“Don’t Resist a Robber.” Really?

By Lloyd the Idiot

Today’s print edition of the WaPo’s Loudoun Extra (a whopping 8 pages of mostly non-news) includes a story on what to do in the case of a home invasion.  In the article, Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Liz Mills urges residents, “Don’t resist a robber.  Your possessions are not worth your life.  Follow the robber’s commands but don’t offer assistance.”

While I agree that your possessions are not worth your life, I completely disagree with the idea that you can trust a burglar to just take your stuff and leave you alone.  It seems like the more frequent result is that the burglars rape, murder or severely injure the residents.  I mean, heck, they aren’t there to drop off a plate of cupcakes!  If it were me, I hope I’d fight like a bastard right down to groin kicks and eye scratching – and doing so to my dying breath.  I know I don’t want to go down without a fight.


Comments

  • edmundburkenator says:

    BH, look up some Emerson. He is the author of my favorite quotation.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    BH,

    I gave the best advice. Keep yourself armed with a cell phone. It is far more likely to save your life than any handgun. Oh, but Stoner is right about the dogs.

    Need to look into your Black Swan thingie but it must do great things for air travel, eh?

  • BlackOut says:

    OK come on Born Here…Stoner in great self interest references data from 1996 to promote the need for gun associated self defense. You do know that’s his business don’t you? Of course he’s going to promote fear to get more students. The point here is that he’s using a bogus and well pepper full of holes source for his data. Hey Stoner, how about something a little more contemporary from the stats side? Heck I think the first time I learned about Lott, like five years ago was from you posting his bogus tails. It’s stale swiss cheese.

    Oh and by the way, since you pulled your quotes from the googler in justification I am sure you saw the other studies that shot wholes in Lotts statistical approach. How about taking that into account and present a balanced opinion? Not one that only advocating self interest. You see Born Here, Lott has never responded to the academic criticism put forth to his statistical claims. {that’s because he’s toast}

    Now for me, I have absolutely no problem with folks having guns. Well trained individuals that are responsible have all the right in the world to carry as they deem fit. I support their constitutional rights. What I get a big chuckle out of is the fanatics who reach for justifications. Just stick to real stuff and advocate for your rights! Don’t look like a fool making stuff up.

  • Born Here says:

    Eric*0.5 : if you knew how well my iPhone 3S works you’d understand that it’s much less reliable than Barney Fife with a single round. Nassim Taleb – available on Amazon btw.

    And BO – my point was not to support anyone’s statistics, including Lott’s . Someday if I’m lucky to live to be old enough, a government bureaucrat may likewise use statistics to determine if I get the operation, or the “little blue pill” for goodness sakes, so it goes both ways. My point was the right to self defense should not depend on any statistics – it’s a natural law “thingie” you know. That is the justification, along with the letter of the law (which of course is derived from the former). And I’m with you on the well trained part – completely necessary if you wish to take on that responsibility .

  • Ed Myers says:

    Hey born here, your right to self defense does not allow you to be reckless so my self defense is compromised. Your life is not more important than mine. If your weapon is non-lethal your right is stronger. When it can cause death and injury to innocent people then your right needs to be balanced with others right to life and liberty. There is no natural law right to manslaughter.

  • Born Here says:

    EM

    Where is any of my comments have I suggested a reckless approach to self defense? If you read what I wrote I made it perfectly clear that the Stone-man had laid out the only decent guidance in this entire discussion when it comes to personal protection in the home. The theme of that guidance is to avoid conflict, rely on law enforcement, and not to use lethal force until it is absolutely a last resort. All futures are uncertain, and as such, one should have as many options as possible to face that uncertainty. If we go back to the original blog post by LtI, the issue was that the Sheriff’s Office ignored the possibility that the “robber” could be much more nefarious and want more than just the TV set (although they are getting hard to lug around these days). And yes – I know for a fact that “robbers” here in LoCo are for the most part looking for material and not a personal threat. My security camera recently caught 4 teens breaking into the next door neighbor’s house (they cased the joint like pro’s I might add!). So, I have direct evidence of that.

    My other comments, if not clear, where directed at people (like you obviously) who can not think straight in a debate once the idea of a firearm is brought into the discussion. Who in the heck is talking about endangering your life and liberty in this thread? Get a life.

Leave Comment