I think very often, the sight of a firearm will end the threat, and have the attacker fleeing. However, many of these incidents are not reported, as nothing has really happened. No shots fired, and nobody harmed. ______________
Pilot
So do I. It has worked for me three times. Not a good thing to bet one's life on, however.Posted by Pilot: I think very often, the sight of a firearm will end the threat, and have the attacker fleeing.
I agree that many such incidents are not reported. That goes to the answer of original question. No, there are no really complete stats.However, many of these incidents are not reported, as nothing has really happened. No shots fired, and nobody harmed.
...Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate..
True--and there is precious little in the way of detail in reported crime stats anyway.Posted by 44AMP: The reason you won't find any "meaningful" statistics on how many times the mere presentation of a gun ended a situation is because that the vast majority of these times do not get reported to the police, and of the tiny number that do, it is only a tiny fraction of them that get notice in the press.
The cops don't track the numbers of crimes averted, because the potential victim chased the attacker off. They seldom get involved unless shots are fired, and even then often not. They already have more than enough to do.
Kleck estimates that defensive gun use, with no shots fired, happens over 2 million times a year. It is only an estimate, because data to base any firm conclusion on simply does not exist. The overwhelming majority of times when a gun's mere presence prevents some crime from happening do not get reported to police, or the news. They never become anything more than personal anequdotes.
There are several very good reasons for the lawful defender to report such an incident.
Let's see some evidence/documentation to support your claim.deepcreek said:...Many people have called law enforcement for help or trying to be a helpful citizen only to find themselves in handcuffs facing prison time...
Has this actually happened? If you claim it has, let's see some documentation. If you just made it up, at least have the courtesy to say so.deepcreek said:...Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun. Sorry “it's the law..” Sorry “just doing my job..”...
-Many people carrying gun are not aggressive enough to use them and many people get them stripped away and used against them. Are you prepared to shoot an unarmed person who tries to strip your weapon?
Let's see some evidence/documentation to support your claim.
Has this actually happened? If you claim it has, let's see some documentation. If you just made it up, at least have the courtesy to say so.
Actually, the cases you cite are irrelevant and don't support your claim.deepcreek said:...Happens all the time, here are a couple "documented" cases from the first page of google....
In other words, the person claiming self defense reported the incident and suffered for it.deepcreek said:...Many people have called law enforcement for help or trying to be a helpful citizen only to find themselves in handcuffs facing prison time...
...It is critical to be the first person to relate events to the police. The first report sets the tone for the case...
...It is essential that the citizen report every use of his gun, even if nothing more than displaying the gun for the benefit of threatening psychotics or thugs...
...the general rule that evidence of flight may be admissible in order to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 280; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625; ...
...
It is well settled that conduct of the accused following the commission of an alleged crime may be circumstantially relevant to prove both the commission of the acts charged and the intent and purpose for which those acts were committed. Among such conduct is flight of the accused...
...It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis.2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct.App.1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct. State v. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct.App.1999). The fact of an accused's flight is generally admissible against the accused as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and thus of guilt itself....
...See also State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 315, 513 S.E.2d 606, 612 (1999) (stating that evidence of flight has been held to constitute evidence of guilty knowledge and intent); State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407, 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("[A]ttempts to run away have always been regarded as some evidence of guilty knowledge and intent.") (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 200, 470 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1996) (noting that flight is "at least some evidence" of defendant's guilt); State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 10-11, 292 S.E.2d 581, 587 (1982), .... (finding evidence of flight admissible to show guilty knowledge, intent, and that defendant sought to avoid apprehension); State v. Freely, 105 S.C. 243, 89 S.E. 643 (1916) (declaring the flight of one charged with a crime has always been held to be some evidence tending to prove guilt);...
If something isn't properly documented, how would we know what actually happened?deepcreek said:...Are you trying to say it doesn't happen? or has never been documented?...
Then you don't understand the Bernhard Goetz case.deepcreek said:Has this actually happened? If you claim it has, let's see some documentation. If you just made it up, at least have the courtesy to say so.
Well I was thinking of the Bernard Goetz case. "the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.” except I think they asked for some "spare change" with sharpened screwdrivers.
deepcreek said:...Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun....
Frank, I delved into the Bernie Goetz story you posted, amazing. I had heard of this before, but not in depth.
What he was finally convicted of, and the few months he spent in jail? Amazing.
If something isn't properly documented, how would we know what actually happened?
Then you don't understand the Bernhard Goetz case.
Originally Posted by deepcreek
...Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun....
And foggy stories make poor bases for learning. The value of data is proportional to the quality and accuracy of the data. Poor data produces poor conclusions.deepcreek said:...so we have foggy stories here and there,...
"Common sense" is just another way to say "guess." Of course there can be good guesses and poor guesses, and how good a guess might be will depend a lot on the education, training and experience of the person making the guess. And it was once "common sense" that the earth was flat.deepcreek said:...I agree what “actually happened” can be vague with different sides but it can also be common scene,...
zombietactics said:...There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.
People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance.
...
But that has nothing to do with the claim you made in post 87 that:deepcreek said:...Basically the same concept the bad guys try to rob him then say they just asked for change. No way to prove they were trying to rob him in court, but common sense tells us that 4 guys do not usually surround you with sharpened screwdrivers just politely asking for some spare change....
deepcreek said:...there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent....
That is the nature of a claim of self defense. As I explained here:deepcreek said:...Goetz just gets to prove he acted in self defense...
...Basically --
[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.
[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.
[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.
Let's go through that again.
In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.
So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.
But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.
So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.
Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.
And foggy stories make poor bases for learning. The value of data is proportional to the quality and accuracy of the data. Poor data produces poor conclusions.
But that has nothing to do with the claim you made in post 87 that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepcreek
...there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent....
Posted by deepcreek, in support of the earlier assertion "there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent....":
Reason -1- Back to the fact that many people in self defense situations have been charged with felonies.
Reason-2 By reporting an "incident" you are giving statements and possible incriminating your self in a crime without consulting legal advice.
In the not unlikely event that the incident is reported by someone else, incriminating evidence will already exist, and as Frank Ettin has explained, it is then up to the armed citizen to present evidence supporting lawful justification.
Failure to report the incident would generally be looked upon as an indication of guilt; being first to report it is strongly recommended by most knowledgeable people.