What to do when robbed?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

Hmm...How often do you exercise that wild imagination of yours? I'm guessing probably not often, if you've got extremely far-fetched thoughts like that...

What's far fetched about it? Yes, it assumes the criminal has a grasp of long term thinking, which apparently is uncommon among criminals. But it is a rational response, from the POV of the robber: it places his captor in a situation of choosing between the getting out with little trouble and paperwork, or a situation where they both stand to lose - the captor more so than the criminal. Of course, it does carry the risk of goading him into a more lethal response. But if he was that afraid, would he be burglarizing?

[MidnightViper88]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What's far fetched about it? Yes, it assumes the criminal has a grasp of long term thinking, which apparently is uncommon among criminals. But it is a rational response, from the POV of the robber: it places his captor in a situation of choosing between the getting out with little trouble and paperwork, or a situation where they both stand to lose - the captor more so than the criminal. Of course, it does carry the risk of goading him into a more lethal response. But if he was that afraid, would he be burglarizing?

When you attach the words "Rational response", you negate any sense of logic to the situation you just presented...

Before that though, that could happen in any situation, so as long as the bad guy has a good memory and premeditates...But how often does that actually happen? It's not even uncommon; It's practically rare, because the kind of criminal that would escalate his criminal actions like that after doing time almost have some degree of pathological dementia...

Which brings me to this; Why would a criminal escalate from burglary to premeditated murder anyway? Common burglary is usually nothing more than a misdemeanor if the simple act of breaking into a house is committed and nothing more, but can escalate into a felony if other crimes are committed in the act, such as theft and vandalism, and if a person is present inside the home at a time of a burglary, it could also escalate from burglary into robbery...Just the simple act of burglary and robbery could warrant up to 15 years in prison...First-degree murder is premeditated and planned out, and the concept of "felony murder rule" is practice in most states where a person commits first-degree murder if any death occurs, whether intentional or not, during the act of certain violent felonies, such as arson, burglary, rape, kidnapping, and robbery...First-degree murder can imprison someone for life or warrant capital punishment...

Of course, crime in it of itself is illogical, and the escalation of committed crimes is always an option for a criminal, but if your situation's burglar has the gall to attempt rationale with the home-owner, why would they knowingly plan to commit a crime that's nearly 10 times worse than burglary and actually tell their victim about it?

How about showing the possibilities of the other side of your situation? The act of trespassing is included with the act of burglary, therefore warranting any action by the home-owner to use force in self-defense...You say that in your situation, the home-owner has the upper-hand by confronting the criminal with a weapon and is holding them at point...The home-owner has two options in that situation; He can turn the criminal into the police, or he can kill the robber dead in self-defense...The criminal shouldn't have to live long enough to give out a stupid little ultimatum like that if a home-owner knows that their house is being broken into and they have a weapon to defend their property with...And even after the stupid little ultimatum, the home-owner can still use the threat of premeditated murder by the criminal as another justification for self-defense, on top of the act of trespassing/robbery in the first place...

When you think about it like I have just now, it makes absolutely no sense why it would play out like you presented...

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

When you attach the words "Rational response", you negate any sense of logic to the situation you just presented...

Pardon?

Before that though, that could happen in any situation, so as long as the bad guy has a good memory and premeditates...But how often does that actually happen? It's not even uncommon; It's practically rare, because the kind of criminal that would escalate his criminal actions like that after doing time almost have some degree of pathological dementia...

Which brings me to this; Why would a criminal escalate from burglary to premeditated murder anyway? Common burglary is usually nothing more than a misdemeanor if the simple act of breaking into a house is committed and nothing more, but can escalate into a felony if other crimes are committed in the act, such as theft and vandalism, and if a person is present inside the home at a time of a burglary, it could also escalate from burglary into robbery...Just the simple act of burglary and robbery could warrant up to 15 years in prison...First-degree murder is premeditated and planned out, and the concept of "felony murder rule" is practice in most states where a person commits first-degree murder if any death occurs, whether intentional or not, during the act of certain violent felonies, such as arson, burglary, rape, kidnapping, and robbery...First-degree murder can imprison someone for life or warrant capital punishment...

Depends where. And I'm not talking about actually doing anything other than verbal threats, which leave no traces.

Of course, crime in it of itself is illogical,

It's actually quite logical. Some people do make a living off it.

and the escalation of committed crimes is always an option for a criminal, but if your situation's burglar has the gall to attempt rationale with the home-owner, why would they knowingly plan to commit a crime that's nearly 10 times worse than burglary and actually tell their victim about it?

You don't seem to get it. The point isn't to commit the crime. The point is to threaten the other guy with it so he'll let you go. Indeed, if comes to the point where you're sent to prison, you've already "lost". And murdering someone later can only make you lose more (unless you also rob them in the process, and aren't caught). But from the point of view of the murdered? Well, they're dead. They don't want that either. Now, you may think, as the hypothetical home owner, "He'll never dare, even if I turn him in." Or you may think "He's already an outlaw. What says he doesn't do it?" Heck, maybe he had a knife, and backed off because you had a gun. Would you really put it past the criminal to become a revenge driven murderer? Would you bet your children's lives on it?

How about showing the possibilities of the other side of your situation? The act of trespassing is included with the act of burglary, therefore warranting any action by the home-owner to use force in self-defense...You say that in your situation, the home-owner has the upper-hand by confronting the criminal with a weapon and is holding them at point...The home-owner has two options in that situation; He can turn the criminal into the police, or he can kill the robber dead in self-defense...The criminal shouldn't have to live long enough to give out a stupid little ultimatum like that if a home-owner knows that their house is being broken into and they have a weapon to defend their property with...And even after the stupid little ultimatum, the home-owner can still use the threat of premeditated murder by the criminal as another justification for self-defense, on top of the act of trespassing/robbery in the first place...

Yes, as I said, there's a risk the home owner will react violently. Maybe even lethaly. He will then have to explain why he killed an unarmed robber when he himself has no defensive wounds. Depending on where this takes place, it could be hairy. And even without that, most people would hesitate before cold bloodedly killing an unarmed man who's not doing anything more than trash talking.

When you think about it like I have just now, it makes absolutely no sense why it would play out like you presented...

I'm unconvinced by your arguments that there is no possibility for something like that to happen. It's made unlikely by that criminal trait of not thinking long-term. But if you do come across some guy who thought of it despite that (maybe he saw it on TV?), what then?

[MidnightViper88]

You're not convincing me that the criminal always has to have his way when committing a crime and the victim always has to subject themselves into the victim position in situations like that...You're not convincing me of the possibility that the victim can still fight back in order to take steps towards helping serve justice to a criminal...You already said something about the criminal seeing something on TV; What if the victim also saw something on TV? What then?

Let me just say this; Your theoretical situation may be based on reality, but it's not grounded in reality...There are dozens of factors that can determine the outcome of such a confrontation, and you also have to factor in what legal standing the victim can freely move around in, and when you look at criminal situations, they're always a case-by-case situation...You have to look at where the crime is occurring, what the criminal is committing, what motives the criminal has, what kind of weapons either the criminal and victim have, who are the victims, what outside forces are present, et al...Your theoretical situation presents no specifics, existing only a theory, and even then, the theory rarely takes root in reality...By then, if you start arguing post-crime actions, you're leaving the judicial realm and delving into the psychological realm where the law cannot make judgment but where the human mind has to make judgment...Anything can happen in a "What if...?" situation where you can neither fully prepare yourself nor even expect it to happen in the first place; It all lies in the context it actually happening in reality...Is it better to actually prepare yourself in such a situation? Yes, but when you prepare, you prepare to take control of the situation; You don't prepare to let the criminal take control of you...I'm reading a lot more of the latter instead of the former from you...

