Concealed Carry Permit Holders are One Third as Likely to Commit Murder as Police Off

[12Pump]

And by the way - "qualified immunity" doesn't apply in criminal cases; only in civil cases alleging a civil rights violation.

Not true at all! SWAT teams have broken into the wrong homes of innocent people and killed the homeowner and used Qualified Immunity to get away with it (successfully). Does killing an innocent person qualify as an alleged civil rights violation? Even if they are immune when it comes to violating our civil rights, then we're no longer a free people anymore. Bye-bye 4th amendment! It's no longer relevant.

On another site, someone was posting an article about a cop who ran a red light at 90MPH while answering a call, collided with another car driven by a teenager--killing the teen. The cop got away with it using Qualified Immunity. Is that a case of alleged civil rights being violated, or is that a clear case of negligence? I think the latter is more accurate.

 

[jrdolall]

Based on the data at hand you can come to an arguable conclusion. Is the data complete? Hardly, but it does show a trend that can be debated and argued. We all use this type of statistic every day in our lives and hear it used on both sides of the political aisle. I do not accept the data as proof of anything nor do I automatically reject the data because it is incomplete or somehow flawed. It is an interesting assertion backed up by data that is not necessarily 1005 verifiable.

You are never going to find scientific proof of the OPs assertion because the data is not archived and easily (maybe not even possible) accessed.

 

[we are not amused]

Why am not surprised that police officers are three times more likely to commit murder than CCL holders? Maybe because I know too many of them.

I notice that the usual suspects that always deny that any police officer can ever do wrong, are out in force, and are denying the evidence and facts.

Look, there are some good cops out there that can not be paid enough for their service, and then there are the vast majority, which are merely paid mercenaries, who really don't give a damn about justice or fairness.

Then there are the percentage, varying from 10% to 30%, who are in it for personal aggrandizement, a sense of power, or are just utterly corrupt.

I fear the latter percentage is growing, not shrinking

 

[Frank Ettin]

...are denying the evidence and facts...

What evidence and facts? A questionable sample and doubtful, non-rigorous "analysis"?

As GEM (a person who is professionally qualified to comment on statistics and data) asked:

Where is the significance test and the effect size analyses?

Meaningless without such. Can the OP provide those?

 

[rooter]

and then there are the vast majority, which are merely paid mercenaries, who really don't give a damn about justice or fairness.

Then there are the percentage, varying from 10% to 30%, who are in it for personal aggrandizement, a sense of power, or are just utterly corrupt.

Interesting "facts." Utterly absurd, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Old Dog]

Why am not surprised that police officers are three times more likely to commit murder than CCL holders? Maybe because I know too many of them.

I notice that the usual suspects that always deny that any police officer can ever do wrong, are out in force, and are denying the evidence and facts.

Look, there are some good cops out there that can not be paid enough for their service, and then there are the vast majority, which are merely paid mercenaries, who really don't give a damn about justice or fairness.
Then there are the percentage, varying from 10% to 30%, who are in it for personal aggrandizement, a sense of power, or are just utterly corrupt

Sigh. Didn't take long for a thread about CPL holders to turn into a cop-bashing fest.

 

[Robert]

Look, there are some good cops out there that can not be paid enough for their service, and then there are the vast majority, which are merely paid mercenaries, who really don't give a damn about justice or fairness.

You, sir, could not be more wrong if you tried. And as a employee of two different law enforcement agencies I taken offense to your blanket, and quite frankly, ignorant statement. To say that the vast majority of officers, troopers, and deputies are mercenaries who don't give a damn about justice is utterly false and you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Please cite specific cases, not I heard from so and so, of where officers committed murder and got away with it. On or off duty, it does not matter. Has it, and does it happen? Yes, there is no denying that. But it is certainly not the vast majority.

If your statement was meant to incite a reaction, mission accomplished. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

 

[Robert]

Please don't think I am saying that ot never happens. We have all seen the SWAT raids gone wrong and we have all seen officers get away with clearly criminal actions. But it is not an everyday occurrence and does not include the majority of officers.

 

[we are not amused]

OH! MY Apologies!!

How dare I suggest that a police officer could ever do wrong!

After all they have a badge, and a gun, and they work for the government! Oh! I forgot the uniform!

look, I didn't say all cops are bad, just way too many of them. I notice that none of you can give a rational or informed counter to Weingarten's Post, just emotionally driven protest.

To Robert , I never said ALL cops are bad, just too many of them. And I stand by my statement that huge number of law enforcement officers really don't give a damn about anything but their paycheck.

 

[Robert]

And I stand by mine that your original statement is ignorant and insulting to the overwhelming majority of men and women who devote their lives to serving the public and that you have no real idea about what you are talking about.

When I read vast majority I think somewhere in the 75+% range which would lead me to believe that you think only 25% are decent officers in your eyes. And I honestly think I am giving you too much credit there. You don't like cops, hey that's fine. There are plenty of things I don't like. But don't paint us all with a broad brush just to justify your beliefs. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

I suspect most police are reasonably dedicated, and do not routinely lie or falsify their reports. With more cameras and recording devices out there, and the seventh circuit ruling that people have a right to record police in the performanc of their public duties, police misconduct is likely on the decline.

