enough is enough

[just2kicku]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

So, what do you guys think?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

That may well have been me, in the 'TKD & SD' thread, talking about the encounter that cost me an eye.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

So, what do you guys think?

The problem lies in our litiginous society, where there are so many people who want to play the Lawsuit Lottery. If you teach this (although I agree with the principle whole heartedly) and someone gets hurt because they fought back, you can bet your last dollar (actually, you already did...) that some ambulance chaser will be there to sue you.

Now, before anybody reading this decides that I harbor a predjudice against lawyers, let me assure you that I do not think all laywers are scum sucking bottom feeders. I think prosecuters are, by and large, fine people.

 

[Danjo]

The old "Better to be a live chicken than a dead duck" argument. Well, when muggers/robbers and highjackers used to just want the money and then they'd take off, I am not sure what the correct argument would be.

However, given that they are just as likely as not to kill you anyways in many cases, I can think of worse approaches than Charles Brosnson used in Death Wish.

I do know that the laws have done a hell of a lot to encourage us to become victims. the government would rather that you not be armed, than that you be safe.The concealed carry laws are absurd, and in areas where they have done away with the need for permits, the crime rate has dropped dramatically. All going to prove that if someone is worried that a person might be armed, then they are not likely to try anything.

So we have the criminals not afraid to carry concealed and the citizens being afraid only because they are worried about getting in trouble with the law.

Nice.

 

[just2kicku]

That may well have been me, in the 'TKD & SD' thread, talking about the encounter that cost me an eye.



The problem lies in our litiginous society, where there are so many people who want to play the Lawsuit Lottery. If you teach this (although I agree with the principle whole heartedly) and someone gets hurt because they fought back, you can bet your last dollar (actually, you already did...) that some ambulance chaser will be there to sue you.

Now, before anybody reading this decides that I harbor a predjudice against lawyers, let me assure you that I do not think all laywers are scum sucking bottom feeders. I think prosecuters are, by and large, fine people.

Yes, you are right, that is where it was. And I am truly sorry to hear about your eye.

its just frustrating to have to back off all the time. And to have to train to back off

 

[CoryKS]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

So, what do you guys think?

The suggestion to give up your wallet is based in the assumption that you value your life more than your material wealth and that you don't have a sufficient likelihood of success in the event that you choose to fight. For most people this is true. If you choose not to heed this advice, you may open yourself to risk of injury or death or the threat of legal action if you respond in a disproportionate manner. Like it or not, being a criminal doesn't automagically strip them of all their rights and you can't do anything you want to them.

It's on you if that's the direction you want to go as a teacher, but there's one other consideration that you may want to discuss with your students: people learn from their failures. Suppose that in a certain area - around your school, say - the criminal element finds that they are experiencing a higher rate of failure due to the fact that their victims are fighting back. How will they adapt to this? By going legit? Using different strategies? Perhaps by shooting first and then taking your wallet? I'm not criticizing, just presenting some scenarios.

 

[MBuzzy]

A life is much harder to replace.

The thing to remember here is that many of these ideals arise from necessity. In today's society, the victim can quickly become the "attacker" in the legal system. There are situations of a person being prosecuted for killing someone who broke into their home. I believe that it comes to personal convictions. Are your convictions strong enough to sacrifice your life or freedom for?

It also comes to a question of practicality. What is the use of a life sacrificed in a futile effort? If you resist that one mugger to "show him" that you won't take it and he shoots you - what is gained? You stuck to your convictions and principles. Good for you....but if you're dead, it means nothing. In the grand scheme, it won't matter.

Now there are certainly situations where the practicality changes. The American revolution for example. The people stood up for their rights and convictions, but did so in a logical, organized, and meaningful way. Many lives were lost, but they weren't lost without a purpose, they were all working toward a single, unified goal.

If you lose your life sticking up to a mugger - what has been gained? Now....if EVERYONE changes their attitudes and starts to stick up for themselves, slowly over the course of time, things may change....but how many of the public are willing to give up their lives in that pursuit? As long as there are still targets, it won't work. The American revolution worked because EVERYONE was of the same mind, things were polarized. If you didnt' support the revolution, you were a sympathizer and that wasn't a good thing to be.

Personally, I will give up my wallet to a guy with a gun. My life isn't worth a bunch of credit cards that I can cancel and a few bucks. But my recognition of the mugger, situational awareness and actions after the fact, may help to save another person. Resisting would only get me hurt or killed and I would be another statistic. As someone that got out, but saw his face - I can be useful.

