active compliance more likely to get you killed?

[Double Naught Spy]

Back around 2002, there was a documentary on Discover that noted FBI stats saying that compliance worked about 87% of the time. Of course, compliance worked in those cases where murder and rape were not the goals of the attacker. The data focussed on robberies. In about 13% of the cases where folks complied, they still got harmed or killed.

So compliance isn't a bad strategy...so long as you know in advance what the bad guy is going to do (and you can't believe what he tells you, so you have to be psychic).

I wholeheartedly believe in complying so long as it is advantageous to my situation and not complying when it isn't.

Often, these discussions are very bipolar, like most of this one, where the options are comply or resist in some sort of confrontational manner. There is a third option in many situations, flight.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I wholeheartedly believe in complying so long as it is advantageous to my situation and not complying when it isn't.

That's about all there is to this argument. Well stated. Of course, Double N - we can discuss one's situation - and that devolves into motivation and goals and off we go again.

Mine is a reasonable chance to take an action to preserve me and mine.

We are just going in circles now.

 

[pax]

Often, these discussions are very bipolar, like most of this one, where the options are comply or resist in some sort of confrontational manner. There is a third option in many situations, flight.

Or a fourth, resist in a non-confrontational manner (eg, talk your way out of it, de-escalate, verbal judo...)

pax

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Or some combination of 1,2, and 4?
http://www.tv.com/video/15055/dances-with-wolves?o=tv&tag=show_summary;video;thumb

Of course, clip is not TC (tactically correct) and probably has some legal issues...

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Mine is a reasonable chance to take an action to preserve me and mine. We are just going in circles now.

I think what some may want to discuss is the criteria for making that decision but maybe that is another thread. Kathy gave some good ones before.

 

[David Armstrong]

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

Again, not directly, but general review of what the BGs themselvs say is that they tend to avoid violence as long as the victim is compliant.

 

[David Armstrong]

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.

Sigh. And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time. If you don't like the results or disagree with the findings, then just talk about how the researchers themselves are bad. Yet I don't see you using the same set of standards for those "research results" that you agree with, even though they are from noted pro-gunners. Do you think it's wise to use the opinions and "research results" from noted pr-gunners to support a strategy of gun use? Now that the hypocrisy has been fully exposed, can we get back to discussing the issues without this silly "cite your study" talk? It's not going to matter either way, and tends to distract from the issue at hand.

I think that's the main difference between many academics and many others. The academics tend to hold both sides up to the same standards and recognize that both sides have biases and issues For example, in our previous discussion, I pointed out that the Kleck info was somewhat deceptive just as the "43 times more likely" stuff of Zimring was.

So please, from this point forward, don't ask for anymore sources from me unless you agree to read them and accept or reject them on the same criteria you use for those that support your personal position.

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.

It does no such thing. It indicates there is a chance of being hurt, and the chance is higher with younger criminals. It indicates nothing about how good the chance is.

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.

You mean just like Kleck did when he did not differentiate between unarmed and armed BGs? Or BGs armed with guns and those armed with other instruments?

Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance, as Double Naught Spy pointed out. There is a reason virtually every LE agency tells its officers to comply during armed robberies as the default option. For most crimes and in most sitauations, compliance is the way to bet. That doesn't mean you don't hedge your bets or change your strategy when a new card comes up. But the smart money is going to bet on compliance to start the game.

 

[BillCA]

The problem I have with the doctrine of compliance is that it makes a good sound bite, but makes for a lousy strategy.

Too many people buy into this doctrine as the sole strategy for every event. Survivors are often shocked and angry about their injuries, saying "I did just what they asked, just what you're supposed to do!"

The problem, of course, is that the criminals make up their own rules as they go. Sure, many will be satisfied to get your wallet or the contents of the register. But a significant number will not be satisfied. Some get "drunk" on the power they suddenly have over people and may get violent. Others are predisposed to violence and use it for their own gain, not caring about the injuries they inflict.

As PAX eloquently stated, there are limits to compliance. Being told to kneel down, being told to get into a car, letting yourself be led into a vault/freezer/back-room are all bad signs. When doing nothing is likely to get you killed, then doing anything is likely to increase your odds for survival.

