Resistance is futile for a majority of street robbery victims in San Francisco

[Bill Mattocks]

Just wanted to post this - it's topical and interesting. I see both sides, so I am not baiting anyone. Just wanted to put it out there and stimulate some conversation. Your opinions welcome.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/cri...majority-street-robbery-victims-san-francisco

Resistance is futile for a majority of street robbery victims in San Francisco
By: Mike Aldax | 09/26/12 6:05 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer | Follow On Twitter @SFExMikeAldax
Resistance is futile for the vast majority of mugging victims in San Francisco.

An examination of a whopping 100 muggings in 23 days on city streets and on Muni vehicles showed that victims who fought back or resisted were most likely beaten up and still lost their possessions.

Of those 100 thefts, which were reported to police between Aug. 28 and Sept. 19, victims tried to retain their belongings in 33 incidents. Only three of those victims managed to recover their belongings. In 29 cases, victims were physically assaulted.

Alas, simply giving in to a robber’s demands does not necessarily mean one is spared from an attack.

In 67 cases where muggers did not face resistance, more than half of the victims, 36, were still physically harmed. In some thefts, police said, the muggers assaulted the victim, incapacitating them, before swiping their loot. And in others, crooks reportedly stole the item and fled before the victim could react.

Click the link to read the rest online.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think there can be few hard and fast rules. It will depend on the perceived threat, the ability of the victim versus the perceived threat posed by the attacker(s), any weapons involved, and other facets of an assault or robbery.

If I begin to submit and give up my possessions, and the bad guy begins to assault me, what to do? Am I going to be hurt more by my resistance, or by my lack of resistance? Is that hurt going to result in a few inconsequenchial lumps and bruises, maiming or death? How is one to decipher any clues as to what an outcome may be, and therefore what if any resistance should be offered?

Do I have sufficient skill as a fighter that I can successfully defend myself? What happens if I only think I have and the attacker has greater skills? Can I call king's X? Am I fighting for my own defense only, or for someone else? Is that someone else a weak bystander I have encountered, or a loved one?

I hope I never have to be faced with any of that. I also hope that if I am, I make the right choice.

 

[WC_lun]

As those numbers from San Francisco aptly highlight, the decision and ability to fight back are never an absolute thing. If you feel that the mugger will be satisified with your valubles, then the smart thing to do is give them up. If you feel that he is going to hurt you, or is already hurting you, then you have to decide if you actually have the ability to defend yourself. Anyone who post "If someone tries to mug me, I'd do this!" just isn't living in reality. Muggings are very fluid situations with many, many variables. The criminals also do not play by the same set of rules as most people, making the situation even more volatile. All these things make talking about resisting in a mugging difficult. I think it is easier to talk about the violence itself. We all have at least some experience in applied violence and can talk about that with some knowledge. Advice on to resist a mugging or not, is to talk without having the facts of the exact situation. My best advice is to train like you will one day depend upon your skills and hope that you never will.

 

[seasoned]

I feel that some type of decision needs to be thought out way before any robbery/mugging occurs. Nothing I have on me, in my pockets or wallet would warrant resisting.

There however are two things to consider, (1) am I armed with a knife or firearm and if caught by surprise will they help or hinder?


And (2), on the other hand am I alone or with a loved one? Alone I would comply up to a certain point, to be determined on the spot.
And, if with a loved one, which would in my eyes change the dynamics, it would be fast and to the point.

All the above needs to be thought about as I said, way in advance.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I feel that some type of decision needs to be thought out way before any robbery/mugging occurs. Nothing I have on me, in my pockets or wallet would warrant resisting.

There however are two things to consider, (1) am I armed with a knife or firearm and if caught by surprise will they help or hinder?


And (2), on the other hand am I alone or with a loved one? Alone I would comply up to a certain point, to be determined on the spot.
And, if with a loved one, which would in my eyes change the dynamics, it would be fast and to the point.

All the above needs to be thought about as I said, way in advance.

Excellent points.

May I add another that your statement brought up?

If one is armed with a concealed weapon, say a knife or a gun, does it not also affect one's decision when one considers what will happen if said weapons is discovered while NOT resisting?

For example, if I am not armed, I turn over my watch, wallet, cell phone, etc. Say the bad guy (who let's say is armed) goes through my pockets to be sure he got everything. OK, that's one scenario.

Now, let's say I have a pistol in a shoulder holster under my jacket and he discovers it (assuming I have chosen not to resist but to comply). Now what? If he takes it from me, he may well use it on me. His gun might be a fake. In a case I read about yesterday where a victim disarmed a shotgun-wielding mugger, the gun wasn't loaded.

It seems - correct me if you think I'm wrong - that carrying a weapon also means one may logically HAVE to choose to use it to avoid having it taken and used against them. In other words, resistance not only becomes a more viable choice, but becomes a more necessary one.

 

[JamesGarr]

Muggers don't choose their victims at random. They choose people who they think they can intimidate and beat up. I would be willing to bet that of those 100 muggings, nearly all the victims were physically smaller. It's hard to win a fight against someone with more mass, otherwise there wouldn't be weight classes in fighting sports. I guess my feeling about the article is that I'm not surprised. When an assault is planned by one side, it's probably not going to be a fair fight. Even with a fair amount of training and a concealed weapon, the odds are against you.

 

[seasoned]

It seems - correct me if you think I'm wrong - that carrying a weapon also means one may logically HAVE to choose to use it to avoid having it taken and used against them. In other words, resistance not only becomes a more viable choice, but becomes a more necessary one.

Carrying a weapon and especially a firearm is a huge responsibility that should never be taken lightly. If the decision is made to carry, then along with that decision you MUST be prepared to use that weapon to the fullest degree. No one should ever carry a firearm unless they are legally licensed to do so, and are prepared mentally, to except the consequences of their actions.
With that said, yes, if the situation warrants it, you would need to use that weapon in lieu of having it taken away from you to be used against you or someone else.

Carry with caution and responsibility.

 

[arnisador]

This news sucks BUT it is always good to have the facts. An important point--often they'll strike you before you know what's happening.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Muggers don't choose their victims at random. They choose people who they think they can intimidate and beat up. I would be willing to bet that of those 100 muggings, nearly all the victims were physically smaller. It's hard to win a fight against someone with more mass, otherwise there wouldn't be weight classes in fighting sports. I guess my feeling about the article is that I'm not surprised. When an assault is planned by one side, it's probably not going to be a fair fight. Even with a fair amount of training and a concealed weapon, the odds are against you.

Exactly. It's not just size either. If I'm a mugger, I'm looking for someone who doesn't seem aware of his surroundings, who doesn't look physically confident, who seems vulnerable. I'm not targeting the guy who looks like a football player and has his eye on me from a block away. (At least not unless I'm armed and have a couple of buddies with me.) If I wanted a fair fight I'd be signing up at the local boxing gym, not mugging people.

 

[ACJ]

It doesn't state what form the resistance took. Remember it could range from them just trying to hold on to their possessions to trying to punch the mugger in the face.

These sorts of statistics don't really help anyone much. I know the decisions I make about my behaviour, whereabouts, what I'm wearing will have an impact on the likelihood of a mugging, and that my behaviour during a mugging will impact on the behaviour of a mugger (and what likely responses will be) and I know that various forms of resistance are tools in my toolbox for dealing with a mugger safely.

So my training incorporates things that will increase the chances in those scenarios and will prepare me to deal with the stresses of making those choices when it comes to real life.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Carrying a weapon and especially a firearm is a huge responsibility that should never be taken lightly. If the decision is made to carry, then along with that decision you MUST be prepared to use that weapon to the fullest degree. No one should ever carry a firearm unless they are legally licensed to do so, and are prepared mentally, to except the consequences of their actions.
With that said, yes, if the situation warrants it, you would need to use that weapon in lieu of having it taken away from you to be used against you or someone else.

Carry with caution and responsibility.

All true, but I guess I didn't make my point.

If one has a stick in one's hand, that stick can be an advantage; and also a detriment. Why? Because you have to protect the stick, lest it be used against you. And, you have one hand that is not free to punch or block (as well). It seems you have taken on a dependent, now you're fighting for two. That was my point.

If I do not have a gun in my waistband, I do not have to protect it from discovery or from being used against me. If I do have a gun in my waistband, I do have to protect it. That almost necessitates its use, doesn't it?

In other words, I no longer really have the option to comply with the mugger's demands. If confronted, because I am carrying a potential life-saver which is also a threat to me if discovered or taken away from me, I am virtually required to use it.

That's my theme here. A thought that choosing to carry a weapon also means one must logically not just be prepared to use it, but understand that one may not have the same set of choices that an unarmed person has; one may be forced to use it just because one has it.

I was just commenting on how odd that thought is; but at the same time, I suspect it is true. Having a gun with me when mugged is basically going to force me to use it to avoid allowing it to become a threat to me.

 

[Zero]

All true, but I guess I didn't make my point.

If one has a stick in one's hand, that stick can be an advantage; and also a detriment. Why? Because you have to protect the stick, lest it be used against you. And, you have one hand that is not free to punch or block (as well). It seems you have taken on a dependent, now you're fighting for two. That was my point.

If I do not have a gun in my waistband, I do not have to protect it from discovery or from being used against me. If I do have a gun in my waistband, I do have to protect it. That almost necessitates its use, doesn't it?

In other words, I no longer really have the option to comply with the mugger's demands. If confronted, because I am carrying a potential life-saver which is also a threat to me if discovered or taken away from me, I am virtually required to use it.

That's my theme here. A thought that choosing to carry a weapon also means one must logically not just be prepared to use it, but understand that one may not have the same set of choices that an unarmed person has; one may be forced to use it just because one has it.

I was just commenting on how odd that thought is; but at the same time, I suspect it is true. Having a gun with me when mugged is basically going to force me to use it to avoid allowing it to become a threat to me.

I think you make a good point Bill, and while I am not a firearm carrier so do not have the same experience or training in this field, it would seem that in some instances you may be pushed into a certain diection (or if not pushed, by going out armed you have already made a deliberate reasoned choice of where certain scenarios may well go). What do you do if you are on the metro and a gang is going down the aisles hustling folks and actually taking belongings off them and shaking them down (which does happen)? If they are getting close to you and there is no where to go, does this mean instead of just blending in and letting them take your wallet, you need to pull the gun and either warn them to back off or engage? If they are also packing or willing to escalate, what have you just done to the environment for yourself and those other bystanders? Conversely, what would happen if this group of goons instead got hold of your gun in this situation?

What if you find yourself in an alley with a mugger who already has their gun on you, are you going to risk pulling your concealed weapon? Hopefully, as the post from Tony re the "on to it footballer", those with enough training are aware of their situations and surroundings and it is therefore less likely for this to occur, given they neither give off a victim vibe or put themselves in the situaiton where they become one, but sometimes cr4p just falls out of the sky.

As an aside, I think Bruce Lee said when faced with a man with a knife or stick, he rates his chances better, as he is the man with two free hands, not the guy worried about what he is going to do with the stick. I put it clumsily but it is something like that and as you said above. Obviously while two empty hands is great and I might make a move against one guy with a knife or baseball bat etc, am not sure would want to apply the same reasoning to an assailant holding a gun...as some other guy said somewhere, you don't want to be "the guy who turns up to a gunfight with a knife" (think that was from the Untouchables).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As an aside, I think Bruce Lee said when faced with a man with a knife or stick, he rates his chances better, as he is the man with two free hands, not the guy worried about what he is going to do with the stick. I put it clumsily but it is something like that and as you said above. Obviously while two empty hands is great and I might make a move against one guy with a knife or baseball bat etc, am not sure would want to apply the same reasoning to an assailant holding a gun...as some other guy said somewhere, you don't want to be "the guy who turns up to a gunfight with a knife" (think that was from the Untouchables).

I did not know that Bruce Lee said that, but yes. Imagine for a second that you are confronted with an assailant and you happen to have a large knife, so you pull it out and brandish it.

Now you have two problems. One is the assailant. The other is defending the knife. Because if the assailant gets it from you, he may use it on you. So not only do you only have one arm free now, but you have to use part of your energy and ability to defend the knife from being taken away.

By the same token, if you have a firearm, even if you do not brandish it, you have to worry that it will be discovered, or that you will otherwise lose control of it if you end up rolling around on the ground with this guy. In other words, your list of available responses just got shorter, and 'shoot the bastard' just got placed higher on the list; even if that's not what you want to do.

I am not arguing that people should not carry weapons; far from it. But I am thinking about not just the responsibility that goes with arming oneself, but in how it changes your responses even if you do not draw it when confronted.

 

[MJS]

Nice topic, as usual Bill!

As for the article itself...those are interesting stats. I feel that we should assess the situation, and decide our actions accordingly. I certainly wouldn't expect the badguy to just stand there, letting us pound away at him, so IMO, it should be a no brainer that they're probably going to fight back. Therefore, if we do opt to fight back, be prepared for a battle.

I started a new thread on the subject of weapon retention, since that was being talked about here, I figured rather than sidetrack this thread, we can talk about that important topic, in its own thread.

As far as being limited as to what you can do while holding a weapon...speaking only of the stick and knife, many of the FMA guys that I train with, seem to be too limited with what they can do while holding the weapon. Sure, of course you have to hold onto the weapon, so yes, as far as that goes, being able to grab anything other than the weapon, is out of the question. However, punching is still an option as well as striking in a hammerfist motion. You're either going to get hit with the hand or the butt end of the weapon.

 

[seasoned]

All true, but I guess I didn't make my point.

If one has a stick in one's hand, that stick can be an advantage; and also a detriment. Why? Because you have to protect the stick, lest it be used against you. And, you have one hand that is not free to punch or block (as well). It seems you have taken on a dependent, now you're fighting for two. That was my point.

If I do not have a gun in my waistband, I do not have to protect it from discovery or from being used against me. If I do have a gun in my waistband, I do have to protect it. That almost necessitates its use, doesn't it?

In other words, I no longer really have the option to comply with the mugger's demands. If confronted, because I am carrying a potential life-saver which is also a threat to me if discovered or taken away from me, I am virtually required to use it.

That's my theme here. A thought that choosing to carry a weapon also means one must logically not just be prepared to use it, but understand that one may not have the same set of choices that an unarmed person has; one may be forced to use it just because one has it.

I was just commenting on how odd that thought is; but at the same time, I suspect it is true. Having a gun with me when mugged is basically going to force me to use it to avoid allowing it to become a threat to me.

And so it is with self defense. You make some very good points here. My situation allows for a different mind set on my part and requires a somewhat different response if need be. I will leave it at that and move on. Nice thread and topic.