Not being able to carry in the state makes me sad.

I think you mean “not having the same rights to protect myself as someone who lives 30 minutes away from me makes me sad” – remember some parts of CA are basically shall issue while others just require you to know the right people.

I would say an exception should be made if you have lo-jack on your car and someone tries to take it from you, since it could/should lead to them being caught red handed.

Also I am really mad that I was mugged when I was pregnant. Fighting back was not an option.

You should never try to fight against someone who just wants your monetary possessions, especially if they have a weapon–or may have a weapon. What’s more important to you? The cash in your wallet and the time it will take to call and cancel your cards? Or your life, and your health? This is not an email about being scared, it is an email about how to protect your life. I’m curious as to how you, “fought back and kept everything and watched the guy get arrested.” Was there a police officer passing by at that very moment? Because chances are good that at the moment a crime is being committed, L.A.’s finest are nowhere to be found, and if you fight back against the wrong person, they’ll get away with a lot more than your Triple A and Ralph’s Club cards. Lastly but most importantly, there’s nothing to feel bad about as a victim if you have chosen or choose to comply. The last thing the victim of a crime needs is to be blamed for “making it easier for criminals to function.” I’m surprised as someone who’s been through it that you would help blame the victim. There are times when fighting back is necessary for survival–but if all someone wants is for you to empty your pockets, why would you place your life in danger?

Spoken like someone who has never been mugged. When you get robbed the cash and time you lose is the least of your worries. The bigger issue is the feeling of violation and insecurity you feel afterwards for days, weeks, even years. The fear of being alone or doing anything on your own, even leaving the house. The cash isn’t the issue, your self respect is. As someone who has been through if the option is getting punched or spending the next 6 months depressed because I wish I’d done something different or afraid to walk through a parking lot alone I’ll take the punch everytime. I’m not blaming the victim, I’m blaming bad advice for making more victims. Your point that law enforcement isn’t around supports what I’m saying – since the cops are not there to defend you, you should be able to defend yourself – or at least feel that is an option rather than being told to give up before anything even happens.

As someone who was mugged in LA, I strongly disagree. I was mugged by three kids, and I thought about fighting back till they pulled the knife. So I handed them the six bucks in cash in one pocket, and they ran away, leaving me with my wallet in the other pocket. It’s about being smart, not being macho. Yeah, I felt violated, but I would have felt a hell of lot more violated by a puncture wound.

Also worth noting — I was mugged by three people with at least one weapon. The email you quote involved three muggers with at least one weapon. The other attacks in Silve Lake and Echo Park all involved at least two muggers with at least one weapon. I don’t know how they do it in other cities, but around here, the muggers seem to have backup. So if you have kung fu superpowers to fight of crowds of knife-weilding attackers on your own, go right ahead. Speaking from my own experience, if I’m alone facing multiple people with knives, I’ll give them my cash, watch them run away, and go home with my stuff and my bodily fluids.

Another anecdote — my friend who was mugged in the Valley a couple years back tried to fight off what he thought was a lone mugger. The mugger’s partner across the street shot him in the leg.

You’re Batman, good for you. The best advice for mere mortals — give up the cash. It’s far more cost effective.

I think you are taking a 50/50 chance in fighting back. I also think that circumstances have a lot to do with it. Just a block from where I live a woman was mugged and badly beaten…who knows if it would have been better or worse for her if she fought back. It depends on the number of people who are attacking you, if they have weapons, if you have weapons, if you have any ability or know-how on how to fight back, if you are in a position to fight back…so many factors involved. I think you can get yourself into more trouble if you don’t know how to defend yourself properly.

I also don’t believe that just because citizens are advised not to fight back that all of a sudden you are going to see an onslaught of muggers. Muggers do get caught as long as there is police enforcement. In my own neighborhood we have seen increased police presence because of our neighborhood watch program and association with the local police department.

Citizens need to be aware, watch out for each other, work with law enforcement and think about taking a self defense course in order to properly defend yourself.

LEt me be very clear here – I’m not saying every single person should be fighting back, what I’m saying is telling people that giving up is their best option is bad advice. I believe that when a group of people feels like they are helpless because, as noted above law enforcement isn’t around to protect them and they have been lead to believe they are not able to protect themselves that creates a situation welcoming to crime. Criminals should be more afraid of getting caught then people should be of getting robbed, not the other way around. I absolutely agree that people should take self defense courses and learn how to defend themselves as that creates a level of confidence which makes them less easy targets.

You’re right Sean, spoken like someone who hasn’t been mugged. Spoken like someone who has been abducted, raped, and repeatedly assaulted at knife point. But survived. Because of the way I handled it. All the symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (which is what you describe) are going to exist after any assault–whether you fought back or not. Feeling safer is a matter of getting over the trauma–and protecting yourself through prevention, which is what this email promotes. Awareness. Thinking ahead. Improving your high kick won’t hurt but in the end, it’s just going to piss someone off.

