Sarcasm: A new crime fighting tool?
How many times have you heard that the best thing to do when being robbed is to be passive and not do anything? "Just give them what they want," we are told. Sometimes, a different approach is called for (via Drudge):
Perhaps this worked because the would-be robber was female, maybe because she was surprised at the question as it didn't fit into her script of how a robbery should go, or perhaps the teller's display of a lack of fear made her flee. Whatever it was, when it comes to handling a crime situation, there is often no one size fits all solution.
Police said a bank teller in suburban New York had a simple question for a would-be robber: Are you serious?
Police said that was enough to spook the female suspect, who fled the Roslyn Savings Bank in Centereach late Thursday afternoon without a dime.
Police said she walked into the bank located inside a supermarket on Route 25 about 4:49 p.m. and handed the teller a note demanding cash and threatening to open fire with a gun if the teller didn't comply.
That's when the teller apparently expressed her crime-fighting skepticism. Police said the woman left without ever showing a gun.
Perhaps this worked because the would-be robber was female, maybe because she was surprised at the question as it didn't fit into her script of how a robbery should go, or perhaps the teller's display of a lack of fear made her flee. Whatever it was, when it comes to handling a crime situation, there is often no one size fits all solution.
Labels: crime
posted by Helen at 6:28 AM
22 Comments:
I've noticed that it's always the "authorities" that are the ones telling us not to fight back. Typically employers also tell us not to fight back in the event of a robbery but that's just a liability issue for them, not really a philosophy.
In public school especially, the victim of bullying is often punished just as harshly as the bully when he decided to fight back because fighting is "wrong" no matter who does it.
Bullies and violent criminals (often the former precedes the latter) do not tend to be the most courageous bunch around to begin with. Active resistance tends to scare them off when they're acting alone. For this very reason, women should carry guns. Just showing the gun in most cases will scare off any attacker. But, a woman also has to be prepared to actually use it when necessary; it's not a prop.
Well, it worked in the service of crime, so why not put sarcasm to use in the pursuit of justice?
It is sad commentary that if a kid in school fights back, he/she is often punished. I am sure with witnesses, legal action could be brought against said schools. It's all about the notion that government is responsible for people and the insidious trend of people not being responsble for their own well being, i.e. self defense.
I too believe women should carry a gun, a snub-nosed .38 in the purse after being trained.
-'tis a far better thing to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
To difster:
The problem with self-defense is that there is sometimes collateral damage, meaning that people are injured even if they aren't part of the conflict at all. (Also, very often, aggressive-defensive conflicts degenerate into cycles of violence where both sides have suffered repeated injuries, ultimate causation is long forgotten and the goal isn't "justice' but instead social dominance.) To a considerable extent, society doesn't care who is right, who is wrong, who is the bully, who is the victim, who started it and/or who is injured. Society only cares that its non-combatant members aren't hurt and/or that the more violent and aggressive members aren't getting completely out of control.
What if the sarcastic teller had been incorrect in her assessment of the situation and the robber had actually started shooting? Do you think that we would all be laughing at a good story?
BobH,
Often, people do nothing and end up killed or hurt anyway. Somehow, the notion that someone did nothing sits well with those who do not believe in self defense. There is no one answer to all crime situations. My guess is that the teller had a gut feeling about the would-be robber that she acted on. Passivity does not always win.
I disagree that our society cares that its non-combatant members aren't hurt. Our court systems often protect criminals to the detriment of citizens. Criminals who are a threat are released to commit crimes again, often after little time in jail or they are simply never prosecuted in the first place. People have to look out for their own self-protection, for the most part.
One Saturday morning, when my kids were small, we were leaving the local library. I was last one out, finishing up checking out some books.
The kids were at the side door of the mini-van, waiting for me. A badly clothed man was scurrying towards them as I rounded the corner. He reached my kids before I did.
It ended up he was just homeless and looking for handouts. I did not know that at first. I ran like a bat out of hell toward him, and shoved him away from my kids. Yes, he hit the ground.
