Reply #57: In fairness, correlation/causation [View All]

If you have no weapon at all, and your assailant has a weapon, sure, you are way, way behind the curve on protecting yourself. You might well be better off chancing it with compliance. I wouldn't. That's my choice though.

BUT, in the statistics you cited, there's no way to filter that for whether the victim had credible reason to chose the 'fight' option from fight or flight. For instance, if your assailant has a bat and demands your wallet, and swings at you for whatever reason, you would probably raise your arms, getting what is considered a 'defensive wound'. Would that be counted in the study as 'fighting back'? Impossible to say.

How do you quantify the level of threat the victim perceives? At what point is 'fighting back' a conscious choice based upon some level of outrage, or a cool cost/benefit decision, versus a uncontrollable self-preservation instinct, either fight, or flight?

I do know your odds are much MUCH better if you HAVE a gun of your own in this situation, and are willing to, and know how to use it. Which doesn't correspond to the OP, since it was the attackers weapon, which may have been unloaded, the safety on, etc, and the person of questionable willingness to take a life in self defense.


For one type of crime, the US Department of Justice concluded a prospective rape victim has better odds if she (or he) fought back physically, and no statistically measurable increase in personal risk doing so.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211201.pdf

According to the researchers, the only self-protective tactics that appear to increase the risk of injury significantly were those that are ambiguous and not forceful. These included stalling, cooperating and screaming from pain or fear.

Granted, this is a very different crime from 'gimme the cash register'.