Crime requires force. If you are stealing stuff, especially ala mugging, you need a threat.
It's a short jump to actually stabbing someone.
This wasn't some kind of hitman assassination.
It's a short jump to actually stabbing someone.
This wasn't some kind of hitman assassination.
Just saying. It’s not clear to me the kind of personality that uses the threat of a weapon but it’s not going to be your average thief / shoplifter. I’m not saying it’s a hit man assassination but it could be a gang member (violence is escalated there) or a gang initiation (severe violence is a hallmark). My coworker got mugged in Austin and beaten up extremely bad. I believe the police found the people and it was a gang initiation.
A shoplifter ideally wants to snatch and go. They are in the business of fleeing, partially because they know they won't be confronted. The most likely outcome is that they have someone shout at them or maybe get pushed.
The mugger is not this situation. The mugger has to give someone a reason to comply - that means a threat of violence. The mugger doesn't want to use that threat (they want the stuff) but they need the threat and need to be perceived as serious. Often muggers are new to criminality so they are jumpy, irrational and likely to accidentally apply violence.
Among concealed carriers, one of the hot topics is the situation of an armed mugging. While the mugger doesn't want to harm you, the risk of accidental harm is very real and muggings "fail" and end up as stabbings/shootings all the time. No small amount of time is wasted discussing how concealed carriers should respond to this threat - and I'll let you youtube your own security footage of this happening.
The gang situation is an unfortunate one. I'm sorry your coworker had that happen to them, and it's been a growing issue in Austin.
Anyway, I was trying to show that the broken windows theory is flawed. The broken windows theory suggests that if you stop shoplifting and other trivial crimes it’ll also prevent more violent crimes. That’s unlikely to be the case and the research done so far has not found any supporting evidence for this theory.
You are incorrect. Research is favorable with caveats:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002242781557657...
You may be conflating it with a VERY misreported meta analysis, the 2019 Daniel T O'Brien et al. which found BWT theory does not impact *mental health* of a neighborhood. He also normalized for SES which BWT is probably a direct predictor of (basically social funding).
> The mugger was not using a weapon.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251914/number-of-robberi...
If you get mugged, that mugger almost certainly has a weapon. That you saw the exception does not alter the stats.
>Occam's razor is a safe starting point for this situation.
The simplest explanation is he wasn't targeted and it was just a random mugging where he didnt want to hand over a few $1000s in belongings under the threat of violence?
But yes, it is absolutely the most likely occurrence that an obviously wealthy exec, an older man, was an easy mark for a random mugging gone wrong at the wee hours than some crypto bro plotted an assassination.
"Mugging gone wrong, someone got stabbed" is a very, very common situation. Also note that he lived to receive initial aid and perished on the way to the hospital - it's not like he was shot and stuffed in a car trunk.
Case closed, mugging. Occam's razor.