There is at least one robber who won’t be repeating his crime.
" PLANTATION – One gunman is dead and another is in critical condition after they tried to rob a sandwich store and were shot by an armed customer Wednesday night, authorities said.
Donicio Arrindell, 22, of North Lauderdale, and Fredrick Gadson, 21, of Fort Lauderdale, entered a Subway restaurant at 1949 N. Pine Island Rd. and demanded money at gunpoint about 11:17 p.m., said Detective Robert Rettig, a police spokesman.
They then attempted to rob the lone customer, John Lovell, 71, of Plantation, by forcing him into the restroom, but Lovell, who was legally armed, pulled his gun and fired, police said."
Why does it seem only the old guys step up? Three recent examples are VT, that recent airline flight and this situation.
Cuz they’re old and have already lived a full life. If they die fighting back, it’s sad, but not tragic. Me? I have a helluva lot of living left to do, so if some punk wants my wallet, I’ll give it up, no questions asked. Only time I’d even think about fighting back is if I knew they were gonna kill me anyway.
Edited to add: In case it’s not obvious, this was intended to be at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
If I miss the tongue in cheek aspect, forgive me, but do they just need to point a gun at you before you know, or do they need to actually fire?
Actually, there are an infinite number of other possible scenarios besides just pointing the gun or firing. I really couldn’t say, as I’ve never been in that situation before. Statistically, though, more people get killed fighting back or refusing to give up the money than those who comply. I would bet that if they didn’t shoot the sub shop clerk after (s)he gave up the cash register, they probably wouldn’t shoot me after I gave up my wallet.
I guess they just wanted the wallet. Trying to force the customer into the men’s room was probably just in case he was about to wet himself.
That wasn’t in the article, but this is a local story.
A robber killed the clerk at a Subway here a few years ago. I go to Subway all the time. I am guessing this incident will deter some robberies, from this guy at a minimum.
I with Danno on this one. You can site examples for every scenario, but the reality is, that if you own a gun, you are way more likely to be shot by one, and if you fight back, more likely to get hurt or killed. It’s just odds, and as a poker player, I go with the odds every time. Highest probability in this case, is everyone gets robbed, and eventually robbers get caught. Perhaps the robbers were trying to get money for their wifes cancer medication, which they only had half of…
When viewed as an individual, you are probably right. However, when viewed from the group point of view, the fact that some citizens are armed restains and adds a lot of risk to the actions of the bad guys, driving down overall crime statistics. That has been our experience in Florida.
So the few shoulder some individual risk to the benefit of the many. Works for me.
Oh, come on. There are tens of thousands of armed robberies, most of which, no one fights back, and no one gets killed. Of course the few that do, make the headline news, so it adds to our fear of the bad guy, and makes it seem more common…
So the few shoulder some individual risk to the benefit of the many. Works for me.
If I understand you correctly, I agree. I’m glad there are folks out there who do carry guns and fight back. It does add an element of risk to the bad guys that might make some of them think better of their actions. But, like Monty, I’ll play the percentages that give me the best odds for survival, and IMHO, that means giving it up. My life is worth a lot more to me than a few bucks and my credit cards.
There are tens of thousands of armed robberies, most of which, no one fights back, and no one gets killed.
That’s non-responsive, monty. (I’m not even sure if it’s correct, actually. What’s the rate of resistance in armed robberies?)
Your assertion wasn’t that in most armed robberies, people don’t fight back, and don’t get killed. Your assertion was that you are more likely to get hurt or killed if you fight back. Do you have a source for that?
I’m sure you’ll poke holes in it, but a quick Google search turned up this tidbit cited from an article by Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth, CPP entitled “Crimes of convenience.” I have no idea who the authors are or the data behind the cited report. also, I think this article dates from 1995 (or relies on data from 1995). The cited paper is from 1986. I doubt things have gotten better since then… although I could be wrong.
A study in the *Journal of Legal Studies, *“Victim Injury and Death in Urban Robbery: A Chicago Study,” indicates the danger associated with resisting a robbery. The study showed that active resistance accounted for 82 percent of commercial robbery killings, and victims who resisted were forty-nine times more likely to be killed than those who cooperated.
On the other hand, another study seems to indicate that robbery victims with guns who resist are less likely to be killed than those without guns who resist.
Armed resistance is more effective than unarmed resistance, and resistance with a gun, though relatively rare, is the most effective victim response of all. Resistance with a gun also appears to reduce the likelihood of the victim being injured, while two types of resistance appear to increase it: (1) unarmed physical force against the robber and (2) trying to get help, attract attention, or scare the robber away.
I’m not going to attempt to poke holes in it. What I would like to see is that data from the DOJ, which exists, if someone can figure out how to find it. I can’t seem to figure out their new format.
Thanks Steve, VItus can be a pain sometimes. SO 49 times more likely if you resist unarmed, and less than that if you are armed. Either case, your odds are clearly in favor of not resisting…Of course that is common sense, but some need to nit pik common sense I guess
Maybe, but Vitus is about to demonstrate his superior reading comprehension.
SO 49 times more likely if you resist unarmed, and less than that if you are armed. Either case, your odds are clearly in favor of not resisting…
Bzzzt! According to the first study, victims who resist are 49 times more likely to be killed. According to the second study, unarmed resistance increases the odds of injury to the victim, but armed resistance with a gun decreases those odds. So, no, it isn’t true that in either case, your odds are clearly in favor of not resisting. If we are going to refrain, in some misguided attempt a civility, from shooting holes in either study, the take away is this: Your odds of getting out of an armed robbery without injury are best if you resist with a gun.
Since you’re going to go with the odds every time, I expect you’ll be running right out to buy a Glock.
**Of course that is common sense, but some need to nit pik common sense I guess **
Common sense is not necessarily common or sensical. You picked the part you liked and disregarded the other part that says:
Armed resistance is more effective than unarmed resistance, and resistance with a gun, though relatively rare, is the most effective victim response of all.
Resistance with a gun is the MOST EFFECTIVE victim RESPONSE of all.