Alright, I think our discussion basically boils down to this:
My argument:
Assuming that most robbery victims who don't put up a fight don't get shot or lethally injured are better off just accepting that they're about to lose their wallet, cell phone etcetc. If you don't put up a fight, you'll have a good chance of escaping relatively unharmed from the ordeal. Forcing the attacker to fight or flee will most likely result in someone getting seriously hurt or die.
My argument is also assuming that what really matters is your own life and the well being of victims in the vicinity.
Your argument:
Everyone should have use their right to defend themselves at any time, even though that might start a gunfight. Victims are very likely to die if they don't fight back. Because the attacker initiated hostility any additional risk added by the victim is irrelevant. The victim will improve his chances of surviving enormously by fighting back. The attacker/robber almost always loses such a conflict.
Your argument also assumes that fighting back means you're not a bitch.
Lets just accept that we view this from entirely different perspectives.
My argument:
Assuming that most robbery victims who don't put up a fight don't get shot or lethally injured are better off just accepting that they're about to lose their wallet, cell phone etcetc. If you don't put up a fight, you'll have a good chance of escaping relatively unharmed from the ordeal. Forcing the attacker to fight or flee will most likely result in someone getting seriously hurt or die.
My argument is also assuming that what really matters is your own life and the well being of victims in the vicinity.
Your ' argument ' was just proven to be null and void , watch the video again. Your ' argument ' laments on how someone who doesn't want to take a chance with his life is putting people at risk while the guys who initiated the whole scenario aren't as long as we play the odds
You're making excuses for the criminals are accusing the one guy who did something about as reckless and irresponsible , fantastic logic.
you're using examples of what could have happened instead of what did
Your argument:
Everyone should have use their right to defend themselves at any time, even though that might start a gunfight. Victims are very likely to die if they don't fight back. Because the attacker initiated hostility any additional risk added by the victim is irrelevant. The victim will improve his chances of surviving enormously by fighting back. The attacker/robber almost always loses such a conflict.
Your argument also assumes that fighting back means you're not a bitch.
My argument is the guy in the video did nothing wrong and anyone who thinks otherwise is flat out wrong.
