I too would probably comply for all the reasons you mentioned, but from a game theory perspective in the comforts of an ivory tower I think Cooper is probably right.
Fighting back probably has a larger negative expected outcome for you as an individual (best case: you keep your wallet and bad guy surrenders withiut a shot being fired. Other outcomes in the probability distribution include you dying over a wallet and you spending 5 years in court for defending yourself). But law abiding citizens in a society where its members fight back probably are collectively less likely to be victimized.
It reminds me a bit of speed/traffic enforcement - yes, individually, there are probably more serious crimes that a trained officer could be working, but it doesn't take many motor officers writing tickets to dramatically improve traffic safety in a town.
Unfortunately many citizens, especially the cultured elite, consider fighting back to be irresponsible vigilantism. "Leave law enforcement to the cops," they say. Of course, these are the same people who are taught that it shows poor manners to hand your dirty dish to the wait staff so they won't have to reach across a table...