Pine Bluff Burger King Worker Shoots Alleged Robber

An employee of a Pine Bluff Burger King restaurant successfully defended the business against an alleged robber on Monday night.
Police say it happened shortly after eleven o'clock on South Olive Street.
That's where officers say Jason Robinson, 22, of Pine Bluff was shot when he put down his weapon to stuff cash into a bag. He was taken to the hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound to the thigh before being taken to jail.
The employee who shot Robinson told police she was in the office counting the money when she looked up and saw him come around a corner with a mask on his face. She shut the office door but let him in after he pointed a gun at her and reportedly told her he would kill her if she didn't open up the door.
After she opened the door, Robinson put the gun down so he could put the money in a bag. That's when police say she picked up the gun and they began to wrestle. The woman said she knew she shot him, but doesn't remember when she did.
She reported she put him in a head lock and called the police from another phone.


http://arkansasmatters.com/content/news/fulltext?cid=314822

Did a heck of a job on him. Took HIS gun, shot him, then put a head lock on him!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Or bit of both

Obviously, if all the robber wanted was the money than her actions could have resulted in her being shot. On the other hand if she honestly believed that he was dangerous enough that he might shoot her after her had the money, her actions may have saved her life.

A martial arts instructor, whose class I was in, always said, "When someone approaches you with a gun or a knife and demands your money, look into their eyes. The eyes are the mirror of the soul. If you believe that all they want is your money, give it to them. Money, credit cards and your license can all be replaced. Your life can't. But if you believe they intend to harm you, even if you turn over your wallet, then use the skills that I teach. You have little to lose."

When I lived in Tampa, there was a Shell gas station up the street. One night two robbers entered and demanded the money from the cash drawer. The girl behind the counter gave it to them. They shot and killed her as they left.

Several years later I pulled into the same gas station to fill up and a police officer told me the pumps were shut down as there had just been a robbery.

The next day, I asked the clerk what had happened. He said, "A kid walked in and pointed a gun at me and asked for the cash in the register. I gave it to him and he left. No big deal."

Every situation is different.

Don't the employees know they're supposed to meekly give the gunman what they want and they won't be hurt?

I can see him in jail, "DUDE, a GIRL took your gun, shot you AND put you in a headlock? (wink) C'mere punk."

Its insured. The business probably gives two fucks about them.

This employee is an idiot. A lucky idiot

There are many goblins that will just as soon herd all witnesses into the cooler and shoot them. Better to die fighting than be a sheeple.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

You have no idea if refusing to help and fighting would result in better outcomes than just giving some corporate fat cats money away and hoping you wont be killed too.

You don't have a clue. Better to live, period.

Reid assaulted eight victims in the three robberies, killing seven of them. At the time of the murders, Reid was on parole from an 1983 aggravated armed robbery conviction.

If you are content to throw yourself on the tender mercies of some fuckhead who has already THREATENED to KILL YOU for a few hundred lousy bucks, go ahead. According to the Department of Justice, FIFTY-FIVE (55%) of the people who offer no resistance get injured anyway. Worse odds than a coin toss.

Maybe you'll be lucky and you'll die cleanly instead of after being kidnapped and tortured for a day.

No shit, eh?

:rofl:

be my guest, myself, I refuse to be a victim as apparently she did to. Kudos to her for defending herself. BTW, you weren't there, you don't know what she saw in his eyes.

So you are one to look at the mathamatics of the attack?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

No one has a crystal ball. Having some basis to build your actions on grounded in a statistical reality, readjusted for the current conditions (what you can tell observing the robber, their habits, voice, actions), is going to get you a lot further than knee jerk heroism

"You have no idea if refusing to help and fighting would result in better outcomes than just giving some corporate fat cats money away and hoping you wont be killed too.

You don't have a clue. Better to live, period."

You do NOT know if you will live if you hand over the money. The victim must make the choice if they should submit or fight. The victim alone has the information necessary to make that decision. I have had to make that choice and I fought. Others might not have. It was MY decision and in my case I am comfortable I did the right thing. Others not there might have a different opinion.

The point is a choice must be made and I support choice. I also support having access to the tools that allow me to make the choice.

I disagree. Being in a situation that induces fear and instinctual action is likely to alter perception and impede upon one's cognitive ability. We actually do not know if this victim possessed information pertaining to outcomes associated with ones actions too.

