Man stands up to thug, gets shot at 3 times

[Bill Mattocks]

Actually, a closer examination of the survey reveals that the greater majority of successful self-protective measures were resistance, both armed and unarmed, followed by running away. In fact, the category of "appeasement" is based on fewer than 10 samples within the particuar demographic. Again, the reliable message from the data-when one applies game theory to it-is that the best chance one has of survival is to resist-that does, in fact, include fleeing in instances where it is practicable-it may well not be. It apparently does not include, to any great degree, "giving up the wallet."

The survey only includes, as it says, those who claimed that they took self-protective action. The rest, including presumably those who gave up the wallet, etc, but did not consider that 'taking self-protective action' were not counted in this survey.

I'm stopping now. This is not productive.

 

[Gordon Nore]

I agree. I just don't agree that dying over a camera in a purely voluntary struggle is 'doing it right'. I'll bet my wife would agree as well. She'd be darned ticked at me if I came home all dead and stuff.

I quite agree. I don't want to armchair this event, but I think what you say makes a lot of sense, Bill. It's a question of, "Is this the hill you want to die on?"

I believe that I would go the distance to protect my family, the children I teach at school, or myself. Risking my life to protect a camcorder is a poor trade. Believing that doing so will deter this person or other criminals from trying to take my stuff tells me that AMC has been airing the Death Wish movies too much lately. It's delusional.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

The survey only includes, as it says, those who claimed that they took self-protective action. The rest, including presumably those who gave up the wallet, etc, but did not consider that 'taking self-protective action' were not counted in this survey.

I'm stopping now. This is not productive.

I can see why you'd be frustrated by this point, but I wouldn't at all call the thread as a whole "Not productive". I've been given a great deal to think about and assess here, and thank EVERYONE involved from all sides.

Good every now and then to reassess one's views. They may not change, or only change a little, but of what use are a person's convictions if they're never tested?

 

[elder999]

Furthermore, you called it a 'study'. It is not. It is a 'survey'. .

Actually, I called it a survey. Let's see what else I said:

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs compiles a National Crime Victimization Survey annually. From this survey it is possible to determine staitistically what the opportunity for success is in resisting various crimes such as rape, robbery, and assault. The survey clearly demonstrates that resisting a crime helps the suituation for the victim on an average of 63% of the time, and it only makes situations "worse 9.2% of the time.

You can find the survey here.

And I think I can stand by what I said. "Resisting a crime" helps 63% of the time, and only makes it "worse" 9.2% of the time-that's what the survey, compiled from over 300,000 samples, tells us-your equivocations about my "making that up," and later attempts at qualifying the "study" and its statistical data notwithstanding. Of course, it doesn't tell us what "helps" means, it doesn't tell us what "makes it worse" means, and it doesn't tell us what "appeasement or persuasion" mean, though we can all certainly hazard a guess.

Eh..I dont think its that easy. As a martial arts instructor what would you tell your students to do whan confronted by a man with a gun demanding their wallet? Give up the wallet or always go for the disarm..one of the riskiest "last ditch" techniques there is..because you "should always assume they are going to kill you"? Even if I had my pistol on me, the odds of beating a man to the shot when he is aiming at me and I still have to draw are not good. If I thought he was going to shoot me anyway I may have to just "go for it" but I would be looking for distraction options or runing options first.

Well, it is that simple-you've said as much yourself:

If I thought he was going to shoot me anyway I may have to just "go for it" but I would be looking for distraction options or runing options first.

I'd posit, that if he's pulled a gun on you, the only assumption to make is to think he's going to shoot you anyway. Of course, you might be wrong, and get shot for it, but odds are, statistically speaking, that you'd be right in making such an assumption.

Additionally, the original scenario isn't one in which the victim was confronted with an armed robber-he was violently attacked without a weapon, and responded accordingly, except, of course, that he didn't assess the initial threat, wasn't trained and wasn't armed-he also probably didn't assume that his assailant was armed, and act accordingly.

 

[kidswarrior]

I can see why you'd be frustrated by this point, but I wouldn't at all call the thread as a whole "Not productive". I've been given a great deal to think about and assess here, and thank EVERYONE involved from all sides.

Good every now and then to reassess one's views. They may not change, or only change a little, but of what use are a person's convictions if they're never tested?

