The "better to die on your feet" thread

[Steve]

Sorry Bill. I still won't take that chance. I don't trust anyone that would put a gun in my face. Can you provide statistics to support the statement you made?

Just do a quick search. The statistics are easy to find. Statistically, your chances of being mugged are exceedingly small.

I'm looking at crime stats for the entire metropolitan area of seattle, found on the FBI.gov website, for 2013. Discounting any consideration of high risk behaviors, and just going off of raw stats, it looks like there is a violent crime rate (murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) of 323.5 per 100,000 people. Even were I to engage in high risk behavior, say I am a homeless, mentally ill, self medicating drug addict, my chances of being murdered are 2.2 out of 100,000 (or 2.2/1000th of a percent). My chances of being robbed are 112 per 100,000 (1/10th of a percent).

So, of the 323.5 per 100,000 people who are victims of violent crimes of any sort, 1 in 3 are robbed. For evere 112 people who are robbed per 100,000, 2.2 are murdered.

Not related to this site, but I have read elsewhere that often, murders are not random, which would suggest that your chances of being murdered in a robbery are even lower.

The real numbers are even better, as opposed to numbers per 100k population. There were a total of 78 murder/nonnegligent manslaughters in total for Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett, Kent, Renton, Auburn, Lakewood and Redmond. I live in Kent/Covington, where there were a total of 2. I don't believe it's a stretch to assume that most of these 78 murders were people who were involved in things they shouldn't have been or engaging in high risk behaviors. Gangs, drugs. Some were good guys doing their jobs, cops or other people in a related field.

 

[Steve]

All people who have worked in restaurant would know that when armed robberies ask you to go to the walk in, if you don't fight back, you will be shot in the walk in. Everything in our life involve with risk.

What the hell? I didn't know that was a rule!!!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sorry Bill. I still won't take that chance. I don't trust anyone that would put a gun in my face. Can you provide statistics to support the statement you made?

Certainly. But I've provided them before, in similar threads. I have not seen them change anyone's opinion to date. People are quite irrational when it comes down to it. People believe what they wish to believe.

Robbery

"There were an estimated 325,802 robberies nationwide in 2014."

Of the above-listed robberies, 119,754 involved a firearm:

Table 15

By contrast, in 2014, the number of murders was 14,249:

Murder

Of those murders, 565 were committed in the commission of a robbery:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

While there are other possible ways to be killed by an assailant than simply by robbery (drunken brawls, etc, check the link above), I believe my statement stands up.

Out of 325,802 robberies, 565 ended in murder. One can, of course, pick apart the data and argue that this or that should have been included in the totals, etc. Even so, the number of robberies ending in the death of the victim is a staggeringly low percentage.

I'd call that 'overwhelming'. How about you?

Now, having said that, I will return to what I have previously stated, but which some seem to willfully ignore that I said. Each situation is different. I would not make an "I will always do X" statement involving an armed confrontation, simply because of that. I would never say "always submit." I would never say "always fight back." I thought I made that clear. I think both extremes are foolish. One has to evaluation one's circumstances and make the best decision one can at the time, and then live or die with the consequences.

However, looking at the statistics, it seems clear that most armed robberies do not end in murder. It is, in fact, extremely unlikely. You can say "I won't take that chance," and that is certainly your call. If one is being rational, it doesn't make much sense to make such an absolute statement, but it's your life.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What the hell? I didn't know that was a rule!!!

Some arm robberies don't want any witness. Also the gun shot in "walk in" can not be heard outside.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think this is being over thought.

The saying "better to die on your feet"...on its face...says you are going to die either way.

If I'm going, I'm going to do my best to make it tough.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

No, the saying is "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." The operative terms there are 'live' and 'die'. The argument (which I do not agree with, I am simply trying to explain it) is that it is 'better' to fight back and risk your life, rather than to submit and live.

Personally, I think living is preferable to dying, and if I believe I can submit and live, then I am probably going to do that. I will fight and even fight to the death, but not when I believe I have a clear choice to avoid it entirely. Man wants my wallet and has a gun in my face, man gets my wallet. Man tells me to get in the trunk and has a gun in my face, I am probably going to evaluate that as a 'dead either way' situation and fight it out right then and there.

But as I keep saying, every situation is different.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Some arm robberies don't want any witness. Also the gun shot in "walk in" can not be heard outside.

Did you read the stats I just posted? Are these walk-in murders just not being reported, then? Loads of freezers with dead employees stacking up like cordwood and the cops don't know about them?

 

[Tgace]

In that context I see your point. Although I think that saying seems intended to mean resistance to tyranny vs a mugger.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Man tells me to get in the trunk and has a gun in my face, I am probably going to evaluate that as a 'dead either way' situation and fight it out right then and there.

Agree!

When you are forced to dig a hole in the middle of nowhere and you are still afraid to fight back, you must be a fool.

 

[Tames D]

Certainly. But I've provided them before, in similar threads. I have not seen them change anyone's opinion to date. People are quite irrational when it comes down to it. People believe what they wish to believe.

Robbery

"There were an estimated 325,802 robberies nationwide in 2014."

Of the above-listed robberies, 119,754 involved a firearm:

Table 15

By contrast, in 2014, the number of murders was 14,249:

Murder

Of those murders, 565 were committed in the commission of a robbery:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

While there are other possible ways to be killed by an assailant than simply by robbery (drunken brawls, etc, check the link above), I believe my statement stands up.

Out of 325,802 robberies, 565 ended in murder. One can, of course, pick apart the data and argue that this or that should have been included in the totals, etc. Even so, the number of robberies ending in the death of the victim is a staggeringly low percentage.

I'd call that 'overwhelming'. How about you?

Now, having said that, I will return to what I have previously stated, but which some seem to willfully ignore that I said. Each situation is different. I would not make an "I will always do X" statement involving an armed confrontation, simply because of that. I would never say "always submit." I would never say "always fight back." I thought I made that clear. I think both extremes are foolish. One has to evaluation one's circumstances and make the best decision one can at the time, and then live or die with the consequences.

However, looking at the statistics, it seems clear that most armed robberies do not end in murder. It is, in fact, extremely unlikely. You can say "I won't take that chance," and that is certainly your call. If one is being rational, it doesn't make much sense to make such an absolute statement, but it's your life.

I don't care how many robberies took place. 365 people were murdered for giving up their wallet. I'm not taking that chance. I will fight back. Are you saying 365 people lost there life because they played the odds?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In that context I see your point. Although I think that saying seems intended to mean resistance to tyranny vs a mugger.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

That was the original context, yes. Unfortunately, one also hears it a lot in the various martial arts forums, as young bucks with an ego and a black belt strut about and proclaim that they won't allow themselves to be made victims of anyone for any reason, they'll throw down if anyone gives them a dirty look, because "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees." They misunderstand and misapply it, I'm speaking of that misapprehension which is regrettably so common.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Agree!

When you are forced to dig a hole in the middle of nowhere and you are still afraid to fight back, you must be a fool.

Yes. Now, my question is, how often does that happen? I mean, outside of the movies?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't care how many robberies took place. 365 people were murdered for giving up there wallet. I'm not taking that chance. I will fight back. Are you saying 365 people lost there life because they played the odds?

No. I am saying 365 people were murdered in the commission of a robbery. We don't know whether or not they cooperated, or whether or not they were killed while resisting or killed out-of-hand while not resisting. All we know is that 365 people died during the commission of an armed robbery in 2014 in the US.

You can do as you wish. I state plainly that assuming you will be killed and therefore must fight back when faced with an armed robbery is flat-out wrong. You asked for stats to back up my claim, there they are. Believe or don't, it's not my problem. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. They are not free to have their own facts. The facts have been presented, per request.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yes. Now, my question is, how often does that happen? I mean, outside of the movies?

Since you only have one life, it only needs to happen just once.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Since you only have one live, it only needs to happen just once.

It's hard to type with my eyes rolled so far back into my head. I live in the real world, where people stand a greater chance of being hit by lighting. Indoors. While sleeping.

 

[Tames D]

No. I am saying 365 people were murdered in the commission of a robbery. We don't know whether or not they cooperated, or whether or not they were killed while resisting or killed out-of-hand while not resisting. All we know is that 365 people died during the commission of an armed robbery in 2014 in the US.

You can do as you wish. I state plainly that assuming you will be killed and therefore must fight back when faced with an armed robbery is flat-out wrong. You asked for stats to back up my claim, there they are. Believe or don't, it's not my problem. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. They are not free to have their own facts. The facts have been presented, per request.

Thank you for the stats.

 

[ballen0351]

Im thinking since Hands down Ive taken far more robbery reports from live victims then Ive gone to murders chances your going to survive a robbery are pretty good. I'll also say in my experience fighting back increases your chances of being shot. Fight back if you wish but its prob going to hurt.

 

[Jenna]

I think we are blinkered to certain situations here.. and I worry over a defence strategy of begging, pleading being on your knees this is not defence, rather surrender.

