5 ms·

It probably depends on the culture. IIRC in the US you only have a 20% chance of being seriously injured if you cooperate with a robber. I wouldn't be surprised

It probably depends on the culture. IIRC in the US you only have a 20% chance of being seriously injured if you cooperate with a robber. I wouldn't be surprised if the odds were different in other countries.

encoderer 17y ago
Even if it's 50%... that's the risk.. what's the reward? Saving whatever cash you have on you? He could've taken those odds and handed over the money. And then, if the assailant attacked, he could've sparred with him as he did. This is a silly point to argue, though, because i'd be surprised if the story wasn't tweaked--even just a little--to the authors purposes.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  What if the odd's of disarming the guy are 95%?
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    P( fight | takes wallet ) = 50%. P( no injury | fight ) = 95%. P( injury | hand over wallet ) = P(injury | fight) P(fight | hand over wallet) = 0.05 x 0.5 = 0.025 So P(no injury | hand over wallet) = 97.5%.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      good point :) However it makes a slight assumption that you still have 95% chance of winning if you hand over the wallet and are then attacked. This is probably not the case as the attacker gains a reasonable advantage by being first (maybe only 2 or 3% in this case) I also assumed the 50% was referring to the percentage chance of being actually harmed rather than having to fight. In which case your stats do break down.
- dmm 17y ago
  > what's the reward? Living life as something other than a coward.
  - daleharvey 17y ago
    while I dont know what I would do in this situation, I know I wouldnt ever call someone who handed money over to someone who threatened them with a knife a "coward"
    - dmm 17y ago
      I agree with you. I'm not calling anyone a coward, but I would certainly feel like one after being robbed. It's a very intrusive, violating event.
  - coryl 17y ago
    So handing your money over to an aggravated knife wielding robber, shouting at you in Portugese, makes you a coward. Bravo.
  - Enra2 17y ago
    The machismo from behind the keyboard is priceless.
  - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
    There's more here than the calculus of survival. Consider your right to life and liberty. To surrender that is to become a victim. Some would honestly rather risk it than enter into that class. Its a personal choice. Americans used to be famous for their backbone. This thread leaves me wondering.
    - mos1 17y ago
      I was robbed at knifepoint many years ago. I gave up my wallet willingly. I did so because I cared far more about being present for my wife and children than I cared about the fact that some assholes would enjoy the contents of my wallet. At the time I was practicing both boxing and karate on a daily basis, so I probably had decent odds in a fight... but why bother? I can get another wallet and some more cash. I can't get my daughter a new dad. If this makes you think I have no backbone... well I suppose we simply have different principles.
tjic 17y ago
FBI crime studies show that, no matter how the attacker is armed, your are LESS likely to be harmed if you fight back.
- tome 17y ago
  I find this very interesting. Could you please cite a reference?
  - mos1 17y ago
    Criminology by Larry J. Siegel disagrees, asserting that while it decreases your chance of being robbed, it increases your chances of being injured or killed. edit: Zimring and Zuehl's study shows that robberies with "active noncooperation" (refusal to hand over money, attempt to flee, resistence with force) had a death rate fourteen higher than those where the victims cooperated, and that victims who simply denied having money (but did not otherwise resist) had a death rate twice as high as those who cooperate.
    - GFischer 17y ago
      I found your quote, said book is on Google Books: http://books.google.com.uy/books?id=9nH0kSUMwGIC&lpg=PA306&ots=6gBiJu1Sq7&dq=Criminology%20by%20Larry%20J.%20Siegel%20fighting%20back&hl=en&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q=fight&f=false http://books.google.com.uy/books?id=9nH0kSUMwGIC&lpg=PA3... However, in the same paragraph it cites Gary Kleck on the use of guns, and it says that potential victims should be encouraged to fight back, and that resistance with a gun is significantly better than the other forms of resistance (and a conclusion that it is better to fight than to flee). It's a surprising conclusion for me (I'm mostly anti-guns, though I'd prefer some other option like, say, tasers, to be available for self-defense)
      - mos1 17y ago
        Kleck's advice is for rape victims, not robbery victims. The first citations I can find in google scholar indicate that the odds of being killed during/after rape is roughly two orders of magnitude higher than the odds of being killed during/after a "cooperative" robbery, thus the differing calculus.

encoderer 17y ago

Even if it's 50%... that's the risk.. what's the reward? Saving whatever cash you have on you? He could've taken those odds and handed over the money. And then, if the assailant attacked, he could've sparred with him as he did. This is a silly point to argue, though, because i'd be surprised if the story wasn't tweaked--even just a little--to the authors purposes.