Yes, I agree. :asian:

BTW, this guy was just on the local news. Held up the trousers to show multiple bullet holes in the legs, though as we know only one struck flesh, and that was a through and through - no bone or arteries.

 

[Archangel M]

I'd posit, that if he's pulled a gun on you, the only assumption to make is to think he's going to shoot you anyway. Of course, you might be wrong, and get shot for it, but odds are, statistically speaking, that you'd be right in making such an assumption.

So if you had no gun you would recommend going for the disarm during an armed robbery??

I would not. In the vast number of instances the armed robber leaves after getting the property.

 

[elder999]

So if you had no gun you would reccommend going for the disarm during an armed robbery??

I would not. In the vast number of instances the armed robber leaves after getting the property.

Only if you're convinced he's going to shoot you anyway.

 

[Archangel M]

Only if you're convinced he's going to shoot you anyway.

Isnt that already a forgone conclusion with the "always assume he is going to kill you" mindset???

 

[MJS]

My opinion is that the punk's punkiness is irrelevant. His fix is irrelevant. My watch, car, and money are irrelevant. All that is relevant is the threat, my response, and what response to this threat has the best chance of defending my life. I try to keep that uppermost in my decision tree.

In a nutshell, all of the material things, can be replaced, although replacing some may be a PITA. For me, I guess its just the fact that half the group is willing to fight back while the other half is willing to just hand over their belongings. Hey, I may walk away from the situation with just a bad memory of the event, I may get my rear kicked, and I may end up dead. Hopefully my response will pull me thru.

Ditto. I also heard what you said about me stating my opinion like it's the only 'right' way. Sorry, I know I do that, my bad. My opinion is not the only opinion, nor is it the only right way. It's just my way. It's right because it is mine - right for me, that is.

My way may not be the best for someone else either. Hopefully, given the fact that I really don't frequent potential problem places, such as bars, bad sections of town, and do my best to be aware of whats going on around me, hopefully I can minimize the odds of something bad happening.

Did and have, thanks!

Glad you liked it.

Oh, and one last thing - I have been thinking about it, and I think I may have isolated the key to the differences we have between our philosophies. It is our goals. My goal is simple - defense of my life, everything else is secondary. Yours appears to have added elements, such as defense against thuggery, standing up to injustice, and being generally more proactive in determining that the threat you face is best dealt with by force. It's like a tipping point - we have different reasons that engage the 'fight' part of 'fight or flight'. What do you think?

I think you're pretty much on the mark.

Just to clarify....like you, I do my best to assess the situation as well. A minor verbal exchange could probably be taken care of with the right words. It could escalate, but the times that its happened to me, nothing physical came of it. I just feel that if someone were to come at me with a weapon, they've now taken it to a life/death situation. Talking may work, but if the guy went so far as to pull a weapon, I just feel that the situation is best dealt with force instead. As I said above, that is just what works for me, so to speak. It may not be the answer for everyone.

 

[MJS]

There is a large difference between being cautious and "assuming someone is armed". I agree with Mr. Mattocks, we dont approach cars cars like we do because we are "assuming you are armed"...if I assumed that there would be a large caliber weapon pointing at you...we approach as we do as a precaution. Much like I dont put on a seatbelt assuming I am going to get into an auto accident.

But I'd imagine that you're still using caution and thinking that the worst may happen. After all, until you get to the car, you don't know if there're any weapons, who the people are, if there are warrants or if they just did an armed robbery in the next town over and are passing thru your town and you just happened to stop them. If they blew the clerk away at the store, you can probably bet they wouldn't think twice about blowing you away either.

When I would deal with the inmates, I assumed that they were always trying to pull one over on me. Almost like a game of cat and mouse...what can they get away with, without me seeing them. I would assume the worst, because at any time, I may do/say something to set them off, and now they take a swing at me. Unless I patted them down, I had no idea if they had drugs on them, or a shank.

 

[Archangel M]

But I'd imagine that you're still using caution and thinking that the worst may happen. After all, until you get to the car, you don't know if there're any weapons, who the people are, if there are warrants or if they just did an armed robbery in the next town over and are passing thru your town and you just happened to stop them. If they blew the clerk away at the store, you can probably bet they wouldn't think twice about blowing you away either.

