From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:10:01 GMT

In article <8708.25762@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby) writes:
>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.

What criteria does Overby use to judge "qualified"?  If we use "are
they less likely to be hurt than people who submit", we find that
"uses a gun for self-defense" works.  (There may be other things.)

Overby "forgets" that carjack victims who SUBMIT are hurt.  So are
people who resist.  We might find that people who resist with some
tools are more likely to be hurt than people who submit (which doesn't
tell us that their resistance CAUSED their injury), but we might also
find that people who resist with certain tools are less likely to be
hurt than people who submit.  Thus, the details are relevant.

>In article <1992Dec16.191455.22950@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>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.

They're quite relevant.  They're concerned with defense against
personal attack, which is what carjacking is.

>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.

AFTER they're done, whether they're interested in hurting or robbing,
all criminals have the same interest in fleeing; carjackers are no
different in this.  (They're rarely a danger to the victim while
fleeing either.)  Note that the self-defense stats include robbery.
(BTW - We also know that some carjackers are also interested in
injuring/killing their victims.)  In any event, Overby is trying to
make a distinction that doesn't work, because submission doesn't
protect a victim.  Some forms of resistance may be ineffective,
but that does not imply that resistance is ineffective.

>freely admit I have no statistical basis to back me up, I still

Overby doesn't have relevant data and doesn't understand the
situation, and he's giving advice?  He could have ASKED about
resistance, perhaps even researched the question, but instead he
asserted.  Gee - that's responsible.  What was Overby complaining
about again?

-andy
--
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7829 ca.politics:10451