As potential victims, our problem is that we are not clairvoyant. We cannot predict what our opponent intends to do. He may be content to get a wallet, even with only $5 or $10. But he may also decide that you deserve a beating for not being worth robbing.

The best policy may be to comply initially, but be prepared to use lethal force at the first sign that your opponent has decided that your compliance isn't enough.

 

[grymster2007]

There’s no pat answer to this and individual circumstances should dictate behavior. Just remember there are no guarantees. Know your weaknesses, your strengths and be a quick study in assessing same for your attacker. Try and understand the attacker’s motivation. If it’s clear they simply want your money; give it to them and walk away alive. If instinct tells you they want more; might be time to formulate another plan.

I find the concept of compliance with an armed assailant roughly akin to street fighting. Each fight is different, each opponent different. Success (survival) may sometimes be found in compliance (this guy’s beating me down but good and I have no chance other than to stop resisting and that may be just what he’s looking for) or, instinct tells you he will beat you to death, so while you feign compliance, you look to exploit some opportunity (there are always opportunities) and you roll the dice to turn the tables. What have you to lose? Just be sure to try and leverage your strengths, while exploiting their weaknesses.

Circumstances dictate exceptions, but for the most part I don’t think a female should comply with going anywhere with an attacker. Kick, bite, pull hair, whatever it takes, but you’re probably better off ending the event where you are. Might be better to be shot to death than suffer untold torture at the hands of a sicko.

 

[JohnKSa]

And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time.

I must admit that your earlier reticence to provide citations makes a lot more sense in light of this comment. It's an interesting perspective--"I don't want to cite my source because someone might demonstrate that the source is flawed."

I guess that makes sense if your goal is solely to win the argument. If, on the other hand, the goal is to provide sound advice based on hard evidence then it's hardly a waste of time to actually examine and discuss the evidence.

If you don't like the results or disagree with the findings, then just talk about how the researchers themselves are bad.

Again, this seems to be spoken from the standpoint of someone whose main motivation is to win an argument. If the goal is to inform then it's very important to understand the source of the "information" being used. An anti-gun researcher is unlikely to provide data that directly contradicts his views--and even if he tries to be objective it's likely that the results are still going to be somewhat skewed. As I pointed out in my last post, it doesn't mean you dismiss the study results, only that you take their source into account. That makes it all the more important to study the study, as it were, to make sure there are no hidden surprises like the under-representation I mentioned.

It makes it more important to actually see the actual data rather than just the hashed over conclusions provided by the "researcher".

Yet I don't see you using the same set of standards for those "research results" that you agree with, even though they are from noted pro-gunners.

I made no secret of my sources and if anyone here doesn't know that Kleck is considered pro-gun then it would greatly surprise me. I set exactly the same standards for my sources as for yours--the difference is that because Kleck provides hard numbers instead of just hashed over paraphrases or summaries it makes it possible to make rational assessments of his data, just as you have demonstrated.

You mean just like Kleck did when he did not differentiate between unarmed and armed BGs? Or BGs armed with guns and those armed with other instruments?

Exactly, I hoped you would point that out--it's ironic that you did so in a post where you accused me of setting a double standard.

Since it's clear that you understand the concept (of unarmed vs armed) when applied to Kleck's data it's a bit disturbing that you cited an article that makes exactly the same failure to differentiate between the two categories but you chose not to point out the problem in this case because the researcher supported your position. Again, that seems to indicate that winning the argument takes precedent over providing information to allow people to make their own informed decisions.

Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance, as Double Naught Spy pointed out.

I believe you will agree that, as quoted, the data indicates that while complying is likely to get you out of the situation uninjured, it does not indicate that compliance is the BEST strategy. In the situations covered, compliance works 87% of the time but the point is that if there's a strategy that is more likely to get you out uninjured (for example, one that works 93% of the time) then that's a better strategy. Not to say that compliance is a bad strategy since it clearly works most of the time, just that perhaps there's a better one that will work even more often.

Again, that's exactly why I think it's important to see the actual data.