However, police work can be very stressful, so the domestic homicide rate is plausible.

 

[jrdolall]

I don't see any difference between LEOs and any other profession. There are a small percentage that are outstanding at their jobs and a small percentage that are terrible/crooked/useless at their jobs. Teachers, bank tellers, union employees, choose a profession.
The majority of them are somewhere in the middle. They have the job and they do what they have to do to get to the next paycheck. They don't love their job or necessarily hate their job but theey have to make a living so they put up with the job. THAT number is probably around 50% for private employees and higher for government employees. I use those figures based on a lot of years of dealing with public employees(LEOs, teachers, city employees, DMV workers, etc)and private employees. This could be because of monotony or low wages but that is just a guess. Much of it is due to a lack of accountability, or very lax accountability, in government positions.
I don't think the percentage of "BAD" cops is any higher than the percentage of "BAD" grocery store clerks. The difference is that a clerk can mess up, accidentally or intentionally, and get fired while a cop that messes up winds up in the news.

 

[Old Dog]

I notice that none of you can give a rational or informed counter to Weingarten's Post, just emotionally driven protest.

So apparently you haven't read through the entire thread?

I have seen several logical counters to the OP. But then, I don't really have an agenda to push.

The "statistics" reflected in the original article are much like statistics that indicate that it gets dark outside when the sun goes down.

 

[krupparms]

If the GOOD COP'S WOULD ARREST the BAD COP'S it might be more convincing to us citizens. Instead of coverups . Also with all the increase of police prosecutions both locally & nationally what are we citizens supposed to believe? Just making a point about this. Would love to understand this issue, without the fighting & passion on both sides this brings out. It will do no good to argue this like is aways done until the mod.s. shut down the thread. Maybe someone would be polite & address the points I brought up, without taking it so personal. Would also like to hear more about immunity from prosecution & what makes it civil & not criminal? Thank you.

 

[Zoogster]

Interesting topic. However the data sample is too small to really make judgements even if the data itself is correct. Though I know those with an anti-gun agenda would be quick to claim 5 years of data is plenty to show strong proof if it worked in thier favor.



mljdeckard said:

However, you must also realize that it's not exactly a fair comparison. Police are much more likely to be involved in shootings overall, because their job requires them to confront violence. Permit holders don't have any such requirement, we avoid violence. If they are exposed to more violence overall, they will have more events in which they may be later adjudicated to have acted inappropriately and be charged with a crime.

I though of this as well. However then I must also conclude that most police officers have better legal representation for incidents that happen within the scope of thier employment. Provided by funds set aside for just such things and not at the expense of the officer, and well versed in dealing with such situations as they represent other officers on the same issue routinely.
They also are often less likely to be tried from the start if it is more of a gray area case, giving them the benefit of the doubt if it can be interpreted in thier favor.
This means those cases that result in conviction are fewer than a likely similar number of private citizen shootings.
Put simply civilians are more likely to be convicted in similar scenarios.
This starts with the investigation, investigators who are also law enforcement understanding the burdens on police and wanting to see them cleared if they needed to defend themselves. So when faced with making a judgment call on how to interpret or present evidence they are going to be more favorable to a police officer than to the average joe.
To the prosecutors that often work closely with police and rely on a good relationship to win cases.

So more likely to need to shoot someone but less likely to be part of the unlawful homicide statistic for less than clear scenarious.
So they would have to commit an even greater number of unlawful homicides to even match private citizens because a percentage of them would be determined to have been lawful that would have resulted in conviction of a private citizen anyways. A citizen that shoots someone in a less than clear case is likely to have the full force of the law and an uphill battle in proving thier need for lethal force. While the cop gets the benefit of the doubt and a lot of people backing them and thier decision from the start, unless it is quite clear they did something wrong.

As it relates to the statistics that should offset some of the increased likelihood of needing to shoot someone with a firearm police face, as well as increased public scrutiny. Certainly they are still faced with an unenviable requirement to put themselves in situations while still respecting the rights of citizens and so often putting themselves at a disadvantage.

 

[Robert]

Guys I can only speak for my office, but in the last year the Sheriff has fired at least 3 officers for misconduct that I know of. It may very well be one or two more. None were for criminal offenses so no charges were brought. But if the Sheriff is willing to fire someone for a policy or integrity issue then I can promise you he would not hesitate to arrest and charge a deputy that violates the law.

My Sheriff is in the local and national spotlight for his stance on our new gun laws and has made it very clear that he will not tolerate any misconduct by his deputies.

I do not deny that there are bad officers and agencies out there, I will not deny that at all. But from my experience they are not in the majority.

 

[mac66]

Deans stats are interesting.

What is the rate of homicides per thousand of non concealed weapon license holders in Florida for the same time period? I would guess they are significantly higher.