[Anh_Minh]

Always? When did I say "always"? When did I ever even advise a course of action? I just posed a question about related issue that hadn't been addressed.

If your answer is "I'd just kill the thief" or "I'd just give him to the police anyway, and hope that after his prison term, he won't have the motivation to come asking for more", good for you. I won't say you're wrong.


You want to flesh out the case with more assumptions? Go ahead. What did the victim see on TV, that'd influence the situation? You talked about the weapons they - the burglar and the home owner - have. Explain to me how they're relevant, beyond "The home owner needs one to make the burglar back off." (or heck, maybe he just kicks his ass with his bare hands. What does it change?) and "If the burglar had one during the robbery, he may well be violent."

And yes, I'm talking about threats, which by their nature deal with the future, and something that the law can't deal with. That's the point: the law can't protect you there. Not unless it's changed so the death penalty (or life without parole) to be applied to everyone from pickpockets on up. What do you do?

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

How sure is that? What if the robber is also a martial artist? Used to be in the special forces? Or heck, what if there's just two of them?

I've seen an example of "there's two of them scenario".

I've had duty as an intern at a hospital's emergency ward before graduating college (since it's requirement for my course). Saw a big man being rushed for treatment of a bullet wound on the back. Heard from the wife that a man with a knife held them up, her husband being a bigger man tried to fight off the knife guy. But unfortunately, the knife guy had backup and her husband got shot from the back.

[Vivio Testarossa]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Always? When did I say "always"? When did I ever even advise a course of action? I just posed a question about related issue that hadn't been addressed.

If your answer is "I'd just kill the thief" or "I'd just give him to the police anyway, and hope that after his prison term, he won't have the motivation to come asking for more", good for you. I won't say you're wrong.


You want to flesh out the case with more assumptions? Go ahead. What did the victim see on TV, that'd influence the situation? You talked about the weapons they - the burglar and the home owner - have. Explain to me how they're relevant, beyond "The home owner needs one to make the burglar back off." (or heck, maybe he just kicks his ass with his bare hands. What does it change?) and "If the burglar had one during the robbery, he may well be violent."

And yes, I'm talking about threats, which by their nature deal with the future, and something that the law can't deal with. That's the point: the law can't protect you there. Not unless it's changed so the death penalty (or life without parole) to be applied to everyone from pickpockets on up. What do you do?

Were such a law passed that applied capital punishment to non-murder crimes, a state would have to execute almost all of its population, because most people have done something that isn't exactly legal at some point in their lifetime. That's of course assuming the law would even pass in the first place.

[MidnightViper88]

Read any issue of NRA's American Rifleman magazine and you'll find more stories about the good guys winning against the bad guys in a single monthly issue than you'll see in the drive-by media in your entire lifetime...

The point of fighting back is to do your best to never let the criminal take control of the situation, or to prevent the criminal from escaping...Anh_Minh's little theoretical situation of the possibility of letting a criminal go to save your life or having the police arrest him and risk getting killed in revenge is stupid in that it has the criminal taking control of the situation by psychologically manipulating the victim...Why would any self-respecting law-abiding citizen let a criminal go when the citizen has the criminal held at point? It's stupid!

How about taking a situation that's more grounded in reality and making a theory out of it? There was a news report in mid-June this year where a veteran from the Lebanese Army was armed and stopped a would-be bank robber...In Canton, Michigan, Nabil Fawzi is a long-time customer at the Comerica Bank, and was with a teller at the bank when robber Joseph Webster gave a teller a note claiming he had a suicide bomb and demanded money...Fawzi was notified of the situation from the teller he was with, and while the teller turned the silent alarm on, Fawzi pulled out his concealed Beretta 92FS and held the would-be robber at gunpoint...Webster warned Fawzi that he had a bomb, but Fawzi told Webster he didn't care and that he wasn't going to rob the bank, and continued to hold Webster until the police arrived at the scene...It was after he was apprehended was it learned that Webster did not have a bomb...

