Saturday, July 21, 2012

Now They Want You To Be The Victim, Too

ABC News is not just satisfied with sensationalism and bad reporting a'la Brian Ross. After watching the video below with the ABC news show 20/20's Deborah Roberts, I've come to the conclusion that they want you to roll over and become the victim as well.

In the episode aired last night - the evening after the shooting in Aurora, Colorado - 20/20 reported on clerks and store owners who stood up to armed robbers and fought back. Chris Cuomo introduced it as "Vigilante Video". I think that set the tone for the episode.

In the episode, Deborah Roberts interviewed a jewelry store owner who fought back as well as a convenience store customer who attacked the gun wielding robber with bottles of beer. Neither the owner nor the customer, who by the way was shot four times, regretted their actions. While I don't necessarily think it was the wisest thing for the customer to have gotten involved, I don't condemn him either.

To provide a tut-tutting counter-point to people refusing to be a victim, Deborah Roberts brought in a "security expert". Rosemary Erickson, Ph.D., is a forensic sociologist and the president of Athena Research Corporation. From her vita, it appears she specializes in working as a consultant with convenience stores, restaurants, hotels, and similar such businesses. She serves as an expert witness in civil premises liability cases and testifies on business security.

When asked if it was "heroic" to challenge a robber, Erickson responded, "I think it's suicide." She continued, "Because the odds are you're the one who is going to be injured or killed." She goes on to say that, in general, robbers just want to get the money and get out. Roberts then asks Erickson about the odds of being killed or injured if one resists based upon research. To which, Erickson responded, "They found that 82% of the deaths are when people resisted." From that statement, you are being led to believe that being passive and not resisting is the smart thing to do in virtually all cases. In other words, you are a victim once, don't make it worse by becoming a double-victim by resisting the robber and becoming injured as a result.

Erickson is being disingenuous because her own research seems to contradict this. There was a study from Chicago done in 1986 by Franklin Zimring and James Zuehl that provided the 82% statistic. However, in a study that Erickson did for the National Association of Convenience Stores which analyzed 79 robbery-homicides in convenience stores in 1989 and 1990, she found:
The majority of the cases appeared to be gratuitous and senseless in nature with no signs of resistance....There was evidence of resistance in only 16% of these cases.
In her later research on Teenage Robbers, she found them to be more violent than adult robbers and were twice as likely to hurt or kill their victims. In cases where people were hurt or killed, her survey of teenage inmates found:
The juvenile robbers were asked whether in those robberies in which someone was hurt or killed they had planned to use the weapon in advance. Over half said they did plan to use it before they went in to do the robbery
I'm not sure who at ABC News decided that this episode was the right one to air on the evening after the Aurora shooting but I really do question their motives. To encourage non-resistance in the face of armed criminals ignores just how many compliant persons have been murdered because they were a witness or because it gave the perpetrator a thrill. The media should not be encouraging people to be like sheep before the slaughter.

To say I was disgusted is enough. I don't want to even get started on so-called gun free zones which, as Massad Ayoob once noted, are nothing but hunting preserves for psychopaths.


Watch More News Videos at ABC 2012 Presidential Election Entertainment & Celebrity News

20 comments:

  1. Best statistics I can find say that if you are accosted and offer no resistance, you have about a 60% chance of being injured. If you pull out a pistol, there is a 93% chance your assailant will flee.

    It's not an apples to apples comparison, but I think it is a true statement that being armed reduces your chances of being injured or killed.

    At our Trolley Square incident here in Utah, an off-duty police officer pulled out a Kimber 45 and got the shooters mind off killing people and on to surviving. Local legend has it that by the time police arrived, the officer was out, or nearly out, of ammunition. No matter. He kept the guy busy until SLPD arrived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As best as I remember (without looking up the details) the Trolley Square Mall was a 'gun free zone' - except of course for the 'only ones'. It is fortunate indeed that the off duty copper was there and delayed the punk long enough for the 'minutes away guys' to arrive. One has to wonder how it might have played out if a legally armed and trained citizen had been allowed to carry there............

      Delete
  2. "robbery-homicides in convenience stores in 1898 and"...

    You can use your new fangled Webley revolver to keep the street scum from stealing the oats for your horse. Just kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anon: Fixed it. I'll stick to the black powder SAA...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to wonder what Rosemary Erickson PhD feels about forcible rape? Is she one of those 'don't fight back just endure it' folks? Hmm maybe she's getting us ready for the Borg - 'resistance is futile'................
    It is the nature of human beings to resist oppression and crime against them - at least until some one tells them they should just be compliant little victims.............

    ReplyDelete
  5. I watched a convenience store clerk, who did exactly nothing to provoke the robber, get his throat slit from ear to ear on CCTV. That footage is still available to them but I note that they didn't present it. Robber was never caught. A buddy of mine by the name of Sam, ex-cop worked for a convenience store in Arizona several years ago and blew a robber away one afternoon, lost his job and went back to being a peace officer. It's safer.

    By limiting your ability to protect yourself and fronting Phds to the media and courts they are limiting their liabilities. If you control the story you control the outcomes. Whether you are lying or not and of course no one would ever lie in order to make a buck or two.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Statistics - and COMMON FRIGGIN' SENSE - show that resistance in certain situations may be the only thing that will save your life.

    If he wants you to kneel, it's because he wants to do something to you that would be harder (or lessen his chance of escape) if you were standing - like an execution.

    If he wants to tie you up, it's because he wants to do something to you that would be harder (or lessen his chance of escape) if you were free - like rape, execute, or...?

    If he wants to take you somewhere, it's because he wants to do something to you that would be harder (or lessen his chance of escape) where you are - like maybe having someone find your body sooner than they otherwise would.