You still didn’t explain how the cops were conveniently there or how your attack fended off the assailant–I’d like to hear the anecdotal support of this argument you make so strongly. I really would. Maybe I’ll learn how I could have done something differently. To be frank, I think that your personal feelings about your first mugging have clouded your objectivity on this issue. Did it ever occur to you that you did exactly the right thing you needed to, in order to survive?

p.s. I have an industrial-sized vat of vaseline if you’d like to borrow it, to help remove that there foot from your mouth.

That’s fine; it’s clearly not a black and white issue. Yes, fighting back can help in some situations. You can scare someone off before they even get started. Or you can provoke a serious attack. You can’t predict a reaction any more than you can predict a crime being committed. This is a matter of personal choice. In this case, my own experience informed my remark, and my decision. I stand by both.

Exactly, it’s not black and white and there isn’t one magic answer for all of it. I don’t think fighting back is the right thing to do for everyone in every situation, but I also don’t think giving up is the catch all answer either. My objection was to the e-mail saying it was.

Sean, I’m sorry but this really pisses me off.

The guys who mugged me waited till I was without an escape, ran up to flanked me, then pulled a knife an waved at my belly. They had practiced. I hadn’t. And I don’t think that situation is in your basic self defense course. So am I a weak victim for not leaping into the air and roundhousing them all with a mighty flying kick? Am I a fool for not having a loaded semi-automatic hidden up my sleeve? Frankly I felt awesome for getting out that unscathed and on the cheap.

My friend who was shot in the leg — the shooter was 50 feet away, hiding in the dark. So he could have pulled whatever fancy fighting moves he wanted against the guy he saw. And he still would have gotten shot.

But it’s nice that you’ve only encountered muggers who’ve threatened to punch you. That sounds quaint.

As I said I’m not saying fighting is the right choice in every situation, I’m saying people shouldn’t be told to give up before they have the chance to decide for themselves.

Both times I was mugged weapons were involved.

I think my problem is that you want to call complying with a demand in order to live giving up. There are a lot of people who have suffered and survived who don’t appreciate feeling as if they ‘gave up’ at any point. And any time you want to acknowledge how rude and misinformed your remark towards me earlier was, please go ahead.

Sean, could we please move beyond the idea that the only options are Fighting and Surrender? It’s a bullshit dichotomy on every scale.

My comment to you was based on you saying money was the only thing at stake. I don’t know you or anything about you, I don’t even know your real name so please don’t read anything into my comments other than just what I’m saying. I stand by my statement that money is not the only thing at stake. Additionally, I’ve been very clear about saying each person should chose what is the best course for them in any given situation – my objection is to that choice being taken away from them. I have personally fought off a mugger and can not say I would do that in every situation in the future, but I can absolutely say I wouldn’t be expecting to comply before I could assess the situation. Giving up is deciding not to resist or fight back before you’ve ever entered the situation, which is what this email is advising. Someone who was in a situation and decided that complying was the best course of action was not giving up, they were making an informed decision.

Telling someone that the best thing they can is not resist without any knowledge of what situation they may be invovled in or what they may be capable of is telling them to give up and creates complacent victims. People deciding for themselves what is the best thing to do once they are faced with a situation is smart.

Zota – I couldn’t agree more. I was objecting to an email saying surrender was the only option and I’ve said several times here that fighting isn’t the only option. I think telling anyone that they only have one choice is bullshit.

So is that a no? You either Fight or you’re a Complacent Victim?

And again, every recent attack including the one in the email has involved at least 2-3 armed attackers and a single target. If you had to give blanket advice to the people in your neighborhood, you’d seriously suggest they all consider hand-to-hand combat as an option?

I’m talking about your glib, “Spoken like someone who’s never been mugged” remark. Maybe you missed my initial reply to that?

Oops. Comment response dysphasia. But the second question stands.

I’m a fairly intimidating guy and I feel like I could hold my own against a solo unarmed mugger. And if the LAPD even remotely suggested that I consider hand-to-hand combat against multiple attackers with bats/knives/guns, my first reaction would be outrage, and my second would be a lawsuit.

I really don’t see how advising people to put their personal safety first and not fight back is bad advice.

The scumbags out there don’t see emails like this and feel emboldened. Besides, this sort of advice has been around for ages.

But issuing this advice reminds people there is nothing shameful in handing over your wallet and giving into demands. Much better than being dead or beat the fuck up.

Scumbags tend to also have a bit more experience with fighting and armed struggles than your average citizen, so odds are that even if you do resist, you’ll lose. Scumbags also usually choose a target they know they’ll have no problem taking on – they’re cowards and will outnumber, outsize, and outarm their victim.

Alas, if I’m ever held up, God forbid, I certainly hope its by someone smaller than me who isn’t holding a weapon. If the odds are clearly on my side, then I may fight back. Other than that, though, my wallet is theirs.

Zote – eep, overlapping replies. I’m not advocating hand to hand combat in every situation, but I’m not taking it off the table. I’m not saying the LAPD should be telling people to fight, I’m saying they shouldn’t be advocating a society where everyone just gives up.

Poethelana – Apples and oranges. You made a comment that said money was the only thing at stake, and I responded to that. I’d respond the same way again if I only had that information – after my reply you brought up abduction, assualt, rape, etc all things which are much more serious than the cash in your pocket and the motives for which are very different then making a few quick bucks. You can’t give me information after the fact and have expected me to know it ahead of time. I don’t think money is the only thing at stake, and I think painting the situation as such downplays the much larger issues at hand. I’ve never once blamed the victims, I’ve blamed people who are taking away their options. Informed people making their own decisions are much better than people not thinking and simply following the advice of others – even mine.

Sean, what you are writing is highly irresponsible. Even if you redact your statement in the comments, the central thrust remains the same, “I stood up for myself and so should you, and I’ll be damned if the police tell me how to live my life.” Rhetoric is reality and the spirit of your words is clear. They’re not trying to tell you to live in fear and abject serfdom to anyone that postures themselves; they’re telling you that the way to regain your dignity from that situation is not through physical resistance. You’re angry at somebody telling you to live in a civilized manner despite the incivility of others, and not much more. This is abundantly clear to anyone who’s ever studied self-defense in earnest.

The cops (or whoever sent the email) absolutely did the right thing in telling people to give up. This is not something that merits a situation-by-situation analysis by the person being mugged, because frankly, no one, except for perhaps a trained expert, can properly assess the situation, let alone react in time. Hell, I trained for MMA for nearly two years and I wouldn’t even dream of resisting, even though I am competent enough to do so in all but the most grave cases. There are simply too many ways for a knife to catch an artery, a shot to connect, or even a simple strike to incapacitate an untrained combatant for it to be even remotely worth fighting back. It might work once, or twice, or even every single time up to the last time, and that is what is important. People should not get into the habit of thinking that they can handle a mugging situation or even assess it, and by encouraging them to even consider defending themselves is absolutely ludicrous. This type of idealistic, over-rationalization is irresponsible at best; if you’ll just suppress your rage at being told what to do by “the man” for a brief moment, you will realize that the self-defense-cum-self-reliance you are proposing is a long-term negative-value mentality for all save the luckiest and most-skilled.

This will sound ridiculous, but I’m tempted to stage a mugging for you, just to enumerate the ways you could have easily been grievously harmed in the process. Some criminals rob people because they think they can simply get away with some positive expected value for the night, but others rob out of desperation, and I don’t think that you can really judge that in the split second it takes to respond.

Think about what you are suggesting: when someone on the street demands your wallet, you should react by hitting them and running. Hitting them with what? A purse? A fist? A bike helmet? I guarantee you this will only aggravate the opportunists and will hardly deter the desperate. Sure, you have a head start when you’re running, but what have you bought yourself in this ploy? Your expected value is still in the pits! If they catch up, you’re catching a beating for sure, if not worse. They could have a gun, a knife, a pipe, or woodscrew. Any of those is more than enough to ruin your life. But, of course, if they don’t, you get away. If you didn’t resist, the worst you lose is the cash in your pocket and 30 minutes to fill out a report and 30 minutes to cancel your credit cards. These risks are not worth it. It’s traumatizing enough to have your face beaten purple for the first time when you’re ready for it, in say an MMA fight; a real fight carries as much mental trauma as physical in many cases.

I know that anecdotes != fact but living on the South-side of Chicago for the last 4 years has taught me not to resist muggings no matter how confident you are. Three people I knew from the UofC, on three separate occasions, were shot and killed for resisting a mugging. They were all physically capable, healthy, and mentally-present people.

Sean, I flatly reject your belief in the false dichotomy between fighting and “just giving up.” I also think you deeply naive to believe that someone who has been surprised by armed attackers has the option to be fully informed about their options for violent resistance. You seem to think you’re standing up for some kind of bravery or sense of self-esteem. Based on my personal experience, I think you’re doing almost the exact opposite.

