Update on Burger King shooting
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
skydiver3346
New member
Exactly what BillCA said:
Good points you make BillCA,
You just don't have any idea whatsoever, what the bad guy is going to do to you after you cooperate. Used to be, people robbed you and ran away. Now, for some unknown reason, they shoot you after and/or before robbing you. What the hell is going on with society? No respect for authority and more importantly, no respect for human life.....
Bottom line: Know in you mind way ahead of time what you will do if this ever happens to you and/or your family. Have a plan and be ready to react to that plan (if at all possible at the time).
Good points you make BillCA,
You just don't have any idea whatsoever, what the bad guy is going to do to you after you cooperate. Used to be, people robbed you and ran away. Now, for some unknown reason, they shoot you after and/or before robbing you. What the hell is going on with society? No respect for authority and more importantly, no respect for human life.....
Bottom line: Know in you mind way ahead of time what you will do if this ever happens to you and/or your family. Have a plan and be ready to react to that plan (if at all possible at the time).
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Bill,
This is exactly what I have been learning about as well. In the clips I provided in my post above(which nobody has commented on
) one of the speakers talks about the "gentlepersons agreement" that used to be true during a robbery. You give me the money and I don't hurt you. Now that has changed and is not so true. I read a study that 7/11 commissioned where they interviewed convicted armed robbers in jail and a full 1/3 of them said they would harm their victim because "they liked to do it". That is not an insignificant number.
Used to be that LE always told you to "comply, don't resist, and give up the money" and that was good advice. Why? Because most citizens are not armed and an unarmed citizen trying to resist an armed BG is a recipe for disaster!
But now more and more citizens are armed and it seems the BGs are getting more violent. Does that old advice still make sense? Dr. Kleck says it may not. I think we might need a new paradigm here and I would like hear what other think about that.
This is exactly what I have been learning about as well. In the clips I provided in my post above(which nobody has commented on
) one of the speakers talks about the "gentlepersons agreement" that used to be true during a robbery. You give me the money and I don't hurt you. Now that has changed and is not so true. I read a study that 7/11 commissioned where they interviewed convicted armed robbers in jail and a full 1/3 of them said they would harm their victim because "they liked to do it". That is not an insignificant number.Used to be that LE always told you to "comply, don't resist, and give up the money" and that was good advice. Why? Because most citizens are not armed and an unarmed citizen trying to resist an armed BG is a recipe for disaster!
But now more and more citizens are armed and it seems the BGs are getting more violent. Does that old advice still make sense? Dr. Kleck says it may not. I think we might need a new paradigm here and I would like hear what other think about that.
Last edited:
David Armstrong
Moderator
It is so. There is a large amount of research out there on this subject, and it is overwhelming in its agreement. More people should look at the research on an issue instead of making decisions based on what the 6:00 news puts out there.
And for each of those cases where the victim cooperated and got shot, one can find hundreds of cases where the victim cooperated and was not shot.
I've never seen a study that indicated that, and certainly national numbers don't reflect that. Can you direct me to an article with that information?
Not a problem. We know what DOES NOT trigger the robber ordinarily, and that is compliance and cooperation. I would suggest trying to fight with the robber has a high chance of "triggering" him.
One does not give up any chance by initially cooperating, one maximizes the chance that there will be no other problem. If other problems develop, one can always up the response. What makes you think your chances get better if you turn a robbery into a gunfight?
David Armstrong
Moderator
The violence level in robberies is lower than it has been in the past, not higher.
That is still what LE tells you, and for a very good reason...it has the greatest chance of avoiding injury to people.
Thus we see the problem. "It seems the BGs are getting more violent." Instead of "it seems," why don't we take a moment and actually look at the data that is available? Why not try to find out what the facts are instead of tossing around bad information? The violent crime rate in this country has gone done pretty steadily for over a decade now, not gotten worse. The BGs are not getting more violent, they are getting less violent.
Statistics and averages
It's all well and good to look at statistics. Trend analysis is a useful tool. Statistical analysis plays into Operational Risk Management, which is used by military, airlines, and other potentially risky industries.
However, probabilities are only probabilities, not certainties. It's safer to prepare for worst case, and to always look for potential advantages in any actual confrontation.
Knowing the statistics can help in interpreting a situation, but should not lead to blind assumptions. The only "statistic" that will matter to me, in the end, is the one that derives from my individual case, in that moment.
It's all well and good to look at statistics. Trend analysis is a useful tool. Statistical analysis plays into Operational Risk Management, which is used by military, airlines, and other potentially risky industries.
However, probabilities are only probabilities, not certainties. It's safer to prepare for worst case, and to always look for potential advantages in any actual confrontation.
Knowing the statistics can help in interpreting a situation, but should not lead to blind assumptions. The only "statistic" that will matter to me, in the end, is the one that derives from my individual case, in that moment.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
David Armstrong said:
I have looked about and found out what Dr. Kleck has produced. What studies have you done? Are they published? I think Dr. Kleck has done so. Why not comment on what he has said?
David Armstrong said:
And again a noted criminologist says otherwise. Is he wrong? Please explain.
David Armstrong said:
Maybe, maybe not. Once you gain an advantage in such a dynamic high stakes experience perhaps you should use it or certainly not relinquish it. You may not have another chance.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
MLeake said:
Yes it may be if you look at them in context. What I don't think is helpful is just looking at raw statistics and then extrapolating them without study.
MLeake said:
That is correct and of course you have to look beyond just statistical probability and look at how high the stakes are for you.
