Update on Burger King shooting

[MLeake]

It's all well and good to look at statistics. Trend analysis is a useful tool. Statistical analysis plays into Operational Risk Management, which is used by military, airlines, and other potentially risky industries.

However, probabilities are only probabilities, not certainties. It's safer to prepare for worst case, and to always look for potential advantages in any actual confrontation.

Knowing the statistics can help in interpreting a situation, but should not lead to blind assumptions. The only "statistic" that will matter to me, in the end, is the one that derives from my individual case, in that moment.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Why not try to find out what the facts are instead of tossing around bad information? The violent crime rate in this country has gone done pretty steadily for over a decade now, not gotten worse. The BGs are not getting more violent, they are getting less violent.

I have looked about and found out what Dr. Kleck has produced. What studies have you done? Are they published? I think Dr. Kleck has done so. Why not comment on what he has said?

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

That is still what LE tells you, and for a very good reason...it has the greatest chance of avoiding injury to people.

And again a noted criminologist says otherwise. Is he wrong? Please explain.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

If other problems develop, one can always up the response.

Maybe, maybe not. Once you gain an advantage in such a dynamic high stakes experience perhaps you should use it or certainly not relinquish it. You may not have another chance.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by MLeake

It's all well and good to look at statistics. Trend analysis is a useful tool.

Yes it may be if you look at them in context. What I don't think is helpful is just looking at raw statistics and then extrapolating them without study.

Originally Posted by MLeake

The only "statistic" that will matter to me, in the end, is the one that derives from my individual case, in that moment.

That is correct and of course you have to look beyond just statistical probability and look at how high the stakes are for you.

[Brit]

Not a problem. We know what DOES NOT trigger the robber ordinarily, and that is compliance and cooperation. I would suggest trying to fight with the robber has a high chance of "triggering" him.

The same old David, the slink and hide king of TFL. The only persons reactions that can be anticipated, and controlled are your own.

We the actual realists do not advocate "Trying to fight with him" but killing him!

That is what works. A nice retired old chap, same age as I, when two young misguided, non working, 21 year old friends attempted to push him into the wash room, after he had given up his cash, brandishing Revolvers, he drew his CCW .45, and shot them both! He was facing them in the open!

I think the Police replaced his rounds, cleaned his Colt 45ACP, gave it back to him? Well it was Florida don't you know.

David your philosophy of never fighting is not everybody's, especially on this Memorial Day thank goodness, or we would be speaking Japanese. In my case, German.

[doh_312]

Perhaps the only advantage you'll get in this situation is shooting at him first. It is possible that you waiting to see if he elevates the situation ends in him shooting you. Because after you comply, he decides to shoot you point blank. Well the only hint you have of the situation elevating is him raising his gun to your face and BOOM.

But how could this have happened? You complied, so statistics state he should let you go with a warm hand shake? Give me a break. Shoot first, that is your advantage in almost all situations I can think of. Let the cops do the apprehending, I plan on going home to my wife at the end of the day.

Sorry for the BG, but this means as soon as I can draw and shoot him first, I will.

A few members here keep repeating that statistics show if you comply you'll be released unharmed. In that case just leave your gun at home. If all you need to do is comply then there is no reason to have the gun on you.

It is too bad the GG got hit. At least he survived. Kind of a fact of guns though, if your around one you've got a chance to get shot. Take the BG's gun out of the picture. After all, your not going to shoot yourself with your gun, your going to get shot with his gun. Better put it, and him, out of service.

[Creature]

And for each of those cases where the victim cooperated and got shot, one can find hundreds of cases where the victim cooperated and was not shot.

Some how, those still dont seem like very good odds to me. Kinda like the reason why I dont play golf in a thunder storm.

[David Armstrong]

I have looked about and found out what Dr. Kleck has produced. What studies have you done? Are they published? I think Dr. Kleck has done so. Why not comment on what he has said?

Because, at Pax's request, I am not gong to get into a big discussion of dueling research findings. I will point out that Kleck's study is the ONLY study that has come to that conclusion, and Kleck's work does not reflect gun response versus gun-wielding bad guys. Gun response versus non-gun bad guys is highly successful. Gun response against gun-wielding bad guys, not so successful and the injury severity goes up.

And again a noted criminologist says otherwise. Is he wrong? Please explain.

No, he is not wrong, he is discussing something different.

[David Armstrong]

The same old David, the slink and hide king of TFL. The only persons reactions that can be anticipated, and controlled are your own.