And just on a practical level, you are not acknowledging that all of the recent attacks have at least two or three attackers visible, and there could have been more backup. So it’s just great that you fought off one guy that one time, but you really might want to consider that you’re poorly informed and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Zota – I keep agreeing with you. I’ve said in a discussion about resisting or not resisting neither one is the right response 100% of the time. I’m not saying anyone is fully informed, I’m simply saying someone in the situation has more information about it than someone writing an email from the safety of a computer far away from it. I don’t think anyone should ever be told to give in to anything by someone else, I think the choice of what is the best reaction should be made by the person involved and the more information they have the better.

Timon – We’re going to have to disagree on this and all of your assumptions about my motives are wrong. It was Chicago Police officers who taught me most of what I know about this and their advice about resisting that I had in mind the 2nd time I was mugged and I fought back successfully. People getting shot and killed in Chicago is an entirely different discussion since handguns are illegal to own within Chicago city limits which creates an entirely different atmosphere and one of the cornerstones of the growing concealed carry movement across the US. I’m happy to have that discussion with you some other time, as that isn’t the topic here nor one we should get side tracked with. You want to stage a mugging for me? Did you miss the part where I said I’ve been mugged twice which is what I’m basing all this on? Then go for it, I’m very public about where I am and where I’m going to be. Though I don’t see what that will prove, as I keep saying over and over again there isn’t one magic solution to this and every situation should be evaluated on it’s own. That said, it’s really not a good idea to make public threats like that, in fact, it’s illegal.

I never said money was the only thing at stake; in fact, the point I was making is how insignificant the money is in relation to what else can be lost. You disagreed with me, and chalked that up to the fact that they were words, “spoken like someone who has never been mugged.” For the convenience of your argument, you make an assumption about me (a person you admittedly don’t know a thing about).

I didn’t expect you to know it ahead of time, you couldn’t have expected to know it about me ahead of time either. Which means, you SHOULDN’T have acted like you knew in the first place. I provided information ‘after the fact’ solely to make sure you got your story straight.

My beef and what I want to explain is that victims of all crimes suffer the same degradation, fallout, fear. Adding to the already agonizing regrets that we live with every day (would it have been better if I fought harder? Or if I just did what he said?) is the live wire of this issue. There is no such thing as a Good or Bad Victim. Just a survivor.

Poethelena – if you were not saying money was the only thing at stake then I apologize as I seem to have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying money was the only thing at stake which is why I responded that it sounded like someone who hadn’t been through is as anyone who had would know money is only a small part of it. My reply was based on that, so if I misunderstood what you were saying then I’m sorry.

Once again though I want to point out I’ve never once said anything about a good or bad victim, nor have I blamed the victims which I get the feeling, possibly incorrectly, that you think I am. I think the advice is bad and think people should have much more information to make their own choices with. Only someone who is actually being mugged has the right to decide what is the best course of action for them at that point, sideline commentators are no good. That has been my point all along, telling people there is one answer that applies to everything is bad. The only person who knows what is the best option is the person who is involved and they shouldn’t be limited in their options by someone who isn’t there and doesn’t know what the exact situation is.

I agree with what Sean said. This is not a 100% black & white issue, and no single choice is going to be correct 100% of the time. I can’t tell you today what the details of your mugging will be next week. Only you will be able to assess that situation when it occurs. Given that information, you’ll be the only person who can make the best choice for you at that time.

Timon says that “…no one, except for perhaps a trained expert, can properly assess the situation, let alone react in time.” While I would agree that the assessment of that situation by a lay-person would be different from that of a trained expert, so too is there a difference between the lay-person who is directly involved and someone writing an email saying “Just give up. Every time.”

In the interest of full disclosure it should be noted that Sean’s a fucking ninja.

Fighting back depends on the situation. I’ve been in the situation twice, fought like hell once and got nicely bruised up but I didn’t lose my stuff. The other time I screamed at him like a mad man, I think I was a bigger danger than he posed to me. I still kept my stuff.

Reminds me of an old gag, literally you stick your finger down your throat and ralph all over them. I think that would go with the “I’m a manic looneytoon” defense.

You’re getting something of a biased sample. Some people are saying “I fought back, and I was OK.” No one says “I fought back and I’m not OK.” Because they are dead, and can’t type any more.

Here’s a cautionary tale: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/nyregion/28murder.html

jeremymiles didn’t read my comment.

I agree the email shouldn’t be about making yourself a victim but rather a survivor based on a situation.

Are there any local laws against carrying a stun gun? I see they have a pink model now for ladies http://tinyurl.com/cm92cj

Jeremy are you suggesting that people either resisted and walked away fine or were killed? I think assuming that someone willing to steal your wallet is also willing to murder you is a very large stretch.

“I never said money was the only thing at stake; in fact, the point I was making is how insignificant the money is in relation to what else can be lost.”