Last edited:
The same old David, the slink and hide king of TFL. The only persons reactions that can be anticipated, and controlled are your own.
We the actual realists do not advocate "Trying to fight with him" but killing him!
That is what works. A nice retired old chap, same age as I, when two young misguided, non working, 21 year old friends attempted to push him into the wash room, after he had given up his cash, brandishing Revolvers, he drew his CCW .45, and shot them both! He was facing them in the open!
I think the Police replaced his rounds, cleaned his Colt 45ACP, gave it back to him? Well it was Florida don't you know.
David your philosophy of never fighting is not everybody's, especially on this Memorial Day thank goodness, or we would be speaking Japanese. In my case, German.
Perhaps the only advantage you'll get in this situation is shooting at him first. It is possible that you waiting to see if he elevates the situation ends in him shooting you. Because after you comply, he decides to shoot you point blank. Well the only hint you have of the situation elevating is him raising his gun to your face and BOOM.
But how could this have happened? You complied, so statistics state he should let you go with a warm hand shake? Give me a break. Shoot first, that is your advantage in almost all situations I can think of. Let the cops do the apprehending, I plan on going home to my wife at the end of the day.
Sorry for the BG, but this means as soon as I can draw and shoot him first, I will.
A few members here keep repeating that statistics show if you comply you'll be released unharmed. In that case just leave your gun at home. If all you need to do is comply then there is no reason to have the gun on you.
It is too bad the GG got hit. At least he survived. Kind of a fact of guns though, if your around one you've got a chance to get shot. Take the BG's gun out of the picture. After all, your not going to shoot yourself with your gun, your going to get shot with his gun. Better put it, and him, out of service.
But how could this have happened? You complied, so statistics state he should let you go with a warm hand shake? Give me a break. Shoot first, that is your advantage in almost all situations I can think of. Let the cops do the apprehending, I plan on going home to my wife at the end of the day.
Sorry for the BG, but this means as soon as I can draw and shoot him first, I will.
A few members here keep repeating that statistics show if you comply you'll be released unharmed. In that case just leave your gun at home. If all you need to do is comply then there is no reason to have the gun on you.
It is too bad the GG got hit. At least he survived. Kind of a fact of guns though, if your around one you've got a chance to get shot. Take the BG's gun out of the picture. After all, your not going to shoot yourself with your gun, your going to get shot with his gun. Better put it, and him, out of service.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Because, at Pax's request, I am not gong to get into a big discussion of dueling research findings. I will point out that Kleck's study is the ONLY study that has come to that conclusion, and Kleck's work does not reflect gun response versus gun-wielding bad guys. Gun response versus non-gun bad guys is highly successful. Gun response against gun-wielding bad guys, not so successful and the injury severity goes up.
No, he is not wrong, he is discussing something different.
David Armstrong
Moderator
The same old Brit, tossing out personal insults and attacks rather than responding to the facts.
Others reactions can be anticipated. We do it all the time, in all sorts of other situations. Putting a gun into the mix does not change that. As for realism, "killing him" is a nice thought, but not very realistic. Realism is that you do have a fight.
Brit, my philosophy is not and never has been never fighting, and for you to continue to present it as such is quite dishonest on your part.
David ~
If you have data, produce it.
Don't do your standard trick of announcing, "The research overwhelmingly shows..." and then fail to provide any links whatsoever to anything meaningful, while denigrating what everyone else says. (That trick, of course, is what got my dander up before -- and will again, if you go that route.)
To be clear: provide the data itself, or a reasonable synopsis of it, along with an online link of some sort -- not an inaccessible offline reference that would take everyone weeks to hunt down for themselves, if they ever could.
pax
If you have data, produce it.
Don't do your standard trick of announcing, "The research overwhelmingly shows..." and then fail to provide any links whatsoever to anything meaningful, while denigrating what everyone else says. (That trick, of course, is what got my dander up before -- and will again, if you go that route.)
To be clear: provide the data itself, or a reasonable synopsis of it, along with an online link of some sort -- not an inaccessible offline reference that would take everyone weeks to hunt down for themselves, if they ever could.
pax
David Armstrong
Moderator
So, do you think getting into a gunfight makes it more likely you will go home or less likely you will go home when compared to not getting into a gunfight?
David Armstrong
Moderator
All right, let's get this clear....you want me to post about 200 pages of data, survey results, and findings, here on TFL, in the tactics forum. Is that correct? Will TFL be responsible for copyright clearance? I'm not sure that you actually understand what you are asking for. And it doesn't take weeks to hunt down off-line data, it takes a trip to your library and a request for an inter-library loan if it is not on the shelf.
I have provided multiple sources for my data in the past, and i will do so again. The fact that much research is not published on line does not in any way reduce the value or quality of that research.
Last edited:
David ~
You can summarize, with a link. That is, I believe, acceptable even to the most stringent of copyright standards.
No, you have not.
As an example: "Go read Ayoob's books" is not the same thing as, "On page 68 of In the Gravest Extreme, Ayoob wrote, '...'"
Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.
(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway. What you've done is more like this: "Go read every book ever categorized within XXX.xx of the Dewey Decimal System, then we can talk.")
pax
You can summarize, with a link. That is, I believe, acceptable even to the most stringent of copyright standards.
No, you have not.
As an example: "Go read Ayoob's books" is not the same thing as, "On page 68 of In the Gravest Extreme, Ayoob wrote, '...'"
Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.
(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway. What you've done is more like this: "Go read every book ever categorized within XXX.xx of the Dewey Decimal System, then we can talk.")
pax
- Status