Well..yes and no..all those possiblities are why we incorporate certain tactics and officer safety technques. I wouldnt say that I approach every car stop really thinking that the person "could have just killed someone". Id be a fidgity wreck with ulcers by now if I did that. I stick to my officer safety habits in the event that it does turn out to be true, but one has to balance caution with being able to function and try to hold off complancency all at the same time. When a cop first gets on the job he tends to think hes going to be shot at at any moment, as the years go by he becomes comfortable with ther "realities" of the street and knows the difference between using propper tactics and true danger...if hes not careful he may become complacent and think that nothing is ever going to happen to him. I try to keep a balance and pay attention to my "radar" and my gut feelings without becoming hypervigilant, which will burn you out. You cant be running around in Condition Orange all day on this job. I try for a solid yellow...bordering yellow/orange when on a call or stop.

 

[elder999]

Isnt that already a forgone conclusion with the "always assume he is going to kill you" mindset???

Remember, it was you who said:

Originally Posted by Archangel M
If I thought he was going to shoot me anyway I may have to just "go for it" but I would be looking for distraction options or runing options first

.

It has to go hand in hand with what response you believe you're capable of under the circumstances. This is no different than what you've said, however different it may seem. If I were placed in a position where it seemed the only option was compliance-more than one armed robber, say, possibly coupled with potential harm to someone else, like family members, or simply unable to resist due to distance or some other circumstance, I would have to comply- while assuming all along that my compliance would probably lead to my death.The only time I wouldn't resist, though, would be when that obviously could not help or simply could not be accomplished -"going for it" or not.

The compliance mentality is what gets staff at restaurants marched into coolers and executed. The compliance mentatlity is what often leads to the most gruesome of home invasions, and the compliance mentality is one of the factors that permitted 9/11 to happen. Obviously, the last was a paradigm shift for that particular crime (hijacking), but particular circumstances have to dictate what you do-not a set strategy based upon "if I give them what they want, they'll be satisfied with that, and leave me unharmed," when, in fact, you have little or no reason to believe it to be true. To allow this mentality to be the basis for your heiho, your strategy under the circumstances-to perform any sort of mental calculus based upon the value of your life being greater than that of what you're being robbed for, when, in fact, your life is already being threatened by virtue of the crime itself taking place-is not the martial way.

The simple fact is, though, that untrained and unarmed people can and do "go for it" against firearms successfully, almost every year. Such instances exist on video tape in the case of several convenience store robberies. The fact is, based upon what you yourself have said, since "in the vast number of instances the robber leaves after getting the property," "going for it" becomes a more viable option because, statistically-whatever else one assumes under the circumstances aside-the robber himself may well be less than likely, or less than prepared to fire.

 

[Archangel M]

Yes I said it, but I also stated that I would only do it if I seriously thought that the wallet wasnt going to be enough..not that I would always "go for it" because I was operating on an "assumption".

It still leaves the question...do you always "assume" that the stick-up man is going to kill you and attempt the disarm or do you hand the wallet over and assess if that was enough? You seem to be hedging the issue...Is it "wait and see" or is it go for the disarm everytime because you should assume you are going to be killed? I dont mean to harp on the issue, I know where you are coming from but the point of this whole post is the debate over if you should resist an armed robber or just hand over the property. Taking a blanket "always assume they are going to kill you" mindset is far to simplistic and results in foolish decisions. Keep in mind that this whole debate is separate from legal issues regarding the use of force. Of course a man pointing a gun at you is plenty "legal" reason to use deadly force, but that doesnt make it the best tactical choice. There are so many variables like number of assailants, range between parties, weapon in play, number of victims etc. that telling people that "going for it" vs. compliance and survival should be a primary strategy is not necessarialy wise.

If any martial arts instructor is teaching that disarm attempts in response to armed robbery is a "primary strategy" I would run..not walk to a different school.

What would YOU do if someone pointed a revolver at you and demanded YOUR wallet?

 

[elder999]

If any martial arts instructor is teaching that disarm attempts in response to armed robbery is a "primary strategy" I would run..not walk to a different school.

What would YOU do if someone pointed a revolver at you and demanded YOUR wallet?

30 years ago, as I have posted, someone brandished a knife, and I gave over my wallet, for all of the good that it did either of us. I'd dare to say, though, that under the circumstances, if he'd had a revolver instead of a knife, I'd have complied, and been shot for my trouble.

