Originally Posted by 
JDNSW
				
			 
			The logic, whether or not you agree with it, is that since the drug guy can be pretty certain you are not armed, even if he is, he is unlikely to attack you, even if you confront him - if he disposes of you, he does not know how many other people know where you are, and the last thing he wants is an official search of the area. If he is armed, and as you say, it is quite possible, it is for the purpose primarily of frightening off competitors who may try to take over his business, or to frighten off innocents.  If he frightens you off, there is a reasonable chance that you are so scared you won't go to the police (or he has already bought them). If he kills you there is a high probability of a major search, which is certain to involve people he has not bought, and equally certain to find his plantation. On the other hand, if he knows you are likely to be armed, he is much more likely to shoot first and take the risks.
While some murders of insiders in the drug business may not attract enthusiastic policing, murder of uninvolved people, as with the antidrug campaigner whose name escapes me at Griffith, is almost certain to attract vigorous policing, which in that case closed down the area as a place for drug supply, at least for a number of years.
John