‘ I
“on: .1.
«no.

L Hulﬂ.‘

 

a: ,
mg” n.
.1 1 a):

.

,Mvd.

,3

I in: It
5.5 . .
$253,. 55:" w”:
«4|!- . c 1‘

.1. a?
I 4 (,4. A

1.... (Law.
1:...33 mm

E
a t:

.1. E!
rltlsul. .

 

 

 

. .Lsxnl
fig .uﬁfin'

MICHIGAJJBRARIES
STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

INJURY AS A RESULT OF ARMED ROBBERY: A STUDY OF
ROBBERY VICTIMIZATION IN DETROIT'S EIGHTH
PRECINCT, 2001-2002

presented by

RYAN BREVIN MARTZ

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Criminal Justice
Science

 

 

 

\/ Major rofessor’s Signature
I 2/3 /o y

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

_.-.— -A-n-.-o-O-I-I-n-o---I-I-O-v-o-v-o-I--v-u---I-I---o-v-¢--u-.-‘

-V--.--.-.-.-r—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

A

 

UH

flu
52309

mm
@3Nt

KP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65—p. t 5

 

INJURY AS A RESULT OF ARMED ROBBERY:
A STUDY OF ROBBERY VICTIMIZATION IN DETROIT’S EIGHTH PRECINCT,
2001-2002
By

Ryan Brevin Martz

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
School of Criminal Justice

2004

ABSTRACT
INJURY AS A RESULT OF ARMED ROBBERY:
A STUDY OF ROBBERY VICTIMIZATION IN DETROIT’S EIGHTH PRECINCT,
2001-2002
By

Ryan Brevin Martz

Routine Activities Theory has been tested multiple ways, yet there is a signiﬁcant
gap in the literature in the theory’s application to injury as a result of armed robbery.
Importance lies in understanding what factors inﬂuence a victim’s likelihood of
becoming injured during the incidence of an armed robbery. Previous studies have
evaluated the likelihood and factors associated with armed robbery victimization;
however, few have extended their research to examine injury as a result of armed
robbery. The present study reviews this question while examining several factors such as
age, race, and sex of the victim, whether the victim resisted the robber, whether a gun is
present, and time of day the incident occurred. A data set containing the 1213 armed
robbery incidents occurring in the years 2001 and 2002 in Detroit, Michigan was
analyzed to determine if any of the factors mentioned have a relationship to injury during

armed robbery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the faculty at the Michigan State University School of
Criminal Justice for their assistance throughout this project. I am appreciative of the
guidance and support provided by Dr. Tim Bynum, Dr. John McCluskey, and Dr. Cynthia
McCluskey during this venture. I would also like to thank Justin Patchin, Sameer
Hinduja, Jason Ingram, and Cathy White for their direction and encouragement

throughout the entire process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 3
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 3
Importance of Theory ..................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER H: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................... 11
Relevant Literature ........................................................................................................ 11
Types of Robbers .......................................................................................................... 14
Types of Robberies ....................................................................................................... 15
A Subculture of Violence .............................................................................................. 17
Types of Injury .............................................................................................................. 18
Resistance, Victimization, and Injury ........................................................................... 19
Race, Victimization, and Injury .................................................................................... 21
Sex, Victimization, and Injury ...................................................................................... 23
Age, Victimization, and Injury ..................................................................................... 24
Weapon Use, Victimization, and Injury ....................................................................... 25
Routine Activities Theory ............................................................................................. 27
Routine Activities Theory and Injury in Detroit, Michigan ......................................... 31
Another Approach to Explaining Victimization ........................................................... 35
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER III: DATA AND METHODS ........................................................................ 38
Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) .................................. 38
Current Study ................................................................................................................ 39
Study Context ................................................................................................................ 4O
Variables ....................................................................................................................... 41
Dependent Variable ...................................................................................................... 41
Independent Variables .................................................................................................. 43
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 44
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ................................................................................................ 47
Univariate Statistics ...................................................................................................... 47
Bivariate Statistics ........................................................................................................ 51
Multivariate Statistics ................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 60
Findings ......................................................................................................................... 60
Study Limitations .......................................................................................................... 62
Conclusions and Policy Recommendations .................................................................. 63
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 67

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. 2002 Robbery Statistics for Chicago, IL and Detroit, MI .................................. 12
Table 2. Armed Robbery Stages and Merged Variables ................................................... 42
Table 3. Independent Variables. ....................................................................................... 43
Table 4. Descriptive Information for Armed Robbery Sample (N = 1213) ...................... 47
Table 5. Univariate Statistics for Dependent Variables (N=1213). .................................. 48
Table 6. Univariate Statistics for Independent Variables. ................................................ 49
Table 7. Independent Samples t-test. ................................................................................ 52
Table 7. Independent Samples t-test Continued. .............................................................. 53
Table 8. Logistic Regression ............................................................................................. 57

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

To many Americans, the fear of falling victim to an armed robber is among the
most commonly expressed of all crime concerns. Conklin (1972) explains that,
“Although the public certainly fears murder and rape, it is probably fear of robbery. ..
which keeps people off the street, makes them avoid strangers, and leads them to look
their doors” (p. 4). As a result, many cities such as Detroit, which experienced 7,096
robberies in 2001 and 6,288 in 2002, have had to deal with the issue of how to prevent
armed robberies from occurring (Detroit Police Department, 2002). However, equally
important as how or why citizens are robbed by an armed attacker is why certain
individuals are injured during the incidence, or as an outcome of an armed robbery.

Many previous studies have examined why individuals are criminally victimized.
Research has shown that victims are often selected based on speciﬁc individual
characteristics. For example, Conklin (1972) notes that offenders often choose their
victims by evaluating such factors as: how they dress, whether they display cash, the sex
and age of the victim, and their vulnerability. Nevertheless, there has been comparatively
little research done on why victims are injured as a result of an armed robbery.

Matthews (2002) argues that individuals approached by an armed robber are
generally more susceptible to injury if they display signs of non-cooperation. Any
resistance by the victim, such as refusing to give up a purse or wallet, or reﬁising to exit a
vehicle being car-j acked, may be likely to lead the victim to injury by the offender.
Those individuals, then, that follow the directions of the assailant are less likely to be

physically wounded. Armed robbers generally prefer not to harm victims, as is evident

by warning shots that are often given at the ﬁrst Sign of non-cooperation by the victim
(Matthews, 2002).

Despite Matthews’s notions on injury among robbery victims, there is limited
empirical research to support them. Wright and Decker (1997) suggest that most
Offenders respond with severe but non-lethal violence in the hope of convincing the
person to cooperate. Though incidents of violence are not as prevalent as might be
expected, recalcitrant victims occasionally ﬁnd themselves with nonfatal gunshot
wounds. Even worse, it is not uncommon for victims to be killed. An admitted armed
robber even acknowledged, “We try not to kill [our victims]. If we can avoid killing
them, then we try not to. But if they force your hand, then you have to kill them. It’s just
that simple.” (Wright & Decker, 1997:57). On the other hand, some victims have found
that if they resist the robber’s demands long enough, the aggressor will often recede
(Wright & Decker, 1997:114-115).

Since most people have never been victimized by an armed robber, it is difﬁcult
to understand how the perceptions and proceedings of robberies affect the likelihood of
victim injury. Furthermore, and as previously stated, victims can be injured just as
quickly as they were robbed; all without resisting. Sometimes victims are injured, even
fatally, despite their complete cooperation with the robber. Yet, while previous studies
have shed light on why certain individuals might be victimized by armed robbers, it is
evident that ﬁIrther investigation is crucial in order to reveal possible rationale for why

armed robbers might employ violence to accomplish their objective.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to identify various contributors to injury during an
armed robbery through an examination of armed robberies occurring in Detroit, Michigan
in the years 2001 and 2002. Explicitly, incidents of armed robbery in which physical
injury occurred will be considered in order to determine whether injury is predictable
based on selected characteristics of the robbery event. As mentioned, many studies have
attempted to discuss if armed robbery characteristics similar to these can predict
victimization; however, there is a signiﬁcant gap in knowledge as to what factors can
accurately predict victim injury. Furthermore, literature supporting the selection of these
characteristics will be explained in Chapter Two, and deﬁnitional details will be

addressed in Chapter Three.

Importance of the Study

As mentioned, researchers have had limited success in uncovering reasons why
certain individuals are more prone to armed robbery victimization than others. It is
difﬁcult to study violent criminals on the street since armed robbers do not readily
identify themselves. Therefore, research on this subject is somewhat limited. However
in their qualitative study of armed robbers, Wright and Decker (1997) found that women,
alcoholics, older people, drug dealers, those that look like they have money, and those
that appear to be unlikely to resist are just a few examples of prime targets for robbery
victimization. Females and the elderly are often either unlikely or unable to resist a
robber whereas drug dealers may able to resist, but unlikely to report the incident to the

police. Additionally, alcoholics may tend to be intoxicated in public and therefore not

able to adequately resist a robber. Those that appear to have money or possessions
worthy of robbery make themselves targets regardless of whether they can protect
themselves. Since little empirical research has been conducted in order to explain why
injuries occur during these violent crimes, this study will ﬁll a void in the criminal justice
literature regarding victim injury during armed robberies.

Armed robbery can occur anywhere; in urban America as well as in more rural
settings. However, there is no question that armed robberies are signiﬁcantly more
common in large cities. Therefore, this study aims to provide clariﬁcation as to why
injuries may occur during the incidence of armed robberies in such environments.
Awareness of these reasons may aid in the reformation of public policy regarding gun
possession and use while committing a crime, as one in three armed robbery victims
sustain at least minor injuries (Reaves, 1993). Though not all armed robberies are
committed with guns, many are, and these weapons continue to keep the public in fear.
And since certain populations fear robbery victimization more than others (e.g., the
elderly), this study can elucidate the rationality of fear of robbery among age groups.

Residents of poor inner city neighborhoods are oﬁen the victims of armed
robbery, along with other violent crimes. There are certain characteristics of residents in
these neighborhoods that may make them more susceptible to violent crimes. For
example, inner city residents are not as likely as suburban residents to have bank
accounts; hence, they may have larger amounts of cash on their person at any given time
(Wright & Decker, 1997). Armed robbers are cognizant of this fact and capitalize on the
reality that they are likely to obtain a relatively high sum of money as an outcome of each

robbery.

Speciﬁcally, according to Heumann, Loﬁin, and McDowall (1982), Detroit,
Michigan has had to deal with the reality of high violent crime rates over the years. The
Detroit Police Department reports that in 2002 there were 6,288 robberies throughout the
City of Detroit. This can be compared with the 1990 ﬁgures, which indicate an ofﬁcial
report of 13,010 robberies in that year (Detroit Police Department, 2002). While
statistics show that the number of robberies in Detroit has decreased by nearly half over
the past decade, robbery continues to be a troubling reality (Detroit Police Department,
2002). Regardless of the statistics, residents do not feel as though crime is declining.
Ronnie Hereford, a resident of Detroit’s Tenth Precinct and owner of a go-cart track
stated, "Drugs are still rampant, (burglaries) are still rampant. I don‘t know as a
businessman in this community that I can say I see crime being down" (The Detroit
News, 2003).