The robber would actually probably know a bit more about the situation. :)

to give you a resume of his/her past criminal activity, and a sworn affidavit of their current intentions, with an indemnity contract, prior to commencing their crime?

Or are you merely playing the fool?

No...no one is going to depend on the burglar, but only they know what they are capable of and interested in.

A victim's fear and prejudices can easily cloud their judgment....especially, for example, a racist woman looking into the face of a black man may perceive far more danger to themselves than is really potentially present in a situation.

.. you'd tell them to fuck off.

The standard for use of deadly force is what would a reasonable person believe- ie, if a reasonable person would fear grievous bodily harm or injury, you're justified in using deadly force. Pointing a gun at someone and telling them you'll shoot them if they don't comply sounds like 'reasonable apprehension' to me, regardless of race.

But feel free to drag racism into it if you feel it will deflect attention.

I'll stay on point, thanks.

be herded into the stockroom and executed? Because that's happened before.

If some shithead threatens your life, and you get an opportunity to thwart that person, take it. It's not about Burger King's money.

She will probably be fired for resisting. But she'll walk out of the store with all bodily fluids intact, which is the 'win'.

You have no idea that grabbing for a gun isn't going to get a hole in your head either.

I think if you played the odds, you may have a better chance of having bodily fluids intact by just not giving the fuck about someone else's money.

When someone else puts your life on the line, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt that they just 'want the money'.

It's an intensely personal valuation of your own life though, I don't blame you if you don't have the same response I do.

Is it riskier to attempt to fight vs cooperate? More often than not, Id take a guess that cooperating robbery victims face better outcomes than combative victims. Im sure there are some stats out there somewhere.

Each situation is different though. Some people may have better chance to fight back and robbers who are less committed to violence. There is some personal evaluation needed prior to action, which means that you cannot solely play the odds--but the odds are a pretty decent guide.

According to the Department of Justice, FIFTY-FIVE (55%) of the people who offer no resistance get injured anyway.
This was posted upthread somewhere. Perhaps that poster can link to the DOJ reference.

If your life is worth a 55% gamble... go for it. Given the opportunity, I'll chose the 45% gamble.

"get injured anyway"

"If your life is worth a 55% gamble... go for it. Given the opportunity, I'll chose the 45% gamble."

:rofl:

You people...can't logic your way out of a paper bag.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html

Refers to this:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=101318

Good analysis here:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=sqsmAwTI1HsC&lpg=PA45&ots=g1ei3KM5ub&dq=robbery%20cooperate%20resist%20injury&pg=PA138#v=onepage&f=false

If you have no weapon at all, and your assailant has a weapon, sure, you are way, way behind the curve on protecting yourself. You might well be better off chancing it with compliance. I wouldn't. That's my choice though.

BUT, in the statistics you cited, there's no way to filter that for whether the victim had credible reason to chose the 'fight' option from fight or flight. For instance, if your assailant has a bat and demands your wallet, and swings at you for whatever reason, you would probably raise your arms, getting what is considered a 'defensive wound'. Would that be counted in the study as 'fighting back'? Impossible to say.

How do you quantify the level of threat the victim perceives? At what point is 'fighting back' a conscious choice based upon some level of outrage, or a cool cost/benefit decision, versus a uncontrollable self-preservation instinct, either fight, or flight?

I do know your odds are much MUCH better if you HAVE a gun of your own in this situation, and are willing to, and know how to use it. Which doesn't correspond to the OP, since it was the attackers weapon, which may have been unloaded, the safety on, etc, and the person of questionable willingness to take a life in self defense.


For one type of crime, the US Department of Justice concluded a prospective rape victim has better odds if she (or he) fought back physically, and no statistically measurable increase in personal risk doing so.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211201.pdf

According to the researchers, the only self-protective tactics that appear to increase the risk of injury significantly were those that are ambiguous and not forceful. These included stalling, cooperating and screaming from pain or fear.

Granted, this is a very different crime from 'gimme the cash register'.

Its difficult to scoff at stats that show a 14X higher probability of death associated with the group that actively resist robbery.

From that study, it also cites that gun robbers are less likely to kill, and ties this to the fact that less people resist a gun and are more often controlled (I thought that was interesting since you mention bats).

Definitely, you cannot count out what motivates a person to resist too (some may feel they have no other choice).

Anyway you cut it though, the numbers are definitely on your side to turn over the money. Its not so simple and dry though as some people are putting forth.

