejcted self-image - then you have not encompassed the cosmic all of self-defense.
 
I've seen other studies that said, on average, that ANY resistance tended to result in less overall rate of injury.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are also those studies that say when you resist, the severity of the injury goes up even though you are less likely to be injured. Then you get to toss in those that indicate resistance on any level decreases the likelihood of completion but increases the chance of injury. Or, as in the Kleck research you used, the fact that Kleck is using armed resistance against unarmed or lesser armed BGs in the equation, which might not be so good when the BG is also armed with a firearm, and so on. Like Glenn said, lots o fliterature out there, and lots of information, but it is very difficult to discuss it on the broad parameter most want to use.

Action vs compliance, I view in the same way
Click to expand...
But when you list the results, you failed to list any of the problems common to action, thus you may be failing to completely or accurately understand the outcomes.
 
Last edited:
I know I'd much rather my family bury me knowing that I died on my feet than whimpering on the ground.
Click to expand...
But that leaves out the most common outcome---don't fight back, don't whimper on the ground, just comply unless compliance seems likely to increase the danger. I know my family would much rather not bury me, period. Dead hero, dead coward, it's still dead and your family is left wondering how to pick up the pieces you left behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top