Just to be clear, I agree that a person needs to evaluate the particular situation and determine a reasonable strategy based on the circumstances realizing that as the circumstances change the strategy may need to change too. It would be ridiculous to advise someone always to resist violent crime just as it is to advise someone always to comply with an armed criminal. In either case, depending on the situation, that could be exactly the wrong response.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance, as Double Naught Spy pointed out.

The FBI data are NOT pro-compliance. They aren't anti-compliance. They are just data in which a pattern was observed. That pattern is an interpretation in which a value as been assigned. You are calling it "pro-compliance." It depends on your view.

Not addressed by the statistic I cited (87% success in compliance) is that every situation IS mutually exclusive and you have no way of knowing if, and assuming the pattern holds, you will fall into the 13% or the 87%. For me, a 13% chance is a pretty high chance for getting harmed. That is why I said I would only comply so long as it is beneficial to me. If I had a 13% chance for something beneficial, such as the lottery, I would play EVERYDAY.

 

[David Armstrong]

The FBI data are NOT pro-compliance. They aren't anti-compliance. They are just data in which a pattern was observed.

We will disagree. When someone points out that compliance works the huge majority of the time, it tends to indicate compliance works. That is pro- enough for me, although I do recognize and agree that it should not be considered as advocating that something be done, only that a favorable result occurs most of the time.

Not addressed by the statistic I cited (87% success in compliance) is that every situation IS mutually exclusive and you have no way of knowing if, and assuming the pattern holds, you will fall into the 13% or the 87%.

Of course. That is why I said it is the best bet, but not the only bet.

That is why I said I would only comply so long as it is beneficial to me.

I'm in full agreement. Compliance is the first choice, not the only choice, and your response should be based on what you perceive as offering you the least chance of loss.

 

[New_Pollution1086]

i think (like most of you) it is purely dependent on the situation. If I had a ccw and a gun asked for my wallet with his gun already out i might just toss him my wallet and ask him to leave. if i feel the wallet is not all he wants, the gun comes out.

T

 

[David Armstrong]

It's an interesting perspective--"I don't want to cite my source because someone might demonstrate that the source is flawed."

That is an interesting perspective. What is also quite interesting is that it has nothing to do with anything I have said.

If, on the other hand, the goal is to provide sound advice based on hard evidence then it's hardly a waste of time to actually examine and discuss the evidence.

But it is a waste of time if the other party is unwilling to examine the evidence, or if the other party is going to use different standards for the evidence based on whether or not they agree with the points being made.

Again, this seems to be spoken from the standpoint of someone whose main motivation is to win an argument.

Well, I guess we can play mind-reader and start ascribing motives and such to people, or we can discuss the issues themselves. I know which I prefer. Of course, anytime one wants to know another's motives they can just ask. Or perhaps it is easier to ascribe motives based on imagination than on reality.

It makes it more important to actually see the actual data rather than just the hashed over conclusions provided by the "researcher".

I agree. So, when you have actually read the material suggested and looked at the information, get back with me and we'll discuss it. Until you have done so, however, it is rather pointless for you (or anyone, myself included) to try to address the subject from a position of knowledge or understanding.

I made no secret of my sources and if anyone here doesn't know that Kleck is considered pro-gun then it would greatly surprise me.

Just as I would be surprised if anyone who is familiar with the research doesn't know the biases of most of the parties in the game. If they don't, then perhaps they need to study things a bit more so the discussion can be conducted on a more reasoned and less emotional level. But again, if you think that Klecks's work is OK to use as evidence given his bias you should agree that others are OK even given their bias.

the difference is that because Kleck provides hard numbers instead of just hashed over paraphrases or summaries it makes it possible to make rational assessments of his data, just as you have demonstrated.

And when there are rational assessments that indicate severe flaws in the conclusions being offered, it is important to point out those flaws.

Since it's clear that you understand the concept (of unarmed vs armed) when applied to Kleck's data it's a bit disturbing that you cited an article that makes exactly the same failure to differentiate between the two categories but you chose not to point out the problem in this case because the researcher supported your position.