-------

As far as rape is concerned...rape is rape. A rapist must accept that they will harm their victim prior to the rape. Rape is a violent crime.

Robbery can be a violent crime, but often engaged in by simply desperate people who want only money. The violence in robbery is most often *associated* with getting in the way of that person and the money.

is when the assailant decides not to leave a witness. Whether my attacker was wearing a mask or not might figure into how much of a threat that person is. No mask? Tries to move you to the back of the store out of sight? You're in deep shit.

Some guy that just wants the cash register at the front of the store, wearing a ski mask? You might be ok.

I need a number on the other end of that equation.

Surviving the encounter is of paramount importance to me. Stuff isn't.
If you are menacing me with a gun, I'm probably not even listening to instructions like 'give me the cash register', I'm looking for an opportunity to disarm or disable you.

The money isn't important, removing the threat is.

On the other end of the equation is the probability of a positive outcome from an alternative action.


Weighing risk involves comparing a set of competing actions in a scenario and evaluating what will most likely lead to a positive outcome. Its irrelevant how much you value that desired outcome, being that the goal of each action is essentially to reach it. What matters is the efficiency of the actions to reach that goal.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on...

Also, no need for the profanity. Wound a little tight perhaps?

Perhaps it is you that is wound tight.

If you are an armed robber, DON'T PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON WITHIN ARM-REACH OF THOSE BEING ROBBED!!

Sorry that the world isn't as passive as you wish it to be.

And you know, not fearing for her life or anything.

:eyes:

Probably wasn't thinking straight at all. And when she goes back to work at the bruger joint as a new found hero, she will probably keep continually not thinking her way right into that good ol American Dream.

What a joke this whole article is, including the hand clappers

Human SURVIVAL instinct takes over. Hers did, she lived. Good for her.

She got lucky. Next couple of blokes will probably get dead. Hurr-fuckn-A for her.

5 dead women at Lane Bryant, 8 dead employees at Brown's chicken and 2 at a local Burger King.

All herded to the back of the store and executed here in gun free Illinois.

Boy, it's a really good thing none of them were armed or there could have been a real problem with gun violence.

But I seriously doubt they were thinking of their corporate "fat cat masters" or the money at the time.

That's a sarcastic remark by the way.

Give them the money, keys to the car, tell them which bedroom your daughter sleeps in and hand them the remote for the flat screen and hope for the best.

Best of luck to you.

Just don't try to force your choices on everyone else.

After the manager tried to flee and the robber shot her, thereby incurring a first-degree murder charge, he offed the two other employees as well, and ended up fleeing without any money.

The robber/murderer used two handguns (a .380 and a .38), in spite of this being D.C. in 1997.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/march99/affidavit18.htm

He's going to jail.

"blokes" :rofl:

Try survival instinct. She was alone in a room with a man threatening to kill her.

Your non-related and asinine points don't change the fact she felt the need to do something.

You're so laughable. Sorry but sometimes the real world intrudes no matter what "point" you want to make.

Animals act on instincts too, and that surely doesn't make them smart. 'Instincts' don't rely on intelligence. It takes intelligence to override instinctual behavior and use your body at that time in a way most beneficial to your survival.

"she felt the need to do something"

Thats what her instincts may of told her, and she could of ended up dead following them. She got lucky in this situation. But by no means should we glorify this exception and use it as a road map to how employees should act in the future.

It also doesn't sound like her robber was entirely brilliant, which helped her succeed.

In Pine Bluff, Arkansas. With a piece 'o crap .25-cal that was older than he was (the Sterling 300 went out of production 26 years ago).

And to you, too, I recommend perusing a copy of The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. In "dynamic critical incidents" like these, our instincts can serve us very well indeed, if we only let them.

He put his gun down after all

All to save BK profits. Good for her, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Thats what Ive been learning.

They ARE suggesting fighting for ones life is better than being shot execution style.

At the funeral home: "She was cooperative. She's dead, but she was cooperative".

"They ARE suggesting fighting for ones life is better than being shot execution style."


This rests on the premise that cooperating leads to you being shot more often than fighting back. Its not some either/or bullshit.

Are you posting on instinct or using your noggin?

Nor does the Department of Justice, apparently.

Zimring & Zuehl, 1986

Florida did not become shall-issue until 1987. At the time of that study, resistance with a gun was a rarity. Now, 41 states are shall-issue. The dynamics have changed. That was a study of unarmed resistance. A new study with armed resistance is needed.