    If it's just a "gimme your money" situation I'm probably going to hand over the money - but the minute he wants to move, restrain, or otherwise order me to do much of anything else, IT IS **ON**, and one of us is going out horizontally!

    I'm still trying to figure out how this guy fired so many shots - even with a 3-gun combo he had maybe 50 rounds available - yet nobody charged him while he was reloading, changing weapons, etc?

    I've taught my kids to ALWAYS consider how they'll get out of anyplace they are. Look around, note the exits, THEN relax!
    Obey your "lizard-brain" - that subconscious instinct that nearly always tells us when something is WRONG! THis guy exited a door and propped it open? Imagine if JUST ONE PERSON had simply closed the door!
    Most of all, I've taught my kids to DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND! If you attack, he MIGHT shoot you, but if you just crawl under a table and wait for him to get to you he WILL shoot you!

    Imagine if people had just thrown their drinks at him! Even trained "operators" will struggle not to instinctively duck!
    Now imagine if MANY had done so?! He'd be too distracted to keep shooting and someone could take him down!

    I may someday die in a situation like this, but you can be damn sure that I'll die FIGHTING!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I rarely comment, but this time I had to. But first I sent this to Rosemary Erickson -

    For: Rosemary Erickson,
    Would you care to comment on this article I read?
    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/

    A snip provided here for your convenience.

    “There was a study from Chicago done in 1986 by Franklin Zimring and James Zuehl that provided the 82% statistic. However, in a study that Erickson did for the National Association of Convenience Stores which analyzed 79 robbery-homicides in convenience stores in 1989 and 1990, she found:
    The majority of the cases appeared to be gratuitous and senseless in nature with no signs of resistance....There was evidence of resistance in only 16% of these cases.
    In her later research on Teenage Robbers , she found them to be more violent than adult robbers and were twice as likely to hurt or kill their victims. In cases where people were hurt or killed, her survey of teenage inmates found:
    The juvenile robbers were asked whether in those robberies in which someone was hurt or killed they had planned to use the weapon in advance. Over half said they did plan to use it before they went in to do the robbery”

    How does this jibe with your statement when asked “... if it was "heroic" to challenge a robber, Erickson responded, "I think it's suicide."

    It would seem that inaction would be more suicidal and therefore your advice suspect.

    You propose being a victim. But by all means, feel free to enlighten me if otherwise.

    Tal Donaldson

    ReplyDelete
  8. I used to work armed security. Went to to work for local franchise of a national chain and got a post at a branch office of a credit union. 3rd day on the job the manager - who had been on vacation when I started - called me in and asked me what I'd do if a would-be robber demanded my weapon. I advised her I would refuse - forcibly. She seemed upset and terminated the meeting. In a little while a supervisor strode in and I was again called to the branch manager's office - this time with a supervisor from the company - and again asked what I would do if an armed perp ordered me to surrender my weapon. I advised the two of them that I would do my best to remain vigilant so as to preclude that happening. But that I would never willingly surrender my weapon to a would-be armed robber. The supervisor advised me that company policy was not to resist an armed perp; that the company considered any overt action a guard might take would be an escalator. I advised them that my understanding from my own research was that most security officers who are shot/killed in the line of duty are shot with their own weapon. I further advised them that I had no desire to become a victim. I was relieved of duty on the spot and fired.

    I do not understand why any company would spend the money to employ armed guards for a bank and then so hobble them. If a badguy comes into a bank knowing there is an armed security officer present, he either knows that the guard is purely there as window dressing or he isn't afraid of an armed guard. In neither case would such a person be likely to scruple to shoot someone if they were so inclined. I was taught that a drawn sidearm is more likely to be a DE-escalator than an escalator. That particular credit union is much more likely to have one of its branches robbed than any other bank in our area. Despite that their policy remains intact.

    Scary.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Remember the bad guys want you to be intimidated. They also know if they get hurt on the job no workmans comp. As for these reporters they have never been confronted by a "bad guy". They should also look at the stats for injuries suffered by unarmed victims. Also the crimes are becomming more violent.
    I for one will fight back with a gun. If you want to play bad guy I will neutralize the situation.
    Retired LE and Military.

    ReplyDelete
  10. BC, where's that credit union again?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find it ironic that when atrocities like this occur the anti gun cock roaches scurry about every where.

    Reality does not have any effect on them period! This so-called PHD is a prime example. Lots of brains but filled with rot.

    As I have said in the past and is still my rule of life....I go armed, alert, and ready, everywhee!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dammit, make that everywhere!

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is certainly one of the most valuable posts. Great tips from beginning till end. Lots of suggestions for me and for people. Superb work
    motor vehicle accident claims

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here you have providing very useful information Thanks for such an incredible site!
    car accident claim lawyers

    ReplyDelete
  15. hecken.com.au of Parramatta Sydney, offers legal advice in personal injury We have experianced lawyer for car accident, motor vehicle accident claims, car crash.
    probate lawyers
    probate law NSW

    ReplyDelete
  16. I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good. This is a great article thanks for sharing this informative information
    Assault Police

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, Lawyer Kumar, my understanding is that the good SHEEPle in Oz have well and thoroughly been emasculated (excuse me, "disarmed") by leftist collectivists such as yourself. Now you come here spamming OGAM? Cheeky barstids.

      Delete
  17. Thanks for your great information. We all appreciate your
    information. Keep posting these kind of nice blogs.
    Conveyancing Sydney



    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks! This post contains very significant ideas and facts that every reader should be followed. Great idea indeed.
    probate lawyers

    ReplyDelete