And be aware, you may face consequence by telling your students to fight back. If you tell them that, are you willing to have one of THEIR lives on your conscience? I certainly am not. Their lives are too important to me. I'd rather have their pride hurt, but in class the next day.

Not negotiating with terrorists is one that I'm FULLY in support of. Particularly as someone who could possibly be a POW, I wouldn't want my government to negotiate. Once we give concessions, the flood gate is open....and they will learn that when they want something - grab some solidiers or civilians and we'll pay up. NOT the way to go.

So in short - while I agree with you....I see the logic in the "victim" way of thinking and I think that a large portion of it serves a purpose.

 

[MJS]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

So, what do you guys think?

And this is why I personally disagree with the compliance that everyone talks about. Last time I checked, I wasn't a mind reader, and I don't believe anyone else is either, so, therefore, I don't want to assume that if I hand over my wallet, my keys, the car, rings, watch, etc., that the guy is going to take them and run. He could turn around and stab me or blow me away.

People will say that against an armed attack, you're probably going to get hurt or worse, maybe get killed. This is the reason why people say to comply. But as I said, there is a 50/50 chance that if I comply, I'll die anyways, so that is why I would rather take the chance and attempt to defend myself.

And yes, the other comments are usually, "Well, what about your wife and kids?" What about them? Again, I could die either way, so....

A while back, I started a thread on why people are afraid to use their martial arts in SD. IMHO, I think its the fear of the aftermath that scares the hell out of people. What if he sues me? What if this? What if that? Who gives a ****, is what I say! I'm minding my own business, and some punk wants to rob me....**** him, he deserves what he gets. He's going to sue me because of his injuries? Fine, but I didn't tell him to hold a knife to my back and demand cash either, so anyone with half a brain, if this ended up going to court, should be able to see who is wrong and who is right.

Then again, depending on location and time of day, there may not be any witnesses, and I'm certainly not staying around to check on this guys well being.

 

[MJS]

Just thought of this. Lets not forget about those that fought back on 9/11...the folks on that plane, which despite it going down, they prevented the original target from being hit. Sure, they could have just sat back, put their head between their legs and kissed their *** goodbye, but they didn't. Despite them knowing that they were probably going to die anyways, they still fought back with everything they had. Sounds like a damn good mindset to me.

 

[celtic_crippler]

And this is why I personally disagree with the compliance that everyone talks about. Last time I checked, I wasn't a mind reader, and I don't believe anyone else is either, so, therefore, I don't want to assume that if I hand over my wallet, my keys, the car, rings, watch, etc., that the guy is going to take them and run. He could turn around and stab me or blow me away.

People will say that against an armed attack, you're probably going to get hurt or worse, maybe get killed. This is the reason why people say to comply. But as I said, there is a 50/50 chance that if I comply, I'll die anyways, so that is why I would rather take the chance and attempt to defend myself.

And yes, the other comments are usually, "Well, what about your wife and kids?" What about them? Again, I could die either way, so....

A while back, I started a thread on why people are afraid to use their martial arts in SD. IMHO, I think its the fear of the aftermath that scares the hell out of people. What if he sues me? What if this? What if that? Who gives a ****, is what I say! I'm minding my own business, and some punk wants to rob me....**** him, he deserves what he gets. He's going to sue me because of his injuries? Fine, but I didn't tell him to hold a knife to my back and demand cash either, so anyone with half a brain, if this ended up going to court, should be able to see who is wrong and who is right.

Then again, depending on location and time of day, there may not be any witnesses, and I'm certainly not staying around to check on this guys well being.

One reason to train to say things while you're being aggressive.

Instad of the classic "Kiai" train to say things like, "Stop attacking me!" and "Help! I'm being attacked."

When the police arrive and ask witnesses what happened they'll say, "That guy attacked the other guy and all he did was keep telling him to 'stop'."

Get it? LOL

It's true, just ask any LEO on here. When asked what they "saw" many times the witness relays what they "heard."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

I must have missed that training.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I am not sure where you got the idea that we're 'supposed' to do anything of the sort. Who told you that?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

That statement doesn't actually make much sense. If a deer runs out in front of your car, you'll certainly be in fear of your life enough to swerve or stop, right? Did that dear force you to do something? Sure it did. Entirely reasonable, too.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if you consulted one, you'd be told that you might be opening yourself up to some liability issues.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

Because it is easier to replace them than to replace your life.

So, what do you guys think?

I think that I am not in control of when or if I will be attacked or mugged. Training in self-defense is one of the ways in which I prepare myself against that eventuality.

I also think that the primary principle of self defense is encapsulated in the words 'self' and 'defense'. I do not think my wallet is worth my life. If I believe I can avoid giving up my life in exchange for my wallet, I will do so. If I believe I can outrun a mugger, I will do so. If I believe I can avoid being injured by handing over my car, I will do so.

If I do not believe I can avoid being further injured with the possibility of being killed, I will fight instead.

It's not about being macho to me. It's about staying alive.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

However, given that they are just as likely as not to kill you anyways in many cases, I can think of worse approaches than Charles Brosnson used in Death Wish.

The problem is that the above is not a true statement. It's only rhetoric. In all the muggings and carjackings and etcetera that take place in the USA, only a tiny fraction result in the murder of the victim. It is therefore not 'likely' at all to happen.

That does not mean that a person can assume they will NOT be injured during such an encounter, but it does mean that they cannot assume they WILL be injured or killed.

 

[just2kicku]

Just thought of this. Lets not forget about those that fought back on 9/11...the folks on that plane, which despite it going down, they prevented the original target from being hit. Sure, they could have just sat back, put their head between their legs and kissed their *** goodbye, but they didn't. Despite them knowing that they were probably going to die anyways, they still fought back with everything they had. Sounds like a damn good mindset to me.

I'm a firm believer of, If your gonna die, die with your boots on and go down swinging!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm a firm believer of, If your gonna die, die with your boots on and go down swinging!

That's perfectly reasonable.

But if you're being mugged, the statistics say you're not going to die. So making the encounter a violent one by attacking is to perhaps go down swinging when you could have walked away.

The people on the plane had no choices. They even knew from phone calls what was about to happen to them. They made a brave and wise choice.

A person being mugged has no such information. There are a nearly infinite set of variables that they have no knowledge of and no control over. Is this guy desperate enough to kill? Has he killed before? Is he just bluffing? Is he a hardened criminal, a drug addict out of his head, or what? Is he even armed? If he has a gun, is it real, is it loaded? Etc, etc.

Every situation is going to be different. In some, the smart response might well be to attack with everything you have. In others, the smart response might be to tell him to get stuffed and walk away. But you don't know.

I don't think there can be one set answer. We have brains, we're trained as martial artists to analyze the situation. "Hulk Smash!" isn't usually the smartest answer in every situation.

 

[Danjo]

The problem is that the above is not a true statement. It's only rhetoric. In all the muggings and carjackings and etcetera that take place in the USA, only a tiny fraction result in the murder of the victim. It is therefore not 'likely' at all to happen.

That does not mean that a person can assume they will NOT be injured during such an encounter, but it does mean that they cannot assume they WILL be injured or killed.

The odds of getting killed or even shot during a robbery are about 1% if the robbery is taking place in public and the robber is wearing some sort of disguise (even a pulled down baseball cap and flipped up collar and sunglasses). If the robber tries to kidnap you or rob you in private, the odds go to about 50/50. Use your own judgement, but the rule of thumb is to never get yourself herded into a meat locker, back room etc., or get into a robber's car. You have a greater chance of surving if you just flat out run and yell/scream since they are not likely to hit you with a bullet if you are moving away at a full run and zigzagging etc. than you do if you leave the location with him.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The odds of getting killed or even shot during a robbery are about 1% if the robbery is taking place in public and the robber is wearing some sort of disguise (even a pulled down baseball cap and flipped up collar and sunglasses). If the robber tries to kidnap you or rob you in private, the odds go to about 50/50. Use your own judgement, but the rule of thumb is to never get yourself herded into a meat locker, back room etc., or get into a robber's car. You have a greater chance of surving if you just flat out run and yell/scream since they are not likely to hit you with a bullet if you are moving away at a full run and zigzagging etc. than you do if you leave the location with him.

I don't know where you got your numbers, but I would agree with your logic. I once linked to a news story of what I thought was a 'perfect shoot' involving a private citizen who used a firearm in self-defense.

He was eating in a Subway and was robbed. He was armed, but turned over his wallet. Then the robbers tried to herd him into the back room with the store employees. He drew his weapon and killed the bad guys. That was what I consider smart, given the circumstances. Both the giving up the wallet and the later shooting. Circumstances changed, and he reacted with intelligence and determination to both sets of circumstances.

 

[MJS]

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if you consulted one, you'd be told that you might be opening yourself up to some liability issues.

