I do not feel responsible for the actions of a mugger before, during, or after the event, no matter how I respond. During the event, my primary goal is survival with a minimum of risk. If simply cooperating will see me through the encounter, that is far better than resorting to violence.
I feel that all force should only be countered with lesser or equal force. A knife is lethal force. That means that if my life is at stake, I feel justified in using it. But if it appears likely that my life is not in real danger if I cooperate, then it would be inapproprate to escalate the encounter to a lethal level.
I agree that I may seem to be "rewarding" the mugger by not resisting, but I will immediately "resist" when it is over by providing the police with a report in as much detail as possible. I will not execute an individual for a crime that is undeserving of such punishment, even if I were legally empowered to deliver punishment for crimes, which I am not.
In short, I would be neither morally nor legally right to kill someone over the contents of my wallet. I can always get more money, and I do hope that such an individual will be punished for their actions, but they do not deserve to die for them (or for actions you may imagine they might commit in the future).
That's my take on it, but this is a fascinating question and I hope more folks will find this very off-thread discussion and respond.
------------------
-Corduroy
(Why else would a bear want a pocket?)
I feel that all force should only be countered with lesser or equal force. A knife is lethal force. That means that if my life is at stake, I feel justified in using it. But if it appears likely that my life is not in real danger if I cooperate, then it would be inapproprate to escalate the encounter to a lethal level.
I agree that I may seem to be "rewarding" the mugger by not resisting, but I will immediately "resist" when it is over by providing the police with a report in as much detail as possible. I will not execute an individual for a crime that is undeserving of such punishment, even if I were legally empowered to deliver punishment for crimes, which I am not.
In short, I would be neither morally nor legally right to kill someone over the contents of my wallet. I can always get more money, and I do hope that such an individual will be punished for their actions, but they do not deserve to die for them (or for actions you may imagine they might commit in the future).
That's my take on it, but this is a fascinating question and I hope more folks will find this very off-thread discussion and respond.
------------------
-Corduroy
(Why else would a bear want a pocket?)