Had he been a loon, and as he got to my kids first, I shudder to think would could have happened.
There are decisions made every day, situation dependent. A thread a while back (the hammer on the train, if you will) left me stating I would have done nothing. I still stand by that, but not for reasons of being a scaredy - cat.
With my kids, it was much different. And there was no one around but me. I would have killed him with my bare hands if I even thought it was even remotely necessary.
I doubt you'd have reacted any differently, bobh.
Actually br549 ...
If I read your story correctly, the man did not assault your kids in any way.
You assaulted the man.
You think he was badly clothed, you formed assumptions and all the rest, but in the end analysis you are the one who committed a crime.
People can't go around attacking panhandlers. They may be annoying but not worthy of bodily assault.
bobh --
"The problem with self-defense is that there is sometimes collateral damage"
The problem with no defense is there's always damage.
"Society only cares that its non-combatant members aren't hurt and/or that the more violent and aggressive members aren't getting completely out of control."
Non-combatants are hurt by predators, more violent and aggressive (predatory) members are out of control because law-enforcement cannot be there when it occurs. Got a solution?
More importantly, got a solution that works for the non-combatants who are being victimized while they are being victimized and not just as a band aid afterward?
Great story.
Where did that meme about not fighting back come from, anyway? Are there actual statistics to support the idea that you're more likely to get hurt or killed if you fight back?
Bonnie and Clyde would be appalled.
JG,
BR549 quickly assessed the situation and reasonably believed his children were in danger so he responded in the most appropriate way possible.
I would have done the same thing.
The problem with self-defense is that there is sometimes collateral damage, meaning that people are injured even if they aren't part of the conflict at all.
Can you provide an example?
(Also, very often, aggressive-defensive conflicts degenerate into cycles of violence where both sides have suffered repeated injuries…
Ah yes, the old “cycle of violence”. Everyone will turn into the Hatfields and the McCoys. You forgot to use the term “vigilante” and warn everyone that the streets will “run red with blood” and towns will turn into the “OK Corral” if citizens dare to defend themselves.
You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between self defense and gang warfare. Defending yourself from criminal attack is not the same as a battle between the Crips and the Bloods. Or are you just trying to conflate the two situations on purpose?
Society only cares that its non-combatant members aren't hurt...
Non-combatants?! Collateral damage? Where do you live, Afghanistan? Who is this “society” you speak of?
What if the sarcastic teller had been incorrect in her assessment of the situation and the robber had actually started shooting?
But she wasn’t wrong, and her quick assessment turned out to be more accurate than your armchair hand wringing. What if she had cooperated and got shot for her trouble? (e.g. the Lane Bryant murders et al.)
Dogwood sez:
"BR549 quickly assessed the situation and reasonably believed his children were in danger so he responded in the most appropriate way possible."
----------
I'd bet that if you were assaulted out of the clear blue sky - not having done anything - that you would feel different about your attacker's "faulty assessment".
Every year there are stories to read about hotheads doing "false assessments". Here are two that I read about in the last few years:
A girl in school accused her teacher of sexual abuse / molestation or something similar. The parents and police were called in to get the full picture before the teacher was notified.
The father of the girl was understandably furious and went to the teacher's room. The teacher had not yet been told of the accusations and was clearly not expecting anything. The father waited until he looked away and then sucker-punched him as hard as he could and otherwise attacked the teacher, breaking his jaw, knocking out several teeth etc.
Now the story gets interesting: In the meanwhile, the police are getting the picture that the girl is starting to contradict herself about what happened. When these contradictions, and clear lies, are pointed out, the girl starts crying and says that the teacher was "mean" (he assigned her extra homework or something because she was a discipline problem), so she thought up this way of getting back at him. There was no sexual molestation at all.
Ooops. Hot-head father rightfully gets criminal charges and a massive tort suit.