OP implies we act calmly, traverse our decision trees, assess whether a situation merits a fight or a handing over of some thing and then leave intact with minimal collateral loss. It might be asked then if the situation alter for the worse, what are we supposed to do? calmly reassess I guess then come out in defence at that stage? That is nice it transpire that way. Is that how the real world is? It is lovely and neat. Predictable and repeatable.

What of attempted rape for example? I intervene with people that either through shock and inability to respond - having had no defensive training - gave sufficient, acquiesced to the degree some times over a period of time that they believed would end a physical threat situation - like seeing the best in a partner, an uncle, some guy on a night out or giving them the benefit of the doubt. Only it did not conclude such that the loss was merely collateral. It is at that stage I would come into contact with them at the point their remaining lives are so intolerable they no longer feel life is worth living. They cannot confront them selves or live with the shame. I have worked with men not small shy ones, big tough ones who hate their selves and feel a perceived loss of masculinity because they feel they *should* have fought when they were assaulted and but did not fight when put upon, and now suffer through trauma, defeating humiliation and loss of self value.

So to that end I could not pass advice here in this thread to any one as a model approach that it is better to live on your knees than die fighting.

Good luck

 

[Tames D]

I think we are blinkered to certain situations here.. and I worry over a defence strategy of begging, pleading being on your knees this is not defence, rather surrender.

OP implies we act calmly, traverse our decision trees, assess whether a situation merits a fight or a handing over of some thing and then leave intact with minimal collateral loss. It might be asked then if the situation alter for the worse, what are we supposed to do? calmly reassess I guess then come out in defence at that stage? That is nice it transpire that way. Is that how the real world is? It is lovely and neat. Predictable and repeatable.

What of attempted rape for example? I intervene with people that either through shock and inability to respond - having had no defensive training - gave sufficient, acquiesced to the degree some times over a period of time that they believed would end a physical threat situation - like seeing the best in a partner, an uncle, some guy on a night out or giving them the benefit of the doubt. Only it did not conclude such that the loss was merely collateral. It is at that stage I would come into contact with them at the point their remaining lives are so intolerable they no longer feel life is worth living. They cannot confront them selves or live with the shame. I have worked with men not small shy ones, big tough ones who hate their selves and feel a perceived loss of masculinity because they feel they *should* have fought when they were assaulted and but did not fight when put upon, and now suffer through trauma, defeating humiliation and loss of self value.

So to that end I could not pass advice here in this thread to any one as a model approach that it is better to live on your knees than die fighting.

Good luck

 

[ballen0351]

I think we are blinkered to certain situations here.

You kinda need to since an acceptable response to one situation isn't going to be appropriate for others

and I worry over a defence strategy of begging, pleading being on your knees this is not defence, rather surrender.

depending on the situation even begging and pleading has its place.

OP implies we act calmly, traverse our decision trees, assess whether a situation merits a fight or a handing over of some thing and then leave intact with minimal collateral loss. It might be asked then if the situation alter for the worse, what are we supposed to do? calmly reassess I guess then come out in defence at that stage? That is nice it transpire that way. Is that how the real world is? It is lovely and neat. Predictable and repeatable.

you act like the decision-making process takes a lot of time. I travel up and down the use of force scale all the time, reevaluation, and implementation is a constant process.

What of attempted rape for example? I intervene with people that either through shock and inability to respond - having had no defensive training - gave sufficient, acquiesced to the degree some times over a period of time that they believed would end a physical threat situation - like seeing the best in a partner, an uncle, some guy on a night out or giving them the benefit of the doubt. Only it did not conclude such that the loss was merely collateral. It is at that stage I would come into contact with them at the point their remaining lives are so intolerable they no longer feel life is worth living. They cannot confront them selves or live with the shame. I have worked with men not small shy ones, big tough ones who hate their selves and feel a perceived loss of masculinity because they feel they *should* have fought when they were assaulted and but did not fight when put upon, and now suffer through trauma, defeating humiliation and loss of self value.

BUT they are alive for you to help them as opposed to the alternative. Now I will never tell someone how to react to a rape thats a personal choice I cant make as Ive never been raped so I cant say but for sake of this conversation again I may suggest not fighting and armed stranger at first vs a date rape as the propensity for violence is different. But again we are always reevaluating and the situation may change to a point where you need too fight or vise versa you may start with resistance and decide its better to become passive

So to that end I could not pass advice here in this thread to any one as a model approach that it is better to live on your knees than die fighting.

there is a huge difference between someone stealing your cell phone vs trying to Rape you

 

[Tames D]

So the message I'm getting from the "experts" is to play the odds and hope you don't get shot. Sorry, not buying it.
Begging and pleading does not have it's place.