active compliance more likely to get you killed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dwight,

I like that analysis. I'd add one more thought to yours, too.

Yeah, . . . resist if there is any REASONABLE opportunity and chance of success.
Click to expand...

Not all scenarios are survivable. With that in mind, there are some situations in which I've decided in advance that -- if I'm ever there -- I will fight even if I don't think I can win. In these specific scenario types, my understanding would be that nearly 100% of the time, the intended victim is killed regardless of her actions, and (for a couple of them) there's an additional element of risk that the death would be a very, very unpleasant one.

Here's my list.

  • I will not go anywhere at gunpoint. Everyone knows that getting to "Crime Scene #2" is bad, but there's something else to consider, too: If the bad guy wants me to go somewhere else, it's because he will be able to do something to me there that he is unwilling or unable to do to me right here, right now. Therefore no matter how bad the tactical situation seems right here and now, right here and now is the absolute best chance to fight back I will ever have and I intend to use it.

  • I will not be tied up. See that bit about "unpleasant death" above? I mean it. If the attacker is going to kill me anyway -- which is an extremely high likelihood once you're shackled -- I'd rather be killed suddenly and violently while fighting to escape rather than to be killed slowly and agonizingly over days. And who knows? I might win.

  • I will not kneel. Most of the time, when someone is forced into this position, what comes next is a bullet in the back of the skull. Once you are on your knees, you don't have any more choices left, even if do you suddenly realize what is about to happen. If you're going to save your own life in such a situation, you have to make the choice to fight back before you're on your knees.

  • If someone tries to take one of my children, I will fight even at the risk of my child being killed in the resultant firefight. I plan this not because I have positive assurance that I would be successful, but because I would not be able to live with myself if I simply "allowed" my child to be taken, brutalized, and his body perhaps never found. I'd rather watch him die in front of me. (Yes, that's harsh ... but given those two options and only those two, which would you choose?)

To be clear, I'm not saying I'd fight back in every situation, or that I'd throw out the risk ratio in every situation. In most cases, if I didn't have a reasonable expectation of winning, I'd cooperate and do whatever it took to get away without fighting. It's not about protecting property, mere things. It's just a fairly narrow set of possibilities where I've looked at that specific type of crime and decided it raises the stakes so high that the risk ratios no longer apply.

In these types of situations, there's a nearly complete certainty that the intended victim would die anyway if they don't fight back, or where even the thought of dying outright sounds preferable to the outcome if the victim doesn't fight back.

pax
 
If you survive it will really PO David & Glenn!
Click to expand...
I realize there's a happy face there, and I take it in the good fun it was presented, but David will love it if you survive. David has been teaching people to survive in a variety of conditions and situations for close to 3 decades. Maybe that is why David knows that getting into a gunfight is not particularly high on the survivability scale. And that is why David also knows that there is more to the survival equation than just getting through the gunfight. David loves it when the good guys survive. But David likes it even more when the good guys win. And for those who don't know the difference, I believe that lack of understanding is a big part of the problem.
 
David Armstrong said:
Yes, but there are also those studies that say ... Then you get to toss in those that indicate ...
Click to expand...
Who did these studies? Noted criminologists? Investigative reporters for CBS? Rebecca Peters?

Who funded these studies? VPC? NRA? Brady Center? GOA?

I know you think I'm just being argumentative, but these are questions that must be addressed in order to put the results of these studies into context.

Speaking of the results of these studies, it would be nice to see them instead of just one sentence paraphrases. I know you understand the principle that one person's summary/assessment/paraphrase of a study may not accurately reflect the study results since you have, in the past accused me of misquoting/misusing Kleck's data.
 
John,
You are dead on here. The infamous line "Studies show...".

I am not a criminologist (although I have a degree in it) but I have learned that whenever you quote studies you have to (pardon the pun) study the study.

My young niece just got her masters in criminal justice and wrote her thesis on a gun question. She relied heavily on a study done by a group of Harvard types.

After I read the paper I looked up some of the criticism of that study and found some real issues with it. She had just taken the study pretty much at it's word since it was new and the academics hadn't had time to publish much criticism.

Bottomline as you said; context is everything and the results may not support the premise.

I won't quote a study unless I can point to it and show the conclusions match my stated premise. Of course, I could still be wrong :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

David, I would just like to point out that although the murder rate may be 1 in 400, you're not including the wounded. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that they would be considerable. If 19,000 victims were also stabbed, shot, or beaten, but they don't die, that would make the odds of violence more like 1 in 20.