On the other hand, if someone pointed a revolver at me, it would depend upon all the variables you and I have made mention of, and more-I certainly can think of a variety of ones where I'd comply, but I also would be looking for an opportunity to resist, because I'd be assuming that I'd be killed. In fact, I once posted on another thread where a victim (on video) immediately complied and did not resist that there may have been a variety of strategic factors for not resisting, not the least of which was his not being injured as part of the outcome.

While I certainly don't teach that disarming is a "primary strategy," I'm afraid that compliance can't be either-one must always be looking for the opportunity to resist if one has the capability, and have the will to take it-especially if armed (And, getting back to the original post: I'd have shot him.). At any rate, one can easily figure what my primary stragtegy might be, though it might be different from what I teach about strategy.Without any other available information: knowledge of the perpetrator or situational circumstances such as a bank robbery or other commercial robbery being two good examples,I believe that one simply must assume that the armed robber is not only prepared to use violent, lethal force, but intends to-though that often is not the case. This isn't some sort of macho attitude; it is, quite simply, the logical assumption based upon the sensory information typically available in a violent encounter.

And, just for giggles: videos of resisiting armed robbery.

In most of those cases, resistance wasn't the primary strategy or initial response-in fact, in the first video, the victim is simply lucky that he didn't get shot "anyway," out of apparent frustration on the part of the robber. In any case, we have here at least two examples of untrained, unarmed people successfully resisting armed robbery. All of those people were almost certainly trained to comply with a robber as part of their job, but they didn't. Foolish? Perhaps-in fact, I would probably advocate not resisting under most of those circumstances,as a commercial robbery is generally different, in that the perp needs to flee- but they, and others like them have been successful. While one can find a few videos where people resist and get killed for their efforts,though, the vast majority of them (in a rather informal survey of sorts :lol show that those who resist do so successfully.

 

[Archangel M]

Thats a much clearer explination and much there I can agree with. Thanks.

As a secondary discussion; you will find that most LE websites reccommend complying with the robber;

http://coloradorobbery.org/CrimeInfo/RobberyTips/during.htm
https://www.jeffcitymo.org/police/ArmedRobberyPrevention.html
http://www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca/HPS/PreventingCrime/Robbery/WhatToDo.htm
http://www.cbpolice.org/documents/Robbery-Prevention-Tips.pdf

Which sometimes is the basis of debate and criticism of the Police (they dont want us to defend ourselves etc. etc.). However people have to consider the libality a PD would place themselves in if they were to suggest that people should resist. The odds have proven that "giving up the money" is by far the safer option than attempting to disarm. Yes a few robbers shoot anyway (and they get all the press) but most run off (which are boring and get no press).

Again..home invasions are one thing, street robberies, bank robberies and commercial robberies are entirely another. But we are talking "generalities" and mindsets here. And it is an interesting (and in the end productive) discussion IMO.

 

[seasoned]

Murthy's confrontation began at 3 in the afternoon at the corner of Arlington Avenue and 27th Street in southwest Los Angeles. The engineer was videoing traffic signals in a bid for a school traffic study. His camera was focused on cars whizzing through the intersection, but also captured a softer image of a man leaning against a lamppost.
Once the man spotted Murthy, he walked toward him.
The camera kept rolling as the man tried to snatch it.
The two struggled.

75 posts later and I don’t think the BG wants the camera, but, his image that is on the camera. For some reason, he did not want to be filmed. Either a desperate move by the BG based on paranoia, or the possibility that he is wanted for something, or, standing against the lamppost with other intentions in mind. I can’t imagine an armed individual hanging out, armed, spotting a camera toting victim and making his move. After the fact we know, “I think“, that he wanted the camera, but at the time, from the victims point of view, here comes someone right in your face grabbing at you. Any guy, with any set of ***** would react. It was so fast, that he could not have had time to consider, anything like, is the guy armed, am I going to die. Camera catches image, guy comes, starts to grab, kick to the ***** gun pulled and fired. Were talking seconds here. There is no assessment of threat here, just the right place at the wrong time. IMHO

 

[elder999]

Thats a much clearer explination and much there I can agree with. Thanks..

