The data were drawn from cases of robbery over a 1-year period in one Texas city. A multistage sampling design chose 257 of 732 robbery cases. In 56 cases, offenders opened the process by employing incapacitating force, and in 201 case offenders opened with commands for compliance backed by threats of force. Interview observations indicate that offenders with lethal resources opened the robbery with a threat of force, whereas offenders with nonlethal resources opened with incapacitating force. The mode of force used to exact the target's compliance in robbery is constrained by two contingencies: the strength of the offenders' coercive resources and the offenders' goal achievements. Only when the target is deemed pivotal to the transaction are offenders confined to the use of limited force. Several implications follow from this investigation. First, according to offender orientations--three basic modes of force can be identified: threat of force, prodding force, and incapacitating force, all of which vary in the amount of pain inflicted and the objective sought. In situations where the strength of resources calls for massive force but the target's importance calls for limited force, target importance takes priority. Finally, the patterns of force exist regardless of variation in the age or race of offenders or in the number of persons operating as the offender. Whether offenders are juvenile or adult, whether they are black, white, or Hispanic; or whether they operated alone or with others, the mode of force use depended on the strength of their resources and their target's meaning. Tabular data, 14 references, and footnotes are appended.