I think shootouts result in more arrests and/or less criminals on the loose

C0untZer0 · December 21, 2011, 03:50 PM

There are a lot of cases where a criminal robs a person, gets away and is never caught.

It seems to me that almost every time a citizen exchanges fire with a criminal, eventually the criminal ends up getting arrested. Sometimes this is because the perpatrators are wounded and when they go for medical attention they are apprehended. I think sometimes there are cases where one of the perpatrators are either killed or seriously wounded and left behind at the crime scene, and that gives the police solid leads to catch the remaining criminals.

I know the NRA keeps track of how many times in a year citizens use firearms to defend themselves, but I've never heard this particular aspect talked about. i think when citizens deploy and fire their weapons at criminals - there is a very high rate of eventually apprehending them.

Glenn E. Meyer · December 21, 2011, 04:16 PM

That's an interesting point. In the criminological literature there was a debate that Gary Kleck's report of DGUs was too high. This was because the number of reported shootings that his survey indicated per year didn't jive with reported shootings from hospital and medical reports.

It was argued that criminal may not seek official medical care for minor or even some major gun shot wounds. If the round simply penetrates flesh in the extremities, cleanly - then not much is done. The wound is cleaned externally and topic antibiotics applied. Also, system antibiotics are available on the street.

How this has played out, haven't followed the debate. Major body pentrating wounds, or head shots might need more attention. However, many DGU shoots may be peripheral given bad marksmanship or hurried shots in an emergency.

Patriot86 · December 21, 2011, 04:46 PM

I would say that you are 100% correct C0untZer0.

First point; usually gunfire will instantly attract attention, much more so that screams or other noises. That means the potential of having good witnesses even if the bad guy escapes is much higher.

Second; many "low level thugs" simply do not have the mental resources involved in seeking "back alley" treatment or self treatment for gunshot wounds so they think they will show up at a local hospital, give a fake name and a fake reason for getting shot and think that will be just that. Most of the time this is NOT the case and the cops end up catching the bad guys at this point.

Third; Lets face it homicides and crimes where shots are actually fired are treated with a lot more attention by your typical police officer than a simple case of robbery or assault.
The police will typically, especially in more urban areas have more resources at their disposal to go after people for attempted homicide or homicide. An interesting twist to consider, in many states you are culpable for the results of a criminal act done by an accomplice if done during the commission of a felony(sorry if I don't use the right legalease words). Meaning, two BG's try to rob you, you shoot BG#1, BG#2 runs away but is now wanted on murder charges for BG#1 and is more likely to be caught because of the increased resources. Conversely I would be surprised if the same resources were given to a case where BG#1 is simply picked up for a robbery and the police are still seeking BG#2.

bk688 · December 21, 2011, 05:10 PM

If it weren't for our Judaical system it would be beneficial to just shoot, and hopefully kill, there guy. this intern, would lead to less criminals on the street, or released after a shortened sentence to commit more crimes.

Unfortunately, in this country if you commit a lawful shooting in self defence or otherwise, your immediately thought of as guilty.

In Illinois it is legal for a civilian to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Burglary is a forceable felony. So if someone brakes into my house I could legally kill them, assuming I believe they are committing a forceable felony. I had this very conversation with a local assistant chief, whom assured be I would be committing a crime and would be arrested. When I pulled out my copy of Illinois compiled statues and showed him where it specifically stated that I could do what I said, he then went into a rant about right vs. wrong and that I would still be arrested and charged with a crime. Eventually the discussion ended with me saying fine, you go do that, but when your sued for wrongfully arrest don't say I didn't tell ya so.

MTT TL · December 21, 2011, 06:46 PM

Hmm, first off spell checker. It is free.

Quote:

If it weren't for our judicial system it would be beneficial to just shoot, and hopefully kill, there guy. this intern, would lead to less criminals on the street, or released after a shortened sentence to commit more crimes.

Unfortunately, in this country if you commit a lawful shooting in self defense or otherwise, your immediately thought of as guilty.

