Here's an article that provides more details. According to it, the attacker was shot twice in the chest.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29069767/
Quote:
|
You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate.
|
That is not correct. The statistics indicate that the best chance for remaining uninjured during a violent crime is NOT compliance but rather resistance
with a firearm.
Resisting
without effective means does raise your chances of injury compared to compliance, but if you have a firearm and can bring it into play then, statistically speaking, you're better off resisting. Obviously every case is different and the statistics shouldn't be used to make blanket decisions without evaluating the particular situation.
One more caution. Those statistics are taken
across the board. That is, they don't break down the violent attacks by whether/how the attacker is armed. There has been discussion on TFL about whether you still have an advantage when the attacker is armed with a firearm, but to my knowledge there are no statistics that speak directly to that question.
Based on the
informal research I have done, attackers generally disengage immediately when a firearm comes into play on the part of the defender and that tends to hold true even when the attackers outnumber and "outgun" the victim. In other words, the attacker doesn't seem to be making a careful, logical decision when the victim presents a firearm (Let's see, I've got a rifle and a tactically advantageous position over that citizen armed with a mouse gun so I believe I'll stand my ground and shoot it out.). Instead it seems to be a subjective, emotional decision (I really don't want to find out how it might feel to get shot; I'm getting out of here NOW!).
Again, that is a general tendency, NOT a guarantee of a particular outcome. Every situation must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances.