Pizza store Heroics concern "Safety Watchdog"
 

This is ridiculous. This woman wants people to remain victims instead of taking any action to defend themselves. She needs to see a psychiatrist.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...7-1702,00.html

Uhh, I agree with the lady. Good for them, stopping the robber and all, but when it comes down to it, I'm not gonna risk my life over a few bucks.

If someone is robbing my store with a gun, I'm just gonna hand over the money, and call the cops, because Its not in my plan to get shot.

Sad fact is, even if you cooperate you stand a good chance of being shot. Robbery seems to have lost it's chivalry these days. I think it would be wiser to consider these may be your last few moments alive on this earth. What are you gonna do?

""The best course of action is to co-operate with the robber – it is never worth putting yourself and others at risk in these situations by trying to be a hero," she said."

This is the crux of the argument.

If you believe that cooperating with a robber will not escalate the crime to a more violent level than resisting is a bad idea

If you believe that cooperating with a robber will not prevent escalating of the crime to a violent level then resisting is a good idea

It may sound whacky but if I could "trust" a criminal just to do the original crime I could accept the non-resistance opinion.

However, the news is full of stories of petty criminals just shooting, stabbing, beating up people who were cooperating. It all comes down to what was the motivation for the crime

I fear that many crimes are not motivated by a desire for efficient easy money but for a sense of control and what better way to demonstrate your "control" over a stranger then by hurting them.

Personally, if I feel I have a good chance I will resist. Now if I am totally out gunned then I have to take my chances. But in today's violent society, I feel that "trusting" the criminal to only rob you and not hurt you is folly :(

There has been some sad cases where people have tried to stop theives, and have ended up dead as the result. As mentioned above, sometimes it's best to co operate, others it's best to resist.:-?

It doesn't matter whats on the news, the truth is, most robbers just want a quick buck, and have no want for anymore trouble than they already have. Robbery is already a serious enough offense as it is. Most criminals have no plan to get themselves jailed for life.

Now, that doesn't apply to all robbers, but in general, I, again, have no plans on risking my life over a few dollars. I would rather take my chances and give them the money, rather than get shot in the face trying to protect some stupid company's money.

Figuring out which course to take in a given situation is the problem. I think if resistance was more common there'd be less crime overall as all the weaker criminals would be too afraid of the potential consequences to attempt it.

I disagree. That's only valid if the criminal expects to get caught which they obviously don't or else they wouldn't be attempting the crime in the first place. On the other hand any fool knows that dead people don't testify.

I'd say if the criminal identifies himself to his victims, say by not using a mask, cooperation is not a good idea. You might just be cooperating in your own death, and maybe those around you as well.

You don't see too many robberies at gun stores. All the sales people are armed.

What does that say about the 'common criminal'.

Criminals always seem to attack weak targets. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

If these scum bags knew that the could face armed resistance they will probably not do the crime.

Given the different outcomes no single attitude will be the best course of action in every situation. It's a matter of analyzing it and judging your chances. To decide a priori and stick only with either the worst or the best you can imagine or know is to ignore a multiplicity of possibilites and previous cases that unfolded one way or the other. By doing so whenever presented with a situation that demands the contrary you will end up taking the worst alternative, no matter how good your intentions were, if at all.

Considering the best course of action as that which has everybody walking out alive, in a case where a robber is going to kill the victims and no opportunity to succesfully overcome him is ever presented attempting to subjugate him or not is indifferent to an outcome that won't be the best. Even so, tragedy is still better than slaughterhouse. On the other hand, if the criminal will murder someone and he can be successfully stopped inaction is a transgression itself.

Personally, I've done each once. Kicked a gang of robbers out of a house with an old S&W .22 and spared one victim from stabbing or perhaps everybody else, myself included, and remained immobile and quiet in the back seat of a car while a little thief completed his robbery with a knife held to the neck of a front-seat passenger. Although he ran away with his back turned to us, I allowed him to get away as I was sure he was a minor. Won't go wrong with prudency and sound judgement.

If you get robbed, give the robber what he wants. It's really that simple.

The argument that 'hey, he may attack me even if I cooperate' is just silly. If you engage him in combat, the chances are far higher he'll retaliate than if you just co-operate. Seriously, 'I'm afraid he wants to fight me, so I'll start a fight with him'? What?

It's even fuller of people getting robbed without getting shot and killed.

Fearing something doesn't make it true. You need to cite some sort of viable, objective source, or you're putting yourself at risk over an unsupported assertion.

Poor argument. What it comes down to is that your money is not worth your health. Also, there's no real way of knowing you're outgunning your foe. There could be more robbers nearby. He could be carrying a concealed weapon. He could be stronger than he looks, or even proficient at martial arts.

Also, if you know you'll face armed resistance and you still plan a robbery, you'll just show up more heavily armed. An arms race with criminals is not something I want to get into.

I respect your opinion and your decisions, but still, there's no way of knowing what the criminal intends. If he does not want a fight and you start one, people get hurt needlessly. Of course the opposite holds true also, but I feel passivity is the better way to go, both short-term and long-term.

Indeed, if you start a fight and fail causing death then it's exactly as being able to prevent it and not doing it. The only time you know for sure is when somebody is actually harmed. That can also be the window of opportunity if while in doing so the aggressor distracts himself. If not, then it doesn't really matter. Besides, it's by playing nice, afraid and scared that you'll get your element of surprise, if that chance ever comes up. Reacting successfully requires having the advantage, without it the best option is definitely to stay put.

I hope I didn't left such a big hole in my post.

Quote:
Its a great argument! It is called deterence and it kept The Soviets out of Europe for 50 years. The same deterents can and do (gun stores) prevent crime. Why else do the police carry firearms? The threat of deadly physical force is a strong deterent.

Martial arts. You have seen too many films and cop shows. If you can show any evidence that the human body can stop a bullet I'd love to see it.
The classic Weaver stance you see in film or on TV isn't what anyone properly trained is going to use. That technique is good at 20 to 40 feet. CQC with a handgun is something quite different and no round house kick is going to stop the bullet. Also an actual fire arm is much, much more striking as far as noise is concerned. If the assailant is not killed with the first shot, likely, the noise itself will set him/her back.

Fire arms are a deterent much like nuclear anihilalation is. A bullet can also be anihilalation for the criminal.

Dead thugs tell no tales.:yep:

And that fata$$ed beauracrat mutt is going to say anything to justify her cushey job. The employees saw their advantage and took it. :up: