OT: To resist or not to resist?



W

WillBrink

Guest
Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.


This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether
it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,
appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
sample cases. The appearance, in past research, of resistance
contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion
concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury. In crimes where both
occurred, injury followed SP in only 10 percent of the incidents.
Combined with the fact that injuries following resistance are almost
always relatively minor, victim resistance appears to be generally a
wise course of action.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
 
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:00:20 -0400, WillBrink
<WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:

>Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
> Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
>crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
>
>
> This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
>protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
>incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
>second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether
>it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
>incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
>1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
>outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
>self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
>likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
>variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,

Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection.

>appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
>though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
>sample cases.

Which means the findings are by and large a lot of old bollocks.

>The appearance, in past research, of resistance
>contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion
>concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury.

Who's confusing who?

Another heap of cherry-picked **** Brink.
 
"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:00:20 -0400, WillBrink
> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
>> Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
>>crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
>>
>>
>> This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
>>protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
>>incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
>>second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether
>>it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
>>incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
>>1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
>>outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
>>self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
>>likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
>>variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,
>
> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection.
>
>>appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
>>though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
>>sample cases.
>
> Which means the findings are by and large a lot of old bollocks.
>
>>The appearance, in past research, of resistance
>>contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion
>>concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury.
>
> Who's confusing who?
>
> Another heap of cherry-picked **** Brink.

I don't necessarily agree that this is ****.

'> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection."

This is one very important issue and I agree. However, in general, from
everything I've ever read, heard, and experienced, resistance (including
violence) is usually the best course of action for preventing or improving
victim outcome of assualts.

It does not follow though that an armed society has less victims than an
unarmed society - HYOOGE leap here. Will did not, at least explicitly,
assert this (this time). Maybe he will, maybe not. All it says is that
self protection behaviour results in favourable self protection outcomes.

Bob
 
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:58:52 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:00:20 -0400, WillBrink
>> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
>>> Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
>>>crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
>>>
>>>
>>> This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
>>>protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
>>>incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
>>>second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether
>>>it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
>>>incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
>>>1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
>>>outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
>>>self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
>>>likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
>>>variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,
>>
>> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection.
>>
>>>appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
>>>though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
>>>sample cases.
>>
>> Which means the findings are by and large a lot of old bollocks.
>>
>>>The appearance, in past research, of resistance
>>>contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion
>>>concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury.
>>
>> Who's confusing who?
>>
>> Another heap of cherry-picked **** Brink.
>
>I don't necessarily agree that this is ****.

Then you misunderstood either my point or the points Tark and Kleck
were making, which was that the points Brink was highlighting are weak
and obscure.

>
>'> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection."
>
>This is one very important issue and I agree. However, in general, from
>everything I've ever read, heard, and experienced, resistance (including
>violence) is usually the best course of action for preventing or improving
>victim outcome of assualts.
>
>It does not follow though that an armed society has less victims than an
>unarmed society - HYOOGE leap here. Will did not, at least explicitly,
>assert this (this time). Maybe he will, maybe not. All it says is that
>self protection behaviour results in favourable self protection outcomes.

That was my point - you don't need to 'carry' to resist.

I usually have a very protective Doberman riding in the back of my
Range Rover; he is a huge deterrent to road rage dickheads.

If he's not in the Ranger (which is rare) I always carry a metal
shooting stick complete with a sharp edged folding bottom ferrrule to
stop it sinking in the ground. This has proved a very effective
detterrent to those road rage dickheads who threaten violence.

The only place I ever appear to be threatened with any sort of
gratuitious violence in the UK, is on the roads. I have never been the
victim of violence and I always respond aggressively if I am ever
threatened with it.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:58:52 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:00:20 -0400, WillBrink
> >> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
> >>> Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
> >>>crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
> >>>protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
> >>>incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
> >>>second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether
> >>>it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
> >>>incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
> >>>1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
> >>>outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
> >>>self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
> >>>likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
> >>>variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,
> >>
> >> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection.
> >>
> >>>appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
> >>>though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
> >>>sample cases.
> >>
> >> Which means the findings are by and large a lot of old bollocks.
> >>
> >>>The appearance, in past research, of resistance
> >>>contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion
> >>>concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury.
> >>
> >> Who's confusing who?
> >>
> >> Another heap of cherry-picked **** Brink.
> >
> >I don't necessarily agree that this is ****.
>
> Then you misunderstood either my point or the points Tark and Kleck
> were making, which was that the points Brink was highlighting are weak
> and obscure.
>
> >
> >'> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection."
> >
> >This is one very important issue and I agree. However, in general, from
> >everything I've ever read, heard, and experienced, resistance (including
> >violence) is usually the best course of action for preventing or improving
> >victim outcome of assualts.
> >
> >It does not follow though that an armed society has less victims than an
> >unarmed society - HYOOGE leap here. Will did not, at least explicitly,
> >assert this (this time). Maybe he will, maybe not. All it says is that
> >self protection behaviour results in favourable self protection outcomes.
>
> That was my point - you don't need to 'carry' to resist.
>
> I usually have a very protective Doberman riding in the back of my
> Range Rover; he is a huge deterrent to road rage dickheads.
>
> If he's not in the Ranger (which is rare) I always carry a metal
> shooting stick complete with a sharp edged folding bottom ferrrule to
> stop it sinking in the ground. This has proved a very effective
> detterrent to those road rage dickheads who threaten violence.
>
> The only place I ever appear to be threatened with any sort of
> gratuitious violence in the UK, is on the roads. I have never been the
> victim of violence and I always respond aggressively if I am ever
> threatened with it.

No fear... Good show! ;-)

And HAGW! I'll be weathering out that storm maybe, depending on the
winds of fate.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-*****." -Jack Nicholson
 
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:41:35 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:58:52 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:00:20 -0400, WillBrink
>> >> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
>> >>> Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
>> >>>crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
>> >>>protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
>> >>>incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
>> >>>second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether
>> >>>it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
>> >>>incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
>> >>>1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
>> >>>outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
>> >>>self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
>> >>>likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
>> >>>variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,
>> >>
>> >> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection.
>> >>
>> >>>appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
>> >>>though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
>> >>>sample cases.
>> >>
>> >> Which means the findings are by and large a lot of old bollocks.
>> >>
>> >>>The appearance, in past research, of resistance
>> >>>contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion
>> >>>concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury.
>> >>
>> >> Who's confusing who?
>> >>
>> >> Another heap of cherry-picked **** Brink.
>> >
>> >I don't necessarily agree that this is ****.
>>
>> Then you misunderstood either my point or the points Tark and Kleck
>> were making, which was that the points Brink was highlighting are weak
>> and obscure.
>>
>> >
>> >'> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection."
>> >
>> >This is one very important issue and I agree. However, in general, from
>> >everything I've ever read, heard, and experienced, resistance (including
>> >violence) is usually the best course of action for preventing or improving
>> >victim outcome of assualts.
>> >
>> >It does not follow though that an armed society has less victims than an
>> >unarmed society - HYOOGE leap here. Will did not, at least explicitly,
>> >assert this (this time). Maybe he will, maybe not. All it says is that
>> >self protection behaviour results in favourable self protection outcomes.
>>
>> That was my point - you don't need to 'carry' to resist.
>>
>> I usually have a very protective Doberman riding in the back of my
>> Range Rover; he is a huge deterrent to road rage dickheads.
>>
>> If he's not in the Ranger (which is rare) I always carry a metal
>> shooting stick complete with a sharp edged folding bottom ferrrule to
>> stop it sinking in the ground. This has proved a very effective
>> detterrent to those road rage dickheads who threaten violence.
>>
>> The only place I ever appear to be threatened with any sort of
>> gratuitious violence in the UK, is on the roads. I have never been the
>> victim of violence and I always respond aggressively if I am ever
>> threatened with it.
>
>No fear... Good show! ;-)
>
>And HAGW! I'll be weathering out that storm maybe, depending on the
>winds of fate.

I hope all will be well; it is so sad to see NO being battered again,
with one levee already breached.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:41:35 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:58:52 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:00:20 -0400, WillBrink
> >> >> <WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
> >> >>> Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
> >> >>>crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
> >> >>>protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
> >> >>>incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
> >> >>>second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third,
> >> >>>whether
> >> >>>it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
> >> >>>incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
> >> >>>1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
> >> >>>outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
> >> >>>self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
> >> >>>likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
> >> >>>variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,
> >> >>
> >> >> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection.
> >> >>
> >> >>>appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
> >> >>>though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
> >> >>>sample cases.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which means the findings are by and large a lot of old bollocks.
> >> >>
> >> >>>The appearance, in past research, of resistance
> >> >>>contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to
> >> >>>confusion
> >> >>>concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who's confusing who?
> >> >>
> >> >> Another heap of cherry-picked **** Brink.
> >> >
> >> >I don't necessarily agree that this is ****.
> >>
> >> Then you misunderstood either my point or the points Tark and Kleck
> >> were making, which was that the points Brink was highlighting are weak
> >> and obscure.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >'> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection."
> >> >
> >> >This is one very important issue and I agree. However, in general, from
> >> >everything I've ever read, heard, and experienced, resistance (including
> >> >violence) is usually the best course of action for preventing or
> >> >improving
> >> >victim outcome of assualts.
> >> >
> >> >It does not follow though that an armed society has less victims than an
> >> >unarmed society - HYOOGE leap here. Will did not, at least explicitly,
> >> >assert this (this time). Maybe he will, maybe not. All it says is that
> >> >self protection behaviour results in favourable self protection outcomes.
> >>
> >> That was my point - you don't need to 'carry' to resist.
> >>
> >> I usually have a very protective Doberman riding in the back of my
> >> Range Rover; he is a huge deterrent to road rage dickheads.
> >>
> >> If he's not in the Ranger (which is rare) I always carry a metal
> >> shooting stick complete with a sharp edged folding bottom ferrrule to
> >> stop it sinking in the ground. This has proved a very effective
> >> detterrent to those road rage dickheads who threaten violence.
> >>
> >> The only place I ever appear to be threatened with any sort of
> >> gratuitious violence in the UK, is on the roads. I have never been the
> >> victim of violence and I always respond aggressively if I am ever
> >> threatened with it.
> >
> >No fear... Good show! ;-)
> >
> >And HAGW! I'll be weathering out that storm maybe, depending on the
> >winds of fate.
>
> I hope all will be well; it is so sad to see NO being battered again,
> with one levee already breached.