----
In another case, a woman met a man in a different state on an Internet dating site. After they met and started dating, she tearfully explained to him that she was married, but her husband beat her up a lot. She kept describing the abuse and otherwise egged the new boyfriend on to "be a man" and help her.
So the boyfriend did - he waited for the guy and then shot him to death. After all of this came out in the trial, EVERYONE said that there was not only no abuse, the husband and wife weren't even living together or seeing each other, the wife just wanted him gone, probably for the insurance money.
Result, "real man" and wife were convicted of murder.
Maybe the point I'm missing is that people who dress poorly are utterly worthless. Violence against them - warranted or not - just doesn't matter.
Any good fashion designer would tell you that.
And maybe if you look disreputable, and approach small children (INSTEAD OF THEIR PARENTS) it might result in a misunderstanding and perhaps seeing their dad coming at you (almost certainly yelling), you might think that BACKING AWAY would be a good idea.
I agree with BR on this one. Why do you think you don't approach bear cubs directly when momma bear is around ? We're not bears, but parents still defend their young.
And as for "assault," please look up "defense of justification" in your state's penal code. If the story BR549 reports is contextually and factually correct (and I have no reason to think otherwise), I'd say the odds are excellent that the most he would get would be a short probation, if a trial and conviction actually ensued (not likely). All it would take would be one parent of small children on the jury.
Folks, he did not SHOOT the perp, he interposed his body between his small children and the perceived threat, and pushed away that threat. I can see few juries convicting on that basis.
OK lawyerly-sounding dude.
But one of these times the poorly dressed guy is going to have a taser or pepper spray.
I realize that doesn't fit into these comic-book type scenarios, though.
To Words Twice:
"'The problem with self-defense is that there is sometimes collateral damage, meaning that people are injured even if they aren't part of the conflict at all.'
Can you provide an example?"
You're kidding, right? In modern warfare conducted in places like Africa, 90% of the casualties are collateral. I would be surprise if over 50% of the casualties in gang warfare in the U.S. weren't likewise collateral.
If you want a more local example, the principal justification for the current American treatment of men when they have been victimized by paternity fraud is that releasing from their obligation and punishing the mother would also necessarily damage the "innocent" child. If you'd like to confirm this, I'd suggest that you check with the ABA committees on paternity and family matters.
"'(Also, very often, aggressive-defensive conflicts degenerate into cycles of violence where both sides have suffered repeated injuries…'
Ah yes, the old “cycle of violence”. Everyone will turn into the Hatfields and the McCoys. You forgot to use the term “vigilante” and warn everyone that the streets will “run red with blood” and towns will turn into the “OK Corral” if citizens dare to defend themselves."
Ever known anybody whose been through a divorce? A LOT of them fit this model. The difference is that these people hire lawyers instead of buying guns. I think guns are better, i.e., both faster and cheaper.
"You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between self defense and gang warfare. Defending yourself from criminal attack is not the same as a battle between the Crips and the Bloods. Or are you just trying to conflate the two situations on purpose?"
Actually, I have no difficulty distinguishing betwen these two. You, on the other hand, seem to have a very high opinion of your ability to read the situation correctly, including the intent of the other participants, and to implement your defense in a way which doesn't cause bystanders to suffer. I'm not that arrogant.
"'Society only cares that its non-combatant members aren't hurt...'
"Non-combatants?! Collateral damage? Where do you live, Afghanistan? Who is this “society” you speak of?"
I live in the United States, but I've studied the psychology of motivation a great deal, usually from the viewpoint of behavioral economics, where this sort of thinking, if not the vocabulary, is common. There are costs, there are benefits, there are risks and there is imperfect information about the situation and the intent of the others in that situation.
"'What if the sarcastic teller had been incorrect in her assessment of the situation and the robber had actually started shooting?'
But she wasn’t wrong, and her quick assessment turned out to be more accurate than your armchair hand wringing. What if she had cooperated and got shot for her trouble? (e.g. the Lane Bryant murders et al.)"
