This question is almost impossible to answer with scientific evidence, so it can’t go into General Questions:
If you are confronted by a gun-toting robber who demands your wallet, and you refuse to comply, what are the odds of your getting shot? 30%? 70%?
I am not referring to trying to beat up your assailant - obviously, an armed robber who is being punched/kicked by his would-be victim might try to shoot the victim - but, rather, simply, quietly, not complying. For instance, if the robber points a gun at the victim, and demands money, the victim simply says, “No.” Maybe walks away - but does not use physical force against the robber.
Let’s also assume no drugs or alcohol is coursing through the robber’s veins.
This thread is not about the wisdom or foolishness of this sort of approach, but rather, simply asking what the likelihood would be of getting shot.
Well you would assume even a semi-rational person/criminal wouldn’t take the risk of upping a potential sentence by adding murder to their crimes, but then just anecdotally I read so many news stories where people were compliant and after the robber took their car, money, whatever went ahead and shot them anyway so I would say outright refusal would be pretty likely to get you shot, criminals are wound tight, and usually act as fast as possible to get what they’re after so I think any resistance will not be met very kindly. Better to just hand over your shit and hope they don’t shoot if there is no possible escape route and you’re at a distinct disadvantage with the other person armed with a gun and presumably in this situation you are not, life isn’t like Hollywood where you distract them and grab the gun I mean it could happen, but you would have to be pretty lucky and have a lot of things going in your favor.
You’re asking for a specific number when there simply isn’t a way to either measure one or ethically test it.
All you are going to do is receive a bunch of anecdotal evidence, which may or may not be interesting.
For my contribution, my cousin was involved in a holdup where he and his wife were confronted with armed assailants who demanded her purse. She gave it to them, he decided to the stupid and got it back and they shot him. The bullets passes through the sac around the heart, hit a rib and was defected down through his diaphragm and did more damage down there. He was hospitalized for several months. But as my grandmother said, “They didn’t get the purse.” All for $20.
The couple who shot him were apprehended and did time.
I wear a seat belt not only because it’s the law but also because it’s a good idea. My WAG is that when confronted with someone pointing a gun at you demanding money, the odds of something had happening are going to be a hell of a lot higher than the chances of getting hurt driving down for the morning latte.
If you’re assessing risk, you have to consider the outcomes as well as the odds.
The Black Knight may shrug off mere flesh wounds, but I don’t. And that’s pretty much the best outcome of getting shot. As such even if I knew the chances of getting shot were <1%, I’d still hand over my wallet because I’d rather certainly lose my money than just maybe take a bullet.
So I guess the supplementary question for anyone offering to assess this risk is: given that estimate, would you attempt the OP’s calm refusal? (Or to put it in the vernacular, do you feel lucky, punk?)
This happened to someone I knew as well. He had a small business delivering fresh seafood to restaurants. It was probably an inside job of some sort, the robber got him on a Friday evening after making his collections, and apparently knew that he kept the money stuffed in various pockets and inside the lining of his coat and clothes. The guy kept hitting him until he had turned over all the money. He decided to retire as a result, largely because he had a period of 6 months to a year of surgeries and recovery to fix all the damage and he knew he’d lose all his customers if he shut down for that long.
Anyway, stories like this illustrate that robbers want money and valuables, they don’t want to be murderers. Some are willing to be murderers, and they are just as likely to kill the victim whether or not they cooperate.
Some have the gun for the hope that it’ll just deter anyone from fighting back, and, if confronted, will just run away. Keep in mind that this will still average a decent success rate for the robber.
Others are just murderers who’ll rob you in advance so they don’t lose get-away time by searching the body.
Others (perhaps most?) are somewhere in between.
This also doesn’t take into account different degrees/definitions of “confrontation”.
When you talking about muggers and armed robbers semi-rational is making a big leap of faith. Many of them will be people with mental problems, substance abuse problems, or both.
Yes ZPG Zealot I agree with you, you completely left out the rest of that sentence you quoted from me about why that assumption is unfounded. :rolleyes:
Well one thing I know as a soldier is that killing a person is not easy. It’s also very important if you want to kill someone that you decide what circumstances you are going to kill before you get into the situation that requires deadly force. So if you’re in a situation where someone is pointing a gun at you and you pull out your own weapon and shoot them it’s entirely likely that the bad guy will not be ready for that situation and offer little to no resistance to your actions. However it’s not a guarantee that you’ll be the winner in the situation but I’d give better than even money that a person who is prepared to do what they need to do will win over the average thief.
I agree with “… that a person who is prepared to do what they need to do will win …” Where I think you’re in error is in assuming the thief hasn’t already decided what he “needs to do”.
Unless you’re his first “customer” ever, he’s already dealt with cooperative victims, uncooperative victims, and fighting-back victims. And will have practice doing whatever it is he does in response.
The typical street crime event is a well-prepared crook vs. an unprepared victim. Admittedly the crook probably has drug, mental, and IQ challenges vis-a-vis the victim. But he has two very valuable assets: the tactical initiative and practice.
You as potential victim can certainly improve your skills at counter-mugging. Whether that’s perfecting your situational awareness, your running, or your quick-draw-and-fire skills. One thing that *won’t *improve your preparedness is assuming your assailant is a clueless amateur.
Bingo. An armed robber doesn’t generally want to kill you, but they don’t have much patience with people who don’t understand their role in the transaction.
My anecdotal contributions. A friend got held up by a teenager. He handed over his wallet, the kid pulled the trigger anyway. The gun jammed, and the kid panicked and ran.
I also know someone who got carjacked. He refused to hand over his keys and was shot dead, leaving a wife and kids.
I can’t say whether the carjacker was or wasn’t high, but I can say that you can’t expect a teenager with a gun to act predictably.