But like most martial arts instructors, isn't that the norm. with the lawyers as well? I may be wrong in saying this, but it seems to me, that many who will be making the decision as to whether or not you're right or wrong in what you did, will be totally clueless or have a limited at best, knowledge of the arts.

I think that I am not in control of when or if I will be attacked or mugged. Training in self-defense is one of the ways in which I prepare myself against that eventuality.

I agree. Hopefully with our training, came a heightened awareness of our surroundings.

I also think that the primary principle of self defense is encapsulated in the words 'self' and 'defense'. I do not think my wallet is worth my life. If I believe I can avoid giving up my life in exchange for my wallet, I will do so. If I believe I can outrun a mugger, I will do so. If I believe I can avoid being injured by handing over my car, I will do so.

If I do not believe I can avoid being further injured with the possibility of being killed, I will fight instead.

It's not about being macho to me. It's about staying alive.

I know we've had these discussions before, and at the risk of going down that same road again, I must ask...how can we be sure? I mean, I may walk into the casino and 'believe' that I'm going to get a 'feeling' when I walk past a slot machine or table, sit down, and hit it big, when reality sets in, and I now realize that I just lost $100. Its a gamble. I can sit at the table and have a 50/50 shot at winning. I may walk away from the mugging with my pants soiled..lol...or I may not walk away at all. As much as losing $100 bucks kills me, I want to walk away with my life.

As for being macho...I'm not superman, I'm not cocky and frankly, I hate to talk about my MA training with anyone thats not a MAist. I certainly do my best to avoid trouble, so when it does come, it usually comes looking for me, not the other way around. I always try to talk my way out first and fortunately, more times than not, that alone has worked. For that, I'm thankful. But, if I'm pressed, and talking is a) not working or b) not the option, right or wrong in the eyes of others, I'm going to defend myself and anyone that I'm with. If someone thinks that I'm wrong for saying that, thats fine..to each their own.

That's perfectly reasonable.

But if you're being mugged, the statistics say you're not going to die. So making the encounter a violent one by attacking is to perhaps go down swinging when you could have walked away.

And there are people that run around throwing out stats saying that all or 90% of all fights go to the ground. Personally, I take stats with a grain of salt.

The people on the plane had no choices. They even knew from phone calls what was about to happen to them. They made a brave and wise choice.

A person being mugged has no such information. There are a nearly infinite set of variables that they have no knowledge of and no control over. Is this guy desperate enough to kill? Has he killed before? Is he just bluffing? Is he a hardened criminal, a drug addict out of his head, or what? Is he even armed? If he has a gun, is it real, is it loaded? Etc, etc.

Every situation is going to be different. In some, the smart response might well be to attack with everything you have. In others, the smart response might be to tell him to get stuffed and walk away. But you don't know.

I don't think there can be one set answer. We have brains, we're trained as martial artists to analyze the situation. "Hulk Smash!" isn't usually the smartest answer in every situation.

So, using the plane analogy, am I safe to assume that you're saying the following: If death is imminent, if there is no other option for the victim, be it on a plane, or a mugging situation, if it looks like I'm going to die, then I should fight for all I'm worth. But if I 'feel' that I may not die, that if I just give the badguy my cash, that I'll survive, then I should do nothing more than hand it over and hope that I can remember enough of what happened, to give a report to the police.

 

[shaolinmonkmark]

I'm a firm believer of, If your gonna die, die with your boots on and go down swinging!

i concur.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But like most martial arts instructors, isn't that the norm. with the lawyers as well? I may be wrong in saying this, but it seems to me, that many who will be making the decision as to whether or not you're right or wrong in what you did, will be totally clueless or have a limited at best, knowledge of the arts.

Yes, although of course, both sides will bring in 'experts'. Anybody can be sued for anything, but I do think you might be opening yourself up unnecessarily. Again, I'd consult an attorney before dispensing advice like that, but that's just me.

I know we've had these discussions before, and at the risk of going down that same road again, I must ask...how can we be sure? I mean, I may walk into the casino and 'believe' that I'm going to get a 'feeling' when I walk past a slot machine or table, sit down, and hit it big, when reality sets in, and I now realize that I just lost $100. Its a gamble. I can sit at the table and have a 50/50 shot at winning. I may walk away from the mugging with my pants soiled..lol...or I may not walk away at all. As much as losing $100 bucks kills me, I want to walk away with my life.

