1st round of stats of citizen v criminal resistance.

[RoyGBiv]

Subscribing.

Good stuff. Thanks.

[ssb]

Regarding the 11-shot shooting, you gave this info in the other thread:

1 incident, citizen fired 11 shots (first shot resolved situation but citizen continued to fire, not realizing suspect was disabled)

Are you able to give more information on this? If so, how did the first shot resolve the situation (flight, suspect fell, etc.)? Do you know anything about the legal outcome?

[BehindBlueI's]

Regarding the 11-shot shooting, you gave this info in the other thread:



Are you able to give more information on this? If so, how did the first shot resolve the situation (flight, suspect fell, etc.)? Do you know anything about the legal outcome?

On security video, the first round knocked the floor plate off of the robber's magazine and disabled his weapon. The same bullet continued on and entered the suspect's upper-mid torso. The suspect went down but was still pointing the gun and attempting to fire it. The victim continued to fire until the suspect dropped the gun. A merchandise rack partially concealed their view of each other, as well.

The shooter was 100% legally justified. Remember that in determining if a shooting is justified, the objective facts are largely irrelevant but instead is based on what a reasonable person in the shooter's position could reasonably be expected to know. What I know from the security footage is not the same as what I hold him accountable to. There is no way a reasonable person could have known that the first shot disabled the attacker's weapon or that he was out of the fight, given his continued presentation of a weapon. There were no criminal charges, and I am unaware of any civil suit.

[ssb]

On security video, the first round knocked the floor plate off of the robber's magazine and disabled his weapon. The same bullet continued on and entered the suspect's upper-mid torso. The suspect went down but was still pointing the gun and attempting to fire it. The victim continued to fire until the suspect dropped the gun. A merchandise rack partially concealed their view of each other, as well.

The shooter was 100% legally justified. Remember that in determining if a shooting is justified, the objective facts are largely irrelevant but instead is based on what a reasonable person in the shooter's position could reasonably be expected to know. What I know from the security footage is not the same as what I hold him accountable to. There is no way a reasonable person could have known that the first shot disabled the attacker's weapon or that he was out of the fight, given his continued presentation of a weapon. There were no criminal charges, and I am unaware of any civil suit.

Thanks for that (and also for the data you're collecting). The brief bit of info made the shooting seem a little on the grey side. Context is important.

[voodoo_man]

good stuff

[BehindBlueI's]

This fact, in itself, says a lot.

Given that I've combed through a bit over 300 cases right now, yes. I knew anecdotally that most of my shootings involved a targeted victim due to gang affiliation, drug trade, or family/domestic issues. I just failed to realize how large that gap was. I'd have even fewer if I culled out when a person was targeted due to their job. Gas station clerks, delivery drivers, etc. The number of people in non-high risk occupations who didn't marry, date, or be born to a pyscho, and who aren't involved in criminal activity who are confronted with random violence is pretty darned tiny.

Side note, the domestics tend to be the most interesting. Not always dating/married, but even family shootings.
Ex: elderly father is confronted by middle aged son in elderly father's home. Argument ensues over something or other. Son threatens to beat elderly father. Elderly father pulls a .44 magnum and says he won't take a beating. Son says "you don't have the balls to shoot me", armed father says "I'll show you who doesn't have the balls" and then shoots son in the jimmy, which caused the loss of a testicle and a secondary butt hole. Father did not take a beating. Prosecutor rules justified, disparity of force due to the elderly man's age and the differences in physical strength and stature.

I bet this next Thanksgiving is going to be awkward.

[BehindBlueI's]

Thanks for that (and also for the data you're collecting). The brief bit of info made the shooting seem a little on the grey side. Context is important.

The bright line bad shoots were both longer distance shoots and were instances were the citizen did not start shooting until after the crime was over and the suspects were fleeing. Neither hit anyone and neither was charged, although one was not charged only because I convinced the prosecutor there was evidentiary issues. IE no evidence other than the victim and the victim's spouses statements, and that it was not in the best interest of justice to prosecute. A different detective or different prosecutor would have likely charged criminal recklessness on that one as it was absolutely a bad shoot. Not coincidentally, it was the longest distance one as well.

[JAD]

I'm also interested in the particular case of the person who tried to access their gun and lost.

[rob_s]

Given that I've combed through a bit over 300 cases right now, yes. I knew anecdotally that most of my shootings involved a targeted victim due to gang affiliation, drug trade, or family/domestic issues. I just failed to realize how large that gap was. I'd have even fewer if I culled out when a person was targeted due to their job. Gas station clerks, delivery drivers, etc. The number of people in non-high risk occupations who didn't marry, date, or be born to a pyscho, and who aren't involved in criminal activity who are confronted with random violence is pretty darned tiny.

I have a moon-bat sister in law who was rambling on about murder rates in Baltimore. The paper there actually reports up to the day lists of murders. I started down the list, looking up each "victim" on the clerk of courts website. I couldn't find one without a record. While certainly someone with a record can be a true "victim", it is pretty damn unlikely that their various activities over the span of their adult life weren't a factor.

As you say, "The number of people... ...who are confronted with random violence is pretty darned tiny".

[Tom Givens]

This fact, in itself, says a lot.

Primarily, what it says is that most victims of violent crime don't carry a gun. These cases only include shootings by non-criminals who actually had a weapon. If more people carried on a daily basis, there would be a LOT more legitimate self defense shootings.