I think both sides are kinda losing the original arguments. poethelena, you’re arguing what can be lost if one fights back. Sean’s original point was what can be lost if one does not. I agree with Sean to a point, sometimes it can be better to fight back. But for most people, most of the time, I believe it isn’t.

Unless I know I have a weapons advantage, 99 times out of 100 I’ll hand over my stuff.

Sean, I never meant it as a threat, I apologize if it read that way. I meant “stage a mugging” as one “stages an intervention.” Merely educational, no ill-will intended. I think it’s patently irrelevant that you were mugged before. No amount of mugging-training makes one a qualified commentator on the subject. The point was that even if you had been mugged twice, the fact that you got out of the situations is indicative of their nature. I’m trying to point out that either a trained, armed, or even lucky mugger will likely do much more harm than you anticipate. It’s like one of those self-defense video in which the head honcho takes down his lackey 471 different ways, except instead of pointing out the ways to pin you, or flip you, the point would be to point out the ways even a small mistake or misjudgment can do disproportionate harm to you. All I’m trying to say is that I feel you’ve discounted a significant portion of the negative terms in this expected value equation.

Indeed, concealed firearms laws have their own effect on the Chicago situation, but the point remains the same. Just as we claim that giving up is categorically correct, you are insisting upon not only the “right” (in what sense?) of the mugged to judge their situation, but you are also insisting on their efficacious judgment, no less! “The only person who knows what is the best option is the person who is involved and they shouldn’t be limited in their options by someone who isn’t there and doesn’t know what the exact situation is.”

This is the straw-man of libertarianism (they don’t even use it anymore in contexts of violence and law enforcement). Experts exist for a reason; not to be backseat drivers in our life, but to provide healthy advice that should not necessarily govern, but inform, our daily choices. The email said to give up in all cases. That is their expert opinion because in aggregate it seems to them that this reduces the total number of violent crimes. The anger at an expert for giving out advice is the same type of anger that makes one angry when their father tells them not to run with scissors or that they made a poor decision in spending all their allowance on Gobstoppers. Of course he’s going to say “don’t run with scissors” and “save your money” categorically! Can you really be angry at him? He’s trying to ingrain something into your head about high-expected value conduct, in life. Of course you are free to make your own decisions, but sometimes the experts have a fuller grasp of the average situation than you do, and by repeatedly tempting fate you are sampling yourself toward that average.

Sean, I’m afraid we don’t agree, and I still don’t understand why this isn’t being acknowledged.

A single unarmed person demanding money is an “aggressive panhandler.” The email that this post was originally about came from an LAPD gang team. These attacks are thought to be gang related. Gangs are called “gangs” because there’s more than one person.

All the recent muggings have had multiple armed attackers against a single person. That is the basic information which underlies the advice in that email. This high noon gunfighter ninja mano a mano crap is just romantic and cute.

There’s nothing that forces you to follow well-informed advice. Likewise, people who do understand the situation as they go into it should not be preemptively taunted as surrender monkeys. I really would have thought we’d have grown out of that ridiculous attitude by now.

Zota – that’s OK, people can disagree. But a minor correction – this e-mail didn’t come from the LAPD Gang Team, it cam from the Northeast e-policing newsletter and previous statements from the LAPD have said it’s not known if they are gang related or not. This one asks to send any info you have to the Gang Team, but doesn’t say they think it’s gang related which I’m sure isn’t an accident. I think “don’t resist, ever” is bad advice if you are talking about 1 unarmed attacker, 3 armed attackers, 50 armed attackers or 7 highjackers. I don’t think it’s well-informed, and I don’t think people should follow it. I think complacency makes room for further attacks. You don’t agree with me, that is fine. Some of the best discussions I’ve been in involved people with differing viewpoints.

It’s fine if we disagree, but please don’t characterize me or what I’m saying as complacency or surrender.

In a situation where you know there are multiple armed attackers looking for single un-aware targets, then the best advice is to avoid being a single un-aware target. If you’ve gotten to the point where you are suddenly surrounded by several armed attackers, then you lost the fight. It’s basic art of war shit. I think they teach it in County. So if you think you can fight your way back with your mad skillz, then you go right ahead, slugger. But please, enough with the complacency taunts.

As for the attacks being gang related, as I said before, you really might want to consider that you’re poorly informed.

http://www.theeastsiderla.com/2009/02/gang-members-suspected-in-echo-park.html

7 highjackers

By way of having a meaningful discussion, it might also be useful to avoid comparing muggings in Sliver Lake with 9/11. Come on now…

Zota- I’m trying to have a level headed discussion, I’d appreciate if you dropped the condescending crap. You don’t have to agree with me, but it would be nice if you didn’t stoop to insulting me because we have different opinions.