ErrantX 17y ago
What if the odd's of disarming the guy are 95%?
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  P( fight | takes wallet ) = 50%. P( no injury | fight ) = 95%. P( injury | hand over wallet ) = P(injury | fight) P(fight | hand over wallet) = 0.05 x 0.5 = 0.025 So P(no injury | hand over wallet) = 97.5%.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    good point :) However it makes a slight assumption that you still have 95% chance of winning if you hand over the wallet and are then attacked. This is probably not the case as the attacker gains a reasonable advantage by being first (maybe only 2 or 3% in this case) I also assumed the 50% was referring to the percentage chance of being actually harmed rather than having to fight. In which case your stats do break down.
dmm 17y ago
> what's the reward? Living life as something other than a coward.
- daleharvey 17y ago
  while I dont know what I would do in this situation, I know I wouldnt ever call someone who handed money over to someone who threatened them with a knife a "coward"
  - dmm 17y ago
    I agree with you. I'm not calling anyone a coward, but I would certainly feel like one after being robbed. It's a very intrusive, violating event.
- coryl 17y ago
  So handing your money over to an aggravated knife wielding robber, shouting at you in Portugese, makes you a coward. Bravo.
- Enra2 17y ago
  The machismo from behind the keyboard is priceless.
- JoeAltmaier 17y ago
  There's more here than the calculus of survival. Consider your right to life and liberty. To surrender that is to become a victim. Some would honestly rather risk it than enter into that class. Its a personal choice. Americans used to be famous for their backbone. This thread leaves me wondering.
  - mos1 17y ago
    I was robbed at knifepoint many years ago. I gave up my wallet willingly. I did so because I cared far more about being present for my wife and children than I cared about the fact that some assholes would enjoy the contents of my wallet. At the time I was practicing both boxing and karate on a daily basis, so I probably had decent odds in a fight... but why bother? I can get another wallet and some more cash. I can't get my daughter a new dad. If this makes you think I have no backbone... well I suppose we simply have different principles.

tjic 17y ago

FBI crime studies show that, no matter how the attacker is armed, your are LESS likely to be harmed if you fight back.

tome 17y ago
I find this very interesting. Could you please cite a reference?
- mos1 17y ago
  Criminology by Larry J. Siegel disagrees, asserting that while it decreases your chance of being robbed, it increases your chances of being injured or killed. edit: Zimring and Zuehl's study shows that robberies with "active noncooperation" (refusal to hand over money, attempt to flee, resistence with force) had a death rate fourteen higher than those where the victims cooperated, and that victims who simply denied having money (but did not otherwise resist) had a death rate twice as high as those who cooperate.
  - GFischer 17y ago
    I found your quote, said book is on Google Books: http://books.google.com.uy/books?id=9nH0kSUMwGIC&lpg=PA306&ots=6gBiJu1Sq7&dq=Criminology%20by%20Larry%20J.%20Siegel%20fighting%20back&hl=en&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q=fight&f=false http://books.google.com.uy/books?id=9nH0kSUMwGIC&lpg=PA3... However, in the same paragraph it cites Gary Kleck on the use of guns, and it says that potential victims should be encouraged to fight back, and that resistance with a gun is significantly better than the other forms of resistance (and a conclusion that it is better to fight than to flee). It's a surprising conclusion for me (I'm mostly anti-guns, though I'd prefer some other option like, say, tasers, to be available for self-defense)
    - mos1 17y ago
      Kleck's advice is for rape victims, not robbery victims. The first citations I can find in google scholar indicate that the odds of being killed during/after rape is roughly two orders of magnitude higher than the odds of being killed during/after a "cooperative" robbery, thus the differing calculus.