From the article
mdao linked to:
One witness testified that duFresne confronted Fleming (VCA - emphasis added), pushing him. Another witness testified that it was Fleming, rather, who shoved duFresne, and that she never touched him. There was a consensus among witnesses that duFresne shouted "What are you still doing here? You got what you wanted. What are you going to do now, shoot us?" Fleming fired once at point blank range, the bullet striking duFresne in the chest and exiting through her back.
Yeah, that would be one of the rather extreme examples of what someone might do to get himself, or this case herself, shot.
Oana, let me suggest you think of it in these terms . . .
Consider what it is you do for a living, or have an avid interest in for recreation. I would assume you, or anyone else who has a career of some sort, has attained a level of proficiency and expertise in that subject. How might you feel, after having gained this expertise, when a novice or neophyte approaches you and tells you are wrong, or suggests you don't know what you're doing?
Let's say its cars. You know how to install a good sound system. You've done it dozens, maybe hundreds of times, and a fellow approaches you asking you to help do the same for him. He wants to save money on the labor, so he's wants to help you do it. You show him how to install the speakers, but instead he wants to do it in a fashion you know won't fit, or work properly. He of course really wants it his way. You tell him you know what you're doing, he doesn't, and that its just not possible. He appears to relent, and you work on the radio and CD player, while he gets to work on those speakers.
After you're done, you go check on him. He did it his way anyway, and he's really botched it up. He's put the holes exactly where you told him not to, damaged the speakers trying to force them in, and now he wants you to help solve his problem. How would you feel about that? And why? This person ignored you, and disrespected you.
Disrespect doesn't have to be as overt as a white man walking into an urban night club uttering racial slurs, or telling a thief, "What are you gonna do now, shoot me?" It can be as simple as appearing to not comply fast enough with an armed criminal's demands. If the VCA thinks you might be moving too slowly, he may interpret it that you don't think he's serious, and use a higher level of force to impress you he is, just as in that same article
mdao linked to:
Rudy Fleming demanded money. Sparks pushed his way past, at which point Fleming swung with both hands, striking him across his left temple with a Taurus .357 magnum, which he had been holding pointed downward at the sidewalk. According to Sparks neither he nor anyone else in the group had realized that Fleming had a gun. Another robber, Servisio Simmons, reportedly said, "It doesn't have to be like this. My friend's buggin'. We just want the money."
That was actually a very good article to illustrate this concept. At this point, the violence was still instrumental.
It became expressive when duFresne made her statement.
Innoculous acts include simply ignoring the demand to comply with a criminal's demands immediately. The gun implies, do what I say, NOW, or else. Noncompliance usually gets interpreted by the VCA to mean you're testing him to see what that "or else" is, whether the victim intends that or not. At some point, and it is independant and different to every and any encounter, the VCA many decide you've tested him too far. Now, instead of simply using force to make you submit to his demands, he's decided you've disrespected him in his ability and proficiency as an armed robber. He feels he's in charge, you aren't, and now he's going to damn well prove it to you. He's become enraged, and now its become personal to him.
The "cute tricks" like tossing a wallet on the ground, or over his shoulder, or feigning a distraction that doesn't exist often are interpreted as disrespect by the VCA. Rest assured this is likely not his first time doing this, and he's probably not doing this without accomplances. Those tricks will enrage the VCA, and move him from instrumental into expressive violence.
Instrumental violence generally gets resolved once demands are met. Expressive violence get resolved when the VCA's psyche is satisfied. Obviously both can be resolved by greater resistance from the victim, either persuading him the attempt won't be successful, or by incapacitating the VCA. Sometimes that's the only chance the victim has for survival, and "if that's whatcha gotta do, then that's whatcha gotta do." Whether you're willing to move an encounter that might resolve without a fight into it is everyone's personal decision to make. Studies on this topic should also include evaluating actions you might take that will move the encounter into that fight without you intending it.
And yes, you're right, the criminal's psyche is much more easily offended than the law abiding. With that in mind, consider in your plan on how you will evaluate which type of violence you are offered, and how you plan to respond to it.
, or something fairly innocuous that is perceived as "disrespect"? 'Cause a lot of these guys have an inflated sense of self...