I'm mystified. Does anyone have an hypothesis concerning why these attacks don't almost exclusively target woman--particularly well-dressed, older woman who seem the likeliest to be carrying the most valuables, while also the most physically vulnerable?
Best, Michael
Two responses:
1. They might well be concentrating on women, but we wouldn't know
about it because there are so few women in our group.
2. There is a larger mystery for me about the nature of these attacks.
Most people these days don't carry much cash--enough for bus fare, a cup
of coffee, and a sandwich. My last two attacks haven't been
opportunistic; they have involved some time and effort in surveillance
and stalking, plus the stress of having to watch out for the occasional
police car or bystander with a cell phone. With the proceeds having to
be divided by 3, it's not clear to me how they make minimum wage.
Michael Edelstein wrote:
I'm mystified. Does anyone have an hypothesis concerning why these
attacks don't almost exclusively target woman--particularly
well-dressed, older woman who seem the likeliest to be carrying the most
valuables, while also the most physically vulnerable?
The notion of vulnerable targets is partially a myth. For a single
average attacker, the physicality of the target makes a difference.
However, for a group, as accosted both Mike and Don, a single male of good
health and strong build might win a fight, but will almost certainly be
badly injured in the process. The thieves rely on one's realization of
this, and one's likely capitulation to demands for mere material
possessions. A firearm does change the balance, the altercation suddenly
becomes potentially fatal for at least one attacker; of course, if they
also have firearms, then it can be fatal for the victim as well. And even
single attackers often strike first, steal second; many muggings involve a
blow from behind, followed by theft of a wallet or purse, with no chance
to engage the thief if one wasn't already alert and aware.
Mike Acree wrote:
With the proceeds having to
be divided by 3, it's not clear to me how they make minimum wage.
People with good decision-making skills rarely become violent criminals.
Even those that go into the controlled substance trade rarely profit, as
explored in _Freakonomics_.
~Chris
Dear Michael,
Good question, about who/why gets attacked. I would be interested in
hearing Chris Maden's opinion on this. As a self defense instructor,
he would have a good insight in what characteristics attract the
evildoers...or it might just be bad luck.
Marcy
I'm mystified. Does anyone have an hypothesis concerning why these
attacks don't almost exclusively target woman--particularly well-
dressed, older woman who seem the likeliest to be carrying the most
valuables, while also the most physically vulnerable?
Best, Michael
From: Acree, Michael
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] ATTACKEDDon:
I'm extremely sorry to hear about your attack. I'm currently
making plans to leave the City myself, just because I was attacked a
few blocks from my house in the outer Richmond, walking home from
work around 6:30 last Wednesday evening. This was the second attack
near my house, and the third in San Francisco. The police said I was
probably being targeted; these guys (black and Latino teenagers, with
adult help) watch the neighborhood to learn the patterns, who is
going where and when. They had no advice except to vary my routine--
but all routes converge on my house, which is where the attacks keep
occurring. The guys in my neighborhood work in teams of three,
putting their fastest runner in front and two biggers guys following
for the heavy work. There is no legal way to defend yourself against
three attackers in San Francisco, and the muggers know that. Since
there is also no effective police protection, they know they can get
away with practically anything. So I don't expect the situation to
improve.
Mike
P.S.: Anyone who knows of safe apartments in Marin or elsewhere,
let me know!
Michael - Having grown up in Texas, I find these types
of attacks bizarre despite the high murder rates in
places like Houston and Dallas. The interesting thing
about living in a place where everyone has guns is
there is a high level of respect between men (and I
mean explicitly males here who dominate crime stats).
In public, you almost have to assume that the other
person is packing something so it's almost mandatory
to be civil.
No one gets their homes broken into unless they are
known to be new immigrants or elderly. I think the
average number of guns per person in the south is
2.5..
The odd thing about living in SF for me, even after
almost 10 years is the level of aggressiveness of a
certain category of people in breaking social
convention - i.e. cutting in line, pushing, violating
person space, etc. It's definitely happened to me
directly despite my size. Basically some have
discovered that doing things that would get you a
'Texas Whupping' (as Tom DeLay said it this week) in
other place have no repercussions in SF.
So my theory is that the true aggressors are aware
that essentially everyone is defenseless in SF and
basically do whatever they want and get away with it.
All San Franciscans have become the 'elderly and
naive' that you find in the south. I also witnessed
this in London when I lived there. Since banning
firearms back in the 90's the violent crime rate in
the UK has skyrocketed. First with knives and then
more recently with handguns.
So anyway, my theory is that gun laws create more
crime against everyone regardless of their perceived
vulnerability.. but I know you already knew that.
David
--- dredelstein@... wrote:
David:
Thanks for some extremely interesting observations on what gun control
may have done for civility in general. Maybe I've been here too long.
I recall having the opposite impression when I moved here 27 years ago:
Compared, at least, with drivers in New York or New England, San
Francisco drivers were a model of politeness. I hadn't reflected on a
change, but I think there may have been one, even if I'm unclear about
the reason.
I just moved here from Detroit and I would describe San Francisco/NorCal drivers as "idiots" more than "polite", but that's just my subjective impression. Then again, if you're on the freeway going 80 miles/hour in Michigan, you had better be in the slow lane or else you're going to have some pretty angry people behind you! I lived in Seattle last summer and it was even worse: when I put my signal on to change lanes, people would practically part ways to give me space. Nonsense I say, absolute nonsense!
Jeremy
I didn't mean to imply that San Franciscan's weren't
polite. I was primarily musing that a small minority
has figured out that the majority is generally unable
or unwilling to fight back..
d
--- Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...> wrote: