The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 4, 2011, 12:47 PM   #51
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,851
Yep, I went and looked it up after seeing so many posts that you could sue if you weren't allowed to carry. Stores, schools, etc. - just sue 'em.

Well, the legal lit had quite a few review articles stating what we said and lawyers said they wouldn't take the case on contingency as the financial rewards wouldn't be enough and they would probably lose.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is online now  
Old June 4, 2011, 12:58 PM   #52
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,580
Quote:
You could be right. The studies Kleck referenced* said otherwise. Do you have a study to quote, or are you just going to serve up some alphabet soup and expect me to take it at your word?
Well it seems you served up a name first, Kleck, but with no data and no context. With that said, the FBI report was something I saw on a documentary several years ago and your questioning of it is valid. So I will offer instead BJS statistics for 2006, see Table 68, Personal Crimes of Violence. It is the Percent of victimizations in which victims took self-protective measures, by type of crime and victim-offender relationship. All categories showing injury and non-injury indicate the victim was injured more often than not injured. In short, fighting back comes with some very real risks of injury that do result.

If you look to Tables 72 and 73, however, you will see that such measure were perceived to have helped the situation by the vast majority of the time. Of course, if you think you are going to be killed and anything you do that keeps you from being killed and you survive means you think your situation was likely improved by the act, but still, despite being injured more often than not, people felt there was an improvement.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus06.pdf

Also see other years...
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 01:38 PM   #53
ConlawBloganon
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2011
Posts: 47
Maybe I'm not reading it right, but I don't see anything in that study that suggests you're more likely to be harmed if you resist with force.

Anyway, Kleck has the following to say about the National Crime Victimization Survey (NVCS) which you reference.

Quote:
Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to Rs as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.[25] In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted.

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.

Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden. It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.

....
Finally, it is now clear that virtually none of the victims who use guns defensively tell interviewers about it in the NCVS. Our estimates imply that only about 3% of DGUs among NCVS Rs are reported to interviewers.
Long, but worth reading if you're trying to glean Defensive Gun Use knowledge from NVCS data.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
ConlawBloganon is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 02:55 PM   #54
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,580
Okay, do YOU have any data to show how often people get harmed whilst complying?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 04:51 PM   #55
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
DNS, your own post showed a 13% rate of people harmed despite complying.

So, the question should be, are there studies that show the rate of harm to those who actively resist?
MLeake is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 05:02 PM   #56
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,412
I didn't read through all of the thread so my apologies if this has already been posted.

It would seem to me that the thing to do would be to write emails or letters to Walgreen's complaining about the firing an the policy. The company is concerned about minimizing its losses and probably cares more about customer complaints than employee grievances.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 05:43 PM   #57
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,412
Quote:
If you look to Tables 72 and 73, however, you will see that such measure were perceived to have helped the situation by the vast majority of the time.
Looking at table 70, it looks like resisting with a weapon by threatening or attacking is less likely to result in injury than other methods. It would be more useful if they gave us the data by type of weapon used to resist.


I think Gary Kleck did a study that the National Academies mentioned in their book Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. See table 15.2

From that it seems like if you fight back with a gun, you are less likely to be injured than in any other scenario including compliance.

Edit to add from the National Academies:
While the literature on self-defense has been preoccupied with the basic measurement questions, a handful of studies assess the efficacy of defensive gun use.10 Using data from the NCVS, Kleck (2001b) compares the probability of injury and crime by different defensive actions. The results, summarized in Table 5-2, suggest that respondents who use firearms are less likely to be injured and lose property than those using other modes of protection. For example, while the overall rate of injury in robbery is 30.2, only 12.8 percent of those using a firearm for self-protection were injured. Ziegenhagen and Brosnan (1985) draw similar conclusions about the efficacy of armed (although not firearm) resistance when summarizing 13 city victim surveys. Using a multivariate regression analysis, Kleck and DeLone (1993) confirm these basic cross-tabular findings.11 Defense with a firearm is associated with fewer completed robberies and less injury. Two forms of self-defense, namely using force without a weapon and trying to get help or attract attention, are associated with higher injury rates than taking no self-protective action.

Last edited by 2damnold4this; June 4, 2011 at 05:51 PM.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 10:50 PM   #58
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,580
Quote:
DNS, your own post showed a 13% rate of people harmed despite complying.

So, the question should be, are there studies that show the rate of harm to those who actively resist?
I already posted the links before your query.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 4, 2011, 11:07 PM   #59
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
DNS, so you did. Mea culpa.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 5, 2011, 04:46 PM   #60
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
For those here who take or have access to Gun Week, the 15 June issue, Weekly Bullet Col. carries this story, or part thereof headlined "Wallgreens fires heroic worker". I suspect a law suit will follow.
alan is offline  
Old June 5, 2011, 09:51 PM   #61
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,412
Quote:
So I will offer instead BJS statistics for 2006, see Table 68, Personal Crimes of Violence. It is the Percent of victimizations in which victims took self-protective measures, by type of crime and victim-offender relationship. All categories showing injury and non-injury indicate the victim was injured more often than not injured.
I'm not getting that from the table 68 you mentioned for 2007. It says that 59.5% of the time someone was a victim of a crime included in the table, they took some sort of protective measure. It then says that 60.2% of the time someone was a victim of a crime included in the table injuries resulted. Since those self protection methods include things such as appeasing the offender, I'm not sure we wan draw any conclusions on the efficacy of self defense from the table.

Am I reading it wrong?
2damnold4this is offline  
Old June 5, 2011, 09:59 PM   #62
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,580
Nope, but not reading enough. Look through the succeeding tables.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 5, 2011, 10:22 PM   #63
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,412
I'm still not seeing it. Is there a specific table that gives us the results of the protective measures? Table 70 seems to say that using a weapon resulted in fewer injuries than some of the other methods. For example, looking at table 70 for robberies with injuries and without injuries, it seems to folks that attack or threaten with a weapon are far better off than those that persuade/appease or try to fight without a weapon but I could be reading the table wrong.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 06:05 AM   #64
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,580
Weapons are good, but that wasn't the claim made about Kleck's statement.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 6, 2011, 06:07 AM   #65
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Ah-ha...The proverbial folicular dissection....
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 09:21 AM   #66
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy
And why would you trust an employee who has disregarded company policy? Given that employment depends on abiding by the rules and an employee demonstrates that s/he is unwilling to abide by the rules to which the employee agreed as a pard of the condition for employment, then they cannot be trusted.
Pretty much agree with your post except this. I do not believe that someone who disobeys an unethical rule to be dishonest. I think the fact that an employee disregards these particular work rules might still be trustworthy. Employers can make rules that are legal but immoral. Therefore you may disregard them and still be honest IMO.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 11:31 AM   #67
grayrock8@yahoo.com
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2007
Posts: 7
Sort of like a soldier following/not following orders he knows to be illegal?
__________________
Pithy sayings will materialize when I feel inspired
grayrock8@yahoo.com is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 12:12 PM   #68
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
On the one hand, if I were the pharmacist, I'd have probably opted for carrying, as well.

On the other hand, the pharmacist signed an employment contract, knowing the rule was in place. He's probably out of luck with Walgreen's, and may have a hard time finding employment anywhere else as a pharmacist, unless he opens his own business.

It doesn't seem like lawsuits going after employers who post such rules, yet fail to provide security, have had much success. Maybe this should be another project for SAF.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 12:32 PM   #69
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
It doesn't seem like lawsuits going after employers who post such rules, yet fail to provide security, have had much success. Maybe this should be another project for SAF.
At first, that seems like a good idea, until one realizes that the concept tramples all over private property rights.

Private property, and the control of it, is one of the cornerstones of liberty. We may think we're well-intentioned by requiring property owners to allow firearms, but think through the implications.

If a law passes requiring me to allow people to carry in my store, you can bet there will be a law that requires me to allow people to demonstrate their political views on the premises. I will have to take anybody's check, written on any bank. There will be a law that I can't dictate what people wear or don't wear. There will be another in which I can be sued because my fluorescent lighting causes depression.

Well-intentioned as it may be, it's a dangerous and slippery slope. Furthermore, I can't see that it would ever fly in the courts.

Michigan is an "at will" state, so Walgreen's can fire the guy for any reason, short of discrimination. It stinks, but he knew the rules when he started.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 01:11 PM   #70
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Not to stoke a fire that appears to have gone out, but it does appear that even CNN thinks that pharmacies are being targeted: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/03...html?hpt=ju_t3
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 06:01 PM   #71
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by grayrock8@yahoo.com
Sort of like a soldier following/not following orders he knows to be illegal?
Yes. A person has no ethical duty to obey an immoral rule. Therefore one who refuses to follow said rule (even without open disagreement) is not untrustworthy or dishonest IMO. However, if caught then one must accept the consequences even if the rule was wrong. Another way of putting it is that an immoral rule is ethically invisible to an honest person.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 07:57 PM   #72
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,745
Slamfire:

In my view, which likely doesn't, in the "big picture", count for much, your exposition on corporate mentality was absolutely marvelous, somethig that people should consider and think about.

Mind, there is nothing inherently wrong about making a legitimate profit from business operations, though in my mind, the question of what price glory looms large.
alan is offline  
Old June 7, 2011, 08:12 PM   #73
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Quote:
I think that if a corporation has rules that specificaly benefits an assailants crime against another person, the corporation should be held as an accessory. Its the same as an accomplice tying your hands imo.
I have noticed an increase lately, in the "comparative and/or contributory negligence" legal doctrine, where compensatory cases are involved.
I wonder if there is a flip side to this tactic, that could benefit one in this gentleman's position?
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old June 8, 2011, 08:49 PM   #74
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,187
Had a doctor friend fired cause he carried at the hospital. Someone must have seen it and squaked.
langenc is offline  
Old June 8, 2011, 10:10 PM   #75
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,580
Quote:
Yes. A person has no ethical duty to obey an immoral rule. Therefore one who refuses to follow said rule (even without open disagreement) is not untrustworthy or dishonest IMO. However, if caught then one must accept the consequences even if the rule was wrong. Another way of putting it is that an immoral rule is ethically invisible to an honest person.
I have trouble calling them an honest person if they are taking money for a job where they are knowlingly not abiding by the rules for which compliance is part of the reason for which they are paid.

If they are so darned ethical, then they should not accept a job in which they can't abibe by the rules.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Reply

Tags
2nd amendment , assault , laws , robbery , self defense

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16979 seconds with 7 queries