Even though statistically robberies have diminished from 13,010 in 1990 to 6,288
in 2002, Detroit continues the battle of dealing with these crimes. Over the past several
decades, policies have been enacted to put a stop to the stubborn levels of crime. The
"Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets Unit" (STRESS) was created in October 1971
despite an unwelcoming reception from the public (The Detroit News, 2003). Though
eventually abandoned by Mayor Coleman Young in 1974 for its offensive vigilante
behavior and numerous civilian killings by police ofﬁcers, the STRESS unit attempted to
combat Detroit’s robbery problem at full force (The Michigan Daily, 1997). Since
STRESS was unsuccessful at reducing robberies over the long term, the City of Detroit
abandoned the policy and concentrated efforts dealing with the “War on Drugs” in hopes

that stricter drug enforcement policies might alleviate overwhelming robbery ﬁgures (The

Michigan Daily, 1997). For instance, according to Kleiman and Smith (1990), one
example of Detroit’s involvement in the drug war is that in the late 19805, the city
initiated a drug hotline allowing residents to call in and report information on drug usage
in their neighborhoods, avoiding the 911 response system. This also supported focused
crackdowns throughout the city — speciﬁcally in areas that needed it the most. Though
the hotline did receive approximately 200 phone calls per day during the ﬁrst few months
of operation, the hope was that the concentrated enforcement would produce signiﬁcant
results (Kleiman & Smith, 1990).

It was not until 2002 that a national program aimed at reducing gun violence was
initiated. Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) was established by President George W.
Bush as a nationwide program attempting to reduce gun violence by unifying local, state,
and federal agencies. Funds were allocated to participating federal judicial districts to
hire new prosecutors, support investigators, provide training, distribute gun lock safety
kits, deter juvenile gun crime, and develop and promote community outreach efforts as
well as to support other gun violence reduction strategies (Project Safe Neighborhoods,
2004). Though PSN is still in its infancy, homicides dropped 34% from 2002-2003 in
Detroit (Project Safe Neighborhoods, Eastern District of Michigan, 2004). Perhaps, with
time PSN will have indirect effects in Detroit’s robbery rates as well. Kwame Kilpatrick,
the current mayor of Detroit stated, “Since Project Safe Neighborhoods began in Detroit
in 2002, we have seen a marked decrease in the incidence of gun violence in 2003”
(Project Safe Neighborhoods, Eastern District of Michigan, 2004).

Given that Detroit has a severe problem with the abundance of robberies in all

thirteen of its precincts, attempts have been made to remedy the situation. While any

decrease in robbery is signiﬁcant for the city, continuing to ﬁnd a solution for robbery

violence is imperative. This study contributes towards that end.

Importance of Theory

Importance resides in the ability to explain the occurrence of robbery
victimization. Though no theories align with injury resulting ﬁom victimization
precisely, Routine Activities Theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979) reveals why some
individuals fall victim to crime - in this case, why so many Detroit residents become the
prey of armed robbers. Routine Activities Theory suggests that individuals become
victims as a result of their customary daily behavior. In actuality, most robbery victims
frequent the locations where they are getting robbed (Conklin, 1972). Cohen and F elson
(1979) propose that when a suitable target is lacking a capable guardian and meets a
motivated offender, a crime is likely to occur. First, suitable targets can be inclusive of
many different people or objects. However, in the case of armed robbery, suitable targets
are frequently persons that have in their possession something that is valuable to the
offender. In many cases, this may be cash or other valuables such as automobiles or even
eyeglasses; items that typify a desired status. Of’ten, even if individuals look like they
may have money or valuables, that is reason enough for an armed robber to approach.
Perpetrators describe an ideal target as someone who is “high-catting;” a street term for a
person showing off their wealth or temporary good fortune. Someone who “high-cats”
might drive a Cadillac and wear ﬂashy gold chains or rings. In such cases, some robbers

feel as though “high-caning" is a crime itself deserving of punishment by means of

robbery (Wright & Decker, 1997). In reality, these very individuals may be armed
robbers themselves, driving a stolen vehicle and wearing stolen jewelry.

Second, according to Routine Activities Theory, there must be an absent or
incapable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In the instance of armed robbery, a
guardian must actually be present as robbery itself is a personal crime. However, robbery
victims are often incapable of fending off their attackers. People of all ages, both sexes,
and all races fall victim to armed robbery in a myriad of locations; however, victims are
often those who are less likely to have the capability to protect themselves. Perhaps these
potential victims appear as though they might be armed, or might be willing to
demonstrate resistance. Moreover, the ideal armed robbery victim may not be paying
attention to their surroundings; thus, a sudden robbery would catch the victim off guard
and render them helpless. Wright and Decker (1997) remark that upon interviewing
armed robbers, they admitted their ideal targets were women, the elderly, and alcoholics,
among others, because these individuals are often unable to provide adequate
guardianship for themselves. While there are always exceptions, these groups of people
are often less able or willing to resist a robber’s assault. Additionally, if other capable
guardians such as the police are not present, crimes are more likely to occur (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). Consequently, it should come as no surprise that these populations are
most often victimized.

Third, a motivated offender is required to commit an armed robbery. Though
there are many reasons that armed robbers carry out their criminal acts, there is one
thread of commonality: the appeal of fast, easy money or valuables. Wright and Decker

(1997) provide evidence that some predators are unemployed and simply fall into the rut

of crime as an alternative to seeking employment. For instance, robbery brings in more
money than a minimum wage job; and it produces cash much faster. Additionally, others
may be motivated by living in an impoverished area and feeling that they simply deserve
to have nice belongings and extra cash from time to time. Yet others say that they rob
their victims when they need to pay bills or need money for food. Therefore, these
robbers are actually striving to provide for themselves and other members of their
households by committing robberies. Still, some offenders ﬁnd their motivation from the
sheer thrill of the crime and terrorizing their victims. In an interview with a St. Louis
armed robber in 1997, the offender told Wright and Decker, “The money is the point [of
robbery], that’s all. [But] pulling the gun, watching they face, how scared they get and
all that... that’s fun too” (p. 56).

Routine Activities Theory is useful in explaining injuries sustained from armed
robberies as it clariﬁes aspects of criminal victimization. Often, the reasons individuals
become suitable targets are also what make them potential injured targets. Those chosen
as suitable targets are those who possess something that the robber desires.
Consequently, victims have something to lose by giving up the items or money; if they
resist, victims could be injured by the perpetrator.

In addition to actions or inactions that individuals take to increase their potential
for victimization, the choice whether or not to inﬂict injury ultimately dwells with the
perpetrator. Therefore, Routine Activities Theory is one possible explanation for why
victimization might occur as robbers might cross paths with victims if the victims’

routine activities tend to place them in high crime areas. Since there are no theories that

explain injury as a result of armed robbery, this study intends to explain injury with the
support of Routine Activities Theory.

The objective of this chapter was to present the research problem and offer an
overview of the study. The following chapters will discuss the relevant literature in
detail, methods used, data analysis, results, limitations, and policy implications that stem

from this project.

10

CHAPTER II: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

As previously stated, little research has been conducted regarding injury during or
as a result of robbery. Though there is ample research in existence on robbery
victimization, precise explanations for injury are rarely discussed. What is known,
however, is that robbery is the crime that most often results in injury or death in the
United States other than homicide (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). Therefore, this study
attempts to explain injury as a result of armed robbery through the theoretical framework
of Routine Activities Theory, a paradigm utilized in many criminologically related
research projects since its introduction to the ﬁeld in 1979 by Lawrence Cohen and

Marcus Felson.

Relevant Literature

Conklin was one of the ﬁrst to complete an in-depth study of robbery on an
academic level. He deﬁned robbery as “the taking away and carrying away of personal
property of another from the person and against his will, by force or violence, or by
assault and putting in fear, with the intent to steal” (Conklin, 1972:4). This helped to
support that robbery was both a personal and a property crime. Additionally, Conklin’s
examination of robbers in Boston, Massachusetts gave one of the ﬁrst accounts of the
types of robbery offenders that exist as well as a description of how and when force is
used by these offenders. Though written decades ago, the descriptive beneﬁts of this
work are invaluable as they relate to the problems that many large cities, including

Detroit, endure.

ll

One of the most salient studies of robbery is the research conducted by Franklin
Zimring and James Zuehl. Introduced in 1986 as a report of their twelve-month
collection of robbery experiences in Chicago, Illinois, Zimring and Zuehl (1986)
considered the factors that contributed to the injury or death of a robbery victim. They
concluded that victims actively resisted in 55 percent of robberies and reacted passively
in 11 percent (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). Therefore, the authors’ thorough investigation
into why injury is likely to occur during a robbery is most helpful in gaining a broader
understanding of the phenomenon and how resistance may affect the outcome.

The examination of a large Midwestern city is valuable, as Chicago can be
likened to Detroit. According to the United States Census Bureau in July of 2002,
Detroit was smaller in population at 925,051 than was Chicago which had a population of
2,886,251. However, using ofﬁcial robbery statistics compiled by each city’s police
department, it was determined that both experience similar rates of robbery with Detroit’s
actually being slightly higher at 680 per 100,000 compared to Chicago’s 641 per 100,000

(Detroit Police Department, Chicago Police Department, 2002).

Table l. 2002 Robbery Statistics for Chicago, IL and Detroit, MI

 

 

City 2002 Population 2002 Robberies 2002 Robbery Rate
Chicago, Illinois 2,886,251 18,523 641*
Detroit, Michigan 925,051 6,288 680*

 

*(Per 100,000 Population)

More recently, Wright and Decker took an active role in seeking out armed
robbers in their 1997 qualitative analysis of robbery in St. Louis, Missouri. The two
researchers used a snowball sampling procedure to gain access to 86 of St. Louis’s un-

apprehended robbers. Though at the outset most of the criminals were hesitant to speak

12

with Wright and Decker for fear that the researchers would disclose their ﬁndings to the
police, the majority ended up cooperating. Thus, Wright and Decker obtained an
unprecedented view into the world of robbery through the eyes of robbers.

One of the most recent studies of robbery was by Roger Matthews who examined
robbery in the United Kingdom. Not only did this study contribute to the literature, but it
also provided discussion concerning victims and the attitudes of robbers towards them.
Additionally, the study included aspects of offenders’ motivation and their inclination
toward weapon use. Through his research, Matthews brought a different view of robbery
into the mix with an examination of robbery in the United Kingdom.

In an attempt to maintain a focus on just a few studies, it is not feasible to discuss
every research project on robbery in depth. Though a portion of this study involves
deaths resulting from robbery, those incidents are not the central focus of this study and
will be covered in only a cursory manner. In addition, non-fatal outcomes that are not
injurious are also irrelevant. Injuries resulting from armed robbery are the principal
concentration of this study.

Strangely enough, there is not an ofﬁcial classiﬁcation for injuries incurred during
a robbery; therefore, there exists difﬁculty in measuring this aspect of robbery (Zimring
& Zuehl, 1986). In 1993, Reaves noted that nationally, nearly one in three robbery
victims sustain at least minor injuries such as cuts, scratches, and bruises. However, it is
known that during the period of study in Chicago, 10.2% of robbery victims were injured;
though only 19% of those individuals were admitted to a hospital (Zimring & Zuehl,
1986). Though the sample being considered is relatively small compared to the number

of robberies that occur, as Chicago often has approximately 18,000 robberies per year, a

13

classiﬁcation of injury from robbery is something that is not generally recorded (Chicago

Police Department, 2002).

Types of Robbers

Before taking an in depth examination of robberies, understanding a typology of
such criminals is essential. Conklin (1972) makes note that there are several types of
robbers. Professional robbers are ﬁequently those that choose to victimize commercial
establishments. However, since the 1970s these robbers have been replaced by many
drug-using robbers (Conklin, 1972). Banks, convenient stores, and pharmacies are
victimized most often by this group, although professional robbers may target other
locations as well. Professional robbers are often white and are very skilled as they take
time to carefully plan their crimes, calculating when and where the victim will be when
the attack occurs. They are not likely to victimize randomly or haphazardly, and
generally proceed in a “rational” manner. Their calculated crimes appear to be motivated
by a grave contempt for society and conventional lifestyles and often become ingrained
in their personalities (Matthews, 2002). Matthews also notes that these robbers invest in
elaborate equipment to successfully conduct their crimes. Additionally, it is not
uncommon for these robbers to have accomplices, as professional robbery can be
particularly proﬁtable (Conklin, 1972).

Another common type of robber can be described as an opportunist or, rather, an
intermediate robber. Matthews (2002) notes that these criminals may have long and
storied histories with crime and the criminal justice system, however they regularly

devote a reasonable amount to time to planning their robberies. These robbers are

14

predominately black, young, low-income individuals that target victims with small
amounts of money (Conklin, 1972). However, it would not be uncommon for this type of
robber to take expensive automobiles at gunpoint, as car-jackings are a common form of
robbery. Conklin (1972) explains that these opportunistic robbers are on the prowl for
vulnerable targets and a rapid escape; as such, stealing an automobile provides them with
the perfect opportunity.

Another type of robber that frequently engages in the crime is the amateur robber.
These criminals engage in very little planning and organizational tactics and generally
operate alone (Matthews, 2002). It is the amateur robber that would be most likely to
approach a pedestrian on the street and commit a robbery. Matthews explains that these
robbers are relatively inexperienced, and therefore aim to take relatively small amounts
of money or less valuable property. Additionally, it is the amateur robber who may be

addicted to illegal drugs and rob only to purchase more drugs (Conklin, 1972).

Types of Robberies

Typically, there are three types of robberies: residential, commercial, and those
that occur on the street. In Chicago, Zimring and Zuehl (1986) reported that half of all
reported robberies occurred on the street, as do 2/3 of robberies with injury. Commercial
robberies trail, only accounting for 11% of all reported robberies and 1/3 of all Chicago
robberies with injury. Residential robberies account for a scant one in twelve reported
robberies, with one of twenty resulting in injury (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). In contrast,

85% of all robberies in St. Louis occurred on the street while 12% took place in

15

commercial establishments (Wright & Decker, 1997). The unaccounted three percent is
likely to include residential robberies.

Residential robberies are fairly uncommon; however when they do occur, the
outcome is arguably often far worse than injury. Behavioral dynamics and association
with the victim repeatedly lead to residential robbery victim fatalities (Zimring & Zuehl,
1986). Since residential robbers often know their victims, it is likely that the relationship
between the two affects the outcome of the robbery as the behavior of both the victim and
the robber are different than would be in a stranger to stranger type of robbery. In
addition, there is also a possibility of injuries occuning from burglaries or incidents of
breaking and entering that have gone bad. However, one might expect more serious
injuries and deaths to result from residential robberies than in other settings.

Commercial robberies, however, accounted for a signiﬁcant portion of robbery
injuries. The high numbers of commercial robberies are most likely due to a high
likelihood of reporting these crimes to the police (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). Businesses
are most likely to report robberies as they have much to lose and generally little to hide.
Conversely, street robberies often involve victims who are also engaged in criminal acts;
therefore, some victims may be hesitant to report a robbery (Wright & Decker, 1997).
After all, drug dealers cannot very well explain to the police that they were robbed of
their drugs and drug money. Robbers recognize this reality, and barring violent

resistance, take advantage of the fact that drug dealers can do little to impede them.

16

A Subculture of Violence

Because robbery often involves physical violence and because injury is the direct
result of violence, it is essential to understand why it occurs. Violence is explained by
Wolfgang and F erracuti as stemming from a conﬂict between the values of the dominant
culture and the often lower-class subculture of violence (Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1981).

Wolfgang & Ferracuti (1981) make note that those that are part of the subculture
of violence know that there are norms that are to be followed. These norms are backed
up with social rewards and punishments. Of course these norms or “rules” are quite
different than those in mainstream society. For instance, a glance in someone’s direction
could mean something different in a subculture of violence than in other cultures. To one
individual it could display disrespect, while to another it could simply be a greeting. This
look may be enough to elicit a reaction ending in violence.

These rules also extend to how a person is to react to situations of conﬂict. These
expectations of behavior may include the defending of one’s honor by following up an
insult or assault with violence (Wolfgang & F erracuti, 1981). Therefore, Wolfgang and
Ferracuti argue that those engaged in the subculture of violence value human life less
than the mainstream culture. For this reason, injury in areas where the subculture of
violence is likely to exist might be better understood when coupled with the explanation
of violence and the subculture that values it. Though injury resulting from the subculture
of violence is not testable in this study, there is importance in recognizing the existence

of the subculture of violence.

17

Types of Injury

Criminal victimization can often end in injury; and when it does, the level of
injury can vary immensely. Injury is deﬁned as hurt, damage, or a sustained loss
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004). Not all injuries are serious, however, and they can
range from psychological injury to serious life-threatening injury. According to
Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo (1979), the most common injuries in robberies
include knife or gunshot wounds, broken teeth or bones, internal injuries or being
knocked unconscious, and bruises, black eyes, cuts, or scratches.

Contrary to what might be expected, Hindelang et al. (1978241) report that 23.2%
of robbery victims sustained only minor injuries. Therefore, this is a signiﬁcant portion
of the 29% that were injured during robberies in total. These minor injuries include
bruises, black eyes, cuts, or scratches (Hindelang et al., 1978). It is often expected that
robberies tend to result in severe injury such as gunshot or stab wounds; however, that is
not the case. In fact, those injuries constituted only 2% of all injuries from robbery
during 1972. Broken bones and teeth were about 2.5% of all injuries sustained from
robbery, as were internal injuries and being knocked unconscious (Hindelang et al.,
1978241). These percentages make up only 29% of all robberies with 71% without
injury. Therefore, one can surmise that from the 1972 Hindelang et a1. study that less
than 30% of robberies involved injury, and of those, the majority of injuries were minor.

Though victim injury can occur in many forms, psychological effects often haunt
victims after any physical injuries may have healed. According to Gabor, Baril, Cusson,
Elie, LeBlanc, and Normandeau (1987), over 90% of robbery victims in their study

experienced an increase in fear, distrust, aggressiveness, mood swings, and depression

18

following a robbery. In more than 80% of these cases, the victims were still displaying
symptoms of this psychological trauma even as late as six months following a robbery
(Gabor et al., 1987). Some 20% of victims also experience changes in their social life
and in their lifestyle as a result of robbery victimization (Gabor et al., 1987). Robbery
can be a terrifying event for anyone, and it most certainly is expected to leave vivid
imagery in the mind of the victim. One victim clearly recalled his victimization by
stating, “You don’t release your eyes off the gun: it’s not like you think it would be, not
like on television. I’ve never been so ﬁightened. It’s panic. . .I can’t even talk about it

now without shaking” (Grant, 1992).

Resistance, Victimization, and Injury

How a victim reacts to a robbery can have a signiﬁcant impact on the outcome of
the robbery. In most cases, Gabor et a1. (1987) explain that whether the victim provides
resistance has little to do with the success of the robbery, as the robber is likely to win the
confrontation. Nonetheless, the amount of resistance that the victim demonstrates does
have a considerable inﬂuence on whether the victim is injured by the offender. For
instance, those that resist a robber are ten times as likely to incur some sort of injury
compared to those victims who offer no resistance to the offender (Gabor et al., 1987).
Of course, this is not conclusive as the victims could have resisted after the injuries took
place, but victim resistance to robbery certainly merits investigation.

According to Gabor et a1. (1987), there are several reactions that a victim could

have toward a robber. Most commonly, victims are compliant with the demands of the

19

robber. Whether this is because of fear, inability to react, or surprise; the majority of
victims choose to comply with the robber’s demands.

Another frequent reaction to robbery is the hesitation of victims to do as the
robber demands (Gabor et al., 1987). It might take the victim a few seconds to accept the
reality of the robbery. Many victims are caught off guard, and since most robberies occur
in less than one minute, victims may not be prepared to act quickly (Gabor et al., 1987).
Hesitation is, therefore, a natural reaction to the immediate loss of autonomy (Jacobs,
2000). One robber is quoted by Jacobs (2000:93) to have stated,

Man, he was like, he was so shocked that we came
up on him that he just, we took the money, he had
the money and we took it. We had ran and we took
it. He just like, “Damn.” K-Red

However, it should be noted that those in poorer areas are more familiar with the
codes of the street, therefore compliance as a reaction to robbery comes quickly and
without panic to them (Baumer, Homey, F elson, & Lauritsen, 2003). Additionally,
Baurner et al. (2003) note that screaming for help in these impoverished areas may be
ineffective, as residents are unlikely to come to the aid of the victim.

Some victims, though few in number, refuse to obey the demands of the robber
(Gabor et al., 1987). This recalcitrance can be verbal or physical, though usually the
former. It is not uncommon for victims to tell the robber that s/he does not have any
money, even though in reality s/he does possess some quantity of money. Some victims '

may choose just to walk away or remain silent, both of which clearly are not actions in

compliance with what a robber would desire.

20

To note, some robbery victims respond with a spontaneous reaction (Gabor et al.,
1987). Since robberies often occur in rough areas of cities, it would not be uncommon
for robbers to encounter victims with weapons themselves. Schnebly (2002) notes that
when an armed offender meets a deﬁant and armed victim, there is more of a threat of
severe injury as one of the parties must either use the weapon to defeat his adversary or
retreat. This encounter may trigger the “weapons effect” which states that the sight of a
weapon may elicit aggression from angered persons (Berkowitz & LePage, 1967). Since
the likelihood of retreat is not high, serious injury is often the result (Schnebly, 2002).
Furthermore, victims may struggle from the beginning and defy the robber’s demands.
This scenario, however, is not often the case during robberies as often victims are caught
off guard and do not have time to pull out their own weapon or to respond in an effective
way.

Hence, research indicates that perhaps the best way to avoid victim injury is to
remain compliant during a robbery. Certainly, brandishing a weapon to the offender is
likely to cause injury (Schnebly, 2002). Gabor et al. (1987) similarly mention that refusal
to obey the robber’s commands and spontaneous reactions by the victim are more likely
to incite violence leading to injury from the robber. These factors, coupled with common
sense, might lead one to believe that it is best to stay calm and comply with a robber’s

demands if the victim is interested in avoiding injury.
Race, Victimization, and Injury

While victim resistance is one factor in robbery injury, Zimring and Zuehl (1986)

remark that race is a factor as well. They report that it is the black population of Chicago

21

that experiences the most victimization, at 60% of all incidents of robbery in addition to a
high concentration of victim harm. This statistic could very well result from greater
community resistance. As Wright and Decker (1997) note, blacks are more likely to
resist an armed robbery because they often carry more on their person that could be lost.
As one robber put it, “. . .whites accept that they are being robbed. . .but I noticed that
blacks would rather die than give you they bucks and you damn near have to be killing
[them] to get it” (Wright & Decker, 1997284). Because many blacks are poor, giving up
their money and belongings can be a signiﬁcant sacriﬁce, whereas often for whites, this is
perceived not to be the case.

In the case of commercial robberies, employees are frequently instructed to follow
the orders of robbers to ensure that employees are not injured. Nevertheless, it is the case
that in the United States, many Asians own small private businesses such as restaurants,
beauty salons, and dry cleaning facilities. These individuals are also likely to work in
their own shops and since it is their own money and goods at stake during a robbery, they
are likely to resist victimization (Matthews, 2002). Since resistance can be a contributing
factor in injury, Asian business owners are commonly injured as a result of robbery
attempts. This injury occurs not necessarily because the shop owners are Asian, but due
to the fact that Asians often resist robbers, therefore become injured (Matthews, 2002).

Naturally, all races are victimized. However, robbery tends to exacerbate racial
tensions in the United States as it is often committed by a black offender against a white
victim (Hacker, 1992). Hacker (1992:87) states, “For white victims caught in interracial
robberies the loss of cash or valuables is seldom their chief concern. Rather, the racial

character of the encounter deﬁnes the experience.” Additionally, Wright and Decker

22

report that white drug users are often targets of robbers as they often visit black, crime
ridden neighborhoods to purchase illegal drugs. Though there are many reasons why
some races fall victim to robbers more often than others, resistance is often associated
with injury; and it might be concluded that blacks are more likely to get injured because
they are more likely to resist a robbery (Wright & Decker, 1997). However, one armed
robber suggested a good point in saying that, “Armed robbery is not about black or white-

it’s about the green” (Wright & Decker, 1997:85).

Sex, Victimization, and Injury

There is a reason most people associate criminality with males. Generally, it is
mostly males who are committing violent crimes and being victimized in the United
States (Nettler, 1984). Zimring and Zuehl (1986) explain that males are two times more
likely to be a victim of robbery than females. Moreover, that ratio doubles again when
examining injury-related circumstances, as the injury rate of the Chicago study is four to
one.

Males are not solely the targets of robbery, however. There are many males who
would put up much resistance and others who would readily give in to the demands of an
assailant. One robber explained to Wright and Decker that he prefers to target females
for his robberies as he perceives them to be easier targets. Matthews (2002) concurred
and stated that females are generally more compliant and therefore more desirable targets
of robbery. In certain circumstances, this may be the case substantiated only by the

common assumption that women are timid and unlikely to resist. The proverbial tables

23

might be turned, of course, if a female robbery victim is carrying a weapon. Therefore, it
may be unwise of robbers to assume that all females are easy targets for robbery.

Though females tend to be thought of as easier and more compliant targets, they
do get robbed and they do get injured, though just not as frequently as males. In fact,
Zimring and Zuehl (1986) note that in Chicago, male victims comprise 80% and female
victims comprise 20% of the 342 injuries experienced during the one year study.
Additionally, males represented 93% and females represented 7% of the serious injuries
inﬂicted during robberies in that city (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). Again, resistance is the
key factor that can be used to explain why this is the case. Robbers may use more initial
force against males in an attempt to prevent any resistance fiom them. Therefore, if force

is used during a robbery, one can assume a high likelihood of injury.

Age, Victimization, and Injury

The perception that offender age has an effect on injury may keep some in fear of
youthful offenders. Nonetheless, Hindelang et a1. (1978) state that age actually has little
to do with the likelihood of injury during victimization. In fact, in their 1972 study,
Hindelang et al. found similar percentages of offenders under and over 21 that injured
their victims (26% and 27%). While only classifying age into two categories is not
necessarily an appropriate measure of age, these ﬁgures do indicate that disproportionate
fear of a young offender is not warranted, as victims are just as likely to be injured by a
robber. regardless of age.

Though Hindelang et a1. (1978) found there are equal numbers of older and

younger offenders; it is often the former group that is victimized. In Felson, Baumer, and

24

Messner’s 2000 study of victimization, they found that younger individuals were less
likely to be injured than older people. Essentially, robberies involving younger victims
have a propensity to be less serious. Perhaps it is assumed that older people have more
money and are more likely to resist a robber, therefore initial injury is necessary in

gaining the victim’s compliance.

Weapon Use, Victimization, and Injury

Though guns were the weapon of choice in the majority of murders in Chicago,
they are not quite as prevalent in causing robbery injuries. Guns represent nearly the
same percentage of weapons inﬂicting injuries compared with other types of weapons —
including knives (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). Guns did, however, cause 34% of serious
injuries in Zimring and Zuehl’s 1986 study. What may come as a surprise is that
personal force actually causes the majority of all injuries at 54%. Personal force also
causes 32% of serious injuries during robberies -— a similar percentage of serious injuries
that guns cause (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). Though there are many means of causing
injury such as guns, knives, ﬁsts, bottles, and rocks, many injuries are serious, yet non-
lethal. For instance, some of the more callous robbers suggest that they hit their victims,
often with a gun, prior to exiting the crime scene in order to afford time to escape before
the victim can get a look at them and call the police (Wright & Decker, 1997).

There are, however, different situations that seem to prompt weapon use over
other situations. For instance, Zimring and Zuehl (1986) found in their Chicago study
that less than a third of robberies without victim injuries involved more than one

offender. Similarly, more than three quarters of the robberies that involved serious injury

25

or death was group related (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). Zimring and Zuehl (1986) explain
that commercial establishments are often better prepared to protect themselves.
Businesses frequently have security technologies, security guards, alarms, and other
devices to prevent robbers from being successful in their attempts. Therefore, robbers are
more likely to work in groups and with weapons in commercial establishments. Robbers
anticipate that with the help of weapons and the strategy of teams, they can overcome the
barriers put forth by businesses and be successful in their criminal endeavors. Though it
does seem evident that the more offenders that are involved in a robbery, the higher the
probability there is of injury, Zimring and Zuehl (1986) do note that the small Chicago
study cannot be used to predict injury or death. A much larger sample must be analyzed
in order to substantiate such a claim.

Above all, weapon use is seemingly related to the power the offender holds. In
the society and culture of the United States, where half of all households possess a gun, it
is evident that Americans value the ability to control situations with weapons (Kleck &
McElrath, 1991). However, with this power, Americans also realize that weapons are
violence enhancing and therefore increase the likelihood of injury or death to an
individual (Newton & Zimring, 1969). According to Kleck and McElrath (1991),
weapon use resulting in injury may be the result of a failed attempt at a preferred mode of
exercising power. Essentially, weapon use may be a robber’s last resort after verbal
coercion has failed. As noted in Wright and Decker’s 1997 study, robbers generally do

not desire to injure or kill their victims, but victim injury or death can and does occur.

26

Routine Activities Theory

After World War II, the United States experienced a marked increase in crime.
From 1960-1975, the Uniform Crime Report indicated that reported rates of robbery
increased by 263%, aggravated assault by 164%, forcible rape by 174%, and homicide by
188% (FBI, 1975). Similarly, the FBI (1975) revealed that property crime rates rose with
burglary rates, increasing by as much as 200% during the same time period. This
considerable rise in crime was due to various factors.

To begin, the professionalization of the police led to better reporting and
recording of crime even though departments were still considered largely ineffective
(Conklin, 1972). Additionally, the United States experienced a “coming of age” of sorts
fueled by the post World War II baby boom. Conklin also explains this upsurge of crime
with the dynamic distribution of income. While it is difﬁcult to verify that poverty
increases crime, the mounting number of unemployed and those on a quest for “easy
money” seemed to swell during the 19603. Finally, the transformations in race relations
during the 19605 also contributed to an increased crime rate (Conklin, 1972). Conklin
(1972) clariﬁes that young black males in many cities became involved in urban riots,
some of which spawned an insurgence of robberies. Thus, with the advent of increasing
crime coming into the scope of criminologists and sociologists, Cohen and Felson
investigated the trend and offered Routine Activities Theory as clariﬁcation.

Essentially, Routine Activities Theory proposes that three elements must be
present in space and time for a crime to occur. Cohen and Felson (1979) suggest that a
motivated offender must come into contact with a suitable target in the absence of a

capable guardian. If any one of the three of these factors is missing at any time, a crime

27

cannot occur. For instance, one can have a desirable target, such as an expensive
automobile, and be capable of protecting it. Without a motivated offender, though, the
driver is not likely to get car-j acked. Similarly, individuals may be fully capable of
protecting their property and selves, and a motivated offender may be present, but
without a suitable target the intended crime cannot occur. As a ﬁnal example, motivated
offenders can ﬁnd a suitable target but if capable guardians are present, then the intended
crime cannot occur in full.

Though any of the aforementioned three factors can be absent to prevent a crime,
it is often the case that the structural changes in routine activities inﬂuence the likelihood
of victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Effectively, if the proportion of suitable
targets, or even the number of suitable targets, were to remain stable in a community,
changes in routine activities would lead to increased occurrences of crime. These
changes in routine activity structure can stem from a wide range of possibilities. Use of
the automobile, small power tools, weapons, highways, and telephones are all items that
have changed and continue to change the way Americans go about their daily lives
(Cohen & F elson, 1979). These items not only allow people to go through their daily
routines easier, but these items also can work against individuals. Criminals have similar
access to items of convenience such as automobiles and telephones; these items often aid
criminals in the planning and operationalization of their deviant and criminal acts.

Cohen and Felson (1979:593) note that routine activities are deﬁned as any
recurrent and common activity which provide for the basic community and individual
need, including those of biological and cultural origins. Therefore, routine activities can

occur at home, in jobs away from the home, or in any other activities that take place

28

outside the home. In essence, it is the shifting of these routine activities that invites
crime. In Cohen and F elson’s 1979 study, shifting from home activities to routine
activities outside the home was found to explain a solid amount of crime. Since an
increasing number of people travel great distances to get to work and leave their homes
unattended, criminals see the window of opportunity during the daytime hours and take
advantage. Often, offenders choose targets near their own homes, and so unattended
houses and property such as automobiles could be prime targets. Hence, household and
family activities offer the lowest risk of victimization as the nearer one is to his or her
home, s/he can provide more adequate guardianship (Cohen & F elson, 1979).

Social changes in the United States during the 19608 can assist in explaining why
there were many shifts in routine activities. As discussed, when houses are left empty
during the day, or at night, they are primary targets of crime. During the 19608, the
married female labor force increased by 31% (Cohen & F elson, 1979). Consequently,
many more homes were unattended during the day than existed during previous decades.
Cohen and Felson (1979) stated that the proportion of households left unattended at 8:00
AM increased by almost half between 1960 and 1971. Since American tradition often
found women as stay-at-home mothers, they were previously able to provide constant
guardianship for their homes and belongings. When a percentage of those women moved
into the work force, Routine Activities Theory supports that crime would increase in
those locations.

There were more factors at work in the changing social structure of America. For
instance, families were enjoying more vacations. In fact, families were taking 81% more

vacations between 1967 and 1972 (United States Census Bureau, 1973). Largely,

29

Americans were spending more time away from home. Whether as a result of work, or
because of leisure, Americans found reason to leave their homes unattended and found
themselves falling victim to the increasing crime rate during the 19605.

All ages of people have different lifestyles; and young people often tend to be the
most active. Consequently, it can be expected that they leave themselves in the position
to be victimized. Younger persons are often not in their residences regulme and
frequently keep dissimilar hours than those of the rest of the community. Younger
people are often less likely to be married, therefore are more likely to live alone (Cohen
& Felson, 1979). This as well as their engagement in peer activities rather than family
activities opens them up for victimization at higher levels than others due to a lessened
ability to provide adequate guardianship.

Cohen and Felson (1979) also consider the unemployed and handicapped to be at
greater risk for victimization. The unemployed are often far less dynamic and engaged in
standard social activities that others enjoy. Moreover, the handicapped are frequently
unable to protect themselves, which renders them nearly helpless in many critical
situations such as victimization.

While social changes contributed greatly to increased crime during the 19605 and
early 19705, the ever-changing consumer goods deﬁnitely had some effect as well. As
the economy strengthened, individuals were purchasing more goods. More people were
purchasing a family vehicle, or even two. Concomitantly, the size and weight of goods
was decreasing for increased portability. Televisions and radios were smaller as were

many kitchen appliances. According to Cohen and F elson (1979), the decreased size and

30

weight of many goods enabled thieves to execute burglaries easier and steal more at any
one given time.

Though many factors inﬂuence crime rates, the change of routine activities was
introduced by Cohen and Felson in 1979 as an accurate explanation of the dramatic
increase in crime during the 19605. Essentially, the changes to the routine activity
structure in American society and to a corresponding target suitability and reduction in

proper guardianship led to the increase in criminal victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Routine Activities Theory and Injury in Detroit, Michigan

To review, Routine Activities Theory requires the convergence of a motivated
offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian in time and space
(Cohen & Felson, 1979). However, this theory offers a general explanation of
victimization, and requires a certain level of dissection to understand injury as a result of
robbery victimization in Detroit, Michigan. The routine activities of the residents of the
Eighth Precinct of Detroit often place them in the position to be victimized and often
injured as is evidenced by Detroit’s crime rates discussed previously. Overall, the
community itself is rather poor with 14.4% of its families living below poverty (United
States Census Bureau, 2002). This unfortunate reality awards many people a large
amount of free time due to unemployment and provides the opportunities for
victimization from violent crimes such as robbery.

Though the community does have its unproductive and deviant citizens, many
residents are hard-working and attempt to live honest lives in Detroit. Even these

individuals ﬁnd that their activities must be carefully selected in an attempt to avoid

31

robbery, in particular. For instance, those that must work two or more jobs, or work late
hours, may return home from work late at night, placing them in danger as they walk
home in the dark without adequate guardians. Therefore, Detroit citizens can ﬁnd
Routine Activities Theory helpful in understanding why they get injured in their
communities during robberies.

As discussed, a motivated offender is necessary to commit a robbery (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). Additionally, this offender must be motivated to cause injury to the victim
as well. Many factors can motivate robbers to injure their victims; perhaps the most
common is the need to gain compliance from them. It is not uncommon for victims to
resist a robbery; as such, shooting them in the foot or slashing them across the face with a
knife quickly gives the offender control of the situation again.

Furthermore, assailants may injure a victim in order to give the robber time to
escape (Wright & Decker, 1997). If the victim falls to the ground with a gunshot or stab
wound, it is unlikely that s/he can get a good look at the offender or engage in pursuit
following the occurrence of the crime. From a robber’s perspective, these reasons are
valid in order to gain victim compliance during a robbery. However, Wright and Decker
(1997) expose one robber’s view stating that sometimes he likes to injure his victims for
fun, as he gets a malevolent pleasure from causing injury.

For robberies to occur, though, suitable targets must exist. Despite the fact that
Detroit’s Eighth Precinct is a relatively poor area with 8.3% of households receiving
public assistance and 10.5% of its citizens unemployed (United States Census Bureau,
2002); residents do still possess enough valuable items and money to attract robbers’

attention. Cash, regardless of its quantity, is always of value to robbers. Primarily,

32

robbers observe people who look like they might have money and target them (Wright &
Decker, 1997). These might be people who have nice clothing, they might be talking on
a cellular telephone, or they may have just exited a bank or store. Robbers also target
known drug dealers as they frequently have cash on hand (Jacobs, 2000). Additionally, if
robbers can get cash from drug dealers, they can also take drugs, which can either be re-
sold or used. For example, a robber calling himself “Baby Doll” informed Jacobs that,

“. . .[With drug dealers] you get money, you get the dope, you get jewelry... take off with
the car, sell the car, sell everything” (p. 25). As a bonus, the drug dealers are unlikely to
report victimization to the police; therefore, it never occurred according to police data.
The police will not be looking for the robber who therefore can continue terrorizing the
neighborhoods. It is this type of robbery, though, that is likely to cause injury as well.
Drug dealers are less likely to cave to the demands of an armed robber and are likely to
resist. Drug dealers’ reputations and ﬁnancial success depends on their recalcitrance
(Jacobs, 2000). It is likely that the dealers themselves are armed, introducing yet another
aspect of robbery. This presents a situation where either party; the offender or the victim
could become injured as a result of the robbery.

Suitable targets may also be evident in the Eighth Precinct because of the
prevalence of status symbols. Often, inner city residents choose to acquire material items
such as ﬂashy jewelry, expensive vehicle, and designer clothing (Anderson, 1999). In his
ethnographic study of street culture, Elijah Anderson (1999:7 3) explains that these status
symbols reﬂect more than just taste, but also represent the willingness of possessions that
may need defending. This ﬂaunting of wealth in an impoverished area often can create

extreme jealousy leading to robbery and injury. In the case of car-j ackings, some robbers

33

Wright and Decker (1997) interviewed feel as though since they cannot ever afford a
new, expensive vehicle, they deserve it anyway and take it from another who perceivably
does not deserve it. Therefore, in their minds, they have done nothing wrong. However,
this sort of acquisition of material goods often ends in personal violence. For instance,
one robber explained to Wright and Decker, “I don’t have no remorse. They got money.
I got to get mine, so I’ll take yours” (p.25).

The absence of a capable guardian also encourages victimization. Robbers
generally know where the best locations are to commit robberies. They are likely to
strike in areas where the police are either not present or not looking for a robbery to
occur. Robbers generally tend to take into account the proximity of police stations and
routine patrols in the selection of their targets (Gabor et al., 1987). In fact, some robbers
choose to rob businesses near police stations, under the assumption that the stores may
have a false sense of security due to the close proximity to the police (Conklin, 1972).
Therefore, the lack of guardianship allows for the robbery to be sudden and allow the
robber to escape without identiﬁcation or apprehension.

Additionally, robbers look for victims who are not likely to be able to defend
themselves (Wright & Decker, 1997). A robber’s worst nightmare is a victim that has on
his or her person a weapon and is willing to use it. Therefore, to avoid confronting armed
victims, older people and those who are white are likely to be targeted. Both
demographic groups are fairly likely to accommodate the robber and his demands
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995). However, it is these types of people who may
fall victim to injury as well. If they try to resist at all, the robber will likely feel

threatened and may resort to violent means of inducing compliance.

34

Since offenders and targets generally remain fairly stable, it is evident that the
routine actions of individuals provoke injury as a result of armed robbery. When victims
place themselves in vulnerable situations, a robbery may actually occur. If it does, their
level of resistance and speciﬁc behavior inﬂuence their likelihood of being injured by the

robber.

Another Approach to Explaining Victimization

Though Routine Activities Theory works well to describe injury as a result of
robbery, there are always alternative explanations. Another such explanation was given a
year before Cohen and Felson’s 1979 Routine Activities Theory. Hindelang et al. (1978)
proposed the lifestyle/exposure model to describe rates of victimization across different
groups.

Essentially, the lifestyle/exposure model describes the variations in personal rates
of victimization by variations in individuals’ lifestyles (Hindelang et al., 1978).
Hindelang et a1. (1978) note that the way people allocate their time between different
leisure and vocational activities contributes to their likelihood of victimization.
Therefore, if a person tends to recreate in a location known for high crime rates, his or
her likelihood of victimization would be higher than those who do so in other locales.
Speciﬁcally, the way people choose to spend their time determines what types of people
they might come into contact with, and at what times they encounter them. Some of
these peOple may be criminals. For instance, because few capable guardians would be
present, if someone decides to do their jogging at 1:00 AM on the streets of the inner city,

s/he might be more likely to be victimized compared to the individual who chooses to

35

exercise during the day in a gym in the suburbs. Therefore, Hindelang et al. (1978)
explain that criminal victimization is not evenly distributed across time and space
because offenders are not representative of the general population and certain behaviors

become high risk depending on time, location, and the people involved.

Summary

In essence, the literature on robbery victimization and injury suggests that there
are several factors that may increase the likelihood of injury signiﬁcantly. Primarily,
victim resistance has been a recurring theme throughout the literature. According to
many researchers, it seems that the level of resistance that the victim provides can be
inﬂuential in the robber’s decision on using violence that could result in injury. In
addition, the race of the victim may have some effect on the likelihood of victimization
and on that individual’s proclivity to resist. Yet while women are often targeted for
robbery victimization, generally they are not injured nearly as often as males. Hindelang
et a1. (1978) demonstrated that younger and older victims are injured at a similar rate —
invalidating any supposed distinctions between age groups. Lastly, though many injuries
are performed with weapons, the overwhelming majority of injuries is minor and is a
result of personal force, not weapon use (Zimring & Zuehl, 1986). However, the
presence of a weapon does make it more likely that an injury would occur, as a serious
injury is less likely without a weapon.

Though the above factors inﬂuencing injury during robbery do provide insight,
Routine Activities Theory affords an appropriate theoretical explanation. The ’

convergence in time and space of a motivated offender, suitable target, and an incapable

36

guardian do most certainly explain criminal victimization (Cohen & F elson, 1979). As
routine activities aid in creating different lifestyles, they also have the potential to place
victims in the position to be injured. Individuals can ﬁnd themselves victimized and
injured differently due to dynamic lifestyles. Actions such as maintaining irregular hours
and leaving residences unoccupied until late at night place individuals in the position to
be victimized (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Therefore, a single explanation for why injury
occurs during a robbery cannot be applied, as there are multiple factors present that may

supply a cooperative explanation of injury as a result of robbery.

37

CHAPTER III: DATA AND METHODS
Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative (SA CS1)

Data used in this study were initially collected for the Strategic Approaches to
Community Safety Initiative (SACSI) project in an effort to ascertain information on
weapon possession and use in the Eighth Precinct of Detroit, Michigan. The primary
objective during data collection for SACSI was to capture instances of criminal acts
involving guns. Therefore, the two crimes selected to be measured were carrying
concealed weapons (CCW) and armed robberies (RA). CCW incidents that were
collected were either lone offenses or often coupled with other offenses. On the other
hand, collected RA offenses were solely those of “armed robbery-business or
commercial,” “armed robbery-personal,” and “RA-UDAA” (unauthorized driving away
of an automobile or car-j acking). Attempted armed robberies were also included given
that the success of the robber in taking possessions from the victim is irrelevant.

Data were collected at Detroit’s Eighth Precinct Police Station, located on the
northwest side of the city. The Detroit Police Department (DPD) uses a standardized
form called a “Preliminary Complaint Record” (PCR) for incident reporting. This one-
page form is completed by an ofﬁcer when reporting a criminal incident. The form
captures information such as the type of offense, its location, complainant and perpetrator _
information, as well as the details concerning the processing and the outcome of the
crime. PCRs are not used exclusively for armed robberies, but for all crimes ranging
from identity theft to homicide. PCRs are often ﬁlled out by the ofﬁcer in the ﬁeld;
however, some PCRs are ﬁlled out at the police station as a result of walk-in crime

reports. For the SACSI project, PCRs of the following offenses were photocopied and

38

entered into a database: armed robbery and attempted armed robbery (RA), carrying
concealed weapon (CCW), and armed unauthorized driving away of an automobile
(UDAA-armed), or more commonly known as a car-jacking. Attempted car-jackings

were collected as well.

Current Study

Relevant to this study are the data collected on armed robberies during the years
of 2001 and 2002. The State of Michigan deﬁnes robbery as “the taking or attempting to
take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force
or threat of force or violence and/or putting the victim in fear” (Michigan State Police,
2002). Armed robbery is simply classiﬁed as a robbery that is carried out with a weapon.
Weapons can range from broken bottles to guns. Armed robbery is, however, distinct
from robbery, which is committed without any type of weapon. Therefore, in this study,
armed robberies and armed car-j ackings are the crimes which will be analyzed, as
unarmed robbery data were not collected for SACSI and also is not pertinent to the
current study. Additionally, car-jackings and attempted armed robberies will be included
as armed robberies unless speciﬁed otherwise.

During 2001, the City of Detroit had 7,096 reported robberies across all precincts
(Detroit Police Department, 2002). Though that number fell to 6,288 in 2002, it is
evident that gun crimes - speciﬁcally in the form of armed robbery - are a considerable
problem in Detroit (Detroit Police Department, 2002). Since armed robbery is both a
property and a personal crime, there is great potential for injury during the occurrence of

these crimes, hence supporting the purpose for this study.

39

Study Context

Before examining the data, it is important to have a basic understanding of the
location where these armed robberies took place. Detroit is a large working class city of
925,051 (United States Census Bureau, 2002) located in southeastern Michigan on the
banks of the Detroit River, which links the Great Lakes Huron and Eric. Though many
factors might contribute to ﬁnding an explanation as to why Detroit has serious crime
problems, there is no debate as to the fact that weapons and crime are prevalent on the
streets of the city. Citywide, there were 6,288 robberies, 402 homicides, and 12,542
assaults reported in 2002 (Detroit Police Department, 2002). While these statistics are
lower than 10 years earlier when there were 12,194 robberies, 595 homicides, and 12,433
assaults, it is evident that crime is a major concern in Detroit (Detroit Police Department,
2002). Thus, this study aims to provide more clariﬁcation of armed robberies in Detroit
that may be valuable in resolving the problem.

The Eighth Precinct of Detroit, Michigan is an area designated by the Detroit
Police Department that encompasses an area of 15.4 square miles in the northwestern
portion of the city (Detroit Police Department, 2004). In 2000, 106,330 of Detroit’s
citizens lived in the Eighth Precinct (United States Census Bureau, 2000). Of those
citizens, 89.4% were black, while 8.1% were white. A minority of citizens were Asian
(.4%), Native American (.3%), and “other” (.3%). The Eighth Precinct also had a bi-
racial population of 1.6%. Residents 17 years of age or younger comprised 17% of the
population, while 13.8% of those aged 25 years or older held at least a bachelor’s degree
(United States Census Bureau, 2000). In 2000, 8.3% of the households in Detroit’s

Eighth Precinct received public assistance and 10.1% of its citizens were unemployed.

4O

Additionally, 14.4% of families in the Eighth Precinct lived below the poverty line

(United States Census Bureau, 2000).

Variables

The objective of this study was to determine if certain characteristics of robbery
victims and their actions can be utilized in estimating the likelihood of injury during a
robbery. Consequently, the dependent variable for this study is injury during a robbery
or attempt. There are six characteristics of robbery victims under analyses related to their
actions (or inactions) and the circumstances of the situation which may affect the
likelihood of injury. These six characteristics are: 1) the age of the victim, 2) the sex of
the victim, 3) the race of victim, 4) the type of weapon used in the robbery, 5) victim
resistance, and 6) the time of day that the robbery occurred. These variables were
selected based on the combination of existing evidence from the literature discussed in
Chapter II, and the inﬂuence of variables that are theoretically, practically, and intuitively

relevant.

Dependent Variable

As mentioned, the purpose of this study was to determine if injury can be
predicted by characteristics of the robbery incident and/or the victim. Therefore, the
dependent variable is speciﬁc physical injuries incurred as a result of armed robbery. In
the data set, whether injury occurred during an armed robbery can be determined by
many different factors. The data set was already designed in a manner which broke the

incident of robbery down into three stages. These stages allow better understanding of

41

 

I

S

what events occur during the different phases of an armed robbery. Additionally, injury
can occur at any of the different stages of robbery. If an injury occurs during the robber’s
approach or during the initiation of a robbery, then for this project it is considered to have
occurred during the “entry” stage. As the robbery takes place, the actions that the robber
and the victim take that determine the outcome of the robbery compose the processing
stage. Lastly, as the robber attempts to end the robbery and leave the situation, this is
referred to as the exit stage. Thus, to reﬂect these stages of robbery, several variables
were recoded to represent one single dependent variable representing victim injury. The
variables that were present in the data set and merged are:

Table 2. Armed Robbery Stages and Merggd Variables.

 

Entry Gun ﬁred and hit target?
Other weapon used?
Hit victim with gun?
Bump victim physically?
Injury took place?

 

Processing Gun ﬁred and hit target?
Other weapon used?
Hit victim with gun?
Bump victim physically?
Injury took place?

 

Exit Gun ﬁred and hit target?
Other weapon used?
Hit victim with gun?
Bump victim physically?
Injury took place?

 

If any of the armed robberies indicate that at least one of the above variables equals
“yes,” then injury will be considered to have occurred. The recoded dichotomous
variable (“injury”) will indicate “yes” with a “1” and “no” with a “0.” Additionally,
robbery injury will be examined separately in each of the robbery circumstances of entry,

processing, and exit.

42

Independent Variables

Table 3. Independent Variables.

 

Independent Variables Coded

Complainant age Continuous
Complainant sex Male = 1, Female = 0
Complainant race Black =1, All others = 0
Weapon type Gun = 1, All others = 0
Victim resistance? Yes = 1, N0 = 0

Time of day incident a. 12:00 PM-6200 PM =1
occurred (4 variables) All other times = 0

b. 6:00 AM-12:00 PM=1
All other times = 0

c. 6:00 PM-12:00 AM = 1
All other times = 0

(1. 12:00 AM-6:00 AM = 1
All other times = 0

 

Table 2 provides inforrnationon the recodes for the independent variables. The
ﬁrst independent variable that will be used to predict victim injury during robbery is the
complainant’s age. This is a continuous variable representing the victim’s age in years.
The sex of the complainant is another independent variable that will be examined. This
variable, however, is coded as “male” or “female” in the data set. For this study, the
variable indicating the victim’s sex was recoded as a dummy variable indicating males as
“1” and females as “0.”

Similarly, the race of the victim was speciﬁed as: American Indian/Alaskan
Native; Arab American/Chaldean; Asian; Black/Aﬁican American; Hispanic/Latino;
Multi-racial; Native Hawaiian/Other Paciﬁc Islander; White; or Other. Because the
Eighth Precinct’s racial composition includes 89.4% Blacks/Aﬁican-Americans, these

variables were recoded into dummy variables with the value of Black/African-American

equal to a “1,” and all other values (races) equal to a “0.” Races other than

43

Black/African-American were few enough in numbers that their individual inclusion was
not merited.

Due to the nature of the study, it is assumed that a weapon was used in each
incident. Armed robbery, by deﬁnition, is a robbery that is committed with a weapon.
The weapon variable was recoded into a dummy variable with guns represented with a
“1” and all other weapons expressed with a “O.” The ﬁnal independent variable is the
time of day that the robbery occurred. Recoding time of day as AM and PM may be
misleading as AM and PM both occur during the day and the night. Therefore, to reduce
conﬁision, four variables were utilized to better determine the time of day that robberies
took place. The four time periods that will be examined are: 12:00 PM-6:00 PM, 6:00
AM-12:00 PM, 6:00 PM-12200 AM, and 12:00 AM-6:00 AM. A “1” will indicate that a
robbery did occur during each time period and a “0” will represent that the robbery did
not take place during that time. This dichotomous coding will be consistent for all four

variables.

Methods

For all variables, univariate statistics were computed in order to determine
descriptive information. Where appropriate, the mean, the percent, and number were
derived and compared. This descriptive information provides vital statistics about the
armed robbery data.

After recoding several variables, both the dependent variable and all the
independent variables became continuous items suitable for independent samples t-tests

to facilitate bivariate analyses by testing the relationship between the armed robbery

44

characteristics and injury as a result of the crime. Logistic regression will be utilized as
the multivariate method. Finally, logistic regression will be used to test for a relationship
between the characteristics of the robbery victim/robbery and injury as a result of armed

robbery while controlling for the other characteristics of the robbery.

Hypotheses

Based on an examination of the literature on armed robbery, the following
hypotheses are tested:

H1: Injury is more likely when victims resist.

According to Gabor et a1. ( 1987), those that resist a robber are ten times as likely
to incur some sort of injury compared to those victims who offer no resistance to the
offender. Though not resisting an armed felon aligns with common sense, it is
hypothesized that similar results will be discovered from the armed robbery data
representing the Eighth Precinct of Detroit, Michigan.

H 2: Male victims are more likely to be injured than are female victims.

According to Zimring and Zuehl, in their 1986 study of Chicago robbery
victimization, males are two times as likely to be robbed and four times more likely to be
injured during a robbery than are females. Similar results are expected in this study of
Detroit, Michigan robbery victimization injuries.

H3: Armed robberies that occur between the hours of 6: 00 PM to Midnight are more
likely to result in victim injury.

Routine Activities Theory suggests that victimization is likely to occur while
potential victims are engaging in routine activities where there are fewer capable

guardians present and available. Therefore, during the hours of 6:00 PM to 12:00 AM it

45

is hypothesized that motivated offenders may be likely to rob and injure other residents of
Detroit’s Eighth Precinct.
H4: Armed robberies where a gun is present are more likely to result in victim injury.
Zimring and Zuehl’s 1986 Chicago study revealed that 34% of robbery injuries
were caused by guns. Regardless of whether the victim or the offender is the individual
in possession of the gun, it is hypothesized that the mere presence of the gun during an
armed robbery increases the likelihood of victim injury. After all, without a gun present,
victims cannot receive a gunshot wound.
Based on the literature, the four hypotheses are examined to determine whether
resistance, sex, time of day, and the presence of a gun have any bearing on whether or not
victims are injured during armed robberies. Data analyses are used to test these

hypotheses and are explained in the following chapter.

46

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
This study focuses on testing for factors likely to lead to or encourage victim
injury during armed robbery. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate results are presented

and discussed.

Univariate Statistics

This section discusses descriptive information about the data used in the study.
Relevant variables will be described as well. Table 1 summarizes descriptive data for the
sample as a whole.

Table 4. Descriptive Information for Armed Robbery Sample (N = 1213).

 

Oﬂense types
Armed robbery 75.02%
Car-jacking 16.90%
Attempted armed robbery 6.36%
Attempted car-j acking 1.73%

 

*Armed robbery and attempted armed robbery categories include: RA Business, RA Citizen, RA Assault,
RA Bank, RA Shooting, RA Kidnapping, RA Cutting, and RA Home Invasion.

The above table includes basic descriptive information for the armed robbery data
that is useful in understanding the data that will be analyzed. The following tables
provide univariate statistics for the dependent and independent variables used in the

study.

47

 

Table 5. Univariate Statistics for Dependent Variables (N=1213).

 

 

Number Percent
Entry injury
Injury took place 26 2.1
Bumped victim physically 27 2.2
Hit victim with gun 14 1.2
Fired gun and hit target 0 0.0
Other weapon used 7 0.6
Total 57 4.7
Processing injury
Injury took place 101 8.3
Bumped victim physically 49 4.0
Hit victim with gun 44 3.6
Fired gun and hit target 27 2.2
Other weapon used 43 3.5
Total 1 8 1 14.9
Exit injury
Injury took place 7 0.6
Bumped victim physically 0 0.0
Hit victim with gun 2 0.2
Fired gun and hit target 7 0.6
Other weapon used 1 0.1
Total 1 1 0.9
Any injury 239 19.7

 

*Entry injury, processing injury, and exit injury do not equal the total since injuries that occur during one
or more stage of an armed robbery may be duplicated. Similarly, the types of injury do not equal the total
since more than one type of injury could have occurred in each phase of the robbery or incident.

Table 5 illustrates that 239 of the 1,213 armed robbery victims were injured at
some point during the robbery incident. It is evident that the majority of injuries occur
during the robbery processing, speciﬁcally with “bumped victim physically” maintaining
the highest frequency, with 49 incidents occurring. However, victims that were bumped

physically during the processing stage only accounted for 4% of all injury.

48

Table 6. Univariate Statistics for Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Number Percent
Mean Age = 33.88 (Range: 10-93) 1156 95.30
Sex
Male (1) 789 65.0
Female (0) 377 31.1
Unknown 47 3.9
Race
Black (1) 975 80.4 'I‘
All others (0) 144 11.9 5
Unknown 94 7.7
Weapon type
Gun (1) 867 71.5
No gun (0) 101 8.3 "
Unknown 245 20.2 3
Resistance
Yes ( 1) 73 6.0
No (0) 1140 94.0
Unknown 0 0.0
Time
Midnight to 6:00 AM 335 27.6
6:00 PM to Midnight 444 36.6
Noon to 6:00 PM 234 19.3
6:00 AM to Noon 162 13.4
Unknown 38 3.1

 

A5 is evident in Table 5, the sample has a mean victim age of 33.88.
Additionally, the vast majority (65%) of the victims are male. Overwhehningly, blacks
are most commonly victims in the Eighth Precinct at 80.4% leaving whites and other
races to account for only 11.9% of the victims in the data set. Guns, however, represent
the vast majority of weapons used during armed robberies in the Eighth Precinct in 2001
and 2002. Though 245 incidents had no speciﬁcation on weapon type, 71.5% of the

incidents in the data set had guns present during the offense. Moreover, victims did not

7.]

49

frequently resist an armed robber. Only 6% of the 1213 incidents involved some sort of
victim resistance. Though victims were not likely to resist, their robbers were often
likely to strike under the cover of darkness. In the case of this data set, 27.6% of the
armed robberies occurred between the hours of midnight and 6:00 AM and 36.6% of the

incidents occurred from 6:00 PM to midnight.

 

50

 

Bivariate Statistics

In order to test each independent variable for a relationship with the dependent

variables, independent samples t-tests were conducted as the bivariate method to compare

the means. The results are as follows:

51

30.4": "3m" .-

.a-IIr huh-l2 -

 

 

Sever: mavg... Hove.

 

 

5d 3 d mod w : d 562 Ho: Ed 8.505
21- vod ﬁshed. nmd cNd vod ..:.:..mw.m- 3d @823» :50;
35.9: 802?:
5d wvd m :d omd 3202: saw 02
3d- 5d sic—.5 :d 5:..on Nod simdd 3d @0202: :30
3.5.9: ESSA:
5d cmd mod mmd 82:8 =<
cmd 5d IRA 2d om: mod ......ow.m 3d :85
35.9: “scuba:
3d :d mod .1 d DEED“:
2:. 5d Idmd- Cd mm. T mod simwd- mmd 23):
3.59: Sousa:
exam 3.? aﬁmm Ram 359: “oz
mvd- dwdm 3d- 3.3 wwd- dm.mm mmd- Nmém BB9:
ow< :82
u :82 u :32 H :82 H :82
bad: :xm 93.9: wimmooocm 95.9: Bum #3:: .92.

 

.38-“ 8.95am Bop—Snot:— H ~35.

ll“.

52

 

 

 

k .E
SQVQSI. SQVQHE WOMAN...
8d 3 d mod :Nd 38: 3:8 =<
mm: 8.0 mm: m :d de- mod am: 2d 83:22 3 2m do“: 3580
35.9: :3o3m
3d 3d mod end 3:5 3:8 =<
wed- 5d mm: N: d Ned vod m : : Cd 2: do”: 8 :82 @3530
35:: “383
5d 3 d mod 3 d 38.: 3:8 =<
9nd- Ed 0w. 7 end Ed- mod mo. 7 mmd :82 8 2< do”: 3580
35 .8: H303:
3d 3 d mod 3 d 39:: 3:8 =<
2d- 5d 8.7 Ed 3d- mod am. 7 mod 2< dd”: 8 23:22 @3580
35?: 833:
D :32 a :32 a :32 a :32
95.8: :xm 95.8: wﬁmmoooﬂ 5.2: >53: 95.8: >:<

 

6253.80 38-» 3.9—Sm 23:33:: .h 335.

~Ea

53

In the armed robberies where any injury occurred, sex, race, having a gun, and
victim resistance had a statistically signiﬁcant relationship to victim injury. Not
surprisingly, males are more likely than females to be injured in the Eighth Precinct of
Detroit by armed robbers. Of the male victims, 23% were injured compared to 14% of
females that were injured. Additionally, non-blacks are signiﬁcantly more likely than
blacks to be injured during an armed robbery. In the case of this study, 18% of black
victims were injured and 33% of non-blacks were injured. The presence of a gun does
not increase the likelihood of injury in the Eighth Precinct. In fact, of those armed
robberies where a gun was present, only 14% resulted in injury. However, 59% of armed
robberies where other types of weapons were present resulted in injury. Lastly, victim
resistance is signiﬁcantly related to victim injury during armed robberies. In the case of
this study, 41% of those who resisted were injured. Of those victims who did not resist
the armed robber, only 18% were injured. However, age of the victim and the time
period that the robbery occurred are not statistically signiﬁcantly related to victim injury.
The preceding ﬁndings describe injury during an armed robbery incident overall, not
separating the robbery incident into different stages. The following analyses classify
robbery incidents into entry, processing, and exit and examine injury.

Only the presence of non-gun weapons during the entry stage of an armed robbery
is statistically signiﬁcant in its relationship with injury. Only 2% of victims were injured
when a gun was present. This is compared to 15% of victims who were injured when
other types of weapons were present during the entry stage of an armed robbery. Age,
sex, race, victim resistance, and time of day have no statistically signiﬁcant relationship

to victim injury during the entry stage of an armed robbery in the Eighth Precinct of

54

 

I“ 11.}. n'

"Fiﬁ—r

Detroit, Michigan.

In the incidents where any injury occurred during the processing stage of an
armed robbery, sex, race, possession of a gun, and victim resistance had a signiﬁcant
relationship to victim injury. Males are more likely to be injured in the Eighth Precinct
of Detroit by armed robbers as 17% of males were injured and 11% of females were
injured. In addition, blacks are less likely than are other races to be injured during the
processing of an armed robbery. Of those victims there were injured during the
processing stage of the armed robbery, 13% of blacks were injured and 26% of non-
blacks were injured. The presence of a gun does not increase the likelihood of injury in
the Eighth Precinct. In fact, only 11% of victims were injured if a gun was present,
however 48% were injured if another type of weapon was present at the time of the
armed robbery. Lastly, victim resistance is signiﬁcantly related to victim injury during
the processing stage of armed robberies. From the data, it is evident that 37% of those
victims who resisted the armed robber were injured. When the victims did not resist,
only 14% were injured. However, the age of the victim and the time period that the
robbery occurred are not statistically signiﬁcant in relation to victim injury during the
processing of an armed robbery.

During the exit stage of an armed robbery, there were no variables that had a
statistically signiﬁcant relationship with victim injury. Age, sex, race, resistance, the
presence of a gun, and time of day the incident occurred were not signiﬁcant in relation
to injury during the exit phase of an armed robbery in the Eighth Precinct of Detroit,

Michigan.

55

Multivariate Statistics

To compare each of the independent variables to the dependent variables while
controlling for all the other independent variables, logistic regression was used to
determine the probability of each independent variable having a relationship on the
dependent variable. In the case of this study, only one time block was included as an
independent variable so as to avoid multicollinearity. Hence, the remaining three were
excluded. Additionally, the time variable analyzed is consistent with the previously

hypothesized time period in this study.

56

 

 

 

 

PC. i - rill.
SQVQI... SQVQV... ”nova?
98.8 ASN.8 Q38 88.8
5:: so. _- $2. :32- ms: :83 was $2.8 5:52 B 2: Se
9.38 838 :38 9.2.8
5:: :22 82 :38: 5.6 «:3. 83 N8: Buses:
82.: 92.8 938 92.8
32 $35 one 3&3: was 22:85. 2 3 2:83 838 25 8:83
9.2.: 98.8 83.8 98.8
32 one we; :33- 83 £2- 3% :33- 93:8 as:
93.8 93.8 was :38
:3 a: so: .52 4:: Sec as: :83 638 am
$88 98.8 93.8 98.8
83 88 was 38.8 8o: 82. M33 ~88 03.
533% 322V

\o 83.533330 3385.85

 

Eve: :8:
85.9.: 9%

Eve: :8:
35.3.: DEN

ﬁve: :80
83.9.: Mﬁmmmooxm

98%: :80
«93.9.: can:

 

.53353— 33%.: d 2:5.

57

As is evident in Table 8, males are nearly two times as likely (1.979) to get
injured during an armed robbery. Consistent with the literature, those victims who resist
are more likely to get injured. From the analysis conducted, it is apparent that those who
resist are 2.807 times more likely to get injured than are those who provide no resistance
to an armed robber. Additionally, blacks are less likely to be injured during an armed
robbery. They are 0.489 times less likely to be injured than are those who are non-black.
Armed robberies where a gun is present are also 0.115 times less likely to result in victim
injury than are those cases of armed robbery where other weapon types are involved.

Entry injury displayed in Table 8 shows that armed robberies where a gun is
present are 0.125 times less likely to result in injury than when weapons of other types
are present. Additionally, males are almost two times as likely as females to be injured
during the entry stage of an armed robbery; however, this is not a signiﬁcant relationship.
Injury during the entry stage of an armed robbery from 6:00 PM to Midnight appears to
be 1.625 times greater than at other times, though also a insigniﬁcant ﬁgure. It appears
that there are no signiﬁcant ﬁndings that can be drawn about injury as a result of armed
robbery during the entry process. The results are most likely less meaningﬁil due to a
low number of injuries that occurred during the entry process of the armed robberies.

The logistic regression analysis demonstrates that while several variables have
signiﬁcance in their relationship to victim injury, males are 1.651 times more likely to get
injured than are females during the processing stage of an armed robbery. Blacks are
.458 times less likely to be injured during an armed robbery than are non-blacks.
Additionally, those that resist an armed robbery during the processing phase are 3.209

times more likely to become injured. Lastly, armed robberies that occur during the hours

58

of 6:00 PM to Midnight are .563 times less likely to result in injury than armed robberies
occurring at other times of the day.

Injury during the exit stage of an armed robbery appears to draw some
conclusions for many of the variables. However, only the results for victim resistance are
signiﬁcant. Most likely, similar to the entry stage, the results in the exit stage of the
armed robberies are less meaningful due to the low number of injuries that occurred
during this particular stage. Nevertheless, during the exit stage of an armed robbery, it is
concluded that armed robbery victims in the Eighth Precinct of Detroit, Michigan are

10.701 times more likely to become injured if they resist the robber.

59

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
Findings

From this research, four major ﬁndings emerged. First, throughout the study,
males are more likely than females to be injured during an armed robbery. Moreover,
males are more likely to be injured during the processing phase of an armed robbery.
Few individuals were injured during the exit stage of armed robbery; therefore a
signiﬁcant ﬁnding does not exist in regards to males and injury at this stage. Therefore,
overall, males have almost double the chance of injury than females do during an armed
robbery encounter. This ﬁnding is most likely the case because it is mostly males who
are committing violent crimes and being victimized in the United States (N ettler, 1984).
Therefore it is conceivable that males would be injured at a higher ﬁequency than
females.

Second, overall, blacks are less likely to get injured than non-blacks during an
armed robbery. Additionally, during the processing stage, again it is non-blacks that
were more likely to be injured over blacks. This ﬁnding is not necessarily supported by
the literature; however, there is a reason why non-blacks could be more likely to be
injured than blacks. Perhaps since the racial composition of the Eighth Precinct of
Detroit is primarily black, non-blacks that spend time in the Eighth Precinct could be
viewed as minorities, therefore standing out and becoming more likely to be victimized.

Third, when a gun is present in an armed robbery, the victim is less likely to
become injured than if some other type of weapon is present. This is also the case in the
entry stage and the processing stage, however not in the exit stage of an armed robbery.

Perhaps the last ﬁnding is the result of a low number of individuals who were injured in

60

the exit stage. These ﬁndings suggest that many armed robbery victims are unlikely to
argue with a gun. The presence of a gun is quite intimidating and therefore may be likely
to convince victims to comply with a robber’s demands. Clearly, the less serious
weapons are less menacing than a gun leading some victims to view this as
encouragement that noncompliance would be beneﬁcial.

Fourth, another ﬁnding that emerged is that resistance has a signiﬁcant
relationship to the likelihood of victim injury during the processing and exit stages.
During these stages, those victims who provided some sort of resistance were more likely
to become injured. That resistance leads to a higher likelihood of injury is intuitive.
However, perhaps this is the case during the processing and exit stages because at these
stages the robber has more time invested in the robbery and is willing to use force to
injure the victim if anything does not go as planned. Conversely, at the onset of an armed
robbery, if the victim resists it is possible that the offender may be more likely to retreat.

Overall, time of day that the armed robbery occurred had no effect on the
likelihood of injury during an armed robbery. In addition to time of day the robbery
occurred, the victim’s age had no bearing on the likelihood of injury during armed
robberies in the Eighth Precinct of Detroit, Michigan in 2001 and 2002. Therefore, from
this research, it is concluded that injury from armed robbery in the Eighth Precinct of
Detroit, Michigan is most likely when: the victim is a male, the victim is non-black, a

weapon other than gun is present, and the victim resists the armed robber.

61

Study Limitations

The major limitation of this study pertains to the initial input on the PCRs by
Detroit Police Department ofﬁcers and personnel. Though information was generally
complete on most complaint records, a signiﬁcant number of PCRs had missing and/or
incomplete information about criminal incidents. This may be attributed to the nature of
policing. For example, police ofﬁcers are out on the streets when they write PCRs, and
do not always have the resources and time to attain all pertinent information on the case.
Thus, missing information and mistakes made by ofﬁcers and personnel limit the study in
that it cannot be assumed that all information was accurately reported.

Furthermore, the study assumed that all reported robbery incidents were authentic
and constituted an actual robbery event. There is the possibility that some cases of
robbery included in the data represent false reports. This possibility limits the study
because there is no way to determine which robbery events are accurately deﬁned and
reported as such. As ofﬁcers have mentioned, there is the possibility of false robbery
reports by alleged victims, perhaps motivated by lucrative insurance settlements. This is
especially likely with car-jackings, as these can be staged.

Additionally, exclusions of robbery incidents may have occurred during data
collection. Because the Detroit Police Department has yet to convert all PCRs to
electronic format, all PCRs are still prepared in paper form. Therefore, the researchers
who collected the data may have omitted relevant robbery cases because of the lack of
proper organization of the PCRs. This precludes any possible guarantee that all robbery
cases were collected for relevant years. Any PCRs that were missed are likely to be

random; therefore, their exclusion does not pose a problem.

62

The dependent variable - victim injury - also limits the study since it is a
subjective measure. The study includes many individual types of injury as a single
measure of whether an injury occurred. Because several variables indicating injury types
were combined to create a new item measuring prevalence of injury, there is the
possibility that incidents involving injury could be included more than once or omitted.
Lastly, this study cannot be generalized to any other precinct of Detroit, let alone any
other city. This study is based upon a single police agency and city, and the

characteristics of the Eighth Precinct and of Detroit are unique.

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

Results from this research provide support for other victimology studies. Exposed
were four important results: armed robberies are more likely to result in victim injury
when the victim is male, armed robberies are more likely to result in injury when the
victim resists the armed robber, armed robberies are less likely to result in injury when
the victim is black, and armed robberies are less likely to result in injury when a gun is
present.

Perhaps another stage of this study would include an examination of why these
three factors result in a higher likelihood of injury. The Chicago study by Zimring and
Zuehl (1986) sheds light on the fact that males are much more likely to be victimized
than are females, and signiﬁcantly more likely to be injured. Not surprisingly, males are
injured more often as they oﬁen tend to engage in criminal behavior at a higher rate
(N ettler, 1984). Additionally, it should be noted that there is no evidence that males are

necessarily targeted for robbery victimization more than females. Perhaps their activities

63

place them danger requiring, as they perceive, more self defense, or resistance.

Though avoiding injuries that result from armed robberies is important, the
prevention of armed robberies in general would reconcile both issues. Therefore, an
implication that can be taken from this study is that by increasing guardianship, as
suggested by Routine Activities, crime will be less likely to occur. Gabor et a1. (1987)
state that through increased surveillance, police patrols can possibly have an impact on
crimes in an area. Speciﬁcally, if police ofﬁcers in the Eighth Precinct of Detroit can
identify and target armed robbery hotspots, then it is suggested that the intensiﬁed
presence of police patrol could deter armed robberies. If armed robberies are then
deterred, potential injuries are prevented as well.

Additionally, as Nugent, Wilson, and Chappell (1989) suggest, by increasing
awareness of the penalties an armed robber will face if caught, this may increase the risk
of committing an armed robbery for prospective criminals. Since many offenders are not
aware of the lengthy sentences for robbery, informing the public on that issue is also
imperative (Nugent et al., 1989). Addressing issues such as the higher sanctions for
weapon possession or use, the fact that armed robbers will certainly receive a prison
sentence if sentenced could help to minimize armed robberies (Nugent et al., 1989).

Though there is no theory that exclusively aligns with armed robbery injury, the
Routine Activities Theory adequately explains how a motivated offender, a suitable
target, and a lack of proper guardianship must all converge in time and space for a crime
to occur (Cohen & Felson, 1979). From this study, however, it is evident that the Routine
Activities Theory does not adequately explain why a victim is more or less likely to be

injured during an armed robbery. In order for injury from an armed robbery to occur, the

64

basic assumptions about the Routine Activities Theory must be present only to the extent
that the armed robbery actually occurs. Once the armed robbery takes place, the theory
does not specify any further conditions that might encourage injury. Additionally, the
Routine Activities Theory does not account for the other factors that might inﬂuence the
likelihood of injury. For instance, if the victim resists, he or she may be injured.
Secondly, the theory makes no speciﬁcation as to which sex is more likely to be
victimized. It assumes that males and females have an equal chance of victimization.
Again, it appears that the Routine Activities Theory could explain armed robbery
victimization, however in the case of this study it did not succeed in explaining why some
individuals became injured.

In conclusion, what can be drawn from this study is that males, non-blacks, those
who resist armed robbers, in addition to the presence of a weapon other than a gun, are
more likely to get injured in the Eighth Precinct of Detroit, Michigan. These ﬁndings
support two of the four proposed hypotheses. The presence of a gun during an armed
robbery has little effect on likelihood of injury in the Eighth Precinct. However, having a
gun present during an armed robbery gives the offender yet another option for violence
and should be taken seriously. Furthermore, though time of day is not signiﬁcant in this
factor in this study, avoiding the streets late at night may be something for potential
armed robbery victims to consider. Applicability is imperative as armed robbery is a
signiﬁcant problem in Detroit and in the Eighth Precinct. It seems as though a wise
choice would be to remain compliant if one ﬁnds him or herself a victim of an armed
robber, especially if the victim is male. After all, when one in three victims sustains at

least minor injury, it seems evident that compliance is the best policy during an armed

65

robbery (Reaves, 1993).

66

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Baumer, E. & Homey, J. et a1. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage and the nature of
violence. Criminology, 41(1), 39.

Berkowitz, L. & LePage, A. (1967). Weapons as Aggression-Eliciting Stimuli. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 202.

Chicago Police Department, Research and Development Division. (2002). Index Crime in
Chicago, Retrieved March 3, 2004 from
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWWebPortal/COC_EDITORI
AL/IndexOZEndpdf

Cohen, L. E. &. Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine
Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-601.

Conklin, J. E. (1972). Robbery and the Criminal Justice System. Philadelphia, PA: J .P.
Lippincott Company.

Detroit Police Department. (2004). 8th Precinct Customer Service Zone, Retrieved on
March 21, 2004 from
http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/police/police/pcts/pctO8.htrn

Detroit Police Department, Science and Technology Bureau. (2002). City of Detroit:
Oﬂicial Crime Statistics by Year, Retrieved on March 21, 2004 from
http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/police/police/pdf/city%20stats%2090%20to%20
02.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation . (1975). Crime in the US..- Uniform Crime Report.
Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1995). Washington, DC: US. Government Printing
Ofﬁce.

Felson, R. B., Baumer, E. P., & Messner, SF. (2000). Acquaintance Robbery. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(3), 284.

Gabor, T. &. Baril, M. et a1. (1987). Armed Robbery: Cops, Robbers, and Victims.
Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Grant, L. (1992, April). Unprepared victims at the wrong end of a gun. The Independent.

Hacker, A. (1992). Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal. New
York, NY: Scribners.

67

Hansen, R. J. &. Sinclair, N. (2003, May). Crime drop energizes Detroit neighborhood.
The Detroit News.

Heumann, M., Loﬁin, C. & McDowall, D. (1982). Federal Firearms Policy and
Mandatory Sentencing. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
73(3).

Hindelang, M. J ., Gottfredson, M. R. & Garafalo, J. (1978). Victims of Personal Crime:
An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

In Young's Memory: The late mayor was a visionary leader. (1997, December). The
Michigan Daily.

Jacobs, B. (2000). Robbing Drug Dealers: Violence Beyond the Law. Hawthorne, NY:
Aldine de Gruyter.

Kleck, G. &. McElrath, K. (1991). The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence. Social
Forces, 69(3), 669.

Kleiman, A. & Smith, K. (1990). State and Local Drug Enforcement: In Search of a
Strategy. Crime and Justice, (13), 69.

Matthews, R. (2002). Armed Robbery. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willian.

Michigan State Police: Criminal Justice Information Center. (2002). 2002 State Totals:
Index Crimes, Retrieved on March 28, 2004 from
http://www.michigan. gov/documents/2002_UCR_Robbery_765 1 8_7.pdf

Mim'am-Webster Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved July 4, 2004 from http://www.m-
w.com/

Nettler, G. (1984). Explaining Crime (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Newton, G. D. &. Zimring, F. E. (1969). Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staﬂ
Report of the Task Force on Firearms, National Commission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence. US. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Nugent, 8., Burns, D., Wilson, P. & Chappell, D. (1989). Armed robbery from an
offender ’s perspective: implications for prevention. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.

Project Safe Neighborhoods: Eastern District of Michigan Coalition to Prevent Gun
Violence. (2004). Retrieved on January 22, 2004 from
http://www.psnworks.org

68

Project Safe Neighborhoods (Ofﬁce of Justice Programs). (2004). Retrieved on January
20, 2004 from http://www.psn.gov

Reaves, B. (1993). Using NIBRS Data to Analyze Violent Crime. Washington, DC: US.
Department of Justice.

Schnebly, S. M. (2002). An examination of the impact of victim, offender, and situational
attributes on the deterrent effect of defensive gun use: A research note.
Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 377.

Staudenmaier, J. (2004). Detroit. Encarta Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 24, 2004.

United States Census Bureau. (1973). Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Ofﬁce.

United States Census Bureau. (2002). Population Estimates, Retrieved on March 20,
2004 from http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/tables/SUB-EST2002-
01 .php

United States Census Bureau. (2000). United States Census 2000, Retrieved on March
12, 2004 from http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

Wolfgang, M. E. &. Ferracuti, F. (1981). The Subculture of Violence. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Wright, R. T. &. Decker, S. H. (1997). Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street
Culture. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Zimring, F. E. &. Zuehl, J. (1986). Victim Injury and Death in Urban Robbery: A
Chicago Study. Journal of Legal Studies, 15(1), 1-40.

69