Its nice to think that people factor benevolent principles into situations like this. However, when people fight back under high stress situations like a robbery, it is probable that the moment is not about defending society; its about survival.
Statistics say if you cooperate, you're less likely to be harmed. If you decide to push a physical confrontation, then you're more likely to be harmed. If you measure the cost/benefit ratio to each action, its a no brainer.
--Its nice to think that people factor benevolent principles into situations like this. However, when people fight back under high stress situations like a robbery, it is probable that the moment is not about defending society; its about survival.
To some it is, to some it is not. I personally have been in a similar situation (assailant had a gun). As well, I have trained since a young age in defensive combat. I can honestly say that when that moment was upon me, the rage that ran through my mind was not for saving myself but the idea that a little old lady had most likely stood in my same position and that the people around me are being victimized. I think most that do decide to stand, stand for a sense of honor that is beyond them or their personal well being, because even to them, logically the money is not worth it, it is the principal of the matter. Given the original post's description of the gentleman as an individual who dislikes violence he sounds to me like he is a man that does not compromise his principles even if it costs him his life, which it looks like it eventually did. Being a man of principals in not unintelligent and that was the summation of my previous post.
Yeah, but the dude had a gun. Maybe you held it together enough to not pee in your pants and still have some perspective about the situation, but I'm guessing there wasn't much question about what you were going to do.
Contrary to popular belief in close quarter combat a knife is far more dangerous than a gun. A gun requires action on the part of the assailant while a knife can be dangerous with only reactionary movement. For example one of the key tenants of close quarter combat is explosive violence, basically when you go you go off. When you do the assailant has a small window of time to chose an action e.g. aim and pull the trigger. With a gun the slightest movement moves you out of trajectory which require a new action on the part of the assailant these calculations are not as fast as reaction time. Conversely with a knife it can be wielded in a reactionary fashion e.g I go to grab it the assailant flinches back and I get slashed. The weapon can be used without the assailant consciously choosing to do so.
Unfortunately the best (read safest) method for dealing with a knife telegraphs your intention and throws explosive violence out the window because the most assured way is to either pick up a longer instrument (bat, tire iron) or to take off an item of clothing to act as the item to trap the arm either of which let the assailant know what the score is.
Knowing this and reading that the gentleman still opted to use the element of surprise, gives some insight as to how confident this individual was with his abilities. The fact that he first used his feet to disarm the knife says that he analyzed the situation and decided that the element of surprise was more valuable than opting for a telegraphed safer method.
> Statistics say if you cooperate, you're less likely to be harmed. If you decide to push a physical confrontation, then you're more likely to be harmed.
Ah yes, "might as well lie back and enjoy it".
Actually, the statistics, at least in the US, don't show that cooperation leads to less harm. US statistics show the resistance is associated with somewhat less harm. And, those statistics ignore the "want to take you somewhere else" situation. Cooperating in that circumstance is pretty much a death sentence because those attackers are trying to take you somewhere else to kill you. (No - that's not a common scenario, but it's an especially deadly one.)
There's also a "recovery" benefit to resistance - the victim feels better afterwards.
I'm not saying that resistance is always the best option. I'm saying that it can be a better option than compliance. Circumstances matter.
Remember, a robber is telling you that the unknown contents of your wallet are worth more to him than your life. That tells you how little he values your life.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you've never been held up by someone with a weapon. If anything, if the guy only has a knife, you might have good odds running for it. Fighting someone with a knife is a bad idea statistically even if you're Bruce Lee.
> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you've never been held up by someone with a weapon.
Wrong - that's why I got interested, and training.
How about you - did your attitude come from experience or ....
> If anything, if the guy only has a knife, you might have good odds running for it.
And you might not. (For example - Eric Raymond can't run worth a damn and there's no place to run in a subway car.) There's no blanket rule. Note that attackers plan too. They pick victims and circumstances with their goals in mind.
If you are a mugger, you need to mug on a regular basis to eat. If a victim resists, it's not worth the risk to stay and fight, even if they don't know what they're doing they could still get in a lucky punch, and screw up your livelihood.
Not that someone stumbling drunk is necessarily going to run through that calculation.
Statistics say if you cooperate, you're less likely to be harmed. If you decide to push a physical confrontation, then you're more likely to be harmed. If you measure the cost/benefit ratio to each action, its a no brainer.