My wife saved her life by giving armed resistance to a thug.

"That was a study of unarmed resistance"

This Burger King employee wasn't armed. She made a grab for the robber's gun.

If the robber looks unstable enough to kill you, working for BK is irrelevant.

In most situations, the BK policy of compliance is solid. BK doesn't want you to be a hero. You don't want to be a dead fool.

In those situations where you honestly believe that the attacker wants to hurt or kill you, you seize an opportunity to gain advantage in the situation. This robber laid his gun down and she grabbed it. The fact that she put him in a headlock MAY indicate that she had some training.

To fairly assess the situation, you would have to be the the girl's shoes.

If you actively resist you automatically put yourself in the 7% of people who fight back and contribute to 51% of all deaths. Thats a pretty bleak group to join voluntarily.

Assume there are 2 deaths per every 100 people....1 in the 7 people who resist (14% chance of death) and 1 in the 93 of people who do not (1% chance)

Because of your actions, you are now 14X more likely to die statistically speaking than by doing nothing.

Though, perhaps some people "join" this group because they feel their death is imminent anyway. There is no way to really determine if it was or not.


"To fairly assess the situation, you would have to be the the girl's shoes."

Probably not actually. Watching it, perhaps...but being emotionally involved and scared would get in the way of a fair assessment.

watching the situation would provide you with a better evaluation. I agree.

One situation I remember occurred to a co-worker. He was in an community actors group and after the last play of the season he was returning another female actor back to her apartment. They drove into her apartment complex and just as they parked, a man walked up to the driver's door and pointed a firearm at my co-worker.

Worried about his female passenger, he threw his door open knocking the attacker off balance. As the man fell, he fired a 9mm round from his pistol which struck my co-worker in the upper thigh. The bullet damaged the femoral artery and my co-worker nearly bled out. His life was saved by quick response from paramedics and the fact that a hospital was very close.

He realized afterward that he was very lucky and that his actions were foolish. He did, however, decide to buy a firearm to carry in his car and I believe he obtained a concealed weapons permit.

A fellow shooter with a CCW stopped at a traffic light late at night and a man walked up to his vehicle and stuck a firearm in his open window. He told my friend to get out. My friend, a short little tough guy from Great Britain, gave the guy the finger as he floored his car, driving through the red light and leaving the carjacker in the middle of the road looking foolish. My friend always carried a snub nosed .22 mag revolver in a holster on his belt. He could have drawn the weapon and shot the attacker as he got out of his car. His decision to floor the gas pedal worked out well, but could have easily ended in his being shot. Of course, getting out of his car and shooting the carjacker could have also resulted in his being shot. Perhaps his best choice would have been to give up his car.

Each situation is different and there isn't a hell of a lot of time to make a decision. The main object is to survive without serious injury or death.

I also knew a black belt in judo who was a bouncer in a bar. After the bar closed, he would take the money to a drop off in a nearby bank. One night as he was walking down the street, a car pulled up and two men with guns stepped out and told him to hand over the money. He did. Later he asked the sensei at the dojo if he did the right thing. The sensei merely asked him if he was alive. The bouncer after some reflection realized that he hadn't been practicing situational awareness as he had noticed the same car driving past him before.

Another acquaintance was working at a convenience store when he was robbed by two armed men. He wasn't terrified as he realized that all the men wanted was the money, but he did say that one man was pointing a larger caliber Ruger .44 magnum at him with the hammer cocked. This individual's hand was shaking with his finger on the trigger. My acquaintance asked him calmly to point his weapon elsewhere and he would get the money. There was a revolver under the counter, but obviously grabbing it would have been a bad choice.

Still, you can do everything right and end up dead.

Personality and background and experience probably determine if you submit or resist. For most people, submitting is probably the best choice. There are exceptions.

For all we know, this brilliant robber could of been on his knees shoving the money into a bag with his gun left on the counter. Thats a green light.

Probably not the case, being that a struggle ensued.

All employees are taught to just give the money over. She wasn't defending BK money, she was afraid that she was going to be hurt and was acting on survival impulse.

"she was being stupid"

I've never understood why self-defense bothers passive people so much.

Its just stupidity. And everyone is hand-clapping a stupid person who got lucky and beat the odds.