Ah, let's put you and your arrogance at real risk. How about the next time that some sarcastic teller tries this stunt and it goes horribly wrong, I get to torture you to death. What do you say? I can make it last a couple weeks!
JG,
The examples you provide are of vigilantism, not self-defense. The former means taking justice into your own hands, the latter means acting to protect yourself or others from actions a reasonable person believes represent an imminent threat of bodily harm.
In your examples, there were no imminent threats to either the child nor the woman who manipulated her lover.
BR549 perceived an imminent threat to his children and acted accordingly.
”You're kidding, right? In modern warfare conducted in places like Africa…”
Who cares about your made up statistics? Stay on topic.
”…the principal justification for the current American treatment of men when they have been victimized by paternity fraud …”
How does this pertain to self defense from criminal violence?
”Ever known anybody whose been through a divorce?”
Yes, quite a few, sadly. WHO CARES!? Stay on topic, please.
”Actually, I have no difficulty distinguishing betwen these two.”
Then you must be trying to deliberately conflate them. You want to talk about everything under the sun EXCEPT self defense. This leads me to believe that you are obfuscating. However, since I am not arrogant enough to believe I can never be wrong, perhaps you can explain how your tangents have anything to do with self defense. No, wait. On second thought, I’m not wrong. They have nothing at all to do with self defense.
If I seem to have a high opinion of my abilities, it’s because I have devoted an inordinate amount of time in training as well as having some real life experience in these matters. Of course, with a little effort, almost anyone can improve their abilities. Even you.
”I live in the United States, but I've studied the psychology of motivation a great deal, usually from the viewpoint of behavioral economics, where this sort of thinking, if not the vocabulary, is common.”
It sounds like they need to find more appropriate vocabulary instead of borrowing terms from the military and using them inappropriately. Using military terms speaks volumes about their mindset, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised since everyone is metaphorically “declaring war” on something or other these days and it’s just working out swimmingly.
”There are costs, there are benefits, there are risks and there is imperfect information about the situation and the intent of the others in that situation.”
Of course. That’s life. If you are waiting for the perfect situation to enact your perfect plan, you are going to be waiting a long, long time. Since you are fond of military terminology, here’s one for you: fog of war.
”How about the next time that some sarcastic teller tries this stunt and it goes horribly wrong, I get to torture you to death.”
Your comments are torture enough, thank you very much. Why don’t you try responding to what I wrote? Are you familiar with the Lane Bryant murders? The Brown’s Chicken massacre? Luby’s? Wichita?
”What do you say? I can make it last a couple weeks!”
I’m sure you have a lot of practice on small animals.
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
激情辣妹聊天室女學生情色視訊聊天室辣妹視訊秀真人美女線上視訊豆豆聊天TV視訊聊天室免費視訊美女脫衣秀視訊聊天交友素人自拍短片視訊ggoo我愛78論壇辣妹影音視訊聊天室影音視訊聊天情人網dodo成人聊天室dodo成人聊天室台北一夜激情聊天室禁忌挑逗激情聊天室激情聊天室優質辣妹影音視訊聊天室優質辣妹影音視訊聊天室激情網愛聊天-成人視訊聊天室私密論壇櫻桃不夜城情色論壇小魔女免費ａ片小魔女玫瑰公爵成人論壇玫瑰公爵成人論壇水都情色論壇香草蜜糖情色網Girl美女視訊聊天室月光情色論壇大學生視訊交友高雄人聊天室成人自拍,網友自拍成人自拍,網友自拍網友自拍,真實自拍貼圖天使情色貼圖淫蕩天使情色網香港護士自拍貼圖區ㄧ葉晴成人貼圖片區八國聯軍成人自拍貼圖區美女工廠貼圖區007成人網情色貼圖007成人網情色貼圖金瓶梅貼圖寶貝馬子貼圖網aa免費看偷窺大本營免費自拍情色電影免費aa片試看甜心寶貝直播s383情人視訊亞洲情色視訊交友亞洲情色視訊交友辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室主播情人視訊視訊美女館
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home