Global warming sux...
It's Ironic that we are being some of the first to be affected by it,
and we refused to sign the Kyoto protocal treaty.

Too bad so many people are being hurt by it.
If this trend towards severe hurricanes keeps up (this is the third year
in a row and they are getting worse and more frequent) the gulf coast
might have to be abandoned eventually.

just my 2 cents.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-*****." -Jack Nicholson
 
OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:41:35 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:58:52 -0400, "Bob MacWilliam"
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Charles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:00:20 -0400, WillBrink
>>>>>><WillBrink*NOSPAM*@Comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Criminology, Nov 2004 v42 i4 p861(49)
>>>>>>>Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of
>>>>>>>crimes. Jongyeon Tark; Gary Kleck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self
>>>>>>>protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal
>>>>>>>incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss,
>>>>>>>second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third,
>>>>>>>whether
>>>>>>>it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27,595 personal contact crime
>>>>>>>incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the
>>>>>>>1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime
>>>>>>>outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that
>>>>>>>self-protection in general, both forceful and non forceful, reduced the
>>>>>>>likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A
>>>>>>>variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury,
>>>>>>>though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of
>>>>>>>sample cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which means the findings are by and large a lot of old bollocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The appearance, in past research, of resistance
>>>>>>>contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to
>>>>>>>confusion
>>>>>>>concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who's confusing who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Another heap of cherry-picked **** Brink.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't necessarily agree that this is ****.
>>>>
>>>>Then you misunderstood either my point or the points Tark and Kleck
>>>>were making, which was that the points Brink was highlighting are weak
>>>>and obscure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>'> Meaning guns are only one method of seff protection."
>>>>>
>>>>>This is one very important issue and I agree. However, in general, from
>>>>>everything I've ever read, heard, and experienced, resistance (including
>>>>>violence) is usually the best course of action for preventing or
>>>>>improving
>>>>>victim outcome of assualts.
>>>>>
>>>>>It does not follow though that an armed society has less victims than an
>>>>>unarmed society - HYOOGE leap here. Will did not, at least explicitly,
>>>>>assert this (this time). Maybe he will, maybe not. All it says is that
>>>>>self protection behaviour results in favourable self protection outcomes.
>>>>
>>>>That was my point - you don't need to 'carry' to resist.
>>>>
>>>>I usually have a very protective Doberman riding in the back of my
>>>>Range Rover; he is a huge deterrent to road rage dickheads.
>>>>
>>>>If he's not in the Ranger (which is rare) I always carry a metal
>>>>shooting stick complete with a sharp edged folding bottom ferrrule to
>>>>stop it sinking in the ground. This has proved a very effective
>>>>detterrent to those road rage dickheads who threaten violence.
>>>>
>>>>The only place I ever appear to be threatened with any sort of
>>>>gratuitious violence in the UK, is on the roads. I have never been the
>>>>victim of violence and I always respond aggressively if I am ever
>>>>threatened with it.
>>>
>>>No fear... Good show! ;-)
>>>
>>>And HAGW! I'll be weathering out that storm maybe, depending on the
>>>winds of fate.
>>
>>I hope all will be well; it is so sad to see NO being battered again,
>>with one levee already breached.
>
>
> Global warming sux...
> It's Ironic that we are being some of the first to be affected by it,
> and we refused to sign the Kyoto protocal treaty.
>
> Too bad so many people are being hurt by it.
> If this trend towards severe hurricanes keeps up (this is the third year
> in a row and they are getting worse and more frequent) the gulf coast
> might have to be abandoned eventually.
>
> just my 2 cents.


One of the kooks I enjoy reading suggested a fish farming idea that would
ameliorate hurricanes:

www.winwenger.com/hurrican.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back