Actually, not so stupid if you look at it. Logically, the person who controls the gun has the better chance of survival. Unarmed robber + armed victim = high probability of victim's survival. When he put the gun down, it would have been stupid of her NOT to go for it.

The primitive, animalistic part is the speed with which she made her decision and acted on it. That's the kind of primitive animalism that helps people stay alive in certain situations.

When the gun was down, they were both unarmed. Statistically speaking, robberies not conducted with guns result in a higher incidence of injury (mostly because the victims try and resist). It wasn't until after action was initiated that she became "armed", and it isn't clear from the article that she was even in the position to properly use the weapon. The man was shot...but was it before or during the wrestling? Sounds like it wasn't even necessarily a conscious shooting too.

The point is that she initiated resistance in a situation that has a higher chance of injury, and this resulted in a wrestling match she was lucky to have won. Sounds like a no-brain move.


"That's the kind of primitive animalism that helps people stay alive in certain situations"

True enough. No idea though if it kills people just as much though.

De Becker is in the business of predicting violence (https://www.gavindebecker.com/), and he's rather good at it. He opens his book The Gift of Fear by describing an incident of a woman named Kelly who was raped by a guy who gained entrance to her apartment by insisting on helping her carry her groceries. After the rape, the rapist told her to stay in the bedroom while he got something to drink in the kitchen, after which he would leave. Instead of staying in the bedroom, Kelly followed him unnoticed, and when he went into the kitchen, she continued out her front door and to the neighboring apartment. The reason Kelly took this risk, though she didn't put it together consciously until afterward, was because her intuition had noted the significance of the fact that the rapist closed the bedroom window and turned up the stereo before going to the kitchen, the most likely place in the house to find a large knife. She intuitively understood that the man intended to kill her.

De Becker goes on to argue that so many of us fall prey to violence because we've been culturally conditioned to try to rationalize away the signals our intuition is giving us. Like dismissing them as "primitive, animalistic instincts," for example.

If the BK employee in this incident did in fact act on her intuition, she was being anything but stupid. The best evidence of that is the fact that it worked. It's facile to point to the statistics and say "she got extraordinarily lucky" because while statistics based on larger populations are useful for predicting the future behavior of that population, or others, they do not necessarily apply to any given individual in a specific situation. De Becker again:


The problem with your conclusion that "the 7% of victims who resisted accounted for 51% of the deaths" means that resisting is stupid is that a) you're equating correlation with causation (though I'll acknowledge the correlation is too strong to ascribe to chance) and, more importantly, that b) you're assuming which way the causal relationship runs. It's entirely possible that, at least in some cases, the people who resisted and were killed resisted because they suspected the assailant was going to kill them whether they resisted or not, and therefore chose to resist so as to have at least a chance of surviving. If so, the fact that the resistance failed to save them doesn't mean it was stupid of them to do so.

There's not enough evidence for me to argue that this definitely is the case, but it's a possibility that cannot be discounted out of hand.

..and robbers have more than once killed compliant victims for kicks and/or to eliminate any pesky witnesses.

Then they get even angrier when you back up what you have said with statistics from the Department of Justice

Of course you can get killed by cooperating, but you are definitely playing the odds properly.

Your stats say absolutely nothing, in comparing scenarios and determining the odds of death

In an armed robbery, you have to go with your own instincts on whether the thug will take the money or leave, or whether he will hurt you out of sadistic pleasure, a need to build street dred, or to eleminate a witness. Only the victim is in a position to make the decision to fight or not. It is unfair to her for us to sit in our chairs and second-guess her.

"It is unfair to her for us to sit in our chairs and second-guess her."

Ah...come on now...its just as unfair to applaud her actions or recommend them in anyway, especially looking at the numbers. Statistically speaking, she got lucky.

Maybe Im just a happy little counter balance.

Because it doesn't agree with survey data that has been cited here many times.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=101318

Essentially, just do the math. If the 7% of robbery victims who resisted accounted for 51% of robbery related deaths, that makes this group 14 X more likely to die than the other 93% who didn't resist.

Get it? Half the deaths came from the victims who actively resisted, and there aren't a whole lot of those

Its an older study, but widely cited in crime & harm reduction research. More recent studies also cite resistance as the highest factor associated with death of the robbery victims

"Robbery victim deaths were strongly associated with active victim resistance. Street robbery involved a active victim resistance. Street robbery involved a relatively high risk for victim injury but a low risk of death."

