Please explain this theory?

I agree to a point. the object of this advice is obviously to prevent needless violence. Good advice to give a stranger. I only faced an armed robbery once. I got cut bad, he got clobbered even worse, and I still had my wallet. He gave no opportunity, but had he I still don't think I would have just given it to him. I took a very bad boy off the street. He took me out of the game too, but no matter, I saved somebody a knifing down the line. Do that again? Who knows, but there is someplace on the scale when you should comply, and sometimes not so much. One would decide by the situation, but always advise to err toward safety, and give them the goods.

First and foremost, I'm a firm believer of the notion that you should always assume a mugger/robber to be armed and probably concealing his weapon(s), not acting alone, and in a desperate enough state of mind that he would not hesitate to try to injure you. Remember also that while having "considerable martial arts training" is a huge plus point on your side, the outcome of a physical struggle is decided by many other factors, including luck. So, the path of least resistance is often the most high-percentage solution in terms of survivability.

Remember also that many people have other, more personal considerations when deciding not to resist. Having a family, for instance, is for me a huge motivation not to take unnecessary risks when I have the option to leave unscathed albeit much, much poorer - even in situations where I think I have the upper hand. Sure, coping with the loss of money and important documents, IDs, credit cards, etc. will be hard; but the possibility of my wife becoming a widow is not a thought I take lightly. And even me being hospitalized is a burden my family could do without.

So, yes, I've had some considerable martial arts training; but for me, PERSONALLY, there's so much more at stake than abstract concepts such as "promoting crime." If a mugging or robbery turns into assault or attempted murder, I will fight; and I have some confidence that I will come out on top. But I will not CHOOSE to take that path whenever possible.

Second; this is also sound advice to give when you are an instructor. It would simply be irresponsible to do otherwise and possibly put your students in harms way.

Ok let me ask you this. How do you know they are unarmed? I carry a colt 45 at times and believe me, you most likely would never know it was there unless I show it. A knife or small gun is even easier to conceal. Any time you enter in to the physical end of self defense it has the potential to turn deadly. Ego can get you killed or seriously injured.

Edit: In all honesty, I have broken this "rule" the only time I have been in the situation. I didn't give up my wallet either and two of the three were injured badly, the third out ran me. LOL

I took a big risk and got lucky that they didn't pull a weapon. In hindsight I know they had a knife of some kind at the very least. They cut the valve stems on two of my tires before I came out

It's a difficult thought, especially if you've never been robbed, like myself, before. I'm not a cop, I'm a pedestrian. Despite all my training in the martial arts I'm not going to be as gentle as a police officer in trying to protect him at the same time as arrest him. I honestly believe raising your fists is exactly the same as drawing a sword, and you don't draw a sword unless you intent to cut and draw blood.

If I ever am robbed, whether at gun or knife point, a group, or even a single unarmed person, I seriously can't say what I would do. I'm not a materialistic person, but I am one for "code of conduct", meaning I'm not going to want him to get away with doing something unethical and against the law. But I can say with pure honesty that I would only ever choose to fight if I thought I could win.

I learned a long time ago that you don't have to follow what someone else believes is right. Some times they are being wise and their words full of experience and life lessons, but nonetheless empty words for the person lacking the understanding and experience to know it to be true.

Whether or not the wallet or other object be worth it, once you choose fight it's no longer about the wallet anyway. It's about winning and surviving. If the odds are against you, then I can't see any common sense in fighting.

What usually stops us is uncertainty. When we think about it safely behind our desks, we can imagine that we're powerful and able to handle the situation. But when the time comes, we start to wonder: Does he have a weapon? Will he overpower me? If I try to resist and things go wrong, can I get away safely? Is it just this guy, or are there more hiding about?

If we try to stall for time, then maybe we'd take out the wallet, and surprise him by throwing it at them, and then take them down. Otherwise, we're worried that it may be gang-related, and another member will track you down to your place for "revenge", even if it was clearly the mugger who instigated the whole thing.

Most of the time, we're just not sure, and we would rather avoid further trouble that could get worse than it already is.

Personally, if it was just one guy, unarmed, no fight experience, I would try to change the situation.

The key to understanding is the statement ... "without being seriously injured" ... This is a major assumption.

In such an instance, most prudent people would assume the person accosting them has a weapon and/or firends. The assumption that the attacker has a weapon should cause one to act cautiously, in which case the best outcome is to give them what they want and attempt to de-escalate the situation rather than escalate and hope you prevail.

Real combat isn't a dance between two trained people who aren't trying to seriously injure each other. In real combat someone is usually seriously injured or dead and often both combatants are injured. In a dojo you know the person's (supposed) relative skill. You are bound by a code of conduct and rules including an agreement not to seriously harm your opponent.

On the street you don't know the other person's skills. You don't know whether or not they have a weapon or friends. You are not bound by a code of conduct and your opponent may very well kick you when you are down.

He might be hiding a knife, you never know. If it could ever realistically turn it into a "your money or your life" situation, is your money worth that much? If the mugger in question turns out to be armed and you get stabbed, it's too late to say "I wish I didn't do that" because now you've been robbed AND you might die. Not worth it.

If the situation is different, where they come swinging at you before they try to rob you or they'll kill you anyway, by all means, do what you have to.

It`s not a theory I agree with, but I understand the idea behind it. Most of the time you aren`t carrying anything that can`t be replaced, so the risk isn`t worth the reward.

Cops always assume two things intheirr training. 1) the other guy is ALWAYS armed even if you don`t see it. and 2) How many bad guys are there? "Always one more." Which means scumbags rarely act alone. They usually have a buddy or two to act as lookout or to distract you while they get close. So you`re usually not fighting just one guy. As I get older I value my life more than my wallet. If somebody jumps me while I`m alone they may get my stuff or they may not. Depends on my mood. If they jump me while I`m with my wife or daughters, they just raised the stakes to life and death, and I`m taking my family home tonight.

If he wasn't holding a weapon and I was close to a pubic area, I would probably just run. If that wasn't an option, I might use force, but only if I was sure he was alone, only if I could see both his hands, and only if he looked like someone I could easily take.

I am usually armed if I'm out walking at night or if I know I will be going to a bad neighborhood, so that also changes the situation.

This isn't a theory, it's a way of thinking that gets paraphrased quite often. I believe the main reasoning behind this line of thought is if you are in a situation where some one is robbing you then all your training to avoid such a situation has failed up to that point. Handing over your wallet is like paying a fine for letting yourself get into that situation.

This is an extreme variation on the common belief that you shouldn't risk violence confrontation (possible death) over property when violence is not present in the situation. All variations of the "never throw the first punch" theme. It's pacifism taken to a more extreme level of non-resistance.