I really like Kathy's summation of the issue.

TF
 
I like the Lance Thomas school of thought. He is the LA watch shop owner who defeated some five or six armed robbers in four separate incidents in a two year time frame. He was more afraid of being a victim then of dying. He refused to surrender the decision of his fate to a worthless scumbag trying to steal watches and money. Truly inspirational.
 
As far as studies - like I said before - use Google scholar and you can get many of the original articles or go to the library - rather than pecking at each other. So go do that rather than say blah, blah, blah about studies. If someone cites a study that you don't like - go look it up.

The basic OP question is flawed - it wants a probabilistic prediction but if you really understand stat - you know that such aren't predictive of what actually to do. It is only info about a range of possibilities.

IMHO, sometimes the question is asked so one can posture about one's attitude.

Undestand the possible branches, choose what outcomes are important and train for them. Very simple.
 
The OP's question is vague enough that no single answer can suffice to cover every situation.

PAX - you summed up some of the information very well. There are times when you have nothing to lose by resisting.

I see it this way...
Someone is threatening my life with a weapon in order to obtain what they want. They have to tell me what they want - money, watch, car, etc.

Once you submit to their demands, you remain uninjured only at the criminal's whim. Having seen thugs get outraged that their take is only $10 and severely beat people for not having money, I don't want to stake my life on his "good graces".

My problem with the advice "just give them what they want" boils down to what if what they want is my life? As PAX said, for women it could mean a long, painful experience regardless of the outcome.

Each event is unique. The attitude of the criminal, your location, size & force disparity, the availability of EMS or police and the demands of the criminal all play some part in the decision.

The bottom line is that we have to use our brains to evaluate the situation and determine if resistance is appropriate or not. Getting sandbagged by 3 thugs with guns intent on your Rolex and wallet may not be the right time to resist if you are unarmed. But like one of my officer-survival instructors once said, if it looks like you're going to get hurt or die, do something, do anything. At least you'll have a 50-50 chance of winning.
 
I know you think I'm just being argumentative, but these are questions that must be addressed in order to put the results of these studies into context.
Click to expand...
Of course you are being argumentative, John, as we have just been through this. I believe I gave you a list of sources last time. Let me ask--have you read any of them? I doubt it, or you wouldn't keep trying this nonsense. I'll quote my fellow academician at arms, Glenn, on the subject:
"As far as studies - like I said before - use Google scholar and you can get many of the original articles or go to the library - rather than pecking at each other. So go do that rather than say blah, blah, blah about studies. If someone cites a study that you don't like - go look it up."
 
David, I would just like to point out that although the murder rate may be 1 in 400, you're not including the wounded. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that they would be considerable. If 19,000 victims were also stabbed, shot, or beaten, but they don't die, that would make the odds of violence more like 1 in 20.
Click to expand...
The OP specifically asked "I have heard resisting is more likely to keep you alive and comliance will get you killed. Is this true?" which is pretty restrictive, and does not include other violence.
 
David, the problem is, you didn't cite "a study" on this thread. You referred to "studies," plural, nebulous, implying that those who wonder about your sources should locate and peruse multiple volumes of material that may (or may not) speak directly to the question at hand.

For the sake of us following along at home, could you cite just one single study that speaks directly to this? Please?

Thanks.

pax
 
David, the problem is, you didn't cite "a study" on this thread.
Click to expand...
No, but I did cite on the other thread and for John to now pop up and ask for cites again is argumentative, IMO. That is particularly apparent, IMO, as nowhere do we see John making the same request of Crosshair when he says, "I've seen other studies that said, on average, that ANY resistance tended to result in less overall rate of injury." Why this great concern with only one side or party needing to provide cites? For the record, I don't think Crosshair needs to provide cites for his claim. If I wonder about it, I'll look up the material myself.
For the sake of us following along at home, could you cite just one single study that speaks directly to this?
Click to expand...
No, as no study (AFAIK) speaks directly to this. Many studies, multiple volumes of material, that is how one learns about this stuff. You want to see about some of the problems with Klecks work? Try Cook and Ludwig's report to the National Institute of Justice, 1997, summarized in the Research in Brief "Guns In America: National Survey on Private ownership and Use of Firearms." You want research on why criminals use violence in robberies and such? Read Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth “Crimes of Convenience” 1996. Want some comparisons of the level of violence and injury during robberies? Go through Lance K. Stell's “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring, 2004. Then you can put those, plus dozens of others, together to make a fairly definitive statement, such as
"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."
 
As far as studies - like I said before - use Google scholar and you can get many of the original articles or go to the library - rather than pecking at each other. So go do that rather than say blah, blah, blah about studies. If someone cites a study that you don't like - go look it up.
Click to expand...

Glenn, the problem with that is that someone can say ANYTHING and then challenge those who disagree to "go look it up".

I realize that some of you on here may be academicians but you know, so what, this isn't a classroom and if you want to be taken seriously then we dumb folk need to know where it is coming from with the 100 words or less variety. That is the nature of these boards. Of course, you may refuse and I can throw the BS flag too.

I for one would like to know what these studies say and don't have time to read hundreds of pages of dry formulae. Just give me the cliff notes version in shirtsleeve English and I'll be happy.

I do like reading your posts:)
 
No, as no study (AFAIK) speaks directly to this.
Click to expand...

Thank you -- that's what I needed to know.

Did anyone address the question of whether victim injuries tend to happen before or after the intended victim begins to resist?

pax
 
Did anyone address the question of whether victim injuries tend to happen before or after the intended victim begins to resist?
Click to expand...
That's a very good question. Offhand, I recall reading several incidents where the victim began resisting only after being injured. A recent Ayoob file covered a case where a photographer was shot in the head before he offered resistance. He was eventually able to overcome his attacker using his own handgun. It would be interesting to see if there are any studies that break out the injuries that way.
David Armstrong said:
Try Cook and Ludwig's report to the National Institute of Justice, 1997, summarized in the Research in Brief "Guns In America: National Survey on Private ownership and Use of Firearms." You want research on why criminals use violence in robberies and such? Read Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth “Crimes of Convenience” 1996. Want some comparisons of the level of violence and injury during robberies? Go through Lance K. Stell's “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring, 2004. Then you can put those, plus dozens of others, together...
Click to expand...

Cook & Ludwig are widely noted for having an anti-gun bias--among other things they've suggested that statistics support the gun manufacturers lawsuits. It's not surprising that they would cast firearm usage in a negative light. That's not to say that their research should be dismissed, only that it needs to be carefully considered given the authors' bias.

I managed to find the "Crimes of Convenience" article you're using to support your view. I see that it contains the results of interviews with convicted robbers indicating that they advised compliance to avoid injury. I can certainly see why a criminal would advise compliance...

There is also this somewhat vague comment: "Armed clerks are more likely to be hurt if the robber already has the draw on them." I would read this to mean that drawing against a drawn gun is more likely to result in your injury than drawing against a robber that does not have a gun drawn. That seems pretty reasonable, but it doesn't address whether or not that's less likely to result in injury than compliance would.

In fact the article also says: "A majority of the robbers said some criminals truly enjoy hurting people." and "A number of inmates, as well as guards and wardens, said that prisoners over age thirty are afraid of many of the younger convicts because of their disrespect for human life. These same prisoners concluded that gratuitous violence is more likely to be a tool of the younger population." That seems to indicate that there's a good chance of being hurt simply because the criminal (particularly a young criminal) wishes to hurt someone.

To really answer the question one would need to know which is more common, the "criminal who truly enjoys hurting people" or being injured while resisting the crime using a firearm. The article doesn't provide that information.

The article also includes a quote that says resistance increases the chance of being killed. The quote comes from a work by Franklin E. Zimring and James Zuehl, noted anti-gun writers. Zimring has been known to "doctor" his statistics by omitting relevant categories from his research to support his views. The result in one case was a figure that under-represented the incidence of lawful self-defense by a factor of 27.

Furthermore the quoted statistics from the Zimring & Zuehl work "Victim Injury and Death in Urban Robbery: A Chicago Study" do not differentiate between armed or unarmed resistance. Grouping unarmed resistance together with armed resistance is going to skew the result as Kleck's data clearly shows. In addition the stats do not address the issue of whether the resistance began before or after the robber began the attempt to injure/kill the victim. As pointed out above, in some cases the victim doesn't resist until the robber turns violent.

Not only are these statistics from Z & Z the product of biased researchers but even so they do not provide sufficient information to support the contention that compliance is statistically better than resisting with a firearm against a criminal armed with a firearm.

I don't think that it's wise to use the opinions and "research results" of noted anti-gunners to support a strategy of non-compliance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top