I’m comparing attitudes and I think they match. Prior to 9/11 the advice given out for hijackings was always do not resist and comply with any requests. We all know that isn’t the best advice in that situation anymore, and my argument is it’s not the best advice in this case either.

Sean, the point that a few people have tried to make to you is how incredibly insulting and condescending you’re being. Surrender, complacency, good victim, just giving up…

Prior to 9/11…

Just to make sure I’m clear, you are actually extrapolating mugging advice from 9/11? You are seriously working from the assumption that airplane hijackers may be suicidal to suggest that people rolling home from a bar should violently resist armed gang members who demand money?

Look, I really want to have a rational discussion, but once the Giuliani card is on the table…

I think a lot of people with a very profound emotional stake in this issue, have chosen to view Sean’s opinion as a slam against them, or against what they did when faced with a scary situation. But this isn’t personal. It’s just his opinion.

A bit of context would be helpful here. While the original email relates specifically to the incidents in Silver Lake/Echo Park, the list at the end that included “comply” is basic boilerplate advice that is often given in relation to **any** robbery. Zota keeps referring to specific incidents with single victims and multiple armed attackers, while Sean is saying that in general one must assess the situation for what is known at the time.

Obviously an unarmed “aggressive panhandler” is quite a bit different than three armed gang members trying to rob me, and quite frankly, I’m probably not going to choose to fight the three gang members. I think Sean’s point is that the email suggests that the proper response to both (all) situations is to simply hand over my wallet without considering who is asking for it. That’s just bad advice.

As for being insulting or condescending, I think that’s just a case of someone being a bit overly sensitive. The language used accurately describes that which it is being applied to. It is not meant as a personal attack.

Again, context. The point isn’t that suicidal 9/11 hijackers are the same as L.A. muggers. The point is that prior to 9/11 the blanket advice was “comply.” Clearly one answer didn’t fit every situation.

Sean suggested that not at least considering violent resistance would encourage criminals to commit more crimes. He’s free to his opinion and his actions. But suggesting that others who don’t share his opinion are encouraging muggings with their surrender is — I’m sorry — condescension.

No I didn’t. I said that a “do not resist, ever” policy encourages criminals. I didn’t say anyone had to consider violence. They are two very different things.

Good points, LM and Burns! I just finally got through reading this entire thread and have to say that, as with most things that hit a sensitive bone, the point of the original post has been conflated into an issue identity and identity politics, when frankly, that’s not the point.

The point is, taking away someone’s option to fight back creates complacent victims – NOT that you ARE a complacent victim if you CHOOSE not to fight back. At least, that’s what I took away from Sean’s post and ensuing comments.

Identity aside, everyone seems to agree that your options are: (1) Fight and win; (2) Fight and lose; (3) Exercise your reasoning abilities – and avoid being a complacent victim – and consciously decide that the optimal choice is to surrender your possessions, and win; and finally, (4) It must be said that you could exercise the same reasoning abilities, choose surrender as your optimal path, and still lose, because some crazy people are like that.

Finally, just to try to wiggle out of this (probably unsuccessfully, because identity issues always narcissistically make their way back to the same topic), I would add another suggestion: when you’re walking anywhere, look ahead. Oprah had a show on decades ago about Who Makes the Best Victims (complacent or not), and she invited former repentant muggers and rapists to ask them how they picked their victims. They all agreed that people – especially women – who looked down when they walked conveyed a lack of confidence and made them easy targets. I don’t watch Oprah often at all, but that’s the one of the very few Oprah things that has stuck with me throughout my life. Obviously, this is not going to ward off all predators, but it is just one more easy thing we all can do as part of staying vigilant and aware.

Common criminals tend to choose the path of least resistance. If they see a car with a club on the steering wheel and one without, they’re more likely to steal the one without the club. In cities like Chicago and Washington DC where citizens can’t legally own handguns, criminals know that they are likely to be the only ones with guns. In cities that allow concealed carry permits, it’s harder for the criminals to figure out which are the low-hanging fruit.

This certainly isn’t meant to sidetrack this thread to the CCW issue; that’s a loooong discussion for another time. The point is that a blanket policy of submission creates a passive populace which, over time, encourages criminals. If they understand that no one is likely to resist, then everyone becomes the easy mark. On the other hand, if the criminals don’t know who is likely to resist, then everyone is safer.

“Once again though I want to point out I’ve never once said anything about a good or bad victim, nor have I blamed the victims which I get the feeling, possibly incorrectly, that you think I am.”

I’m sorry, what is the title of this article?

The quoted email does not have a “do not resist, ever” policy. It says that complying with the demands of an attacker will help prevent possible injury. From what I can tell, that’s advice which is based on statistical likelihood.