Essentially, just do the math. If the 7% of robbery victims who resisted accounted for 51% of robbery related deaths, that makes this group 14 X more likely to die than the other 93% who didn't resist.

That conclusion does not in any way follow logically from the cited study. Your assertion that non-resistance increases the likelihood of survival doesn't follow from it either.

I have no idea where you got your "7% of robbery victims" or "51% of robbery related deaths", but they did not come from the cited abstract.

Crazy that. You mean to say that abstracts don't get down to the nitty gritty?

:rofl:

An article on that study:



DON'T RESIST ROBBERY, CHICAGO STUDY WARNS
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html

If the bad guy has a weapon, and I have none, then I am very, very likely to get hurt if I resist. But if I have a gun, the odds change. You are using a study of unarmed resistance to argue against armed resistance.

Again, 1984 was before widespread concealed-carry. IOW, before armed resistance.

Read the article. You are embarrassing yourself.

The study was done BEFORE the spread of shall-issue laws. At that time, armed resistance was rare.

You are just talking out of your ass. Absolute bollocks.


Yes, its an older study. Its also very commonly cited in more recent studies that build on these results. Its so obsolete that the government recognizes it as an authority in the context of minimizing workplace risk (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/violrel.html).


Its just getting silly now.

When I used to solo work night shift at a C-store, company policy was for cashiers to be unarmed. I had a Kel-Tec P3AT in my pocket, every shift. My plan was to cooperate with the robber, give him the company's money, unless I thought he was going to do me harm anyway. Sometimes they do that.

Don't get all huffy about it.

It could be that people who are faced with more violent robbers are more likely to fight back.

Or...maybe they *perceive* the robbers as more threatening and fight back and get shot. Who knows really. Can't ask them.

That study was done before widespread concealed carry.

She grabbed for the gun while it was down and struggled with the robber (ending up in him shot).

The point is that in her situation, resistance is the leading indicator of death in a robbery. Concealed carry has nothing to do with this event.

Given the limited knowledge of her situation, I think she acted well. The thug set the gun down, releasing it from his hand, from his immediate control. Action beats reaction. She saw that she could grab the gun and control the situation. She saw an opportunity and took it.

She did not attempt to super-ninja take the gun from his hand. She was cooperative with the robber up to the point when he let his guard down. If a crook is stupid enough to set his gun on a counter and takes his hand off of it, if I am close enough I would make a grab for it too.

To shove all acts of resistance into one basket is a mistake. Situations are different and will call for different responses.

She was lucky to have a positive result from the struggle. The robber was dumb. Statistically speaking, she took a great risk.

You need to get off the "old study" thing. Find a new one that shows unarmed robbery victims are as likely to live by resisting, and Ill give you that. You wont find one though.

AFTER she grabbed the gun off the counter he tried to take it back and got shot for his stupidity. Until he laid the gun down, she was cooperative.

She shouldn't of picked up shit unless she knew she could drop the man before he would touch her.

Thats my honest opinion. In the situation that it was safe for her to take the gun, no wrestling would of ensued.

She rolled the dice. Worked out for her. Definitely not a model for how to react.

It appears that she may have been hesitant to shoot him, thereby giving him a chance to try to get the gun back.

Then she shouldn't of grabbed it. Escalating the situation without knowing you can end it only enhances the danger.


You are throwing the term "control" around loosely. Not enough information really to know what happened or how long she possessed it prior to the wrestling. If for a split second, or less, you can hardly call that control. If for a few minutes, then yes. Its not worded that way.

Once she got it in her hand, it never left her hand. She retained control of the weapon and shot him when he tried to get the gun back.

Most people will hesitate to seriously harm another person, especially to shoot them. That is just human nature. It takes a lot of training to get past that hesitation, and for most it will still be there. That is why I think that she hesitated.

Being that he could of had his hand immediately on top of hers. In a life and death situation, set your bars a bit higher. If you are going to escalate the situation, be beyond certain you will succeed with your actions (or have no other choice). Otherwise, its called being stupid.

You can't have you Kate and Edith, too.

According to Gallup's historic polling, IIRC ~40% of the public though that handguns should be banned to all but law enforcement / military use at that time (now sits around 29%).