I think you'll find that from the onset I qualified that one should resist "if capable", which covers, well, a lot of things from individual training and ability to external circumstances. :wink:
Thanks.

75 posts later and I don’t think the BG wants the camera, but, his image that is on the camera. For some reason, he did not want to be filmed.

I was sure that I posted somewhere that he probably had warrants out on him or something to that effect, but I agree- time will probably prove that the object wasn't the camera as much as it was his image on the camera.

 

[kidswarrior]

Well, if a picture's worth a thousand words...

 

[MJS]

Well..yes and no..all those possiblities are why we incorporate certain tactics and officer safety technques. I wouldnt say that I approach every car stop really thinking that the person "could have just killed someone". Id be a fidgity wreck with ulcers by now if I did that. I stick to my officer safety habits in the event that it does turn out to be true, but one has to balance caution with being able to function and try to hold off complancency all at the same time. When a cop first gets on the job he tends to think hes going to be shot at at any moment, as the years go by he becomes comfortable with ther "realities" of the street and knows the difference between using propper tactics and true danger...if hes not careful he may become complacent and think that nothing is ever going to happen to him. I try to keep a balance and pay attention to my "radar" and my gut feelings without becoming hypervigilant, which will burn you out. You cant be running around in Condition Orange all day on this job. I try for a solid yellow...bordering yellow/orange when on a call or stop.

I suppose we can equate this to someone being aware of their surroundings when they go out. Its one thing to keep your head up, be sure of yourself, be confident and have the attitude that you know whats going on, vs. constantly looking over your shoulder, needing to duck behind every other car while you're making your way to the mall entrance, etc.

That is what I'm talking about when I mentioned the LEOs. Don't be some paranoid freak, but be sure of yourself. The bad guys will pick up on this. I saw it when I worked in Corrections. Be aware of whats going on in the car, any sudden movements, etc.

 

[MJS]

Yes I said it, but I also stated that I would only do it if I seriously thought that the wallet wasnt going to be enough..not that I would always "go for it" because I was operating on an "assumption".

And this is the difference between the 2 groups on here. One would rather hand over whats asked, and then, and only then, if the BG escalates, then we escalate. The second group would rather not hand anything over, but instead treat this as a threat, especially if any force is used or implied.

It still leaves the question...do you always "assume" that the stick-up man is going to kill you and attempt the disarm or do you hand the wallet over and assess if that was enough? You seem to be hedging the issue...Is it "wait and see" or is it go for the disarm everytime because you should assume you are going to be killed? I dont mean to harp on the issue, I know where you are coming from but the point of this whole post is the debate over if you should resist an armed robber or just hand over the property. Taking a blanket "always assume they are going to kill you" mindset is far to simplistic and results in foolish decisions. Keep in mind that this whole debate is separate from legal issues regarding the use of force. Of course a man pointing a gun at you is plenty "legal" reason to use deadly force, but that doesnt make it the best tactical choice. There are so many variables like number of assailants, range between parties, weapon in play, number of victims etc. that telling people that "going for it" vs. compliance and survival should be a primary strategy is not necessarialy wise.

IMO, if someone is desperate enough to kill you out of fear that you can ID them, then yes, I feel that we should assume the worst and act instead of waiting. I'll go back to my verbal threat example. BG is standing across the bar, yelling at you for looking at his girl. From that distance, he can't physically do anything to you, so yes, employ some verbal defusing techniques. If it means apologizing, offering to buy him, his friends and girl a few rounds, then so be it. If it looks like by doing this, you'll be thought of as a whimp, then so be it.

Now, same situation, only this guy doesn't want to hear your excuses or your offer for drinks. He wants to kick your ***. He starts moving towards you. IMO, it should be a no brainer that physical violence is rapidly approaching you, and the time for talking has come to a close. Sure, you could make one last try, but once he is within my personal space, I'm going to react.

If I'm standing at the ATM or opening my car door, and someone comes up behind me, grabs me around my neck and demands my keys, I say screw him, its on at that point. He physically assaulted me, I'm fearing for my life, and I'm going to do something.

If any martial arts instructor is teaching that disarm attempts in response to armed robbery is a "primary strategy" I would run..not walk to a different school.

See my above comments.

What would YOU do if someone pointed a revolver at you and demanded YOUR wallet?

I think my reaction is pretty clear by now.