In Illinois it is legal for a civilian to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Burglary is a forcible felony. So if someone breaks into my house I could legally kill them, assuming I believe they are committing a forcible felony. I had this very conversation with a local assistant chief, whom assured be I would be committing a crime and would be arrested. When I pulled out my copy of Illinois compiled statues and showed him where it specifically stated that I could do what I said, he then went into a rant about right vs. wrong and that I would still be arrested and charged with a crime. Eventually the discussion ended with me saying fine, you go do that, but when your sued for wrongfully arrest don't say I didn't tell ya so.

Secondly you can't "legally kill" someone. You can use deadly force to defend yourself and end a threat. If they die subsequent to that defensive use; so be it.

Thirdly arguing with cops who are telling you that you are breaking the law is stupid and a good way to end up in jail.

Fourthly there is a presumption of innocence, not guilt. If the circumstances (such a crazy attitude or ideas from the defender) make the shooting appear something other than a defensive shooting than you will be arrested as the police collect evidence to determine if a crime has been committed.

Double Naught Spy · December 21, 2011, 11:01 PM

Quote:

It seems to me that almost every time a citizen exchanges fire with a criminal, eventually the criminal ends up getting arrested.

I think the operative word in your statement is "seems." I think what seems to be is actually a presentation/sampling error.

What you say seems to be the case because caught criminals make the news for a second time. The often make the news for the event where the shootout occurred and then they make the news when they are caught. There are not a lot of followup stories on events that don't happen, such as when the criminals are not caught.

I don't doubt that there are a goodly number that are caught for the reasons you state. I would also add that they are sometimes caught because they left additional forensic evidence (spent casings, fired bullets) that also get connected with them later, in part because they are still using the same firearms.

MrWesson · December 21, 2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, in this country if you commit a lawful shooting in self defence or otherwise, your immediately thought of as guilty.

Country nope

Illinois yes

C0untZer0 · December 22, 2011, 09:59 AM

From reading about the debate about DGU, it seems that there really isn't a good database with this type of information, it's just not tracked by all LEAs, and it doesn't get rolled up into the national crime statistics.

I also believe that cases that recieve media attention get more police resources.

There are a few shootings every week somewhere in Chicago, but it's not news and you only read about them if you read the crime blotter. It does seem however that SD/HD DGUs usually make the news.

So the amount of police resources that are assigned to a case due to its visibility may also be a factor in shootouts betweein criminals and armed citizens resulting in low rate of the criminal not being caught.

Another factor I thought of is that a lot of violence bwtween criminals is not reported, and the police don't have cooperative parties or witnesses. A lot of times all they have is a body.

When there is a shooting between armed citizen and an armed aggresor, there is at least one cooperative person who is eager to cooperate with the police, and in some cases even determined to see the criminal brought to justice.

Double Naught Spy · December 22, 2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

When there is a shooting between armed citizen and an armed aggresor, there is at least one cooperative person who is eager to cooperate with the police, and in some cases even determined to see the criminal brought to justice.

This certainly isn't as absolute as you indicated. In just watching COPS and other documentary police programs, it is apparent that in many cases, neither party wants to cooperate with the cops. They are not determined to see the criminal brought to legal justice, though they may be looking for vigilante justice.

**Tom Servo** · December 22, 2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

The wound is cleaned externally and topic antibiotics applied. Also, system antibiotics are available on the street.

Back in the early 1990's, I remember reading about a veterinarian in Maryland who got busted for patching up bullet wounds for a local gang. It happens.

C0untZer0 · December 22, 2011, 11:58 AM

I'm only going by the impression I get from reading the news.

Glenn E. Meyer · December 22, 2011, 12:20 PM

Well, that's a plan for divining the true state of things.

csmsss · December 22, 2011, 02:10 PM

Putting the ethics and morality of deliberately starting gunfights aside, it occurs to me that the central premise fails to comprehend one of the gravest dangers the "good guy" faces in the aftermath of a shooting - that between attorneys' fees and the potential judgment, he's facing a very possible bankruptcy in civil litigation.

C0untZer0 · December 22, 2011, 03:07 PM

^ I don't know what you think the central premise is, but I'm not advocating vigilanteism, acting as bait, or trying to deliberatly start gunfights. I should have said Defensive Gun Use in the OP.

I'm just saying that my impression is that when there are examples of DGU by what we would normally think of as law abiding citizens. The end result is very rarely a criminal still at large.