The gallup site is down for maintenance, but I pulled this from google cache-


Even better, see this study from 1993. I'll grab the full text next time I'm at the library.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0360v85xu42248p/

"Armed resistance is more effective than unarmed resistance, and resistance with a gun, though relatively rare, is the most effective victim response of all. Resistance with a gun also appears to reduce the likelihood of the victim being injured, while two types of resistance appear to increase it: (1) unarmed physical force against the robber and (2) trying to get help, attract attention, or scare the robber away."

"reduces the probability of the robbery being completed"

No shit?!? Do I care about the robbery being completed? No. I care about my safety.


"Resistance with a gun also appears to reduce the likelihood of the victim being injured, while two types of resistance appear to increase it: (1) unarmed physical force against the robber and (2) trying to get help, attract attention, or scare the robber away. "

And specifically, Ive addressed unarmed resistance this thread being that the victim did not have a weapon at the time of the robbery (they were not in the position to use one until after resistance was initiated). This coincides with the study I posted.


"robber gun possession thereby reduces the probability of victim injury."

Interesting point Ive already mentioned too (related to pacifying the victim). Being a woman also reduces the chance of harm. She had the odds on her side really prior to resistance.


"Even better, see this study from 1993"

Which analyzes results from 1979-1985


"when public attitudes toward handguns was different"

Why does that have any relevance to what happens when you resist a robbery vs what happens when you cooperate?

If more people are resisting with firearms, then a study before the popularization of handguns for personal defense has less value. About as much value as resisting v complying when the arms of the time were cutlasses (cutlaii?).

Kleck's was the first study to specifically look at resistance via firearms, IIRC. That, or a Journal of Trauma Medicine article by.. umm Goertz? I know I've got the article around somewhere.

And thereafter, they had to wrestle with a grown man. So...that talking point just doesn't pan out. If she was a concealed weapon holder, sure....not the case


It doesn't even make sense to mention this. Its silly.

Then it does.

Make up your mind, are you going to try to generalize, or are you going to stick to this particular instance? You can't have it both ways.

Im taking this specific case and showing what the probability of her actions were either way.


She didn't have a concealed weapon. I dont need to consider that scenario because it wasn't a possibility here. Im therefore considering unarmed resistance vs cooperation.

You're making generalizations about resistance v compliance based on a study done when two states had concealed carry.

If you intended to be general about unarmed resistance, then you should be specific.

From #26- "Is it riskier to attempt to fight vs cooperate? " -- via what means? You didn't specify unarmed.

#60 - "Its difficult to scoff at stats that show a 14X higher probability of death associated with the group that actively resist robbery." -- Not when the 'stats' are before many carried concealed, and you didn't specify unarmed.

This chick wasn't armed and had no concealed weapon. Thats the starting point.


Fine...if you are packing heat, disregard anything Ive said that doesn't pertain to this specific woman. If you aren't, heed the numbers.


Was it worth it to you to muck it all up with the CCW bullshit that beyond irrelevant?

What is not relevant is even mentioning CCW in this discussion, which has nothing to do with it.




:wtf:

...with grabbing his gun when he had released it. She grabbed it, he tried to grab it back, she shot him. Her resistance began with reaching for a gun.

We both weren't there. Ya don't know if she dove across him onto the loose gun, just to have him immediately jump on her back and wrestle for minutes until a shot luckily was discharged into him (perhaps from his own pressure on the trigger).


"Her resistance began with reaching for a gun."

And yet you say I was wrong when I stated "this person resisted prior to having a fire arm"

Reaching for a gun means she didn't have one. Therefore, her resistance started prior to being armed. I was entirely correct with my statement

He demanded the money. She gave it to him. He couldn't scoop it up with one hand and hold the bag too. Stupidly he put the gun down to use both hands to get the money. (That is from the news article.) That's when she reached for the gun. Until she grabbed the gun, she had been cooperative. Therefore, her resistance began when she made the decision and acted to grab the gun. After she grabbed the gun he tried to get it back and got shot for his efforts.

Wrestle for minutes??? You have been watching too much TV. Those kind of fights rarely last more than a few seconds.

Way to go.

The girl didn't start out resisting, but when the crook did something really stupid, the took advantage of it.

She cooperated with the crook, but then the crook set his gun down and took his hand off of it. He released the gun from his immediate control. She did not attempt to wrestle the gun away from him. She grabbed his uncontrolled gun. Grabbers-Keepers. Then he tried to take it back from her. So she shot him.

This crook deserves a nomination to "World's Dumbest Crooks".

Now look at 'im.;(