Are we discussing armed assault or are we discussing robbery? The two are very different.
I was thinking of armed robbery as an armed assault, although that is probably not a correct legal definition.
Robbery and Armed/Aggravated Robbery aren't the same thing. UCR lumps both types of Robbery together and we can assume that Armed/Aggravated Robberies are probably not the majority. We can also assume that most Robberies that are committed without the use of a weapon aren't likely to end up in a Murder. So that takes out a huge part of that 401,326.
988 of them resulted in a murder... But how many of them resulted in an injury to the victim? Just because it didn't result in a Murder doesn't mean the victim wasn't hurt. That makes the 988 number MUCH higher as well.
Peetzakiller's question had to do with whether or not
MOST robberies resulted in murder. The data cited by Mr Armstong seems to definitively answer that question.
The OP's question (if I understand correctly) centered on whether or not it is tactically sound to resist an
armed robbery with force, particularly if the firearm is actually in contact with the victim.
To answer the OP's question, it may be reasonable to suggest we disregard the outcomes of incidents in which the robber was not armed with a firearm.
It is also reasonable to consider robberies that resulted in injuries, rather than limit our consideration to those incidents that resulted in murder.
Now the question becomes: How many ARMED robberies result in injury or death to the victim?
I think it is safe to say that MOST robberies don't end in murder - but a MUCH higher proportion of armed robberies result in injury or death.
Having said that, if I'm being robbed, regardless of whether I see a weapon or not, I'm no longer inclined to wait to find out if this
particular incident will result in injury or death.
I say "no longer inclined" because the only time I was robbed at gun-point (many years ago), I was unarmed and froze and gave it up (all $3). In this incident, the firearm was not in contact with my body. The robbers were in a car and had stopped me in a cross-walk (on a crowded street in broad daylight).
Although I didn't get shot, in retrospect I think I would have been smarter to take evasive action. Had I been armed, I think evasive action coupled with defensive ability would have presented better odds for avoiding injury or death than "stand and deliver".
In a recent news story (which I can't cite or link because I can't remember where I saw it) - a man was stuck up at gun-point at a gas station. The gun was in contact with his head and the BG stated that he was going to kill him. The victim was able to sweep the gun aside while drawing and firing his own, thus ending the threat and saving his life. My point for this unsubstantiated story is that if a BG has a gun to MY head, my assumption is that I WILL die, and have little to loose by taking action rather than surrendering.
That, of course, is a very personal decision that must be made based on the circumstances and gut sense.