I'll admit that my only source of information on this is reading the stories in the newspaper or on the Internet.

secret_agent_man · December 22, 2011, 04:13 PM

Quote:

a veterinarian in Maryland who got busted for patching up bullet wounds for a local gang

LOL, Veterinarians are licensed to work on animals.

bk688 · December 22, 2011, 05:00 PM

MTT TL:
Sorry about the spelling, for some reason the spell check wont work on my desktop. The assistant chief was a professor in a law enforcement class I was taking, and generally, colleges are a great place to have a constructive argument like that. And yes, I did phrase my words poorly in my last post.

A shooting that occurred in Iroquois county just south of me: A farmer was arrested after he shot two people who were stealing things from his barn (burglary). Both died because his shotgun did its job. He was arrested and charged with murder. He was acquitted because he did exactly what the law allowed. This decision was made while I was in the law enforcement class and was part of the discussion. While the assistant chief still disagreed, his former boss, the recently retired chief who was a professor in another one of my classes completely agreed.

MrWesson:
OMG I WANT OUT OF ILLINOIS!!!!!

secret_agent_man:
Gang members = animals!!!! Too funny!!!

**Tom Servo** · December 22, 2011, 09:33 PM

Quote:

LOL, Veterinarians are licensed to work on animals.

...but they know enough to remove a bullet and treat the wound. If the local gang pays enough (or is intimidating enough), the vet might see it as worth his while. That'll also keep shootings from appearing in statistics.

Glenn E. Meyer · December 23, 2011, 09:57 AM

Lots of folks returning with medical know-how from the service. Gangs are not unknown there.

December 21, 2011, 05:10 PM	#4
bk688 Member Join Date: May 24, 2009 Posts: 53	Less criminals If it weren't for our Judaical system it would be beneficial to just shoot, and hopefully kill, there guy. this intern, would lead to less criminals on the street, or released after a shortened sentence to commit more crimes. Unfortunately, in this country if you commit a lawful shooting in self defence or otherwise, your immediately thought of as guilty. In Illinois it is legal for a civilian to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Burglary is a forceable felony. So if someone brakes into my house I could legally kill them, assuming I believe they are committing a forceable felony. I had this very conversation with a local assistant chief, whom assured be I would be committing a crime and would be arrested. When I pulled out my copy of Illinois compiled statues and showed him where it specifically stated that I could do what I said, he then went into a rant about right vs. wrong and that I would still be arrested and charged with a crime. Eventually the discussion ended with me saying fine, you go do that, but when your sued for wrongfully arrest don't say I didn't tell ya so.

December 22, 2011, 12:20 PM	#12
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Well, that's a plan for divining the true state of things. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

December 22, 2011, 03:07 PM	#14
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	^ I don't know what you think the central premise is, but I'm not advocating vigilanteism, acting as bait, or trying to deliberatly start gunfights. I should have said Defensive Gun Use in the OP. I'm just saying that my impression is that when there are examples of DGU by what we would normally think of as law abiding citizens. The end result is very rarely a criminal still at large. I'll admit that my only source of information on this is reading the stories in the newspaper or on the Internet. Last edited by C0untZer0; December 22, 2011 at 03:15 PM.

December 23, 2011, 09:57 AM	#18
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Lots of folks returning with medical know-how from the service. Gangs are not unknown there. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

December 21, 2011, 03:50 PM	#1
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I think shootouts result in more arrests and/or less criminals on the loose There are a lot of cases where a criminal robs a person, gets away and is never caught. It seems to me that almost every time a citizen exchanges fire with a criminal, eventually the criminal ends up getting arrested. Sometimes this is because the perpatrators are wounded and when they go for medical attention they are apprehended. I think sometimes there are cases where one of the perpatrators are either killed or seriously wounded and left behind at the crime scene, and that gives the police solid leads to catch the remaining criminals. I know the NRA keeps track of how many times in a year citizens use firearms to defend themselves, but I've never heard this particular aspect talked about. i think when citizens deploy and fire their weapons at criminals - there is a very high rate of eventually apprehending them. Last edited by C0untZer0; December 21, 2011 at 04:01 PM.

