Tópico: Estudos contradizem a noção de que o mais seguro seria não reagir a crimes

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Crime em geral:

RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMES
JONGYEON TARK 1 GARY KLECK 2

ABSTRACT

This study assessed the impact of sixteen types of victim self protection (SP) actions on three types of outcomes of criminal incidents: first, whether the incident resulted in property loss, second, whether it resulted in injury to the victim, and, third, whether it resulted in serious injury. Data on 27, 595 personal contact crime incidents recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey for the 1992 to 2001 decade were used to estimate multivariate models of crime outcomes with logistic regression. Results indicated that self-protection in general, both forceful and nonforceful, reduced the likelihood of property loss and injury, compared to nonresistance. A variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury, though some of the findings were unstable due to the small numbers of sample cases. The appearance, in past research, of resistance contributing to injury was found to be largely attributable to confusion concerning the sequence of SP actions and injury. In crimes where both occurred, injury followed SP in only 10 percent of the incidents. Combined with the fact that injuries following resistance are almost always relatively minor, victim resistance appears to be generally a wise course of action.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118749278/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0#

Especificamente quanto a tentativa de estupro:

Fighting back works: The case for advocating and teaching self-defense against rape

[...]

The effectiveness of forceful resistance to attempted rape

A thorough review of the available literature has led us to some surprising conclusions about the effectiveness of traditional anti-rape advice. Women are often advised to use non-aggressive strategies against sexual assault (Storaska, 1975; Channing L. Bete Co., What every woman should know about rape, 1989; Channing L. Bete Co., What women and men should know about date rape, 1989). Research suggests that this is poor advice. According to one study (Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993), women who used non-forceful verbal strategies, such as crying or pleading with the assailant, were raped about 96% of the time. In the same study, women who did nothing to protect themselves were raped about 93% of the time.

Forceful verbal resistance, including yelling and loud screaming, was more effective than non-forceful verbal resistance. These strategies were associated with completion of rape from 44% - 50% of the time (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985). This study is particularly interesting because the data were collected from rapists in maximum security psychiatric hospitals, showing that forceful verbal strategies can be effective even against the violently insane.

Running worked even better than verbal resistance. Although researchers who relied on rape crisis center records and police records (Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993) report a 55% rape completion rate against those who attempted to flee, broader studies such as Bart and O'Brien (1985) indicate that only 15% of women who attempted to flee were raped. Running was also associated with a lower rate of injury (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman and Knight, 1991).

Forceful physical resistance was an extremely successful strategy. The completed rape rate dropped to between 45% and 14% when the rapist's attempt was met with violent physical force (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman and Knight, 1992; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993). Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985). Physical resistance also appears to be more effective when assault occurs outdoors (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985).

Women are sometimes advised that fighting back will increase their risk of injury. There are two problems with this argument.

First, research shows that physical resistance does not cause further injury to the resister. While there is a correlation between resistance and a somewhat higher rate of physical injury (at most 3%) (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Siegel et al.,1989), researchers who examined the sequence of events found that injury usually occurred before resistance. In other words, resisters were not injured because they had resisted: rather, being injured motivated them to fight back (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985). After the initial injury, forceful resistance did not increase the resister's risk of further damage.

Second, this argument overlooks the fact that a woman who does not resist is virtually guaranteed to suffer the emotional and physical injury of the rape itself. Even when resisters are injured, the injury is typically much less severe than a completed rape would have been (Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman and Knight, 1991). Of those 40% of resisters who suffered physical damage, only 7% suffered injury as severe as a dislodged tooth. A woman who fights back incurs no demonstrable chance of additional injury, but she gains a 55-86% chance of avoiding rape altogether (Kleck and Sayles, 1990). [...]

http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~tellner/sd/Review.html

June 19, 2009

Dear Cecil:

My son just finished a three-month karate class. Last night he asked me if karate really would help someone defeat a larger, stronger opponent. I told him I honestly never heard of anyone using any martial art to win a fight outside of a movie. You would think here in New York, with so many muggings (at least at one time) and other violent crimes, there would be stories of people using martial arts to defend themselves. But all we got is Bernie Goetz, and he had a gun. So in all of recorded history, has a skinny black belt ever beaten up a beefy weightlifter? My son's future athletic choices may depend on it.

— Patrick Castillo, New York City

Cecil replies:

Well, I'd keep him off the steroids, if that's what you're asking. Also, common experience suggests that where big vs. small is concerned, you don’t necessarily want to bet the rent on Goliath. Granted, David wasn't using karate, and there's no question the introduction of firearms into the situation tends to skew the odds. Nonetheless you do occasionally hear of martial arts adepts taking down attackers with their bare hands — including attackers with guns. For example:

    * In 1996 a blind Philadelphia man used a combo of martial arts and wrestling moves to kill a guy who’d tried to rob him.
    * In 2007, three masked assailants tried to hold up a group of U.S. tourists on a cruise stopover in Costa Rica only to be foiled by a military veteran in his 70s who used martial arts to kill the chump with the gun.
    * In 2008 a New York subway conductor with a black belt took on three muggers and won. Unfortunately, he also killed a good Samaritan who tried to help out.
    * In 2008 an ex-firefighter trained in an American martial art called bojuka subdued a neighbor who pulled a .45 on him by smashing the gun butt repeatedly into the guy’s head.
    * In 1989 a blind man was forced to use his martial arts training to defend himself from police who attacked him when they mistook his folded cane for a set of nunchucks.

OK, the last fellow lost his fight, and yes, he's not much of an argument for the usefulness of martial arts training in staying out of trouble. However, the more interesting observation is that, of the cases I dug up, 60 percent of those who used martial arts to smack down an attacker (even if only temporarily) were blind or elderly. Sure, maybe only the man-bites-dog cases find their way into news accounts. But it's tempting to say blind and/or elderly + martial arts training = decent chance of kicked bad-guy ass.

Generalizing from anecdotes is a temptation we need to resist, of course. But there isn't much else to go on. My assistants Una and Gfactor couldn't find any reliable studies in the last 30 years on the benefit of martial arts training in combat situations. For what it's worth, though, research on the more fundamental question of whether crime victims should fight back suggests that resistance, far from being futile, may do you some good::

    * A recent ten-year study of attacks on women (733 rapes, 1,278 sexual assaults, and 12,235 general assaults) found that on the one hand, resisting an attempted rape lowered the odds of the perp completing the act by nearly two-thirds. But on the other, it slightly increased the odds of injury and doubled the chance of serious injury.
    * A study of 3,206 assaults against women between 1992 and 1995 showed that women who fought back early in the attack were half as likely to be injured, and 75 percent of women queried reported that fighting back helped. An earlier study using data from the 70s found that women who resisted had less likelihood of being raped and 86 percent sustained no serious injury as a result — which, I suppose, means 14 percent did sustain serious injury.
    * Another ten-year study of victim response in 27,595 crimes (assault, sexual assault, robbery, larceny, and burglary) showed across the board that resisting resulted in less injury than not resisting. Similarly, studies have found that resisting reduces the likelihood of an attempted crime succeeding. For example, the chance of a would-be robber pulling it off drops somewhere between 20 and 48 percent.

These conclusions remain controversial, and nobody's saying a kid with three months of karate classes is equipped to fend off a determined mugger. The main advantages of martial arts training are the same as for any sport — physical fitness and increased confidence. However, to the extent it encourages your son to be more aware of his surroundings and think how he'd respond if bad things were to happen . . . well, that's a useful life skill for plenty of venues, not just the street.

— Cecil Adams

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2874/has-martial-arts-training-ever-helped-anybody-defeat-a-mugger

[Fabulous]

Depende da circunstância, e cada caso é um caso.

[_tiago]

O link não leva a lugar algum...

[Geotecton]

O link não leva a lugar algum...

Leva ao texto indicado pelo Banzai.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Tem três links, dois deles levam a dois diferentes artigos, e um para um texto do site straight dope.

Também tem um link que é para um post antigo meu aqui mesmo, que eu citei.

[Lion]

Depende da circunstância, e cada caso é um caso.

Concordo!!!

Veja esse caso: ../forum/topic=21181.0.html

[Darkside]

Minha opinião pessoal, baseada na experiência de quem já teve que se expor muito ao risco, andando a pé, sozinho, em lugares barra pesada de madrugada, todo dia no mesmo horário, é que você não pode ter uma atitude de cordeirinho não...

Se eu via alguém se aproximando de mim, eu levantava a cabeça e ficava encarando, chegava a tirar as mãos do bolso se fosse o caso. Se eu estivesse passando e tivesse alguém sentado em uma calçada, ou algo assim, eu ficava cuidando... sempre procurei demonstrar que aqui não tinha uma boa vítima pra um assalto. Nunca fui assaltado...

Mas isso sou eu. Não sei se isso é o mais recomendável pra adolescentes ou mulheres...

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Acho que aí também já está próximo de puxar briga. Talvez até pareça mais inseguro do que se simplesmente andar normalmente. Na melhor das hipóteses, talvez pareça meio maluco que sai por aí brigando a toa.

Uma vez me falaram de um caso (não confirmo, mas não é tão inverossímil) de um cara que andava pelas ruas com a namorada, e numa dessas ruas, havia um cara qualquer sentado em algum lugar. Meio que por acaso, ficaram se encarando enquanto ele passava, e isso bastou para que ele fosse assassinado. Embora esse caso em particular eu não possa confirmar, no colégio uma vez vi uma briga ferrada (tendo tido até chute na cabeça de um cara caído no chão, nem sabia que dava para se sobreviver a isso) que começou de forma essencialmente idêntica, um dos caras jogou um papel de bala meio perto do outro no pátio, na hora do intervalo, e depois "acertaram as contas" (!) na saída.

Eu penso que é meio como se tratasse de animais. Como aqueles cachorros que te acompanham rosnando para a sua perna. Você não pode parecer presa, mas também não pode parecer ameaça. Não sai correndo, nem necessariamente os encara de forma desafiadora, intimidadora. Segue andando como se nem estivessem lá, só revida se realmente for atacado.

[Darkside]

Eu não sou alguém violento, agressivo e provocador não. Muito pelo contrário, considero a violência válida apenas como forma de se defender da violência, ou seja, ela só acontece em uma situação indesejada.

Esse comportamento que descrevi era apenas em uma situação específica, onde eu justamente não poderia entrar em uma situação de conflito violento, pois não andava armado e não sou acadêmico (frequentador de academias).

Era um caminho conhecido pela presença de drogados, pessoas estranhas que não moravam ali e até por execuções feitas por traficantes. Todo mundo que andava por lá agia assim...

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Não quis sugerir que fosse "violento, agressivo e provocador", mas isso de "ficar encarando" pode ser facilmente visto como provocação por alguém que não tem os miolos em bom estado.

[Mr."A"]

Existem casos e casos de abordagem para roubo, muito diversos. A pessoa que aborda pode:
- estar em situação de desespero (um viciado, por exemplo)
- ser aparentemente uma pessoa só, mas com um comparsa vigiando a situação
- fingir que está armada sem estar
- tentar intimidar primeiro para abordar depois
- abordar de surpresa
- apontar a arma na sua cara
- não sacar a arma, mas mostrá-la
- simplesmente apanhar a bolsa/celular/mochila/etc
- entre outras possibilidades

Para cada situação dessa, reagir terá uma conseqüência distinta. E isso depende, também, da reação que você vai ter. Se o criminoso ou a criminosa tenta te intimidar e você demonstra não estar intimidado, ele provavelmente vai desistir de você e procurar outra pessoa. Se for alguém numa situação de desespero, provavelmente quem reagir vai levar bala ou facada.

Isso, falando apenas em abordagem na rua. Porque existem os assaltos a domicílio ou a estabelecimentos, que também tem suas peculiaridades e suas contrapartidas em relação a reagir.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Uma coisa que eu já não lembro se o que eu li sobre isso leva em consideração, é a possibilidade das pessoas que mais reagem serem as que mais sabem reagir, e/ou as pessoas comumente reagirem quando é oportuno.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Não quis sugerir que fosse "violento, agressivo e provocador", mas isso de "ficar encarando" pode ser facilmente visto como provocação por alguém que não tem os miolos em bom estado.

Outro caso relacionado que me lembrei: um dos atores das pegadinhas/câmera escondida do SBT uma vez disse em entrevista que, numa delas, que consistia em apenas ficar encarando alguma pessoa aleatoriamente, após uma das cenas, o participante confidencialmente lhe avisou que teve sorte de ter reconhecido o ator/ou ter revelado que era ume pegadinha a tempo, pois ele estava prestes a sacar uma arma e atirar. O ator usou a palavra "pistoleiro" para definir o cara.

[Mr."A"]

Certas pegadinhas não tem a menor graça. E algumas que já assisti são dignas de processo.