TexasCHLforum.com

That sounds like a job that would give you some perspective..

What do you think the actual chances are of violence after compliance if they're not 50/50? I choose to believe what I do because I think that most common robberies aren't necessarily life threatening. I believe it's both easier and less risky (on average) to comply. Then again, being pushed, hit, shoved - those things are likely - maybe I'll feel different as I get older and those things become more substantial threats.

Abraham wrote:cb1000rider,
If assaulted, you think you might simply not have the resolve to defend yourself with a gun, and with respect, why carry it?

I didn't say that I wouldn't defend myself (or my family) with a gun against any assault, especially if I consider that assault a deadly threat. I'm also still reasonably physically capable, although I recognize that won't always be the case, so I think there might be in-between options. Using a firearm has complications, unfortunately, and for me it's not all or nothing. I simply said that I'm unwilling to shoot someone that deprives me of property in a robbery situation (excluding home invasion) as a default response. That's in contrast to BaldEagle, who indicates the opposite (not a criticism).

That also doesn't mean I wouldn't support someone else's right to make a different choice in defending themselves.

Abraham wrote: Correct me if I misunderstand, but what I get out of your perspective is, if you are robbed, you'd be willing to gamble with your life that the 50-50 chance of "it doesn't always go the other way either" would be a comfortable enough scenario for you not to act, but instead comply with the robber, relying on him being a reasonable sort who won't kill you if you comply with his demands.

Do I have that right?

BTW, I think the argument that self-defense isn't necessary when only property is at risk is very short sighted.

I think you've got a good part of it right. I'd probably gamble. I'd take issue with two things though:
1) I don't think that the chances are 50/50. You're indicating that 50% of robberies end with serious injuries after compliance. I don't think that's the case. If it is the case, I might be willing to reconsider.
2) You're indicating that I'm gambling with my life to comply. I'd submit that I'm also gambling with my life by escalating and may very well be at a tactical disadvantage.

I appreciate your opinion and discussion..

VMI77 wrote: I agree that a lethal response may not always be the best response or even practical in some cases. However, the part I "reddened" is the part of your response I don't quite understand....how are you going to know or determine that? I submit that you can't and you're not. I'd guess that most people who have complied with the demands of a robber were surprised when visited by further violence. You're saying you're going to judge someone's capacity for further violence but I suggest that what you'd actually be doing is simply rolling the dice. In fact, unless you're 100% certain that you can determine your attacker is not going to visit further violence upon you, rolling the dice is exactly what you're doing.

I submit that I agree with you. You can't definitively determine if compliance will be met with further violence. I did mention two cases in which I would assume further violence - home invasion and a car-jacking where the car owner gets to stay with the vehicle.
You're absolutely right that it's a dice role. Again, I think it requires evaluation. But I don't think that you the right answer is to escalate in every single case..

I think the point of discussion is simply - if given a choice and if you don't know full intent - do you comply or escalate?

VMI77 wrote: When someone gets the drop on you you're in a tough situation --no doubt about that. In the end though you have only two choices, resist or comply. You have no idea what is really motivating the person in front of you. If you comply you're just betting the odds on the goodwill of your assailant. Before you've complied you have some opportunity to act even if you've got a gun pointed at you because you still have some element of surprise and the chance to get inside his OODA loop. If you hand over your wallet and your assailant pulls the trigger immediately thereafter he's in your OODA loop and your opportunity to act is gone.

Agree. When I go on my robbery spree and assuming I'm willing to kill someone after they comply, why even give them the opportunity to resist or comply? That doesn't make sense to me. I guess what I'm saying that is if you're being robbed, instead of being shot, there is a decent chance that they're after your property... That's not a solid every time rule, but that's what is going through my head.. at least right now.

Abraham wrote:"
Answer: You can't be sure. Passivity isn't a good plan.

So the best plan is always lethal response? I strongly disagree. Although you're right that not every single robbery attempt that is complied with ends well, it doesn't always go the other way either. If the only response to a deadly weapon (or threat of) is to produce a deadly weapon, many of those incidents are going to end badly - especially if you're already disadvantaged. I don't think that an escalation means that you're going to have a better outcome.

If you want my car or my wallet and have a deadly weapon - no problem. I'll hand them right over. Take them and walk away - that will be the end of it. The wallet loss will be a bigger problem than losing the car and the actual cost of that loss will only be what cash I'm carrying and a deductible.

I'm not one to shoot over property. The only exception would be if I felt that further violence was imminent, as in a home invasion. Or if I was told to stay in the car during a car-jacking.

Why do I think like that? The chances that using deadly force may incur additional costs are substantial - as I'm immediately talking to an attorney. What replacing that property costs me out of pocket is likely very much less than what an attorney will charge my for representation when being questioned by the PD. That's just math. And honestly, I dont want to live with killing someone over property. And I don't think that it's necessarily a better physical outcome - you don't know who you're dealing with or who else might be helping.

In regard to the fear of having your wallet/keys/address result in additional crime: I think that's not a very likely scenario. Keys don't really provide substantial advantages for entering a residence for someone who is willing to do armed robbery. Exterior doors on most of our homes are easily breached. My address is public record. You can get it from my license plate. I hear the same scare tactics from Realtors and car dealers - dont sell it yourself as people will have your address as it's just too dangerous. Maybe it's a valid fear in the big city? I'm not sure.

Each situation needs to be evaluated.