You might note that I suggested that people go and read the article(s) itself to learn more about whatever is being discussed in that article. If they do that they can note all of these issues. Again, it seems somewhat hypocritical to me for you to suggest I should have a duty to do something that you have not done yourself in the same situation. Ummm, you didn't point out the failure to differentiate in Kleck's work and discuss why that makes it suspect in the context it was being used, did you?? Or did I just miss it? Whether or not the research supports my position is irrelevant to me when looking at various studies. I'm the one that keeps suggesting folks read a lot of different material on the subject and be good consumers of research, as opposed to looking at one summary of one study that supports the position you already have.

I believe you will agree that, as quoted, the data indicates that while complying is likely to get you out of the situation uninjured, it does not indicate that compliance is the BEST strategy.

Just as I have never said compliance is the BEST strategy. I have said compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position. I have always said the best strategy is the one that will allow the greatest retention of resources for you. Don't understand why that gets folks so excited.

Not to say that compliance is a bad strategy since it clearly works most of the time,

And if it works most of the time that should be the primary strategy. That is why virtually every LE agency instructs their officers to use it as the primary strategy.

just that perhaps there's a better one that will work even more often.

If you would care to cite a study that indicates that I'll be glad to look at it. Personally, I've been doing research in this area for a long time and have never found anything to suggest that, at least as it relates to robbery.

 

[Hondo11]

Please explain the part about "every LE agency instructs their officers to use compliance as the primary strategy." I'm confused as I have never heard of that.

 

[David Armstrong]

Please explain the part about "every LE agency instructs their officers to use compliance as the primary strategy." I'm confused as I have never heard of that.

It was virtually every, not every, as I am sure there are some that don't, even though I've not run across them. The typical LE agency instructions for off-duty officers in armed robberies is to observe and not take action unless they feel that someone's life is in danger or grave injury will result or there are some other special conditions. The reasoning is that they don't want the officer to escalate the situation or make it worse.

 

[Hondo11]

Okay. I thought you were saying that if an officer himself/herself was being robbed, their policy was that compliance was the primary course of action. I misunderstood.

Do you think that it's possible that the policy of which you speak is primarily (or at least heavily) motivated by liability mitigation and not necessarily because the admins believe that compliance is the safest course of action?

Personally, I have never seen that in an agency's general orders. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I never saw it in the major metro area in which I worked when I was LE. The only policies that I have seen that are remotely close to what you're talking about is the one guiding off-duty officers who witness a crime in progress. That's nowhere near a policy instructing off-duty officer to use compliance as the primary course of action.

To clarify... I think you are using an apple to make a case for oranges. A policy guiding off-duty officers regarding intervening in a crime can't be used to bolster an argument for "compliance". "Not intervening" is NOT the same thing as "compliance"...especially not in the context of this thread.

Intervening would be an off-duty officer who witnesses a crime happening to OTHER PEOPLE. For the same person to "comply", the crime would have to be happening to THE OFF-DUTY OFFICER. And if the crime is happening to HIM, then departmental policy doesn't apply as he is acting in the defense of his "private" person...in the capacity of any other Joe on the street.

They are two different things. Altogether different. Using one to bolster the other is lazy and cheap in my opinion.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The FBI data are NOT pro-compliance. They aren't anti-compliance. They are just data in which a pattern was observed.

We will disagree. When someone points out that compliance works the huge majority of the time, it tends to indicate compliance works. That is pro- enough for me, although I do recognize and agree that it should not be considered as advocating that something be done, only that a favorable result occurs most of the time.

Yes, but you are assigning a value to an interpretation. Data are just data, nothing more. Whether or not you agree with it is moot. What you are failing to realize is that YOU have assigned the pro-compliance value to the data.

If we take the data as a pattern that continues to work today, then knowing that 1 in every 8 robbery type events is going to result in the compliant person being harmed or killed is not a very good safety margin, is it?

Yes, compliance works most of the time, unless the bad guys are just plain wanting to hurt you or just decide on a whim to hurt you. Then compliance sucks.

In the statistical realm, how do you know if you are going to be the 1 of 8 or one of the 7 or 8?