I don't think there is any way to 'know' what is going to happen. I think that you have to use your best judgment in any self-defense situation. I do think that an automatic assumption that you're about to be killed and that therefore you should respond with a maximum assault on the robber is perhaps not the best solution and is more likely to get you killed or seriously injured than complying.

As for being macho...I'm not superman, I'm not cocky and frankly, I hate to talk about my MA training with anyone thats not a MAist. I certainly do my best to avoid trouble, so when it does come, it usually comes looking for me, not the other way around. I always try to talk my way out first and fortunately, more times than not, that alone has worked. For that, I'm thankful. But, if I'm pressed, and talking is a) not working or b) not the option, right or wrong in the eyes of others, I'm going to defend myself and anyone that I'm with. If someone thinks that I'm wrong for saying that, thats fine..to each their own.

The purpose of self-defense is to defend the self. Anytime an altercation becomes physical, the risk of someone (you or the aggressor) being injured or dying goes up a great deal. I therefore believe that anything that can be done to terminate a confrontation short of violence is a good thing - in terms of self defense.

I also understand that some people put their self-image, or the negative idea of themselves as a compliant victim in front of their own safety. That's their choice, but it's not, strictly speaking, self-defense at that point. I don't know what you'd call it. Ego-defense? Self-image-defense? I-dont-want-to-be-victimized defense?

And there are people that run around throwing out stats saying that all or 90% of all fights go to the ground. Personally, I take stats with a grain of salt.

Betting against the house is generally a losing proposition, although someone always wins against the house. Chances are that it won't be you. That's all.

So, using the plane analogy, am I safe to assume that you're saying the following: If death is imminent, if there is no other option for the victim, be it on a plane, or a mugging situation, if it looks like I'm going to die, then I should fight for all I'm worth. But if I 'feel' that I may not die, that if I just give the badguy my cash, that I'll survive, then I should do nothing more than hand it over and hope that I can remember enough of what happened, to give a report to the police.

Perhaps not that hard and fast. I don't believe in absolutes in self-defense. Response is a continuum, from ignoring the guy and walking away, to knocking him down and jumping on his chest until it caves in. If I truly believe I could retain my wallet and not put myself at undue risk by poking the guy's running lights out, perhaps I'd do that. It really does depend on the situation.

In general terms, though: If I believe that the alternative to being robbed is serious injury or death, then I will surrender my valuables. If I believe that I am likely to be injured or killed despite handing over my valuables, I will fight. My goal is one thing and one thing only - my survival. I'll do whatever it takes to increase the odds of that happening as I see it at the time.

 

[Jenna]

I was reading on another thread, and someone said that as a private citizen, we are trained to be victims.

It got me thinking, and they're right. If someone wants our wallet, we're supposed to give it to them. WE are told to comply with the bad guy. As a country we do not negotiate with terrorist, so why as a private citizen are we supposed to just lay down and show submissiveness?

I for one am kinda getting tired of it. I do not feel that I have to fear for my life and safety in order to do anything.

It's kind of a rant, but what do you guys think of this? I'm tired of telling our students to get away if you can. I want to start telling them to destroy the guy if opportunity presents itself.

That's my wallet or my money or my things, I'm not willing to give up the things I've worked hard to get. Can they be replaced? Yes, but why should I have to replace them?

So, what do you guys think?

I think it is not a black-and-white issue [that we either fight to the death or utterly acquiesce], there are infinite in-between scenarios.

I do not want to offend anybody and but I think to suggest a blanket response to this problem is imprudent. Every situation is comprised of a vast melange of factors, many of which are unknown at the time we must make our decision to relinquish our property or fight on. I think the irrationality in saying "I will always.." do the one thing or the other in this situation is unfortunately demonstrated when our estimation of how the mugging will goes down differs from what ACTUALLY happens. I mean, we cannot always accurately predict the path of these situations. Can you be sure you know what he is after off you? Can you be certain of his capability to do damage to you?

No I am not trying to offend anybody though I just imagine this is a situation where we might do better not to talk in absolutes one way or the other. The one caveat is that a life is endangered in which case all debate is nullified.

Mind, I once had an attempt made to steal my car. With me in it! That was a bridge too far. Man that was my car they were after it is all I have worth a coin. It accelerates well! And so if he is after your purse or wallet, run away! then there is no fight and there is no injury see all he is left with is dust and deflated ego

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Danjo]

I don't know where you got your numbers, but I would agree with your logic.

I just googled robbery shootings and got some crime stats pages. They vary from year to year, but that's the average it seemed.