And that advice gives people a choice. If you don’t care at all about preventing possible injury, then there’s no reason for you to comply with the demands of an attacker. Do whatever you feel is best. But being fully informed, you should know that you are more likely to get injured.

Calling that advice “complacency” or “surrender” or “do not resist, ever” is a strawman.

A side statement I have to carrying protective weapons either the deadly or the deterring variety: just because you have them doesn’t mean you’ll use them. I speak from recent experience having been in an illuminating situation with a very hostile 6’9″ motorist who threatened to kill me after I protested his harassment of me for riding my bike on a residential street.

Unbeknownst to him I had pepper spray (mounted to my bike frame) in one hand and a recently purchased stungun (in a case on my belt) in the other — both very legal to possess. Both purchased and carried specifically to protect myself from just such assholes.

Though I clearly felt my safety was endangered, I did not employ either device. I wasn’t frozen in fear, because I kept arguing with the jackass. But I was frozen in indecision, not convinced I had sufficient cause to do him harm.

In the end and just as well, the situation de-escalated because his primary offensive weapons were ignorance and a bunch of talk. Maybe if he’d emerged from his car with a bat or more than just a loud mouth that would have triggered me to act defensively, but that’s just a hypothetical. What was all too real was realizing that just because you have means of self-defense at your disposal there’s still another threshold to climb in using them.

I think assuming that someone willing to steal your wallet is also willing to murder you is a very large stretch.

This may be the central point of disagreement. For most people in most situations, this is a very large stretch. But for someone who’s decided run up on a stranger in the dark with weapon, it only the rather small stretch between armed assault and manslaughter. Maybe the bullet grazes your leg, maybe it hits a kneecap, maybe it hits and artery. Or maybe it misses entirely and you walk away. It’s a very serious gamble.

I’d appreciate it if you don’t call those of us who choose not to gamble with our lives “good victims.”

Zota – since you seem to like to twist things up, let me clarify for you:

“comply with their demands” – this is the language in the e-mail, it does not suggest this is one of many options, but rather presents it as instructions.

“complacency” – I’ve not said the e-mail tells people to be complacent or that if they do not resist they are complacent, I’ve said advice like this creates an era of complacency.

“surrender” – this is word you used and I copied you to try and use similar language. It’s not a word I would have used on my own and I shouldn’t have used it just because you did.

“do not resist, ever” – this is an overreaching generalization of this kind of advice. It’s used frequently in discussions of self defense which is how I’m using it here. Any kind of advice telling someone to comply with an attacker without direct knowledge of a specific situation would fall under the ‘do not resist, ever’ generalization since the person giving the advice could not have any foresight into the situation.

“good victim” – again, I’ve never called anyone a good victim, rather asked if this e-mail is suggesting we all should be one. As I’ve said repeatedly a good victim would not be someone who made any decisions on their own but rather followed the instruction of an attacker to the letter because they were advised to by an outside source, not because they felt it was the best course of action.

You may not be aware of this, but the supreme court has ruled in several instances that law enforcement has no duty to protect private citizens. This should be kept in mind when considering any advice from law enforcement sources – they have no duty to protect you so what is their motivation? They are assuming the mugging is going to happen no matter what, I’m suggesting it can be discouraged.

I misinterpreted you as suggesting that not complying with armed attackers was “surrender” when what you actually called was “just giving up.” My apologies.

Zota – are you reading anything here or just making it up as you go along. The e-mail doesn’t say “armed attackers” anywhere, this is something you brought into it. The e-mail said “if approached, comply” it’s doesn’t say if approached by one person, by 5 people, by unarmed, by armed, or anything. Simply says if approached, comply. My issue with that is and has been from the start it’s not giving the person a chance or opportunity to think for themselves. It is telling people to give up. Again, since I’m certain at this point you’ll forget my last comment – someone who thinks for themselves and makes their own choice isn’t giving up – this e-mail isn’t advising anyone to think for themselves, its advising them to give up no matter what.

Sean, “armed attackers” is not something you brought into it.

The email you posted described an attack by three people, one of whom had a bat. The email you posted references the “recent series” in which groups of two or more people attacked individuals with “guns and other types of weapons.”

I’ve read everything you’ve written here. Maybe you should too.

I can’t really give advice on what to do in this situation, you
never know how you’d react until your in it. But whatever you do,
do it fast, whether it’s punching the clown, or empting your pockets.

Perhaps the public could be better served by everyone sharing their experiences here about what has, and has not, worked for them in the past in terms of staying safe and surviving a confrontation.

I’ll start.