Funny thing about compliance working so well. The reason why it works so well much of the time is that the bad guys often have no intent on hurting people in the first place. So this gives the false impression that compliance is a much better thing than maybe it really is. There are a goodly number of "armed robberies" where the guns are fake, unloaded, or otherwise not functional. There are a goodly number of bank robberies where the gun is just stated to exist in a note, along with other threats such as bombs or chemical agents (that turn out to not exist at all).

What isn't going to happen is to have a statistic on the number of crimes where the robbers intend and have the ability to use violence on non-compliant people and look at the number of times people are or are not hurt during those robberies. That sort of data would be much more useful on determining the success of compliance and non-compliance.

 

[David Armstrong]

I thought you were saying that if an officer himself/herself was being robbed, their policy was that compliance was the primary course of action. I misunderstood.

If you are referencing a personal mugging, yes, I've seen a fair number that do suggest cooperate, but I was thinking more along the lines of store/business type robbery. Thanks for pointing out there are other aspects.

Do you think that it's possible that the policy of which you speak is primarily (or at least heavily) motivated by liability mitigation and not necessarily because the admins believe that compliance is the safest course of action?

It's possible, but I tend to doubt that as a major motive. After all, they do suggest intervention/action when it appears there is significant danger to life and limb. Most that I have talked to say it is a safety issue, both for the officer and the citizens involved, GG and BG. No need to start a gunfight when you don't have to.

The only policies that I have seen that are remotely close to what you're talking about is the one guiding off-duty officers who witness a crime in progress.

And what was that policy for off-duty officers?

Personally, I have never seen that in an agency's general orders. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I never saw it in the major metro area in which I worked when I was LE.

In another life that was an area in which I did a lot of consulting work, and I've seen some form of it many, many times. Off-duty, out of uniform, don't get involved, don't try to make an arrest, don't do anything to escalate the violence.

A policy guiding off-duty officers regarding intervening in a crime can't be used to bolster an argument for "compliance". "Not intervening" is NOT the same thing as "compliance"...especially not in the context of this thread.

We'll disagree. Is the officer working off-duty as a store employee? Is the officer a customer in the store? The point is that the police says don't make it worse, go along until/unless it goes beyond the simple armed robbery stage. Whether you call that non-intervention or compliance, it works out much the same.

And if the crime is happening to HIM, then departmental policy doesn't apply as he is acting in the defense of his "private" person.

Sorry, but if there is a policy regarding the action it does apply to him in his private person role. That is the beauty of policy...it usually gets to apply any time the policy says it applies.

They are two different things. Altogether different. Using one to bolster the other is lazy and cheap in my opinion.

They can be and often are the same thing. Exactly the same. Trying to say otherwise is stupid and ignorant in my opinion. Now, shall we continue to toss around insults based on opinion or get back to discussing the issue?

 

[Hondo11]

Apple:

Officer is off-duty and as he pulls into the bank parking lot, he sees what he believes to be a robbery going down. He is not affected directly by the threat/crime/criminal. The policy you're referring to (the one that I HAVE seen) usually directs officers not to intervene. Ie: Don't try to catch the guy, don't get in your personal vehicle and chase the guy, don't go into the store/bank and try to shoot it out. Don't make arrests for DWI while in your personal vehicle and off duty, etc, etc. DON'T INTERVENE. (Unless necessary to protect human life)

***This would be the "intervention" scenario.


Orange:

Officer is off-duty and is going to a movie with his wife. As they park their car, 2 POSs approach them a demand their money. I will not believe for an instant unless you SHOW that SPECIFIC policy, that any department has policy which states that THIS off-duty officer, in THIS situation, must consider compliance as the primary option.

It wouldn't matter in this case anyway. The guy is an off-duty officer, yes. By occupation. But he is not an off-duty officer in any other way. THIS situation is between 2 criminals and a MAN (just a citizen) and his wife.

***This would be the "compliance vs. non-compliance" scenario.


"Intervening vs. Not Intervening" is NOT the same as "Compliance vs. Non-Compliance." It's absurd for you to try to make them one and the same. They are fundamentaly different.


It's late and I have an early morning, so I'll end on that. And no insult intended. You've made your academic prowess well known to everyone in several different boards. I just expect better than an "Apple + Orange = Banana" argument.