 

[armoredman]

Thank you for the information, Mr Weingarten. I think most of the naysayers and such have missed an obvious question - if your information is incorrect, methodology wrong, conclusions flawed, etc., then at the least you have raised a question that does deserve and answer. What IS the proper comparison/methodology and can you help answer the question? The question is, proportionally, are CCW permit holders more likely to commit criminal homicide than police officers, and include those line of duty encounters that are clearly criminal homicide.
I, for one, would welcome such a detailed study, and appreciate Mr Weingarten's efforts to start, as the Leftists are fond of saying, a "national conversation".

 

[krupparms]

It is to bad more L.E.Agencys don't follow the same guidelines as your S.O.! A BIG PLUS TO THAT SHERIFF in CO. Maybe someone would address the immunity issue? I believe that the problems depend on the state & local. I also believe that money is part of our problems as more people become desperate because of a government failure to protect them! Most people believe that is their job. As we know that is a false belief . But most citizens see it that way. Thanks for the polite reply.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think most of the naysayers and such have missed an obvious question - if your information is incorrect, methodology wrong, conclusions flawed, etc., then at the least you have raised a question that does deserve and answer....

Balderdash!

A good question is one thing. But incorrect or questionable information, faulty methodology and flawed conclusions are another.

It's fine to ask a good question, but if you have bad data and faulty methodology you have no business purporting to answer that question. And you have no business drawing a conclusion like:

Concealed Carry Permit Holders are One Third as Likely to Commit Murder as Police

Based on bad data and faulty methodology such a conclusion is worthless and no use whatsoever in helping answer the question -- no matter how good the question is.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

What IS the proper comparison/methodology and can you help answer the question?

Well, first you start with the understanding that it is illogical to believe that you can reliably arrive at correct conclusions based on flawed data anymore than you can expect to arrive at a correct destination based on the wrong directions.

There is no reason to believe that the VPC and the other website tracking officer violence statistics are actually comparable, use the actual same methods or criteria for reporting, etc. Given that we know that both sources are highly motivated and biased in their reporting, you can't even assume that such biases are comparable.

For the conclusions to be able to be shown to be valid, then the data have to be able to be shown to be valid. That isn't the case here. The OP cannot vouch for any aspect of the accuracy, authenticity, or completeness of the data being used. And yet, conclusions were drawn from the data that even if the data were accurate, such conclusions could not be drawn from the data. For example, this was specifically noted with the issue of "safety." That was an interpretive fabrication that appeared to be supported by the data, but in reality had nothing to do with the data.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

The domestic homicides put a minimum on the number for sworn police officers. The total unjustified homicides can go up from there for the 2008 - 2011, but it is very hard to see how they can go down. You might argue a case or two out of the 52 victims documented, but it would not change the numbers much.

I doubt the numbers on the other side, the CCW permit holders side, will change very much either. For example, Minnesota tracks crimes by Minnesota Carry Permit holders, and they only show three permit holders commiting murders or manslaughter for 553,524 permit holder years. That comes out to a murder/manslaughter case/ 100,000 permit holders of .542/100,000. No differenciation of domestic homicides, so the numbers do not have the same definition, and Minnesota has a much lower rate of murder in the general population than Florida, about 1.78/100,000 average for the 9 years they have the data for CCW holders.

Very small numbers, but it fits the trend of very low rates of unjustified homicide for permit holders.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/minnesota-carry-permit-murder-rates.html

 

[Dean Weingarten]

As noted by Double Nought Spy, both sources are highly motivated to come up with cases.

I believe that the data shows minimum rates for both populations. It might be shown that some of the cases are false for either side. One might show that a case did not involve a CCW permit holder, or show that a sworn officer was innocent or at least found not guilty on appeal.

However, the problem noted is the same for all criminal data. Homicides are almost certainly the best of the criminal data available, because they are almost certainly the best reported. But all crime data is incomplete and subject to false reporting.

If you want to simply throw out all crime statistics based on that, it would be logical. If you look at the states that track crimes committed by CCW holders, the rates are very low, which is consistent with the rates found from the VPC data, so I doubt that there would be much movement if those states had a box to report domestic homicides. Texas tracks convictions of people who have Texas CHLs. My preliminary figures show that Texas CHLs have a conviction rate for all unjustified homicides of about .77 per 100,000. Somewhat apples and oranges, the definitions are not the same, but very similar ballpark.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I believe that the data shows minimum rates for both populations...

Why? And unless your belief can be validated it's really meaningless -- a least if the goal is to draw valid conclusions.

...But all crime data is incomplete and subject to false reporting...

However, the FBI in compiling its Uniform Crime Reports appears to have some rigorous protocols for classifying and validating the data.

...Somewhat apples and oranges, the definitions are not the same, but very similar ballpark.

But you seem to continue to want to find meaning in bad data and faulty analysis.

 

[mljdeckard]

I am not a cop hater. Many of my guard buddies, including my current platoon leader are cops. A woman I grew up with working a tourist cafe, I was washing dishes, she was a waitress, is now a deputy in my home county, and her dedication to duty and fitness humbles me.

But what I have honestly found, is that the older a cop is, the more I trust them. They have been in the job long enough to realize that it is actually work, they have stayed out of trouble enough to keep their jobs, and they have been working the system long enough to know what works and what doesn't. If they are older I am more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.