From: bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:00:40 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <1992Dec16.191455.22950@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <8693.30335@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby) writes:
>>They don't say it, but they
>>imply (rather strongly, in my opinion) that if only we poor
>>slobs out there would resist these carjackers, then we could
>>eventually stop them from persisting in this menace.
>
>So?  Would it be wrong to stop them or is the mechanism flawed?
>
It's certainly not wrong to stop them. Indeed, I agree that it's
a good thing when qualified people--like the off-duty FBI agent,
Mr. Cramer, you perhaps--successfully resist carjackers.

>>This could get people not qualified in the use of weapons hurt or
>>killed.
>
>Oh, Overby is claiming that it won't work, that people who resist
>are making a mistake.
>
Actually, that's not what I'm claiming at all. What I'm claiming
is a bit more convoluted than that. (Sorry.) I say that hysteria
about successful resistance to *carjacking in particular* might
prompt people who are not qualified to resist to try and do so.
This might get those people hurt.

>We can look at the stats.  Ignoring issues like "did the injury prompt
>the resistance, or did the resistance prompt the injury", we find that
>people who resist are more likely to be injured than people who
>submit.  (Once we consider those issues things change significantly.
>Oh, and resistors may well foil the crime, while submitters, by
>definition, don't; that difference has some value.)  But, there are
>various ways to resist, and we might find that different ways have
>different success rates.  We don't see huge differences between
>unarmed and with-weapon resistance, but we do see huge differences
>between with-GUN and with-other-weapon.  In fact, with-gun
>self-defenders are less likely to be killed/injured than people who
>submit.  (See Kleck's "Point Blank".)  Since the "submit" success
>statistics reflect the fact that someone capable of resistance might
>well submit when submission is "safe" while many resistors don't have
>anything to lose, that's rather impressive.
>
I don't really understand what you've said here, but I'm willing
to accept your conclusions, both because I have very little
experience in this area and because your conclusions don't seem
to have much relevance to what I've said. I think (I'm sure
you'll correct me if I'm wrong) they apply to *crime in general*,
not just carjacking. (Indeed, I would assume little or no
experience with carjacking was considered in making these
conclusions, since the carjacking phenomenon is relatively new.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

>In other words, Overby's assumption that untrained people are better
>off submitting than using guns for self-defense is incorrect.  Does
>Overby have another objection, one that actually has a basis in
>reality?
>
In considering *carjacking specifically*, the assailant is, in
most cases, anxious to flee quickly. This differentiates this
crime from other crimes, in which assailants have a vested
interest in harming or incapacitating their victims. Therefore,
I conclude that sensationalizing successful resistance to
carjackers (as Mr. Cramer did, in my opinion) is not a good
thing because people who would be better off just *giving up
the car* (gasp) might be prompted to instead resist. Though I
freely admit I have no statistical basis to back me up, I still
don't think your statistics about crime in general disprove my
conclusion.

>-andy
>--

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ba.politics