Situational Awareness

[J.R.@A&M]

Risk is statistical - victimization is personal.

Is this meant to imply that being the victim of a violent crime is a personal choice?

I would interpret it to mean that the rational, assessment of the risk of violent crime (e.g., using violent crime incidence per 100,000 people) may be trumped by the emotional scar of having been previously victimized. Statistically there may be little rational reason to practice higher levels of self defense, but that may not matter to somebody who's saying "I will never let THAT happen to me again."

[74novaman]

I would interpret it to mean that the rational, assessment of the risk of violent crime (e.g., using violent crime incidence per 100,000 people) may be trumped by the emotional scar of having been previously victimized. Statistically there may be little rational reason to practice higher levels of self defense, but that may not matter to somebody who's saying "I will never let THAT happen to me again."

The percentage of women raped in the US doesn't mean much to one who has been raped.

Frankly, the odds of any of us being a victim of a violent crime are fairly low. But if I have the means and opportunity to prevent myself or my family from being victims, you can bet I'm going to do it, no matter what the "odds" say about the necessity of being prepared for such an eventuality.

[Excaliber]

Risk is statistical - victimization is personal.

Is this meant to imply that being the victim of a violent crime is a personal choice?

No.

Risk is statistical, theoretical, impersonal, and expressed in probabilities.

The impact of victimization is extremely personal and comes exclusively from what actually did happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely that event was.

Another way of saying this is that people don't get PTSD from risk.

[Dragonfighter]

Risk is statistical - victimization is personal.

Is this meant to imply that being the victim of a violent crime is a personal choice?

No.

Risk is statistical, theoretical, impersonal, and expressed in probabilities.

The impact of victimization is extremely personal and comes exclusively from what actually did happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely that event was.

Another way of saying this is that people don't get PTSD from risk.

According to the FBI statistics, my wife has encountered 4 times what the odds were in the way of violent crimes. I, about six. Ask my wife about the odds of the guy following her being up to no good or ask me about the panhandler who asks for money and keeps approaching after he is told no. Personal vs, statistical.

Excaliber is dead on, we don't need any straw men to cloud this up.

[03Lightningrocks]

Excaliber is dead on, we don't need any straw men to cloud this up.

I agree. We sure don't want any input that may not comply with group think.

[03Lightningrocks]

Risk is statistical - victimization is personal.

Is this meant to imply that being the victim of a violent crime is a personal choice?

No.

Risk is statistical, theoretical, impersonal, and expressed in probabilities.

The impact of victimization is extremely personal and comes exclusively from what actually did happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely that event was.

Another way of saying this is that people don't get PTSD from risk.

Thanks for the response. Sorry my question befuddled you.

If I read you right, your saying that some areas have a statistically higher chance of one becoming a victim of crime than others? Like for instance, I would not be as likely to get mugged in my living room in Plano Texas as I would be out on the streets of east L.A.?

One would not want to be careless anywhere, but one could feel safer in some places than others? To add one additional thought. The comment you posted was simply to state that to a person who has been the victim of a crime, statistic mean nothing. I think I understand what you were getting at now. Again... Thanks for the response.

[03Lightningrocks]

I would interpret it to mean that the rational, assessment of the risk of violent crime (e.g., using violent crime incidence per 100,000 people) may be trumped by the emotional scar of having been previously victimized. Statistically there may be little rational reason to practice higher levels of self defense, but that may not matter to somebody who's saying "I will never let THAT happen to me again."

The percentage of women raped in the US doesn't mean much to one who has been raped.

Frankly, the odds of any of us being a victim of a violent crime are fairly low. But if I have the means and opportunity to prevent myself or my family from being victims, you can bet I'm going to do it, no matter what the "odds" say about the necessity of being prepared for such an eventuality.

I would agree with this. I have personally been the victim of crime, both violent and non-violent. The toughest part is regaining that sense of security one loses. I refused to allow myself to become a victim twice by being scared of my own shadow and jumping at everything that goes bump in the night.

[Dragonfighter]

Excaliber is dead on, we don't need any straw men to cloud this up.

I agree. We sure don't want any input that may not comply with group think.

Excalibur writes:

Risk is statistical - victimization is personal.

03LightningRocks writes:

Is this meant to imply that being the victim of a violent crime is a personal choice?

Straw man

[03Lightningrocks]

No... I simply asked Excalibur what he meant by a comment he made while replying to my post. My apologies if the question made you feel insecure. It certainly was not meant as such. it actually had nothing to do with you at all... But thanks for the input just the same.

[Excaliber]

Risk is statistical - victimization is personal.

Is this meant to imply that being the victim of a violent crime is a personal choice?

No.

Risk is statistical, theoretical, impersonal, and expressed in probabilities.

The impact of victimization is extremely personal and comes exclusively from what actually did happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely that event was.

Another way of saying this is that people don't get PTSD from risk.

Thanks for the response. Sorry my question befuddled you.

If I read you right, your saying that some areas have a statistically higher chance of one becoming a victim of crime than others? Like for instance, I would not be as likely to get mugged in my living room in Plano Texas as I would be out on the streets of east L.A.?

One would not want to be careless anywhere, but one could feel safer in some places than others? To add one additional thought. The comment you posted was simply to state that to a person who has been the victim of a crime, statistic mean nothing. I think I understand what you were getting at now. Again... Thanks for the response.

Exactly - you got it.

Here is a real life illustration of the difference between the experiences of low risk and victimization.

The low frequency of bad events in the neighborhood led the residents to believe they were safe. Yesterday's events at one home left one resident dead and the other traumatized.

The other residents, who weren't directly affected, were shocked to learn that low frequency isn't the same as immunity. Most of them will buzz about it for about two weeks, and then go back to living the same way they did before with no substantive changes to their security posture.

The same behavior is repeated over and over throughout the country with denial of individual danger being justified by a perception of low general risk.

[Excaliber]

I would interpret it to mean that the rational, assessment of the risk of violent crime (e.g., using violent crime incidence per 100,000 people) may be trumped by the emotional scar of having been previously victimized. Statistically there may be little rational reason to practice higher levels of self defense, but that may not matter to somebody who's saying "I will never let THAT happen to me again."

The percentage of women raped in the US doesn't mean much to one who has been raped.

Frankly, the odds of any of us being a victim of a violent crime are fairly low. But if I have the means and opportunity to prevent myself or my family from being victims, you can bet I'm going to do it, no matter what the "odds" say about the necessity of being prepared for such an eventuality.

I would agree with this. I have personally been the victim of crime, both violent and non-violent. The toughest part is regaining that sense of security one loses. I refused to allow myself to become a victim twice by being scared of my own shadow and jumping at everything that goes bump in the night.

Thanks very much for bringing this real life experience to this discussion. It is a part of victimization that is little recognized by anyone other than victims and the folks who try to help them through the experience.

My observation is that the safer one felt beforehand, the more severe the trauma that follows victimization. It literally shatters some of the basic assumptions that underly the way folks live their lives, and that is hard to put back together afterwards in a way that makes sense.

[Dragonfighter]

No... I simply asked Excalibur what he meant by a comment he made while replying to my post. My apologies if the question made you feel insecure. It certainly was not meant as such. it actually had nothing to do with you at all... But thanks for the input just the same.

It did not make me feel insecure, but I was in a foul mood and it read like like a straw man fallacy (ad something o the argument that wasn't there so that it could be dismantled) and now I see it as an honest request for clarification. For that I am sorry, I am usually better than that. Since it really had nothing to do with me at all, I will bow out and let you all discuss whilst I lurk in the shadows.