What if the robber actually had a suicide bomb in reality? At the time when Fawzi was holding Webster at gunpoint, I'm sure Fawzi was thinking of the possibility that Webster could've been telling the truth, and since he was formerly a soldier in the Lebanese Army, I'm sure Fawzi probably saw stuff like this in his past...But he didn't care, and risked lives at the bank to do everything he possibly could to prevent the robbery and keep the criminal at an arm's reach within justice...But most of all? Fawzi kept control of the situation; Even when Webster tried to threaten Fawzi with an alleged bomb, Fawzi stood point and never let Webster even have the chance to move freely...

Officers that are in SWAT or federal agents that are in FBI's HRT see high-risk criminal situations like this very often, even when hostages are involved, and even though they attempt to settle things peacefully through negotiations before scaling their tactical actions, they never let the criminals take control of the situation by giving into the criminal's demands, and do everything they can to take them into custody without any friendly damage...Even if there are risks involved, when you start letting the criminal order you around, then they have the situation in their hands, and that's not something you want in a situation involving a potentially hostile criminal where the risks can quickly escalate when you let the criminal have things their way...Benevolence is the best weapon one can use to combat crime, and you don't have to be in law enforcement to use it either...

[Anh_Minh]

So what's your answer, exactly? Not care about the threats and deliver him to the police? That's fine.

Or shoot the guy before he has the time to make any kind of threat? That's fine too, I guess.


I don't even get why you're so offended by the question. It's not that likely to happen, but it's way more realistic than the old questions like "If you could go back in time and kill Hitler..." or "Two people are tied to a traintrack...", or the more elaborate version I've read about being stuck on an island with a nuclear physicist, a world class surgeon, and various people in need of medical attention.

You want more realistic threats? Could be about the mafia and "protection money". That does happen, even today. But why insist on realism? Heck, why insist that my hypothetical situation is that impossible? All you've really said is "Don't let this happen", without even giving a clear line on how to prevent it. On the usefulness scale, that rates lower than "Don't have sex, kids" to prevent teen pregnancies. Though of course the urgency of the problem is much less.

[MidnightViper88]

Fawzi could've easily shot Webster dead at the threat of a bomb being set-off, but he didn't...Case point? Good guys don't have to do what the bad guys say, and the bad guys don't always make true to what they say...There are a million possible factors that could've changed the situation into something a lot worse, but that is probably your best text book scenario of keeping the situation under control and in the hands of the good guys...

I'm not finding offense in what you're saying, or else I'd be arguing with you...Instead, I'm trying to debate against the lack of logical rationale you're using in presenting the situation, not factoring in the logical variables that could happen to influence both sides of the issue...Self-defense and criminal control is an art that requires a knowledgeable grasp of everything that could possibly happen; The situation as you presented it was presented a bit poorly, as it doesn't resound realistically with what else could happen with both sides of the issue, which I'm trying to present with my side of the presentation...Action-reason; Two sides...It's not far off, but it's not entirely plausible either...

Now, I can be happy to debate other proper tactical responses to criminal robbery situations as long as the situation presented seems more plausible...Of course the thing about Hitler and teen pregnancy is off-topic, though...

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

The point of fighting back is to do your best to never let the criminal take control of the situation, or to prevent the criminal from escaping...Anh_Minh's little theoretical situation of the possibility of letting a criminal go to save your life or having the police arrest him and risk getting killed in revenge is stupid in that it has the criminal taking control of the situation by psychologically manipulating the victim...Why would any self-respecting law-abiding citizen let a criminal go when the citizen has the criminal held at point? It's stupid!

I don't think you were fully reading Anh_Minh's scenario. The situation is that you're in a confrontation, and you have a weapon that trumps what the criminal has. This is not an automatic win for you no matter how you look at it. Now the criminal offers an ultimatum: you can both go on your way as if this never happened, thereby ending the confrontation, or you can keep up the confrontation and the criminal will seek revenge on you and those you love later.

It's an offer, pure and simple. It may be too sophisticated for a dim-witted criminal who's hyped up on adrenaline, but it isn't a terribly unrealistic scenario. You have the weapon, and thus you still more or less have control of the situation. However the criminal has simply offered you a way to bring the confrontation to an end, and the offer has been made in such a way that you are psychologically manipulated to feel that the first option is a very good and desirable deal. This isn't about whether revenge would actually be brought against you if you did not take the offer, it's about the fact that now you have that possibility to worry about. The first option, which seemed good before (to everyone except the ultra justice-oriented) suddenly has become even more appealing. But the choice is still yours - the criminal doesn't have control.

How about taking a situation that's more grounded in reality and making a theory out of it? There was a news report in mid-June this year where a veteran from the Lebanese Army was armed and stopped a would-be bank robber...In Canton, Michigan, Nabil Fawzi is a long-time customer at the Comerica Bank, and was with a teller at the bank when robber Joseph Webster gave a teller a note claiming he had a suicide bomb and demanded money...Fawzi was notified of the situation from the teller he was with, and while the teller turned the silent alarm on, Fawzi pulled out his concealed Beretta 92FS and held the would-be robber at gunpoint...Webster warned Fawzi that he had a bomb, but Fawzi told Webster he didn't care and that he wasn't going to rob the bank, and continued to hold Webster until the police arrived at the scene...It was after he was apprehended was it learned that Webster did not have a bomb...

You may call that heroism, but I call it irresponsible gambling. You ask about what would have happened if Webster really had a bomb. There are roughly two scenarios: Webster wouldn't have set the bomb off, in which case the outcome would more or less have been the same, or Webster would have set the bomb off, in which case we'd be citing this story as a tragedy that could have possibly been averted if someone hadn't taken it upon himself to escalate the confrontation. On the other hand, suppose Webster did have a bomb, people complied with him, and then either tracked him from a distance or provided the police with great detail that allowed for the police to catch him? Compliance with the criminal would be only to the point where the criminal no longer would have posed a threat, and yet the criminal would lose in that situation.

I understand what you mean when you say that you shouldn't give a criminal control of the situation, and my sentiments are to agree with you. It isn't always that simple.

[MidnightViper88]

The revenge part was a little out there...Could the robber take revenge afterwards? Possibly, but I focused mainly on the then-and-there, as the revenge part is a possible after-the-fact situation that doesn't have any direct effect in taking a response to the real-time robbery, short of the psychological effect of influence, unless the criminal takes the initiative and assaults the guy while waiting for police...

Of course, there I go with myself, with the million variable thing, which is what I've been debating the whole time...I just changed the situation on myself...




Anyway, I made mention after the paragraph with Fawzi the other possible situations that could've happened, including what if Webster actually had a real bomb...I also made mention in my last post that it was a best case scenario in criminal control despite the fact that it was a worst case scenario should Webster had been in possession of a real bomb...But then again, it's also no different to the situations actual law enforcement officers in SWAT or federal agents in FBI's HRT have deal with on a usual basis, even more so when the criminal involves hostages, but I also previously mention this too, and that they also have to taken in a million other variables that could change the situation...Fawzi was a former soldier in the Lebanese Army, but just wasn't an officer in the Canton Police Department...

[Vivio Testarossa]

I will have to say that I agree with Ledgem on this matter, and would like to add that the money can easily be gotten back if the "robber" took it... but if as Ledgem said the "robber" did have a bomb, and he detonated it, it may have (killed/hurt/maimed people other than himself). If the bomb killed anyone the loss in not easily recovered (the dead people can't be brought back from the dead).

[Anh_Minh]

Thanks, Ledgem.

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

The revenge part was a little out there...Could the robber take revenge afterwards?

