David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...
http://newsok.com/article/3270704
http://newsok.com/article/3270704
John, I've done that before in these discussions. If you didn't check them then, why should I dig them back up now for you not to check again?Please provide a link or other verifiable citation.
No. I do not think they should be dismissed at all. I do think they should be considered and used to help formulate a response. I also think they should be looked at in their entirety, as the dynamics do change significantly when one looks at all incidents as opposed to the narrower gun incidents.Your argument is that the statistics I quoted should be dismissed because they include many situations that are more favorable to the defender than the scenario described here.
For example, one should know that robbers rarely injure their victims if they cooperate. One should also understand that if the BG has not started shooting during the incident it is a pretty good indicator that he is not going to shoot barring some change in the situation.
Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...
It is absolutely ridiculous to think that man can fly in a machine that weighs several tons, yet it happens regularly. What is ridiculous has no bearing on what the facts are.The comment of "robbers rarely hurt their victims" and it being the rationale to just sit there and comply is ridiculous.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, any time the police point a gun at a BG and deman he surrender they are engaging in a gunfight? Somehow, that doesn't make a ton of sense to me.The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...
Exactly. Either response can be good, either response can be bad. Assessing the realities of the situation and making a decision based on what seems to lead to the best outcome is the way to play it.I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.
The easiest place to start is the Uniform Crime Reports.David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.
What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.I will not tolerate intimidation, terrorism or bullying from anyone.
What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.
Yes.Unusual and out of the norm?
What is on the news has little bearing on how common or uncommon an event is. For example, in 2007 the UCR lists 445,125 robberies in the U.S. and 16,929 murders and non-negligent manslaughters. Even if one assumed all murders were the result of robberies, that would be one in about 26. It's not that high, of course, and IIRC the actual number is closer to 1 out of 400, which I think everyone would agree is out of the norm.Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir.
Then you have obviously missed the point, as nowhere do I say one should trust the criminal for much of anything.The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
Again we see a basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works. If you are having success without killing, why change your M.O. to make it harder/worse on you?You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there.
No, that is not a fact. Criminals tend to find something that works and stick with it. There is some escalation at times, just as there is some de-escalation, but the norm again is to repeat what works.It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.
Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!
American_Heritage_Dictionary said:ter·ror·ism
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.