I was mugged in Woodland Hills by two young wanna-be gang members who had been (according to the detective assigned my case) been tasked with mugging people in order to get jumped in. It was nighttime and I went to an outdoor ATM in plain view about three yards from Topanga Canyon Blvd., right on the street. They cornered me and put something pointy to my back & instructed me to withdraw $200, the maximum withdrawal. I lied and told them I only had 100 bucks in the account. They were panicky, and the one holding the sharp object behind me was making hysterical laughing sounds, which was alarming because he ostensibly had a weapon. I’ll take an experienced mugger any day.

Once the cash was out, they snatched it and my purse off my arm, running off & almost knocking me down as they yanked it off my arm. I looked down & realized I still had my wallet in my hand.

What I learned:

1. Never ever go to an atm at night, no matter how safe you think it is.

2. And I’d seen them walking down the sidewalk before I got out of my car, but suppressed a desire to stay in the vehicle, and chose to get out of the car & go to the atm because I didn’t want to be racist & assume that just because they were two young male Latinos, they were out to commit a crime. Next time I’ll choose being safe over feeling guilty about making a discriminatory generalization.

3. I also learned it’s ok to lie if it’ll save me some cash.

But if I were in the same sitch again, I would probably NOT fight back or run. I’d probably do the exact same thing. Maybe if I were bigger or stronger, or if there were more people around (although we all know that’s no guarantee anyone will come to your aid), I might feel my chances were better for fighting. But I am a wee woman, and there were two of them in close range with a weapon, so I feel I made a well-reasoned decision as best I could under the circumstances.

What have YOU learned?

Knowing when to fight back requires the same skill as knowing when to break the rules.

So I think the email is ok.

I was mugged across from LACC, before “bicycle district” gentrification, when the arcades were a lot more sketchy. That’s probably where the kids followed me from as I turned onto a side street. The first one, a chubby little guy holding his sweatshirt across his face, jumped in my way repeating something — “gibber dummy?” The second guy came up quickly behind me repeating “give us the money, homey.” They were smaller than me, so I was thinking about which one I could knock over, till the third guy came up between them, calmly unfolded a knife near my waist and said “give us the money.” I pulled the loose bills in my left pocket, hoping they wouldn’t ask for the wallet in my right. As soon as the saw cash, they grabbed it and ran. They got away with $6.

What I learned:

1. the first guy you see probably isn’t the one you need to worry about

2. they might take the first obviously valuable thing they can and run, so try it

3. keeping cash separate from my wallet was a pretty good idea

When my friend was mugged in North Hollywood, he was with his mother and wife. A single guy with a knife demanded his money, he gave it. They guy demanded his mother’s purse, she hesitated, so he grabbed her arm to yank the purse away. Seeing this, my friend kinda snapped, decided “fuck the advice” and shoved the guys arm, yelling. That’s when the other guy across the street shot him in the leg. The muggers then ran off with their stuff.

As we were looking at the long scar on the side of my friend’s leg an inch or two from his kneecap, we discussed lessons learned:

1. the first guy you see probably isn’t the one you need to worry about

2. yes, there are people who will kill you over a purse

3. when you weigh it against the use of your legs or watching someone you love bleed to death in the street, all that wussy-sounding advice about giving up your worthless crap might not actually be such a terrible idea

When my mother was robbed many years ago, she was working late, alone, in an unlocked office [duh]. A guy walked in. She told him to leave. He pulled a gun and demanded money. She told him they didn’t have any. He asked about the safe or the register. She said their wasn’t one – it was an office, what did he think? (She said she was kind of bitchy to him, since she was tired and hadn’t really eaten.) He demanded her purse, she said there wasn’t money in it. He demanded it again, and she said fine, and handed it over. He started to walk out, stopped, turned around and shot her. The fist shot tore holes in her colon — apparently if she had eaten more recently, she would have died. The second ricocheted off her ribs and fragmented in her shoulder. There’s still shrapnel in her. Laying face down on the ground as she heard him walk up, she planned to struggle, fight to the end. But she says she heard a voice telling her to keep very still. A third shot grazed the top of her head. She played dead till she was sure he was gone.

Now there’s a couple ways to look at this. What if she’d thrown something and tried to run as soon as he came in? Would he have just gone away? Or would he have shot her point blank in the face? Looking back, my mom actually thinks that if she’d been more compliant, he might have left quickly, rather than taking the trouble to come back to shoot her. She wonders if he really decided to kill a witness to purse theft, or if he decided to kill her just because she’d pissed him off. So hard to suss out the inner motives of sociopaths…

Lessons?

1. yes, there are people who will kill you over a purse

2. on balance, you might be a just a little less likely to end up with shrapnel in your body if you comply with the crazy gun-waving person as quickly as you can

3. there are far worse things that can happen to you than losing your money or your self-respect

4. if you’re in spite of everything, you’re still planning on getting into a gunfight, consider fasting