December 21, 2011, 04:16 PM	#2
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	That's an interesting point. In the criminological literature there was a debate that Gary Kleck's report of DGUs was too high. This was because the number of reported shootings that his survey indicated per year didn't jive with reported shootings from hospital and medical reports. It was argued that criminal may not seek official medical care for minor or even some major gun shot wounds. If the round simply penetrates flesh in the extremities, cleanly - then not much is done. The wound is cleaned externally and topic antibiotics applied. Also, system antibiotics are available on the street. How this has played out, haven't followed the debate. Major body pentrating wounds, or head shots might need more attention. However, many DGU shoots may be peripheral given bad marksmanship or hurried shots in an emergency. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

December 21, 2011, 04:46 PM	#3
Patriot86 Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 2010 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,293	I would say that you are 100% correct C0untZer0. First point; usually gunfire will instantly attract attention, much more so that screams or other noises. That means the potential of having good witnesses even if the bad guy escapes is much higher. Second; many "low level thugs" simply do not have the mental resources involved in seeking "back alley" treatment or self treatment for gunshot wounds so they think they will show up at a local hospital, give a fake name and a fake reason for getting shot and think that will be just that. Most of the time this is NOT the case and the cops end up catching the bad guys at this point. Third; Lets face it homicides and crimes where shots are actually fired are treated with a lot more attention by your typical police officer than a simple case of robbery or assault. The police will typically, especially in more urban areas have more resources at their disposal to go after people for attempted homicide or homicide. An interesting twist to consider, in many states you are culpable for the results of a criminal act done by an accomplice if done during the commission of a felony(sorry if I don't use the right legalease words). Meaning, two BG's try to rob you, you shoot BG#1, BG#2 runs away but is now wanted on murder charges for BG#1 and is more likely to be caught because of the increased resources. Conversely I would be surprised if the same resources were given to a case where BG#1 is simply picked up for a robbery and the police are still seeking BG#2.

December 22, 2011, 09:59 AM	#8
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	From reading about the debate about DGU, it seems that there really isn't a good database with this type of information, it's just not tracked by all LEAs, and it doesn't get rolled up into the national crime statistics. I also believe that cases that recieve media attention get more police resources. There are a few shootings every week somewhere in Chicago, but it's not news and you only read about them if you read the crime blotter. It does seem however that SD/HD DGUs usually make the news. So the amount of police resources that are assigned to a case due to its visibility may also be a factor in shootouts betweein criminals and armed citizens resulting in low rate of the criminal not being caught. Another factor I thought of is that a lot of violence bwtween criminals is not reported, and the police don't have cooperative parties or witnesses. A lot of times all they have is a body. When there is a shooting between armed citizen and an armed aggresor, there is at least one cooperative person who is eager to cooperate with the police, and in some cases even determined to see the criminal brought to justice.

December 22, 2011, 11:58 AM	#11
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I'm only going by the impression I get from reading the news.

December 22, 2011, 02:10 PM	#13
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Putting the ethics and morality of deliberately starting gunfights aside, it occurs to me that the central premise fails to comprehend one of the gravest dangers the "good guy" faces in the aftermath of a shooting - that between attorneys' fees and the potential judgment, he's facing a very possible bankruptcy in civil litigation.

December 22, 2011, 05:00 PM	#16
bk688 Member Join Date: May 24, 2009 Posts: 53	MTT TL: Sorry about the spelling, for some reason the spell check wont work on my desktop. The assistant chief was a professor in a law enforcement class I was taking, and generally, colleges are a great place to have a constructive argument like that. And yes, I did phrase my words poorly in my last post. A shooting that occurred in Iroquois county just south of me: A farmer was arrested after he shot two people who were stealing things from his barn (burglary). Both died because his shotgun did its job. He was arrested and charged with murder. He was acquitted because he did exactly what the law allowed. This decision was made while I was in the law enforcement class and was part of the discussion. While the assistant chief still disagreed, his former boss, the recently retired chief who was a professor in another one of my classes completely agreed. MrWesson: OMG I WANT OUT OF ILLINOIS!!!!! secret_agent_man: Gang members = animals!!!! Too funny!!!