Yes. Unless he's a big-time mob boss who took up burglary as a hobby, you're not going into witness protection over this. You can, I suppose, take steps to escape, up to buying a whole new identity. But it'll either be relatively inefficient (moving two blocks away, but leaving an address and keeping the same job) or costly, both financially and emotionally (leaving the country without leaving an address, and buying a fake identity).

The real question is, will he?

Possibly, but I focused mainly on the then-and-there, as the revenge part is a possible after-the-fact situation that doesn't have any direct effect in taking a response to the real-time robbery,

Then you're thinking like a criminal: short term. Some of us do worry about what will happen tomorrow, or next year, or the next decade.

short of the psychological effect of influence, unless the criminal takes the initiative and assaults the guy while waiting for police...

You completely missed the point of the threat. The point is, sure, right now, the robber is at a disadvantage. But that won't be true in a few years. Then, he'll do what it takes to get the drop on the home owner and come out on top then.

Of course, there I go with myself, with the million variable thing, which is what I've been debating the whole time...I just changed the situation on myself...

So what if there are a million variables? For that matter, what are they? In any given, real situation, there are countless variables. You don't know of most of them, but must make a choice anyway. That's life.

For example, you've focused on whether the robber will make good on his threats or not. It depends mostly on his resolve years later, when he gets out. That's one variable. It's one you don't know, that nobody knows. Not even the criminal himself. Maybe he'll find religion in prison and will become poster child for rehabilitation through Jesus. Or maybe you'll go home one day to find your wife in the fridge and your newborn kid in five different jars. You don't know, but must decide anyway.

[MidnightViper88]

Fawzi made a decision...So therein lies the question; What decision does the theoretical victim make?

And then we discuss possible outcomes as a result of the decision, and the theoretical continues, ad infinitum to the nth degree...

*kyon*

[Satsuki Yuuhi Ramius]

I will chase the robber and scream "rober!" and maybe someone will help me chase him.But if no one help me i will chase the robber and threw the robber head with something

[Kaze]

If there would be a break in into your house, the best way to prevent it is to get yourself a dog,

Dogs can hear and see things way farther than any human can.
Heck, my dog goes beserk when the mailman comes to my door, even when a car drives through my street he gives it an evil glare.

Alway have some kind of means to defend yourself when there is a person breaking into your house, in my case I have a "Luchtbuks" rifle my dad once bought, and even if that fails there is still the medieval scimitar hanging on the wall

but seriously now, when you notice somebody is breaking into your house, immediatly notify the authorities and try to stall the burglars untill the police get there.

If there are multiple burglars, try to take one as hostage (sounds crazy, but when some guy in pyjamas comes out of nowhere with a musket in your face, you'd think twice)

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nourredine

If there would be a break in into your house, the best way to prevent it is to get yourself a dog,

Dogs can hear and see things way farther than any human can.
Heck, my dog goes beserk when the mailman comes to my door, even when a car drives through my street he gives it an evil glare.

Robbers know how to deal with dogs, unless they're well-trained.

Alway have some kind of means to defend yourself when there is a person breaking into your house, in my case I have a "Luchtbuks" rifle my dad once bought, and even if that fails there is still the medieval scimitar hanging on the wall

Oh, good. Something to cut you with for the robber...

but seriously now, when you notice somebody is breaking into your house, immediatly notify the authorities and try to stall the burglars untill the police get there.

If there are multiple burglars, try to take one as hostage (sounds crazy, but when some guy in pyjamas comes out of nowhere with a musket in your face, you'd think twice)

In my face? Yes. In my buddy's face, I'd think only once. I'd think "Hey, bigger share."

[MidnightViper88]

I've always dreamed of owning a tiger, because that would make the best security system in terms of animals, granted that your tiger doesn't go all Roy on your ass and mauls the crap out of you instead...

As far as dogs go, a wolf would be badass...

[Anh_Minh]

Unusual animals are good, I suppose. The robbers won't expect them. Scorpions, snakes, crocodiles...

Or maybe a trained attack kangaroo.