We the actual realists do not advocate "Trying to fight with him" but killing him!

The same old Brit, tossing out personal insults and attacks rather than responding to the facts.
Others reactions can be anticipated. We do it all the time, in all sorts of other situations. Putting a gun into the mix does not change that. As for realism, "killing him" is a nice thought, but not very realistic. Realism is that you do have a fight.

David your philosophy of never fighting is not everybody's,

Brit, my philosophy is not and never has been never fighting, and for you to continue to present it as such is quite dishonest on your part.

[pax]

David ~

If you have data, produce it.

Don't do your standard trick of announcing, "The research overwhelmingly shows..." and then fail to provide any links whatsoever to anything meaningful, while denigrating what everyone else says. (That trick, of course, is what got my dander up before -- and will again, if you go that route.)

To be clear: provide the data itself, or a reasonable synopsis of it, along with an online link of some sort -- not an inaccessible offline reference that would take everyone weeks to hunt down for themselves, if they ever could.

pax

[David Armstrong]

But how could this have happened? You complied, so statistics state he should let you go with a warm hand shake? Give me a break. Shoot first, that is your advantage in almost all situations I can think of. Let the cops do the apprehending, I plan on going home to my wife at the end of the day.

So, do you think getting into a gunfight makes it more likely you will go home or less likely you will go home when compared to not getting into a gunfight?

[pax]

Moderator Note

I don't care how much you dislike one or more of the participants in this thread, personal insults will not be tolerated. Any more personal remarks -- even to someone who has made a personal remark to you first -- will result in an immediate banning.

pax

[David Armstrong]

David ~

If you have data, produce it.

Don't do your standard trick of announcing, "The research overwhelmingly shows..." and then fail to provide any links whatsoever to anything meaningful, while denigrating what everyone else says. (That trick, of course, is what got my dander up before -- and will again, if you go that route.)

To be clear: provide the data itself, or a reasonable synopsis of it, along with an online link of some sort -- not an inaccessible offline reference that would take everyone weeks to hunt down for themselves, if they ever could.

All right, let's get this clear....you want me to post about 200 pages of data, survey results, and findings, here on TFL, in the tactics forum. Is that correct? Will TFL be responsible for copyright clearance? I'm not sure that you actually understand what you are asking for. And it doesn't take weeks to hunt down off-line data, it takes a trip to your library and a request for an inter-library loan if it is not on the shelf.

I have provided multiple sources for my data in the past, and i will do so again. The fact that much research is not published on line does not in any way reduce the value or quality of that research.

[Creature]

All right, let's get this clear....you want me to post about 200 pages of data, survey results, and findings, here on TFL, in the tactics forum. Is that correct?

Like Pax said: you can paraphrase and / or summarize it for us...and post the link. Otherwise, why bring it up?

[pax]

David ~

You can summarize, with a link. That is, I believe, acceptable even to the most stringent of copyright standards.

I have provided multiple sources for my data in the past, and i will do so again.

No, you have not.

As an example: "Go read Ayoob's books" is not the same thing as, "On page 68 of In the Gravest Extreme, Ayoob wrote, '...'"

Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.

(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway. What you've done is more like this: "Go read every book ever categorized within XXX.xx of the Dewey Decimal System, then we can talk.")

pax

[hogdogs]

David, the link would be fine...
Brent

[David Armstrong]

I don't have links, folks. I have books. I have magazines. I have research articles. I can tell you that:

• Across all weapon types, the most dangerous actions for victims were attacking, threatening, or resisting the offender. That data is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995 report.
  
  
• That gun-armed robbers are less likely to inflict injury on their victims than unarmed robbers or robbers armed with other weapons is consistent with their preferring submission to inflicting injury. That is the findings from Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
  
  
• All of the available evidence indicates that the most common reasons for the actual use of violence during a robbery are victims resisting, making sudden moves, or otherwise hindering the completion of the robbery. Those findings come from Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996.
  
  
• The highest fatality rate in robberies occurs when the victim resists and the robber has a gun. That is from Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997. One can also see also Block, Patterns of Change in Chicago Homicides, and Cook, Robbery Violence.

There may be links to some of this stuff out there, but I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking for them. I do find it rather sad that we as a society have reeached a point where someone's honesty is questioned unless the computer backs them up.

[MLeake]

I don't know that anybody is questioning your honesty. Personally, I don't know you, and therefore can't really have an informed opinion.

Well, I could have an informed opinion if you actually cited your sources more regularly, so I could compare your representations of studies with what they said. However, I can't do that easily. Still, I have no reason to impugn your integrity.

That said, I have no reason to believe in your analyses, either, if I don't know your methods, your source materials, your background, and any consistent biases you might have.

It does concern me that you are so loath to provide citations and links. That does send up a warning flag.

[David Armstrong]

No, you have not.

As an example: "Go read Ayoob's books" is not the same thing as, "On page 68 of In the Gravest Extreme, Ayoob wrote, '...'"

Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.

(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway. What you've done is more like this: "Go read every book ever categorized within XXX.xx of the Dewey Decimal System, then we can talk.")

That is simply not true, Pax. Here are citations, all of which have been previously given by me at various times here on TFL:
Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
See also
Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.
Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988
Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.
Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996
Wright and Decker, Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. 1997.
Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 1997.

[pax]

David,

Thanks. That's the sort of thing that's more helpful.

Re the 1995 Bureau of Justice statistics, did they break it down further into armed vs. unarmed resistance?

Re the second study, I note it's not quite germane to the question at hand -- unless you or someone else is advocating the shooting of unarmed robbers, which would definitely open a can of worms big enough for another thread.

Re the third and fourth, same question: did they break it down to armed vs unarmed resistance? The two are not the same thing, after all.

I vaguely remember encountering a study some time back (perhaps in one of my books about women's self-defense) which noted that although the statistics showed a close correlation between women fighting back and women getting hurt, a closer look at those same statistics showed that the majority of women who chose to fight back did so only after the assailant harmed them, and not before. Correlation vs causation ...

pax

[pax]

That is simply not true, Pax. Here are citations, all of which have been previously given by me at various times here on TFL:
Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
See also
Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.
Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988
Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.
Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996
Wright and Decker, Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. 1997.
Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 1997.

*Throws hands up in the air and sighs*

David, that's EXACTLY!!! what I was complaining about!

"Go read these six or seven books and studies, which I'm not going to tell you how they're relevant or which portions might apply or anything else about them, and which I'm too busy to summarize for you ..."

Grrrrf.

pax

[David Armstrong]

Well, I could have an informed opinion if you actually cited your sources more regularly, so I could compare your representations of studies with what they said. However, I can't do that easily. Still, I have no reason to impugn your integrity.

Thank you. My point is that I have cited these studies, and I have cited them regularly. Lots of research does not lend itself to accurate presentation in very short forms. Kleck's "you are less likely to get hurt if you fight back with a gun" research is a great example, one that is used and misused often. Unless one reads the material one misses things like the findings are based almost exclusively on the GG having a gun and the BG not having a gun.

[Creature]

It is quite possible that some entirely different conclusions could be drawn from the data if the last decade was included. Crime in America changes dramatically as regional populations grow/declines, demographics change and economies fluctuate. Conclusions drawn from data from sources that are at least a decade old is, in my opinion, probably not relevant.

[pax]

Lots of research does not lend itself to accurate presentation in very short forms. Kleck's "you are less likely to get hurt if you fight back with a gun" research is a great example, one that is used and misused often. Unless one reads the material one misses things like the findings are based almost exclusively on the GG having a gun and the BG not having a gun.

Despite your thesis sentence, I notice that with the two simple sentences which follow it, you managed to neatly summarize Kleck's findings and explain what else you believed others should look for in those findings.

pax

[David Armstrong]

Re the 1995 Bureau of Justice statistics, did they break it down further into armed vs. unarmed resistance?

Will the answer matter if I don't provide a link?

Re the second study, I note it's not quite germane to the question at hand -- unless you or someone else is advocating the shooting of unarmed robbers, which would definitely open a can of worms big enough for another thread.

This is why it is good to go read some of this stuff. It is germane because it indicates the mindset of the robber, which is the issue here--why does the robber use violence? The gun increases the intimidation factor, thus providing greater compliance, which is the robber's goal....submission, not injury.

Re the third and fourth, same question: did they break it down to armed vs unarmed resistance? The two are not the same thing, after all.

While the type of resistance is not the same, the issue is the same. Resistance tends to increase the danger. That is why one needs to look at a variety of sources, not just little snips that are generally put out by folks with agendas or other things. Look at what LE advises--compliance as an initial strategy. Look at what all the security consultants advise--compliance as an initial strategy. Do all of these folks not have any idea what they are talking about?

[David Armstrong]

David, that's EXACTLY!!! what I was complaining about!

Pax, what you said was, "Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.
(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway....).
I have done the former, I have done it regularly.